Discussion:
Ove Interest?
Add Reply
John B.
2025-02-13 06:04:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I wonder whether the below is of interest to anyone?
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/5/25/how-alternative-facts-threaten-us-democracy
It seems to provide a very sad state for the U.S. political system.
--
Cheers,

John B.
Catrike Ryder
2025-02-13 09:01:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
I wonder whether the below is of interest to anyone?
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/5/25/how-alternative-facts-threaten-us-democracy
It seems to provide a very sad state for the U.S. political system.
I read a wee bit of it, but generally, no, political "analysis" of any
kind, from any point of view is of no interest to me.

Regarding news, I only want to know what has happened. I have no
interest in someone's opinions of why it happened or what might happen
next.

It's almost impossible to find "hard news." If I want to know what
happened, I have to look through several news sources and filter out
the new sources' agendas. Popular mass media is well down the list of
where I'll be looking.

If the question is, "who do you trust?"

As for me, I only trust the people who I've gotten to know close up
and have proven themselves to be trustworthy.

If the question is, "who do you believe?"

As for me, in regards to people I haven't established as trustworthy,
I seldom believe what they say, only what they do.

I pay almost zero attention to speeches, political, religious, or
commercial.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
John B.
2025-02-13 10:48:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 04:01:53 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
I wonder whether the below is of interest to anyone?
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/5/25/how-alternative-facts-threaten-us-democracy
It seems to provide a very sad state for the U.S. political system.
I read a wee bit of it, but generally, no, political "analysis" of any
kind, from any point of view is of no interest to me.
Regarding news, I only want to know what has happened. I have no
interest in someone's opinions of why it happened or what might happen
next.
It's almost impossible to find "hard news." If I want to know what
happened, I have to look through several news sources and filter out
the new sources' agendas. Popular mass media is well down the list of
where I'll be looking.
If the question is, "who do you trust?"
As for me, I only trust the people who I've gotten to know close up
and have proven themselves to be trustworthy.
If the question is, "who do you believe?"
As for me, in regards to people I haven't established as trustworthy,
I seldom believe what they say, only what they do.
I pay almost zero attention to speeches, political, religious, or
commercial.
Ah,but's true news? Most of the excuses for the revolutionary war were
lies. The tea dumped in Boston harbor would have, due to a change in
English tax laws, sold for a cheaper price then the illegal tea
smuggled in illegally by Boston ship owners.

The Spanish American War was certainly, partially due to a fight for
readers by the New York Journal and the New York World who were
involved in their own battle to sell the most newspapers - war would
be just what they need to boost sales.
--
Cheers,

John B.
cyclintom
2025-02-14 21:14:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 04:01:53 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
I wonder whether the below is of interest to anyone?
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/5/25/how-alternative-facts-threaten-us-democracy
It seems to provide a very sad state for the U.S. political system.
I read a wee bit of it, but generally, no, political "analysis" of any
kind, from any point of view is of no interest to me.
Regarding news, I only want to know what has happened. I have no
interest in someone's opinions of why it happened or what might happen
next.
It's almost impossible to find "hard news." If I want to know what
happened, I have to look through several news sources and filter out
the new sources' agendas. Popular mass media is well down the list of
where I'll be looking.
If the question is, "who do you trust?"
As for me, I only trust the people who I've gotten to know close up
and have proven themselves to be trustworthy.
If the question is, "who do you believe?"
As for me, in regards to people I haven't established as trustworthy,
I seldom believe what they say, only what they do.
I pay almost zero attention to speeches, political, religious, or
commercial.
Ah,but's true news? Most of the excuses for the revolutionary war were
lies. The tea dumped in Boston harbor would have, due to a change in
English tax laws, sold for a cheaper price then the illegal tea
smuggled in illegally by Boston ship owners.
The Spanish American War was certainly, partially due to a fight for
readers by the New York Journal and the New York World who were
involved in their own battle to sell the most newspapers - war would
be just what they need to boost sales.
John. give us an untrue quote concerning the revolutionary war. you are like my older brother who believes everything he reads on Tik-Tok. He will spend hours telling us that the Earth is flat and that the Sun rfevolves around the Earth.
AMuzi
2025-02-13 15:15:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
I wonder whether the below is of interest to anyone?
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/5/25/how-alternative-facts-threaten-us-democracy
It seems to provide a very sad state for the U.S. political system.
pffffft.
Peruse any 'fact check' site to see how the most slanted
bias prefers to call itself 'fair and objective'.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Frank Krygowski
2025-02-14 16:58:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by John B.
I wonder whether the below is of interest to anyone?
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/5/25/how-alternative-facts-
threaten-us-democracy
It seems to provide a very sad state for the U.S. political system.
pffffft.
Peruse any 'fact check' site to see how the most slanted bias prefers to
call itself 'fair and objective'.
Examples? And examples of their bias?

Did Trump really get millions more votes than Biden in 2020?

Are most glaciers worldwide not really shrinking?

Did COVID treatments really kill more people than the disease did?

ISTM that most people who complain about common fact checking outlets
really mean "My beliefs conflict with their facts."
--
- Frank Krygowski
AMuzi
2025-02-14 17:30:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by John B.
I wonder whether the below is of interest to anyone?
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/5/25/how-
alternative-facts- threaten-us-democracy
It seems to provide a very sad state for the U.S.
political system.
pffffft.
Peruse any 'fact check' site to see how the most slanted
bias prefers to call itself 'fair and objective'.
Examples? And examples of their bias?
Did Trump really get millions more votes than Biden in 2020?
Are most glaciers worldwide not really shrinking?
Did COVID treatments really kill more people than the
disease did?
ISTM that most people who complain about common fact
checking outlets really mean "My beliefs conflict with their
facts."
This is not a new problem. And should surprise no one.

https://www.allsides.com/blog/6-ways-fact-checkers-are-biased

Or as Juvenal observed 1700 years ago, "Quis custodiet ipsos
custodes?"
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Frank Krygowski
2025-02-15 04:09:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by John B.
I wonder whether the below is of interest to anyone?
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/5/25/how- alternative-facts-
threaten-us-democracy
It seems to provide a very sad state for the U.S. political system.
pffffft.
Peruse any 'fact check' site to see how the most slanted bias prefers
to call itself 'fair and objective'.
Examples? And examples of their bias?
Did Trump really get millions more votes than Biden in 2020?
Are most glaciers worldwide not really shrinking?
Did COVID treatments really kill more people than the disease did?
ISTM that most people who complain about common fact checking outlets
really mean "My beliefs conflict with their facts."
This is not a new problem. And should surprise no one.
https://www.allsides.com/blog/6-ways-fact-checkers-are-biased
Ah. Well, that's one opinion piece. Is it accurate? How should we check?
Shall we go down that rabbit hole?

I'll agree there is bias across the political - and probably every other
- spectrum. But as usual, I think it's foolish to point to one or
several incidences of failure and use that, as some do, to condemn an
entire system.

You, Andrew, have a tendency to do that with laws, with implications
that because a certain law is not 100% obeyed or enforced, that laws are
worthless. (I'm aware that you're careful not to say that outright, but
only by implication.)

Our tricycle rider has a strong tendency to do that with any information
source other than his own imagination. He proudly says or implies that
no outside sources can be trusted, and that he alone can tell what facts
are real and true.

Again, bias exists. But there are actual truths, and not every opinion
is correct. On most issues, it should be possible to do sufficient
tests, or research, to determine what is true and what is not. The
hardest part is finding people who will agree that their own biases are
mistaken.

To finish with a compliment, you're one of the few people here who has
admitted from time to time that you were wrong.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Catrike Ryder
2025-02-15 09:06:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 23:09:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by John B.
I wonder whether the below is of interest to anyone?
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/5/25/how- alternative-facts-
threaten-us-democracy
It seems to provide a very sad state for the U.S. political system.
pffffft.
Peruse any 'fact check' site to see how the most slanted bias prefers
to call itself 'fair and objective'.
Examples? And examples of their bias?
Did Trump really get millions more votes than Biden in 2020?
Are most glaciers worldwide not really shrinking?
Did COVID treatments really kill more people than the disease did?
ISTM that most people who complain about common fact checking outlets
really mean "My beliefs conflict with their facts."
This is not a new problem. And should surprise no one.
https://www.allsides.com/blog/6-ways-fact-checkers-are-biased
Ah. Well, that's one opinion piece. Is it accurate? How should we check?
Shall we go down that rabbit hole?
I'll agree there is bias across the political - and probably every other
- spectrum. But as usual, I think it's foolish to point to one or
several incidences of failure and use that, as some do, to condemn an
entire system.
You, Andrew, have a tendency to do that with laws, with implications
that because a certain law is not 100% obeyed or enforced, that laws are
worthless. (I'm aware that you're careful not to say that outright, but
only by implication.)
Our tricycle rider has a strong tendency to do that with any information
source other than his own imagination. He proudly says or implies that
no outside sources can be trusted, and that he alone can tell what facts
are real and true.
Again, bias exists. But there are actual truths, and not every opinion
is correct. On most issues, it should be possible to do sufficient
tests, or research, to determine what is true and what is not. The
hardest part is finding people who will agree that their own biases are
mistaken.
To finish with a compliment, you're one of the few people here who has
admitted from time to time that you were wrong.
"Our tricycle rider has a strong tendency to do that with any
information source other than his own imagination. He proudly says or
implies that no outside sources can be trusted, and that he alone can
tell what facts are real and true."

I'm like many people and decide for myself "what facts are real and
true" for me.

You, on the other hand, believe whatever the people you've chosen to
tell you what to believe.

You'd very much like to be one of those people that others choose to
tell them what to do, but you're not, you never were, and you never
will be.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
AMuzi
2025-02-15 13:52:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by John B.
I wonder whether the below is of interest to anyone?
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/5/25/how-
alternative-facts- threaten-us-democracy
It seems to provide a very sad state for the U.S.
political system.
pffffft.
Peruse any 'fact check' site to see how the most slanted
bias prefers to call itself 'fair and objective'.
Examples? And examples of their bias?
Did Trump really get millions more votes than Biden in 2020?
Are most glaciers worldwide not really shrinking?
Did COVID treatments really kill more people than the
disease did?
ISTM that most people who complain about common fact
checking outlets really mean "My beliefs conflict with
their facts."
This is not a new problem. And should surprise no one.
https://www.allsides.com/blog/6-ways-fact-checkers-are-biased
Ah. Well, that's one opinion piece. Is it accurate? How
should we check? Shall we go down that rabbit hole?
I'll agree there is bias across the political - and probably
every other - spectrum. But as usual, I think it's foolish
to point to one or several incidences of failure and use
that, as some do, to condemn an entire system.
You, Andrew, have a tendency to do that with laws, with
implications that because a certain law is not 100% obeyed
or enforced, that laws are worthless. (I'm aware that you're
careful not to say that outright, but only by implication.)
Our tricycle rider has a strong tendency to do that with any
information source other than his own imagination. He
proudly says or implies that no outside sources can be
trusted, and that he alone can tell what facts are real and
true.
Again, bias exists. But there are actual truths, and not
every opinion is correct. On most issues, it should be
possible to do sufficient tests, or research, to determine
what is true and what is not. The hardest part is finding
people who will agree that their own biases are mistaken.
To finish with a compliment, you're one of the few people
here who has admitted from time to time that you were wrong.
How about some low hanging fruit? The Official Policy
Statement, which was enforced by censorship and
manipulation, was that the mRNA jab would prevent
contraction of the Wuhan virus and block contagion as well
(those constituting the definition of a vaccine). Neither
is actually true.

The interested reader might peruse the record of 'fact
check' statements on that. Other examples abound.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Roger Merriman
2025-02-15 14:49:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by John B.
I wonder whether the below is of interest to anyone?
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/5/25/how-
alternative-facts- threaten-us-democracy
It seems to provide a very sad state for the U.S.
political system.
pffffft.
Peruse any 'fact check' site to see how the most slanted
bias prefers to call itself 'fair and objective'.
Examples? And examples of their bias?
Did Trump really get millions more votes than Biden in 2020?
Are most glaciers worldwide not really shrinking?
Did COVID treatments really kill more people than the
disease did?
ISTM that most people who complain about common fact
checking outlets really mean "My beliefs conflict with
their facts."
This is not a new problem. And should surprise no one.
https://www.allsides.com/blog/6-ways-fact-checkers-are-biased
Ah. Well, that's one opinion piece. Is it accurate? How
should we check? Shall we go down that rabbit hole?
I'll agree there is bias across the political - and probably
every other - spectrum. But as usual, I think it's foolish
to point to one or several incidences of failure and use
that, as some do, to condemn an entire system.
You, Andrew, have a tendency to do that with laws, with
implications that because a certain law is not 100% obeyed
or enforced, that laws are worthless. (I'm aware that you're
careful not to say that outright, but only by implication.)
Our tricycle rider has a strong tendency to do that with any
information source other than his own imagination. He
proudly says or implies that no outside sources can be
trusted, and that he alone can tell what facts are real and
true.
Again, bias exists. But there are actual truths, and not
every opinion is correct. On most issues, it should be
possible to do sufficient tests, or research, to determine
what is true and what is not. The hardest part is finding
people who will agree that their own biases are mistaken.
To finish with a compliment, you're one of the few people
here who has admitted from time to time that you were wrong.
How about some low hanging fruit? The Official Policy
Statement, which was enforced by censorship and
manipulation, was that the mRNA jab would prevent
contraction of the Wuhan virus and block contagion as well
(those constituting the definition of a vaccine). Neither
is actually true.
The interested reader might peruse the record of 'fact
check' statements on that. Other examples abound.
Was that said officially in the US? Certainly even with Boris who well does
like an mis truth or two! They talked about flattening the curve ie keeping
folks out of hospital which the vaccines will reduce the probability, but
also with lockdowns to slow infection down as the vaccine will not stop
that, thats why lockdowns where needed to prevent intensive care being
overwhelmed.

Roger Merriman
Frank Krygowski
2025-02-15 17:29:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger Merriman
Post by AMuzi
How about some low hanging fruit? The Official Policy
Statement, which was enforced by censorship and
manipulation, was that the mRNA jab would prevent
contraction of the Wuhan virus and block contagion as well
(those constituting the definition of a vaccine). Neither
is actually true.
The interested reader might peruse the record of 'fact
check' statements on that. Other examples abound.
Was that said officially in the US? Certainly even with Boris who well does
like an mis truth or two! They talked about flattening the curve ie keeping
folks out of hospital which the vaccines will reduce the probability, but
also with lockdowns to slow infection down as the vaccine will not stop
that, thats why lockdowns where needed to prevent intensive care being
overwhelmed.
As I recall, in Ohio Dr. Amy Acton did talk about the vaccine and social
distancing flattening the curve. I don't recall any statements that the
vaccine would be 100% effective in preventing contagion, and I'd be very
surprised if that was said, since AFAIK no vaccines are 100% effective.

There's been far too much Monday Morning Quarterbacking about Covid.
People on one side of politics seem to forget that when infections first
spread, hospitals were absolutely overwhelmed, even formerly healthy
people were dying, medical staff were working non-stop, triage tents
were set up in hospital parking lots, etc. The virus was an unknown and
was causing great damage.

Certainly, some initial scientific findings were errors. But that's a
normal part of science: People do research, publish findings, others try
to replicate, and mistakes are corrected. Given the crisis at hand,
health and government officials were not wrong to bet on safety, even if
some of the steps (like washing down door handles) ultimately turned out
to have low value.

People on one side of the political spectrum seem to have a tendency
toward absolutism. One scientific mistake tells them _all_ science is
useless. One failed law tells them _all_ laws are useless. One bad
politician tells them _all_ politicians are useless - except their own,
of course.

The world is a bit more complicated than that.
--
- Frank Krygowski
AMuzi
2025-02-15 18:45:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Roger Merriman
How about some low hanging fruit?  The Official Policy
Statement, which was enforced by censorship and
manipulation, was that the mRNA jab would prevent
contraction of the Wuhan virus and block contagion as well
(those constituting the definition of a vaccine).  Neither
is actually true.
The interested reader might peruse the record of 'fact
check' statements on that. Other examples abound.
Was that said officially in the US? Certainly even with
Boris who well does
like an mis truth or two! They talked about flattening the
curve ie keeping
folks out of hospital which the vaccines will reduce the
probability, but
also with lockdowns to slow infection down as the vaccine
will not stop
that, thats why lockdowns where needed to prevent
intensive care being
overwhelmed.
As I recall, in Ohio Dr. Amy Acton did talk about the
vaccine and social distancing flattening the curve. I don't
recall any statements that the vaccine would be 100%
effective in preventing contagion, and I'd be very surprised
if that was said, since AFAIK no vaccines are 100% effective.
There's been far too much Monday Morning Quarterbacking
about Covid. People on one side of politics seem to forget
that when infections first spread, hospitals were absolutely
overwhelmed, even formerly healthy people were dying,
medical staff were working non-stop, triage tents were set
up in hospital parking lots, etc. The virus was an unknown
and was causing great damage.
Certainly, some initial scientific findings were errors. But
that's a normal part of science: People do research, publish
findings, others try to replicate, and mistakes are
corrected. Given the crisis at hand, health and government
officials were not wrong to bet on safety, even if some of
the steps (like washing down door handles) ultimately turned
out to have low value.
People on one side of the political spectrum seem to have a
tendency toward absolutism. One scientific mistake tells
them _all_ science is useless. One failed law tells them
_all_ laws are useless. One bad politician tells them _all_
politicians are useless - except their own, of course.
The world is a bit more complicated than that.
https://www.rev.com/transcripts/joe-biden-covid-vaccine-booster-shots-speech-briefing-transcript

Although there may be someone holding the beliefs you
exaggerate above, none of them correspond here on RBT. Many
people, I included, think any assertion, scientific or
otherwise, ought to withstand inquiry, testing and
corroboration. Sadly, this is now a critical existential
issue among the sciences as errors in published papers,
forcing withdrawal, is skyrocketing, whether due to outright
fraud or rank incompetence. There are hardly enough people
replicating procedures to verify conclusions in scientific
papers and if there were more that would likely expose yet
more error.

And in the instant case, politicians should also not be
exempt from inquiry, testing and verification of their
assertions.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Frank Krygowski
2025-02-15 21:38:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Roger Merriman
How about some low hanging fruit?  The Official Policy
Statement, which was enforced by censorship and
manipulation, was that the mRNA jab would prevent
contraction of the Wuhan virus and block contagion as well
(those constituting the definition of a vaccine).  Neither
is actually true.
The interested reader might peruse the record of 'fact
check' statements on that. Other examples abound.
Was that said officially in the US? Certainly even with Boris who well does
like an mis truth or two! They talked about flattening the curve ie keeping
folks out of hospital which the vaccines will reduce the probability, but
also with lockdowns to slow infection down as the vaccine will not stop
that, thats why lockdowns where needed to prevent intensive care being
overwhelmed.
As I recall, in Ohio Dr. Amy Acton did talk about the vaccine and
social distancing flattening the curve. I don't recall any statements
that the vaccine would be 100% effective in preventing contagion, and
I'd be very surprised if that was said, since AFAIK no vaccines are
100% effective.
There's been far too much Monday Morning Quarterbacking about Covid.
People on one side of politics seem to forget that when infections
first spread, hospitals were absolutely overwhelmed, even formerly
healthy people were dying, medical staff were working non-stop, triage
tents were set up in hospital parking lots, etc. The virus was an
unknown and was causing great damage.
Certainly, some initial scientific findings were errors. But that's a
normal part of science: People do research, publish findings, others
try to replicate, and mistakes are corrected. Given the crisis at
hand, health and government officials were not wrong to bet on safety,
even if some of the steps (like washing down door handles) ultimately
turned out to have low value.
People on one side of the political spectrum seem to have a tendency
toward absolutism. One scientific mistake tells them _all_ science is
useless. One failed law tells them _all_ laws are useless. One bad
politician tells them _all_ politicians are useless - except their
own, of course.
The world is a bit more complicated than that.
https://www.rev.com/transcripts/joe-biden-covid-vaccine-booster-shots-
speech-briefing-transcript
That's a pretty long reading assignment. But skimming it, I didn't see
where he claimed 100% protection. Again, AFAIK no vaccine does 100%. I
don't think it was ever promised or anticipated by anyone with decent
knowledge.
Post by AMuzi
Although there may be someone holding the beliefs you exaggerate above,
none of them correspond here on RBT. Many people, I included, think any
assertion, scientific or otherwise, ought to withstand inquiry, testing
and corroboration.  Sadly, this is now a critical existential issue
among the sciences as errors in published papers, forcing withdrawal, is
skyrocketing, whether due to outright fraud or rank incompetence. There
are hardly enough people replicating procedures to verify conclusions in
scientific papers and if there were more that would likely expose yet
more error.
It would help if you would give relevant examples. Yes, I'm aware that
there is and has been scientific fraud. But it's a small percentage of
the output of Science, and it doesn't mean that we should pretend the
entire mechanism of science should be ignored.

As far as people on RBT espousing the views I paraphrased, most people
are careful to make implications rather than outright statements. You
have made many, many remarks disparaging various laws with words like
"How's that law working out?" Was I wrong to interpret that as "Laws
don't work"?

Our bike path tricycle rider has many times disparaged almost all
sources of information - except, somehow, the ones he chooses to listen to.

John has many times implied that all? or most? studies are biased to
worthlessness, repeating his anecdote about a man who claimed he can
make any study yield whatever data is desired.

Tom goes so far as to claim that there was a major recession and stock
market crash during Obama's term, despite mountains of info proving that
false.
Post by AMuzi
And in the instant case, politicians should also not be exempt from
inquiry, testing and verification of their assertions.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Catrike Ryder
2025-02-15 23:16:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 16:38:15 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Roger Merriman
How about some low hanging fruit?  The Official Policy
Statement, which was enforced by censorship and
manipulation, was that the mRNA jab would prevent
contraction of the Wuhan virus and block contagion as well
(those constituting the definition of a vaccine).  Neither
is actually true.
The interested reader might peruse the record of 'fact
check' statements on that. Other examples abound.
Was that said officially in the US? Certainly even with Boris who well does
like an mis truth or two! They talked about flattening the curve ie keeping
folks out of hospital which the vaccines will reduce the probability, but
also with lockdowns to slow infection down as the vaccine will not stop
that, thats why lockdowns where needed to prevent intensive care being
overwhelmed.
As I recall, in Ohio Dr. Amy Acton did talk about the vaccine and
social distancing flattening the curve. I don't recall any statements
that the vaccine would be 100% effective in preventing contagion, and
I'd be very surprised if that was said, since AFAIK no vaccines are
100% effective.
There's been far too much Monday Morning Quarterbacking about Covid.
People on one side of politics seem to forget that when infections
first spread, hospitals were absolutely overwhelmed, even formerly
healthy people were dying, medical staff were working non-stop, triage
tents were set up in hospital parking lots, etc. The virus was an
unknown and was causing great damage.
Certainly, some initial scientific findings were errors. But that's a
normal part of science: People do research, publish findings, others
try to replicate, and mistakes are corrected. Given the crisis at
hand, health and government officials were not wrong to bet on safety,
even if some of the steps (like washing down door handles) ultimately
turned out to have low value.
People on one side of the political spectrum seem to have a tendency
toward absolutism. One scientific mistake tells them _all_ science is
useless. One failed law tells them _all_ laws are useless. One bad
politician tells them _all_ politicians are useless - except their
own, of course.
The world is a bit more complicated than that.
https://www.rev.com/transcripts/joe-biden-covid-vaccine-booster-shots-
speech-briefing-transcript
That's a pretty long reading assignment. But skimming it, I didn't see
where he claimed 100% protection. Again, AFAIK no vaccine does 100%. I
don't think it was ever promised or anticipated by anyone with decent
knowledge.
Post by AMuzi
Although there may be someone holding the beliefs you exaggerate above,
none of them correspond here on RBT. Many people, I included, think any
assertion, scientific or otherwise, ought to withstand inquiry, testing
and corroboration.  Sadly, this is now a critical existential issue
among the sciences as errors in published papers, forcing withdrawal, is
skyrocketing, whether due to outright fraud or rank incompetence. There
are hardly enough people replicating procedures to verify conclusions in
scientific papers and if there were more that would likely expose yet
more error.
It would help if you would give relevant examples. Yes, I'm aware that
there is and has been scientific fraud. But it's a small percentage of
the output of Science, and it doesn't mean that we should pretend the
entire mechanism of science should be ignored.
As far as people on RBT espousing the views I paraphrased, most people
are careful to make implications rather than outright statements. You
have made many, many remarks disparaging various laws with words like
"How's that law working out?" Was I wrong to interpret that as "Laws
don't work"?
Our bike path tricycle rider has many times disparaged almost all
sources of information - except, somehow, the ones he chooses to listen to.
John has many times implied that all? or most? studies are biased to
worthlessness, repeating his anecdote about a man who claimed he can
make any study yield whatever data is desired.
Tom goes so far as to claim that there was a major recession and stock
market crash during Obama's term, despite mountains of info proving that
false.
Post by AMuzi
And in the instant case, politicians should also not be exempt from
inquiry, testing and verification of their assertions.
"Our bike path tricycle rider has many times disparaged almost all
sources of information - except, somehow, the ones he chooses to
listen to."

