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 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.
On 2/13/2025 10:15 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/13/2025 12:04 AM, John B. wrote:
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."
On 2/13/2025 10:15 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/13/2025 12:04 AM, John B. wrote:
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."
On 2/14/2025 12:30 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/14/2025 10:58 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:Ah. Well, that's one opinion piece. Is it accurate? How should we check? >Shall we go down that rabbit hole?
On 2/13/2025 10:15 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/13/2025 12:04 AM, John B. wrote:
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
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.
On 2/14/2025 1:05 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 11:58:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/13/2025 10:15 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/13/2025 12:04 AM, John B. wrote:
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.
On 2/14/2025 12:30 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/14/2025 10:58 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:Ah. Well, that's one opinion piece. Is it accurate? How
On 2/13/2025 10:15 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/13/2025 12:04 AM, John B. wrote:
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
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.
On 2/14/2025 10:09 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2025 12:30 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/14/2025 10:58 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:Ah. Well, that's one opinion piece. Is it accurate? How
On 2/13/2025 10:15 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/13/2025 12:04 AM, John B. wrote:
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
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.
On 2/15/2025 9:49 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
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.
On 2/15/2025 4:17 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 22:57:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/14/2025 1:05 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 11:58:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/13/2025 10:15 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/13/2025 12:04 AM, John B. wrote:
I wonder whether the below is of interest to anyone?pffffft.
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. >>>>>>
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.
Whine or run away... your choice.
Best practice: Ignore the troll.
On 2/15/2025 1:45 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/15/2025 11:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/15/2025 9:49 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
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.
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.
And in the instant case, politicians should also not be exempt from
inquiry, testing and verification of their assertions.
On 2/15/2025 8:01 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 18:16:27 -0500, Catrike RyderYou've brought up that anecdote many, many times in response to a study
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 16:38:15 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/15/2025 1:45 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/15/2025 11:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/15/2025 9:49 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
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.
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.
that showed results you didn't like. Your clear implication was that
studies are not to be trusted.
On 2/15/2025 8:01 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 18:16:27 -0500, Catrike RyderYou've brought up that anecdote many, many times in response to a study
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 16:38:15 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/15/2025 1:45 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/15/2025 11:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/15/2025 9:49 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
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.
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.
that showed results you didn't like. Your clear implication was that
studies are not to be trusted.
On 2/15/2025 8:01 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 18:16:27 -0500, Catrike RyderYou've brought up that anecdote many, many times in response
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 16:38:15 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/15/2025 1:45 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/15/2025 11:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/15/2025 9:49 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
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.
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.
to a study that showed results you didn't like. Your clear
implication was that studies are not to be trusted.
On 2/15/2025 1:45 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/15/2025 11:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/15/2025 9:49 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
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.
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.
And in the instant case, politicians should also not be
exempt from inquiry, testing and verification of their
assertions.
On 2/16/2025 10:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/15/2025 10:07 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
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.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/16/2025 5:48 AM, John B. wrote:
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...
A very large proportion of people with guns in the home say they have"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with
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. >>
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.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski >><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/16/2025 5:48 AM, John B. wrote:
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...
A very large proportion of people with guns in the home say they have"The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with
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. >>
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.
On 2/16/2025 8:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
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.)
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 04:10:05 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 08:34:16 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder >>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski >>>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/16/2025 5:48 AM, John B. wrote:
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...
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...)
On 2/16/2025 8:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
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.)
On 2/17/2025 12:25 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:50:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/16/2025 8:34 PM, John B. wrote:It depends on the people that live in the noise.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
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?
That's no answer. Again: I you were a researcher, how would
you determine which situation was safer?
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?
On 2/17/2025 12:25 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:50:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/16/2025 8:34 PM, John B. wrote:It depends on the people that live in the noise.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
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?
That's no answer. Again: I you were a researcher, how would you
determine which situation was safer?
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?
On 2/17/2025 9:39 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/16/2025 9:50 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/16/2025 8:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
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.)
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.
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 18:25:18 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 04:10:05 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 08:34:16 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/16/2025 5:48 AM, John B. wrote:
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...
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
On 2/17/2025 9:39 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/16/2025 9:50 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/16/2025 8:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
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.)
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.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 18:25:18 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 04:10:05 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 08:34:16 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/16/2025 5:48 AM, John B. wrote:
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...
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, its 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 Im unconvinced its the whole thing, clearly
if one has less access but unless Im mistaken the Canadian have guns maybe >not as many but guns are about but they dont have the levels of gun
violence that the US does.
Roger Merriman
On 2/17/2025 10:05 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/17/2025 12:25 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:50:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/16/2025 8:34 PM, John B. wrote:It depends on the people that live in the noise.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
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?
That's no answer. Again: I you were a researcher, how would
you determine which situation was safer?
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.
On 17 Feb 2025 16:43:24 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 18:25:18 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 04:10:05 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 08:34:16 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/16/2025 5:48 AM, John B. wrote:
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...
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, its 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 Im unconvinced its the whole thing, clearly >> if one has less access but unless Im mistaken the Canadian have guns maybe >> not as many but guns are about but they dont 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
On 2/17/2025 11:54 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/17/2025 10:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/17/2025 9:39 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/16/2025 9:50 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/16/2025 8:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
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.)
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.
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.
On 2/17/2025 11:43 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
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!
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!
On 2/17/2025 11:43 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
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!
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!
On 2/17/2025 11:43 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
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!
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!
On 2/17/2025 11:54 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/17/2025 10:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/17/2025 9:39 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/16/2025 9:50 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/16/2025 8:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
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.)
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.
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.
On 2/17/2025 2:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/17/2025 11:43 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
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!
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.
On 2/17/2025 2:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/17/2025 11:54 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/17/2025 10:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/17/2025 9:39 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/16/2025 9:50 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/16/2025 8:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
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.)
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.
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.
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/17/2025 2:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/17/2025 11:43 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Opportunity is certainly seems to have a effect, on the
whole places with
restrictions on weapons have less use of them, its
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!
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 Im unconvinced its the
whole thing, clearly
if one has less access but unless Im mistaken the
Canadian have guns maybe
not as many but guns are about but they dont 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 cant get any more?
Thats not particularly restrictive really, and will take time for such
guns to go out of circulation? Since they can be repaired thats going to
be a long process!
But I guess has to start somewhere? Id suggest if one was to use bike lane >analogys this is in the magic paint sort of place, ie its something and >might pave way for more in the future and all that.
Roger Merriman
On 2/17/2025 2:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/17/2025 11:43 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
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!
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.
On 2/17/2025 2:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/17/2025 11:43 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Opportunity is certainly seems to have a effect, on the
whole places with
restrictions on weapons have less use of them, its
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!
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 Im unconvinced its the
whole thing, clearly
if one has less access but unless Im mistaken the
Canadian have guns maybe
not as many but guns are about but they dont 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.
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/17/2025 2:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/17/2025 11:43 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
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!
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
On 2/17/2025 3:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/17/2025 2:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/17/2025 11:43 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
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!
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.
On 2/17/2025 11:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/17/2025 10:05 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/17/2025 12:25 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:50:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/16/2025 8:34 PM, John B. wrote:It depends on the people that live in the noise.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
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?
That's no answer. Again: I you were a researcher, how would you
determine which situation was safer?
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.
On 2/17/2025 3:10 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/17/2025 2:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/17/2025 11:43 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
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!
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/
On 2/17/2025 3:40 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/17/2025 2:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/17/2025 11:43 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
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.
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:15:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/17/2025 9:39 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/16/2025 9:50 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/16/2025 8:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
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.)
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.
On 2/17/2025 6:27 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
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.
On 2/17/2025 3:40 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/17/2025 2:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/17/2025 11:43 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
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.
"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."
On 2/17/2025 7:33 PM, John B. wrote:
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.
On 2/17/2025 8:35 PM, John B. wrote:
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.
On 2/17/2025 9:15 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/17/2025 7:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/17/2025 3:40 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/17/2025 2:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/17/2025 11:43 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
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.
On 2/17/2025 3:59 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 2/17/2025 3:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/17/2025 2:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/17/2025 11:43 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
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!
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:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJEjIkbX8T8
(two minutes)
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:15:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/17/2025 9:39 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/16/2025 9:50 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/16/2025 8:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
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.)
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.
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 18:27:24 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 14:55:33 -0500, Frank Krygowski >><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/17/2025 11:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/17/2025 10:05 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/17/2025 12:25 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:50:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/16/2025 8:34 PM, John B. wrote:It depends on the people that live in the noise.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
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?
That's no answer. Again: I you were a researcher, how would you
determine which situation was safer?
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
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.
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?
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 14:35:56 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/17/2025 2:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/17/2025 11:54 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/17/2025 10:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/17/2025 9:39 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/16/2025 9:50 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/16/2025 8:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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 (?-)
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 14:35:56 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/17/2025 2:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/17/2025 11:54 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/17/2025 10:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/17/2025 9:39 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/16/2025 9:50 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/16/2025 8:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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 (?-)
On 2/17/2025 9:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:15:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:09:21 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/17/2025 6:27 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
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.
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
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
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
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.
On 2/17/2025 9:52 PM, John B. wrote:
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.
On 2/17/2025 9:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:15:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
On 2/18/2025 7:25 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:20:07 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
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!
On 2/18/2025 6:51 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:09:21 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/17/2025 6:27 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
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.
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
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
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
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.
Uneducable.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:51:56 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/17/2025 9:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:15:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
Solar eclipses happen too.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Fri Feb 14 23:09:07 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
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.
Executive Order 2A - The 2nd Amendment has priority over any state law concerning the 2nd Amendment. You have lost and you simply won't admit it because you side with New York City and voter fraud in California.
On 2/18/2025 10:03 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:51:56 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/17/2025 9:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:15:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
Solar eclipses happen too.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Yeah but we can just sacrifice a few people's warm beating
hearts and it goes away.
On 2/18/2025 6:51 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:09:21 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/17/2025 6:27 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
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.
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
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
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
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.
Uneducable.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:48:01 -0500, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2/17/2025 9:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:15:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/17/2025 9:39 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/16/2025 9:50 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/16/2025 8:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
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.)
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.
On 2/18/2025 10:03 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:51:56 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/17/2025 9:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:15:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
Solar eclipses happen too.
Not to mention DA's releasing murderers on no cash bail during Biden...
On Tue Feb 18 10:29:38 2025 AMuzi wrote:
There is no such order.
Executive orders can describe the means, methods and scope
of federal employees' work, but are not a substitute for
legislation. (or ought not to be at any rate, despite press
releases)
From the CATO Institute:are seen as limiting gun ownership and use."
"President Trump signed an executive order aimed at protecting Second Amendment rights, directing a review of federal policies that may infringe on these rights. This order seeks to reverse regulations established during the Biden Administration that
The Supreme Court has aready deemed most gun control laws unconstitutional and states just like Krygowski simply ignore them. However, prosecutors already know enough not to try and prosecute anyone under these laws. The case law is settled.
Now, you were saying that there was no such executive order? Why didn't you simply look it up?
On 2/18/2025 5:13 PM, cyclintom wrote:are seen as limiting gun ownership and use."
On Tue Feb 18 10:29:38 2025 AMuzi wrote:
There is no such order.
Executive orders can describe the means, methods and scope
of federal employees' work, but are not a substitute for
legislation. (or ought not to be at any rate, despite press
releases)
From the CATO Institute:
"President Trump signed an executive order aimed at protecting Second Amendment rights, directing a review of federal policies that may infringe on these rights. This order seeks to reverse regulations established during the Biden Administration that
The Supreme Court has aready deemed most gun control laws unconstitutional and states just like Krygowski simply ignore them. However, prosecutors already know enough not to try and prosecute anyone under these laws. The case law is settled.
Now, you were saying that there was no such executive order? Why didn't you simply look it up?
The text immediately above is mostly correct (SCOTUS parses
these questions more finely than you or I would prefer),
mostly sensible and in general agreement with what I wrote
above yours.
Prosecutors continue, however to prosecute firearms charges.
Not all regulations, and certainly not all jurisdictions and
not for all violators under similar circumstances but there
are prosecutions.
What you wrote a few hours ago however is different:
"Executive Order 2A - The 2nd Amendment has priority over
any state law concerning the 2nd Amendment. You have lost
and you simply won't admit it because you side with New York
City and voter fraud in California."
You most likely meant EO #14206 (there is no "2A")
https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders/donald-trump/2025
Here is the full text (it's short):
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/02/12/2025-02636/protecting-second-amendment-rights
Mr Trump did not order the Supremacy Clause. That was James
Madison (Article VI, Clause 2):
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made,
or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges
in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding."
What Mr Trump ordered, as I wrote, pertains to the "means,
methods and scope" of Federal regulators, which is well
within Presidential duties. He made no statement whatsoever
about States' laws because there's no need. See Madison's
words above, as applied by the 101st Airborne in Little
Rock, 1958 for example.
On Mon Feb 17 15:20:06 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:citizen" and it is likely to be higher than the US since Canada was open frontier for much longer. Guns were necessary7 to feed yourself.
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, as I said elsewhere, you cannot bring yourself to think before posting. 1. Guns last practically forever and modern repeaters showed up in the 1860's 2. Therefore neither you nor the Canadian government have the slightest idea of the "guns per
As for lower rates of murder - Canada is s much more homogenous society far less likely to have disputes over customs and morales. Not to mention DA's releasing murderers on no cash bail during Biden whom you loved like a father. Was your own fathercorrupt to his very core?
Here is Liebermann's opening to support your stupid 309 guns per 100 Canadian citizens.
Why, he's almost as bright as you (sic).
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:58:51 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:are seen as limiting gun ownership and use."
On 2/18/2025 5:13 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Feb 18 10:29:38 2025 AMuzi wrote:
There is no such order.
Executive orders can describe the means, methods and scope
of federal employees' work, but are not a substitute for
legislation. (or ought not to be at any rate, despite press
releases)
From the CATO Institute:
"President Trump signed an executive order aimed at protecting Second Amendment rights, directing a review of federal policies that may infringe on these rights. This order seeks to reverse regulations established during the Biden Administration that
The Supreme Court has aready deemed most gun control laws unconstitutional and states just like Krygowski simply ignore them. However, prosecutors already know enough not to try and prosecute anyone under these laws. The case law is settled.
Now, you were saying that there was no such executive order? Why didn't you simply look it up?
The text immediately above is mostly correct (SCOTUS parses
these questions more finely than you or I would prefer),
mostly sensible and in general agreement with what I wrote
above yours.
Prosecutors continue, however to prosecute firearms charges.
Not all regulations, and certainly not all jurisdictions and
not for all violators under similar circumstances but there
are prosecutions.
What you wrote a few hours ago however is different:
"Executive Order 2A - The 2nd Amendment has priority over
any state law concerning the 2nd Amendment. You have lost
and you simply won't admit it because you side with New York
City and voter fraud in California."
You most likely meant EO #14206 (there is no "2A")
https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders/donald-trump/2025
Here is the full text (it's short):
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/02/12/2025-02636/protecting-second-amendment-rights
Mr Trump did not order the Supremacy Clause. That was James
Madison (Article VI, Clause 2):
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made,
or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges
in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding."
What Mr Trump ordered, as I wrote, pertains to the "means,
methods and scope" of Federal regulators, which is well
within Presidential duties. He made no statement whatsoever
about States' laws because there's no need. See Madison's
words above, as applied by the 101st Airborne in Little
Rock, 1958 for example.
What's needed is more challenges to the state and local governments
that don't obey the Supremacy Clause.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Frank is scared shitless of guns.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:36:53 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>citizen" and it is likely to be higher than the US since Canada was open frontier for much longer. Guns were necessary7 to feed yourself.
wrote:
On Mon Feb 17 15:20:06 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
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, as I said elsewhere, you cannot bring yourself to think before posting. 1. Guns last practically forever and modern repeaters showed up in the 1860's 2. Therefore neither you nor the Canadian government have the slightest idea of the "guns per
corrupt to his very core?
As for lower rates of murder - Canada is s much more homogenous society far less likely to have disputes over customs and morales. Not to mention DA's releasing murderers on no cash bail during Biden whom you loved like a father. Was your own father
Here is Liebermann's opening to support your stupid 309 guns per 100 Canadian citizens.
Where is this mythical "here" that you claim quotes my comments on
Frank posting a Wikipedia article on Firearms regulations in Canada?
In the years I've been posting to rec.bicycles.tech, I have mentioned
guns perhaps 3 times. All were technical corrections and none of them
were recent.
Tom, you're hallucinating that I said anything. Have you been using
AI software to invent your tales? Better yet, are you really an AI in disguise instead of a human? It would seem to be the case if you're hallucinating in a similar manner.
Why, he's almost as bright as you (sic).
Improper use of "sic".
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic>
Where is the mythical quotation and error in the above "bright" quote?
Change-o-topic:
Has anyone actually tried using an rust prevention concoction such as
lanolin (sheep oil) based Fluid Film for preventing rust and
corrosion?
<https://www.fluid-film.com>
<https://www.fluid-film.com/products/> <https://www.fluid-film.com/recreation-applications/>
If so, which version and did it work?
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 19:31:53 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Frank is scared shitless of guns.
Tom, I would be more afraid of you than of Frank:
(07/20/2013)
"SLPD Handcuffs Good Samaritan and Ransacks His Home" <http://sanleandrotalk.voxpublica.org/2013/07/20/no-good-deed-goes-unpunished-slpd-handcuffs-good-samaritan-ransacks-his-home-over-100-year-old-gun/>
Note that the article was written by Tom based on his comments to
previous article bashing the San Leandro PD: <http://sanleandrotalk.voxpublica.org/2011/06/13/time-to-clean-up-the-san-leandro-police-department/#comment-3237>
On 2/18/2025 7:04 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:that are seen as limiting gun ownership and use."
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:58:51 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/18/2025 5:13 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Feb 18 10:29:38 2025 AMuzi wrote:
There is no such order.
Executive orders can describe the means, methods and scope
of federal employees' work, but are not a substitute for
legislation. (or ought not to be at any rate, despite press
releases)
From the CATO Institute:
"President Trump signed an executive order aimed at protecting Second Amendment rights, directing a review of federal policies that may infringe on these rights. This order seeks to reverse regulations established during the Biden Administration
The Supreme Court has aready deemed most gun control laws unconstitutional and states just like Krygowski simply ignore them. However, prosecutors already know enough not to try and prosecute anyone under these laws. The case law is settled.
Now, you were saying that there was no such executive order? Why didn't you simply look it up?
The text immediately above is mostly correct (SCOTUS parses
these questions more finely than you or I would prefer),
mostly sensible and in general agreement with what I wrote
above yours.
Prosecutors continue, however to prosecute firearms charges.
Not all regulations, and certainly not all jurisdictions and
not for all violators under similar circumstances but there
are prosecutions.
What you wrote a few hours ago however is different:
"Executive Order 2A - The 2nd Amendment has priority over
any state law concerning the 2nd Amendment. You have lost
and you simply won't admit it because you side with New York
City and voter fraud in California."
You most likely meant EO #14206 (there is no "2A")
https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders/donald-trump/2025
Here is the full text (it's short):
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/02/12/2025-02636/protecting-second-amendment-rights
Mr Trump did not order the Supremacy Clause. That was James
Madison (Article VI, Clause 2):
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made,
or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges
in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding."
What Mr Trump ordered, as I wrote, pertains to the "means,
methods and scope" of Federal regulators, which is well
within Presidential duties. He made no statement whatsoever
about States' laws because there's no need. See Madison's
words above, as applied by the 101st Airborne in Little
Rock, 1958 for example.
