So we go ride out bikes out in the middle of nowhere. I am not a FOID
carry I have not guns but my brother suggest the Bryna? I myself
probably would not be taking it on a bike but who knows.
My thought is I live alone and I sleep downstairs on the couch. I
sometimes keep the patio door open to let in all the cool night air. I
got thinking someone could just drop in although I leave the outside
lights one.
But if I had a Bryna I could just take aim and it is about 15 feet away
to disable someone. Frankly in my days as a long distance runner with
dogs I would have used one at least 3 times in the past. I came upon a
dog that attacked me. On a bike in unfamiliar territory it might we
worth it certainly if you are touring across country.
So we go ride out bikes out in the middle of nowhere. I am not a FOID
carry I have not guns but my brother suggest the Bryna? I myself
probably would not be taking it on a bike but who knows.
My thought is I live alone and I sleep downstairs on the couch. I
sometimes keep the patio door open to let in all the cool night air. I
got thinking someone could just drop in although I leave the outside
lights one.
But if I had a Bryna I could just take aim and it is about 15 feet away
to disable someone. Frankly in my days as a long distance runner with
dogs I would have used one at least 3 times in the past. I came upon a
dog that attacked me. On a bike in unfamiliar territory it might we
worth it certainly if you are touring across country.
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 15:25:59 -0500, Mark J cleary
<mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:
So we go ride out bikes out in the middle of nowhere. I am not a FOID
carry I have not guns but my brother suggest the Bryna? I myself
probably would not be taking it on a bike but who knows.
My thought is I live alone and I sleep downstairs on the couch. I
sometimes keep the patio door open to let in all the cool night air. I
got thinking someone could just drop in although I leave the outside
lights one.
But if I had a Bryna I could just take aim and it is about 15 feet away
to disable someone. Frankly in my days as a long distance runner with
dogs I would have used one at least 3 times in the past. I came upon a
dog that attacked me. On a bike in unfamiliar territory it might we
worth it certainly if you are touring across country.
Spelling problem. It's a Byrna:
<https://byrna.com>
I don't know anything about it or self-defense strategy. In my
uninformed opinion, a paintball gun is much cheaper and possibly
equally effective.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=paintball%20gun&udm=2>
As for carrying a gun, I carrry a Bersa .308 on every bike ride...
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 17:32:04 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
As for carrying a gun, I carrry a Bersa .308 on every bike ride...
Bersa .380
On 6/15/2025 4:25 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
So we go ride out bikes out in the middle of nowhere. I am not a FOID
carry I have not guns but my brother suggest the Bryna? I myself
probably would not be taking it on a bike but who knows.
My thought is I live alone and I sleep downstairs on the couch. I
sometimes keep the patio door open to let in all the cool night air. I
got thinking someone could just drop in although I leave the outside
lights one.
But if I had a Bryna I could just take aim and it is about 15 feet away
to disable someone.
It sounds like you fear a home invasion. How many have there been in
your area in, say, the past five years? What sort of neighborhood do you
live in? Are your fears actually realistic?
Where is this patio door? An open patio door will usually be apparent
only to someone prowling around a person's back yard, so unless you know
that lots of people walk around your back yard at night, invasion by
that route seems unlikely. And there should be ways of allowing the door
to be open enough for ventilation, but not enough to let someone burst in.
From the website: "A PROVEN SELF-DEFENSE OPTION FOR A DANGEROUS WORLD"
Yep, inciting paranoia for profit! And anecdotes about customers who
don't dare go out into the world without this toy.
I don't think the world is scarily dangerous. I've never, ever needed
such a thing, none of my friends or extended family have ever needed it,
and I doubt you will ever need it.
So we go ride out bikes out in the middle of nowhere. I am not a FOID
carry I have not guns but my brother suggest the Bryna? I myself
probably would not be taking it on a bike but who knows.
My thought is I live alone and I sleep downstairs on the couch. I
sometimes keep the patio door open to let in all the cool night air. I
got thinking someone could just drop in although I leave the outside
lights one.
But if I had a Bryna I could just take aim and it is about 15 feet away
to disable someone. Frankly in my days as a long distance runner with
dogs I would have used one at least 3 times in the past. I came upon a
dog that attacked me. On a bike in unfamiliar territory it might we
worth it certainly if you are touring across country.
Mark J cleary <mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:
So we go ride out bikes out in the middle of nowhere. I am not a FOID
carry I have not guns but my brother suggest the Bryna? I myself
probably would not be taking it on a bike but who knows.
