Re: 8 & 9 year old girls riding bicycles

On 12/25/2024 6:30 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 19:13:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
 

On 12/25/2024 3:25 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 12/25/2024 1:26 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 12/25/2024 4:53 AM, John B. wrote:

>
I've mentioned numerous times that my family had guns in the house for
3 generations with no one being shoot. But reality apparently has no
bearing on what some people want to be true.

>
I think there's no way to logically converse with people who think one
or two anecdotes are more valid than reams of carefully gathered data.
>
So much for science!
>

>
For actual numbers:
>
400 million civilian firearms with just under 20,000 firearm homicides
per year, one per 20,000 firearms.
>
https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-suicides
>
About 100 million bicycles
>
https://electronwheel.com/bike-facts-and-statistics/
>
for about 1300 deaths, one per 73,528 bicycles
>
>
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/bicycle-
deaths/
>
Which is a lower rate, only 27% of the likelihood of death per bicycle
as per firearm.
>
283,400,986 autos and light trucks in USA
>
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/how-many-cars-are-in-the-us.html
>
with 44,534 auto/ light truck deaths, one per 6363 vehicles.
>
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm
>
That's over 3x (3.14) more dangerous per vehicle as per firearm.
>
>
For an anecdote, all four of my firearms have been oiled and cased,
undisturbed in any way, for well over a month. Not one of them has
jumped up and wrought mayhem. Not even a little bit.

>
Nice try, Andrew, but that's a thorough and elaborate attempt at
distraction.
>
The issue specifically being discussed is whether there's more risk of
being shot - or killed by gunshot - when there is a gun in the house,
versus no gun in the house.
>
The data is clear, and not even close. Even accounting for differences
in neighborhood climate (or comparing houses that are both in the same
sorts of neighborhoods) if you have a gun in the house, it's more likely
that people will be harmed or killed by that gun.

 Nope, people who are likely to get killed with a gun often have guns
in their homes.
 

Of course there are houses with guns that have not had that experience.
Just as there are people who smoked and did not die of lung cancer.
Nobody is claiming 100% of guns cause death, nor that 100% of gun owner
households have gun deaths. The evidence is that the risk is over twice
as high in those households, not 100%.
>
Citing bicycle crashes, car crashes, or any other source of harm are
attempts at distraction.

 <LOL> Krygowski insists that because a few people who got shot had a
gun in their home meant that having a gun in your home makes you more
likely to get shot. Krygowski simply doesn't have the intellectual
capacity to understand the data he's been fed.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

Indeed. In rural USA where darned near every household has a firearm or more for food and also keeping coyotes away fro livestock, etc, humans are at extremely low risk of any firearm injury.
In urban areas, which vary greatly in everything, the more violent neighborhoods are where citizens are much more likely to arm themselves. And prudently so. This Sunday for example:
https://cwbchicago.com/2024/12/chicago-news-shotspotter-south-shore-burglary-progress.html
As Mr Krygowski notes, and he's correct in this, owning a firearm may be necessary and prudent but is not always sufficient:
https://abc11.com/post/wrong-house-was-targeted-lower-merion-home-invasion-murder-andrew-gaudio-pennsylvania-da/15669675/
Merely owning a firearm would not have mattered to a 61 year old woman, executed in her own bed, asleep.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971