What's needed is more challenges to the state and local governments
that don't obey the Supremacy Clause.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Chicago and Illinois have ignored the Otis McDonald SCOTUS
decision for 15 years now with no plans to change their
unconstitutional policies as directly ordered.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20250218/defending-the-indefensible-court-strikes-illinois-foid-card-law
Suggestions welcome.
p.s. A wonderful and determined man, Mr McDonald:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2014/04/06/otis-mcdonald-1933-2014-fought-chicagos-gun-ban-2/
from the obit:
I described him as a man who wasnt a hero for one event,
but a hero every day in his life, Pearson said.
On 2/18/2025 12:00 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
...
<snicker> dumbass thinks ignoring the result of the correlation means he
can deny a correlation.
Dumbass need to be re-educated on the meaning of "correlation"
This is from a dumbass who was presented with two government reports
detailing the specification, testing, acceptance, and subsequent
acquisition of 80,000 AR-15s by the US military and concludes 'the AR-15
is a weapon the US military never wanted and never used'.
Uneducable.
indeed.
He trots out his favorite platitude every time he's presented with
evidence that he doesn't like.
I suspect the only "causation" he'll accept is a correlation that was
fed to him from some whacko right wing talk show.
I'm generally resisting the urge to respond to him. I suspect that's
giving his life even less meaning, but I'm not sympathetic.
On 2/18/2025 2:31 PM, cyclintom wrote:
Frank is scared shitless of guns. He denies that ...
Yes, I deny that. As usual, you and others are inventing things I've
never said. You and they lack the honesty to address my actual words.
On 2/18/2025 8:06 PM, John B. wrote:
Perhaps you are lucky that your wife didn't also discover your
philandering.
That was an asshole remark, John.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:51:56 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/17/2025 9:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:15:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
I didn't say that things didn't or don't happen, I said that in all my
years I hadn't seen it happen.
But perhaps I was looking in the wrong direction as your description,
I didn't know either of the men in the relationships I described. I
knew both of the women very well." rather gives a whole new picture,
doesn't it - You know a "woman well" and her husband objects to it to
the point that he beats her, gives your statement a whole new
meaning, doesn't it.
Perhaps you are lucky that your wife didn't also discover your
philandering.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 19:40:49 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:that are seen as limiting gun ownership and use."
On 2/18/2025 7:04 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:58:51 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/18/2025 5:13 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Feb 18 10:29:38 2025 AMuzi wrote:
There is no such order.
Executive orders can describe the means, methods and scope
of federal employees' work, but are not a substitute for
legislation. (or ought not to be at any rate, despite press
releases)
From the CATO Institute:
"President Trump signed an executive order aimed at protecting Second Amendment rights, directing a review of federal policies that may infringe on these rights. This order seeks to reverse regulations established during the Biden Administration
The Supreme Court has aready deemed most gun control laws unconstitutional and states just like Krygowski simply ignore them. However, prosecutors already know enough not to try and prosecute anyone under these laws. The case law is settled.
Now, you were saying that there was no such executive order? Why didn't you simply look it up?
The text immediately above is mostly correct (SCOTUS parses
these questions more finely than you or I would prefer),
mostly sensible and in general agreement with what I wrote
above yours.
Prosecutors continue, however to prosecute firearms charges.
Not all regulations, and certainly not all jurisdictions and
not for all violators under similar circumstances but there
are prosecutions.
What you wrote a few hours ago however is different:
"Executive Order 2A - The 2nd Amendment has priority over
any state law concerning the 2nd Amendment. You have lost
and you simply won't admit it because you side with New York
City and voter fraud in California."
You most likely meant EO #14206 (there is no "2A")
https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders/donald-trump/2025
Here is the full text (it's short):
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/02/12/2025-02636/protecting-second-amendment-rights
Mr Trump did not order the Supremacy Clause. That was James
Madison (Article VI, Clause 2):
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made,
or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges
in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding."
What Mr Trump ordered, as I wrote, pertains to the "means,
methods and scope" of Federal regulators, which is well
within Presidential duties. He made no statement whatsoever
about States' laws because there's no need. See Madison's
words above, as applied by the 101st Airborne in Little
Rock, 1958 for example.
What's needed is more challenges to the state and local governments
that don't obey the Supremacy Clause.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Chicago and Illinois have ignored the Otis McDonald SCOTUS
decision for 15 years now with no plans to change their
unconstitutional policies as directly ordered.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20250218/defending-the-indefensible-court-strikes-illinois-foid-card-law
Suggestions welcome.
p.s. A wonderful and determined man, Mr McDonald:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2014/04/06/otis-mcdonald-1933-2014-fought-chicagos-gun-ban-2/
from the obit:
I described him as a man who wasnt a hero for one event,
but a hero every day in his life, Pearson said.
Prosecuting State or District Attorneys might work if they're actually >enforcing unconstitutional laws. I wonder if Trump and Pam Bondi have
the grit to do it. Pam definitely had that kind of grit when working
under DeSantis.
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 04:10:24 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:06:25 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:51:56 -0500, Frank Krygowski >>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/17/2025 9:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:15:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
I didn't say that things didn't or don't happen, I said that in all my >>>years I hadn't seen it happen.
But perhaps I was looking in the wrong direction as your description,
I didn't know either of the men in the relationships I described. I
knew both of the women very well." rather gives a whole new picture, >>>doesn't it - You know a "woman well" and her husband objects to it to >>>the point that he beats her, gives your statement a whole new
meaning, doesn't it.
Perhaps you are lucky that your wife didn't also discover your >>>philandering.
I have to disagree with that presumption. Something like that requires >>courage, a willingness to take a risk, and at least a little
masculinity. Krygowski possesses none of those attributes.
You mean that he lisps when he talks?
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 04:10:24 -0500, floriduh dumbass
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:06:25 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
Perhaps you are lucky that your wife didn't also discover your
philandering.
I have to disagree with that presumption. Something like that requires
courage, a willingness to take a risk, and at least a little
masculinity. Krygowski possesses none of those attributes.
On 2/18/2025 12:00 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
...
<snicker> dumbass thinks ignoring the result of the correlation means
he can deny a correlation.
Dumbass need to be re-educated on the meaning of "correlation"
This is from a dumbass who was presented with two government reports
detailing the specification, testing, acceptance, and subsequent
acquisition of 80,000 AR-15s by the US military and concludes 'the
AR-15 is a weapon the US military never wanted and never used'.
Uneducable.
indeed.
He trots out his favorite platitude every time he's presented with
evidence that he doesn't like.
I suspect the only "causation" he'll accept is a correlation that was
fed to him from some whacko right wing talk show.
I'm generally resisting the urge to respond to him. I suspect that's
giving his life even less meaning, but I'm not sympathetic.
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if fertilization makes a
plant grow faster, therefore plants grow faster when fertilized.
That is clearly false.On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 04:05:47 -0500, Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:51:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/18/2025 12:00 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
...
<snicker> dumbass thinks ignoring the result of the correlation means he >>> can deny a correlation.
Dumbass need to be re-educated on the meaning of "correlation"
This is from a dumbass who was presented with two government reports
detailing the specification, testing, acceptance, and subsequent
acquisition of 80,000 AR-15s by the US military and concludes 'the AR-15 >>> is a weapon the US military never wanted and never used'.
Uneducable.
indeed.
He trots out his favorite platitude every time he's presented with
evidence that he doesn't like.
I suspect the only "causation" he'll accept is a correlation that was
fed to him from some whacko right wing talk show.
I'm generally resisting the urge to respond to him. I suspect that's
giving his life even less meaning, but I'm not sympathetic.
Failure to respond indicates that he has no answer, although there's
the remote possibility that he understand that I'm right, he's wrong
and simply doesn't have balls to admit it.
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 as Krygowski did in the following statement:
"Providing proper fertilization to a growing plant correlates with
faster growth. That correlation correctly implies causation."
--Krygowski
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if P implies Q, therefore Q
implies P.
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if fertilization makes a
plant grow faster, therefore plants grow faster when fertilized.
That is clearly false.
Krygowski and Junior might have learned that if they were better
educated
But then again, understanding the intricacies of logic requires a
level of intellect that neither of them possess.
On 2/17/2025 11:20 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 14:35:56 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/17/2025 2:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/17/2025 11:54 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/17/2025 10:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/17/2025 9:39 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/16/2025 9:50 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/16/2025 8:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:36:53 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>citizen" and it is likely to be higher than the US since Canada was open frontier for much longer. Guns were necessary7 to feed yourself.
wrote:
On Mon Feb 17 15:20:06 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
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, as I said elsewhere, you cannot bring yourself to think before posting. 1. Guns last practically forever and modern repeaters showed up in the 1860's 2. Therefore neither you nor the Canadian government have the slightest idea of the "guns per
corrupt to his very core?
As for lower rates of murder - Canada is s much more homogenous society far less likely to have disputes over customs and morales. Not to mention DA's releasing murderers on no cash bail during Biden whom you loved like a father. Was your own father
Here is Liebermann's opening to support your stupid 309 guns per 100 Canadian citizens.
Where is this mythical "here" that you claim quotes my comments on
Frank posting a Wikipedia article on Firearms regulations in Canada?
In the years I've been posting to rec.bicycles.tech, I have mentioned
guns perhaps 3 times. All were technical corrections and none of them
were recent.
Tom, you're hallucinating that I said anything. Have you been using
AI software to invent your tales? Better yet, are you really an AI in disguise instead of a human? It would seem to be the case if you're hallucinating in a similar manner.
Why, he's almost as bright as you (sic).
Improper use of "sic".
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic>
Where is the mythical quotation and error in the above "bright" quote?
Change-o-topic:
Has anyone actually tried using an rust prevention concoction such as
lanolin (sheep oil) based Fluid Film for preventing rust and
corrosion?
<https://www.fluid-film.com>
<https://www.fluid-film.com/products/> <https://www.fluid-film.com/recreation-applications/>
If so, which version and did it work?
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:51:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/18/2025 12:00 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
...
<snicker> dumbass thinks ignoring the result of the correlation means he >>> can deny a correlation.
Dumbass need to be re-educated on the meaning of "correlation"
This is from a dumbass who was presented with two government reports
detailing the specification, testing, acceptance, and subsequent
acquisition of 80,000 AR-15s by the US military and concludes 'the AR-15 >>> is a weapon the US military never wanted and never used'.
Uneducable.
indeed.
He trots out his favorite platitude every time he's presented with
evidence that he doesn't like.
I suspect the only "causation" he'll accept is a correlation that was
fed to him from some whacko right wing talk show.
I'm generally resisting the urge to respond to him. I suspect that's
giving his life even less meaning, but I'm not sympathetic.
Failure to respond indicates that he has no answer, although there's
the remote possibility that he understand that I'm right, he's wrong
and simply doesn't have balls to admit it.
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 as Krygowski did in the following statement:
"Providing proper fertilization to a growing plant correlates with
faster growth. That correlation correctly implies causation."
--Krygowski
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if P implies Q, therefore Q
implies P.
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if fertilization makes a
plant grow faster, therefore plants grow faster when fertilized.
That is clearly false.
Krygowski and Junior might have learned that if they were better
educated
But then again, understanding the intricacies of logic requires a
level of intellect that neither of them possess.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 2/19/2025 3:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:51:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/18/2025 12:00 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
...
<snicker> dumbass thinks ignoring the result of the correlation means he >>>> can deny a correlation.
Dumbass need to be re-educated on the meaning of "correlation"
This is from a dumbass who was presented with two government reports
detailing the specification, testing, acceptance, and subsequent
acquisition of 80,000 AR-15s by the US military and concludes 'the AR-15 >>>> is a weapon the US military never wanted and never used'.
Uneducable.
indeed.
He trots out his favorite platitude every time he's presented with
evidence that he doesn't like.
I suspect the only "causation" he'll accept is a correlation that was
fed to him from some whacko right wing talk show.
I'm generally resisting the urge to respond to him. I suspect that's
giving his life even less meaning, but I'm not sympathetic.
Failure to respond indicates that he has no answer, although there's
the remote possibility that he understand that I'm right, he's wrong
and simply doesn't have balls to admit it.
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 as Krygowski did in the following statement:
"Providing proper fertilization to a growing plant correlates with
faster growth. That correlation correctly implies causation."
--Krygowski
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if P implies Q, therefore Q
implies P.
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if fertilization makes a
plant grow faster, therefore plants grow faster when fertilized.
That is clearly false.
Krygowski and Junior might have learned that if they were better
educated
But then again, understanding the intricacies of logic requires a
level of intellect that neither of them possess.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Failure to respond may just as well be an eyeroll to
something considered trivial to one reader or another.
On 2/19/2025 3:05 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:51:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/18/2025 12:00 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
<snicker> dumbass thinks ignoring the result of the correlation...
means he
can deny a correlation.
Dumbass need to be re-educated on the meaning of "correlation"
This is from a dumbass who was presented with two government reports
detailing the specification, testing, acceptance, and subsequent
acquisition of 80,000 AR-15s by the US military and concludes 'the
AR-15
is a weapon the US military never wanted and never used'.
Uneducable.
indeed.
He trots out his favorite platitude every time he's presented with
evidence that he doesn't like.
I suspect the only "causation" he'll accept is a correlation that was
fed to him from some whacko right wing talk show.
I'm generally resisting the urge to respond to him. I suspect that's
giving his life even less meaning, but I'm not sympathetic.
Failure to respond indicates that he has no answer, although there's
the remote possibility that he understand that I'm right, he's wrong
and simply doesn't have balls to admit it.
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 as Krygowski did in the following statement:
"Providing proper fertilization to a growing plant correlates with
faster growth. That correlation correctly implies causation."
--Krygowski
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if P implies Q, therefore Q
implies P.
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if fertilization makes a
plant grow faster, therefore plants grow faster when fertilized.
That is clearly false.
Krygowski and Junior might have learned that if they were better
educated
But then again, understanding the intricacies of logic requires a
level of intellect that neither of them possess.
On 2/19/2025 9:39 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 10:07:12 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
lol..The dumbass still making the dumbshine state proud.
<grin> If plants really do grow faster when fertilized, Dummy, how
come the freshly fertilized grass my wife set a big flower pot over
didn't grow faster?
On 2/19/2025 3:05 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:51:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/18/2025 12:00 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
<snicker> dumbass thinks ignoring the result of the correlation...
means he
can deny a correlation.
Dumbass need to be re-educated on the meaning of "correlation"
This is from a dumbass who was presented with two government reports >>>>> detailing the specification, testing, acceptance, and subsequent
acquisition of 80,000 AR-15s by the US military and concludes 'the
AR-15
is a weapon the US military never wanted and never used'.
Uneducable.
indeed.
He trots out his favorite platitude every time he's presented with
evidence that he doesn't like.
I suspect the only "causation" he'll accept is a correlation that was
fed to him from some whacko right wing talk show.
I'm generally resisting the urge to respond to him. I suspect that's
giving his life even less meaning, but I'm not sympathetic.
Failure to respond indicates that he has no answer, although there's
the remote possibility that he understand that I'm right, he's wrong
and simply doesn't have balls to admit it.
lol...as if that isn't 'affirming the consequent'.
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 as Krygowski did in the following statement:
"Providing proper fertilization to a growing plant correlates with
faster growth. That correlation correctly implies causation."
--Krygowski
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if P implies Q, therefore Q
implies P.
nope, sorry dumbass. This is just a lame attempt at a defense on your
part because you're still butthurt from being corrected when you
insisted "correlation is not causation".
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if fertilization makes a
plant grow faster, therefore plants grow faster when fertilized.
That is clearly false.
Sure dumbass....Plants do _not_ grow faster when fertilized. Maybe
that'll work with the anti-science trump/musk sycophants being put in
charge of the USDA, but for those of us that actually respect and
understand science it's just another willfully ignorant magatard trying
to sound as if he has a fucking clue. HINT: you don't.
We're being told prayer works just as well. Tel ya what, dumbass, You
take two of the same species and variety of plants in identical
conditions, except that you give one fertilizer and pray over the other.
Let us know how well that works out....
Krygowski and Junior might have learned that if they were better
educated
seeing you criticize others for lack of education is almost as funny as >seeing tommy do it.
But then again, understanding the intricacies of logic requires a
level of intellect that neither of them possess.
says the willfully ignorant magatard who wrote "if fertilization makes a >plant grow faster, therefore plants grow faster when fertilized. That is >clearly false."
lol..The dumbass still making the dumbshine state proud.
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 10:07:12 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/19/2025 3:05 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:51:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/18/2025 12:00 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
<snicker> dumbass thinks ignoring the result of the correlation...
means he
can deny a correlation.
Dumbass need to be re-educated on the meaning of "correlation"
This is from a dumbass who was presented with two government reports >>>>>> detailing the specification, testing, acceptance, and subsequent
acquisition of 80,000 AR-15s by the US military and concludes 'the >>>>>> AR-15
is a weapon the US military never wanted and never used'.
Uneducable.
indeed.
He trots out his favorite platitude every time he's presented with
evidence that he doesn't like.
I suspect the only "causation" he'll accept is a correlation that was >>>>> fed to him from some whacko right wing talk show.
I'm generally resisting the urge to respond to him. I suspect that's >>>>> giving his life even less meaning, but I'm not sympathetic.
Failure to respond indicates that he has no answer, although there's
the remote possibility that he understand that I'm right, he's wrong
and simply doesn't have balls to admit it.
lol...as if that isn't 'affirming the consequent'.
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 as Krygowski did in the following statement:
"Providing proper fertilization to a growing plant correlates with
faster growth. That correlation correctly implies causation."
--Krygowski
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if P implies Q, therefore Q
implies P.
nope, sorry dumbass. This is just a lame attempt at a defense on your
part because you're still butthurt from being corrected when you
insisted "correlation is not causation".
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if fertilization makes a
plant grow faster, therefore plants grow faster when fertilized.
That is clearly false.
Sure dumbass....Plants do _not_ grow faster when fertilized. Maybe
that'll work with the anti-science trump/musk sycophants being put in
charge of the USDA, but for those of us that actually respect and
understand science it's just another willfully ignorant magatard trying
to sound as if he has a fucking clue. HINT: you don't.
We're being told prayer works just as well. Tel ya what, dumbass, You
take two of the same species and variety of plants in identical
conditions, except that you give one fertilizer and pray over the other.
Let us know how well that works out....
Krygowski and Junior might have learned that if they were better
educated
seeing you criticize others for lack of education is almost as funny as
seeing tommy do it.
But then again, understanding the intricacies of logic requires a
level of intellect that neither of them possess.
says the willfully ignorant magatard who wrote "if fertilization makes a
plant grow faster, therefore plants grow faster when fertilized. That is
clearly false."
lol..The dumbass still making the dumbshine state proud.
<grin> If plants really do grow faster when fertilized, Dummy, how
come the freshly fertilized grass my wife set a big flower pot over
didn't grow faster?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 2/19/2025 3:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:51:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/18/2025 12:00 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
<snicker> dumbass thinks ignoring the result of the correlation...
means he
can deny a correlation.
Dumbass need to be re-educated on the meaning of "correlation"
This is from a dumbass who was presented with two government reports
detailing the specification, testing, acceptance, and subsequent
acquisition of 80,000 AR-15s by the US military and concludes 'the
AR-15
is a weapon the US military never wanted and never used'.
Uneducable.
indeed.
He trots out his favorite platitude every time he's presented with
evidence that he doesn't like.
I suspect the only "causation" he'll accept is a correlation that was
fed to him from some whacko right wing talk show.
I'm generally resisting the urge to respond to him. I suspect that's
giving his life even less meaning, but I'm not sympathetic.
Failure to respond indicates that he has no answer, although there's
the remote possibility that he understand that I'm right, he's wrong
and simply doesn't have balls to admit it.
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 as Krygowski did in the following statement:
"Providing proper fertilization to a growing plant correlates with
faster growth. That correlation correctly implies causation."
--Krygowski
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if P implies Q, therefore Q
implies P.
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if fertilization makes a
plant grow faster, therefore plants grow faster when fertilized.