Everyone has an agenda. Mine is to enjoy what's left of my life.
Yours seems to be to pretend that you're something you never were and
never could be.

I should thank you for adding to my enjoyment by pursuing your agenda.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
John B.
2025-02-16 01:01:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 18:16:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 16:38:15 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Roger Merriman
How about some low hanging fruit?  The Official Policy
Statement, which was enforced by censorship and
manipulation, was that the mRNA jab would prevent
contraction of the Wuhan virus and block contagion as well
(those constituting the definition of a vaccine).  Neither
is actually true.
The interested reader might peruse the record of 'fact
check' statements on that. Other examples abound.
Was that said officially in the US? Certainly even with Boris who well does
like an mis truth or two! They talked about flattening the curve ie keeping
folks out of hospital which the vaccines will reduce the probability, but
also with lockdowns to slow infection down as the vaccine will not stop
that, thats why lockdowns where needed to prevent intensive care being
overwhelmed.
As I recall, in Ohio Dr. Amy Acton did talk about the vaccine and
social distancing flattening the curve. I don't recall any statements
that the vaccine would be 100% effective in preventing contagion, and
I'd be very surprised if that was said, since AFAIK no vaccines are
100% effective.
There's been far too much Monday Morning Quarterbacking about Covid.
People on one side of politics seem to forget that when infections
first spread, hospitals were absolutely overwhelmed, even formerly
healthy people were dying, medical staff were working non-stop, triage
tents were set up in hospital parking lots, etc. The virus was an
unknown and was causing great damage.
Certainly, some initial scientific findings were errors. But that's a
normal part of science: People do research, publish findings, others
try to replicate, and mistakes are corrected. Given the crisis at
hand, health and government officials were not wrong to bet on safety,
even if some of the steps (like washing down door handles) ultimately
turned out to have low value.
People on one side of the political spectrum seem to have a tendency
toward absolutism. One scientific mistake tells them _all_ science is
useless. One failed law tells them _all_ laws are useless. One bad
politician tells them _all_ politicians are useless - except their
own, of course.
The world is a bit more complicated than that.
https://www.rev.com/transcripts/joe-biden-covid-vaccine-booster-shots-
speech-briefing-transcript
That's a pretty long reading assignment. But skimming it, I didn't see
where he claimed 100% protection. Again, AFAIK no vaccine does 100%. I
don't think it was ever promised or anticipated by anyone with decent
knowledge.
Post by AMuzi
Although there may be someone holding the beliefs you exaggerate above,
none of them correspond here on RBT. Many people, I included, think any
assertion, scientific or otherwise, ought to withstand inquiry, testing
and corroboration.  Sadly, this is now a critical existential issue
among the sciences as errors in published papers, forcing withdrawal, is
skyrocketing, whether due to outright fraud or rank incompetence. There
are hardly enough people replicating procedures to verify conclusions in
scientific papers and if there were more that would likely expose yet
more error.
It would help if you would give relevant examples. Yes, I'm aware that
there is and has been scientific fraud. But it's a small percentage of
the output of Science, and it doesn't mean that we should pretend the
entire mechanism of science should be ignored.
As far as people on RBT espousing the views I paraphrased, most people
are careful to make implications rather than outright statements. You
have made many, many remarks disparaging various laws with words like
"How's that law working out?" Was I wrong to interpret that as "Laws
don't work"?
Our bike path tricycle rider has many times disparaged almost all
sources of information - except, somehow, the ones he chooses to listen to.
John has many times implied that all? or most? studies are biased to
worthlessness, repeating his anecdote about a man who claimed he can
make any study yield whatever data is desired.
There goes Frankie telling lies again.

What I wrote was that a good friend had commented that he could design
a survey to prove anything he wanted it to prove.

I wonder how "he could design" and "any study" becomes one and the
same in Franks understanding of English, and him a teacher. Can you
imagine your kid being taught by this fellow?

But then we have the terrifying Black Pickups, the guy with the
machine gun and all his other reported dangers.
--
Cheers,

John B.
Catrike Ryder
2025-02-16 09:39:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 23:07:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 18:16:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 16:38:15 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Roger Merriman
How about some low hanging fruit?  The Official Policy
Statement, which was enforced by censorship and
manipulation, was that the mRNA jab would prevent
contraction of the Wuhan virus and block contagion as well
(those constituting the definition of a vaccine).  Neither
is actually true.
The interested reader might peruse the record of 'fact
check' statements on that. Other examples abound.
Was that said officially in the US? Certainly even with Boris who well does
like an mis truth or two! They talked about flattening the curve ie keeping
folks out of hospital which the vaccines will reduce the probability, but
also with lockdowns to slow infection down as the vaccine will not stop
that, thats why lockdowns where needed to prevent intensive care being
overwhelmed.
As I recall, in Ohio Dr. Amy Acton did talk about the vaccine and
social distancing flattening the curve. I don't recall any statements
that the vaccine would be 100% effective in preventing contagion, and
I'd be very surprised if that was said, since AFAIK no vaccines are
100% effective.
There's been far too much Monday Morning Quarterbacking about Covid.
People on one side of politics seem to forget that when infections
first spread, hospitals were absolutely overwhelmed, even formerly
healthy people were dying, medical staff were working non-stop, triage
tents were set up in hospital parking lots, etc. The virus was an
unknown and was causing great damage.
Certainly, some initial scientific findings were errors. But that's a
normal part of science: People do research, publish findings, others
try to replicate, and mistakes are corrected. Given the crisis at
hand, health and government officials were not wrong to bet on safety,
even if some of the steps (like washing down door handles) ultimately
turned out to have low value.
People on one side of the political spectrum seem to have a tendency
toward absolutism. One scientific mistake tells them _all_ science is
useless. One failed law tells them _all_ laws are useless. One bad
politician tells them _all_ politicians are useless - except their
own, of course.
The world is a bit more complicated than that.
https://www.rev.com/transcripts/joe-biden-covid-vaccine-booster-shots-
speech-briefing-transcript
That's a pretty long reading assignment. But skimming it, I didn't see
where he claimed 100% protection. Again, AFAIK no vaccine does 100%. I
don't think it was ever promised or anticipated by anyone with decent
knowledge.
Post by AMuzi
Although there may be someone holding the beliefs you exaggerate above,
none of them correspond here on RBT. Many people, I included, think any
assertion, scientific or otherwise, ought to withstand inquiry, testing
and corroboration.  Sadly, this is now a critical existential issue
among the sciences as errors in published papers, forcing withdrawal, is
skyrocketing, whether due to outright fraud or rank incompetence. There
are hardly enough people replicating procedures to verify conclusions in
scientific papers and if there were more that would likely expose yet
more error.
It would help if you would give relevant examples. Yes, I'm aware that
there is and has been scientific fraud. But it's a small percentage of
the output of Science, and it doesn't mean that we should pretend the
entire mechanism of science should be ignored.
As far as people on RBT espousing the views I paraphrased, most people
are careful to make implications rather than outright statements. You
have made many, many remarks disparaging various laws with words like
"How's that law working out?" Was I wrong to interpret that as "Laws
don't work"?
Our bike path tricycle rider has many times disparaged almost all
sources of information - except, somehow, the ones he chooses to listen to.
John has many times implied that all? or most? studies are biased to
worthlessness, repeating his anecdote about a man who claimed he can
make any study yield whatever data is desired.
There goes Frankie telling lies again.
What I wrote was that a good friend had commented that he could design
a survey to prove anything he wanted it to prove.
You've brought up that anecdote many, many times in response to a study
that showed results you didn't like. Your clear implication was that
studies are not to be trusted.
I agree with that implication regardless of whether or not it was
John's.

Everyone has an agenda. People who spend money and time to do a
"study" obviously have an agenda. In my opinion, the odds that their
agenda is pure honest enlightenment are extremely low, as are the odds
that their agenda hasn't influenced the conclusions.

I recall that Krygowski actually bought on to nonsense "studies" that
concluded that a gun in your home made it more likely you'd get shot
because some people who got shot had a gun in their home.

<sigh> Some people are incredibly gullible and will believe anything
told to them by the people they've chosen to tell them what to
believe.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
John B.
2025-02-16 10:48:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 04:39:14 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 23:07:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 18:16:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 16:38:15 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Roger Merriman
How about some low hanging fruit?  The Official Policy
Statement, which was enforced by censorship and
manipulation, was that the mRNA jab would prevent
contraction of the Wuhan virus and block contagion as well
(those constituting the definition of a vaccine).  Neither
is actually true.
The interested reader might peruse the record of 'fact
check' statements on that. Other examples abound.
Was that said officially in the US? Certainly even with Boris who well does
like an mis truth or two! They talked about flattening the curve ie keeping
folks out of hospital which the vaccines will reduce the probability, but
also with lockdowns to slow infection down as the vaccine will not stop
that, thats why lockdowns where needed to prevent intensive care being
overwhelmed.
As I recall, in Ohio Dr. Amy Acton did talk about the vaccine and
social distancing flattening the curve. I don't recall any statements
that the vaccine would be 100% effective in preventing contagion, and
I'd be very surprised if that was said, since AFAIK no vaccines are
100% effective.
There's been far too much Monday Morning Quarterbacking about Covid.
People on one side of politics seem to forget that when infections
first spread, hospitals were absolutely overwhelmed, even formerly
healthy people were dying, medical staff were working non-stop, triage
tents were set up in hospital parking lots, etc. The virus was an
unknown and was causing great damage.
Certainly, some initial scientific findings were errors. But that's a
normal part of science: People do research, publish findings, others
try to replicate, and mistakes are corrected. Given the crisis at
hand, health and government officials were not wrong to bet on safety,
even if some of the steps (like washing down door handles) ultimately
turned out to have low value.
People on one side of the political spectrum seem to have a tendency
toward absolutism. One scientific mistake tells them _all_ science is
useless. One failed law tells them _all_ laws are useless. One bad
politician tells them _all_ politicians are useless - except their
own, of course.
The world is a bit more complicated than that.
https://www.rev.com/transcripts/joe-biden-covid-vaccine-booster-shots-
speech-briefing-transcript
That's a pretty long reading assignment. But skimming it, I didn't see
where he claimed 100% protection. Again, AFAIK no vaccine does 100%. I
don't think it was ever promised or anticipated by anyone with decent
knowledge.
Post by AMuzi
Although there may be someone holding the beliefs you exaggerate above,
none of them correspond here on RBT. Many people, I included, think any
assertion, scientific or otherwise, ought to withstand inquiry, testing
and corroboration.  Sadly, this is now a critical existential issue
among the sciences as errors in published papers, forcing withdrawal, is
skyrocketing, whether due to outright fraud or rank incompetence. There
are hardly enough people replicating procedures to verify conclusions in
scientific papers and if there were more that would likely expose yet
more error.
It would help if you would give relevant examples. Yes, I'm aware that
there is and has been scientific fraud. But it's a small percentage of
the output of Science, and it doesn't mean that we should pretend the
entire mechanism of science should be ignored.
As far as people on RBT espousing the views I paraphrased, most people
are careful to make implications rather than outright statements. You
have made many, many remarks disparaging various laws with words like
"How's that law working out?" Was I wrong to interpret that as "Laws
don't work"?
Our bike path tricycle rider has many times disparaged almost all
sources of information - except, somehow, the ones he chooses to listen to.
John has many times implied that all? or most? studies are biased to
worthlessness, repeating his anecdote about a man who claimed he can
make any study yield whatever data is desired.
There goes Frankie telling lies again.
What I wrote was that a good friend had commented that he could design
a survey to prove anything he wanted it to prove.
You've brought up that anecdote many, many times in response to a study
that showed results you didn't like. Your clear implication was that
studies are not to be trusted.
I agree with that implication regardless of whether or not it was
John's.
Everyone has an agenda. People who spend money and time to do a
"study" obviously have an agenda. In my opinion, the odds that their
agenda is pure honest enlightenment are extremely low, as are the odds
that their agenda hasn't influenced the conclusions.
I recall that Krygowski actually bought on to nonsense "studies" that
concluded that a gun in your home made it more likely you'd get shot
because some people who got shot had a gun in their home.
<sigh> Some people are incredibly gullible and will believe anything
told to them by the people they've chosen to tell them what to
believe.
well the gun in the house thing is certainly, correct.... as long as
someone in the house wants to shoot you :-)

But I suspect that many people live in houses where the other partner
doesn't want to shoot his, hers, its, partner.

Not to intrude in Frank's home life , but could it be ???
--
Cheers,

John B.
Frank Krygowski
2025-02-16 19:48:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
well the gun in the house thing is certainly, correct.... as long as
someone in the house wants to shoot you :-)
But I suspect that many people live in houses where the other partner
doesn't want to shoot his, hers, its, partner.
What you posted, John, is blindingly obvious. But it avoids the point
that I've made, and that data has confirmed.

A very large proportion of people with guns in the home say they have
the gun for "protection." That is, they believe they are less likely to
be subject to serious violence if they have a gun readily available.

The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with guns
in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and that's
true no matter where they live. The serious violence normally does not
come from outsiders. It comes from someone in their own house.

Beyond that, the gun isn't very likely to be useful against outside
aggressors, as your own personal story indicated.

I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value is highly overrated.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Catrike Ryder
2025-02-16 20:17:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
well the gun in the house thing is certainly, correct.... as long as
someone in the house wants to shoot you :-)
But I suspect that many people live in houses where the other partner
doesn't want to shoot his, hers, its, partner.
What you posted, John, is blindingly obvious. But it avoids the point
that I've made, and that data has confirmed.
<LOL> Nonsense...
Post by Frank Krygowski
A very large proportion of people with guns in the home say they have
the gun for "protection." That is, they believe they are less likely to
be subject to serious violence if they have a gun readily available.
The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with guns
in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and that's
true no matter where they live. The serious violence normally does not
come from outsiders. It comes from someone in their own house.
Beyond that, the gun isn't very likely to be useful against outside
aggressors, as your own personal story indicated.
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."

Nonsense, there's no data that even hints at such a thing. The idea
that the reason someone might be "more likely to suffer serious
violence" because they have a gun in their home is ridiculous beyond
rational thought.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
John B.
2025-02-17 01:34:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
well the gun in the house thing is certainly, correct.... as long as
someone in the house wants to shoot you :-)
But I suspect that many people live in houses where the other partner
doesn't want to shoot his, hers, its, partner.
What you posted, John, is blindingly obvious. But it avoids the point
that I've made, and that data has confirmed.
<LOL> Nonsense...
Post by Frank Krygowski
A very large proportion of people with guns in the home say they have
the gun for "protection." That is, they believe they are less likely to
be subject to serious violence if they have a gun readily available.
The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with guns
in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and that's
true no matter where they live. The serious violence normally does not
come from outsiders. It comes from someone in their own house.
Beyond that, the gun isn't very likely to be useful against outside
aggressors, as your own personal story indicated.
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."
Nonsense, there's no data that even hints at such a thing. The idea
that the reason someone might be "more likely to suffer serious
violence" because they have a gun in their home is ridiculous beyond
rational thought.
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone murdering
another person in the same household you will find many cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the gun that is at
fault. As I've mentioned my own family had guns in the house for at
least three and counting my kids four generations with no problems and
growing up in rural New England guns were not uncommon, as I've said,
every farm family, for sure, had at one. How else to keep the fox out
of the chicken house.

I could go even further. In early colonial times, before any thought
of a nation some colonies had a law that every adult male MUST have a
weapon and bring them to church on Sunday so that a check could be
made that he actually had a weapon and ammunition. Strange, isn't it
that with a gun in every house in settlement there are no records of
massive gun deaths.

In short, the statement that a gun in the house is dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat it over and
over and over.

The old saying that "guns don't shoot people, people shoot people"
really is true.
--
Cheers,

John B.
AMuzi
2025-02-17 01:45:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
well the gun in the house thing is certainly, correct.... as long as
someone in the house wants to shoot you :-)
But I suspect that many people live in houses where the other partner
doesn't want to shoot his, hers, its, partner.
What you posted, John, is blindingly obvious. But it avoids the point
that I've made, and that data has confirmed.
<LOL> Nonsense...
Post by Frank Krygowski
A very large proportion of people with guns in the home say they have
the gun for "protection." That is, they believe they are less likely to
be subject to serious violence if they have a gun readily available.
The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with guns
in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and that's
true no matter where they live. The serious violence normally does not
come from outsiders. It comes from someone in their own house.
Beyond that, the gun isn't very likely to be useful against outside
aggressors, as your own personal story indicated.
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."
Nonsense, there's no data that even hints at such a thing. The idea
that the reason someone might be "more likely to suffer serious
violence" because they have a gun in their home is ridiculous beyond
rational thought.
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone murdering
another person in the same household you will find many cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the gun that is at
fault. As I've mentioned my own family had guns in the house for at
least three and counting my kids four generations with no problems and
growing up in rural New England guns were not uncommon, as I've said,
every farm family, for sure, had at one. How else to keep the fox out
of the chicken house.
I could go even further. In early colonial times, before any thought
of a nation some colonies had a law that every adult male MUST have a
weapon and bring them to church on Sunday so that a check could be
made that he actually had a weapon and ammunition. Strange, isn't it
that with a gun in every house in settlement there are no records of
massive gun deaths.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat it over and
over and over.
The old saying that "guns don't shoot people, people shoot people"
really is true.
or knives
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjw4jj0p5jdo

or autos
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czdl6594835o

etc
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33253598
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Frank Krygowski
2025-02-17 03:50:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and
that's true no matter where they live." ...
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone murdering
another person in the same household you will find many cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the gun that is at
fault.
I did not say "the gun was at fault." I said those in houses with guns
are more likely to suffer serious violence than those in houses without
guns, no matter where they live. I don't blame the gun. I blame the
people owning and/or using the gun. But nevertheless, those who got the
gun "for protection" tend to come out worse.
Post by John B.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat it over and
over and over.
OK, John, if you were a researcher, what data would you use to answer
this question:

Are people living in a house with a gun safer or more at more danger
than people living in a house with no gun?

Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood don't count as
research. Neither do your strongly held opinions. You need good data.

(I suspect you'll evade answering my question.)
--
- Frank Krygowski
John B.
2025-02-17 05:25:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:50:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and
that's true no matter where they live." ...
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone murdering
another person in the same household you will find many cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the gun that is at
fault.
I did not say "the gun was at fault." I said those in houses with guns
are more likely to suffer serious violence than those in houses without
guns, no matter where they live. I don't blame the gun. I blame the
people owning and/or using the gun. But nevertheless, those who got the
gun "for protection" tend to come out worse.
Post by John B.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat it over and
over and over.
OK, John, if you were a researcher, what data would you use to answer
Are people living in a house with a gun safer or more at more danger
than people living in a house with no gun?
It depends on the people that live in the noise.
Post by Frank Krygowski
Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood don't count as
research. Neither do your strongly held opinions. You need good data.
Yup, makes perfect sense, at least from your point of view.

My family history is to ignored, What I saw is to be ignored - along
those lines when I was younger firearms were not something to be
feared, they were simply another tool, no reason to be hidden. I
believe it is called "Experience", is it not?

So tell us Frank when one has actually experienced something do you
still need to provide data? After all you tell all these tales about
traveling to foreign places to ride a bicycle - no data. Should we
leap to attention shouting "Liar!, Liar!" when we read your posts?
--
Cheers,

John B.
Frank Krygowski
2025-02-17 16:05:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:50:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and
that's true no matter where they live." ...
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone murdering
another person in the same household you will find many cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the gun that is at
fault.
I did not say "the gun was at fault." I said those in houses with guns
are more likely to suffer serious violence than those in houses without
guns, no matter where they live. I don't blame the gun. I blame the
people owning and/or using the gun. But nevertheless, those who got the
gun "for protection" tend to come out worse.
Post by John B.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat it over and
over and over.
OK, John, if you were a researcher, what data would you use to answer
Are people living in a house with a gun safer or more at more danger
than people living in a house with no gun?
It depends on the people that live in the noise.
That's no answer. Again: I you were a researcher, how would you
determine which situation was safer?
Post by John B.
Post by Frank Krygowski
Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood don't count as
research. Neither do your strongly held opinions. You need good data....
My family history is to ignored, What I saw is to be ignored
The history of your one family qualifies as ONE bit of data in
sociological research. It gets exactly counterbalanced by the history of
just ONE other family that experienced first a gunshot wound, then a gun
death. (And I'm talking about a family I knew.)

So how many families had your experience, and how many had the other
experience? _That's_ what researchers have attempted to find, by
examining records on thousands of households. And they found the
housholds with guns did far, far worse.

What part of that is confusing to you?
--
- Frank Krygowski
AMuzi
2025-02-17 16:18:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:50:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the
facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value
is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The
people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious
violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."  ...
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone
murdering
another person in the same household you will find many
cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the
gun that is at
fault.
I did not say "the gun was at fault." I said those in
houses with guns
are more likely to suffer serious violence than those in
houses without
guns, no matter where they live. I don't blame the gun. I
blame the
people owning and/or using the gun. But nevertheless,
those who got the
gun "for protection" tend to come out worse.
Post by John B.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is
dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat
it over and
over and over.
OK, John, if you were a researcher, what data would you
use to answer
Are people living in a house with a gun safer or more at
more danger
than people living in a house with no gun?
It depends on the people that live in the noise.
That's no answer. Again: I you were a researcher, how would
you determine which situation was safer?
Post by John B.
Post by Frank Krygowski
Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood don't
count as
research. Neither do your strongly held opinions. You
need good data....
My family history is to  ignored, What I saw is to be ignored
The history of your one family qualifies as ONE bit of data
in sociological research. It gets exactly counterbalanced by
the history of just ONE other family that experienced first
a gunshot wound, then a gun death. (And I'm talking about a
family I knew.)
So how many families had your experience, and how many had
the other experience? _That's_ what researchers have
attempted to find, by examining records on thousands of
households. And they found the housholds with guns did far,
far worse.
What part of that is confusing to you?
As has been discussed here previously, some large number of
households own long guns in rural areas, where criminal use
of firearms is infrequent.