My thought is I live alone and I sleep downstairs on the couch. I
sometimes keep the patio door open to let in all the cool night air. I
got thinking someone could just drop in although I leave the outside
lights one.
But if I had a Bryna I could just take aim and it is about 15 feet away
to disable someone. Frankly in my days as a long distance runner with
dogs I would have used one at least 3 times in the past. I came upon a
dog that attacked me. On a bike in unfamiliar territory it might we
worth it certainly if you are touring across country.
Is it a real risk? Let alone the difficulties of awaking and hitting a
target with a handgun, or on the bike being again in a position to hit a >person.
A shot gun would seem certainly for home defence a more useful firearm but
I think you’re massively overthinking the risks.
Roger Merriman
On 16 Jun 2025 09:40:53 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Mark J cleary <mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:
So we go ride out bikes out in the middle of nowhere. I am not a FOID
carry I have not guns but my brother suggest the Bryna? I myself
probably would not be taking it on a bike but who knows.
My thought is I live alone and I sleep downstairs on the couch. I
sometimes keep the patio door open to let in all the cool night air. I
got thinking someone could just drop in although I leave the outside
lights one.
But if I had a Bryna I could just take aim and it is about 15 feet away
to disable someone. Frankly in my days as a long distance runner with
dogs I would have used one at least 3 times in the past. I came upon a
dog that attacked me. On a bike in unfamiliar territory it might we
worth it certainly if you are touring across country.
Is it a real risk? Let alone the difficulties of awaking and hitting a
target with a handgun, or on the bike being again in a position to hit a
person.
A shot gun would seem certainly for home defence a more useful firearm but >> I think youÂ’re massively overthinking the risks.
Roger Merriman
In my opinion, a person should evaluate the risks and difficulties of self-defense,(and most everything else) based on their own situation
rather than group thinking it.
The world is full of people who erroneously believe they're qualified
to advise others on what to think and do.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 16 Jun 2025 09:40:53 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Mark J cleary <mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:
So we go ride out bikes out in the middle of nowhere. I am not a FOID
carry I have not guns but my brother suggest the Bryna? I myself
probably would not be taking it on a bike but who knows.
My thought is I live alone and I sleep downstairs on the couch. I
sometimes keep the patio door open to let in all the cool night air. I >>>> got thinking someone could just drop in although I leave the outside
lights one.
But if I had a Bryna I could just take aim and it is about 15 feet away >>>> to disable someone. Frankly in my days as a long distance runner with
dogs I would have used one at least 3 times in the past. I came upon a >>>> dog that attacked me. On a bike in unfamiliar territory it might we
worth it certainly if you are touring across country.
Is it a real risk? Let alone the difficulties of awaking and hitting a
target with a handgun, or on the bike being again in a position to hit a >>> person.
A shot gun would seem certainly for home defence a more useful firearm but >>> I think you?re massively overthinking the risks.
Roger Merriman
In my opinion, a person should evaluate the risks and difficulties of
self-defense,(and most everything else) based on their own situation
rather than group thinking it.
Most folks think they will do better than they would, and self defence if
one is serious one should practice or it’s largely just going to be a an >expensive paper weight.
As you carry the gun on the trike? Do you practice if not why not?
The world is full of people who erroneously believe they're qualified
to advise others on what to think and do.
He asked for advice
that’s rather the point of Usenet!
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
On 16 Jun 2025 09:40:53 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Mark J cleary <mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:
So we go ride out bikes out in the middle of nowhere. I am not a FOID
carry I have not guns but my brother suggest the Bryna? I myself
probably would not be taking it on a bike but who knows.
My thought is I live alone and I sleep downstairs on the couch. I
sometimes keep the patio door open to let in all the cool night air. I
got thinking someone could just drop in although I leave the outside
lights one.
But if I had a Bryna I could just take aim and it is about 15 feet away
to disable someone. Frankly in my days as a long distance runner with
dogs I would have used one at least 3 times in the past. I came upon a
dog that attacked me. On a bike in unfamiliar territory it might we
worth it certainly if you are touring across country.
Is it a real risk? Let alone the difficulties of awaking and hitting a
target with a handgun, or on the bike being again in a position to hit a
person.
A shot gun would seem certainly for home defence a more useful firearm but >> I think you’re massively overthinking the risks.