That is clearly false.
Krygowski and Junior might have learned that if they were better
educated
But then again, understanding the intricacies of logic requires a
level of intellect that neither of them possess.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Failure to respond may just as well be an eyeroll to something
considered trivial to one reader or another.
On 2/19/2025 9:39 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 10:07:12 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/19/2025 3:05 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:51:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/18/2025 12:00 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
<snicker> dumbass thinks ignoring the result of the correlation...
means he
can deny a correlation.
Dumbass need to be re-educated on the meaning of "correlation"
This is from a dumbass who was presented with two government reports >>>>>>> detailing the specification, testing, acceptance, and subsequent >>>>>>> acquisition of 80,000 AR-15s by the US military and concludes 'the >>>>>>> AR-15
is a weapon the US military never wanted and never used'.
Uneducable.
indeed.
He trots out his favorite platitude every time he's presented with >>>>>> evidence that he doesn't like.
I suspect the only "causation" he'll accept is a correlation that was >>>>>> fed to him from some whacko right wing talk show.
I'm generally resisting the urge to respond to him. I suspect that's >>>>>> giving his life even less meaning, but I'm not sympathetic.
Failure to respond indicates that he has no answer, although there's >>>>> the remote possibility that he understand that I'm right, he's wrong >>>>> and simply doesn't have balls to admit it.
lol...as if that isn't 'affirming the consequent'.
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 as Krygowski did in the following statement:
"Providing proper fertilization to a growing plant correlates with
faster growth. That correlation correctly implies causation."
--Krygowski
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if P implies Q, therefore Q >>>>> implies P.
nope, sorry dumbass. This is just a lame attempt at a defense on your
part because you're still butthurt from being corrected when you
insisted "correlation is not causation".
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if fertilization makes a
plant grow faster, therefore plants grow faster when fertilized.
That is clearly false.
Sure dumbass....Plants do _not_ grow faster when fertilized. Maybe
that'll work with the anti-science trump/musk sycophants being put in
charge of the USDA, but for those of us that actually respect and
understand science it's just another willfully ignorant magatard trying
to sound as if he has a fucking clue. HINT: you don't.
We're being told prayer works just as well. Tel ya what, dumbass, You
take two of the same species and variety of plants in identical
conditions, except that you give one fertilizer and pray over the other. >>> Let us know how well that works out....
Krygowski and Junior might have learned that if they were better
educated
seeing you criticize others for lack of education is almost as funny as
seeing tommy do it.
But then again, understanding the intricacies of logic requires a
level of intellect that neither of them possess.
says the willfully ignorant magatard who wrote "if fertilization makes a >>> plant grow faster, therefore plants grow faster when fertilized. That is >>> clearly false."
lol..The dumbass still making the dumbshine state proud.
<grin> If plants really do grow faster when fertilized, Dummy, how
come the freshly fertilized grass my wife set a big flower pot over
didn't grow faster?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
The phrase you two seek is , "Necessary but not sufficient."
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 09:59:01 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/19/2025 9:39 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 10:07:12 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/19/2025 3:05 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:51:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/18/2025 12:00 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
<snicker> dumbass thinks ignoring the result of the correlation >>>>>>>> means he...
can deny a correlation.
Dumbass need to be re-educated on the meaning of "correlation" >>>>>>>>
This is from a dumbass who was presented with two government reports >>>>>>>> detailing the specification, testing, acceptance, and subsequent >>>>>>>> acquisition of 80,000 AR-15s by the US military and concludes 'the >>>>>>>> AR-15
is a weapon the US military never wanted and never used'.
Uneducable.
indeed.
He trots out his favorite platitude every time he's presented with >>>>>>> evidence that he doesn't like.
I suspect the only "causation" he'll accept is a correlation that was >>>>>>> fed to him from some whacko right wing talk show.
I'm generally resisting the urge to respond to him. I suspect that's >>>>>>> giving his life even less meaning, but I'm not sympathetic.
Failure to respond indicates that he has no answer, although there's >>>>>> the remote possibility that he understand that I'm right, he's wrong >>>>>> and simply doesn't have balls to admit it.
lol...as if that isn't 'affirming the consequent'.
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 as Krygowski did in the following statement:
"Providing proper fertilization to a growing plant correlates with >>>>>> faster growth. That correlation correctly implies causation."
--Krygowski
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if P implies Q, therefore Q >>>>>> implies P.
nope, sorry dumbass. This is just a lame attempt at a defense on your
part because you're still butthurt from being corrected when you
insisted "correlation is not causation".
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if fertilization makes a >>>>>> plant grow faster, therefore plants grow faster when fertilized.
That is clearly false.
Sure dumbass....Plants do _not_ grow faster when fertilized. Maybe
that'll work with the anti-science trump/musk sycophants being put in
charge of the USDA, but for those of us that actually respect and
understand science it's just another willfully ignorant magatard trying >>>> to sound as if he has a fucking clue. HINT: you don't.
We're being told prayer works just as well. Tel ya what, dumbass, You
take two of the same species and variety of plants in identical
conditions, except that you give one fertilizer and pray over the other. >>>> Let us know how well that works out....
Krygowski and Junior might have learned that if they were better
educated
seeing you criticize others for lack of education is almost as funny as >>>> seeing tommy do it.
But then again, understanding the intricacies of logic requires a
level of intellect that neither of them possess.
says the willfully ignorant magatard who wrote "if fertilization makes a >>>> plant grow faster, therefore plants grow faster when fertilized. That is >>>> clearly false."
lol..The dumbass still making the dumbshine state proud.
<grin> If plants really do grow faster when fertilized, Dummy, how
come the freshly fertilized grass my wife set a big flower pot over
didn't grow faster?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
The phrase you two seek is , "Necessary but not sufficient."
Ok. That works, but in the case of applying fertilizer, "beneficial
but not sufficient" works better.
On 2/19/2025 9:04 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Failure to respond may just as well be an eyeroll to something
considered trivial to one reader or another.
+1. But trolls won't admit that.
On 2/19/2025 3:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:51:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/18/2025 12:00 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
...
<snicker> dumbass thinks ignoring the result of the correlation means he >>>> can deny a correlation.
Dumbass need to be re-educated on the meaning of "correlation"
This is from a dumbass who was presented with two government reports
detailing the specification, testing, acceptance, and subsequent
acquisition of 80,000 AR-15s by the US military and concludes 'the AR-15 >>>> is a weapon the US military never wanted and never used'.
Uneducable.
indeed.
He trots out his favorite platitude every time he's presented with
evidence that he doesn't like.
I suspect the only "causation" he'll accept is a correlation that was
fed to him from some whacko right wing talk show.
I'm generally resisting the urge to respond to him. I suspect that's
giving his life even less meaning, but I'm not sympathetic.
Failure to respond indicates that he has no answer, although there's
the remote possibility that he understand that I'm right, he's wrong
and simply doesn't have balls to admit it.
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 as Krygowski did in the following statement:
"Providing proper fertilization to a growing plant correlates with
faster growth. That correlation correctly implies causation."
--Krygowski
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if P implies Q, therefore Q
implies P.
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if fertilization makes a
plant grow faster, therefore plants grow faster when fertilized.
That is clearly false.
Krygowski and Junior might have learned that if they were better
educated
But then again, understanding the intricacies of logic requires a
level of intellect that neither of them possess.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Failure to respond may just as well be an eyeroll to
something considered trivial to one reader or another.
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/19/2025 3:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:51:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/18/2025 12:00 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
...
<snicker> dumbass thinks ignoring the result of the correlation means he >>>>> can deny a correlation.
Dumbass need to be re-educated on the meaning of "correlation"
This is from a dumbass who was presented with two government reports >>>>> detailing the specification, testing, acceptance, and subsequent
acquisition of 80,000 AR-15s by the US military and concludes 'the AR-15 >>>>> is a weapon the US military never wanted and never used'.
Uneducable.
indeed.
He trots out his favorite platitude every time he's presented with
evidence that he doesn't like.
I suspect the only "causation" he'll accept is a correlation that was
fed to him from some whacko right wing talk show.
I'm generally resisting the urge to respond to him. I suspect that's
giving his life even less meaning, but I'm not sympathetic.
Failure to respond indicates that he has no answer, although there's
the remote possibility that he understand that I'm right, he's wrong
and simply doesn't have balls to admit it.
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 as Krygowski did in the following statement:
"Providing proper fertilization to a growing plant correlates with
faster growth. That correlation correctly implies causation."
--Krygowski
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if P implies Q, therefore Q
implies P.
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if fertilization makes a
plant grow faster, therefore plants grow faster when fertilized.
That is clearly false.
Krygowski and Junior might have learned that if they were better
educated
But then again, understanding the intricacies of logic requires a
level of intellect that neither of them possess.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Failure to respond may just as well be an eyeroll to
something considered trivial to one reader or another.
Indeed failure to respond certainly in my case can mean Ive given up not >worth the Electrons and frankly its not going anywhere.
Very unlikely to be ooh gotcha hes won that argument! Or hes so right!
Clearly occasionally do learn something, which is interesting, or at least >hopefully so!
Roger Merriman
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/19/2025 3:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:51:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/18/2025 12:00 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
...
<snicker> dumbass thinks ignoring the result of the correlation means he >>>>> can deny a correlation.
Dumbass need to be re-educated on the meaning of "correlation"
This is from a dumbass who was presented with two government reports >>>>> detailing the specification, testing, acceptance, and subsequent
acquisition of 80,000 AR-15s by the US military and concludes 'the AR-15 >>>>> is a weapon the US military never wanted and never used'.
Uneducable.
indeed.
He trots out his favorite platitude every time he's presented with
evidence that he doesn't like.
I suspect the only "causation" he'll accept is a correlation that was
fed to him from some whacko right wing talk show.
I'm generally resisting the urge to respond to him. I suspect that's
giving his life even less meaning, but I'm not sympathetic.
Failure to respond indicates that he has no answer, although there's
the remote possibility that he understand that I'm right, he's wrong
and simply doesn't have balls to admit it.
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 as Krygowski did in the following statement:
"Providing proper fertilization to a growing plant correlates with
faster growth. That correlation correctly implies causation."
--Krygowski
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if P implies Q, therefore Q
implies P.
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if fertilization makes a
plant grow faster, therefore plants grow faster when fertilized.
That is clearly false.
Krygowski and Junior might have learned that if they were better
educated
But then again, understanding the intricacies of logic requires a
level of intellect that neither of them possess.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Failure to respond may just as well be an eyeroll to
something considered trivial to one reader or another.
Indeed failure to respond certainly in my case can mean I’ve given up not worth the Electrons and frankly it’s not going anywhere.
Very unlikely to be ooh gotcha he’s won that argument! Or he’s so right!
Clearly occasionally do learn something, which is interesting, or at least hopefully so!
Roger Merriman
On 19 Feb 2025 17:37:28 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/19/2025 3:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:51:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/18/2025 12:00 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
...
<snicker> dumbass thinks ignoring the result of the correlation means he >>>>>> can deny a correlation.
Dumbass need to be re-educated on the meaning of "correlation"
This is from a dumbass who was presented with two government reports >>>>>> detailing the specification, testing, acceptance, and subsequent
acquisition of 80,000 AR-15s by the US military and concludes 'the AR-15 >>>>>> is a weapon the US military never wanted and never used'.
Uneducable.
indeed.
He trots out his favorite platitude every time he's presented with
evidence that he doesn't like.
I suspect the only "causation" he'll accept is a correlation that was >>>>> fed to him from some whacko right wing talk show.
I'm generally resisting the urge to respond to him. I suspect that's >>>>> giving his life even less meaning, but I'm not sympathetic.
Failure to respond indicates that he has no answer, although there's
the remote possibility that he understand that I'm right, he's wrong
and simply doesn't have balls to admit it.
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 as Krygowski did in the following statement:
"Providing proper fertilization to a growing plant correlates with
faster growth. That correlation correctly implies causation."
--Krygowski
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if P implies Q, therefore Q
implies P.
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if fertilization makes a
plant grow faster, therefore plants grow faster when fertilized.
That is clearly false.
Krygowski and Junior might have learned that if they were better
educated
But then again, understanding the intricacies of logic requires a
level of intellect that neither of them possess.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Failure to respond may just as well be an eyeroll to
something considered trivial to one reader or another.
Indeed failure to respond certainly in my case can mean Ive given up not >> worth the Electrons and frankly its not going anywhere.
Very unlikely to be ooh gotcha hes won that argument! Or hes so right! >>
Clearly occasionally do learn something, which is interesting, or at least >> hopefully so!
Roger Merriman
I understand your and Mr Muzi's lack of interest, but when someone
directs an attack at me and then runs away from the rebuttal, it's the actions of a coward... what else can it be?
At any rate, it needs to be pointed out.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
floriduh dumbass <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I understand your and Mr Muzi's lack of interest, but when someone
directs an attack at me and then runs away from the rebuttal, it's the
actions of a coward... what else can it be?
At any rate, it needs to be pointed out.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 17:37:28 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/19/2025 3:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:51:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/18/2025 12:00 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
...
<snicker> dumbass thinks ignoring the result of the correlation means he
can deny a correlation.
Dumbass need to be re-educated on the meaning of "correlation"
This is from a dumbass who was presented with two government reports >>>>>>> detailing the specification, testing, acceptance, and subsequent >>>>>>> acquisition of 80,000 AR-15s by the US military and concludes 'the AR-15
is a weapon the US military never wanted and never used'.
Uneducable.
indeed.
He trots out his favorite platitude every time he's presented with >>>>>> evidence that he doesn't like.
I suspect the only "causation" he'll accept is a correlation that was >>>>>> fed to him from some whacko right wing talk show.
I'm generally resisting the urge to respond to him. I suspect that's >>>>>> giving his life even less meaning, but I'm not sympathetic.
Failure to respond indicates that he has no answer, although there's >>>>> the remote possibility that he understand that I'm right, he's wrong >>>>> and simply doesn't have balls to admit it.
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 as Krygowski did in the following statement:
"Providing proper fertilization to a growing plant correlates with
faster growth. That correlation correctly implies causation."
--Krygowski
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if P implies Q, therefore Q >>>>> implies P.
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if fertilization makes a
plant grow faster, therefore plants grow faster when fertilized.
That is clearly false.
Krygowski and Junior might have learned that if they were better
educated
But then again, understanding the intricacies of logic requires a
level of intellect that neither of them possess.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Failure to respond may just as well be an eyeroll to
something considered trivial to one reader or another.
Indeed failure to respond certainly in my case can mean I?ve given up not >>> worth the Electrons and frankly it?s not going anywhere.
Very unlikely to be ooh gotcha he?s won that argument! Or he?s so right! >>>
Clearly occasionally do learn something, which is interesting, or at least >>> hopefully so!
Roger Merriman
I understand your and Mr Muzi's lack of interest, but when someone
directs an attack at me and then runs away from the rebuttal, it's the
actions of a coward... what else can it be?
At any rate, it needs to be pointed out.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Frankly thats absolutely the time to walk away and go for a bike ride/cafe >etc put down the iPad or at least the newsreader.
Continuing an argument which has dissolved into just name calling quite >frankly I see no reason to continue that!
Roger Merriman
On 2/18/2025 8:31 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:citizen" and it is likely to be higher than the US since Canada was open frontier for much longer. Guns were necessary7 to feed yourself.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:36:53 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Mon Feb 17 15:20:06 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
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, as I said elsewhere, you cannot bring yourself to think before posting. 1. Guns last practically forever and modern repeaters showed up in the 1860's 2. Therefore neither you nor the Canadian government have the slightest idea of the "guns per
corrupt to his very core?
As for lower rates of murder - Canada is s much more homogenous society far less likely to have disputes over customs and morales. Not to mention DA's releasing murderers on no cash bail during Biden whom you loved like a father. Was your own father
Here is Liebermann's opening to support your stupid 309 guns per 100 Canadian citizens.
Where is this mythical "here" that you claim quotes my comments on
Frank posting a Wikipedia article on Firearms regulations in Canada?
In the years I've been posting to rec.bicycles.tech, I have mentioned
guns perhaps 3 times. All were technical corrections and none of them
were recent.
Tom, you're hallucinating that I said anything. Have you been using
AI software to invent your tales? Better yet, are you really an AI in
disguise instead of a human? It would seem to be the case if you're
hallucinating in a similar manner.
Why, he's almost as bright as you (sic).
Improper use of "sic".
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic>
Where is the mythical quotation and error in the above "bright" quote?
Change-o-topic:
Has anyone actually tried using an rust prevention concoction such as
lanolin (sheep oil) based Fluid Film for preventing rust and
corrosion?
<https://www.fluid-film.com>
<https://www.fluid-film.com/products/>
<https://www.fluid-film.com/recreation-applications/>
If so, which version and did it work?
Polishing up the howitzer, are we?
On 2/18/2025 7:31 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:citizen" and it is likely to be higher than the US since Canada was open frontier for much longer. Guns were necessary7 to feed yourself.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:36:53 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Mon Feb 17 15:20:06 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
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, as I said elsewhere, you cannot bring yourself to think before posting. 1. Guns last practically forever and modern repeaters showed up in the 1860's 2. Therefore neither you nor the Canadian government have the slightest idea of the "guns per
corrupt to his very core?
As for lower rates of murder - Canada is s much more homogenous society far less likely to have disputes over customs and morales. Not to mention DA's releasing murderers on no cash bail during Biden whom you loved like a father. Was your own father
Here is Liebermann's opening to support your stupid 309 guns per 100 Canadian citizens.
Where is this mythical "here" that you claim quotes my comments on
Frank posting a Wikipedia article on Firearms regulations in Canada?
In the years I've been posting to rec.bicycles.tech, I have mentioned
guns perhaps 3 times. All were technical corrections and none of them
were recent.
Tom, you're hallucinating that I said anything. Have you been using
AI software to invent your tales? Better yet, are you really an AI in
disguise instead of a human? It would seem to be the case if you're
hallucinating in a similar manner.
Why, he's almost as bright as you (sic).
Improper use of "sic".
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic>
Where is the mythical quotation and error in the above "bright" quote?
Change-o-topic:
Has anyone actually tried using an rust prevention concoction such as
lanolin (sheep oil) based Fluid Film for preventing rust and
corrosion?
<https://www.fluid-film.com>
<https://www.fluid-film.com/products/>
<https://www.fluid-film.com/recreation-applications/>
If so, which version and did it work?
I have not, although linseed oil is effective for a few years.
In the 1990s, products appeared with various mixes including
oxalic acid to convert the red unstable rust to a black iron
oxide which holds primers and paint better. Has to sit 24
hours dry before coating, cheap at any auto parts store.
More recently I've used the newer paints which react with
and bond to red rust (wire brush away loose material and
then paint it- no primer). A bit pricey but very effective.
Depends on your project I suppose.
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:47:06 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/18/2025 8:31 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:36:53 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Mon Feb 17 15:20:06 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
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, as I said elsewhere, you cannot bring yourself to think
before posting. 1. Guns last practically forever and modern
repeaters showed up in the 1860's 2. Therefore neither you nor the
Canadian government have the slightest idea of the "guns per
citizen" and it is likely to be higher than the US since Canada
was open frontier for much longer. Guns were necessary7 to feed
yourself.
As for lower rates of murder - Canada is s much more homogenous
society far less likely to have disputes over customs and
morales. Not to mention DA's releasing murderers on no cash bail
during Biden whom you loved like a father. Was your own father
corrupt to his very core?
Here is Liebermann's opening to support your stupid 309 guns per
100 Canadian citizens.
Where is this mythical "here" that you claim quotes my comments on
Frank posting a Wikipedia article on Firearms regulations in Canada?
In the years I've been posting to rec.bicycles.tech, I have mentioned
guns perhaps 3 times. All were technical corrections and none of them
were recent.