Sidearms, which account for the bulk of criminal use, are
much more prevalent in urban areas. Which brings the
question of whether those firearms cause criminal acts or
whether citizens choose to arm themselves defensively due to
increased criminal activity in their neighborhood.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Roger Merriman
2025-02-17 17:17:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:50:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the
facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value
is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The
people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious
violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."  ...
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone
murdering
another person in the same household you will find many
cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the
gun that is at
fault.
I did not say "the gun was at fault." I said those in
houses with guns
are more likely to suffer serious violence than those in
houses without
guns, no matter where they live. I don't blame the gun. I
blame the
people owning and/or using the gun. But nevertheless,
those who got the
gun "for protection" tend to come out worse.
Post by John B.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is
dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat
it over and
over and over.
OK, John, if you were a researcher, what data would you
use to answer
Are people living in a house with a gun safer or more at
more danger
than people living in a house with no gun?
It depends on the people that live in the noise.
That's no answer. Again: I you were a researcher, how would
you determine which situation was safer?
Post by John B.
Post by Frank Krygowski
Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood don't
count as
research. Neither do your strongly held opinions. You
need good data....
My family history is to  ignored, What I saw is to be ignored
The history of your one family qualifies as ONE bit of data
in sociological research. It gets exactly counterbalanced by
the history of just ONE other family that experienced first
a gunshot wound, then a gun death. (And I'm talking about a
family I knew.)
So how many families had your experience, and how many had
the other experience? _That's_ what researchers have
attempted to find, by examining records on thousands of
households. And they found the housholds with guns did far,
far worse.
What part of that is confusing to you?
As has been discussed here previously, some large number of
households own long guns in rural areas, where criminal use
of firearms is infrequent.
Sidearms, which account for the bulk of criminal use, are
much more prevalent in urban areas. Which brings the
question of whether those firearms cause criminal acts or
whether citizens choose to arm themselves defensively due to
increased criminal activity in their neighborhood.
Even in uk that’s true to an extent maybe more controlled but farmers often
have guns, shot guns generally and depending on the area will be some folks
who go hunting and so on.

But these are guns being used for a purpose, than for just because someone
wants them, see also pick up trucks that are certainly in uk, a urban
“peacock” car, builders farmers will use commercial vehicles often vans and
so on, so equipment is safe dry and so on.

Roger Merriman
Frank Krygowski
2025-02-17 19:55:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:50:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."  ...
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone murdering
another person in the same household you will find many cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the gun that is at
fault.
I did not say "the gun was at fault." I said those in houses with guns
are more likely to suffer serious violence than those in houses without
guns, no matter where they live. I don't blame the gun. I blame the
people owning and/or using the gun. But nevertheless, those who got the
gun "for protection" tend to come out worse.
Post by John B.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat it over and
over and over.
OK, John, if you were a researcher, what data would you use to answer
Are people living in a house with a gun safer or more at more danger
than people living in a house with no gun?
It depends on the people that live in the noise.
That's no answer. Again: I you were a researcher, how would you
determine which situation was safer?
Post by John B.
Post by Frank Krygowski
Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood don't count as
research. Neither do your strongly held opinions. You need good data....
My family history is to  ignored, What I saw is to be ignored
The history of your one family qualifies as ONE bit of data in
sociological research. It gets exactly counterbalanced by the history
of just ONE other family that experienced first a gunshot wound, then
a gun death. (And I'm talking about a family I knew.)
So how many families had your experience, and how many had the other
experience? _That's_ what researchers have attempted to find, by
examining records on thousands of households. And they found the
housholds with guns did far, far worse.
What part of that is confusing to you?
As has been discussed here previously, some large number of households
own long guns in rural areas, where criminal use of firearms is infrequent.
You're arguing against yourself. Those households are part of the
nationwide data. Despite their contribution on the "safe" side of the
argument, overall households with guns turn out to be more dangerous.
Sidearms, which account for the bulk of criminal use, are much more
prevalent in urban areas. Which brings the question of whether those
firearms cause criminal acts or whether citizens choose to arm
themselves defensively due to increased criminal activity in their
neighborhood.
That's a question that could probably be answered through data. But I'll
remind you that the finding of more danger for gun households held true
even for homes in "good" neighborhoods.

Again, a major part of the danger was a husband shooting his wife. That
can happen in any family.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Catrike Ryder
2025-02-17 23:27:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 14:55:33 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:50:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."  ...
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone murdering
another person in the same household you will find many cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the gun that is at
fault.
I did not say "the gun was at fault." I said those in houses with guns
are more likely to suffer serious violence than those in houses without
guns, no matter where they live. I don't blame the gun. I blame the
people owning and/or using the gun. But nevertheless, those who got the
gun "for protection" tend to come out worse.
Post by John B.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat it over and
over and over.
OK, John, if you were a researcher, what data would you use to answer
Are people living in a house with a gun safer or more at more danger
than people living in a house with no gun?
It depends on the people that live in the noise.
That's no answer. Again: I you were a researcher, how would you
determine which situation was safer?
Post by John B.
Post by Frank Krygowski
Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood don't count as
research. Neither do your strongly held opinions. You need good data....
My family history is to  ignored, What I saw is to be ignored
The history of your one family qualifies as ONE bit of data in
sociological research. It gets exactly counterbalanced by the history
of just ONE other family that experienced first a gunshot wound, then
a gun death. (And I'm talking about a family I knew.)
So how many families had your experience, and how many had the other
experience? _That's_ what researchers have attempted to find, by
examining records on thousands of households. And they found the
housholds with guns did far, far worse.
What part of that is confusing to you?
As has been discussed here previously, some large number of households
own long guns in rural areas, where criminal use of firearms is infrequent.
You're arguing against yourself. Those households are part of the
nationwide data. Despite their contribution on the "safe" side of the
argument, overall households with guns turn out to be more dangerous.
Nonsense. Correlation does not imply causation
Post by Frank Krygowski
Sidearms, which account for the bulk of criminal use, are much more
prevalent in urban areas. Which brings the question of whether those
firearms cause criminal acts or whether citizens choose to arm
themselves defensively due to increased criminal activity in their
neighborhood.
That's a question that could probably be answered through data. But I'll
remind you that the finding of more danger for gun households held true
even for homes in "good" neighborhoods.
There is no such data.
Post by Frank Krygowski
Again, a major part of the danger was a husband shooting his wife. That
can happen in any family.
<eyeroll>

--
C'est bon
Soloman
Frank Krygowski
2025-02-18 02:09:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catrike Ryder
Nonsense. Correlation does not imply causation
That remark, spouted so often by our timid tricycle rider, is flagrantly
stupid! Of _course_ correlation can strongly imply causation.

Applying higher force to a given mass correlates with more acceleration.
That correlation correctly implies causation.

Inputting more heat to a given amount of mass correlates with an
increase in temperature. That correlation correctly implies causation.

Providing proper fertilization to a growing plant correlates with faster
growth. That correlation correctly implies causation.

I doubt that even the tricycle rider will deny those causations. But he
hauls out his erroneous old chestnut whenever he sees a correlation that
he doesn't personally like - as if his uneducated opinion is the
standard for truth.

What he means is correlation does not _prove_ causation. He might have
learned that if he were better educated.

But I should stop wasting time trying to educate the uneducable.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Catrike Ryder
2025-02-18 11:51:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:09:21 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Catrike Ryder
Nonsense. Correlation does not imply causation
That remark, spouted so often by our timid tricycle rider, is flagrantly
stupid! Of _course_ correlation can strongly imply causation.
Nope. It always requires more. Correlation all by itself doesn't even
imply a relationship, let alone causation.
Post by Frank Krygowski
Applying higher force to a given mass correlates with more acceleration.
That correlation correctly implies causation.
Ah, yes, an outcome is likely to correlate with the action that caused
it.
Turning your claim backwards doesn't make it true
Post by Frank Krygowski
Inputting more heat to a given amount of mass correlates with an
increase in temperature. That correlation correctly implies causation.
<LOL> Ah, yes, an outcome is likely to correlate with the action that
caused it.
Turning your claim backwards doesn't make it true
Post by Frank Krygowski
Providing proper fertilization to a growing plant correlates with faster
growth. That correlation correctly implies causation.
<SNORT> Ah, yes, an outcome is likely to correlate with the action
that caused it.
Turning your claim backwards doesn't make it true
Post by Frank Krygowski
I doubt that even the tricycle rider will deny those causations. But he
hauls out his erroneous old chestnut whenever he sees a correlation that
he doesn't personally like - as if his uneducated opinion is the
standard for truth.
What he means is correlation does not _prove_ causation. He might have
learned that if he were better educated.
But I should stop wasting time trying to educate the uneducable.
Krygowski fallaciously and ignorantly attempts to claim that
correlation implies causation by stating that there is correlation
between two events when one does actually cause the other, as
evidenced by something other the correlation.

Affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy that is committed when it
is stated that because the consequent is true, therefore the
antecedent is true.

Simply stated for Krygowski's benefit:
It's claiming that if P implies Q, therefore Q implies P

Krygowski might have learned that if he were better educated.

But then again, understanding the intricacies of logic requires a
level of intellect that Krygowski does not possess.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder
2025-02-18 16:02:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:51:24 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:09:21 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Catrike Ryder
Nonsense. Correlation does not imply causation
That remark, spouted so often by our timid tricycle rider, is flagrantly
stupid! Of _course_ correlation can strongly imply causation.
Nope. It always requires more. Correlation all by itself doesn't even
imply a relationship, let alone causation.
Post by Frank Krygowski
Applying higher force to a given mass correlates with more acceleration.
That correlation correctly implies causation.
Ah, yes, an outcome is likely to correlate with the action that caused
it.
Turning your claim backwards doesn't make it true
Post by Frank Krygowski
Inputting more heat to a given amount of mass correlates with an
increase in temperature. That correlation correctly implies causation.
<LOL> Ah, yes, an outcome is likely to correlate with the action that
caused it.
Turning your claim backwards doesn't make it true
Post by Frank Krygowski
Providing proper fertilization to a growing plant correlates with faster
growth. That correlation correctly implies causation.
<SNORT> Ah, yes, an outcome is likely to correlate with the action
that caused it.
Turning your claim backwards doesn't make it true
Post by Frank Krygowski
I doubt that even the tricycle rider will deny those causations. But he
hauls out his erroneous old chestnut whenever he sees a correlation that
he doesn't personally like - as if his uneducated opinion is the
standard for truth.
What he means is correlation does not _prove_ causation. He might have
learned that if he were better educated.
But I should stop wasting time trying to educate the uneducable.
Krygowski fallaciously and ignorantly attempts to claim that
correlation implies causation by stating that there is correlation
between two events when one does actually cause the other, as
evidenced by something other the correlation.
Affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy that is committed when it
is stated that because the consequent is true, therefore the
antecedent is true.
It's claiming that if P implies Q, therefore Q implies P
Krygowski might have learned that if he were better educated.
But then again, understanding the intricacies of logic requires a
level of intellect that Krygowski does not possess.
My wife, who just crawled out of bed and is a very bright suggested a
better explanation of affirming the consequent using Krygowski's
example .

Yes indeed, fertilization to a growing plant may cause faster
growth, but faster growth is not caused by fertilizer if the plant
does not have sunlight and water, is not diseased, damaged, or
infested with bugs. The faster growth may also have been caused by
better sunlight and water, or by repairing damage or ridding it of
bugs.

To suggest that because fertilization may make a plant grow faster
implies that plants necessarily grow faster because of fertilization
is affirming the consequent.

In simpler terms, it takes more than correlation to imply causation.

It's a simple and obvious fact to anyone who is not intellectually
challenged that people who have guns and get shot could also have been
shot because of many other circumstances.

I also found the following:

"Affirming the consequent is a formal logical fallacy that takes a
true statement and invalidly infers its converse."
https://helpfulprofessor.com/affirming-the-consequent-examples/

I wonder if Krygowski will repond to his being, once again, proven
wrong. Come on, Frankie, grow some balls.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

John B.
2025-02-18 02:52:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 18:27:24 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 14:55:33 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:50:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."  ...
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone murdering
another person in the same household you will find many cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the gun that is at
fault.
I did not say "the gun was at fault." I said those in houses with guns
are more likely to suffer serious violence than those in houses without
guns, no matter where they live. I don't blame the gun. I blame the
people owning and/or using the gun. But nevertheless, those who got the
gun "for protection" tend to come out worse.
Post by John B.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat it over and
over and over.
OK, John, if you were a researcher, what data would you use to answer
Are people living in a house with a gun safer or more at more danger
than people living in a house with no gun?
It depends on the people that live in the noise.
That's no answer. Again: I you were a researcher, how would you
determine which situation was safer?
Post by John B.
Post by Frank Krygowski
Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood don't count as
research. Neither do your strongly held opinions. You need good data....
My family history is to  ignored, What I saw is to be ignored
The history of your one family qualifies as ONE bit of data in
sociological research. It gets exactly counterbalanced by the history
of just ONE other family that experienced first a gunshot wound, then
a gun death. (And I'm talking about a family I knew.)
So how many families had your experience, and how many had the other
experience? _That's_ what researchers have attempted to find, by
examining records on thousands of households. And they found the
housholds with guns did far, far worse.
What part of that is confusing to you?
As has been discussed here previously, some large number of households
own long guns in rural areas, where criminal use of firearms is infrequent.
You're arguing against yourself. Those households are part of the
nationwide data. Despite their contribution on the "safe" side of the
argument, overall households with guns turn out to be more dangerous.
Nonsense. Correlation does not imply causation
Post by Frank Krygowski
Sidearms, which account for the bulk of criminal use, are much more
prevalent in urban areas. Which brings the question of whether those
firearms cause criminal acts or whether citizens choose to arm
themselves defensively due to increased criminal activity in their
neighborhood.
That's a question that could probably be answered through data. But I'll
remind you that the finding of more danger for gun households held true
even for homes in "good" neighborhoods.
There is no such data.
Post by Frank Krygowski
Again, a major part of the danger was a husband shooting his wife. That
can happen in any family.
<eyeroll>
One can only speculate... what sort of people does Frank hang out
with? Or perhaps, "Does Frank ever tell the truth?
--
Cheers,

John B.
Catrike Ryder
2025-02-18 12:23:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 18:27:24 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 14:55:33 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:50:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value is highly
overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."  ...
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone murdering
another person in the same household you will find many cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the gun that is at
fault.
I did not say "the gun was at fault." I said those in houses with guns
are more likely to suffer serious violence than those in houses without
guns, no matter where they live. I don't blame the gun. I blame the
people owning and/or using the gun. But nevertheless, those who got the
gun "for protection" tend to come out worse.
Post by John B.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat it over and
over and over.
OK, John, if you were a researcher, what data would you use to answer
Are people living in a house with a gun safer or more at more danger
than people living in a house with no gun?
It depends on the people that live in the noise.
That's no answer. Again: I you were a researcher, how would you
determine which situation was safer?
Post by John B.
Post by Frank Krygowski
Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood don't count as
research. Neither do your strongly held opinions. You need good data....
My family history is to  ignored, What I saw is to be ignored
The history of your one family qualifies as ONE bit of data in
sociological research. It gets exactly counterbalanced by the history
of just ONE other family that experienced first a gunshot wound, then
a gun death. (And I'm talking about a family I knew.)
So how many families had your experience, and how many had the other
experience? _That's_ what researchers have attempted to find, by
examining records on thousands of households. And they found the
housholds with guns did far, far worse.
What part of that is confusing to you?
As has been discussed here previously, some large number of households
own long guns in rural areas, where criminal use of firearms is infrequent.
You're arguing against yourself. Those households are part of the
nationwide data. Despite their contribution on the "safe" side of the
argument, overall households with guns turn out to be more dangerous.
Nonsense. Correlation does not imply causation
Post by Frank Krygowski
Sidearms, which account for the bulk of criminal use, are much more
prevalent in urban areas. Which brings the question of whether those
firearms cause criminal acts or whether citizens choose to arm
themselves defensively due to increased criminal activity in their
neighborhood.
That's a question that could probably be answered through data. But I'll
remind you that the finding of more danger for gun households held true
even for homes in "good" neighborhoods.
There is no such data.
Post by Frank Krygowski
Again, a major part of the danger was a husband shooting his wife. That
can happen in any family.
<eyeroll>
One can only speculate... what sort of people does Frank hang out
with? Or perhaps, "Does Frank ever tell the truth?
I suspect that guns are involved in very few instances of domestic
violence, and of those few, a substantail number are used defensively.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
Frank Krygowski
2025-02-18 15:56:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
One can only speculate... what sort of people does Frank hang out
with?
I'd give details, but someone here would accuse me of bragging.
--
- Frank Krygowski
John B.
2025-02-18 02:46:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:50:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the
facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value
is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The
people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious
violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."  ...
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone
murdering
another person in the same household you will find many
cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the
gun that is at
fault.
I did not say "the gun was at fault." I said those in
houses with guns
are more likely to suffer serious violence than those in
houses without
guns, no matter where they live. I don't blame the gun. I
blame the
people owning and/or using the gun. But nevertheless,
those who got the
gun "for protection" tend to come out worse.
Post by John B.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is
dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat
it over and
over and over.
OK, John, if you were a researcher, what data would you
use to answer
Are people living in a house with a gun safer or more at
more danger
than people living in a house with no gun?
It depends on the people that live in the noise.
That's no answer. Again: I you were a researcher, how would
you determine which situation was safer?
Post by John B.
Post by Frank Krygowski
Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood don't
count as
research. Neither do your strongly held opinions. You
need good data....
My family history is to  ignored, What I saw is to be ignored
The history of your one family qualifies as ONE bit of data
in sociological research. It gets exactly counterbalanced by
the history of just ONE other family that experienced first
a gunshot wound, then a gun death. (And I'm talking about a
family I knew.)
So how many families had your experience, and how many had
the other experience? _That's_ what researchers have
attempted to find, by examining records on thousands of
households. And they found the housholds with guns did far,
far worse.
What part of that is confusing to you?
As has been discussed here previously, some large number of
households own long guns in rural areas, where criminal use
of firearms is infrequent.
Sidearms, which account for the bulk of criminal use, are
much more prevalent in urban areas. Which brings the
question of whether those firearms cause criminal acts or
whether citizens choose to arm themselves defensively due to
increased criminal activity in their neighborhood.
An interesting fact given that studies dating as far back as the Civil
War indicate a surprising nimbler, some estimates as low as only 15% -
20%, actually fired their rifle at the enemy.
--
Cheers,

John B.
Catrike Ryder
2025-02-17 16:37:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:05:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:50:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and
that's true no matter where they live." ...
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone murdering
another person in the same household you will find many cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the gun that is at
fault.
I did not say "the gun was at fault." I said those in houses with guns
are more likely to suffer serious violence than those in houses without
guns, no matter where they live. I don't blame the gun. I blame the
people owning and/or using the gun. But nevertheless, those who got the
gun "for protection" tend to come out worse.
Post by John B.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat it over and
over and over.
OK, John, if you were a researcher, what data would you use to answer
Are people living in a house with a gun safer or more at more danger
than people living in a house with no gun?
It depends on the people that live in the noise.
That's no answer. Again: I you were a researcher, how would you
determine which situation was safer?
Post by John B.
Post by Frank Krygowski
Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood don't count as
research. Neither do your strongly held opinions. You need good data....
My family history is to ignored, What I saw is to be ignored
The history of your one family qualifies as ONE bit of data in
sociological research. It gets exactly counterbalanced by the history of
just ONE other family that experienced first a gunshot wound, then a gun
death. (And I'm talking about a family I knew.)
So how many families had your experience, and how many had the other
experience? _That's_ what researchers have attempted to find, by
examining records on thousands of households. And they found the
housholds with guns did far, far worse.
What part of that is confusing to you?
The fact that it's nonsense. Correlation does not imply causation

--
C'est bon
Soloman
John B.
2025-02-18 01:35:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:05:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:50:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and
that's true no matter where they live." ...
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone murdering
another person in the same household you will find many cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the gun that is at
fault.
I did not say "the gun was at fault." I said those in houses with guns
are more likely to suffer serious violence than those in houses without
guns, no matter where they live. I don't blame the gun. I blame the
people owning and/or using the gun. But nevertheless, those who got the
gun "for protection" tend to come out worse.
Post by John B.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat it over and
over and over.
OK, John, if you were a researcher, what data would you use to answer
Are people living in a house with a gun safer or more at more danger
than people living in a house with no gun?
It depends on the people that live in the noise.
That's no answer. Again: I you were a researcher, how would you
determine which situation was safer?
Post by John B.
Post by Frank Krygowski
Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood don't count as
research. Neither do your strongly held opinions. You need good data....
My family history is to ignored, What I saw is to be ignored
The history of your one family qualifies as ONE bit of data in
sociological research. It gets exactly counterbalanced by the history of
just ONE other family that experienced first a gunshot wound, then a gun
death. (And I'm talking about a family I knew.)
So how many families had your experience, and how many had the other
experience? _That's_ what researchers have attempted to find, by
examining records on thousands of households. And they found the
housholds with guns did far, far worse.
What part of that is confusing to you?
Well I grew up in a small village of 12,000 - 13,000, multi national,
and during the 20 years I lived there were NO gun injuries or deaths,
and given that this was back in the days when the doctor came to your
house to treat accidents or sickness I'm sure that if anyone that shot
themselves would be know... all over the village. And that ignores
that a gun injury or death would, by law, been reported to the police
(I was bitten, rather severely, by a dog and even that had to be
reported). And I'd guess that my "data" might well be as accurate, or
perhaps more accurate, as that generated by some outsider asking
questions.

Oh Yes, can you provide data to show that all these house deaths are
one person shooting another?

I ask as I came across a study that stated that, 49.8% of the deaths
were the result of shooting and 50.2 were the results of other means,
stabbing, etc.

Oh Yes, 3.6 percent) were killed under legally excusable circumstances
and an additional 34% "were killed by a family member or an intimate
acquaintance as part of a murder-suicide, were related to drug
dealing, or occurred during the commission of another felony, such as
a robbery, rape, or burglary."

Somewhat different then your over simplistic cry "Oh, Oh, a gun in the
house is SOOooo dangerious!"
--
Cheers,

John B.
Frank Krygowski
2025-02-18 02:18:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
Oh Yes, 3.6 percent) were killed under legally excusable circumstances
and an additional 34% "were killed by a family member or an intimate
acquaintance as part of a murder-suicide, were related to drug
dealing, or occurred during the commission of another felony, such as
a robbery, rape, or burglary."
Somewhat different then your over simplistic cry "Oh, Oh, a gun in the
house is SOOooo dangerious!"
Those are words I never used. They popped out of your imagination.

I quoted from the relevant study, to which I provided links. It said
those in houses with guns are more likely to suffer serious violence
than those in houses without guns, no matter where they live.

