Re: Riding a bike a protection and in general

On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:49:35 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 05:53:58 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> 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.
https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/42-percent-the-number-of-adults-living-in-a-home-with-a-gun/
>
Given that the population is about 347,215,206 that is a lot of people
and as we are told that  living with guns is so dangerous one  would
assume that the U.S. will become a barren uninhabited desert .
>
But it isn't, is it. It grew some 841,526 in 2025.

>
Only 2% of the population is psychotic. Problem is, they have
a "right" to "keep and bear arms" too. There is no socialized medicine
in the US, so most go untreated. Some MAGAtards think they should go
to jail. Jail is NOT a place for people that are ill.
They are the main problem, though thousands or "normal" people
die from suicide and while handling guns inappropriately.
[]'s

Given that more people die in auto "accidents" then die in firearm
homicides shouldn't we have tests for psychotic auto owners also?

--
cheers,

John B.