Tom, you're hallucinating that I said anything. Have you been using
AI software to invent your tales? Better yet, are you really an AI in
disguise instead of a human? It would seem to be the case if you're
hallucinating in a similar manner.
Why, he's almost as bright as you (sic).
Improper use of "sic".
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic>
Where is the mythical quotation and error in the above "bright" quote?
Change-o-topic:
Has anyone actually tried using an rust prevention concoction such as
lanolin (sheep oil) based Fluid Film for preventing rust and
corrosion?
<https://www.fluid-film.com>
<https://www.fluid-film.com/products/>
<https://www.fluid-film.com/recreation-applications/>
If so, which version and did it work?
Polishing up the howitzer, are we?
No. My use is much more mundane. I'm looking for a universal rust
inhibiting spray that I can safely use on most everything. Fluid Film
seems to be positioning themselves as the WD-40 of rust. The
immediate problem is that I have 2 bicycles sitting outside, covered
with plastic, but still rusting a little. Evapo-Rust works well for
removing rust from bicycle chains, but is not suitable for rust
prevention. I also have a shower built from painted steel sheet
metal. After about 60 years (since the house was built) the paint is
flaking off and the underlying steel sheet metal is rusting. I really
don't need a bathroom remodel project at this time and prefer to save
the existing steel shower. I also have boxes of hardware, an old refrigerator that I use for storage, and steel tools that are
susceptible to rust. The equipment and tools that were zinc plated or covered with zinc primer before painting are holding up well. However,
I don't have room to build a paint spray booth or power coating oven,
that will be necessary to repaint everything. For my guns, I use a
tacky lube, such as chain saw bar oil.
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:35:28 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 18:11:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 17:37:28 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/19/2025 3:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:51:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/18/2025 12:00 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
...
<snicker> dumbass thinks ignoring the result of the correlation means he
can deny a correlation.
Dumbass need to be re-educated on the meaning of "correlation" >>>>>>>>>
This is from a dumbass who was presented with two government reports >>>>>>>>> detailing the specification, testing, acceptance, and subsequent >>>>>>>>> acquisition of 80,000 AR-15s by the US military and concludes 'the AR-15
is a weapon the US military never wanted and never used'.
Uneducable.
indeed.
He trots out his favorite platitude every time he's presented with >>>>>>>> evidence that he doesn't like.
I suspect the only "causation" he'll accept is a correlation that was >>>>>>>> fed to him from some whacko right wing talk show.
I'm generally resisting the urge to respond to him. I suspect that's >>>>>>>> giving his life even less meaning, but I'm not sympathetic.
Failure to respond indicates that he has no answer, although there's >>>>>>> the remote possibility that he understand that I'm right, he's wrong >>>>>>> and simply doesn't have balls to admit it.
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 as Krygowski did in the following statement:
"Providing proper fertilization to a growing plant correlates with >>>>>>> faster growth. That correlation correctly implies causation."
--Krygowski
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if P implies Q, therefore Q >>>>>>> implies P.
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if fertilization makes a >>>>>>> plant grow faster, therefore plants grow faster when fertilized. >>>>>>> That is clearly false.
Krygowski and Junior might have learned that if they were better >>>>>>> educated
But then again, understanding the intricacies of logic requires a >>>>>>> level of intellect that neither of them possess.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Failure to respond may just as well be an eyeroll to
something considered trivial to one reader or another.
Indeed failure to respond certainly in my case can mean I?ve given up not >>>>> worth the Electrons and frankly it?s not going anywhere.
Very unlikely to be ooh gotcha he?s won that argument! Or he?s so right! >>>>>
Clearly occasionally do learn something, which is interesting, or at least
hopefully so!
Roger Merriman
I understand your and Mr Muzi's lack of interest, but when someone
directs an attack at me and then runs away from the rebuttal, it's the >>>> actions of a coward... what else can it be?
At any rate, it needs to be pointed out.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Frankly that’s absolutely the time to walk away and go for a bike ride/cafe
etc put down the iPad or at least the newsreader.
Continuing an argument which has dissolved into just name calling quite
frankly I see no reason to continue that!
Roger Merriman
The rebuttal was anything but name calling. Krygowski is the name
caller. That's his standar behavior. You note that I seldom respond to
Junior Carrington's (Zen) name calling.
"Zen", a rather unusual nickname as it is the name of a branch of the Buddhist religion which believes that meditation leads to Nirvana. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> writes:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:47:06 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Polishing up the howitzer, are we?
No. My use is much more mundane. I'm looking for a universal rust
inhibiting spray that I can safely use on most everything. Fluid Film
seems to be positioning themselves as the WD-40 of rust. The
immediate problem is that I have 2 bicycles sitting outside, covered
with plastic, but still rusting a little. Evapo-Rust works well for
removing rust from bicycle chains, but is not suitable for rust
prevention. I also have a shower built from painted steel sheet
metal. After about 60 years (since the house was built) the paint is
flaking off and the underlying steel sheet metal is rusting. I really
don't need a bathroom remodel project at this time and prefer to save
the existing steel shower. I also have boxes of hardware, an old
refrigerator that I use for storage, and steel tools that are
susceptible to rust. The equipment and tools that were zinc plated or
covered with zinc primer before painting are holding up well. However,
I don't have room to build a paint spray booth or power coating oven,
that will be necessary to repaint everything. For my guns, I use a
tacky lube, such as chain saw bar oil.
I have a can of fluid film, and spray it on steel objects that are
likely to stay outside, various bits of vehicle undersides, and so
forth. "Boxes of hardware" sounds like a likely application, as are
steel tools.
I believe it's essentially lanolin in some kind of volatile
carrier. Smells vaguely like sheep, but not as nice as a wet sweater.
I haven't done anything scientific to test it, but it seems to do some
good, better than WD-40.
It's not a paint or permanent surface
treatment, if it's out in the weather it will eventually wash off. I
don't think it would do any good in your shower unless on those parts
that don't actually get wet very often. It also stays a bit sticky and
may collect dust.
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 11:32:35 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>per citizen" and it is likely to be higher than the US since Canada was open frontier for much longer. Guns were necessary7 to feed yourself.
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 19:55:05 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/18/2025 7:31 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:36:53 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Mon Feb 17 15:20:06 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
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, as I said elsewhere, you cannot bring yourself to think before posting. 1. Guns last practically forever and modern repeaters showed up in the 1860's 2. Therefore neither you nor the Canadian government have the slightest idea of the "guns
father corrupt to his very core?
As for lower rates of murder - Canada is s much more homogenous society far less likely to have disputes over customs and morales. Not to mention DA's releasing murderers on no cash bail during Biden whom you loved like a father. Was your own
Here is Liebermann's opening to support your stupid 309 guns per 100 Canadian citizens.
Where is this mythical "here" that you claim quotes my comments on
Frank posting a Wikipedia article on Firearms regulations in Canada?
In the years I've been posting to rec.bicycles.tech, I have mentioned
guns perhaps 3 times. All were technical corrections and none of them >>>> were recent.
Tom, you're hallucinating that I said anything. Have you been using
AI software to invent your tales? Better yet, are you really an AI in >>>> disguise instead of a human? It would seem to be the case if you're
hallucinating in a similar manner.
Why, he's almost as bright as you (sic).
Improper use of "sic".
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic>
Where is the mythical quotation and error in the above "bright" quote? >>>>
Change-o-topic:
Has anyone actually tried using an rust prevention concoction such as
lanolin (sheep oil) based Fluid Film for preventing rust and
corrosion?
<https://www.fluid-film.com>
<https://www.fluid-film.com/products/>
<https://www.fluid-film.com/recreation-applications/>
If so, which version and did it work?
I have not, although linseed oil is effective for a few years.
Thanks. I've tried linseed oil and had storage problems. The bottle
would turn rancid after about 5 years. That's a problem with all the
plant based oils. Of the various plant based oils, I'm told that
linseed oil lasts the longest before starting to stink. Still, it's
worth another try.
In the 1990s, products appeared with various mixes including
oxalic acid to convert the red unstable rust to a black iron
oxide which holds primers and paint better. Has to sit 24
hours dry before coating, cheap at any auto parts store.
With the cold weather and high humidity when it's raining, I have to
be careful when to paint. I've painted things in winter, and had to
wait until summer for the paint to dry. I've been using a rust
converter, which works tolerably well if I use a dehumidifier. >><https://www.acehardware.com/departments/home-and-decor/cleaning-and-disinfectants/rust-removers/10009>
More recently I've used the newer paints which react with
and bond to red rust (wire brush away loose material and
then paint it- no primer). A bit pricey but very effective.
Depends on your project I suppose.
I hadn't heard about that. I really don't want to paint on top of
rust (or iron phosphate). I'll ask at the local hardware store.
Thanks for the info.
Note: I still haven't tried olive oil for polishing automobile paint.
You might want to look into marine paints as there are steel hull
boats that are painted and don't have rust problems. >https://www.epifanes.nl/uk/blog/how-to-paint-a-steel-boat >https://www.boatdesign.net/threads/what-is-the-best-paint-for-a-steel-sailboat.20036/
https://www.taindustrialpaints.co.uk/collections/marine-metal-paints
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 16:53:13 -0500, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> writes:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:47:06 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Polishing up the howitzer, are we?
No. My use is much more mundane. I'm looking for a universal rust
inhibiting spray that I can safely use on most everything. Fluid Film
seems to be positioning themselves as the WD-40 of rust. The
immediate problem is that I have 2 bicycles sitting outside, covered
with plastic, but still rusting a little. Evapo-Rust works well for
removing rust from bicycle chains, but is not suitable for rust
prevention. I also have a shower built from painted steel sheet
metal. After about 60 years (since the house was built) the paint is
flaking off and the underlying steel sheet metal is rusting. I really
don't need a bathroom remodel project at this time and prefer to save
the existing steel shower. I also have boxes of hardware, an old
refrigerator that I use for storage, and steel tools that are
susceptible to rust. The equipment and tools that were zinc plated or
covered with zinc primer before painting are holding up well. However,
I don't have room to build a paint spray booth or power coating oven,
that will be necessary to repaint everything. For my guns, I use a
tacky lube, such as chain saw bar oil.
I have a can of fluid film, and spray it on steel objects that are
likely to stay outside, various bits of vehicle undersides, and so
forth. "Boxes of hardware" sounds like a likely application, as are
steel tools.
I believe it's essentially lanolin in some kind of volatile
carrier. Smells vaguely like sheep, but not as nice as a wet sweater.
I would not be surprised if the lanolin fragrance was added to the formulation. Long ago, I almost went to work for International
Flavors and Fragrances. I quite when I discovered the commute was
over an hour each way.
<https://www.iff.com/scent/>
Done wrong, lanolin smells like wet dog.
I haven't done anything scientific to test it, but it seems to do some
good, better than WD-40.
I should hope so. WD-40 does one thing very well. It displaces
water. For everything else, it's 2nd best, or equal to "mineral oil"
which is the base oil for most oil based cleaners.
"Uses of WD-40 Multi-Use Product" <https://files.wd40.com/pdf/WD-40_Multi_Use_Product_2000_Uses_final.pdf>
It's not a paint or permanent surface
treatment, if it's out in the weather it will eventually wash off. I
don't think it would do any good in your shower unless on those parts
that don't actually get wet very often. It also stays a bit sticky and
may collect dust.
If it lasts through the winter, I'll be happy. For the shower, it
will need to last only as long as it takes for me to get setup for
repairs and painting. It looks like the existing 1960's paint is
enamel, which is a VoC and banned in California. I'm looking into
just ripping everything out and installing acrylic or PCV wall panels
as an alternative: <https://www.google.com/search?num=10&q=pvc%20shower%20wall%20panels&udm=2>
On Tue Feb 18 17:55:55 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 19:31:53 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Frank is scared shitless of guns.
Tom, I would be more afraid of you than of Frank:
(07/20/2013)
"SLPD Handcuffs Good Samaritan and Ransacks His Home"
<http://sanleandrotalk.voxpublica.org/2013/07/20/no-good-deed-goes-unpunished-slpd-handcuffs-good-samaritan-ransacks-his-home-over-100-year-old-gun/>
Note that the article was written by Tom based on his comments to
previous article bashing the San Leandro PD:
<http://sanleandrotalk.voxpublica.org/2011/06/13/time-to-clean-up-the-san-leandro-police-department/#comment-3237>
Even with my anti-virus turned off, neither site shows as existing.them you would be entirely alone.
And you have no need to fear me. I think that you have made your own bed and have to lie in it. Your belief in your own infalibility has been your own demise. You have no frie4nds other than the decidedly biased know nothings on this site. and without
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 16:53:13 -0500, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> writes:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:47:06 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Polishing up the howitzer, are we?
No. My use is much more mundane. I'm looking for a universal rust
inhibiting spray that I can safely use on most everything. Fluid Film
seems to be positioning themselves as the WD-40 of rust. The
immediate problem is that I have 2 bicycles sitting outside, covered
with plastic, but still rusting a little. Evapo-Rust works well for
removing rust from bicycle chains, but is not suitable for rust
prevention. I also have a shower built from painted steel sheet
metal. After about 60 years (since the house was built) the paint is
flaking off and the underlying steel sheet metal is rusting. I really
don't need a bathroom remodel project at this time and prefer to save
the existing steel shower. I also have boxes of hardware, an old
refrigerator that I use for storage, and steel tools that are
susceptible to rust. The equipment and tools that were zinc plated or
covered with zinc primer before painting are holding up well. However,
I don't have room to build a paint spray booth or power coating oven,
that will be necessary to repaint everything. For my guns, I use a
tacky lube, such as chain saw bar oil.
I have a can of fluid film, and spray it on steel objects that are
likely to stay outside, various bits of vehicle undersides, and so
forth. "Boxes of hardware" sounds like a likely application, as are
steel tools.
I believe it's essentially lanolin in some kind of volatile
carrier. Smells vaguely like sheep, but not as nice as a wet sweater.
I would not be surprised if the lanolin fragrance was added to the formulation. Long ago, I almost went to work for International
Flavors and Fragrances. I quite when I discovered the commute was
over an hour each way.
<https://www.iff.com/scent/>
Done wrong, lanolin smells like wet dog.
I haven't done anything scientific to test it, but it seems to do some >>good, better than WD-40.
I should hope so. WD-40 does one thing very well. It displaces
water. For everything else, it's 2nd best, or equal to "mineral oil"
which is the base oil for most oil based cleaners.
"Uses of WD-40 Multi-Use Product" <https://files.wd40.com/pdf/WD-40_Multi_Use_Product_2000_Uses_final.pdf>
It's not a paint or permanent surface
treatment, if it's out in the weather it will eventually wash off. I
don't think it would do any good in your shower unless on those parts
that don't actually get wet very often. It also stays a bit sticky and
may collect dust.
If it lasts through the winter, I'll be happy. For the shower, it
will need to last only as long as it takes for me to get setup for
repairs and painting. It looks like the existing 1960's paint is
enamel, which is a VoC and banned in California. I'm looking into
just ripping everything out and installing acrylic or PCV wall panels
as an alternative: <https://www.google.com/search?num=10&q=pvc%20shower%20wall%20panels&udm=2>
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:35:28 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 18:11:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 17:37:28 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/19/2025 3:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:51:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/18/2025 12:00 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
...
<snicker> dumbass thinks ignoring the result of the correlation means he
can deny a correlation.
Dumbass need to be re-educated on the meaning of "correlation" >>>>>>>>>
This is from a dumbass who was presented with two government reports >>>>>>>>> detailing the specification, testing, acceptance, and subsequent >>>>>>>>> acquisition of 80,000 AR-15s by the US military and concludes 'the AR-15
is a weapon the US military never wanted and never used'.
Uneducable.
indeed.
He trots out his favorite platitude every time he's presented with >>>>>>>> evidence that he doesn't like.
I suspect the only "causation" he'll accept is a correlation that was >>>>>>>> fed to him from some whacko right wing talk show.
I'm generally resisting the urge to respond to him. I suspect that's >>>>>>>> giving his life even less meaning, but I'm not sympathetic.
Failure to respond indicates that he has no answer, although there's >>>>>>> the remote possibility that he understand that I'm right, he's wrong >>>>>>> and simply doesn't have balls to admit it.
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 as Krygowski did in the following statement:
"Providing proper fertilization to a growing plant correlates with >>>>>>> faster growth. That correlation correctly implies causation."
--Krygowski
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if P implies Q, therefore Q >>>>>>> implies P.
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if fertilization makes a >>>>>>> plant grow faster, therefore plants grow faster when fertilized. >>>>>>> That is clearly false.
Krygowski and Junior might have learned that if they were better >>>>>>> educated
But then again, understanding the intricacies of logic requires a >>>>>>> level of intellect that neither of them possess.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Failure to respond may just as well be an eyeroll to
something considered trivial to one reader or another.
Indeed failure to respond certainly in my case can mean I?ve given up not >>>>> worth the Electrons and frankly it?s not going anywhere.
Very unlikely to be ooh gotcha he?s won that argument! Or he?s so right! >>>>>
Clearly occasionally do learn something, which is interesting, or at least
hopefully so!
Roger Merriman
I understand your and Mr Muzi's lack of interest, but when someone
directs an attack at me and then runs away from the rebuttal, it's the >>>> actions of a coward... what else can it be?
At any rate, it needs to be pointed out.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Frankly that’s absolutely the time to walk away and go for a bike ride/cafe
etc put down the iPad or at least the newsreader.
Continuing an argument which has dissolved into just name calling quite
frankly I see no reason to continue that!
Roger Merriman
The rebuttal was anything but name calling. Krygowski is the name
caller. That's his standar behavior. You note that I seldom respond to
Junior Carrington's (Zen) name calling.
"Zen", a rather unusual nickname as it is the name of a branch of the Buddhist religion which believes that meditation leads to Nirvana. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen
On 2/20/2025 3:22 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/20/2025 2:17 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Feb 18 17:55:55 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 19:31:53 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Frank is scared shitless of guns.
Tom, I would be more afraid of you than of Frank:
(07/20/2013)
"SLPD Handcuffs Good Samaritan and Ransacks His Home"
<http://sanleandrotalk.voxpublica.org/2013/07/20/no-good-deed-goes-
unpunished-slpd-handcuffs-good-samaritan-ransacks-his-home-over-100-
year-old-gun/>
Note that the article was written by Tom based on his comments to
previous article bashing the San Leandro PD:
<http://sanleandrotalk.voxpublica.org/2011/06/13/time-to-clean-up-
the-san-leandro-police-department/#comment-3237>
Even with my anti-virus turned off, neither site shows as existing.
And you have no need to fear me. I think that you have made your own
bed and have to lie in it. Your belief in your own infalibility has
been your own demise. You have no frie4nds other than the decidedly
biased know nothings on this site. and without them you would be
entirely alone.
Displays for me.
Me too, as usual.
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:35:28 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 18:11:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 17:37:28 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/19/2025 3:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:51:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/18/2025 12:00 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
...
<snicker> dumbass thinks ignoring the result of the correlation means he
can deny a correlation.
Dumbass need to be re-educated on the meaning of "correlation" >>>>>>>>>
This is from a dumbass who was presented with two government reports >>>>>>>>> detailing the specification, testing, acceptance, and subsequent >>>>>>>>> acquisition of 80,000 AR-15s by the US military and concludes 'the AR-15
is a weapon the US military never wanted and never used'.
Uneducable.
indeed.
He trots out his favorite platitude every time he's presented with >>>>>>>> evidence that he doesn't like.
I suspect the only "causation" he'll accept is a correlation that was >>>>>>>> fed to him from some whacko right wing talk show.
I'm generally resisting the urge to respond to him. I suspect that's >>>>>>>> giving his life even less meaning, but I'm not sympathetic.
Failure to respond indicates that he has no answer, although there's >>>>>>> the remote possibility that he understand that I'm right, he's wrong >>>>>>> and simply doesn't have balls to admit it.