You've given some details above, but they do not disprove the facts I
noted. Deal with it.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Catrike Ryder
2025-02-18 12:07:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:18:53 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
Oh Yes, 3.6 percent) were killed under legally excusable circumstances
and an additional 34% "were killed by a family member or an intimate
acquaintance as part of a murder-suicide, were related to drug
dealing, or occurred during the commission of another felony, such as
a robbery, rape, or burglary."
Somewhat different then your over simplistic cry "Oh, Oh, a gun in the
house is SOOooo dangerious!"
Those are words I never used. They popped out of your imagination.
I quoted from the relevant study, to which I provided links. It said
those in houses with guns are more likely to suffer serious violence
than those in houses without guns, no matter where they live.
You've given some details above, but they do not disprove the facts I
noted. Deal with it.
Krygowski's cites simply found that some people who got shot also had
guns of their own and some some people who did not get shot had no
guns. The conclusion that having a gun is dangerous in itself is
totally fallacious, but Krygowski bought on to it, hook, line and
sinker.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder
2025-02-17 09:56:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:50:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and
that's true no matter where they live." ...
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone murdering
another person in the same household you will find many cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the gun that is at
fault.
I did not say "the gun was at fault." I said those in houses with guns
are more likely to suffer serious violence than those in houses without
guns, no matter where they live. I don't blame the gun. I blame the
people owning and/or using the gun. But nevertheless, those who got the
gun "for protection" tend to come out worse.
Post by John B.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat it over and
over and over.
OK, John, if you were a researcher, what data would you use to answer
Are people living in a house with a gun safer or more at more danger
than people living in a house with no gun?
Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood don't count as
research. Neither do your strongly held opinions. You need good data.
(I suspect you'll evade answering my question.)
"I don't blame the gun. I blame the people owning and/or using
the gun."

Actually, your ridiculous claim was that merely having a gun in your
home makes it more likely more likely for you to suffer serious
violence. <LOL> It is good, however to watch you trying to mitigate
your previous stupidity. I guess it means that even you can be taught.

"if you were a researcher, what data would you use to answer
this question: Are people living in a house with a gun safer or
more at more danger than people living in a house with no gun?"

That is, of course, a ridiculous question, because first of all, you'd
have to factor in (or out) all the many things that very obviously put
someone in danger... Such as:
Do you belong to a gang?
Do you use or sell drugs?
Do you live where there's a lot of crime?
Do you engage in street protests?
Do you go to dive bars?
Are you involved in the sex trades?

There's no good way to evaluate those and many other things on how
much danger they cause, or on how they relate to each other or to
owning a gun. For instance, I suspect that a street prostitute might
be safer with a gun than without.

One would also have to evaluate the fact that the number of people
with guns who live nonviolent lives vastly outnumbers the people with
guns who suffer serious violence.

I have to wonder how someone can got to college, get a degree, and
still be as ignorant about basic logic as Krygowski is.

Of course, he doesn't really evaluate anything for himself, he just
believes what he's been told to believe, especially if it coincides
with his own mind set.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
AMuzi
2025-02-17 14:39:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the
facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value
is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The
people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious
violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."  ...
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone
murdering
another person in the same household you will find many
cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the gun
that is at
fault.
I did not say "the gun was at fault." I said those in houses
with guns are more likely to suffer serious violence than
those in houses without guns, no matter where they live. I
don't blame the gun. I blame the people owning and/or using
the gun. But nevertheless, those who got the gun "for
protection" tend to come out worse.
Post by John B.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is
dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat it
over and
over and over.
OK, John, if you were a researcher, what data would you use
Are people living in a house with a gun safer or more at
more danger than people living in a house with no gun?
Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood don't
count as research. Neither do your strongly held opinions.
You need good data.
(I suspect you'll evade answering my question.)
Well, since there are many times more successful firearm
defense incidents than firearm homicides I'd say your
conclusion is unclear at best.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Frank Krygowski
2025-02-17 16:15:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."  ...
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone murdering
another person in the same household you will find many cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the gun that is at
fault.
I did not say "the gun was at fault." I said those in houses with guns
are more likely to suffer serious violence than those in houses
without guns, no matter where they live. I don't blame the gun. I
blame the people owning and/or using the gun. But nevertheless, those
who got the gun "for protection" tend to come out worse.
Post by John B.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat it over and
over and over.
OK, John, if you were a researcher, what data would you use to answer
Are people living in a house with a gun safer or more at more danger
than people living in a house with no gun?
Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood don't count as
research. Neither do your strongly held opinions. You need good data.
(I suspect you'll evade answering my question.)
Well, since there are many times more successful firearm defense
incidents than firearm homicides I'd say your conclusion is unclear at
best.
First, your assertion is almost certainly wrong. See
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-the-guns-make-us-safer-myth/

Second, it doesn't address the question at hand. Again, what researchers
have found is not people in gun households getting shot by home
invaders. Instead, they find its FAR more common that one person in a
gun household is shot by another person living in the same house.

I've known two women who were beaten and threatened with death by their
husbands, before their divorces. Both were sure that if the relationship
continued, they would have been killed. The most likely tool would have
been the guy's gun.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Catrike Ryder
2025-02-17 16:40:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:15:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."  ...
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone murdering
another person in the same household you will find many cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the gun that is at
fault.
I did not say "the gun was at fault." I said those in houses with guns
are more likely to suffer serious violence than those in houses
without guns, no matter where they live. I don't blame the gun. I
blame the people owning and/or using the gun. But nevertheless, those
who got the gun "for protection" tend to come out worse.
Post by John B.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat it over and
over and over.
OK, John, if you were a researcher, what data would you use to answer
Are people living in a house with a gun safer or more at more danger
than people living in a house with no gun?
Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood don't count as
research. Neither do your strongly held opinions. You need good data.
(I suspect you'll evade answering my question.)
Well, since there are many times more successful firearm defense
incidents than firearm homicides I'd say your conclusion is unclear at
best.
First, your assertion is almost certainly wrong. See
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-the-guns-make-us-safer-myth/
Second, it doesn't address the question at hand. Again, what researchers
have found is not people in gun households getting shot by home
invaders. Instead, they find its FAR more common that one person in a
gun household is shot by another person living in the same house.
I've known two women who were beaten and threatened with death by their
husbands, before their divorces. Both were sure that if the relationship
continued, they would have been killed. The most likely tool would have
been the guy's gun.
nonsense speculation....

--
C'est bon
Soloman
AMuzi
2025-02-17 16:54:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the
facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value
is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The
people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious
violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."  ...
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone
murdering
another person in the same household you will find many
cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the
gun that is at
fault.
I did not say "the gun was at fault." I said those in
houses with guns are more likely to suffer serious
violence than those in houses without guns, no matter
where they live. I don't blame the gun. I blame the
people owning and/or using the gun. But nevertheless,
those who got the gun "for protection" tend to come out
worse.
Post by John B.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is
dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat
it over and
over and over.
OK, John, if you were a researcher, what data would you
Are people living in a house with a gun safer or more at
more danger than people living in a house with no gun?
Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood don't
count as research. Neither do your strongly held
opinions. You need good data.
(I suspect you'll evade answering my question.)
Well, since there are many times more successful firearm
defense incidents than firearm homicides I'd say your
conclusion is unclear at best.
First, your assertion is almost certainly wrong.  See
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-the-guns-
make-us-safer-myth/
Second, it doesn't address the question at hand. Again, what
researchers have found is not people in gun households
getting shot by home invaders. Instead, they find its FAR
more common that one person in a gun household is shot by
another person living in the same house.
I've known two women who were beaten and threatened with
death by their husbands, before their divorces. Both were
sure that if the relationship continued, they would have
been killed. The most likely tool would have been the guy's
gun.
Is there criminal use of firearms? Yes there is.

Your reference claims the highest estimates of defensive use
are overstated. OK, that is inherent to a range of estimates
from many sources.

The fact remains that people do defend themselves, and
choose to arm themselves at increasing rates, particularly
black women:

https://www.essence.com/news/black-women-gun-ownership-rise/

trend continues, updated:

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2024/10/21/growing_diversity_of_gun_owners_nationwide_1066453.html

This says to me that they understand their own situation,
neighborhood and risk levels better than you understand
their lives. (for example, I linked Poland OH vs Youngstown
OH crime stats earlier)

Which is not to excuse or defend criminal use or negligent
discharge:

https://nypost.com/2025/01/21/us-news/florida-cop-accidentally-shoots-man-with-his-own-gun-during-traffic-stop/
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Frank Krygowski
2025-02-17 20:05:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."  ...
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone murdering
another person in the same household you will find many cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the gun that is at
fault.
I did not say "the gun was at fault." I said those in houses with
guns are more likely to suffer serious violence than those in houses
without guns, no matter where they live. I don't blame the gun. I
blame the people owning and/or using the gun. But nevertheless,
those who got the gun "for protection" tend to come out worse.
Post by John B.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat it over and
over and over.
OK, John, if you were a researcher, what data would you use to
Are people living in a house with a gun safer or more at more danger
than people living in a house with no gun?
Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood don't count as
research. Neither do your strongly held opinions. You need good data.
(I suspect you'll evade answering my question.)
Well, since there are many times more successful firearm defense
incidents than firearm homicides I'd say your conclusion is unclear
at best.
First, your assertion is almost certainly wrong.  See https://
www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-the-guns- make-us-safer-myth/
Second, it doesn't address the question at hand. Again, what
researchers have found is not people in gun households getting shot by
home invaders. Instead, they find its FAR more common that one person
in a gun household is shot by another person living in the same house.
I've known two women who were beaten and threatened with death by
their husbands, before their divorces. Both were sure that if the
relationship continued, they would have been killed. The most likely
tool would have been the guy's gun.
Is there criminal use of firearms? Yes there is.
Your reference claims the highest estimates of defensive use are
overstated. OK, that is inherent to a range of estimates from many sources.
The fact remains that people do defend themselves, and choose to arm
https://www.essence.com/news/black-women-gun-ownership-rise/
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2024/10/21/
growing_diversity_of_gun_owners_nationwide_1066453.html
This says to me that they understand their own situation, neighborhood
and risk levels better than you understand their lives.
Sorry, no. It says they _believe_ they understand the risk levels. They
_believe_ that getting a gun will make them safer. They _believe_ that
there's a reasonable chance they'll use it in self defense. But their
belief does not make those facts true.

We mentioned that the NRA has admitted that the odds of needing a gun
for defense are infinitesmal.

https://www.mediamatters.org/national-rifle-association/nra-commentary-admits-odds-needing-gun-defend-yourself-are-infinitesimal

Infinitesmal on the order of randomly shuffling a deck of cards into
perfect sorted order.

As with all discussions involving probability and large data sets, it
does not mean that it's absolutely impossible to need a gun for defense.
But it does mean that something over 99% of the people who _think_
they'll need it are wrong.

If this were an issue being bet on at Las Vegas, the smart money would
certainly not bet in favor of needing a gun.
--
- Frank Krygowski
AMuzi
2025-02-17 20:35:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the
facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their
value is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false.
The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious
violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."  ...
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of
someone murdering
another person in the same household you will find
many cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the
gun that is at
fault.
I did not say "the gun was at fault." I said those in
houses with guns are more likely to suffer serious
violence than those in houses without guns, no matter
where they live. I don't blame the gun. I blame the
people owning and/or using the gun. But nevertheless,
those who got the gun "for protection" tend to come out
worse.
Post by John B.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is
dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they
repeat it over and
over and over.
OK, John, if you were a researcher, what data would you
Are people living in a house with a gun safer or more
at more danger than people living in a house with no gun?
Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood
don't count as research. Neither do your strongly held
opinions. You need good data.
(I suspect you'll evade answering my question.)
Well, since there are many times more successful firearm
defense incidents than firearm homicides I'd say your
conclusion is unclear at best.
First, your assertion is almost certainly wrong.  See
https:// www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-the-
guns- make-us-safer-myth/
Second, it doesn't address the question at hand. Again,
what researchers have found is not people in gun
households getting shot by home invaders. Instead, they
find its FAR more common that one person in a gun
household is shot by another person living in the same
house.
I've known two women who were beaten and threatened with
death by their husbands, before their divorces. Both were
sure that if the relationship continued, they would have
been killed. The most likely tool would have been the
guy's gun.
Is there criminal use of firearms? Yes there is.
Your reference claims the highest estimates of defensive
use are overstated. OK, that is inherent to a range of
estimates from many sources.
The fact remains that people do defend themselves, and
choose to arm themselves at increasing rates, particularly
https://www.essence.com/news/black-women-gun-ownership-rise/
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2024/10/21/
growing_diversity_of_gun_owners_nationwide_1066453.html
This says to me that they understand their own situation,
neighborhood and risk levels better than you understand
their lives.
Sorry, no. It says they _believe_ they understand the risk
levels. They _believe_ that getting a gun will make them
safer. They _believe_ that there's a reasonable chance
they'll use it in self defense. But their belief does not
make those facts true.
We mentioned that the NRA has admitted that the odds of
needing a gun for defense are infinitesmal.
https://www.mediamatters.org/national-rifle-association/nra-
commentary-admits-odds-needing-gun-defend-yourself-are-
infinitesimal
Infinitesmal on the order of randomly shuffling a deck of
cards into perfect sorted order.
As with all discussions involving probability and large data
sets, it does not mean that it's absolutely impossible to
need a gun for defense. But it does mean that something over
99% of the people who _think_ they'll need it are wrong.
If this were an issue being bet on at Las Vegas, the smart
money would certainly not bet in favor of needing a gun.
OK, there's some common ground.
Homicide by sidearm in USA is around 7159 for 2023:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

out of 340 million citizens (or perhaps 360 million or so
humans). Also "infinitesimal", around 0.0000021055.

That's much smaller than lowest estimates of successful
defensive use of firearms.

And "infinitesimal" except when it's me.

And I also agree with you that most firearm purchases for
defense will never be used in defense, just as most patch
kits carried habitually by cyclists will never be used on
the road. Or most fire extinguishers for that matter.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Catrike Ryder
2025-02-17 21:25:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the
facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their
value is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false.
The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious
violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."  ...
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of
someone murdering
another person in the same household you will find
many cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the
gun that is at
fault.
I did not say "the gun was at fault." I said those in
houses with guns are more likely to suffer serious
violence than those in houses without guns, no matter
where they live. I don't blame the gun. I blame the
people owning and/or using the gun. But nevertheless,
those who got the gun "for protection" tend to come out
worse.
Post by John B.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is
dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they
repeat it over and
over and over.
OK, John, if you were a researcher, what data would you
Are people living in a house with a gun safer or more
at more danger than people living in a house with no gun?
Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood
don't count as research. Neither do your strongly held
opinions. You need good data.
(I suspect you'll evade answering my question.)
Well, since there are many times more successful firearm
defense incidents than firearm homicides I'd say your
conclusion is unclear at best.
First, your assertion is almost certainly wrong.  See
https:// www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-the-
guns- make-us-safer-myth/
Second, it doesn't address the question at hand. Again,
what researchers have found is not people in gun
households getting shot by home invaders. Instead, they
find its FAR more common that one person in a gun
household is shot by another person living in the same
house.
I've known two women who were beaten and threatened with
death by their husbands, before their divorces. Both were
sure that if the relationship continued, they would have
been killed. The most likely tool would have been the
guy's gun.
Is there criminal use of firearms? Yes there is.
Your reference claims the highest estimates of defensive
use are overstated. OK, that is inherent to a range of
estimates from many sources.
The fact remains that people do defend themselves, and
choose to arm themselves at increasing rates, particularly
https://www.essence.com/news/black-women-gun-ownership-rise/
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2024/10/21/
growing_diversity_of_gun_owners_nationwide_1066453.html
This says to me that they understand their own situation,
neighborhood and risk levels better than you understand
their lives.
Sorry, no. It says they _believe_ they understand the risk
levels. They _believe_ that getting a gun will make them
safer. They _believe_ that there's a reasonable chance
they'll use it in self defense. But their belief does not
make those facts true.
We mentioned that the NRA has admitted that the odds of
needing a gun for defense are infinitesmal.
https://www.mediamatters.org/national-rifle-association/nra-
commentary-admits-odds-needing-gun-defend-yourself-are-
infinitesimal
Infinitesmal on the order of randomly shuffling a deck of
cards into perfect sorted order.
As with all discussions involving probability and large data
sets, it does not mean that it's absolutely impossible to
need a gun for defense. But it does mean that something over
99% of the people who _think_ they'll need it are wrong.
If this were an issue being bet on at Las Vegas, the smart
money would certainly not bet in favor of needing a gun.
OK, there's some common ground.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/
out of 340 million citizens (or perhaps 360 million or so
humans). Also "infinitesimal", around 0.0000021055.
That's much smaller than lowest estimates of successful
defensive use of firearms.
And "infinitesimal" except when it's me.
And I also agree with you that most firearm purchases for
defense will never be used in defense, just as most patch
kits carried habitually by cyclists will never be used on
the road. Or most fire extinguishers for that matter.
or most spare tires carried in/on/under private vehicles

--
C'est bon
Soloman
John B.
2025-02-18 05:20:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the
facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their
value is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false.
The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious
violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."  ...
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of
someone murdering
another person in the same household you will find
many cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the
gun that is at
fault.
I did not say "the gun was at fault." I said those in
houses with guns are more likely to suffer serious
violence than those in houses without guns, no matter
where they live. I don't blame the gun. I blame the
people owning and/or using the gun. But nevertheless,
those who got the gun "for protection" tend to come out
worse.
Post by John B.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is
dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they
repeat it over and
over and over.
OK, John, if you were a researcher, what data would you
Are people living in a house with a gun safer or more
at more danger than people living in a house with no gun?
Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood
don't count as research. Neither do your strongly held
opinions. You need good data.
(I suspect you'll evade answering my question.)
Well, since there are many times more successful firearm
defense incidents than firearm homicides I'd say your
conclusion is unclear at best.
First, your assertion is almost certainly wrong.  See
https:// www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-the-
guns- make-us-safer-myth/
Second, it doesn't address the question at hand. Again,
what researchers have found is not people in gun
households getting shot by home invaders. Instead, they
find its FAR more common that one person in a gun
household is shot by another person living in the same
house.
I've known two women who were beaten and threatened with
death by their husbands, before their divorces. Both were
sure that if the relationship continued, they would have
been killed. The most likely tool would have been the
guy's gun.
Is there criminal use of firearms? Yes there is.
Your reference claims the highest estimates of defensive
use are overstated. OK, that is inherent to a range of
estimates from many sources.
The fact remains that people do defend themselves, and
choose to arm themselves at increasing rates, particularly
https://www.essence.com/news/black-women-gun-ownership-rise/
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2024/10/21/
growing_diversity_of_gun_owners_nationwide_1066453.html
This says to me that they understand their own situation,
neighborhood and risk levels better than you understand
their lives.
Sorry, no. It says they _believe_ they understand the risk
levels. They _believe_ that getting a gun will make them
safer. They _believe_ that there's a reasonable chance
they'll use it in self defense. But their belief does not
make those facts true.
We mentioned that the NRA has admitted that the odds of
needing a gun for defense are infinitesmal.
https://www.mediamatters.org/national-rifle-association/nra-
commentary-admits-odds-needing-gun-defend-yourself-are-
infinitesimal
Infinitesmal on the order of randomly shuffling a deck of
cards into perfect sorted order.
As with all discussions involving probability and large data
sets, it does not mean that it's absolutely impossible to
need a gun for defense. But it does mean that something over
99% of the people who _think_ they'll need it are wrong.
If this were an issue being bet on at Las Vegas, the smart
money would certainly not bet in favor of needing a gun.
OK, there's some common ground.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/
out of 340 million citizens (or perhaps 360 million or so
humans). Also "infinitesimal", around 0.0000021055.
That's much smaller than lowest estimates of successful
defensive use of firearms.
And "infinitesimal" except when it's me.
And I also agree with you that most firearm purchases for
defense will never be used in defense, just as most patch
kits carried habitually by cyclists will never be used on
the road. Or most fire extinguishers for that matter.
Well, you are a knowledgeable sort, so tell me your opinion. If the
city of Chicago were to pass a law that anyone poses sing a firearm
in their home would be subject to $50,000 fine and 1 year in jail. or
what penalty would be required to ensure compliance with the law.

What would be the effect on crime in the city (?-)
--
Cheers,

John B.
Catrike Ryder
2025-02-18 12:25:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the
facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their
value is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false.
The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious
violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."  ...
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of
someone murdering
another person in the same household you will find
many cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the
gun that is at
fault.
I did not say "the gun was at fault." I said those in
houses with guns are more likely to suffer serious
violence than those in houses without guns, no matter
where they live. I don't blame the gun. I blame the
people owning and/or using the gun. But nevertheless,
those who got the gun "for protection" tend to come out
worse.
Post by John B.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is
dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they
repeat it over and
over and over.
OK, John, if you were a researcher, what data would you
Are people living in a house with a gun safer or more
at more danger than people living in a house with no gun?
Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood
don't count as research. Neither do your strongly held
opinions. You need good data.
(I suspect you'll evade answering my question.)
Well, since there are many times more successful firearm
defense incidents than firearm homicides I'd say your
conclusion is unclear at best.
First, your assertion is almost certainly wrong.  See
https:// www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-the-
guns- make-us-safer-myth/
Second, it doesn't address the question at hand. Again,
what researchers have found is not people in gun
households getting shot by home invaders. Instead, they
find its FAR more common that one person in a gun
household is shot by another person living in the same
house.
I've known two women who were beaten and threatened with
death by their husbands, before their divorces. Both were
sure that if the relationship continued, they would have
been killed. The most likely tool would have been the
guy's gun.
Is there criminal use of firearms? Yes there is.
Your reference claims the highest estimates of defensive
use are overstated. OK, that is inherent to a range of
estimates from many sources.
The fact remains that people do defend themselves, and
choose to arm themselves at increasing rates, particularly
https://www.essence.com/news/black-women-gun-ownership-rise/
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2024/10/21/
growing_diversity_of_gun_owners_nationwide_1066453.html
This says to me that they understand their own situation,
neighborhood and risk levels better than you understand
their lives.
Sorry, no. It says they _believe_ they understand the risk
levels. They _believe_ that getting a gun will make them
safer. They _believe_ that there's a reasonable chance
they'll use it in self defense. But their belief does not
make those facts true.
We mentioned that the NRA has admitted that the odds of
needing a gun for defense are infinitesmal.
https://www.mediamatters.org/national-rifle-association/nra-
commentary-admits-odds-needing-gun-defend-yourself-are-
infinitesimal
Infinitesmal on the order of randomly shuffling a deck of
cards into perfect sorted order.
As with all discussions involving probability and large data
sets, it does not mean that it's absolutely impossible to
need a gun for defense. But it does mean that something over
99% of the people who _think_ they'll need it are wrong.
If this were an issue being bet on at Las Vegas, the smart
money would certainly not bet in favor of needing a gun.
OK, there's some common ground.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/
out of 340 million citizens (or perhaps 360 million or so
humans). Also "infinitesimal", around 0.0000021055.
That's much smaller than lowest estimates of successful
defensive use of firearms.
And "infinitesimal" except when it's me.
And I also agree with you that most firearm purchases for
defense will never be used in defense, just as most patch
kits carried habitually by cyclists will never be used on
the road. Or most fire extinguishers for that matter.
Well, you are a knowledgeable sort, so tell me your opinion. If the
city of Chicago were to pass a law that anyone poses sing a firearm
in their home would be subject to $50,000 fine and 1 year in jail. or
what penalty would be required to ensure compliance with the law.
What would be the effect on crime in the city (?-)
Probably an increase in crime, especially home invasions.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
Frank Krygowski
2025-02-18 15:58:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
If the
city of Chicago were to pass a law that anyone poses sing a firearm
in their home would be subject to $50,000 fine and 1 year in jail. or
what penalty would be required to ensure compliance with the law.
What would be the effect on crime in the city (?-)
Probably an increase in crime, especially home invasions.
:-) So, so scary!!!