Roger Merriman
In my opinion, a person should evaluate the risks and difficulties of self-defense,(and most everything else) based on their own situation
rather than group thinking it.
The world is full of people who erroneously believe they're qualified
to advise others on what to think and do.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 16 Jun 2025 09:40:53 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Mark J cleary <mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:
So we go ride out bikes out in the middle of nowhere. I am not a FOID
carry I have not guns but my brother suggest the Bryna? I myself
probably would not be taking it on a bike but who knows.
My thought is I live alone and I sleep downstairs on the couch. I
sometimes keep the patio door open to let in all the cool night air. I >>>> got thinking someone could just drop in although I leave the outside
lights one.
But if I had a Bryna I could just take aim and it is about 15 feet away >>>> to disable someone. Frankly in my days as a long distance runner with
dogs I would have used one at least 3 times in the past. I came upon a >>>> dog that attacked me. On a bike in unfamiliar territory it might we
worth it certainly if you are touring across country.
Is it a real risk? Let alone the difficulties of awaking and hitting a
target with a handgun, or on the bike being again in a position to hit a >>> person.
A shot gun would seem certainly for home defence a more useful firearm but >>> I think youÂ’re massively overthinking the risks.
Roger Merriman
In my opinion, a person should evaluate the risks and difficulties of
self-defense,(and most everything else) based on their own situation
rather than group thinking it.
Most folks think they will do better than they would, and self defence if
one is serious one should practice or it’s largely just going to be a an expensive paper weight.
As you carry the gun on the trike? Do you practice if not why not?
The world is full of people who erroneously believe they're qualified
to advise others on what to think and do.
He asked for advice that’s rather the point of Usenet!
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
On 6/16/2025 6:13 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 16 Jun 2025 09:40:53 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Mark J cleary <mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:
So we go ride out bikes out in the middle of nowhere. I am not a FOID >>>>> carry I have not guns but my brother suggest the Bryna? I myself
probably would not be taking it on a bike but who knows.
My thought is I live alone and I sleep downstairs on the couch. I
sometimes keep the patio door open to let in all the cool night air. I >>>>> got thinking someone could just drop in although I leave the outside >>>>> lights one.
But if I had a Bryna I could just take aim and it is about 15 feet away >>>>> to disable someone. Frankly in my days as a long distance runner with >>>>> dogs I would have used one at least 3 times in the past. I came upon a >>>>> dog that attacked me. On a bike in unfamiliar territory it might we
worth it certainly if you are touring across country.
Is it a real risk? Let alone the difficulties of awaking and hitting a >>>> target with a handgun, or on the bike being again in a position to hit a >>>> person.
A shot gun would seem certainly for home defence a more useful firearm but >>>> I think youÂ’re massively overthinking the risks.
Roger Merriman
In my opinion, a person should evaluate the risks and difficulties of
self-defense,(and most everything else) based on their own situation
rather than group thinking it.
Most folks think they will do better than they would, and self defence if
one is serious one should practice or it’s largely just going to be a an >> expensive paper weight.
As you carry the gun on the trike? Do you practice if not why not?
The world is full of people who erroneously believe they're qualified
to advise others on what to think and do.
He asked for advice that’s rather the point of Usenet!
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
Most firearm owners practice regularly: https://www.yellowjersey.org/877/1911flag.jpg
On 6/16/2025 5:00 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 16 Jun 2025 09:40:53 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Mark J cleary <mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:
So we go ride out bikes out in the middle of nowhere. I am not a FOID
carry I have not guns but my brother suggest the Bryna? I myself
probably would not be taking it on a bike but who knows.
My thought is I live alone and I sleep downstairs on the couch. I
sometimes keep the patio door open to let in all the cool night air. I >>>> got thinking someone could just drop in although I leave the outside
lights one.
But if I had a Bryna I could just take aim and it is about 15 feet away >>>> to disable someone. Frankly in my days as a long distance runner with
dogs I would have used one at least 3 times in the past. I came upon a >>>> dog that attacked me. On a bike in unfamiliar territory it might we
worth it certainly if you are touring across country.
Is it a real risk? Let alone the difficulties of awaking and hitting a
target with a handgun, or on the bike being again in a position to hit a >>> person.
A shot gun would seem certainly for home defence a more useful firearm but >>> I think you’re massively overthinking the risks.
Roger Merriman
In my opinion, a person should evaluate the risks and difficulties of
self-defense,(and most everything else) based on their own situation
rather than group thinking it.