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 as Krygowski did in the following statement:
"Providing proper fertilization to a growing plant correlates with >>>>>>> faster growth. That correlation correctly implies causation."
--Krygowski
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if P implies Q, therefore Q >>>>>>> implies P.
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if fertilization makes a >>>>>>> plant grow faster, therefore plants grow faster when fertilized. >>>>>>> That is clearly false.
Krygowski and Junior might have learned that if they were better >>>>>>> educated
But then again, understanding the intricacies of logic requires a >>>>>>> level of intellect that neither of them possess.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Failure to respond may just as well be an eyeroll to
something considered trivial to one reader or another.
Indeed failure to respond certainly in my case can mean I?ve given up not >>>>> worth the Electrons and frankly it?s not going anywhere.
Very unlikely to be ooh gotcha he?s won that argument! Or he?s so right! >>>>>
Clearly occasionally do learn something, which is interesting, or at least
hopefully so!
Roger Merriman
I understand your and Mr Muzi's lack of interest, but when someone
directs an attack at me and then runs away from the rebuttal, it's the >>>> actions of a coward... what else can it be?
At any rate, it needs to be pointed out.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Frankly that’s absolutely the time to walk away and go for a bike ride/cafe
etc put down the iPad or at least the newsreader.
Continuing an argument which has dissolved into just name calling quite
frankly I see no reason to continue that!
Roger Merriman
The rebuttal was anything but name calling. Krygowski is the name
caller. That's his standar behavior. You note that I seldom respond to
Junior Carrington's (Zen) name calling.
"Zen", a rather unusual nickname as it is the name of a branch of the Buddhist religion which believes that meditation leads to Nirvana. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen
On 2/24/2025 8:09 AM, John B. wrote:
I would doubt very much that a large segment of the
readers here would
be familiar with the term Zen.
I suppose you could ask.
Speaking for myself, it's been about a week since Zen
Buddhism came up in conversation with a friend, and there
was a brief mention in a conversation with different friends
two days ago.
Not that I'm an expert.
On 2/24/2025 8:49 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/24/2025 8:09 AM, John B. wrote:+1 I think most people have at least a passing familiarity.
I would doubt very much that a large segment of the readers here would
be familiar with the term Zen.
I suppose you could ask.
Speaking for myself, it's been about a week since Zen Buddhism came up
in conversation with a friend, and there was a brief mention in a
conversation with different friends two days ago.
Not that I'm an expert.
I read this in 1967 but never achieved enlightenment. Nor was I able to levitate. Dammit.
https://www.alibris.com/Life-and-teaching-of-the-masters-of-the-Far- East-Baird-T-Spalding/book/3929244?matches=181
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 16:52:16 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 24.02.2025 um 16:23 schrieb AMuzi:
On 2/24/2025 8:49 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/24/2025 8:09 AM, John B. wrote:+1 I think most people have at least a passing familiarity.
I would doubt very much that a large segment of the readers here would >>>>> be familiar with the term Zen.
I suppose you could ask.
Speaking for myself, it's been about a week since Zen Buddhism came up >>>> in conversation with a friend, and there was a brief mention in a
conversation with different friends two days ago.
Not that I'm an expert.
I read this in 1967 but never achieved enlightenment. Nor was I able to
levitate. Dammit.
https://www.alibris.com/Life-and-teaching-of-the-masters-of-the-Far-
East-Baird-T-Spalding/book/3929244?matches=181
Shortly after I was born, somebody wrote a famous book placing the word
"zen" firmly into the list of words people weere expected to know about:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_and_the_Art_of_Motorcycle_Maintenance>
Interesting as early in the script it states,""it should in no way be associated with that great body of factual information relating to
orthodox Zen Buddhist practice. It's not very factual on motorcycles, either."
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 16:52:16 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 24.02.2025 um 16:23 schrieb AMuzi:
On 2/24/2025 8:49 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/24/2025 8:09 AM, John B. wrote:+1 I think most people have at least a passing familiarity.
I would doubt very much that a large segment of the readers here would >>>>> be familiar with the term Zen.
I suppose you could ask.
Speaking for myself, it's been about a week since Zen Buddhism came up >>>> in conversation with a friend, and there was a brief mention in a
conversation with different friends two days ago.
Not that I'm an expert.
I read this in 1967 but never achieved enlightenment. Nor was I able to
levitate. Dammit.
https://www.alibris.com/Life-and-teaching-of-the-masters-of-the-Far-
East-Baird-T-Spalding/book/3929244?matches=181
Shortly after I was born, somebody wrote a famous book placing the word
"zen" firmly into the list of words people weere expected to know about:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_and_the_Art_of_Motorcycle_Maintenance>
Interesting as early in the script it states,""it should in no way be associated with that great body of factual information relating to
orthodox Zen Buddhist practice. It's not very factual on motorcycles, either."
On 2/24/2025 8:49 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/24/2025 8:09 AM, John B. wrote:+1 I think most people have at least a passing familiarity.
I would doubt very much that a large segment of the
readers here would
be familiar with the term Zen.
I suppose you could ask.
Speaking for myself, it's been about a week since Zen
Buddhism came up in conversation with a friend, and there
was a brief mention in a conversation with different friends
two days ago.
Not that I'm an expert.
I read this in 1967 but never achieved enlightenment. Nor
was I able to levitate. Dammit.
https://www.alibris.com/Life-and-teaching-of-the-masters-of-the-Far-East-Baird-T-Spalding/book/3929244?matches=181
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 09:23:04 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/24/2025 8:49 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/24/2025 8:09 AM, John B. wrote:+1 I think most people have at least a passing familiarity.
I would doubt very much that a large segment of the
readers here would
be familiar with the term Zen.
I suppose you could ask.
Speaking for myself, it's been about a week since Zen
Buddhism came up in conversation with a friend, and there
was a brief mention in a conversation with different friends
two days ago.
Not that I'm an expert.
I read this in 1967 but never achieved enlightenment. Nor
was I able to levitate. Dammit.
https://www.alibris.com/Life-and-teaching-of-the-masters-of-the-Far-East-Baird-T-Spalding/book/3929244?matches=181
Apparently from your posts you had an interest in Asia. But for the
others I find it rather unusual that a Usian would know anything about
a branch of Buddhism that is so little known even where the major
version of the religion is as common as it is here.
Am 24.02.2025 um 16:23 schrieb AMuzi:
On 2/24/2025 8:49 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/24/2025 8:09 AM, John B. wrote:+1 I think most people have at least a passing familiarity.
I would doubt very much that a large segment of the readers here would >>>> be familiar with the term Zen.
I suppose you could ask.
Speaking for myself, it's been about a week since Zen Buddhism came up
in conversation with a friend, and there was a brief mention in a
conversation with different friends two days ago.
Not that I'm an expert.
I read this in 1967 but never achieved enlightenment. Nor was I able to
levitate. Dammit.
https://www.alibris.com/Life-and-teaching-of-the-masters-of-the-Far-
East-Baird-T-Spalding/book/3929244?matches=181
Shortly after I was born, somebody wrote a famous book placing the word
"zen" firmly into the list of words people weere expected to know about:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_and_the_Art_of_Motorcycle_Maintenance>
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 09:23:04 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/24/2025 8:49 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/24/2025 8:09 AM, John B. wrote:+1 I think most people have at least a passing familiarity.
I would doubt very much that a large segment of the
readers here would
be familiar with the term Zen.
I suppose you could ask.
Speaking for myself, it's been about a week since Zen
Buddhism came up in conversation with a friend, and there
was a brief mention in a conversation with different friends
two days ago.
Not that I'm an expert.
I read this in 1967 but never achieved enlightenment. Nor
was I able to levitate. Dammit.
https://www.alibris.com/Life-and-teaching-of-the-masters-of-the-Far-East-Baird-T-Spalding/book/3929244?matches=181
Apparently from your posts you had an interest in Asia. But for the
others I find it rather unusual that a Usian would know anything about
a branch of Buddhism that is so little known even where the major
version of the religion is as common as it is here.
On 2/24/2025 11:39 AM, AMuzi wrote:
I read it when it came out. Disappointing.
I read it when it came out and loved it.
I re-read it a few years ago and was disappointed.
Can I chalk that up to increased wisdom?
On 2/24/2025 12:13 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 2/24/2025 11:37 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 09:23:04 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/24/2025 8:49 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/24/2025 8:09 AM, John B. wrote:+1 I think most people have at least a passing familiarity.
I would doubt very much that a large segment of the
readers here would
be familiar with the term Zen.
I suppose you could ask.
Speaking for myself, it's been about a week since Zen
Buddhism came up in conversation with a friend, and there
was a brief mention in a conversation with different
friends
two days ago.
Not that I'm an expert.
I read this in 1967 but never achieved enlightenment. Nor
was I able to levitate. Dammit.
https://www.alibris.com/Life-and-teaching-of-the-
masters-of-the-Far- East-Baird-T-Spalding/book/3929244?
matches=181
Apparently from your posts you had an interest in Asia.
But for the
others I find it rather unusual that a Usian would know
anything about
a branch of Buddhism that is so little known even where
the major
version of the religion is as common as it is here.
I think it's a bit more recognized than you're assuming.
In my youth when I was looking at different religions I
spent a bit of time on Buddhism. Let's call it quite a bit
more than a passing interest, but I never claimed to
actually follow the teachings of the Buddha. I read a
number of books on the practice, listened to Kirtans,
meditated, and started yoga (as a meditation technique
rather than fitness. These days I do my own practice a few
times a week and go to classes occasionally with my wife,
who teaches at a couple of local studios)
The moniker 'Zencycle' is a reference to the level of
mindfulness I can achieve while riding.
*
A Bicycle koan
A Zen Teacher saw five of his students return from the
market, riding their bicycles. When they had dismounted,
the teacher asked the students,
“Why are you riding your bicycles?”
The first student replied, “The bicycle is carrying this
sack of potatoes. I am glad that I do not have to carry
them on my back!”
The teacher praised the student, saying, “You are a smart
boy. When you grow old, you will not walk hunched over, as
I do.”
The second student replied, “I love to watch the trees and
fields pass by as I roll down the path.”
The teacher commended the student, “Your eyes are open and
you see the world.”
The third student replied, “When I ride my bicycle, I am
content to chant, nam myoho renge kyo.”
The teacher gave praise to the third student, “Your mind
will roll with the ease of a newly trued wheel.”
The fourth student answered, “Riding my bicycle, I live in
harmony with all beings.”
The teacher was pleased and said, “You are riding on the
golden path of non-harming.”
The fifth student replied, “I ride my bicycle to ride my
bicycle.”
The teacher went and sat at the feet of the fifth student,
and said, “I am your disciple."
*
I remember reading that one before. I don't remember where
or when.
On Wed Feb 19 08:22:42 2025 Zen Cycle wrote:
lol...as if anyone should accept your perverted interpretation of
"masculinity"
I'm trying to picture you using that term around real men without being lifted off of the ground by your belt loops.
On 2/24/2025 2:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Wed Feb 19 08:22:42 2025 Zen Cycle wrote:
lol...as if anyone should accept your perverted interpretation of
"masculinity"
I'm trying to picture you using that term around real men without
being lifted off of the ground by your belt loops.
I didn't know that was a thing until last week:
https://nypost.com/2025/02/14/lifestyle/i-was-bullied-for-being-tall- now-men-pay-me-75k-a-month-for-their-giantess-fetishes/
Hourly rates not included in article.
On 2/24/2025 3:39 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/24/2025 2:14 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Wed Feb 19 08:22:42 2025 Zen Cycle wrote:
lol...as if anyone should accept your perverted interpretation of
"masculinity"
I'm trying to picture you using that term around real men without
being lifted off of the ground by your belt loops.
tommy, real men aren't nearly as insecure about their masculinity as you
and the floriduh dumbass.
I didn't know that was a thing until last week:
https://nypost.com/2025/02/14/lifestyle/i-was-bullied-for-being-tall-
now-men-pay-me-75k-a-month-for-their-giantess-fetishes/
Hourly rates not included in article.
Big bucks in Femdom.
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 14:30:30 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/24/2025 1:39 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/24/2025 12:13 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 2/24/2025 11:37 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 09:23:04 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/24/2025 8:49 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/24/2025 8:09 AM, John B. wrote:+1 I think most people have at least a passing familiarity.
I would doubt very much that a large segment of the
readers here would
be familiar with the term Zen.
I suppose you could ask.
Speaking for myself, it's been about a week since Zen
Buddhism came up in conversation with a friend, and there
was a brief mention in a conversation with different
friends
two days ago.
Not that I'm an expert.
I read this in 1967 but never achieved enlightenment. Nor
was I able to levitate. Dammit.
https://www.alibris.com/Life-and-teaching-of-the-
masters-of-the-Far- East-Baird-T-Spalding/book/3929244?
matches=181
Apparently from your posts you had an interest in Asia.
But for the
others I find it rather unusual that a Usian would know
anything about
a branch of Buddhism that is so little known even where
the major
version of the religion is as common as it is here.
I think it's a bit more recognized than you're assuming.
In my youth when I was looking at different religions I
spent a bit of time on Buddhism. Let's call it quite a bit
more than a passing interest, but I never claimed to
actually follow the teachings of the Buddha. I read a
number of books on the practice, listened to Kirtans,
meditated, and started yoga (as a meditation technique
rather than fitness. These days I do my own practice a few
times a week and go to classes occasionally with my wife,
who teaches at a couple of local studios)
The moniker 'Zencycle' is a reference to the level of
mindfulness I can achieve while riding.
*
A Bicycle koan
A Zen Teacher saw five of his students return from the
market, riding their bicycles. When they had dismounted,
the teacher asked the students,
“Why are you riding your bicycles?”
The first student replied, “The bicycle is carrying this
sack of potatoes. I am glad that I do not have to carry
them on my back!”
The teacher praised the student, saying, “You are a smart
boy. When you grow old, you will not walk hunched over, as
I do.”
The second student replied, “I love to watch the trees and
fields pass by as I roll down the path.”
The teacher commended the student, “Your eyes are open and
you see the world.”
The third student replied, “When I ride my bicycle, I am
content to chant, nam myoho renge kyo.”
The teacher gave praise to the third student, “Your mind
will roll with the ease of a newly trued wheel.”
The fourth student answered, “Riding my bicycle, I live in
harmony with all beings.”
The teacher was pleased and said, “You are riding on the
golden path of non-harming.”
The fifth student replied, “I ride my bicycle to ride my
bicycle.”
The teacher went and sat at the feet of the fifth student,
and said, “I am your disciple."
*
I remember reading that one before. I don't remember where
or when.
Grant Peterson's newsletter about 20 years ago.
I think, solely from your post, that you are interpreting "Zen" as
something not much different from Theravada Buddhism, at least as
practiced in the largest Buddhist nation (92% of population) in the
world, which concerns all of an individuals action - a Monk may not
touch money for example.
Zen is a variation of the Buddhist teaching with emphasis on one's
individual action, mainly meditation, to attain Nirvana.
Still Buddhism, but not exactly the same thing.
Much like Christianity with its Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and
the innumerable Protestant churches.
On 2/24/2025 6:59 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 14:30:30 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/24/2025 1:39 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/24/2025 12:13 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 2/24/2025 11:37 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 09:23:04 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 2/24/2025 8:49 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/24/2025 8:09 AM, John B. wrote:+1 I think most people have at least a passing familiarity.
I would doubt very much that a large segment of the
readers here would
be familiar with the term Zen.
I suppose you could ask.
Speaking for myself, it's been about a week since Zen
Buddhism came up in conversation with a friend, and there
was a brief mention in a conversation with different
friends
two days ago.
Not that I'm an expert.
I read this in 1967 but never achieved enlightenment. Nor
was I able to levitate. Dammit.
https://www.alibris.com/Life-and-teaching-of-the-
masters-of-the-Far- East-Baird-T-Spalding/book/3929244?
matches=181
Apparently from your posts you had an interest in Asia.
But for the
others I find it rather unusual that a Usian would know
anything about
a branch of Buddhism that is so little known even where
the major
version of the religion is as common as it is here.
I think it's a bit more recognized than you're assuming.
In my youth when I was looking at different religions I
spent a bit of time on Buddhism. Let's call it quite a bit
more than a passing interest, but I never claimed to
actually follow the teachings of the Buddha. I read a
number of books on the practice, listened to Kirtans,
meditated, and started yoga (as a meditation technique
rather than fitness. These days I do my own practice a few
times a week and go to classes occasionally with my wife,
who teaches at a couple of local studios)
The moniker 'Zencycle' is a reference to the level of
mindfulness I can achieve while riding.
*
A Bicycle koan
A Zen Teacher saw five of his students return from the
market, riding their bicycles. When they had dismounted,
the teacher asked the students,
Why are you riding your bicycles?
The first student replied, The bicycle is carrying this
sack of potatoes. I am glad that I do not have to carry
them on my back!
The teacher praised the student, saying, You are a smart
boy. When you grow old, you will not walk hunched over, as
I do.
The second student replied, I love to watch the trees and
fields pass by as I roll down the path.
The teacher commended the student, Your eyes are open and
you see the world.
The third student replied, When I ride my bicycle, I am
content to chant, nam myoho renge kyo.
The teacher gave praise to the third student, Your mind
will roll with the ease of a newly trued wheel.
The fourth student answered, Riding my bicycle, I live in
harmony with all beings.
The teacher was pleased and said, You are riding on the
golden path of non-harming.
The fifth student replied, I ride my bicycle to ride my
bicycle.
The teacher went and sat at the feet of the fifth student,
and said, I am your disciple."
*
I remember reading that one before. I don't remember where
or when.
Grant Peterson's newsletter about 20 years ago.
I think, solely from your post, that you are interpreting "Zen" as
something not much different from Theravada Buddhism, at least as
practiced in the largest Buddhist nation (92% of population) in the
world, which concerns all of an individuals action - a Monk may not
touch money for example.
Zen is a variation of the Buddhist teaching with emphasis on one's
individual action, mainly meditation, to attain Nirvana.
Still Buddhism, but not exactly the same thing.
Much like Christianity with its Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and
the innumerable Protestant churches.
Meh. Everyone has an opinion.
https://www.zen-azi.org/en/zen-in-japan
On Sat Feb 15 12:16:37 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/15/2025 4:17 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 22:57:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
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.
Whine or run away... your choice.
Best practice: Ignore the troll.
Seriously Frank, What have you every done? Hiding in the sewer with fears of everything not "you" is hardly doing anythng.
Why do you suppose that Liebermann would take your comments and distort thgem to mean that one should use marine bottom paint to protect dry steel bike frames?
Change-o-topic:
Has anyone actually tried using an rust prevention concoction such as
lanolin (sheep oil) based Fluid Film for preventing rust and
corrosion?
<https://www.fluid-film.com>
<https://www.fluid-film.com/products/> <https://www.fluid-film.com/recreation-applications/>
If so, which version and did it work?
The problem with marine paints is that they do not have a good finish that you want on a bike. If you want a good bicycle finish you can use two part epoxy paint but you must immediately then clean out the sprayer with acytone. Another method is to takeyour frame to a powder coating company and have the old frame and fork sand blasted clean and you then spray and cook on a powder coating. The are also available in high luster finishes. Though those are quite a bit more expensive. Semi-shiny white
rOn Tue, 25 Feb 2025 19:23:49 -0800, Jeff Liebermanntake your frame to a powder coating company and have the old frame and fork sand blasted clean and you then spray and cook on a powder coating. The are also available in high luster finishes. Though those are quite a bit more expensive. Semi-shiny white
<jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 18:29:29 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Why do you suppose that Liebermann would take your comments and distort thgem to mean that one should use marine bottom paint to protect dry steel bike frames?
Please show me where I suggested the use of marine paints for painting >>bicycle frames. Hint: I made no such suggestion. Here is an exact
quote for what I'm trying to do.
