Re: Riding a bike a protection and in general

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 11:14:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 6/19/2025 7:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 07:37:47 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
 

On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:55:51 -0400, floriduh dumbass
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>

On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:30:13 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 6/17/2025 9:08 PM, John B. wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 18:12:57 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>

`On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 17:42:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 6/17/2025 12:44 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:17:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

Unlike some here, I think it's nonsense to say that nothing is
quantifiable, that _everything_ is subjective. That attitude is just a
lazy thinker's way of pretending one's uninformed opinion is always right.

>

I don't buy that attitude - maybe in part because in my profession, I
was paid to (among many other things) correct other's mistakes. My
education taught me to pay attention to data, and I taught that to others.

>
Sure you paid attention to the nonsense data that said that having a
gun in your house made it more likely to get shot.

>
<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 (adjusted hazard
ratio, 7.16 [CI, 4.04 to 12.69]); 84% of these victims were female."
>
<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."

>
<CHUCKLE> Krygowski lacks the intellectual ability to see that his
cite doesn't even address his claim that guns in the home make it more
likely you'd be shot.

>
<SNICKER>
Floriduh dumbass is too deluded and lacking in intellectual ability to
comprehend:
"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."
>
let me help you out, dumbass, the cite _directly_ addresses his claim
that guns in the home make it more likely you'd be shot, and explicitly
states such. Only a floriduh dumbass could read "Guns kept in homes are
more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting"
and "Overall rates of homicide were more than twice as high among
cohabitants of handgun owners than among cohabitants of nonowners"
and conclude "doesn't even address his claim that guns in the home make
it more likely you'd be shot."
>
This is right up there with you seeing two government reports stating
the military specified the design of the AR-15, tested it, bought 80,000
of then, and designated them as standard issue, then stating "the AR-15
was a weapon the military never wanted and never used"
>
It's an embarrassment to know I have any interaction with such a deluded
and willfully ignorant asshole like you.
>

>
The study looked at 626 shootings in several cities. There's no
mention of how and why they picked those cities. They could have been
cherry picked because the results fit their agenda.

>
"could have"...talk about cherry picking...lol
>

>
Dimbulb Krygowski doesn't question the data because it fits his
agenda, so he just repeats what the people (who are they, and what's
their agenda) who ran the study tell him.

>
at least he has data, rather than a dumbass who sticks his fingers in
his ears and chants "fox news" repeatedly when he hears something he
doesn't like
>

>

Krygowski is totally obsessed with me.

>
:-)  HA! _That_ got an outright laugh!

>
>
...and Krygowski demonstrates agaon, that he is totally obsessed with
me. I'll bet he lies awake night thinking what he can say to get back
at me for pointing out what a wussy he is.

>
lol....dumbass once again demonstrates what an ignorant narcissistic
fucktard he is.
>

>
When he first posted that study I had a look at then numbers and yes,
IF there is a gun in the house AND a homicide is committed in the
house it will likely be committed with a gun. Which seems logical.
>
But this has NO relationship to his unspoken conclusion that a gun in
the house results in homicides.

>
hey, stupid....it isn't unspoken, it's explicitly stated there there's a
direct relationship between a gun in the home and an increase in
homicide. Are you taking kunich lessons in dumbassery again?

>
>
I'm pretty sure that there many far owners of guns who have not been
shot than those who have. According to Junior's and Krygowski's
"logic" that would indicate that owning a gun makes you less likely to
be shot.

>
>

No, dumbass, that's your perverted "logic".

 
Much like what Krygowki did, Junior can only reply with a "no it's
not," and without any explanation as to why it's not.
 
I stand by my claim that it's the same stupd logic Krygowski used to
argue that guns in your home makes it more likely you'll be shot.

>
Here's a statement I encountered today. I don't know the author, but:
>
"Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how
good you are, the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around
like it won anyway."
>
And that's why I'm trying to minimize my time dealing with the ineducable.
>

..and yet here is, once again spending time writing out a
multi-paragraph excuse for running away and hiding instead of simply
explaining his statement. 

Actually, it's not as though he *can* explain it.

When I was teaching, I had and "open door" policy at my office. Stidents
were welcome to visit and get help any time I was there, and many took
advantage of that for one-on-one help.
>
Some of them had far too much trouble understanding the subject matter.
I did my best to help them anyway. But there was a mechanism to
eventually stop them from wasting more of their time and my time. It was
the letter grade "F".

Krygowski had no trouble with the students who had to respect him or
get a poor grade..... but I bet he had a habit of running away and
hiding whenever he was confronted by an adult. What else can he do
when a response requires a high level of intellect that he has.

Sadly, there's no mechanism to flunk our timid tricycle rider out of
rec.bicycles.tech

Krygowski can't deal with anyone who talks back to him. It's no wonder
he couldn't hack it out in the real world and came running back to
academia where he didn't have to compete and where confrontation was
at a minimum.

--
C'est bon
Soloman