Re: Ove Interest?

On 17 Feb 2025 16:43:24 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:

Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 18:25:18 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
 

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 04:10:05 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
 

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 08:34:16 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
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:
 

On 2/16/2025 5:48 AM, John B. wrote:

 
well the gun in the house thing is certainly, correct.... as long as
someone in the house wants to shoot you :-)
 
But  I suspect that many people live in houses where the other partner
doesn't want to shoot his, hers, its,  partner.

 
What you posted, John, is blindingly obvious. But it avoids the point
that I've made, and that data has confirmed.

 
<LOL> Nonsense... 
 

A very large proportion of people with guns in the home say they have
the gun for "protection." That is, they believe they are less likely to
be subject to serious violence if they have a gun readily available.
 
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. The serious violence normally does not
come from outsiders. It comes from someone in their own house.
 
Beyond that, the gun isn't very likely to be useful against outside
aggressors, as your own personal story indicated.
 
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."
 
Nonsense, there's no data that even hints at such a thing. The idea
that the reason someone might be "more likely to suffer serious
violence" because they have a gun in their home is ridiculous beyond
rational thought.

 
 
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. As I've mentioned my own family had guns in the house for at
least three and counting my kids four generations with no problems and
growing up in rural New England guns were not uncommon, as I've said,
every farm family, for sure, had at one. How else to keep the fox out
of the chicken house.
 
I could go even further. In early colonial times, before any thought
of a nation some colonies had a law that every adult male MUST have a
weapon and bring them to church on Sunday so that a check could be
made that he actually had a weapon and ammunition. Strange, isn't it
that with a gun in every house in settlement there are no records of
massive gun deaths.
 
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.
 
The old saying that "guns don't shoot people, people shoot people"
really is true.

 
Krygowski insists that correlation implies causation, a common
fallacious argument used by people who don't know any better.
 
I suspect that people who don't vote are more likely to suffer
violence than people who do vote. If that were true, according to
Krygowski's twisted "logic," not voting is dangerous.

 
I came across something today that references the danger of guns in
the house that Frankie would have us be live is a major danger.
that
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2848468/
"During 2006 and 2007, again, approximately 70 percent of gun-shot
deaths were suicides."
 
So now Frankie is preventing suicides. He already justified killing
children in autos and now if he can just do away with the black pickup
trucks ...... (and that guy next door with the machine gun...)

 
OMG, OMG, OMG! Do you mean that if we take away people's guns nobody
will be able to commit suicide, and nobody will be able to kill their
domestic partners?
 
 
--
C'est bon
Soloman
 

>
Opportunity is certainly seems to have a effect, on the whole places with
restrictions on weapons have less use of them, it’s certainly not a hard
concept to understand or equally can see it around the world.
>
This said your neighbours to the North who seem to have very broadly
similar set in terms of general set up, seem to do much less killing of
each other so unlikely Frank I’m unconvinced it’s the whole thing, clearly
if one has less access but unless I’m mistaken the Canadian have guns maybe
not as many but guns are about but they don’t have the levels of gun
violence that the US does.
>
Roger Merriman

There's very different cultures between big blue US cities where
there's so much violent crime and Canadian cities. Guns are not the
problem. The crime culture is the problem. Take away a criminal's gun
and he still a criminal.

--
C'est bon
Soloman