Change-o-topic:
Has anyone actually tried using an rust prevention concoction such as
lanolin (sheep oil) based Fluid Film for preventing rust and
corrosion?
<https://www.fluid-film.com>
<https://www.fluid-film.com/products/>
<https://www.fluid-film.com/recreation-applications/>
If so, which version and did it work?
Andrew suggesting trying linseed oil and John B suggested marine
paints. If you look back at the comments prior to yours, none of them
had anything to do with bicycles. See:
Message-ID: <orbarj9866m4c0ro9l0smcaq9fg8bu0cj0@4ax.com> (Jeff L) >>Message-ID: <vp3dlo$1v2d6$3@dont-email.me> (Andrew)
Message-ID: <6itcrj5gh3hrl7mku90h2bsajeo2vgfs0d@4ax.com> (John B)
The problem with marine paints is that they do not have a good inish that you want on a bike. If you want a good bicycle finish you can use two part epoxy paint but you must immediately then clean out the sprayer with acytone. Another method is to
Oh! I thought you7 wee painting showers (to take a bath)
If bicycles I've always "dust" blasted (that's what they called it
anyway) and powder coated. I knew a guy that had a company that powder
coated as a finish coat in support to his main work and a case of beer
to the powder coaters, and bob's your uncle ....
But now the man who admitted he doesn't know shit about digital design is suddenly an expert at it.
On Thu Feb 27 16:51:57 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
While it doesn't matter much to me, Tom's drivel does not say he earned
any degree but "navigation." Tality may have requested he get a BA, but
he does not list a BA as part of his credentials. Perhaps he was unable
to comply with their request.
Those who can, do, and those who can't, teach. And now it appears that they feel the need to believe that not only will they not accept the fact of their own failures but want to pretend that being reduced to teaching was a promotion.
On Thu Feb 27 18:09:34 2025 Zen Cycle wrote:
oh, but he does. As the link above shows, He claims - on his resume - he
received a BA in Navigation* from a college that doesn't give BAs**, in
response to his employer asking him to get a degree in order to qualify
for a management position (a degree in navigation for an engineering
management position?!). That not to ignore the fact that he (allegedly)
got a 4-year degree in 4 years while working full time for a company
that only employed him for 4 years.
Perhaps he was unable
to comply with their request.
"perhaps"?....lol
*At least, that's what is implied with:
"general education - Degree in navigation
Tality requested I get a BA so that they could promote me to department
manager
Chabot College - Hayward, CA"
**https://www.chabotcollege.edu/academics/programs.php
He later tried to backtrack and say he got it from Marin College, which
also doesn't have a Batchelor program:
https://marin.elumenapp.com/catalog/current/graduation-and-degree-requirements#mainContent
Making claims that I said things that I didn't by scrabling a lot of posting together simply makes you look almost as stupid as Liebermann who at least has the excuse of advancing dementia.
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 15:42:05 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
But now the man who admitted he doesn't know shit about digital design is suddenly an expert at it.
TDR (time domain reflectometry) is mostly analog, not digital. You
might argue that it can be used to impedance match transmission lines
and circuit traces on digital PCB's (printed circuit boards) or that
the required fast rise time pulse generator can be done digitally.
However, as long as the measurements are most commonly displayed on an
analog oscilloscope, methinks that TDR should be considered (mostly)
an analog technology.
Also, there's nothing to "design" with TDR. It's a measurement
technique performed using off the shelf test equipment. Your claim
that to understand TDR somehow requires a digital designer suggests
that you haven't done any TDR measurements (with or without PWM) and
know little about what is involved. This might help:
<https://www.tek.com/en/documents/primer/tdr-test>
"Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR) has traditionally been used for
locating faults in cables."
I've mentioned this previously, but it's worth repeating. The way I recognize expertise in any technical discipline is if the person
claiming expertise knows the vocabulary, buzzwords, acronyms, inside
jokes, and literature used by knowledgeable practitioners. You have repeatedly incorrectly spelled and misused technical terms that anyone experienced in the field would be expected to know.
Also, I could use a favor. Since Google groups stopped archiving RBT,
I've been using:
https://rec.bicycles.tech.narkive.com
to provide URL that point to Tom's mistakes. Narkive didn't work very
well. You found an alternative archive site for RBT. I used it, it
worked, but now I can't find it again. Help?
On 2/27/2025 1:42 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Also, I could use a favor. Since Google groups stopped archiving RBT,
I've been using:
https://rec.bicycles.tech.narkive.com
to provide URL that point to Tom's mistakes. Narkive didn't work very
well. You found an alternative archive site for RBT. I used it, it
worked, but now I can't find it again. Help?
Yeah, Narkive is pretty limited, I think it only posts one page of
results or something?
https://www.novabbs.com/tech/thread.php?group=rec.bicycles.tech
On 2/28/2025 12:24 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 15:42:05 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
But now the man who admitted he doesn't know shit about digital design is suddenly an expert at it.
TDR (time domain reflectometry) is mostly analog, not digital. You
might argue that it can be used to impedance match transmission lines
and circuit traces on digital PCB's (printed circuit boards) or that
the required fast rise time pulse generator can be done digitally.
However, as long as the measurements are most commonly displayed on an
analog oscilloscope, methinks that TDR should be considered (mostly)
an analog technology.
Also, there's nothing to "design" with TDR. It's a measurement
technique performed using off the shelf test equipment. Your claim
that to understand TDR somehow requires a digital designer suggests
that you haven't done any TDR measurements (with or without PWM) and
know little about what is involved. This might help:
<https://www.tek.com/en/documents/primer/tdr-test>
"Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR) has traditionally been used for
locating faults in cables."
I've mentioned this previously, but it's worth repeating. The way I
recognize expertise in any technical discipline is if the person
claiming expertise knows the vocabulary, buzzwords, acronyms, inside
jokes, and literature used by knowledgeable practitioners. You have
repeatedly incorrectly spelled and misused technical terms that anyone
experienced in the field would be expected to know.
+1
Remember "time delay reflection"? lol >https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/f_tByXh5jXo/m/9Y4EzuUJCAAJ
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 13:24:33 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/28/2025 12:24 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 15:42:05 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
But now the man who admitted he doesn't know shit about digital design is suddenly an expert at it.
TDR (time domain reflectometry) is mostly analog, not digital. You
might argue that it can be used to impedance match transmission lines
and circuit traces on digital PCB's (printed circuit boards) or that
the required fast rise time pulse generator can be done digitally.
However, as long as the measurements are most commonly displayed on an
analog oscilloscope, methinks that TDR should be considered (mostly)
an analog technology.
Also, there's nothing to "design" with TDR. It's a measurement
technique performed using off the shelf test equipment. Your claim
that to understand TDR somehow requires a digital designer suggests
that you haven't done any TDR measurements (with or without PWM) and
know little about what is involved. This might help:
<https://www.tek.com/en/documents/primer/tdr-test>
"Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR) has traditionally been used for
locating faults in cables."
I've mentioned this previously, but it's worth repeating. The way I
recognize expertise in any technical discipline is if the person
claiming expertise knows the vocabulary, buzzwords, acronyms, inside
jokes, and literature used by knowledgeable practitioners. You have
repeatedly incorrectly spelled and misused technical terms that anyone
experienced in the field would be expected to know.
+1
Remember "time delay reflection"? lol
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/f_tByXh5jXo/m/9Y4EzuUJCAAJ
Yep. One of many such mistakes caused by Tom not understanding the terminology and the technology. From the above URL:
"...there is absolutely no way that I am going to explain to people
how to use pulse width modulation to achieve time delay reflection."
Actually, that's true. There is no way he can explain something that
is totally wrong and/or doesn't exist.
More entertainment. Further down the same thread are my replies to
Tom's comments about having a very short battery life on his Garmin
HRM, where the battery allegedly died in "a couple of weeks": <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/f_tByXh5jXo/m/fLccSwscCAAJ>
On Sun Feb 16 14:48:31 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/16/2025 5:48 AM, John B. wrote:
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, there is something seriously damaged in your brain. What other people do that is not criminal, is none of your business. So anything you say you want to make any other belief a crime. This is so sick that you should be committed to a loony bin.
On Tue Feb 18 06:48:01 2025 zen cycle wrote:
Since John has never seen a man abuse his wife, wife abuse does not exist.
Flunkiy knows all aqbout this because queers commonly abuse their sexuaol partners.
He assumes that normal people are the same as homosexuals.
On 3/3/2025 10:48 AM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Feb 17 11:15:26 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
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, it is a good thing that you're not within reach or I would make
you a permanent cripple using only my hands which you could have
prevented if you had a gun handy.
:-) Wow! You're SO scary, Tom!
breathtaking views of Iowa.On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 20:45:39 -0500, Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 3/3/2025 7:58 PM, John B. wrote:
I wonder about Frank's
insistence that guns in homes cause home shootings?
John, I've given several links over the years to data clearly showing
that guns in the home correlates with more shootings within the home, no >matter what the surrounding environment.
Your simplistic re-phrasing doesn't disprove that data.
On Tue, 04 Mar 2025 05:12:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
breathtaking views of Iowa.On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 20:45:39 -0500, Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 3/3/2025 7:58 PM, John B. wrote:
I wonder about Frank's
insistence that guns in homes cause home shootings?
John, I've given several links over the years to data clearly showing >>>that guns in the home correlates with more shootings within the home, no >>>matter what the surrounding environment.
<LOL> Poor dimwitted Krygowski still insists that correlation implies >>causation.
Your simplistic re-phrasing doesn't disprove that data.
Krygowski's simplistic data does not imply that guns in the home cause >>people to get shot.
"Its well-known that correlation does not imply causation." >>https://www.statology.org/does-causation-imply-correlation/
I've mentioned this before but even a casual review of Switzerland
shows that at least a quarter of Swiss households contain a firearm
but
"home shootings" are extremely rare.
Perhaps Frank can explain why guns in the house are so terrifying in
the U.S.?
After all the SG 550 is an assault rifle manufactured by SIG Sauer AG
has a maximum rate of fire of about 700 rounds/min, semi auto and full
auto rate, of fire, 30 round magazines. Far more terrifying then the >relatively meek and mild AR.
Can it be? Have the "Anti Gunners" contrives a false study that guns
in the house are the cause of homicides in the house. Or perhaps fess
up the truth that, as proved by Swiss, that guns in the house is not
the determining factor.
Or, perhaps he will just continue telling his lies.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/20/politics/trump-supreme-court-woman-nominee- >2020/index.htmlOn Tue, 4 Mar 2025 11:50:25 -0500, Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 3/4/2025 7:37 AM, John B. wrote:
breathtaking views of Iowa.On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 20:45:39 -0500, Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
John, I've given several links over the years to data clearly showing
that guns in the home correlates with more shootings within the home, no >>>> matter what the surrounding environment.
Your simplistic re-phrasing doesn't disprove that data.
I've mentioned this before but even a casual review of Switzerland
shows that at least a quarter of Swiss households contain a firearm
but
"home shootings" are extremely rare.
Perhaps Frank can explain why guns in the house are so terrifying in
the U.S.?
The "so terrifying" is your usual mocking hyperbole. I'm frequently in >friends' houses that contain guns. I'm not terrified, but I do recognize
the reality of increased risk, as data clearly shows.
First, as usual, let's talk about the data - which you, as usual, will >ignore. Yes, Switzerland has lots of guns, but far fewer per person than
the U.S. Their ownership rate is about one quarter of the U.S. rate. I
think if U.S. gun ownership were that low, our gun homicide rate would
drop tremendously.
Swiss gun ownership, unlike that of the U.S., really and honestly is >connected to a "well regulated militia." Most U.S. gun fans have nothing
to do with a true militia. Instead it's more common to have fantasies
about "protection" by fast draws or high rates of fire.
But Swiss men must serve in their military, unless they are mentally or >physically unable to. The rationale for keeping their service arms is to >protect against military invasion from, say, Nazi Germany in WW2 or
Russia today. They get military training with their guns and are taught
to respect them, not treat them as toys.
In fact, Swiss are taught and required to store their guns securely,
even disassembled to prevent theft. That certainly must reduce impulse >shootings of family members. (Perhaps you do that, John. Perhaps that's
the reason your gun was no use to you during the near-deadly home
invasion you told us about.)
On Tue, 04 Mar 2025 08:19:43 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 04 Mar 2025 19:37:43 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 04 Mar 2025 05:12:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder >>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
breathtaking views of Iowa.On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 20:45:39 -0500, Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 3/3/2025 7:58 PM, John B. wrote:
I wonder about Frank's
insistence that guns in homes cause home shootings?
John, I've given several links over the years to data clearly showing >>>>>that guns in the home correlates with more shootings within the home, no >>>>>matter what the surrounding environment.
<LOL> Poor dimwitted Krygowski still insists that correlation implies >>>>causation.
Your simplistic re-phrasing doesn't disprove that data.
Krygowski's simplistic data does not imply that guns in the home cause >>>>people to get shot.
"Its well-known that correlation does not imply causation." >>>>https://www.statology.org/does-causation-imply-correlation/
I've mentioned this before but even a casual review of Switzerland
shows that at least a quarter of Swiss households contain a firearm
but
"home shootings" are extremely rare.
Perhaps Frank can explain why guns in the house are so terrifying in
the U.S.?
After all the SG 550 is an assault rifle manufactured by SIG Sauer AG >>>has a maximum rate of fire of about 700 rounds/min, semi auto and full >>>auto rate, of fire, 30 round magazines. Far more terrifying then the >>>relatively meek and mild AR.
Can it be? Have the "Anti Gunners" contrives a false study that guns
in the house are the cause of homicides in the house. Or perhaps fess
up the truth that, as proved by Swiss, that guns in the house is not
the determining factor.
Or, perhaps he will just continue telling his lies.
The vast majority of domestic violence cases do not involve guns, and
I'd bet that of the ones that do, the majority is about defense or >>retaliation against the abuser.
"Its well-known that correlation does not imply causation." >>https://www.statology.org/does-causation-imply-correlation/
Lets add to that and state that, "Franks statement seldom correlate
with truth".
On 3/4/2025 6:52 PM, John B. wrote:
The point is that Frank, over and over, has told us that guns in
houses results in increased home shootings, no, "is", "maybe", "that
example doesn't count" excuses.
The available data for America clearly shows that. American households
with guns have a much higher incidence of family members killing family >members, compared to American households without guns, no matter what
sort of neighborhood.
That's the data that exactly applies to the point you're addressing. Why
do you discount that data and go looking for excuses?
And now, when I mention that Switzerland doesn't have the same
problem, Suddenly, Frankie comes up with all the same "is", "Maybe"
and "don't count" excuse that he has ignored for years.
Look again, John. Switzerland has far fewer guns per person than the
U.S. Switzerland also has far fewer shooting deaths per person than the
U.S.
Switzerland has more guns per person than France. Switzerland also has
more shooting deaths per person than France.
Switzerland has more guns per person than Britain. Switzerland also has
more shooting deaths per person than Britain.
We can repeat this with the same results for many, many countries. But
of prosperous "developed" nations, the U.S. is an outlier, both
regarding number of guns and gun death rates per capita.
So the real question is "Is Frank simply a confirmed liar"? Or is
Frank so stupid that he never bothered to actually study the subject
and just parroted the "party line" as it were?
I'd say the question is "Is John really unable to understand the data?"
I suspect you're not. Instead, I suspect your deep reverence for guns
doesn't allow you to even consider data contrary to your position.
On 3/5/2025 7:53 AM, John B. wrote:
I just came across a study
]http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/den24a.jpg
:-) Excellent study, John! You're one hell of a researcher! :-)
On 3/4/2025 11:41 PM, John B. wrote:
John, YOU were the one who "slip slided" away from data on American home >shootings, by pivoting to Switzerland gun ownership and shooting deaths.
The subject of this post was originally "home shootings" and it
appears that you are now slip sliding away from this subject as the
Swiss data shows that you don't know what you are talking about.
You pretended not to notice that Switzerland has far, far lower gun
ownership rates than the U.S., and also has far lower gun homicide rates
than the U.S.
Let's "slip slide" back to the question at hand, OK? Does having a gun
in an American home make the home safer or more dangerous? IOW, does a
gun make it less likely someone will be shot (presumably by "bad guys")
or _more_ likely someone will be shot - usually by another member of the >household?
The answer is: It's not even close. The guns make things more dangerous.
I've found NO data showing the gun makes a household safer. Instead:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/
"For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally >justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven
criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
Conclusions: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a
fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide
attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense."
Or https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762
"Overall rates of homicide were more than twice as high among
cohabitants of handgun owners than among cohabitants of nonowners
(adjusted hazard ratio, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.78 to 3.05]). These elevated
rates were driven largely by higher rates of homicide by firearm
(adjusted hazard ratio, 2.83 [CI, 2.05 to 3.91]). Among homicides
occurring at home, cohabitants of owners had sevenfold higher rates of
being fatally shot by a spouse or intimate partner..."
I can give more links - not that it will help. But those are two of the >studies that specifically set out to answer the question at hand. Other >studies found the same overall facts, and found they were true even in
"nice" neighborhoods, so don't pretend this is just a slum problem.
These researchers came up with the questions above, and set out to
gather data and answer them. I've asked you several times how YOU would >answer the question in a scientific way.
You've failed to answer that. So if you have data showing guns in the
house make it safer, post links already.
On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 11:41:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 3/4/2025 11:41 PM, John B. wrote:
John, YOU were the one who "slip slided" away from data on American home >>shootings, by pivoting to Switzerland gun ownership and shooting deaths. >>You pretended not to notice that Switzerland has far, far lower gun >>ownership rates than the U.S., and also has far lower gun homicide rates >>than the U.S.
The subject of this post was originally "home shootings" and it
appears that you are now slip sliding away from this subject as the
Swiss data shows that you don't know what you are talking about.
Let's "slip slide" back to the question at hand, OK? Does having a gun
in an American home make the home safer or more dangerous? IOW, does a
gun make it less likely someone will be shot (presumably by "bad guys")
or _more_ likely someone will be shot - usually by another member of the >>household?
The answer is: It's not even close. The guns make things more dangerous. >>I've found NO data showing the gun makes a household safer. Instead:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/
"For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally >>justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven >>criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
Conclusions: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a
fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide
attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense."
Or https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762
"Overall rates of homicide were more than twice as high among
cohabitants of handgun owners than among cohabitants of nonowners
(adjusted hazard ratio, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.78 to 3.05]). These elevated
rates were driven largely by higher rates of homicide by firearm
(adjusted hazard ratio, 2.83 [CI, 2.05 to 3.91]). Among homicides
occurring at home, cohabitants of owners had sevenfold higher rates of >>being fatally shot by a spouse or intimate partner..."
I can give more links - not that it will help. But those are two of the >>studies that specifically set out to answer the question at hand. Other >>studies found the same overall facts, and found they were true even in >>"nice" neighborhoods, so don't pretend this is just a slum problem.
These researchers came up with the questions above, and set out to
gather data and answer them. I've asked you several times how YOU would >>answer the question in a scientific way.
You've failed to answer that. So if you have data showing guns in the
house make it safer, post links already.
Easily munipulated "data" collected by gun haters.
Fact is that massive numbers of poeple live with guns in their homes
with no problems.
On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 11:41:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 3/4/2025 11:41 PM, John B. wrote:
John, YOU were the one who "slip slided" away from data on American home
The subject of this post was originally "home shootings" and it
appears that you are now slip sliding away from this subject as the
Swiss data shows that you don't know what you are talking about.
shootings, by pivoting to Switzerland gun ownership and shooting deaths.
You pretended not to notice that Switzerland has far, far lower gun
ownership rates than the U.S., and also has far lower gun homicide rates
than the U.S.
