Re: Ove Interest?

On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 19:31:40 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

On 3/5/2025 6:34 PM, John B. wrote:

On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 14:12:33 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
 

On 3/5/2025 12:35 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 11:41:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 3/4/2025 11:41 PM, John B. wrote:

>
The subject of this post was originally "home shootings" and it
appears that you are now slip sliding away from this  subject as the
Swiss data shows that you don't know what you are talking about.

John, YOU were the one who "slip slided" away from data on American home
shootings, by pivoting to Switzerland gun ownership and shooting deaths.
You pretended not to notice that Switzerland has far, far lower gun
ownership rates than the U.S., and also has far lower gun homicide rates
than the U.S.
>
Let's "slip slide" back to the question at hand, OK? Does having a gun
in an American home make the home safer or more dangerous? IOW, does a
gun make it less likely someone will be shot (presumably by "bad guys")
or _more_ likely someone will be shot - usually by another member of the
household?
>
The answer is: It's not even close. The guns make things more dangerous.
I've found NO data showing the gun makes a household safer. Instead:
>
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/
>
"For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally
justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven
criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
>
Conclusions: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a
fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide
attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense."
>
Or https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762
>
"Overall rates of homicide were more than twice as high among
cohabitants of handgun owners than among cohabitants of nonowners
(adjusted hazard ratio, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.78 to 3.05]). These elevated
rates were driven largely by higher rates of homicide by firearm
(adjusted hazard ratio, 2.83 [CI, 2.05 to 3.91]). Among homicides
occurring at home, cohabitants of owners had sevenfold higher rates of
being fatally shot by a spouse or intimate partner..."
>
I can give more links - not that it will help. But those are two of the
studies that specifically set out to answer the question at hand. Other
studies found the same overall facts, and found they were true even in
"nice" neighborhoods, so don't pretend this is just a slum problem.
>
These researchers came up with the questions above, and set out to
gather data and answer them. I've asked you several times how YOU would
answer the question in a scientific way.
>
You've failed to answer that. So if you have data showing guns in the
house make it safer, post links already.

>
Easily munipulated "data" collected by gun haters.
>
Fact is that massive numbers of poeple live with guns in their homes
with no problems.
>
--
C'est bon
Soloman

>
>
And yet something well past 100 million USAians are armed at
home.
Last night for example:
>
https://710wor.iheart.com/content/2025-03-05-onlyfans-model-amouranth-opened-fire-on-thieves-during-robbery-attempt/
>
Some people feel firearms are unnecessary, that a kind word
is enough. Again last night:
>
https://ktla.com/news/local-news/gas-station-clerk-shot-point-blank-in-l-a-county-robbery-attempt/
>
Let's score that. The armed woman shot the criminal and was
unharmed. The unarmed clerk took a bullet point-blank and
fortunately lived to become another victim of The Medical
Billing Industry.
>
Peruse the situation, make your own decision.

 
Note the change in argument above. It started with did a gun in the
home actually make the home more dangerious and as soon as evidence
was posted that it just wasn't true in Switzerland Frank in a frantic
effort to somehow prove his point has gone slipping sliding away to
does a gun in the house make it safer.
 

>
Well, it's a complex problem.
>
Most people will never be in that situation. Trouble is, you
don't know that, and the incidence is not negligible.
>
Successful defense has been made with baseball bats, knives
and other items. That is to say that while firearms can be
handy, they are not absolutely necessary. (for a 95lb woman,
a purse pistol makes more sense than a bat or a blade)
>
Ownership of a firearm is one thing but being readily
accessible and ready to fire is another. Under many local
ordinances, firearms must be locked, which greatly stymies
defense when decisions are final in less than a second.
>
Then there's software. Most firearms owners do not get
regular range time and so will more probably fumble away
decisive time or even shoot themselves than successfully
defend under sudden, immediate attack and under a wave of
adrenaline.
>
And then there's negligence and yes, sadly, would-be
defenders do shoot relatives and other innocents after
hearing a bump in the night.
>
So while I'm generally supportive of firearms for self
defense, especially home defense, I recognize this is a
varied, complex and unclear area in many aspects.

I came across this study just the other day
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506
a total of 420 home killing of which 209 were committed by firearm and
211 by other means.

Now, any killing is a terrible thing but one has to view with some
skepticism someone that ignores the major cause of death to emphasize
the minor cause.

Can his motives be viewed as impartial, or simply a means of
emphasizing his own opinions.
 
--
Cheers,

John B.