Re: Riding a bike a protection and in general

On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 17:06:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 6/20/2025 8:53 AM, John B. wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 06:06:07 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
 

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.
>

All this ge-gaw ignores the fact that more then 40% of US adults live
in a household where there are guns.

>
That's been ignored because it's not directly pertinent to the point
being discussed.
>
To make it relevant, we can note that yes, the U.S. does have
world-leading gun ownership rates. And son of a gun, the U.S. has
near-world-record gun death rates!

The USA also world-leading number of street gangs, too. I wonder what
getting rid the street gangs would do to those numbers.

The per-capita gun death rate of the U.S. is exceeded only by Mexico and
three or four "third world" countries that are very violent. U.S. is
_far_ worse than any country that's similarly modern and prosperous.
>
So: More guns per capita, and more gun deaths per capita. Gosh, it's
almost like those facts are related!

--
C'est bon
Soloman