Re: Ove Interest?

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:48:01 -0500, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2/17/2025 9:32 PM, John B. wrote:

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:15:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
 

On 2/17/2025 9:39 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 2/16/2025 9:50 PM, Frank Krygowski 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?
>
Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood don't count as
research. Neither do your strongly held opinions. You need good data.
>
(I suspect you'll evade answering my question.)
>
>

>
Well, since there are many times more successful firearm defense
incidents than firearm homicides I'd say your conclusion is unclear at
best.

>
First, your assertion is almost certainly wrong.  See
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-the-guns-make-us-safer-myth/
>
Second, it doesn't address the question at hand. Again, what researchers
have found is not people in gun households getting shot by home
invaders. Instead, they find its FAR more common that one person in a
gun household is shot by another person living in the same house.
>
I've known two women who were beaten and threatened with death by their
husbands, before their divorces. Both were sure that if the relationship
continued, they would have been killed. The most likely tool would have
been the guy's gun.

 
One can only gaze with amazement at your experiences. I've lived in a
six States, served in the A.F. for 20 years and lived in 5 foreign
countries and I've never known anyone who beat their partner, male or
female. Although I or my wife did know a few couples where the wife
"cheated" on the husband and might have been thought to deserve it.
 
 

>
Since John has never seen a man abuse his wife, wife abuse does not exist.

Nope. I'm sure that they do exist. I merely indicated that, at least
in my experience, they are not common.

--
Cheers,

John B.