The world is full of people who erroneously believe they're qualified
to advise others on what to think and do.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
The limiting factor in that decision is frequently
psychological, not tactical. I've talked several people out
of acquiring a firearm.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 07:56:29 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/16/2025 5:00 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 16 Jun 2025 09:40:53 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Mark J cleary <mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:
So we go ride out bikes out in the middle of nowhere. I am not a FOID >>>>> carry I have not guns but my brother suggest the Bryna? I myself
probably would not be taking it on a bike but who knows.
My thought is I live alone and I sleep downstairs on the couch. I
sometimes keep the patio door open to let in all the cool night air. I >>>>> got thinking someone could just drop in although I leave the outside >>>>> lights one.
But if I had a Bryna I could just take aim and it is about 15 feet away >>>>> to disable someone. Frankly in my days as a long distance runner with >>>>> dogs I would have used one at least 3 times in the past. I came upon a >>>>> dog that attacked me. On a bike in unfamiliar territory it might we
worth it certainly if you are touring across country.
Is it a real risk? Let alone the difficulties of awaking and hitting a >>>> target with a handgun, or on the bike being again in a position to hit a >>>> person.
A shot gun would seem certainly for home defence a more useful firearm but >>>> I think you’re massively overthinking the risks.
Roger Merriman
In my opinion, a person should evaluate the risks and difficulties of
self-defense,(and most everything else) based on their own situation
rather than group thinking it.
The world is full of people who erroneously believe they're qualified
to advise others on what to think and do.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
The limiting factor in that decision is frequently
psychological, not tactical. I've talked several people out
of acquiring a firearm.
Good work.. I've talked people out of riding a horse, too.Could go to the trouble of getting a FOID and buying a gun but that is
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/16/2025 9:09 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/16/2025 6:13 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
As you carry the gun on the trike? Do you practice if not why not?
Most firearm owners practice regularly:
https://www.yellowjersey.org/877/1911flag.jpg
"Regularly"? I doubt that very strongly, unless "regularly" means "once
a year or so" - IOW, not often enough to maintain real skills. There are >thousands of gun owners for each shooting range, and they're not all
that crowded.
And skills of any kind tend to be specific. Donning googles and ear >protection and using a rest to carefully aim at a distant target would
be very little help in a home invasion.
It's too different from fumbling
for your pistol in a dresser drawer to shoot the boogey man.
John's account of his actual home invasion? Despite his love of guns,
his did him absolutely no good, largely because it wasn't strapped to
his side.
For specific, thus effective, practice, our timid tricyclist should be >practicing fast draw out of his crotch holster while he's riding,
followed by fast shooting at imaginary pathside menaces. But he's not
doing that. His gun is serving the same function as a teddy bear: it
gives him comfort when he's scared.
On 6/16/2025 7:13 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:Mr. Tricycle Rider is absolutely baffled by the concept of a
The world is full of people who erroneously believe they're qualified
to advise others on what to think and do.
He asked for advice that’s rather the point of Usenet!
_discussion_ group.
On 6/16/2025 9:18 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 07:56:29 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:Could go to the trouble of getting a FOID and buying a gun but that is
On 6/16/2025 5:00 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 16 Jun 2025 09:40:53 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Mark J cleary <mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:
So we go ride out bikes out in the middle of nowhere. I am not a FOID >>>>>> carry I have not guns but my brother suggest the Bryna? I myself
probably would not be taking it on a bike but who knows.
My thought is I live alone and I sleep downstairs on the couch. I
sometimes keep the patio door open to let in all the cool night air. I >>>>>> got thinking someone could just drop in although I leave the outside >>>>>> lights one.
But if I had a Bryna I could just take aim and it is about 15 feet away >>>>>> to disable someone. Frankly in my days as a long distance runner with >>>>>> dogs I would have used one at least 3 times in the past. I came upon a >>>>>> dog that attacked me. On a bike in unfamiliar territory it might we >>>>>> worth it certainly if you are touring across country.
Is it a real risk? Let alone the difficulties of awaking and hitting a >>>>> target with a handgun, or on the bike being again in a position to hit a >>>>> person.
A shot gun would seem certainly for home defence a more useful firearm but
I think you’re massively overthinking the risks.
Roger Merriman
In my opinion, a person should evaluate the risks and difficulties of
self-defense,(and most everything else) based on their own situation
rather than group thinking it.