Let's "slip slide" back to the question at hand, OK? Does having a gun
in an American home make the home safer or more dangerous? IOW, does a
gun make it less likely someone will be shot (presumably by "bad guys")
or _more_ likely someone will be shot - usually by another member of the
household?
The answer is: It's not even close. The guns make things more dangerous.
I've found NO data showing the gun makes a household safer. Instead:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/
"For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally
justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven
criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
Conclusions: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a
fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide
attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense."
Or https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762
"Overall rates of homicide were more than twice as high among
cohabitants of handgun owners than among cohabitants of nonowners
(adjusted hazard ratio, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.78 to 3.05]). These elevated
rates were driven largely by higher rates of homicide by firearm
(adjusted hazard ratio, 2.83 [CI, 2.05 to 3.91]). Among homicides
occurring at home, cohabitants of owners had sevenfold higher rates of
being fatally shot by a spouse or intimate partner..."
I can give more links - not that it will help. But those are two of the
studies that specifically set out to answer the question at hand. Other
studies found the same overall facts, and found they were true even in
"nice" neighborhoods, so don't pretend this is just a slum problem.
These researchers came up with the questions above, and set out to
gather data and answer them. I've asked you several times how YOU would
answer the question in a scientific way.
You've failed to answer that. So if you have data showing guns in the
house make it safer, post links already.
Easily munipulated "data" collected by gun haters.
Fact is that massive numbers of poeple live with guns in their homes
with no problems.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 14:12:33 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 3/5/2025 12:35 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 11:41:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 3/4/2025 11:41 PM, John B. wrote:
John, YOU were the one who "slip slided" away from data on American home >>>> shootings, by pivoting to Switzerland gun ownership and shooting deaths. >>>> You pretended not to notice that Switzerland has far, far lower gun
The subject of this post was originally "home shootings" and it
appears that you are now slip sliding away from this subject as the >>>>> Swiss data shows that you don't know what you are talking about.
ownership rates than the U.S., and also has far lower gun homicide rates >>>> than the U.S.
Let's "slip slide" back to the question at hand, OK? Does having a gun >>>> in an American home make the home safer or more dangerous? IOW, does a >>>> gun make it less likely someone will be shot (presumably by "bad guys") >>>> or _more_ likely someone will be shot - usually by another member of the >>>> household?
The answer is: It's not even close. The guns make things more dangerous. >>>> I've found NO data showing the gun makes a household safer. Instead:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/
"For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally >>>> justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven
criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. >>>>
Conclusions: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a
fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide
attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense."
Or https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762
"Overall rates of homicide were more than twice as high among
cohabitants of handgun owners than among cohabitants of nonowners
(adjusted hazard ratio, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.78 to 3.05]). These elevated
rates were driven largely by higher rates of homicide by firearm
(adjusted hazard ratio, 2.83 [CI, 2.05 to 3.91]). Among homicides
occurring at home, cohabitants of owners had sevenfold higher rates of >>>> being fatally shot by a spouse or intimate partner..."
I can give more links - not that it will help. But those are two of the >>>> studies that specifically set out to answer the question at hand. Other >>>> studies found the same overall facts, and found they were true even in >>>> "nice" neighborhoods, so don't pretend this is just a slum problem.
These researchers came up with the questions above, and set out to
gather data and answer them. I've asked you several times how YOU would >>>> answer the question in a scientific way.
You've failed to answer that. So if you have data showing guns in the
house make it safer, post links already.
Easily munipulated "data" collected by gun haters.
Fact is that massive numbers of poeple live with guns in their homes
with no problems.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
And yet something well past 100 million USAians are armed at
home.
Last night for example:
https://710wor.iheart.com/content/2025-03-05-onlyfans-model-amouranth-opened-fire-on-thieves-during-robbery-attempt/
Some people feel firearms are unnecessary, that a kind word
is enough. Again last night:
https://ktla.com/news/local-news/gas-station-clerk-shot-point-blank-in-l-a-county-robbery-attempt/
Let's score that. The armed woman shot the criminal and was
unharmed. The unarmed clerk took a bullet point-blank and
fortunately lived to become another victim of The Medical
Billing Industry.
Peruse the situation, make your own decision.
Note the change in argument above. It started with did a gun in the
home actually make the home more dangerious and as soon as evidence
was posted that it just wasn't true in Switzerland Frank in a frantic
effort to somehow prove his point has gone slipping sliding away to
does a gun in the house make it safer.
On 3/5/2025 7:34 PM, John B. wrote:
Note the change in argument above. It started with did a gun in the
home actually make the home more dangerious and as soon as evidence
was posted that it just wasn't true in Switzerland...
No, John, you did _not_ give evidence that a gun in a Swiss house failed
to make the home more "dangerious" [sic].
Here's how you would need to do that, if it were possible: You'd have to
find data on the gun death and/or injury rate in Swiss homes _with_
guns, and compare that rate to Swiss homes _without_ guns. So far,
you've done none of that. But I suspect that if you found that data, you >wouldn't like the result.
Instead, you showed that the Swiss have fewer gun deaths per capita than
the U.S. But you seem unable to admit that the Swiss have far, far
fewer guns per capita than the U.S.
You don't seem to realize that your data tends to corroborate my argument.
More briefly, you're completely failing at logic.
On 3/5/2025 11:38 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 19:31:40 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Ownership of a firearm is one thing but being readily
accessible and ready to fire is another. Under many local
ordinances, firearms must be locked, which greatly stymies
defense when decisions are final in less than a second.
Which reminds me of John's personal tale of a real home invasion. That >paragraph may explain (in part) why his gun did him no good at all. Only
the most fearful homeowner would keep his gun on his person just in case >someone burst into the home.
Then there's software. Most firearms owners do not get
regular range time and so will more probably fumble away
decisive time or even shoot themselves than successfully
defend under sudden, immediate attack and under a wave of
adrenaline.
Right. And even most target shooting for sport would probably do little
to prevent that fumbling, because it doesn't usually involve super-fast >grabbing the gun out of storage, quickly loading it, then quickly
hitting a target. Practicing skills is a highly specific exercise.
And then there's negligence and yes, sadly, would-be
defenders do shoot relatives and other innocents after
hearing a bump in the night.
And it's not just mistaking innocents by mistake. I'm sure that a much
larger percentage of intra-household shooting victims are shot
deliberately. A thug of a husband gets furious at his wife and blows her >away.
Good points in those three paragraphs.
So while I'm generally supportive of firearms for self
defense, especially home defense, I recognize this is a
varied, complex and unclear area in many aspects.
I came across this study just the other day
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506
a total of 420 home killing of which 209 were committed by firearm and
211 by other means.
Now, any killing is a terrible thing but one has to view with some
skepticism someone that ignores the major cause of death to emphasize
the minor cause.
Can his motives be viewed as impartial, or simply a means of
emphasizing his own opinions.
You're dancing away from the question at hand. I said all the data I've
found indicates a gun in the home makes the occupants less safe, and
more likely to be shot by that gun.
Your source said the same: "After controlling for these
characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly
and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide
(adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4). >Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or
intimate acquaintance.
"Conclusions: ... Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home
are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family
member or intimate acquaintance."
You don't seem to realize that you've yet again corroborated my
position. You're failing at logic, John.
On Thu, 06 Mar 2025 11:38:24 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 19:31:40 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 3/5/2025 6:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 14:12:33 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 3/5/2025 12:35 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 11:41:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 3/4/2025 11:41 PM, John B. wrote:
shootings, by pivoting to Switzerland gun ownership and shooting deaths.
The subject of this post was originally "home shootings" and it >>>>>>>> appears that you are now slip sliding away from this subject as the >>>>>>>> Swiss data shows that you don't know what you are talking about. >>>>>>> John, YOU were the one who "slip slided" away from data on American home
You pretended not to notice that Switzerland has far, far lower gun >>>>>>> ownership rates than the U.S., and also has far lower gun homicide rates
than the U.S.
Let's "slip slide" back to the question at hand, OK? Does having a gun >>>>>>> in an American home make the home safer or more dangerous? IOW, does a >>>>>>> gun make it less likely someone will be shot (presumably by "bad guys") >>>>>>> or _more_ likely someone will be shot - usually by another member of the
household?
The answer is: It's not even close. The guns make things more dangerous.
I've found NO data showing the gun makes a household safer. Instead: >>>>>>>
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/
"For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally >>>>>>> justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven >>>>>>> criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. >>>>>>>
Conclusions: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a >>>>>>> fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide >>>>>>> attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense."
Or https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762
"Overall rates of homicide were more than twice as high among
cohabitants of handgun owners than among cohabitants of nonowners >>>>>>> (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.78 to 3.05]). These elevated >>>>>>> rates were driven largely by higher rates of homicide by firearm >>>>>>> (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.83 [CI, 2.05 to 3.91]). Among homicides >>>>>>> occurring at home, cohabitants of owners had sevenfold higher rates of >>>>>>> being fatally shot by a spouse or intimate partner..."
I can give more links - not that it will help. But those are two of the >>>>>>> studies that specifically set out to answer the question at hand. Other >>>>>>> studies found the same overall facts, and found they were true even in >>>>>>> "nice" neighborhoods, so don't pretend this is just a slum problem. >>>>>>>
These researchers came up with the questions above, and set out to >>>>>>> gather data and answer them. I've asked you several times how YOU would >>>>>>> answer the question in a scientific way.
You've failed to answer that. So if you have data showing guns in the >>>>>>> house make it safer, post links already.
Easily munipulated "data" collected by gun haters.
Fact is that massive numbers of poeple live with guns in their homes >>>>>> with no problems.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
And yet something well past 100 million USAians are armed at
home.
Last night for example:
https://710wor.iheart.com/content/2025-03-05-onlyfans-model-amouranth-opened-fire-on-thieves-during-robbery-attempt/
Some people feel firearms are unnecessary, that a kind word
is enough. Again last night:
https://ktla.com/news/local-news/gas-station-clerk-shot-point-blank-in-l-a-county-robbery-attempt/
Let's score that. The armed woman shot the criminal and was
unharmed. The unarmed clerk took a bullet point-blank and
fortunately lived to become another victim of The Medical
Billing Industry.
Peruse the situation, make your own decision.
Note the change in argument above. It started with did a gun in the
home actually make the home more dangerious and as soon as evidence
was posted that it just wasn't true in Switzerland Frank in a frantic
effort to somehow prove his point has gone slipping sliding away to
does a gun in the house make it safer.
Well, it's a complex problem.
Most people will never be in that situation. Trouble is, you
don't know that, and the incidence is not negligible.
Successful defense has been made with baseball bats, knives
and other items. That is to say that while firearms can be
handy, they are not absolutely necessary. (for a 95lb woman,
a purse pistol makes more sense than a bat or a blade)
Ownership of a firearm is one thing but being readily
accessible and ready to fire is another. Under many local
ordinances, firearms must be locked, which greatly stymies
defense when decisions are final in less than a second.
Then there's software. Most firearms owners do not get
regular range time and so will more probably fumble away
decisive time or even shoot themselves than successfully
defend under sudden, immediate attack and under a wave of
adrenaline.
And then there's negligence and yes, sadly, would-be
defenders do shoot relatives and other innocents after
hearing a bump in the night.
So while I'm generally supportive of firearms for self
defense, especially home defense, I recognize this is a
varied, complex and unclear area in many aspects.
I came across this study just the other day
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506
a total of 420 home killing of which 209 were committed by firearm and
211 by other means.
Now, any killing is a terrible thing but one has to view with some
skepticism someone that ignores the major cause of death to emphasize
the minor cause.
Can his motives be viewed as impartial, or simply a means of
emphasizing his own opinions.
Re Frank's opinion :-(
Some time ago I advanced the documented evidence that rural states
appeared to have fewer firearm homicides then urban and good old
Frankie said that didn't matter, But now see https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1448529/
The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.87,
1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most rural
counties."
Which translate, in short, to the fact that Frankie lied. The
question then becomes... can we believe anything he says. "-)
For my part I will accept any thong that is documented and assume that
he is lying the rest of the time... :-)
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 05:54:09 -0500, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 3/6/2025 4:56 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2025 11:38:24 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 19:31:40 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 3/5/2025 6:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 14:12:33 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>>
On 3/5/2025 12:35 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 11:41:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 3/4/2025 11:41 PM, John B. wrote:
shootings, by pivoting to Switzerland gun ownership and shooting deaths.
The subject of this post was originally "home shootings" and it >>>>>>>>>> appears that you are now slip sliding away from this subject as the >>>>>>>>>> Swiss data shows that you don't know what you are talking about. >>>>>>>>> John, YOU were the one who "slip slided" away from data on American home
You pretended not to notice that Switzerland has far, far lower gun >>>>>>>>> ownership rates than the U.S., and also has far lower gun homicide rates
than the U.S.
Let's "slip slide" back to the question at hand, OK? Does having a gun
in an American home make the home safer or more dangerous? IOW, does a
gun make it less likely someone will be shot (presumably by "bad guys")
or _more_ likely someone will be shot - usually by another member of the
household?
The answer is: It's not even close. The guns make things more dangerous.
I've found NO data showing the gun makes a household safer. Instead: >>>>>>>>>
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/
"For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally
justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven >>>>>>>>> criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
Conclusions: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a >>>>>>>>> fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide >>>>>>>>> attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense."
Or https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762
"Overall rates of homicide were more than twice as high among >>>>>>>>> cohabitants of handgun owners than among cohabitants of nonowners >>>>>>>>> (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.78 to 3.05]). These elevated >>>>>>>>> rates were driven largely by higher rates of homicide by firearm >>>>>>>>> (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.83 [CI, 2.05 to 3.91]). Among homicides >>>>>>>>> occurring at home, cohabitants of owners had sevenfold higher rates of
being fatally shot by a spouse or intimate partner..."
I can give more links - not that it will help. But those are two of the
studies that specifically set out to answer the question at hand. Other
studies found the same overall facts, and found they were true even in
"nice" neighborhoods, so don't pretend this is just a slum problem. >>>>>>>>>
These researchers came up with the questions above, and set out to >>>>>>>>> gather data and answer them. I've asked you several times how YOU would
answer the question in a scientific way.
You've failed to answer that. So if you have data showing guns in the >>>>>>>>> house make it safer, post links already.
Easily munipulated "data" collected by gun haters.
Fact is that massive numbers of poeple live with guns in their homes >>>>>>>> with no problems.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
And yet something well past 100 million USAians are armed at
home.
Last night for example:
https://710wor.iheart.com/content/2025-03-05-onlyfans-model-amouranth-opened-fire-on-thieves-during-robbery-attempt/
Some people feel firearms are unnecessary, that a kind word
is enough. Again last night:
https://ktla.com/news/local-news/gas-station-clerk-shot-point-blank-in-l-a-county-robbery-attempt/
Let's score that. The armed woman shot the criminal and was
unharmed. The unarmed clerk took a bullet point-blank and
fortunately lived to become another victim of The Medical
Billing Industry.
Peruse the situation, make your own decision.
Note the change in argument above. It started with did a gun in the >>>>>> home actually make the home more dangerious and as soon as evidence >>>>>> was posted that it just wasn't true in Switzerland Frank in a frantic >>>>>> effort to somehow prove his point has gone slipping sliding away to >>>>>> does a gun in the house make it safer.
Well, it's a complex problem.
Most people will never be in that situation. Trouble is, you
don't know that, and the incidence is not negligible.
Successful defense has been made with baseball bats, knives
and other items. That is to say that while firearms can be
handy, they are not absolutely necessary. (for a 95lb woman,
a purse pistol makes more sense than a bat or a blade)
Ownership of a firearm is one thing but being readily
accessible and ready to fire is another. Under many local
ordinances, firearms must be locked, which greatly stymies
defense when decisions are final in less than a second.
Then there's software. Most firearms owners do not get
regular range time and so will more probably fumble away
decisive time or even shoot themselves than successfully
defend under sudden, immediate attack and under a wave of
adrenaline.
And then there's negligence and yes, sadly, would-be
defenders do shoot relatives and other innocents after
hearing a bump in the night.
So while I'm generally supportive of firearms for self
defense, especially home defense, I recognize this is a
varied, complex and unclear area in many aspects.
I came across this study just the other day
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506
a total of 420 home killing of which 209 were committed by firearm and >>>> 211 by other means.
Now, any killing is a terrible thing but one has to view with some
skepticism someone that ignores the major cause of death to emphasize
the minor cause.
Can his motives be viewed as impartial, or simply a means of
emphasizing his own opinions.
Re Frank's opinion :-(
Some time ago I advanced the documented evidence that rural states
appeared to have fewer firearm homicides then urban and good old
Frankie said that didn't matter, But now see
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1448529/
The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.87,
1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most rural
counties."
Which translate, in short, to the fact that Frankie lied. The
question then becomes... can we believe anything he says. "-)
No, it doesn't dumbass. Reiterating Franks message that you seem to have
conveniently ignored, your first link states "we found that keeping a
gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an
increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent
confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4). Virtually all of this risk involved
homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."
That study corroborates what Frank has been saying all along.
Err ... my first link was a count of home homicides with various
devices showering that firearms were used a bit less often then other
devices and asking why the greater chooses of death were never
mentioned as dangerious.
For my part I will accept any thong that is documented and assume that
he is lying the rest of the time... :-)
You and tommy both need to be educated on what a 'Lie' actually is. A
lie is deliberate stating something you know to be false.
You (and the floriduh dumbass) both have evidence supporting Franks
claims, while all you have is your anecdotes, deliberate misstatements,
and your dumbass opinions.
It isn't Frnaks that's lying.
On 3/5/2025 11:38 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 19:31:40 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Ownership of a firearm is one thing but being readily
accessible and ready to fire is another. Under many local
ordinances, firearms must be locked, which greatly stymies
defense when decisions are final in less than a second.
Which reminds me of John's personal tale of a real home
invasion. That paragraph may explain (in part) why his gun
did him no good at all. Only the most fearful homeowner
would keep his gun on his person just in case someone burst
into the home.
Then there's software. Most firearms owners do not get
regular range time and so will more probably fumble away
decisive time or even shoot themselves than successfully
defend under sudden, immediate attack and under a wave of
adrenaline.
Right. And even most target shooting for sport would
probably do little to prevent that fumbling, because it
doesn't usually involve super-fast grabbing the gun out of
storage, quickly loading it, then quickly hitting a target.
Practicing skills is a highly specific exercise.
And then there's negligence and yes, sadly, would-be
defenders do shoot relatives and other innocents after
hearing a bump in the night.
And it's not just mistaking innocents by mistake. I'm sure
that a much larger percentage of intra-household shooting
victims are shot deliberately. A thug of a husband gets
furious at his wife and blows her away.
Good points in those three paragraphs.
So while I'm generally supportive of firearms for self
defense, especially home defense, I recognize this is a
varied, complex and unclear area in many aspects.
I came across this study just the other day
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506
a total of 420 home killing of which 209 were committed by
firearm and
211 by other means.
Now, any killing is a terrible thing but one has to view
with some
skepticism someone that ignores the major cause of death
to emphasize
the minor cause.
Can his motives be viewed as impartial, or simply a means of
emphasizing his own opinions.
You're dancing away from the question at hand. I said all
the data I've found indicates a gun in the home makes the
occupants less safe, and more likely to be shot by that gun.
Your source said the same: "After controlling for these
characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was
strongly and independently associated with an increased risk
of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence
interval, 1.6 to 4.4). Virtually all of this risk involved
homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.
"Conclusions: ... Rather than confer protection, guns kept
in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of
homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."
You don't seem to realize that you've yet again corroborated
my position. You're failing at logic, John.
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 00:07:01 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 3/5/2025 11:38 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 19:31:40 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Ownership of a firearm is one thing but being readily
accessible and ready to fire is another. Under many local
ordinances, firearms must be locked, which greatly stymies
defense when decisions are final in less than a second.
