Re: Ove Interest?

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:05:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 2/17/2025 12:25 AM, John B. wrote:

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?
>

It depends on the people that live in the noise.

>
That's no answer. Again: I you were a researcher, how would you
determine which situation was safer?
>

 

Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood don't count as
research. Neither do your strongly held opinions. You need good data....

>

My family history is to  ignored, What I saw is to be ignored

>
The history of your one family qualifies as ONE bit of data in
sociological research. It gets exactly counterbalanced by the history of
just ONE other family that experienced first a gunshot wound, then a gun
death. (And I'm talking about a family I knew.)
>
So how many families had your experience, and how many had the other
experience? _That's_ what researchers have attempted to find, by
examining records on thousands of households. And they found the
housholds with guns did far, far worse.
>
What part of that is confusing to you?

The fact that it's nonsense. Correlation does not imply causation

--
C'est bon
Soloman