Re: Ove Interest?

On 2/16/2025 9:50 PM, Frank Krygowski 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.)
 

Well, since there are many times more successful firearm defense incidents than firearm homicides I'd say your conclusion is unclear at best.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971