Re: Ove Interest?

On 3/6/2025 3:10 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:

On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 00:07:01 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 3/5/2025 11:38 PM, John B. wrote:

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

>
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.

>
Which reminds me of John's personal tale of a real home invasion. That
paragraph may explain (in part) why his gun did him no good at all. Only
the most fearful homeowner would keep his gun on his person just in case
someone burst into the home.

>
True, but having a gun close at hand does not necessarily mean it has
to be on your person.
>

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.

>
Right. And even most target shooting for sport would probably do little
to prevent that fumbling, because it doesn't usually involve super-fast
grabbing the gun out of storage, quickly loading it, then quickly
hitting a target. Practicing skills is a highly specific exercise.

>
Having a gun locked up in storage makes it useless. Having a gun
unloaded makes it almost as useless. Best practice is fully loaded,
meaning one in the pipe and with safeties off.
>

And then there's negligence and yes, sadly, would-be
defenders do shoot relatives and other innocents after
hearing a bump in the night.

>
And it's not just mistaking innocents by mistake. I'm sure that a much
larger percentage of intra-household shooting victims are shot
deliberately. A thug of a husband gets furious at his wife and blows her
away.

>
Very rare. The majority of male violence to females regard fists and
the notorious blunt objects. More likely the female has enough of the
male abuser and blows him away. That's not necessarily a bad thing.
>

Good points in those three paragraphs.
>

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.

>
You're dancing away from the question at hand. I said all the data I've
found indicates a gun in the home makes the occupants less safe, and
more likely to be shot by that gun.

>
<LOL> Correlation does not imply causation.

That's what research is for, and that's what the research confirmed. You have yet to counter with anything other than more than anecdotes and willfully ignorant misinformed opinion.

>

Your source said the same:  "After controlling for these
characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly
and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide
(adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4).
Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or
intimate acquaintance.
"Conclusions: ... Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home
are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family
member or intimate acquaintance."

>
Nonsense, but I believe that illegal drugs kept in the house might by
risky.

Again, just like john, you argue with nothing more than anecdotes and willfully ignorant misinformed opinion.

>

You don't seem to realize that you've yet again corroborated my
position. You're failing at logic, John.

>
You get to believe whatever you want, but I notice that in spite of
your continuous and monotonous rhetoric you've yet to convince anyone
else.

You're completely wrong
- You have no idea what the conclusions are by people who have not commented
- I've read the studies and find them convincing
What I'm not convinced by are your anecdotes and misinformed willfully ignorant opinions.
Try producing a study which contradicts what Frank (and now John) have posted and you might be able to sustain a rational argument. As of now, you're just being a typical willfully ignorant floriduh dumbass

>
"One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over
again and expecting a different result."
>
Are you insane?

yet you keep yapping at frank with your daddy issues as if it makes a difference, fucking hypocrite.

>
-- C'est bon
Soloman