Which reminds me of John's personal tale of a real home invasion. That
paragraph may explain (in part) why his gun did him no good at all. Only
the most fearful homeowner would keep his gun on his person just in case
someone burst into the home.
True, but having a gun close at hand does not necessarily mean it has
to be on your person.
Then there's software. Most firearms owners do not get
regular range time and so will more probably fumble away
decisive time or even shoot themselves than successfully
defend under sudden, immediate attack and under a wave of
adrenaline.
Right. And even most target shooting for sport would probably do little
to prevent that fumbling, because it doesn't usually involve super-fast
grabbing the gun out of storage, quickly loading it, then quickly
hitting a target. Practicing skills is a highly specific exercise.
Having a gun locked up in storage makes it useless. Having a gun
unloaded makes it almost as useless. Best practice is fully loaded,
meaning one in the pipe and with safeties off.
And then there's negligence and yes, sadly, would-be
defenders do shoot relatives and other innocents after
hearing a bump in the night.
And it's not just mistaking innocents by mistake. I'm sure that a much
larger percentage of intra-household shooting victims are shot
deliberately. A thug of a husband gets furious at his wife and blows her
away.
Very rare. The majority of male violence to females regard fists and
the notorious blunt objects. More likely the female has enough of the
male abuser and blows him away. That's not necessarily a bad thing.
Good points in those three paragraphs.
So while I'm generally supportive of firearms for self
defense, especially home defense, I recognize this is a
varied, complex and unclear area in many aspects.
I came across this study just the other day
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506
a total of 420 home killing of which 209 were committed by firearm and
211 by other means.
Now, any killing is a terrible thing but one has to view with some
skepticism someone that ignores the major cause of death to emphasize
the minor cause.
Can his motives be viewed as impartial, or simply a means of
emphasizing his own opinions.
You're dancing away from the question at hand. I said all the data I've
found indicates a gun in the home makes the occupants less safe, and
more likely to be shot by that gun.
<LOL> Correlation does not imply causation.
Your source said the same: "After controlling for these
characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly
and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide
(adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4).
Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or
intimate acquaintance.
"Conclusions: ... Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home
are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family
member or intimate acquaintance."
Nonsense, but I believe that illegal drugs kept in the house might by
risky.
You don't seem to realize that you've yet again corroborated my
position. You're failing at logic, John.
You get to believe whatever you want, but I notice that in spite of
your continuous and monotonous rhetoric you've yet to convince anyone
else.
"One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over
again and expecting a different result."
Are you insane?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 3/6/2025 3:10 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 00:07:01 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 3/5/2025 11:38 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 19:31:40 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Ownership of a firearm is one thing but being readily
accessible and ready to fire is another. Under many local
ordinances, firearms must be locked, which greatly stymies
defense when decisions are final in less than a second.
Which reminds me of John's personal tale of a real home invasion. That
paragraph may explain (in part) why his gun did him no good at all. Only >>> the most fearful homeowner would keep his gun on his person just in case >>> someone burst into the home.
True, but having a gun close at hand does not necessarily mean it has
to be on your person.
Then there's software. Most firearms owners do not get
regular range time and so will more probably fumble away
decisive time or even shoot themselves than successfully
defend under sudden, immediate attack and under a wave of
adrenaline.
Right. And even most target shooting for sport would probably do little
to prevent that fumbling, because it doesn't usually involve super-fast
grabbing the gun out of storage, quickly loading it, then quickly
hitting a target. Practicing skills is a highly specific exercise.
Having a gun locked up in storage makes it useless. Having a gun
unloaded makes it almost as useless. Best practice is fully loaded,
meaning one in the pipe and with safeties off.
And then there's negligence and yes, sadly, would-be
defenders do shoot relatives and other innocents after
hearing a bump in the night.
And it's not just mistaking innocents by mistake. I'm sure that a much
larger percentage of intra-household shooting victims are shot
deliberately. A thug of a husband gets furious at his wife and blows her >>> away.
Very rare. The majority of male violence to females regard fists and
the notorious blunt objects. More likely the female has enough of the
male abuser and blows him away. That's not necessarily a bad thing.
Good points in those three paragraphs.
So while I'm generally supportive of firearms for self
defense, especially home defense, I recognize this is a
varied, complex and unclear area in many aspects.
I came across this study just the other day
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506
a total of 420 home killing of which 209 were committed by firearm and >>>> 211 by other means.
Now, any killing is a terrible thing but one has to view with some
skepticism someone that ignores the major cause of death to emphasize
the minor cause.
Can his motives be viewed as impartial, or simply a means of
emphasizing his own opinions.
You're dancing away from the question at hand. I said all the data I've
found indicates a gun in the home makes the occupants less safe, and
more likely to be shot by that gun.
<LOL> Correlation does not imply causation.
Your source said the same: "After controlling for these
characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly
and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide
(adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4).
Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or
intimate acquaintance.
"Conclusions: ... Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home
are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family
member or intimate acquaintance."
Nonsense, but I believe that illegal drugs kept in the house might by
risky.
You don't seem to realize that you've yet again corroborated my
position. You're failing at logic, John.
You get to believe whatever you want, but I notice that in spite of
your continuous and monotonous rhetoric you've yet to convince anyone
else.
"One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over
again and expecting a different result."
Are you insane?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 3/6/2025 3:10 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 00:07:01 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 3/5/2025 11:38 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 19:31:40 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Ownership of a firearm is one thing but being readily
accessible and ready to fire is another. Under many local
ordinances, firearms must be locked, which greatly stymies
defense when decisions are final in less than a second.
Which reminds me of John's personal tale of a real home invasion. That
paragraph may explain (in part) why his gun did him no good at all. Only >>> the most fearful homeowner would keep his gun on his person just in case >>> someone burst into the home.
True, but having a gun close at hand does not necessarily mean it has
to be on your person.
Then there's software. Most firearms owners do not get
regular range time and so will more probably fumble away
decisive time or even shoot themselves than successfully
defend under sudden, immediate attack and under a wave of
adrenaline.
Right. And even most target shooting for sport would probably do little
to prevent that fumbling, because it doesn't usually involve super-fast
grabbing the gun out of storage, quickly loading it, then quickly
hitting a target. Practicing skills is a highly specific exercise.
Having a gun locked up in storage makes it useless. Having a gun
unloaded makes it almost as useless. Best practice is fully loaded,
meaning one in the pipe and with safeties off.
And then there's negligence and yes, sadly, would-be
defenders do shoot relatives and other innocents after
hearing a bump in the night.
And it's not just mistaking innocents by mistake. I'm sure that a much
larger percentage of intra-household shooting victims are shot
deliberately. A thug of a husband gets furious at his wife and blows her >>> away.
Very rare. The majority of male violence to females regard fists and
the notorious blunt objects. More likely the female has enough of the
male abuser and blows him away. That's not necessarily a bad thing.
Good points in those three paragraphs.
So while I'm generally supportive of firearms for self
defense, especially home defense, I recognize this is a
varied, complex and unclear area in many aspects.
I came across this study just the other day
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506
a total of 420 home killing of which 209 were committed by firearm and >>>> 211 by other means.
Now, any killing is a terrible thing but one has to view with some
skepticism someone that ignores the major cause of death to emphasize
the minor cause.
Can his motives be viewed as impartial, or simply a means of
emphasizing his own opinions.
You're dancing away from the question at hand. I said all the data I've
found indicates a gun in the home makes the occupants less safe, and
more likely to be shot by that gun.
<LOL> Correlation does not imply causation.
Your source said the same: "After controlling for these
characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly
and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide
(adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4).
Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or
intimate acquaintance.
"Conclusions: ... Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home
are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family
member or intimate acquaintance."
Nonsense, but I believe that illegal drugs kept in the house might by
risky.
You don't seem to realize that you've yet again corroborated my
position. You're failing at logic, John.
You get to believe whatever you want, but I notice that in spite of
your continuous and monotonous rhetoric you've yet to convince anyone
else.
"One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over
again and expecting a different result."
Are you insane?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
Most domestic homicides do not involve firearms:
Overnight news for example: https://katv.com/news/local/two-year-old-girl-beaten-to-death-by-man-in- sevier-county-domestic-violence-case-murder-homicide-first-degree- battery-murder
https://local12.com/news/nation-world/killed-girlfriend-oncoming- traffic-highway-throwing-dragging-forcing-forced-her-boyfriend-man- interstate-crash-car-crashed-struck-by-crawled-shoulder-side-road-chase- blood-arrest-murder-murdered
https://truecrimenews.com/2025/03/05/texas-tarrant-jose-castaneda-evila- yanes-murder-girlfriend-sentenced/
There are multiple examples, every day and everywhere, and firearms are
a rarity among them.
On Wed Feb 19 18:31:33 2025 John B. wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 04:10:24 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:06:25 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:51:56 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/17/2025 9:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:15:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
I didn't say that things didn't or don't happen, I said that in all my >>>> years I hadn't seen it happen.
But perhaps I was looking in the wrong direction as your description,
I didn't know either of the men in the relationships I described. I
knew both of the women very well." rather gives a whole new picture,
doesn't it - You know a "woman well" and her husband objects to it to >>>> the point that he beats her, gives your statement a whole new
meaning, doesn't it.
Perhaps you are lucky that your wife didn't also discover your
philandering.
I have to disagree with that presumption. Something like that requires
courage, a willingness to take a risk, and at least a little
masculinity. Krygowski possesses none of those attributes.
You mean that he lisps when he talks?
You can be queer without being A queer.
On Tue Feb 18 10:58:22 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/18/2025 7:25 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:20:07 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
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, on a good day you're a fool, on a bad day you don't even reach that level.
"On average, 3,062 burglaries happen in the U.S. every day." That is from Forbes.
On 3/6/2025 9:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Most domestic homicides do not involve firearms:...
That does not make the ones that do involve firearms OK.
And it should be bleedingly obvious that a person is much
more likely to survive an attack with fists, a bat, or other
hand weapon than to survive an attack with a gun.
If that were not true, nobody would bother with guns.
On 3/6/2025 9:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Most domestic homicides do not involve firearms:...
That does not make the ones that do involve firearms OK.
And it should be bleedingly obvious that a person is much more likely to >survive an attack with fists, a bat, or other hand weapon than to
survive an attack with a gun.
If that were not true, nobody would bother with guns.
On 3/6/2025 4:56 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2025 11:38:24 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 19:31:40 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 3/5/2025 6:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 14:12:33 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>
On 3/5/2025 12:35 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 11:41:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 3/4/2025 11:41 PM, John B. wrote:
shootings, by pivoting to Switzerland gun ownership and shooting deaths.
The subject of this post was originally "home shootings" and it >>>>>>>>> appears that you are now slip sliding away from this subject as the >>>>>>>>> Swiss data shows that you don't know what you are talking about. >>>>>>>> John, YOU were the one who "slip slided" away from data on American home
You pretended not to notice that Switzerland has far, far lower gun >>>>>>>> ownership rates than the U.S., and also has far lower gun homicide rates
than the U.S.
Let's "slip slide" back to the question at hand, OK? Does having a gun >>>>>>>> in an American home make the home safer or more dangerous? IOW, does a >>>>>>>> gun make it less likely someone will be shot (presumably by "bad guys")
or _more_ likely someone will be shot - usually by another member of the
household?
The answer is: It's not even close. The guns make things more dangerous.
I've found NO data showing the gun makes a household safer. Instead: >>>>>>>>
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/
"For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally
justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven >>>>>>>> criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
Conclusions: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a >>>>>>>> fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide >>>>>>>> attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense."
Or https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762
"Overall rates of homicide were more than twice as high among
cohabitants of handgun owners than among cohabitants of nonowners >>>>>>>> (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.78 to 3.05]). These elevated >>>>>>>> rates were driven largely by higher rates of homicide by firearm >>>>>>>> (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.83 [CI, 2.05 to 3.91]). Among homicides >>>>>>>> occurring at home, cohabitants of owners had sevenfold higher rates of >>>>>>>> being fatally shot by a spouse or intimate partner..."
I can give more links - not that it will help. But those are two of the
studies that specifically set out to answer the question at hand. Other
studies found the same overall facts, and found they were true even in >>>>>>>> "nice" neighborhoods, so don't pretend this is just a slum problem. >>>>>>>>
These researchers came up with the questions above, and set out to >>>>>>>> gather data and answer them. I've asked you several times how YOU would
answer the question in a scientific way.
You've failed to answer that. So if you have data showing guns in the >>>>>>>> house make it safer, post links already.
Easily munipulated "data" collected by gun haters.
Fact is that massive numbers of poeple live with guns in their homes >>>>>>> with no problems.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
And yet something well past 100 million USAians are armed at
home.
Last night for example:
https://710wor.iheart.com/content/2025-03-05-onlyfans-model-amouranth-opened-fire-on-thieves-during-robbery-attempt/
Some people feel firearms are unnecessary, that a kind word
is enough. Again last night:
https://ktla.com/news/local-news/gas-station-clerk-shot-point-blank-in-l-a-county-robbery-attempt/
Let's score that. The armed woman shot the criminal and was
unharmed. The unarmed clerk took a bullet point-blank and
fortunately lived to become another victim of The Medical
Billing Industry.
Peruse the situation, make your own decision.
Note the change in argument above. It started with did a gun in the
home actually make the home more dangerious and as soon as evidence
was posted that it just wasn't true in Switzerland Frank in a frantic >>>>> effort to somehow prove his point has gone slipping sliding away to
does a gun in the house make it safer.
Well, it's a complex problem.
Most people will never be in that situation. Trouble is, you
don't know that, and the incidence is not negligible.
Successful defense has been made with baseball bats, knives
and other items. That is to say that while firearms can be
handy, they are not absolutely necessary. (for a 95lb woman,
a purse pistol makes more sense than a bat or a blade)
Ownership of a firearm is one thing but being readily
accessible and ready to fire is another. Under many local
ordinances, firearms must be locked, which greatly stymies
defense when decisions are final in less than a second.
Then there's software. Most firearms owners do not get
regular range time and so will more probably fumble away
decisive time or even shoot themselves than successfully
defend under sudden, immediate attack and under a wave of
adrenaline.
And then there's negligence and yes, sadly, would-be
defenders do shoot relatives and other innocents after
hearing a bump in the night.
So while I'm generally supportive of firearms for self
defense, especially home defense, I recognize this is a
varied, complex and unclear area in many aspects.
I came across this study just the other day
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506
a total of 420 home killing of which 209 were committed by firearm and
211 by other means.
Now, any killing is a terrible thing but one has to view with some
skepticism someone that ignores the major cause of death to emphasize
the minor cause.
Can his motives be viewed as impartial, or simply a means of
emphasizing his own opinions.
Re Frank's opinion :-(
Some time ago I advanced the documented evidence that rural states
appeared to have fewer firearm homicides then urban and good old
Frankie said that didn't matter, But now see
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1448529/
The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.87,
1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most rural
counties."
Which translate, in short, to the fact that Frankie lied. The
question then becomes... can we believe anything he says. "-)
Gosh, John, if only the question under discussion was urban vs. rural
firearm death rates! Then you might actually have a glimmer of a point -
a 3% difference. (3% is not much of a point, but I'm trying to be >charitable.)
The question I've been discussing is the difference between households
with guns and households without guns. Your own post stated a near
tripling, i.e. 2.7 times more danger of getting shot. "keeping a gun in
the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased
risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7...)"
You seem unwilling (or unable?) to focus on the question being
discussed. Is it a logic failure or a desperate attempt to change the >subject?
On 3/6/2025 10:41 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/6/2025 9:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Most domestic homicides do not involve firearms:...
That does not make the ones that do involve firearms OK.
And it should be bleedingly obvious that a person is much
more likely to survive an attack with fists, a bat, or other
hand weapon than to survive an attack with a gun.
If that were not true, nobody would bother with guns.
Again, that's complex.
Women shoot their attackers with some notable frequency.
Which is fine by me, BTW.
On 3/6/2025 9:37 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Of course, the "quarter million or more per year" is very
We can agree that the subject, as with anything covering
large numbers of humans who have random behavior, is complex.
But overall, negligent/malicious domestic firearm
incidents combined* is two magnitudes smaller than
successful home defense by firearm (209 vs a quarter
million or more per year)
highly suspect, as we've noted many times here.
On 3/6/2025 10:36 AM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Feb 18 10:58:22 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/18/2025 7:25 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:20:07 +0700, John B.
<slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
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, on a good day you're a fool, on a bad day you don't
even reach that level.
"On average, 3,062 burglaries happen in the U.S. every
day." That is from Forbes.
Whoa! Let's see: That's out of over 131 million households.
That means there's the very, very scary 0.02% chance this
house will be burglarized today. 0.02% chance!
Oops, no, wait! That's grossly exaggerated, because most
burglaries are not of households. Most seem to be
businesses. So ... maybe a 0.01% chance I'll be wanting to
grab a gun today?
Nope, even that is exaggerated. Burglars, understandably,
prefer house where nobody's home. One source says over 70%
involve nobody being around.
And I'll remind you that the community where I live has been
rated the sixth safest in the state. I think that means I'll
be below the overall national average.
How close to zero risk do you require, Tom? And hey, maybe
you should move out of that hellhole you live in! ;-)
On 3/6/2025 11:54 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/6/2025 10:41 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/6/2025 9:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Most domestic homicides do not involve firearms:...
That does not make the ones that do involve firearms OK.
And it should be bleedingly obvious that a person is much
more likely to survive an attack with fists, a bat, or
other hand weapon than to survive an attack with a gun.
If that were not true, nobody would bother with guns.
Again, that's complex.
Women shoot their attackers with some notable frequency.
Sources say about 5% of the time it's women killing a man.
95% is men killing women.
Which is fine by me, BTW.
Neither is fine by me.
On 3/6/2025 11:54 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/6/2025 10:41 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/6/2025 9:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Most domestic homicides do not involve firearms:...
That does not make the ones that do involve firearms OK.
And it should be bleedingly obvious that a person is much more likely
to survive an attack with fists, a bat, or other hand weapon than to
survive an attack with a gun.
If that were not true, nobody would bother with guns.
Again, that's complex.
Women shoot their attackers with some notable frequency.
Sources say about 5% of the time it's women killing a man. 95% is men
killing women.
Which is fine by me, BTW.
Neither is fine by me.
On Tue Feb 18 10:58:22 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/18/2025 7:25 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:20:07 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
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, on a good day you're a fool, on a bad day you don't even reach that level.
"On average, 3,062 burglaries happen in the U.S. every day." That is from Forbes.
On 3/6/2025 12:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/6/2025 11:24 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/6/2025 10:36 AM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Feb 18 10:58:22 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/18/2025 7:25 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:20:07 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
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, on a good day you're a fool, on a bad day you don't even reach
that level.
"On average, 3,062 burglaries happen in the U.S. every day." That is
from Forbes.
Whoa! Let's see: That's out of over 131 million households. That means
there's the very, very scary 0.02% chance this house will be
burglarized today. 0.02% chance!
Oops, no, wait! That's grossly exaggerated, because most burglaries
are not of households. Most seem to be businesses. So ... maybe a
0.01% chance I'll be wanting to grab a gun today?
Nope, even that is exaggerated. Burglars, understandably, prefer house
where nobody's home. One source says over 70% involve nobody being
around.
And I'll remind you that the community where I live has been rated the
sixth safest in the state. I think that means I'll be below the
overall national average.
How close to zero risk do you require, Tom? And hey, maybe you should
move out of that hellhole you live in! ;-)
A burglary is criminal entry and theft without human to human
interaction.
Right. Which means a gun in the home is no advantage. In fact, it's >potentially a disadvantage, because guns are essentially bait for burglars.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 493 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 14:22:21 |
| Calls: | 9,711 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,740 |
| Messages: | 6,181,698 |
