Re: Ove Interest?

On 2/17/2025 11:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 2/17/2025 10:05 AM, Frank Krygowski 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?
>

 As has been discussed here previously, some large number of households own long guns in rural areas, where criminal use of firearms is infrequent.

You're arguing against yourself. Those households are part of the nationwide data. Despite their contribution on the "safe" side of the argument, overall households with guns turn out to be more dangerous.

Sidearms, which account for the bulk of criminal use, are much more prevalent in urban areas. Which brings the question of whether those firearms cause criminal acts or whether citizens choose to arm themselves defensively due to increased criminal activity in their neighborhood.

That's a question that could probably be answered through data. But I'll remind you that the finding of more danger for gun households held true even for homes in "good" neighborhoods.
Again, a major part of the danger was a husband shooting his wife. That can happen in any family.
--
- Frank Krygowski