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?

Well I grew up in a small village of 12,000 - 13,000, multi national,
and during the 20 years I lived there were NO gun injuries or deaths,
and given that this was back in the days when the doctor came to your
house to treat accidents or sickness I'm sure that if anyone that shot
themselves would be know... all over the village. And that ignores
that a gun injury or death would, by law, been reported to the police
(I was bitten, rather severely, by a dog and even that had to be
reported). And I'd guess that my "data" might well be as accurate, or
perhaps more accurate,  as that generated by some outsider asking
questions.

Oh Yes, can you provide data to show that all these house deaths are
one person shooting another?

I ask as I came across a study that stated that, 49.8% of the deaths
were the result of shooting and 50.2 were the results of other means,
stabbing, etc.

Oh Yes, 3.6 percent) were killed under legally excusable circumstances
and an additional 34%  "were killed by a family member or an intimate
acquaintance as part of a murder-suicide, were related to drug
dealing, or occurred during the commission of another felony, such as
a robbery, rape, or burglary."

Somewhat different then your over simplistic cry "Oh, Oh, a gun in the
house is SOOooo dangerious!"
--
Cheers,

John B.