The world is full of people who erroneously believe they're qualified
to advise others on what to think and do.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
The limiting factor in that decision is frequently
psychological, not tactical. I've talked several people out
of acquiring a firearm.
Good work.. I've talked people out of riding a horse, too.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
not me and I would not have reason to use on as such. The Byrna is not >firearm as such and while it could cause serious harm probably not.
However just having one seems ok and the downside is do I want to spend
the money for something like very limited situations? At least if a
situation really did occur I would have no trouble using it but a real
gun would be hard. To pull the trigger with a real gun that would take a
set of circumstances that would almost non-existent at least in my
general living area.
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 15:25:59 -0500, Mark J cleary
<mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:
So we go ride out bikes out in the middle of nowhere. I am not a FOID
carry I have not guns but my brother suggest the Bryna? I myself
probably would not be taking it on a bike but who knows.
My thought is I live alone and I sleep downstairs on the couch. I
sometimes keep the patio door open to let in all the cool night air. I
got thinking someone could just drop in although I leave the outside
lights one.
But if I had a Bryna I could just take aim and it is about 15 feet away
to disable someone. Frankly in my days as a long distance runner with
dogs I would have used one at least 3 times in the past. I came upon a
dog that attacked me. On a bike in unfamiliar territory it might we
worth it certainly if you are touring across country.
Spelling problem. It's a Byrna:
<https://byrna.com>
I don't know anything about it or self-defense strategy. In my
uninformed opinion, a paintball gun is much cheaper and possibly
equally effective.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=paintball%20gun&udm=2>
On 6/16/2025 11:48 AM, Mark J cleary wrote:
Could go to the trouble of getting a FOID and buying a gun but that is
not me and I would not have reason to use on as such. The Byrna is not
firearm as such and while it could cause serious harm probably not.
However just having one seems ok and the downside is do I want to spend
the money for something like very limited situations? At least if a
situation really did occur I would have no trouble using it but a real
gun would be hard. To pull the trigger with a real gun that would take a
set of circumstances that would almost non-existent at least in my
general living area.
I'd think the circumstances for ever using this toy are also almost >non-existent.
And keep in mind, to use it effectively in your imaginary home invasion >scenario, you'd have to have it almost immediately at hand, and you'd
have to suddenly awaken and be immediately alert and coordinated enough
to grab it, aim and fire. I think that would be very, very unlikely.
The entire strategy is driven by fear. Read John 14:27
On 6/16/2025 11:48 AM, Mark J cleary wrote:
Could go to the trouble of getting a FOID and buying a gun
but that is not me and I would not have reason to use on
as such. The Byrna is not firearm as such and while it
could cause serious harm probably not. However just having
one seems ok and the downside is do I want to spend the
money for something like very limited situations? At least
if a situation really did occur I would have no trouble
using it but a real gun would be hard. To pull the trigger
with a real gun that would take a set of circumstances
that would almost non-existent at least in my general
living area.
I'd think the circumstances for ever using this toy are also
almost non-existent.
And keep in mind, to use it effectively in your imaginary
home invasion scenario, you'd have to have it almost
immediately at hand, and you'd have to suddenly awaken and
be immediately alert and coordinated enough to grab it, aim
and fire. I think that would be very, very unlikely.
The entire strategy is driven by fear. Read John 14:27
On Sun Jun 15 13:37:09 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 15:25:59 -0500, Mark J cleary
<mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:
So we go ride out bikes out in the middle of nowhere. I am not a FOID
carry I have not guns but my brother suggest the Bryna? I myself
probably would not be taking it on a bike but who knows.
My thought is I live alone and I sleep downstairs on the couch. I
sometimes keep the patio door open to let in all the cool night air. I
got thinking someone could just drop in although I leave the outside
lights one.
But if I had a Bryna I could just take aim and it is about 15 feet away
to disable someone. Frankly in my days as a long distance runner with
dogs I would have used one at least 3 times in the past. I came upon a
dog that attacked me. On a bike in unfamiliar territory it might we
worth it certainly if you are touring across country.
Spelling problem. It's a Byrna:
<https://byrna.com>
I don't know anything about it or self-defense strategy. In my
uninformed opinion, a paintball gun is much cheaper and possibly
equally effective.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=paintball%20gun&udm=2>
When you have nothing of value to protect I'm sure that you can protect it with a paintball gun. After you showed us your pile of old broken down bicycles without even one in which even Frank would coinsider riding condition I am rather surprised thatyou would even bother with a paintball gun.