Damn, such paranoia!
--
- Frank Krygowski
AMuzi
2025-02-18 13:47:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the
facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their
value is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false.
The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious
violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."  ...
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of
someone murdering
another person in the same household you will find
many cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the
gun that is at
fault.
I did not say "the gun was at fault." I said those in
houses with guns are more likely to suffer serious
violence than those in houses without guns, no matter
where they live. I don't blame the gun. I blame the
people owning and/or using the gun. But nevertheless,
those who got the gun "for protection" tend to come out
worse.
Post by John B.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is
dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they
repeat it over and
over and over.
OK, John, if you were a researcher, what data would you
Are people living in a house with a gun safer or more
at more danger than people living in a house with no gun?
Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood
don't count as research. Neither do your strongly held
opinions. You need good data.
(I suspect you'll evade answering my question.)
Well, since there are many times more successful firearm
defense incidents than firearm homicides I'd say your
conclusion is unclear at best.
First, your assertion is almost certainly wrong.  See
https:// www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-the-
guns- make-us-safer-myth/
Second, it doesn't address the question at hand. Again,
what researchers have found is not people in gun
households getting shot by home invaders. Instead, they
find its FAR more common that one person in a gun
household is shot by another person living in the same
house.
I've known two women who were beaten and threatened with
death by their husbands, before their divorces. Both were
sure that if the relationship continued, they would have
been killed. The most likely tool would have been the
guy's gun.
Is there criminal use of firearms? Yes there is.
Your reference claims the highest estimates of defensive
use are overstated. OK, that is inherent to a range of
estimates from many sources.
The fact remains that people do defend themselves, and
choose to arm themselves at increasing rates, particularly
https://www.essence.com/news/black-women-gun-ownership-rise/
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2024/10/21/
growing_diversity_of_gun_owners_nationwide_1066453.html
This says to me that they understand their own situation,
neighborhood and risk levels better than you understand
their lives.
Sorry, no. It says they _believe_ they understand the risk
levels. They _believe_ that getting a gun will make them
safer. They _believe_ that there's a reasonable chance
they'll use it in self defense. But their belief does not
make those facts true.
We mentioned that the NRA has admitted that the odds of
needing a gun for defense are infinitesmal.
https://www.mediamatters.org/national-rifle-association/nra-
commentary-admits-odds-needing-gun-defend-yourself-are-
infinitesimal
Infinitesmal on the order of randomly shuffling a deck of
cards into perfect sorted order.
As with all discussions involving probability and large data
sets, it does not mean that it's absolutely impossible to
need a gun for defense. But it does mean that something over
99% of the people who _think_ they'll need it are wrong.
If this were an issue being bet on at Las Vegas, the smart
money would certainly not bet in favor of needing a gun.
OK, there's some common ground.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/
out of 340 million citizens (or perhaps 360 million or so
humans). Also "infinitesimal", around 0.0000021055.
That's much smaller than lowest estimates of successful
defensive use of firearms.
And "infinitesimal" except when it's me.
And I also agree with you that most firearm purchases for
defense will never be used in defense, just as most patch
kits carried habitually by cyclists will never be used on
the road. Or most fire extinguishers for that matter.
Well, you are a knowledgeable sort, so tell me your opinion. If the
city of Chicago were to pass a law that anyone poses sing a firearm
in their home would be subject to $50,000 fine and 1 year in jail. or
what penalty would be required to ensure compliance with the law.
What would be the effect on crime in the city (?-)
Chicago prosecutors will not charge it and if/when they do,
judges will allow a plea to disorderly conduct with a small
suspended fine.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Catrike Ryder
2025-02-17 21:12:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 15:05:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."  ...
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone murdering
another person in the same household you will find many cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the gun that is at
fault.
I did not say "the gun was at fault." I said those in houses with
guns are more likely to suffer serious violence than those in houses
without guns, no matter where they live. I don't blame the gun. I
blame the people owning and/or using the gun. But nevertheless,
those who got the gun "for protection" tend to come out worse.
Post by John B.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat it over and
over and over.
OK, John, if you were a researcher, what data would you use to
Are people living in a house with a gun safer or more at more danger
than people living in a house with no gun?
Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood don't count as
research. Neither do your strongly held opinions. You need good data.
(I suspect you'll evade answering my question.)
Well, since there are many times more successful firearm defense
incidents than firearm homicides I'd say your conclusion is unclear
at best.
First, your assertion is almost certainly wrong.  See https://
www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-the-guns- make-us-safer-myth/
Second, it doesn't address the question at hand. Again, what
researchers have found is not people in gun households getting shot by
home invaders. Instead, they find its FAR more common that one person
in a gun household is shot by another person living in the same house.
I've known two women who were beaten and threatened with death by
their husbands, before their divorces. Both were sure that if the
relationship continued, they would have been killed. The most likely
tool would have been the guy's gun.
Krygowski berates people for arguing with personal anecdotes... then
he argues with a personal anecdote.
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Is there criminal use of firearms? Yes there is.
Your reference claims the highest estimates of defensive use are
overstated. OK, that is inherent to a range of estimates from many sources.
The fact remains that people do defend themselves, and choose to arm
https://www.essence.com/news/black-women-gun-ownership-rise/
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2024/10/21/
growing_diversity_of_gun_owners_nationwide_1066453.html
This says to me that they understand their own situation, neighborhood
and risk levels better than you understand their lives.
Sorry, no. It says they _believe_ they understand the risk levels. They
_believe_ that getting a gun will make them safer. They _believe_ that
there's a reasonable chance they'll use it in self defense. But their
belief does not make those facts true.
We mentioned that the NRA has admitted that the odds of needing a gun
for defense are infinitesmal.
https://www.mediamatters.org/national-rifle-association/nra-commentary-admits-odds-needing-gun-defend-yourself-are-infinitesimal
Infinitesmal on the order of randomly shuffling a deck of cards into
perfect sorted order.
As with all discussions involving probability and large data sets, it
does not mean that it's absolutely impossible to need a gun for defense.
But it does mean that something over 99% of the people who _think_
they'll need it are wrong.
As if you'd know...
Post by Frank Krygowski
If this were an issue being bet on at Las Vegas, the smart money would
certainly not bet in favor of needing a gun.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
John B.
2025-02-18 02:32:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:15:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."  ...
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone murdering
another person in the same household you will find many cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the gun that is at
fault.
I did not say "the gun was at fault." I said those in houses with guns
are more likely to suffer serious violence than those in houses
without guns, no matter where they live. I don't blame the gun. I
blame the people owning and/or using the gun. But nevertheless, those
who got the gun "for protection" tend to come out worse.
Post by John B.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat it over and
over and over.
OK, John, if you were a researcher, what data would you use to answer
Are people living in a house with a gun safer or more at more danger
than people living in a house with no gun?
Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood don't count as
research. Neither do your strongly held opinions. You need good data.
(I suspect you'll evade answering my question.)
Well, since there are many times more successful firearm defense
incidents than firearm homicides I'd say your conclusion is unclear at
best.
First, your assertion is almost certainly wrong. See
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-the-guns-make-us-safer-myth/
Second, it doesn't address the question at hand. Again, what researchers
have found is not people in gun households getting shot by home
invaders. Instead, they find its FAR more common that one person in a
gun household is shot by another person living in the same house.
I've known two women who were beaten and threatened with death by their
husbands, before their divorces. Both were sure that if the relationship
continued, they would have been killed. The most likely tool would have
been the guy's gun.
One can only gaze with amazement at your experiences. I've lived in a
six States, served in the A.F. for 20 years and lived in 5 foreign
countries and I've never known anyone who beat their partner, male or
female. Although I or my wife did know a few couples where the wife
"cheated" on the husband and might have been thought to deserve it.
--
Cheers,

John B.
zen cycle
2025-02-18 11:48:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:15:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."  ...
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone murdering
another person in the same household you will find many cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the gun that is at
fault.
I did not say "the gun was at fault." I said those in houses with guns
are more likely to suffer serious violence than those in houses
without guns, no matter where they live. I don't blame the gun. I
blame the people owning and/or using the gun. But nevertheless, those
who got the gun "for protection" tend to come out worse.
Post by John B.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat it over and
over and over.
OK, John, if you were a researcher, what data would you use to answer
Are people living in a house with a gun safer or more at more danger
than people living in a house with no gun?
Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood don't count as
research. Neither do your strongly held opinions. You need good data.
(I suspect you'll evade answering my question.)
Well, since there are many times more successful firearm defense
incidents than firearm homicides I'd say your conclusion is unclear at
best.
First, your assertion is almost certainly wrong. See
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-the-guns-make-us-safer-myth/
Second, it doesn't address the question at hand. Again, what researchers
have found is not people in gun households getting shot by home
invaders. Instead, they find its FAR more common that one person in a
gun household is shot by another person living in the same house.
I've known two women who were beaten and threatened with death by their
husbands, before their divorces. Both were sure that if the relationship
continued, they would have been killed. The most likely tool would have
been the guy's gun.
One can only gaze with amazement at your experiences. I've lived in a
six States, served in the A.F. for 20 years and lived in 5 foreign
countries and I've never known anyone who beat their partner, male or
female. Although I or my wife did know a few couples where the wife
"cheated" on the husband and might have been thought to deserve it.
Since John has never seen a man abuse his wife, wife abuse does not exist.
John B.
2025-02-18 15:42:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:48:01 -0500, zen cycle
Post by zen cycle
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:15:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."  ...
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone murdering
another person in the same household you will find many cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the gun that is at
fault.
I did not say "the gun was at fault." I said those in houses with guns
are more likely to suffer serious violence than those in houses
without guns, no matter where they live. I don't blame the gun. I
blame the people owning and/or using the gun. But nevertheless, those
who got the gun "for protection" tend to come out worse.
Post by John B.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat it over and
over and over.
OK, John, if you were a researcher, what data would you use to answer
Are people living in a house with a gun safer or more at more danger
than people living in a house with no gun?
Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood don't count as
research. Neither do your strongly held opinions. You need good data.
(I suspect you'll evade answering my question.)
Well, since there are many times more successful firearm defense
incidents than firearm homicides I'd say your conclusion is unclear at
best.
First, your assertion is almost certainly wrong. See
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-the-guns-make-us-safer-myth/
Second, it doesn't address the question at hand. Again, what researchers
have found is not people in gun households getting shot by home
invaders. Instead, they find its FAR more common that one person in a
gun household is shot by another person living in the same house.
I've known two women who were beaten and threatened with death by their
husbands, before their divorces. Both were sure that if the relationship
continued, they would have been killed. The most likely tool would have
been the guy's gun.
One can only gaze with amazement at your experiences. I've lived in a
six States, served in the A.F. for 20 years and lived in 5 foreign
countries and I've never known anyone who beat their partner, male or
female. Although I or my wife did know a few couples where the wife
"cheated" on the husband and might have been thought to deserve it.
Since John has never seen a man abuse his wife, wife abuse does not exist.
Nope. I'm sure that they do exist. I merely indicated that, at least
in my experience, they are not common.
--
Cheers,

John B.
Catrike Ryder
2025-02-18 12:16:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:15:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."  ...
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone murdering
another person in the same household you will find many cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the gun that is at
fault.
I did not say "the gun was at fault." I said those in houses with guns
are more likely to suffer serious violence than those in houses
without guns, no matter where they live. I don't blame the gun. I
blame the people owning and/or using the gun. But nevertheless, those
who got the gun "for protection" tend to come out worse.
Post by John B.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat it over and
over and over.
OK, John, if you were a researcher, what data would you use to answer
Are people living in a house with a gun safer or more at more danger
than people living in a house with no gun?
Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood don't count as
research. Neither do your strongly held opinions. You need good data.
(I suspect you'll evade answering my question.)
Well, since there are many times more successful firearm defense
incidents than firearm homicides I'd say your conclusion is unclear at
best.
First, your assertion is almost certainly wrong. See
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-the-guns-make-us-safer-myth/
Second, it doesn't address the question at hand. Again, what researchers
have found is not people in gun households getting shot by home
invaders. Instead, they find its FAR more common that one person in a
gun household is shot by another person living in the same house.
I've known two women who were beaten and threatened with death by their
husbands, before their divorces. Both were sure that if the relationship
continued, they would have been killed. The most likely tool would have
been the guy's gun.
One can only gaze with amazement at your experiences. I've lived in a
six States, served in the A.F. for 20 years and lived in 5 foreign
countries and I've never known anyone who beat their partner, male or
female. Although I or my wife did know a few couples where the wife
"cheated" on the husband and might have been thought to deserve it.
Krygowski berates other people's personal anecdotes but then quickly
conjures up one of his own.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
Frank Krygowski
2025-02-18 15:51:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:15:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
I've known two women who were beaten and threatened with death by their
husbands, before their divorces. Both were sure that if the relationship
continued, they would have been killed. The most likely tool would have
been the guy's gun.
One can only gaze with amazement at your experiences. I've lived in a
six States, served in the A.F. for 20 years and lived in 5 foreign
countries and I've never known anyone who beat their partner, male or
female.
To be clear: I didn't know either of the men in the relationships I
described. I knew both of the women very well. I still don't know many
of the details, because it wasn't something I really wanted to talk
about with either of them.

And of course, you'll be quick to deny the details I do know.

But a person would be a fool to deny that sort of stuff happens.
--
- Frank Krygowski
AMuzi
2025-02-18 15:55:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:15:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
I've known two women who were beaten and threatened with
death by their
husbands, before their divorces. Both were sure that if
the relationship
continued, they would have been killed. The most likely
tool would have
been the guy's gun.
One can only gaze with amazement at your experiences. I've
lived in a
six States, served in the A.F. for 20 years and lived in 5
foreign
countries and I've never known anyone who beat their
partner, male or
female.
To be clear: I didn't know either of the men in the
relationships I described. I knew both of the women very
well. I still don't know many of the details, because it
wasn't something I really wanted to talk about with either
of them.
And of course, you'll be quick to deny the details I do know.
But a person would be a fool to deny that sort of stuff
happens.
Yes it does. Every day.

Some incidents with firearms:
https://nypost.com/2025/02/18/us-news/nypd-cop-shot-during-standoff-with-barricaded-suspect-in-nyc/

and some without:
https://nypost.com/2025/02/18/us-news/michigan-man-drives-over-700-miles-sets-fire-to-home-of-man-who-communicated-with-his-ex-officials/

https://www.wlbt.com/2025/02/07/woman-literally-beaten-death-jackson-hotel-suspect-arrested/
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
John B.
2025-02-18 00:33:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the
facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value
is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The
people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious
violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."  ...
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone
murdering
another person in the same household you will find many
cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the gun
that is at
fault.
I did not say "the gun was at fault." I said those in houses
with guns are more likely to suffer serious violence than
those in houses without guns, no matter where they live. I
don't blame the gun. I blame the people owning and/or using
the gun. But nevertheless, those who got the gun "for
protection" tend to come out worse.
Post by John B.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is
dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat it
over and
over and over.
OK, John, if you were a researcher, what data would you use
Are people living in a house with a gun safer or more at
more danger than people living in a house with no gun?
Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood don't
count as research. Neither do your strongly held opinions.
You need good data.
(I suspect you'll evade answering my question.)
Well, since there are many times more successful firearm
defense incidents than firearm homicides I'd say your
conclusion is unclear at best.
Given that Frank now derides personal memory and experiences it goes
without saying that his posts will only be made where proof, i.e.,
independent data, is available to prove his assertions.
--
Cheers,

John B.
Frank Krygowski
2025-02-18 02:14:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
Given that Frank now derides personal memory and experiences it goes
without saying that his posts will only be made where proof, i.e.,
independent data, is available to prove his assertions.
Come on, John. It's your tricycle riding buddy who calls personal
experiences lies if he doesn't like them. You seem to forget that.

For myself, I fully believe your personal memory and your account of
your experience when thugs actually broke into your house. As you've
clearly admitted, your gun did you no good and could not have done you
any good.

"Wait, please, and do not slit my wife's throat while I go into the
other room and get my gun" would not have worked.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Catrike Ryder
2025-02-18 11:59:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:14:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
Given that Frank now derides personal memory and experiences it goes
without saying that his posts will only be made where proof, i.e.,
independent data, is available to prove his assertions.
Come on, John. It's your tricycle riding buddy who calls personal
experiences lies if he doesn't like them. You seem to forget that.
For myself, I fully believe your personal memory and your account of
your experience when thugs actually broke into your house. As you've
clearly admitted, your gun did you no good and could not have done you
any good.
"Wait, please, and do not slit my wife's throat while I go into the
other room and get my gun" would not have worked.
That's not just a strawman, it's a large pile of straw. That one
instance verifies Krygowski's claim is a conclusion that only one
totally devoid of logical thinking would make.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder
2025-02-17 09:10:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
well the gun in the house thing is certainly, correct.... as long as
someone in the house wants to shoot you :-)
But I suspect that many people live in houses where the other partner
doesn't want to shoot his, hers, its, partner.
What you posted, John, is blindingly obvious. But it avoids the point
that I've made, and that data has confirmed.
<LOL> Nonsense...
Post by Frank Krygowski
A very large proportion of people with guns in the home say they have
the gun for "protection." That is, they believe they are less likely to
be subject to serious violence if they have a gun readily available.
The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with guns
in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and that's
true no matter where they live. The serious violence normally does not
come from outsiders. It comes from someone in their own house.
Beyond that, the gun isn't very likely to be useful against outside
aggressors, as your own personal story indicated.
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."
Nonsense, there's no data that even hints at such a thing. The idea
that the reason someone might be "more likely to suffer serious
violence" because they have a gun in their home is ridiculous beyond
rational thought.
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone murdering
another person in the same household you will find many cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the gun that is at
fault. As I've mentioned my own family had guns in the house for at
least three and counting my kids four generations with no problems and
growing up in rural New England guns were not uncommon, as I've said,
every farm family, for sure, had at one. How else to keep the fox out
of the chicken house.
I could go even further. In early colonial times, before any thought
of a nation some colonies had a law that every adult male MUST have a
weapon and bring them to church on Sunday so that a check could be
made that he actually had a weapon and ammunition. Strange, isn't it
that with a gun in every house in settlement there are no records of
massive gun deaths.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat it over and
over and over.
The old saying that "guns don't shoot people, people shoot people"
really is true.
Krygowski insists that correlation implies causation, a common
fallacious argument used by people who don't know any better.

I suspect that people who don't vote are more likely to suffer
violence than people who do vote. If that were true, according to
Krygowski's twisted "logic," not voting is dangerous.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
John B.
2025-02-17 11:25:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 04:10:05 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
well the gun in the house thing is certainly, correct.... as long as
someone in the house wants to shoot you :-)
But I suspect that many people live in houses where the other partner
doesn't want to shoot his, hers, its, partner.
What you posted, John, is blindingly obvious. But it avoids the point
that I've made, and that data has confirmed.
<LOL> Nonsense...
Post by Frank Krygowski
A very large proportion of people with guns in the home say they have
the gun for "protection." That is, they believe they are less likely to
be subject to serious violence if they have a gun readily available.
The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with guns
in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and that's
true no matter where they live. The serious violence normally does not
come from outsiders. It comes from someone in their own house.
Beyond that, the gun isn't very likely to be useful against outside
aggressors, as your own personal story indicated.
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."
Nonsense, there's no data that even hints at such a thing. The idea
that the reason someone might be "more likely to suffer serious
violence" because they have a gun in their home is ridiculous beyond
rational thought.
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone murdering
another person in the same household you will find many cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the gun that is at
fault. As I've mentioned my own family had guns in the house for at
least three and counting my kids four generations with no problems and
growing up in rural New England guns were not uncommon, as I've said,
every farm family, for sure, had at one. How else to keep the fox out
of the chicken house.
I could go even further. In early colonial times, before any thought
of a nation some colonies had a law that every adult male MUST have a
weapon and bring them to church on Sunday so that a check could be
made that he actually had a weapon and ammunition. Strange, isn't it
that with a gun in every house in settlement there are no records of
massive gun deaths.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat it over and
over and over.
The old saying that "guns don't shoot people, people shoot people"
really is true.
Krygowski insists that correlation implies causation, a common
fallacious argument used by people who don't know any better.
I suspect that people who don't vote are more likely to suffer
violence than people who do vote. If that were true, according to
Krygowski's twisted "logic," not voting is dangerous.
I came across something today that references the danger of guns in
the house that Frankie would have us be live is a major danger.
that
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2848468/
"During 2006 and 2007, again, approximately 70 percent of gun-shot
deaths were suicides."

So now Frankie is preventing suicides. He already justified killing
children in autos and now if he can just do away with the black pickup
trucks ...... (and that guy next door with the machine gun...)
--
Cheers,

John B.
Catrike Ryder
2025-02-17 12:01:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 04:10:05 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
well the gun in the house thing is certainly, correct.... as long as
someone in the house wants to shoot you :-)
But I suspect that many people live in houses where the other partner
doesn't want to shoot his, hers, its, partner.
What you posted, John, is blindingly obvious. But it avoids the point
that I've made, and that data has confirmed.
<LOL> Nonsense...
Post by Frank Krygowski
A very large proportion of people with guns in the home say they have
the gun for "protection." That is, they believe they are less likely to
be subject to serious violence if they have a gun readily available.
The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with guns
in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and that's
true no matter where they live. The serious violence normally does not
come from outsiders. It comes from someone in their own house.
Beyond that, the gun isn't very likely to be useful against outside
aggressors, as your own personal story indicated.
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."
Nonsense, there's no data that even hints at such a thing. The idea
that the reason someone might be "more likely to suffer serious
violence" because they have a gun in their home is ridiculous beyond
rational thought.
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone murdering
another person in the same household you will find many cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the gun that is at
fault. As I've mentioned my own family had guns in the house for at
least three and counting my kids four generations with no problems and
growing up in rural New England guns were not uncommon, as I've said,
every farm family, for sure, had at one. How else to keep the fox out
of the chicken house.
I could go even further. In early colonial times, before any thought
of a nation some colonies had a law that every adult male MUST have a
weapon and bring them to church on Sunday so that a check could be
made that he actually had a weapon and ammunition. Strange, isn't it
that with a gun in every house in settlement there are no records of
massive gun deaths.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat it over and
over and over.
The old saying that "guns don't shoot people, people shoot people"
really is true.
Krygowski insists that correlation implies causation, a common
fallacious argument used by people who don't know any better.
I suspect that people who don't vote are more likely to suffer
violence than people who do vote. If that were true, according to
Krygowski's twisted "logic," not voting is dangerous.
I came across something today that references the danger of guns in
the house that Frankie would have us be live is a major danger.
that
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2848468/
"During 2006 and 2007, again, approximately 70 percent of gun-shot
deaths were suicides."
So now Frankie is preventing suicides. He already justified killing
children in autos and now if he can just do away with the black pickup
trucks ...... (and that guy next door with the machine gun...)
OMG, OMG, OMG! Do you mean that if we take away people's guns nobody
will be able to commit suicide, and nobody will be able to kill their
domestic partners?


