Re: Ove Interest?

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 10:18:09 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> 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.
>
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.

An interesting fact given that studies dating as far back as the Civil
War indicate a surprising nimbler, some estimates as low as only 15% -
20%, actually fired their rifle at the enemy.
--
Cheers,

John B.