Re: Ove Interest?

On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:50:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 2/16/2025 8:34 PM, John B. wrote:

On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
 

On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value is highly overrated.

>
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."  ...

 
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone murdering
another person in the same household you will find many cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the gun that is at
fault.

>
I did not say "the gun was at fault." I said those in houses with guns
are more likely to suffer serious violence than those in houses without
guns, no matter where they live. I don't blame the gun. I blame the
people owning and/or using the gun. But nevertheless, those who got the
gun "for protection" tend to come out worse.
>

In short, the statement that a gun in the house is dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat it over and
over and over.

>
OK, John, if you were a researcher, what data would you use to answer
this question:
>
Are people living in a house with a gun safer or more at more danger
than people living in a house with no gun?
>
Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood don't count as
research. Neither do your strongly held opinions. You need good data.
>
(I suspect you'll evade answering my question.)

"I don't blame the gun. I blame the people owning and/or using
the gun."

Actually, your ridiculous claim was that merely having a gun in your
home makes it more likely more likely for you to suffer serious
violence. <LOL> It is good, however to watch you trying to mitigate
your previous stupidity. I guess it means that even you can be taught.

"if you were a researcher, what data would you use to answer
this question: Are people living in a house with a gun safer or
more at more danger than people living in a house with no gun?"

That is, of course, a ridiculous question, because first of all, you'd
have to factor in (or out) all the many things that very obviously put
someone in danger...   Such as:
Do you belong to a gang?
Do you use or sell drugs?
Do you live where there's a lot of crime?
Do you engage in street protests?
Do you go to dive bars?
Are you involved in the sex trades?

There's no good way to evaluate those and many other things on how
much danger they cause, or on how they relate to each other or to
owning a gun. For instance, I suspect that a street prostitute might
be safer with a gun than without.

One would also have to evaluate the fact that the number of people
with guns who live nonviolent lives vastly outnumbers the people with
guns who suffer serious violence.

I have to wonder how someone can got to college, get a degree, and
still be as ignorant about basic logic as Krygowski is.

Of course, he doesn't really evaluate anything for himself, he just
believes what he's been told to believe, especially if it coincides
with his own mind set.

--
C'est bon
Soloman