--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
2025-02-17 16:43:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 04:10:05 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
well the gun in the house thing is certainly, correct.... as long as
someone in the house wants to shoot you :-)
But I suspect that many people live in houses where the other partner
doesn't want to shoot his, hers, its, partner.
What you posted, John, is blindingly obvious. But it avoids the point
that I've made, and that data has confirmed.
<LOL> Nonsense...
Post by Frank Krygowski
A very large proportion of people with guns in the home say they have
the gun for "protection." That is, they believe they are less likely to
be subject to serious violence if they have a gun readily available.
The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with guns
in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and that's
true no matter where they live. The serious violence normally does not
come from outsiders. It comes from someone in their own house.
Beyond that, the gun isn't very likely to be useful against outside
aggressors, as your own personal story indicated.
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."
Nonsense, there's no data that even hints at such a thing. The idea
that the reason someone might be "more likely to suffer serious
violence" because they have a gun in their home is ridiculous beyond
rational thought.
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone murdering
another person in the same household you will find many cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the gun that is at
fault. As I've mentioned my own family had guns in the house for at
least three and counting my kids four generations with no problems and
growing up in rural New England guns were not uncommon, as I've said,
every farm family, for sure, had at one. How else to keep the fox out
of the chicken house.
I could go even further. In early colonial times, before any thought
of a nation some colonies had a law that every adult male MUST have a
weapon and bring them to church on Sunday so that a check could be
made that he actually had a weapon and ammunition. Strange, isn't it
that with a gun in every house in settlement there are no records of
massive gun deaths.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat it over and
over and over.
The old saying that "guns don't shoot people, people shoot people"
really is true.
Krygowski insists that correlation implies causation, a common
fallacious argument used by people who don't know any better.
I suspect that people who don't vote are more likely to suffer
violence than people who do vote. If that were true, according to
Krygowski's twisted "logic," not voting is dangerous.
I came across something today that references the danger of guns in
the house that Frankie would have us be live is a major danger.
that
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2848468/
"During 2006 and 2007, again, approximately 70 percent of gun-shot
deaths were suicides."
So now Frankie is preventing suicides. He already justified killing
children in autos and now if he can just do away with the black pickup
trucks ...... (and that guy next door with the machine gun...)
OMG, OMG, OMG! Do you mean that if we take away people's guns nobody
will be able to commit suicide, and nobody will be able to kill their
domestic partners?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Opportunity is certainly seems to have a effect, on the whole places with
restrictions on weapons have less use of them, it’s certainly not a hard
concept to understand or equally can see it around the world.

This said your neighbours to the North who seem to have very broadly
similar set in terms of general set up, seem to do much less killing of
each other so unlikely Frank I’m unconvinced it’s the whole thing, clearly
if one has less access but unless I’m mistaken the Canadian have guns maybe
not as many but guns are about but they don’t have the levels of gun
violence that the US does.

Roger Merriman
Catrike Ryder
2025-02-17 17:13:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger Merriman
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 04:10:05 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
well the gun in the house thing is certainly, correct.... as long as
someone in the house wants to shoot you :-)
But I suspect that many people live in houses where the other partner
doesn't want to shoot his, hers, its, partner.
What you posted, John, is blindingly obvious. But it avoids the point
that I've made, and that data has confirmed.
<LOL> Nonsense...
Post by Frank Krygowski
A very large proportion of people with guns in the home say they have
the gun for "protection." That is, they believe they are less likely to
be subject to serious violence if they have a gun readily available.
The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with guns
in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and that's
true no matter where they live. The serious violence normally does not
come from outsiders. It comes from someone in their own house.
Beyond that, the gun isn't very likely to be useful against outside
aggressors, as your own personal story indicated.
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."
Nonsense, there's no data that even hints at such a thing. The idea
that the reason someone might be "more likely to suffer serious
violence" because they have a gun in their home is ridiculous beyond
rational thought.
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone murdering
another person in the same household you will find many cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the gun that is at
fault. As I've mentioned my own family had guns in the house for at
least three and counting my kids four generations with no problems and
growing up in rural New England guns were not uncommon, as I've said,
every farm family, for sure, had at one. How else to keep the fox out
of the chicken house.
I could go even further. In early colonial times, before any thought
of a nation some colonies had a law that every adult male MUST have a
weapon and bring them to church on Sunday so that a check could be
made that he actually had a weapon and ammunition. Strange, isn't it
that with a gun in every house in settlement there are no records of
massive gun deaths.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat it over and
over and over.
The old saying that "guns don't shoot people, people shoot people"
really is true.
Krygowski insists that correlation implies causation, a common
fallacious argument used by people who don't know any better.
I suspect that people who don't vote are more likely to suffer
violence than people who do vote. If that were true, according to
Krygowski's twisted "logic," not voting is dangerous.
I came across something today that references the danger of guns in
the house that Frankie would have us be live is a major danger.
that
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2848468/
"During 2006 and 2007, again, approximately 70 percent of gun-shot
deaths were suicides."
So now Frankie is preventing suicides. He already justified killing
children in autos and now if he can just do away with the black pickup
trucks ...... (and that guy next door with the machine gun...)
OMG, OMG, OMG! Do you mean that if we take away people's guns nobody
will be able to commit suicide, and nobody will be able to kill their
domestic partners?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Opportunity is certainly seems to have a effect, on the whole places with
restrictions on weapons have less use of them, it’s certainly not a hard
concept to understand or equally can see it around the world.
This said your neighbours to the North who seem to have very broadly
similar set in terms of general set up, seem to do much less killing of
each other so unlikely Frank I’m unconvinced it’s the whole thing, clearly
if one has less access but unless I’m mistaken the Canadian have guns maybe
not as many but guns are about but they don’t have the levels of gun
violence that the US does.
Roger Merriman
There's very different cultures between big blue US cities where
there's so much violent crime and Canadian cities. Guns are not the
problem. The crime culture is the problem. Take away a criminal's gun
and he still a criminal.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
2025-02-17 17:30:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by Roger Merriman
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 04:10:05 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
well the gun in the house thing is certainly, correct.... as long as
someone in the house wants to shoot you :-)
But I suspect that many people live in houses where the other partner
doesn't want to shoot his, hers, its, partner.
What you posted, John, is blindingly obvious. But it avoids the point
that I've made, and that data has confirmed.
<LOL> Nonsense...
Post by Frank Krygowski
A very large proportion of people with guns in the home say they have
the gun for "protection." That is, they believe they are less likely to
be subject to serious violence if they have a gun readily available.
The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with guns
in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and that's
true no matter where they live. The serious violence normally does not
come from outsiders. It comes from someone in their own house.
Beyond that, the gun isn't very likely to be useful against outside
aggressors, as your own personal story indicated.
I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the facts. You should be
able to love guns while understanding that their value is highly overrated.
"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with
guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and
that's true no matter where they live."
Nonsense, there's no data that even hints at such a thing. The idea
that the reason someone might be "more likely to suffer serious
violence" because they have a gun in their home is ridiculous beyond
rational thought.
I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone murdering
another person in the same household you will find many cases where a
gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the gun that is at
fault. As I've mentioned my own family had guns in the house for at
least three and counting my kids four generations with no problems and
growing up in rural New England guns were not uncommon, as I've said,
every farm family, for sure, had at one. How else to keep the fox out
of the chicken house.
I could go even further. In early colonial times, before any thought
of a nation some colonies had a law that every adult male MUST have a
weapon and bring them to church on Sunday so that a check could be
made that he actually had a weapon and ammunition. Strange, isn't it
that with a gun in every house in settlement there are no records of
massive gun deaths.
In short, the statement that a gun in the house is dangerious is just
what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat it over and
over and over.
The old saying that "guns don't shoot people, people shoot people"
really is true.
Krygowski insists that correlation implies causation, a common
fallacious argument used by people who don't know any better.
I suspect that people who don't vote are more likely to suffer
violence than people who do vote. If that were true, according to
Krygowski's twisted "logic," not voting is dangerous.
I came across something today that references the danger of guns in
the house that Frankie would have us be live is a major danger.
that
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2848468/
"During 2006 and 2007, again, approximately 70 percent of gun-shot
deaths were suicides."
So now Frankie is preventing suicides. He already justified killing
children in autos and now if he can just do away with the black pickup
trucks ...... (and that guy next door with the machine gun...)
OMG, OMG, OMG! Do you mean that if we take away people's guns nobody
will be able to commit suicide, and nobody will be able to kill their
domestic partners?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Opportunity is certainly seems to have a effect, on the whole places with
restrictions on weapons have less use of them, it’s certainly not a hard
concept to understand or equally can see it around the world.
This said your neighbours to the North who seem to have very broadly
similar set in terms of general set up, seem to do much less killing of
each other so unlikely Frank I’m unconvinced it’s the whole thing, clearly
if one has less access but unless I’m mistaken the Canadian have guns maybe
not as many but guns are about but they don’t have the levels of gun
violence that the US does.
Roger Merriman
There's very different cultures between big blue US cities where
there's so much violent crime and Canadian cities. Guns are not the
problem. The crime culture is the problem. Take away a criminal's gun
and he still a criminal.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I’d note that in the UK while criminals I’m sure can get guns, because of
the response ie for career criminals or even folks somewhere in between,
Gun use means your now the priority and if your viewed as threat by a
firearm officer they will kill you.

It’s only very foolish who use guns for that reason.

Admittedly uk gun ownership was never as high as US but in urban settings
guns usefulness is rather limited, and criminals are much less dangerous
without guns, I think would be a rather brave US city that removed folks
guns/imposed strict restrictions but remove access is certainly a proven
method.

Roger Merriman
Frank Krygowski
2025-02-17 20:20:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger Merriman
Opportunity is certainly seems to have a effect, on the whole places with
restrictions on weapons have less use of them, it’s certainly not a hard
concept to understand or equally can see it around the world.
:-) "Places with restrictions on weapons have less use of them" is
_very_ hard for some people to understand!
Post by Roger Merriman
This said your neighbours to the North who seem to have very broadly
similar set in terms of general set up, seem to do much less killing of
each other so unlikely Frank I’m unconvinced it’s the whole thing, clearly
if one has less access but unless I’m mistaken the Canadian have guns maybe
not as many but guns are about but they don’t have the levels of gun
violence that the US does.
Canadians average about 37 guns per 100 citizens. Americans average
about 120 guns per 100 citizens. And Canada restricts gun types.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Canada

Yes, some people in both nations are hunters, farmers, etc. with
rational and practical reasons for owning guns. Some are target shooting
hobbyists. But the U.S. dominates in the number of people who are so
afraid that they feel they _must_ have a gun for "protection."

Despite the paucity of guns intended for "protection," Canadians don't
seem to suffer from hordes of bad guys beating down front doors of
homes. And I've not read of Canadian bike path users suffering from
vicious attacks - although I suppose anything is possible!
--
- Frank Krygowski
AMuzi
2025-02-17 20:40:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger Merriman
Opportunity is certainly seems to have a effect, on the
whole places with
restrictions on weapons have less use of them, it’s
certainly not a hard
concept to understand or equally can see it around the world.
:-)  "Places with restrictions on weapons have less use of
them" is _very_ hard for some people to understand!
Post by Roger Merriman
This said your neighbours to the North who seem to have
very broadly
similar set in terms of general set up, seem to do much
less killing of
each other so unlikely Frank I’m unconvinced it’s the
whole thing, clearly
if one has less access but unless I’m mistaken the
Canadian have guns maybe
not as many but guns are about but they don’t have the
levels of gun
violence that the US does.
Canadians average about 37 guns per 100 citizens. Americans
average about 120 guns per 100 citizens. And Canada
restricts gun types. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Firearms_regulation_in_Canada
Yes, some people in both nations are hunters, farmers, etc.
with rational and practical reasons for owning guns. Some
are target shooting hobbyists. But the U.S. dominates in the
number of people who are so afraid that they feel they
_must_ have a gun for "protection."
Despite the paucity of guns intended for "protection,"
Canadians don't seem to suffer from hordes of bad guys
beating down front doors of homes. And I've not read of
Canadian bike path users suffering from vicious attacks -
although I suppose anything is possible!
Right and as noted by Mr Tricycle (and others here over the
years) Canada enjoys much smaller rates of crime and
especially violent crime overall. Different culture,
different population densities, etc. Mexico conversely has
even more restrictive firearms regulation than Canada, and
those statutes are many times older, and yet violent crime
and especially homicide by firearm are radically higher in
Mexico. Different culture with many differences, not only
regarding homicide.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Frank Krygowski
2025-02-18 01:58:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Despite the paucity of guns intended for "protection," Canadians don't
seem to suffer from hordes of bad guys beating down front doors of
homes. And I've not read of Canadian bike path users suffering from
vicious attacks - although I suppose anything is possible!
Right and as noted by Mr Tricycle (and others here over the years)
Canada enjoys much smaller rates of crime and especially violent crime
overall. Different culture, different population densities, etc.  Mexico
conversely has even more restrictive firearms regulation than Canada,
and those statutes are many times older, and yet violent crime and
especially homicide by firearm are radically higher in Mexico.
Different culture with many differences, not only regarding homicide.
Mexico is famous for its relatively weak government, its drug cartels
and their control over various levels of government, its massive illegal
importation of American guns, its income inequality, its lack of legal
income opportunities, etc. Yes, there are many factors, but prevalence
of guns is absolutely a big contributor to their problems. (How much
power would the cartels have without guns?)

Of the factors I listed, note how many apply to young American guys
living in inner city ghettos. The situation is much the same. And of
course, in the U.S. efforts to (e.g.) reduce income inequality get
blasted as "socialism," and efforts to restrict the flow of guns are
blasted as "unconstitutional." But without the guns, the murder rate
would have to be much lower. It's a fact that one gang can't quickly
kill four of the opposing gang just by using clubs and knives. It's just
not practical.

Canadians can and do get the guns they need for legitimate uses. The
restrictions are no great burden on them. And partly because their
criminal types have much more trouble getting and keeping guns, ordinary
citizens don't feel the need to nurture Quick Draw fantasies.
--
- Frank Krygowski
AMuzi
2025-02-18 02:15:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Despite the paucity of guns intended for "protection,"
Canadians don't seem to suffer from hordes of bad guys
beating down front doors of homes. And I've not read of
Canadian bike path users suffering from vicious attacks -
although I suppose anything is possible!
Right and as noted by Mr Tricycle (and others here over
the years) Canada enjoys much smaller rates of crime and
especially violent crime overall. Different culture,
different population densities, etc.  Mexico conversely
has even more restrictive firearms regulation than Canada,
and those statutes are many times older, and yet violent
crime and especially homicide by firearm are radically
higher in Mexico. Different culture with many differences,
not only regarding homicide.
Mexico is famous for its relatively weak government, its
drug cartels and their control over various levels of
government, its massive illegal importation of American
guns, its income inequality, its lack of legal income
opportunities, etc. Yes, there are many factors, but
prevalence of guns is absolutely a big contributor to their
problems. (How much power would the cartels have without guns?)
Of the factors I listed, note how many apply to young
American guys living in inner city ghettos. The situation is
much the same. And of course, in the U.S. efforts to (e.g.)
reduce income inequality get blasted as "socialism," and
efforts to restrict the flow of guns are blasted as
"unconstitutional." But without the guns, the murder rate
would have to be much lower. It's a fact that one gang can't
quickly kill four of the opposing gang just by using clubs
and knives. It's just not practical.
Canadians can and do get the guns they need for legitimate
uses. The restrictions are no great burden on them. And
partly because their criminal types have much more trouble
getting and keeping guns, ordinary citizens don't feel the
need to nurture Quick Draw fantasies.
Odd you mention socialism. Mexico wrote the world's first
socialist Constitution. How's that going for the first 100
years? Any positive results yet?
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Frank Krygowski
2025-02-18 02:22:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Despite the paucity of guns intended for "protection," Canadians
don't seem to suffer from hordes of bad guys beating down front
doors of homes. And I've not read of Canadian bike path users
suffering from vicious attacks - although I suppose anything is
possible!
Right and as noted by Mr Tricycle (and others here over the years)
Canada enjoys much smaller rates of crime and especially violent
crime overall. Different culture, different population densities,
etc.  Mexico conversely has even more restrictive firearms regulation
than Canada, and those statutes are many times older, and yet violent
crime and especially homicide by firearm are radically higher in
Mexico. Different culture with many differences, not only regarding
homicide.
Mexico is famous for its relatively weak government, its drug cartels
and their control over various levels of government, its massive
illegal importation of American guns, its income inequality, its lack
of legal income opportunities, etc. Yes, there are many factors, but
prevalence of guns is absolutely a big contributor to their problems.
(How much power would the cartels have without guns?)
Of the factors I listed, note how many apply to young American guys
living in inner city ghettos. The situation is much the same. And of
course, in the U.S. efforts to (e.g.) reduce income inequality get
blasted as "socialism," and efforts to restrict the flow of guns are
blasted as "unconstitutional." But without the guns, the murder rate
would have to be much lower. It's a fact that one gang can't quickly
kill four of the opposing gang just by using clubs and knives. It's
just not practical.
Canadians can and do get the guns they need for legitimate uses. The
restrictions are no great burden on them. And partly because their
criminal types have much more trouble getting and keeping guns,
ordinary citizens don't feel the need to nurture Quick Draw fantasies.
Odd you mention socialism. Mexico wrote the world's first socialist
Constitution.  How's that going for the first 100 years? Any positive
results yet?
:-) Ah! A change in topic!

It seems that "socialism," however you define it, doesn't work as well
in Mexico as it does in, say, Norway, Netherlands, Finland, France,
Germany, Canada, etc. etc. etc.

But by many measures, those countries work at least as well as the U.S.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Catrike Ryder
2025-02-18 12:13:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:22:02 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Despite the paucity of guns intended for "protection," Canadians
don't seem to suffer from hordes of bad guys beating down front
doors of homes. And I've not read of Canadian bike path users
suffering from vicious attacks - although I suppose anything is
possible!
Right and as noted by Mr Tricycle (and others here over the years)
Canada enjoys much smaller rates of crime and especially violent
crime overall. Different culture, different population densities,
etc.  Mexico conversely has even more restrictive firearms regulation
than Canada, and those statutes are many times older, and yet violent
crime and especially homicide by firearm are radically higher in
Mexico. Different culture with many differences, not only regarding
homicide.
Mexico is famous for its relatively weak government, its drug cartels
and their control over various levels of government, its massive
illegal importation of American guns, its income inequality, its lack
of legal income opportunities, etc. Yes, there are many factors, but
prevalence of guns is absolutely a big contributor to their problems.
(How much power would the cartels have without guns?)
Of the factors I listed, note how many apply to young American guys
living in inner city ghettos. The situation is much the same. And of
course, in the U.S. efforts to (e.g.) reduce income inequality get
blasted as "socialism," and efforts to restrict the flow of guns are
blasted as "unconstitutional." But without the guns, the murder rate
would have to be much lower. It's a fact that one gang can't quickly
kill four of the opposing gang just by using clubs and knives. It's
just not practical.
Canadians can and do get the guns they need for legitimate uses. The
restrictions are no great burden on them. And partly because their
criminal types have much more trouble getting and keeping guns,
ordinary citizens don't feel the need to nurture Quick Draw fantasies.
Odd you mention socialism. Mexico wrote the world's first socialist
Constitution.  How's that going for the first 100 years? Any positive
results yet?
:-) Ah! A change in topic!
It seems that "socialism," however you define it, doesn't work as well
in Mexico as it does in, say, Norway, Netherlands, Finland, France,
Germany, Canada, etc. etc. etc.
But by many measures, those countries work at least as well as the U.S.
That's nonsense. The USA is by far, the most powerful and influential
entity in the world. The countries that Krygowski stated above live
under the protection umbrella of the USA.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
John B.
2025-02-18 14:09:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 07:13:24 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:22:02 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Despite the paucity of guns intended for "protection," Canadians
don't seem to suffer from hordes of bad guys beating down front
doors of homes. And I've not read of Canadian bike path users
suffering from vicious attacks - although I suppose anything is
possible!
Right and as noted by Mr Tricycle (and others here over the years)
Canada enjoys much smaller rates of crime and especially violent
crime overall. Different culture, different population densities,
etc.  Mexico conversely has even more restrictive firearms regulation
than Canada, and those statutes are many times older, and yet violent
crime and especially homicide by firearm are radically higher in
Mexico. Different culture with many differences, not only regarding
homicide.
Mexico is famous for its relatively weak government, its drug cartels
and their control over various levels of government, its massive
illegal importation of American guns, its income inequality, its lack
of legal income opportunities, etc. Yes, there are many factors, but
prevalence of guns is absolutely a big contributor to their problems.
(How much power would the cartels have without guns?)
Of the factors I listed, note how many apply to young American guys
living in inner city ghettos. The situation is much the same. And of
course, in the U.S. efforts to (e.g.) reduce income inequality get
blasted as "socialism," and efforts to restrict the flow of guns are
blasted as "unconstitutional." But without the guns, the murder rate
would have to be much lower. It's a fact that one gang can't quickly
kill four of the opposing gang just by using clubs and knives. It's
just not practical.
Canadians can and do get the guns they need for legitimate uses. The
restrictions are no great burden on them. And partly because their
criminal types have much more trouble getting and keeping guns,
ordinary citizens don't feel the need to nurture Quick Draw fantasies.
Odd you mention socialism. Mexico wrote the world's first socialist
Constitution.  How's that going for the first 100 years? Any positive
results yet?
:-) Ah! A change in topic!
It seems that "socialism," however you define it, doesn't work as well
in Mexico as it does in, say, Norway, Netherlands, Finland, France,
Germany, Canada, etc. etc. etc.
But by many measures, those countries work at least as well as the U.S.
That's nonsense. The USA is by far, the most powerful and influential
entity in the world. The countries that Krygowski stated above live
under the protection umbrella of the USA.
Well, that's our boy. Isn't it.

Just yesterday Frank was ranting and raving that I was posting my
experiences and they weren't backed by any "data" and here he is doing
the same thing.

I just looked up Canada as a socialistic country and was inform,ed
that in Canada: "Canada does have some areas of public life that are
controlled by the government. For example, libraries, the police
force, and the healthcare system do not operate within a free market.
Instead, they are operated as public goods and their budget are paid
for through general taxation."