On 6/16/2025 11:04 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/16/2025 11:48 AM, Mark J cleary wrote:
Could go to the trouble of getting a FOID and buying a gun
but that is not me and I would not have reason to use on
as such. The Byrna is not firearm as such and while it
could cause serious harm probably not. However just having
one seems ok and the downside is do I want to spend the
money for something like very limited situations? At least
if a situation really did occur I would have no trouble
using it but a real gun would be hard. To pull the trigger
with a real gun that would take a set of circumstances
that would almost non-existent at least in my general
living area.
I'd think the circumstances for ever using this toy are also
almost non-existent.
And keep in mind, to use it effectively in your imaginary
home invasion scenario, you'd have to have it almost
immediately at hand, and you'd have to suddenly awaken and
be immediately alert and coordinated enough to grab it, aim
and fire. I think that would be very, very unlikely.
The entire strategy is driven by fear. Read John 14:27
All those things, and more, can be true. And sometimes are.
Lawful defense: >https://www.12news.com/article/news/crime/woman-shoots-home-intruder-phoenix-arizona/75-85ee5880-5cdf-4163-aa22-6325eb8912d0
No defense: >https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/stranger-stabs-sleeping-teen-to-death-at-brickell-high-rise-everything-we-know/3633882/
Negligent discharge: >https://www.wkow.com/news/man-accidentally-shoots-himself-while-cleaning-gun-in-madison-apartment/article_d19cd9d4-0361-11f0-8f6c-e32dbe284dc5.html
Negligent discharge by prohibited person: >https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/17-year-old-accidentally-shoots-self-spanaway-lied-police-about-who-did-it/7SWBEMP4BJBS7CFBLG4NQMTMFE/
To pull the trigger with a real gun that would take a set of
circumstances that would almost non-existent at least in my general
living area.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 12:27:46 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/16/2025 11:04 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/16/2025 11:48 AM, Mark J cleary wrote:
Could go to the trouble of getting a FOID and buying a gun
but that is not me and I would not have reason to use on
as such. The Byrna is not firearm as such and while it
could cause serious harm probably not. However just having
one seems ok and the downside is do I want to spend the
money for something like very limited situations? At least
if a situation really did occur I would have no trouble
using it but a real gun would be hard. To pull the trigger
with a real gun that would take a set of circumstances
that would almost non-existent at least in my general
living area.
I'd think the circumstances for ever using this toy are also
almost non-existent.
And keep in mind, to use it effectively in your imaginary
home invasion scenario, you'd have to have it almost
immediately at hand, and you'd have to suddenly awaken and
be immediately alert and coordinated enough to grab it, aim
and fire. I think that would be very, very unlikely.
The entire strategy is driven by fear. Read John 14:27
All those things, and more, can be true. And sometimes are.
Lawful defense:
https://www.12news.com/article/news/crime/woman-shoots-home-intruder-phoenix-arizona/75-85ee5880-5cdf-4163-aa22-6325eb8912d0
Tiny detail
The intruder was just "trespassing". Did not assault anyone.
"Police said a woman went into her home and found Sarzoza inside and
then shot her."
I looked up Sarzoza's criminal record. Mostly mental-problems,
an arrest for not paying a fine and another for not reporting to her
parole officer. She was not violent, just da-da.
You said shooting someone breaking into my house KNOWING I was there
with my wife and son was not justifiable. Yet someone wandering into
an empty house is "Lawful defense" ?
But the woman was white, the intruder Hispanic. Maybe seeing a
colored person "damaged" her eyes. I can see the police's point of
view. Don't agree with it though.
No defense:
https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/stranger-stabs-sleeping-teen-to-death-at-brickell-high-rise-everything-we-know/3633882/
The "criminal" was schizophrenic. Probably had no idea
what/why or when he did it, IF he did it. The American House of
Public Health loses 5 points IF he did it. The Miami Police lose 10
points if the culprit was a gay lover and the family asked not to
mention it.
Negligent discharge:
https://www.wkow.com/news/man-accidentally-shoots-himself-while-cleaning-gun-in-madison-apartment/article_d19cd9d4-0361-11f0-8f6c-e32dbe284dc5.html
Why houses with guns are more likely to have gun-related
incidents.... Note the press "respected his privacy because he was
rich". Even after committing the crime and being booked, his name is
not mentioned.
