Re: Riding a bike a protection and in general

On 6/19/2025 11:25 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 6/19/2025 4:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 00:31:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
"If a person does get a gun for "protection," they or someone in their
household becomes much more likely to get shot"
--Krygowski
>
Nonsense. There are probably more people who bought a gun for
protection who have not been shot, than people who bought a gun for
protection who have been shot.

 Wow.
 Can one of Mr. Tricycle Rider's allies please explain his logic mistake to him? I'm beyond trying to help him learn to think.
 

If he would have bothered to read the study, he'd know that there are in fact more people who bought a gun for protection who have not been shot than people who bought a gun for protection who have been shot.
The fact that he thinks the study is bogus because more people who bought a gun for protection who have not been shot than people who bought a gun for protection who have been shot shows that he didn't read the study, and if he did, he didn't understand it.
The claim "there are more people who bought a gun for protection who have not been shot, than people who bought a gun for protection who have been shot" does not negate the the conclusion of the study that having a gun in your home makes you more likely to get shot.
It's likely that the dumbass will never be able to understand the distinction because:
a) he reading comprehension is too weak to understand statistical analysis
2) his automatically dismisses anything not fed to him by his magatard echo chamber.
but as I mentioned before, trying to expose him to new concepts and use objective rationale has little more possibility of success that trying to convince a dog not to lick it's own ass.
IOW - it's just the willfully ignorant dumbass being a willfully ignorant dumbass.