So much for Frank's statements - Struck out on the first pitch, as it
were :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.
Catrike Ryder
2025-02-18 11:52:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 20:58:45 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Despite the paucity of guns intended for "protection," Canadians don't
seem to suffer from hordes of bad guys beating down front doors of
homes. And I've not read of Canadian bike path users suffering from
vicious attacks - although I suppose anything is possible!
Right and as noted by Mr Tricycle (and others here over the years)
Canada enjoys much smaller rates of crime and especially violent crime
overall. Different culture, different population densities, etc.  Mexico
conversely has even more restrictive firearms regulation than Canada,
and those statutes are many times older, and yet violent crime and
especially homicide by firearm are radically higher in Mexico.
Different culture with many differences, not only regarding homicide.
Mexico is famous for its relatively weak government, its drug cartels
and their control over various levels of government, its massive illegal
importation of American guns, its income inequality, its lack of legal
income opportunities, etc. Yes, there are many factors, but prevalence
of guns is absolutely a big contributor to their problems. (How much
power would the cartels have without guns?)
Of the factors I listed, note how many apply to young American guys
living in inner city ghettos. The situation is much the same. And of
course, in the U.S. efforts to (e.g.) reduce income inequality get
blasted as "socialism," and efforts to restrict the flow of guns are
blasted as "unconstitutional." But without the guns, the murder rate
would have to be much lower. It's a fact that one gang can't quickly
kill four of the opposing gang just by using clubs and knives. It's just
not practical.
Canadians can and do get the guns they need for legitimate uses. The
restrictions are no great burden on them. And partly because their
criminal types have much more trouble getting and keeping guns, ordinary
citizens don't feel the need to nurture Quick Draw fantasies.
Whan guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns. That's a fact
Post by Frank Krygowski
"And of course, in the U.S. efforts to (e.g.) reduce income
inequality get blasted as "socialism,"
Actually, social welfare is one important element of socialism.
Post by Frank Krygowski
"and efforts to restrict the flow of guns are blasted as "unconstitutional."
That's because it is.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
John B.
2025-02-18 14:30:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:52:05 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 20:58:45 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Despite the paucity of guns intended for "protection," Canadians don't
seem to suffer from hordes of bad guys beating down front doors of
homes. And I've not read of Canadian bike path users suffering from
vicious attacks - although I suppose anything is possible!
Right and as noted by Mr Tricycle (and others here over the years)
Canada enjoys much smaller rates of crime and especially violent crime
overall. Different culture, different population densities, etc.  Mexico
conversely has even more restrictive firearms regulation than Canada,
and those statutes are many times older, and yet violent crime and
especially homicide by firearm are radically higher in Mexico.
Different culture with many differences, not only regarding homicide.
Mexico is famous for its relatively weak government, its drug cartels
and their control over various levels of government, its massive illegal
importation of American guns, its income inequality, its lack of legal
income opportunities, etc. Yes, there are many factors, but prevalence
of guns is absolutely a big contributor to their problems. (How much
power would the cartels have without guns?)
Of the factors I listed, note how many apply to young American guys
living in inner city ghettos. The situation is much the same. And of
course, in the U.S. efforts to (e.g.) reduce income inequality get
blasted as "socialism," and efforts to restrict the flow of guns are
blasted as "unconstitutional." But without the guns, the murder rate
would have to be much lower. It's a fact that one gang can't quickly
kill four of the opposing gang just by using clubs and knives. It's just
not practical.
Canadians can and do get the guns they need for legitimate uses. The
restrictions are no great burden on them. And partly because their
criminal types have much more trouble getting and keeping guns, ordinary
citizens don't feel the need to nurture Quick Draw fantasies.
Whan guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns. That's a fact
Post by Frank Krygowski
"And of course, in the U.S. efforts to (e.g.) reduce income
inequality get blasted as "socialism,"
Actually, social welfare is one important element of socialism.
Post by Frank Krygowski
"and efforts to restrict the flow of guns are blasted as "unconstitutional."
That's because it is.
I like the " income inequality"

The first job I got after going to Indonesia was building oil drilling
locations in the Indonesian part of New Guinea. I was told to meet a
bloke named Tom Sea at the airport and he'd get me to the job site.
And he did... two commercial flights, one chartered DC-3 and a
helicopter and I was at the base site - a 200 ft barge anchored at a
uninhabited island in the middle of a rather large bay.

Work was seven days a week and be at the Heli pad before dawn as the
helicopters could only fly in day light hours and coming back in the
evening was a matter of hoping that the they got to the work site in
time to get back to the camp before dark or everyone stayed at the
site during the hours of darkness.

The job paid about twice what a nice easy day job in Jakarta did but I
think it was deserved.
--
Cheers,

John B.
Roger Merriman
2025-02-17 20:47:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Roger Merriman
Opportunity is certainly seems to have a effect, on the whole places with
restrictions on weapons have less use of them, it’s certainly not a hard
concept to understand or equally can see it around the world.
:-) "Places with restrictions on weapons have less use of them" is
_very_ hard for some people to understand!
Post by Roger Merriman
This said your neighbours to the North who seem to have very broadly
similar set in terms of general set up, seem to do much less killing of
each other so unlikely Frank I’m unconvinced it’s the whole thing, clearly
if one has less access but unless I’m mistaken the Canadian have guns maybe
not as many but guns are about but they don’t have the levels of gun
violence that the US does.
Canadians average about 37 guns per 100 citizens. Americans average
about 120 guns per 100 citizens. And Canada restricts gun types.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Canada
Seems fairly balanced ie hunters and club shooters are ok but it’s much
more difficult just because you want one.
Post by Frank Krygowski
Yes, some people in both nations are hunters, farmers, etc. with
rational and practical reasons for owning guns. Some are target shooting
hobbyists. But the U.S. dominates in the number of people who are so
afraid that they feel they _must_ have a gun for "protection."
Despite the paucity of guns intended for "protection," Canadians don't
seem to suffer from hordes of bad guys beating down front doors of
homes. And I've not read of Canadian bike path users suffering from
vicious attacks - although I suppose anything is possible!
The US gun culture is as ever a self destructive cycle, talking of which
lovely day today had a spin on the old school roadie as the Gravel bikes
poor shifting was due to fecked chain/cassette.

Took it along a rail to trail called the Cut near Wimbledon, had a wander
down the Wandle river, before having a roll down your favourite cycleway
the Embankment, it’s half term so Westminster was Touristy!

Popped though the “Batcave” old road that has been build over one of
London’s curious streets, and headed West via parks and cafe stop before
heading to the Vets via one of the newer segregated bike lanes along
Chiswick’s and beyond, and held my nose past the sewage works near
Twickenham!

Been the first dry day for quite a while!

Bike is really over-geared but well I’ll need to wear the cassette out! In
fairness does clock along at 18mph nicely on the Embankment I guess not as
fast as the SS bike I had but still feels good in that environment, it’s
had a tune up and had better pads fitted which has improved its performance
no end as i suspected the weakest link was the cheap pads, it’s not going
to out brake any of my other Disk equipped bikes, but it’s much improved
and fine for its intended use.

Roger Merriman
AMuzi
2025-02-17 20:59:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger Merriman
Opportunity is certainly seems to have a effect, on the
whole places with
restrictions on weapons have less use of them, it’s
certainly not a hard
concept to understand or equally can see it around the world.
:-)  "Places with restrictions on weapons have less use of
them" is _very_ hard for some people to understand!
Post by Roger Merriman
This said your neighbours to the North who seem to have
very broadly
similar set in terms of general set up, seem to do much
less killing of
each other so unlikely Frank I’m unconvinced it’s the
whole thing, clearly
if one has less access but unless I’m mistaken the
Canadian have guns maybe
not as many but guns are about but they don’t have the
levels of gun
violence that the US does.
Canadians average about 37 guns per 100 citizens. Americans
average about 120 guns per 100 citizens. And Canada
restricts gun types. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Firearms_regulation_in_Canada
Yes, some people in both nations are hunters, farmers, etc.
with rational and practical reasons for owning guns. Some
are target shooting hobbyists. But the U.S. dominates in the
number of people who are so afraid that they feel they
_must_ have a gun for "protection."
Despite the paucity of guns intended for "protection,"
Canadians don't seem to suffer from hordes of bad guys
beating down front doors of homes. And I've not read of
Canadian bike path users suffering from vicious attacks -
although I suppose anything is possible!
Not only Canada vs US for numbers.

Speaking of cultural differences, Wisconsin has about
average (among US States) firearms regulation with 6 million
humans and about 315 firearm homicides per year.

City of Chicago, with among the most restrictive regulation
in the country (even yet, in defiance of a specific Supreme
Court ruling) is 2,665,000 people and suffers 550~650
firearm homicides per year.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Roger Merriman
2025-02-17 21:10:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by Roger Merriman
Opportunity is certainly seems to have a effect, on the
whole places with
restrictions on weapons have less use of them, it’s
certainly not a hard
concept to understand or equally can see it around the world.
:-)  "Places with restrictions on weapons have less use of
them" is _very_ hard for some people to understand!
Post by Roger Merriman
This said your neighbours to the North who seem to have
very broadly
similar set in terms of general set up, seem to do much
less killing of
each other so unlikely Frank I’m unconvinced it’s the
whole thing, clearly
if one has less access but unless I’m mistaken the
Canadian have guns maybe
not as many but guns are about but they don’t have the
levels of gun
violence that the US does.
Canadians average about 37 guns per 100 citizens. Americans
average about 120 guns per 100 citizens. And Canada
restricts gun types. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Firearms_regulation_in_Canada
Yes, some people in both nations are hunters, farmers, etc.
with rational and practical reasons for owning guns. Some
are target shooting hobbyists. But the U.S. dominates in the
number of people who are so afraid that they feel they
_must_ have a gun for "protection."
Despite the paucity of guns intended for "protection,"
Canadians don't seem to suffer from hordes of bad guys
beating down front doors of homes. And I've not read of
Canadian bike path users suffering from vicious attacks -
although I suppose anything is possible!
Not only Canada vs US for numbers.
Speaking of cultural differences, Wisconsin has about
average (among US States) firearms regulation with 6 million
humans and about 315 firearm homicides per year.
City of Chicago, with among the most restrictive regulation
in the country (even yet, in defiance of a specific Supreme
Court ruling) is 2,665,000 people and suffers 550~650
firearm homicides per year.
Looks like it has a grandfathers clause ie if you have a prohibited gun you
can keep it but you can’t get any more?

That’s not particularly restrictive really, and will take time for such
guns to go out of circulation? Since they can be repaired that’s going to
be a long process!

But I guess has to start somewhere? I’d suggest if one was to use bike lane
analogy’s this is in the magic paint sort of place, ie it’s something and
might pave way for more in the future and all that.

Roger Merriman
Catrike Ryder
2025-02-17 21:37:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger Merriman
Post by AMuzi
Post by Roger Merriman
Opportunity is certainly seems to have a effect, on the
whole places with
restrictions on weapons have less use of them, it’s
certainly not a hard
concept to understand or equally can see it around the world.
:-)  "Places with restrictions on weapons have less use of
them" is _very_ hard for some people to understand!
Post by Roger Merriman
This said your neighbours to the North who seem to have
very broadly
similar set in terms of general set up, seem to do much
less killing of
each other so unlikely Frank I’m unconvinced it’s the
whole thing, clearly
if one has less access but unless I’m mistaken the
Canadian have guns maybe
not as many but guns are about but they don’t have the
levels of gun
violence that the US does.
Canadians average about 37 guns per 100 citizens. Americans
average about 120 guns per 100 citizens. And Canada
restricts gun types. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Firearms_regulation_in_Canada
Yes, some people in both nations are hunters, farmers, etc.
with rational and practical reasons for owning guns. Some
are target shooting hobbyists. But the U.S. dominates in the
number of people who are so afraid that they feel they
_must_ have a gun for "protection."
Despite the paucity of guns intended for "protection,"
Canadians don't seem to suffer from hordes of bad guys
beating down front doors of homes. And I've not read of
Canadian bike path users suffering from vicious attacks -
although I suppose anything is possible!
Not only Canada vs US for numbers.
Speaking of cultural differences, Wisconsin has about
average (among US States) firearms regulation with 6 million
humans and about 315 firearm homicides per year.
City of Chicago, with among the most restrictive regulation
in the country (even yet, in defiance of a specific Supreme
Court ruling) is 2,665,000 people and suffers 550~650
firearm homicides per year.
Looks like it has a grandfathers clause ie if you have a prohibited gun you
can keep it but you can’t get any more?
That’s not particularly restrictive really, and will take time for such
guns to go out of circulation? Since they can be repaired that’s going to
be a long process!
But I guess has to start somewhere? I’d suggest if one was to use bike lane
analogy’s this is in the magic paint sort of place, ie it’s something and
might pave way for more in the future and all that.
Roger Merriman
Thr anti-gun movement in the USA is dead. State governments are
responding to their citizens desire to have guns.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
AMuzi
2025-02-17 22:03:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger Merriman
Post by AMuzi
Post by Roger Merriman
Opportunity is certainly seems to have a effect, on the
whole places with
restrictions on weapons have less use of them, it’s
certainly not a hard
concept to understand or equally can see it around the world.
:-)  "Places with restrictions on weapons have less use of
them" is _very_ hard for some people to understand!
Post by Roger Merriman
This said your neighbours to the North who seem to have
very broadly
similar set in terms of general set up, seem to do much
less killing of
each other so unlikely Frank I’m unconvinced it’s the
whole thing, clearly
if one has less access but unless I’m mistaken the
Canadian have guns maybe
not as many but guns are about but they don’t have the
levels of gun
violence that the US does.
Canadians average about 37 guns per 100 citizens. Americans
average about 120 guns per 100 citizens. And Canada
restricts gun types. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Firearms_regulation_in_Canada
Yes, some people in both nations are hunters, farmers, etc.
with rational and practical reasons for owning guns. Some
are target shooting hobbyists. But the U.S. dominates in the
number of people who are so afraid that they feel they
_must_ have a gun for "protection."
Despite the paucity of guns intended for "protection,"
Canadians don't seem to suffer from hordes of bad guys
beating down front doors of homes. And I've not read of
Canadian bike path users suffering from vicious attacks -
although I suppose anything is possible!
Not only Canada vs US for numbers.
Speaking of cultural differences, Wisconsin has about
average (among US States) firearms regulation with 6 million
humans and about 315 firearm homicides per year.
City of Chicago, with among the most restrictive regulation
in the country (even yet, in defiance of a specific Supreme
Court ruling) is 2,665,000 people and suffers 550~650
firearm homicides per year.
Looks like it has a grandfathers clause ie if you have a prohibited gun you
can keep it but you can’t get any more?
That’s not particularly restrictive really, and will take time for such
guns to go out of circulation? Since they can be repaired that’s going to
be a long process!
But I guess has to start somewhere? I’d suggest if one was to use bike lane
analogy’s this is in the magic paint sort of place, ie it’s something and
might pave way for more in the future and all that.
Roger Merriman
There are no 'grandfather' exemptions:

https://www.thetrace.org/2023/02/illinois-gun-laws-chicago-shootings/

https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-gun-laws/illinois/
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Roger Merriman
2025-02-18 00:39:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by Roger Merriman
Post by AMuzi
Post by Roger Merriman
Opportunity is certainly seems to have a effect, on the
whole places with
restrictions on weapons have less use of them, it’s
certainly not a hard
concept to understand or equally can see it around the world.
:-)  "Places with restrictions on weapons have less use of
them" is _very_ hard for some people to understand!
Post by Roger Merriman
This said your neighbours to the North who seem to have
very broadly
similar set in terms of general set up, seem to do much
less killing of
each other so unlikely Frank I’m unconvinced it’s the
whole thing, clearly
if one has less access but unless I’m mistaken the
Canadian have guns maybe
not as many but guns are about but they don’t have the
levels of gun
violence that the US does.
Canadians average about 37 guns per 100 citizens. Americans
average about 120 guns per 100 citizens. And Canada
restricts gun types. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Firearms_regulation_in_Canada
Yes, some people in both nations are hunters, farmers, etc.
with rational and practical reasons for owning guns. Some
are target shooting hobbyists. But the U.S. dominates in the
number of people who are so afraid that they feel they
_must_ have a gun for "protection."
Despite the paucity of guns intended for "protection,"
Canadians don't seem to suffer from hordes of bad guys
beating down front doors of homes. And I've not read of
Canadian bike path users suffering from vicious attacks -
although I suppose anything is possible!
Not only Canada vs US for numbers.
Speaking of cultural differences, Wisconsin has about
average (among US States) firearms regulation with 6 million
humans and about 315 firearm homicides per year.
City of Chicago, with among the most restrictive regulation
in the country (even yet, in defiance of a specific Supreme
Court ruling) is 2,665,000 people and suffers 550~650
firearm homicides per year.
Looks like it has a grandfathers clause ie if you have a prohibited gun you
can keep it but you can’t get any more?
That’s not particularly restrictive really, and will take time for such
guns to go out of circulation? Since they can be repaired that’s going to
be a long process!
But I guess has to start somewhere? I’d suggest if one was to use bike lane
analogy’s this is in the magic paint sort of place, ie it’s something and
might pave way for more in the future and all that.
Roger Merriman
https://www.thetrace.org/2023/02/illinois-gun-laws-chicago-shootings/
https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-gun-laws/illinois/
Link suggest that is the case (and I think it was the Illinois police
department link I found) and reading ie folks can keep guns on the
prohibition list but need to register it but they can keep the guns and
repair them, but can’t buy any more of the prohibited type.

Roger Merriman
zen cycle
2025-02-17 21:59:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by Roger Merriman
Opportunity is certainly seems to have a effect, on the whole places with
restrictions on weapons have less use of them, it’s certainly not a hard
concept to understand or equally can see it around the world.
:-)  "Places with restrictions on weapons have less use of them" is
_very_ hard for some people to understand!
Post by Roger Merriman
This said your neighbours to the North who seem to have very broadly
similar set in terms of general set up, seem to do much less killing of
each other so unlikely Frank I’m unconvinced it’s the whole thing, clearly
if one has less access but unless I’m mistaken the Canadian have guns maybe
not as many but guns are about but they don’t have the levels of gun
violence that the US does.
Canadians average about 37 guns per 100 citizens. Americans average
about 120 guns per 100 citizens. And Canada restricts gun types.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Firearms_regulation_in_Canada
Yes, some people in both nations are hunters, farmers, etc. with
rational and practical reasons for owning guns. Some are target
shooting hobbyists. But the U.S. dominates in the number of people who
are so afraid that they feel they _must_ have a gun for "protection."
Despite the paucity of guns intended for "protection," Canadians don't
seem to suffer from hordes of bad guys beating down front doors of
homes. And I've not read of Canadian bike path users suffering from
vicious attacks - although I suppose anything is possible!
Not only Canada vs US for numbers.
Speaking of cultural differences, Wisconsin has about average (among US
States) firearms regulation with 6 million humans and about 315 firearm
homicides per year.
City of Chicago, with among the most restrictive regulation in the
country (even yet, in defiance of a specific Supreme Court ruling) is
2,665,000 people and suffers 550~650 firearm homicides per year.
Haven't you been paying attention Andrew? SCOTUS has no relevance anymore.
AMuzi
2025-02-17 23:11:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by zen cycle
Post by AMuzi
Post by Roger Merriman
Opportunity is certainly seems to have a effect, on the
whole places with
restrictions on weapons have less use of them, it’s
certainly not a hard
concept to understand or equally can see it around the
world.
:-)  "Places with restrictions on weapons have less use
of them" is _very_ hard for some people to understand!
Post by Roger Merriman
This said your neighbours to the North who seem to have
very broadly
similar set in terms of general set up, seem to do much
less killing of
each other so unlikely Frank I’m unconvinced it’s the
whole thing, clearly
if one has less access but unless I’m mistaken the
Canadian have guns maybe
not as many but guns are about but they don’t have the
levels of gun
violence that the US does.
Canadians average about 37 guns per 100 citizens.
Americans average about 120 guns per 100 citizens. And
Canada restricts gun types. https://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/ Firearms_regulation_in_Canada
Yes, some people in both nations are hunters, farmers,
etc. with rational and practical reasons for owning guns.
Some are target shooting hobbyists. But the U.S.
dominates in the number of people who are so afraid that
they feel they _must_ have a gun for "protection."
Despite the paucity of guns intended for "protection,"
Canadians don't seem to suffer from hordes of bad guys
beating down front doors of homes. And I've not read of
Canadian bike path users suffering from vicious attacks -
although I suppose anything is possible!
Not only Canada vs US for numbers.
Speaking of cultural differences, Wisconsin has about
average (among US States) firearms regulation with 6
million humans and about 315 firearm homicides per year.
City of Chicago, with among the most restrictive
regulation in the country (even yet, in defiance of a
specific Supreme Court ruling) is 2,665,000 people and
suffers 550~650 firearm homicides per year.
Haven't you been paying attention Andrew? SCOTUS has no
relevance anymore.
Not since the "I have a pen and a phone" moment.
Things rolled along from there:


(two minutes)
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
zen cycle
2025-02-18 12:13:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by zen cycle
Post by AMuzi
Post by Roger Merriman
Opportunity is certainly seems to have a effect, on the whole places with
restrictions on weapons have less use of them, it’s certainly not a hard
concept to understand or equally can see it around the world.
:-)  "Places with restrictions on weapons have less use of them" is
_very_ hard for some people to understand!
Post by Roger Merriman
This said your neighbours to the North who seem to have very broadly
similar set in terms of general set up, seem to do much less killing of
each other so unlikely Frank I’m unconvinced it’s the whole thing, clearly
if one has less access but unless I’m mistaken the Canadian have guns maybe
not as many but guns are about but they don’t have the levels of gun
violence that the US does.
Canadians average about 37 guns per 100 citizens. Americans average
about 120 guns per 100 citizens. And Canada restricts gun types.
https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Firearms_regulation_in_Canada
Yes, some people in both nations are hunters, farmers, etc. with
rational and practical reasons for owning guns. Some are target
shooting hobbyists. But the U.S. dominates in the number of people
who are so afraid that they feel they _must_ have a gun for
"protection."
Despite the paucity of guns intended for "protection," Canadians
don't seem to suffer from hordes of bad guys beating down front
doors of homes. And I've not read of Canadian bike path users
suffering from vicious attacks - although I suppose anything is
possible!
Not only Canada vs US for numbers.
Speaking of cultural differences, Wisconsin has about average (among
US States) firearms regulation with 6 million humans and about 315
firearm homicides per year.
City of Chicago, with among the most restrictive regulation in the
country (even yet, in defiance of a specific Supreme Court ruling) is
2,665,000 people and suffers 550~650 firearm homicides per year.
Haven't you been paying attention Andrew? SCOTUS has no relevance anymore.
Not since the "I have a pen and a phone" moment.
http://youtu.be/YJEjIkbX8T8
(two minutes)
gee, perhaps you missed the "new path consistent with todays ruling"
moment - of course you did. Perhaps you missed the part where the ruling
was against the policy based on a certain aspect of the law and he's
working within the law to push it forward.....of course you did. And
perhaps you've forgotten that trump pushed his muslim ban three times to
get it past court rulings until it fit within the law....or maybe you're
just choosing to ignore that as inconvenient to your narrative.

Meanwhile, this is what you voted for:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/golf/trump-uses-oval-office-to-hasten-major-golf-merger-and-further-enrich-his-family-report/ar-AA1zeZjz?ocid

"The Trump family is a LIV Golf business partner. The family has
repeatedly hosted LIV tournaments at its golf venues, including one
planned in April at the Trump National Doral in Miami for the fourth
year in a row."

Perfect! Only a month into his administration, with the problems this
nation is facing, trump instead focuses on a merger between fucking golf
leagues.

and

"Not long before Mr. Trump took office, his family started to sell its
own cryptocurrency token....just as Mr. Trump was preparing to sign an
executive order directing his administration to draft new cryptocurrency
regulations easing oversight of the industry."

gee, let me create a business, then deregulate all controls over it.
That's in the nations best interests, right?

Do we even need to go into the raiding of the financial controls of the
government by musk?

And then of course we have the complete abdication of the GOP in congress:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/this-isn-t-intended-as-satire-columnist-attacks-gop-over-latest-sycophantic-grovel/ar-AA1zei4U?ocid

"New legislation put forth by Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-NY) to make Trump's
birthday a federal holiday is just the latest in a one-upmanship
competition"

This followed:

"Tenney’s bill comes on the heels of a bill intended to carve Trump’s
face into Mount Rushmore, which came on the heels of another measure to
allow Trump to seek a third term. There are also pending bills to rename
Dulles Airport after Trump"

I'm seeing strong parallels here to another democratic election which
turned into a personality cult in less than 6 years less than a century ago.

You got grifted...scammed...unless this is what you wanted.

Is this what you wanted?
Catrike Ryder
2025-02-17 22:00:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by Roger Merriman
Opportunity is certainly seems to have a effect, on the
whole places with
restrictions on weapons have less use of them, it’s
certainly not a hard
concept to understand or equally can see it around the world.
:-)  "Places with restrictions on weapons have less use of
them" is _very_ hard for some people to understand!
Post by Roger Merriman
This said your neighbours to the North who seem to have
very broadly
similar set in terms of general set up, seem to do much
less killing of
each other so unlikely Frank I’m unconvinced it’s the
whole thing, clearly
if one has less access but unless I’m mistaken the
Canadian have guns maybe
not as many but guns are about but they don’t have the
levels of gun
violence that the US does.
Canadians average about 37 guns per 100 citizens. Americans
average about 120 guns per 100 citizens. And Canada
restricts gun types. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Firearms_regulation_in_Canada
Yes, some people in both nations are hunters, farmers, etc.
with rational and practical reasons for owning guns. Some
are target shooting hobbyists. But the U.S. dominates in the
number of people who are so afraid that they feel they
_must_ have a gun for "protection."
Despite the paucity of guns intended for "protection,"
Canadians don't seem to suffer from hordes of bad guys
beating down front doors of homes. And I've not read of
Canadian bike path users suffering from vicious attacks -
although I suppose anything is possible!
Not only Canada vs US for numbers.
Speaking of cultural differences, Wisconsin has about
average (among US States) firearms regulation with 6 million
humans and about 315 firearm homicides per year.
City of Chicago, with among the most restrictive regulation
in the country (even yet, in defiance of a specific Supreme
Court ruling) is 2,665,000 people and suffers 550~650
firearm homicides per year.
I believe that many times simply showing that you have a gun will
deter a crime. That's a defensive incident that's not likely to get
reported. I suspect that the guy who attacked me would not have done
so if I'd shown him my gun.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder
2025-02-17 23:27:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 15:20:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Roger Merriman
Opportunity is certainly seems to have a effect, on the whole places with
restrictions on weapons have less use of them, it’s certainly not a hard
concept to understand or equally can see it around the world.
:-) "Places with restrictions on weapons have less use of them" is
_very_ hard for some people to understand!
Post by Roger Merriman
This said your neighbours to the North who seem to have very broadly
similar set in terms of general set up, seem to do much less killing of
each other so unlikely Frank I’m unconvinced it’s the whole thing, clearly
if one has less access but unless I’m mistaken the Canadian have guns maybe
not as many but guns are about but they don’t have the levels of gun
violence that the US does.
Canadians average about 37 guns per 100 citizens. Americans average
about 120 guns per 100 citizens.
nope...
Post by Frank Krygowski
And Canada restricts gun types.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Canada
Yes, some people in both nations are hunters, farmers, etc. with
rational and practical reasons for owning guns. Some are target shooting
hobbyists. But the U.S. dominates in the number of people who are so
afraid that they feel they _must_ have a gun for "protection."
Despite the paucity of guns intended for "protection,"
Many, many, perhaps most guns are guns intended for protection.
Post by Frank Krygowski
Canadians don't
seem to suffer from hordes of bad guys beating down front doors of
homes.
That's a strawman.... typical Krygowski argument
Post by Frank Krygowski
And I've not read of Canadian bike path users suffering from
vicious attacks - although I suppose anything is possible!
It only takes one...

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/he-was-just-so-angry-female-victim-speaks-of-random-attack/ar-BB1pu99E

--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
2025-02-16 13:16:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 18:16:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 16:38:15 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Roger Merriman
How about some low hanging fruit?  The Official Policy
Statement, which was enforced by censorship and
manipulation, was that the mRNA jab would prevent
contraction of the Wuhan virus and block contagion as well
(those constituting the definition of a vaccine).  Neither
is actually true.
The interested reader might peruse the record of 'fact
check' statements on that. Other examples abound.
Was that said officially in the US? Certainly even with Boris who well does
like an mis truth or two! They talked about flattening the curve ie keeping
folks out of hospital which the vaccines will reduce the probability, but
also with lockdowns to slow infection down as the vaccine will not stop
that, thats why lockdowns where needed to prevent intensive care being
overwhelmed.
As I recall, in Ohio Dr. Amy Acton did talk about the vaccine and
social distancing flattening the curve. I don't recall any statements
that the vaccine would be 100% effective in preventing contagion, and
I'd be very surprised if that was said, since AFAIK no vaccines are
100% effective.
There's been far too much Monday Morning Quarterbacking about Covid.
People on one side of politics seem to forget that when infections
first spread, hospitals were absolutely overwhelmed, even formerly
healthy people were dying, medical staff were working non-stop, triage
tents were set up in hospital parking lots, etc. The virus was an
unknown and was causing great damage.
Certainly, some initial scientific findings were errors. But that's a
normal part of science: People do research, publish findings, others
try to replicate, and mistakes are corrected. Given the crisis at
hand, health and government officials were not wrong to bet on safety,
even if some of the steps (like washing down door handles) ultimately
turned out to have low value.
People on one side of the political spectrum seem to have a tendency
toward absolutism. One scientific mistake tells them _all_ science is
useless. One failed law tells them _all_ laws are useless. One bad
politician tells them _all_ politicians are useless - except their
own, of course.
The world is a bit more complicated than that.
https://www.rev.com/transcripts/joe-biden-covid-vaccine-booster-shots-
speech-briefing-transcript
That's a pretty long reading assignment. But skimming it, I didn't see
where he claimed 100% protection. Again, AFAIK no vaccine does 100%. I
don't think it was ever promised or anticipated by anyone with decent
knowledge.
Post by AMuzi
Although there may be someone holding the beliefs you exaggerate above,
none of them correspond here on RBT. Many people, I included, think any
assertion, scientific or otherwise, ought to withstand inquiry, testing
and corroboration.  Sadly, this is now a critical existential issue
among the sciences as errors in published papers, forcing withdrawal, is
skyrocketing, whether due to outright fraud or rank incompetence. There
are hardly enough people replicating procedures to verify conclusions in
scientific papers and if there were more that would likely expose yet
more error.
It would help if you would give relevant examples. Yes, I'm aware that
there is and has been scientific fraud. But it's a small percentage of
the output of Science, and it doesn't mean that we should pretend the
entire mechanism of science should be ignored.
As far as people on RBT espousing the views I paraphrased, most people
are careful to make implications rather than outright statements. You
have made many, many remarks disparaging various laws with words like
"How's that law working out?" Was I wrong to interpret that as "Laws
don't work"?
Our bike path tricycle rider has many times disparaged almost all
sources of information - except, somehow, the ones he chooses to listen to.
John has many times implied that all? or most? studies are biased to
worthlessness, repeating his anecdote about a man who claimed he can
make any study yield whatever data is desired.
There goes Frankie telling lies again.
What I wrote was that a good friend had commented that he could design
a survey to prove anything he wanted it to prove.
You've brought up that anecdote many, many times in response to a study
that showed results you didn't like. Your clear implication was that
studies are not to be trusted.
Indeed as long as the data is good what ever spin is put to can bee seen
and fairly easily doesn’t stop some studies popping up, as people want them
to be true, being involved with brain injury organisations. The 80% saved
by bike helmet guff comes up every few years luckily UK at least is rather
pragmatic and the effort to get a bill into law is sufficient high, that
they go nowhere!

Roger Merriman
AMuzi
2025-02-16 15:48:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 18:16:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 16:38:15 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Roger Merriman
How about some low hanging fruit?  The Official Policy
Statement, which was enforced by censorship and
manipulation, was that the mRNA jab would prevent
contraction of the Wuhan virus and block contagion
as well
(those constituting the definition of a vaccine).
Neither
is actually true.
The interested reader might peruse the record of 'fact
check' statements on that. Other examples abound.
Was that said officially in the US? Certainly even
with Boris who
well does
like an mis truth or two! They talked about
flattening the curve ie
keeping
folks out of hospital which the vaccines will reduce
the probability,
but
also with lockdowns to slow infection down as the
vaccine will not stop
that, thats why lockdowns where needed to prevent
intensive care being
overwhelmed.
As I recall, in Ohio Dr. Amy Acton did talk about the
vaccine and
social distancing flattening the curve. I don't recall
any statements
that the vaccine would be 100% effective in preventing
contagion, and
I'd be very surprised if that was said, since AFAIK no
vaccines are
100% effective.
There's been far too much Monday Morning
Quarterbacking about Covid.
People on one side of politics seem to forget that
when infections
first spread, hospitals were absolutely overwhelmed,
even formerly
healthy people were dying, medical staff were working
non-stop, triage
tents were set up in hospital parking lots, etc. The
virus was an
unknown and was causing great damage.
Certainly, some initial scientific findings were
errors. But that's a
normal part of science: People do research, publish
findings, others
try to replicate, and mistakes are corrected. Given
the crisis at
hand, health and government officials were not wrong
to bet on safety,
even if some of the steps (like washing down door
handles) ultimately
turned out to have low value.
People on one side of the political spectrum seem to
have a tendency
toward absolutism. One scientific mistake tells them
_all_ science is
useless. One failed law tells them _all_ laws are
useless. One bad
politician tells them _all_ politicians are useless -
except their
own, of course.
The world is a bit more complicated than that.
https://www.rev.com/transcripts/joe-biden-covid-
vaccine-booster-shots-
speech-briefing-transcript
That's a pretty long reading assignment. But skimming
it, I didn't see
where he claimed 100% protection. Again, AFAIK no
vaccine does 100%. I
don't think it was ever promised or anticipated by
anyone with decent
knowledge.
Post by AMuzi
Although there may be someone holding the beliefs you
exaggerate above,
none of them correspond here on RBT. Many people, I
included, think any
assertion, scientific or otherwise, ought to withstand
inquiry, testing
and corroboration.  Sadly, this is now a critical
existential issue
among the sciences as errors in published papers,
forcing withdrawal, is
skyrocketing, whether due to outright fraud or rank
incompetence. There
are hardly enough people replicating procedures to
verify conclusions in
scientific papers and if there were more that would
likely expose yet
more error.
It would help if you would give relevant examples. Yes,
I'm aware that
there is and has been scientific fraud. But it's a small
percentage of
the output of Science, and it doesn't mean that we
should pretend the
entire mechanism of science should be ignored.
As far as people on RBT espousing the views I
paraphrased, most people
are careful to make implications rather than outright
statements. You
have made many, many remarks disparaging various laws
with words like
"How's that law working out?"  Was I wrong to interpret
that as "Laws
don't work"?
Our bike path tricycle rider has many times disparaged
almost all
sources of information - except, somehow, the ones he
chooses to listen to.
John has many times implied that all? or most? studies
are biased to
worthlessness, repeating his anecdote about a man who
claimed he can
make any study yield whatever data is desired.
There goes Frankie telling lies again.
What I wrote was that a good friend had commented that he
could design
a survey to prove anything he wanted it to prove.
You've brought up that anecdote many, many times in response
to a study that showed results you didn't like. Your clear
implication was that studies are not to be trusted.
Some are, some are not. See also political polling.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Frank Krygowski
2025-02-16 19:38:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
You've brought up that anecdote many, many times in response to a
study that showed results you didn't like. Your clear implication was
that studies are not to be trusted.
Some are, some are not.  See also political polling.
Of course some are not to be trusted! Whether that is true or not should
be determined by analyzing the details of the study.

But we have people here who label studies true or false _only_ by
whether they agree or disagree with the poster's opinions. That's not a
valid measure for evaluation.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Catrike Ryder
2025-02-16 20:17:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:38:25 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
You've brought up that anecdote many, many times in response to a
study that showed results you didn't like. Your clear implication was
that studies are not to be trusted.
Some are, some are not.  See also political polling.
Of course some are not to be trusted! Whether that is true or not should
be determined by analyzing the details of the study.
But we have people here who label studies true or false _only_ by
whether they agree or disagree with the poster's opinions. That's not a
valid measure for evaluation.
Nonsense. I, for one don't label any "studies" as either true of
false. I label them all as worthless unless they lead to something of
tangible value. Lacking that, they're just attempts to tell other
people what to think.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
AMuzi
2025-02-16 15:38:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Roger Merriman
How about some low hanging fruit?  The Official Policy
Statement, which was enforced by censorship and
manipulation, was that the mRNA jab would prevent
contraction of the Wuhan virus and block contagion as well
(those constituting the definition of a vaccine).  Neither
is actually true.
The interested reader might peruse the record of 'fact
check' statements on that. Other examples abound.
Was that said officially in the US? Certainly even with
Boris who well does
like an mis truth or two! They talked about flattening
the curve ie keeping
folks out of hospital which the vaccines will reduce the
probability, but
also with lockdowns to slow infection down as the
vaccine will not stop
that, thats why lockdowns where needed to prevent
intensive care being
overwhelmed.
As I recall, in Ohio Dr. Amy Acton did talk about the
vaccine and social distancing flattening the curve. I
don't recall any statements that the vaccine would be
100% effective in preventing contagion, and I'd be very
surprised if that was said, since AFAIK no vaccines are
100% effective.
There's been far too much Monday Morning Quarterbacking
about Covid. People on one side of politics seem to
forget that when infections first spread, hospitals were
absolutely overwhelmed, even formerly healthy people were
dying, medical staff were working non-stop, triage tents
were set up in hospital parking lots, etc. The virus was
an unknown and was causing great damage.
Certainly, some initial scientific findings were errors.
But that's a normal part of science: People do research,
publish findings, others try to replicate, and mistakes
are corrected. Given the crisis at hand, health and
government officials were not wrong to bet on safety,
even if some of the steps (like washing down door
handles) ultimately turned out to have low value.
People on one side of the political spectrum seem to have
a tendency toward absolutism. One scientific mistake
tells them _all_ science is useless. One failed law tells
them _all_ laws are useless. One bad politician tells
them _all_ politicians are useless - except their own, of
course.
The world is a bit more complicated than that.
https://www.rev.com/transcripts/joe-biden-covid-vaccine-
booster-shots- speech-briefing-transcript
That's a pretty long reading assignment. But skimming it, I
didn't see where he claimed 100% protection. Again, AFAIK no
vaccine does 100%. I don't think it was ever promised or
anticipated by anyone with decent knowledge.
Post by AMuzi
Although there may be someone holding the beliefs you
exaggerate above, none of them correspond here on RBT.
Many people, I included, think any assertion, scientific
or otherwise, ought to withstand inquiry, testing and
corroboration.  Sadly, this is now a critical existential
issue among the sciences as errors in published papers,
forcing withdrawal, is skyrocketing, whether due to
outright fraud or rank incompetence. There are hardly
enough people replicating procedures to verify conclusions
in scientific papers and if there were more that would
likely expose yet more error.
It would help if you would give relevant examples. Yes, I'm
aware that there is and has been scientific fraud. But it's
a small percentage of the output of Science, and it doesn't
mean that we should pretend the entire mechanism of science
should be ignored.
As far as people on RBT espousing the views I paraphrased,
most people are careful to make implications rather than
outright statements. You have made many, many remarks
disparaging various laws with words like "How's that law
working out?"  Was I wrong to interpret that as "Laws don't
work"?
Our bike path tricycle rider has many times disparaged
almost all sources of information - except, somehow, the
ones he chooses to listen to.
John has many times implied that all? or most? studies are
biased to worthlessness, repeating his anecdote about a man
who claimed he can make any study yield whatever data is
desired.
Tom goes so far as to claim that there was a major recession
and stock market crash during Obama's term, despite
mountains of info proving that false.
Post by AMuzi
And in the instant case, politicians should also not be
exempt from inquiry, testing and verification of their
assertions.
The lost confidence in scientific paper content and
conclusions is an actual epidemic, much discussed in that
venue for years and increasingly so.

I posted this link a couple of years ago here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03974-8

Update:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01609-0

and:
https://www.sheltonherald.com/news/article/fake-papers-are-contaminating-the-world-s-20063043.php

These failures have even reached the popular press, as
discussed here a month or so ago regarding kitchen utensils,
over a basic arithmetic error.

https://www.acsh.org/news/2024/12/23/dont-throw-out-your-black-plastic-spatulas-49201

Then there's outright fraud:
https://ukgag.com/science/the-university-of-rochester-has-confirmed-that-it-no-longer-employs-ranga-dias-who-was-found-by-investigators-to-have-committed-data-fabrication/

Oh, and back to Wuhan:
https://www.thecollegefix.com/over-500-covid-studies-retracted-for-unreliable-information-watchdog/
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Frank Krygowski
2025-02-16 19:42:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The lost confidence in scientific paper content and conclusions is an
actual epidemic, much discussed in that venue for years and increasingly
so.
Yes, there have been problems. I'm fully aware. But I'm also aware that
good science greatly exceeds faulty science.

So what's the solution to the problems that exist in science? To label
_all_ scientific studies worthless? To rely on Ouija boards or medieval
biblical studies for the truth? To say there is no such thing as truth,
or that all opinions are equally valid? To champion ignorance, and
disparage knowledge, education, science? Really?
--
- Frank Krygowski
Catrike Ryder
2025-02-14 18:05:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 11:58:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by John B.
I wonder whether the below is of interest to anyone?
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/5/25/how-alternative-facts-
threaten-us-democracy
It seems to provide a very sad state for the U.S. political system.
pffffft.
Peruse any 'fact check' site to see how the most slanted bias prefers to
call itself 'fair and objective'.
Examples? And examples of their bias?
Did Trump really get millions more votes than Biden in 2020?
Are most glaciers worldwide not really shrinking?
Did COVID treatments really kill more people than the disease did?
ISTM that most people who complain about common fact checking outlets
really mean "My beliefs conflict with their facts."
You seem to believe whatever you're told to believe.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
Frank Krygowski
2025-02-15 03:57:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 11:58:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by John B.
I wonder whether the below is of interest to anyone?
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/5/25/how-alternative-facts-
threaten-us-democracy
It seems to provide a very sad state for the U.S. political system.
pffffft.
Peruse any 'fact check' site to see how the most slanted bias prefers to
call itself 'fair and objective'.
Examples? And examples of their bias?
Did Trump really get millions more votes than Biden in 2020?
Are most glaciers worldwide not really shrinking?
Did COVID treatments really kill more people than the disease did?
ISTM that most people who complain about common fact checking outlets
really mean "My beliefs conflict with their facts."
You seem to believe whatever you're told to believe.
Nobody told me what to believe about you, Mr. Tricycle. I came to my own
conclusions by reading your posts.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Catrike Ryder
2025-02-15 09:17:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 22:57:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 11:58:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by John B.
I wonder whether the below is of interest to anyone?
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/5/25/how-alternative-facts-
threaten-us-democracy
It seems to provide a very sad state for the U.S. political system.
pffffft.
Peruse any 'fact check' site to see how the most slanted bias prefers to
call itself 'fair and objective'.
Examples? And examples of their bias?
Did Trump really get millions more votes than Biden in 2020?
Are most glaciers worldwide not really shrinking?
Did COVID treatments really kill more people than the disease did?
ISTM that most people who complain about common fact checking outlets
really mean "My beliefs conflict with their facts."
You seem to believe whatever you're told to believe.
Nobody told me what to believe about you, Mr. Tricycle. I came to my own
conclusions by reading your posts.
That was because I did what you narcissists can't stand. I discounted
your opinion and then I suggested that I am probably more experienced
than you. It's become pretty clear that I am. One doesn't get
interesting experiences with a wussy teaching job like you had or by
leading group bicycle rides. Near as I can tell, you've never done
anything the least bit challenging.

You're what they used to call, a "milktoast."

You picked a fight and now you're whining about being a victim.

Whine or run away... your choice.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
Frank Krygowski
2025-02-15 17:16:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 22:57:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 11:58:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by John B.
I wonder whether the below is of interest to anyone?
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/5/25/how-alternative-facts-
threaten-us-democracy
It seems to provide a very sad state for the U.S. political system.
pffffft.
Peruse any 'fact check' site to see how the most slanted bias prefers to
call itself 'fair and objective'.
Examples? And examples of their bias?
Did Trump really get millions more votes than Biden in 2020?
Are most glaciers worldwide not really shrinking?
Did COVID treatments really kill more people than the disease did?
ISTM that most people who complain about common fact checking outlets
really mean "My beliefs conflict with their facts."
You seem to believe whatever you're told to believe.
Nobody told me what to believe about you, Mr. Tricycle. I came to my own
conclusions by reading your posts.
That was because I did what you narcissists can't stand. I discounted
your opinion and then I suggested that I am probably more experienced
than you.
You've done nothing.
Post by Catrike Ryder
Whine or run away... your choice.
Best practice: Ignore the troll.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Catrike Ryder
2025-02-15 19:26:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 12:16:37 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 22:57:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 11:58:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by John B.
I wonder whether the below is of interest to anyone?
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/5/25/how-alternative-facts-
threaten-us-democracy
It seems to provide a very sad state for the U.S. political system.
pffffft.
Peruse any 'fact check' site to see how the most slanted bias prefers to
call itself 'fair and objective'.
Examples? And examples of their bias?
Did Trump really get millions more votes than Biden in 2020?
Are most glaciers worldwide not really shrinking?
Did COVID treatments really kill more people than the disease did?
ISTM that most people who complain about common fact checking outlets
really mean "My beliefs conflict with their facts."
You seem to believe whatever you're told to believe.
Nobody told me what to believe about you, Mr. Tricycle. I came to my own
conclusions by reading your posts.
That was because I did what you narcissists can't stand. I discounted
your opinion and then I suggested that I am probably more experienced
than you.
You've done nothing.
You can pretend to believe that, but, deep down, you know as well as I
do that it's not true.
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Catrike Ryder
Whine or run away... your choice.
Best practice: Ignore the troll.
Best as I can see, all you've ever done is boring, no-risk, wussy
stuff like <LOL> teaching. Bicycling, as much as I've enjoyed it, is
not a particularly exciting thing to do, unless, perhaps, you're a
racer. You're even too afraid to record your rides so you can evaluate
yourself.

You seem to get a big ego trip by berating people and pretending to be
admired, but the true thing is that you're not. I have more respect
for every other poster I've seen on RBT, than I have for you. Junior
Carrington (zen) hates me, but I respect what he's been able to do.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
cyclintom
2025-02-14 21:07:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by John B.
I wonder whether the below is of interest to anyone?
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/5/25/how-alternative-facts-
threaten-us-democracy
It seems to provide a very sad state for the U.S. political system.
pffffft.
Peruse any 'fact check' site to see how the most slanted bias prefers to
call itself 'fair and objective'.
Examples? And examples of their bias?
Did Trump really get millions more votes than Biden in 2020?
Are most glaciers worldwide not really shrinking?
Did COVID treatments really kill more people than the disease did?
ISTM that most people who complain about common fact checking outlets
really mean "My beliefs conflict with their facts."
The question isn't whether Biden got more votes or not but whether they were legsl votes from real citizens. You have time after time shown your distain for the Constitution, and now again you resort to bullshit. They MOVED our poll to the back of a parking lot with a hidden doorway and our votes were no longer tabulated in a machine but dropped into a slot in the top of a suiutcase. This poll was FAR away from our conservative neighborhood and the poll workers all looked like Obama voters. And they attempted to force everyone to vote by mail so you couldn't judge where the votes were coming from. And in a neighborhood that never got more than 48% of the electorate voting, we got more than 98%.

Frank you are the scum of the Earth and you7 make Gavin Loathsome seem honest.
Loading...