Also, he obtained a license to carry a concealed weapon. This
for a guy that doesn't know you have to UNLOAD a gun before cleaning.
LOL.
Negligent discharge by prohibited person:
https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/17-year-old-accidentally-shoots-self-spanaway-lied-police-about-who-did-it/7SWBEMP4BJBS7CFBLG4NQMTMFE/
"Not available in your country" and I can't be bothered to set
up a proxy.
[]'s
In article <102pecp$1ngsl$1@dont-email.me>,
Mark J cleary <mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:
To pull the trigger with a real gun that would take a set of
circumstances that would almost non-existent at least in my general
living area.
That might be, but the Second Amendment and DC v Heller say that people
can carry for self-defense or for any reason, in general. So people can
do what they want in this regard. And the First Amendment says you're
free to post your disagreement without fear of prosecution. :)
In article <102pecp$1ngsl$1@dont-email.me>,
Mark J cleary <mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:
To pull the trigger with a real gun that would take a set of
circumstances that would almost non-existent at least in my general
living area.
That might be, but the Second Amendment and DC v Heller say that people
can carry for self-defense or for any reason, in general. So people can
do what they want in this regard. And the First Amendment says you're
free to post your disagreement without fear of prosecution. :)
On 6/16/2025 2:49 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <102pecp$1ngsl$1@dont-email.me>,
Mark J cleary <mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:
To pull the trigger with a real gun that would take a set of
circumstances that would almost non-existent at least in my general
living area.
That might be, but the Second Amendment and DC v Heller say that people
can carry for self-defense or for any reason, in general. So people can
do what they want in this regard. And the First Amendment says you're
free to post your disagreement without fear of prosecution. :)
yeah.....about that.....
https://firstamendmentwatch.org/deep-dive/trump-2-0-executive-power-and-the-first-amendment/#Freedom-of-Speech-and-Censorship
In article <102pecp$1ngsl$1@dont-email.me>,
Mark J cleary <mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:
To pull the trigger with a real gun that would take a set of
circumstances that would almost non-existent at least in my general
living area.
That might be, but the Second Amendment and DC v Heller say that people
can carry for self-defense or for any reason, in general. So people can
do what they want in this regard. And the First Amendment says you're
free to post your disagreement without fear of prosecution. :)
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 18:49:33 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <102pecp$1ngsl$1@dont-email.me>,
Mark J cleary <mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:
To pull the trigger with a real gun that would take a set of >>>circumstances that would almost non-existent at least in my general >>>living area.
That might be, but the Second Amendment and DC v Heller say that people
can carry for self-defense or for any reason, in general. So people can
do what they want in this regard. And the First Amendment says you're
free to post your disagreement without fear of prosecution. :)
..and your doing it.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 17:17:10 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 18:49:33 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <102pecp$1ngsl$1@dont-email.me>,
Mark J cleary <mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:
To pull the trigger with a real gun that would take a set of >>>>circumstances that would almost non-existent at least in my general >>>>living area.
That might be, but the Second Amendment and DC v Heller say that people >>>can carry for self-defense or for any reason, in general. So people can >>>do what they want in this regard. And the First Amendment says you're >>>free to post your disagreement without fear of prosecution. :)
..and your doing it.
"you're".
Sorry, freedom of speech..
[]'s
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 18:22:48 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 17:17:10 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 18:49:33 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <102pecp$1ngsl$1@dont-email.me>,
Mark J cleary <mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:
To pull the trigger with a real gun that would take a set of >>>>>circumstances that would almost non-existent at least in my general >>>>>living area.
That might be, but the Second Amendment and DC v Heller say that people >>>>can carry for self-defense or for any reason, in general. So people can >>>>do what they want in this regard. And the First Amendment says you're >>>>free to post your disagreement without fear of prosecution. :)
..and your doing it.
"you're".
Sorry, freedom of speech..
[]'s
OMG thank you.
I'll try to remember the next time your on Usenet.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 17:25:56 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 18:22:48 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 17:17:10 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 18:49:33 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <102pecp$1ngsl$1@dont-email.me>,
Mark J cleary <mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:
To pull the trigger with a real gun that would take a set of >>>>>>circumstances that would almost non-existent at least in my general >>>>>>living area.
That might be, but the Second Amendment and DC v Heller say that people >>>>>can carry for self-defense or for any reason, in general. So people can >>>>>do what they want in this regard. And the First Amendment says you're >>>>>free to post your disagreement without fear of prosecution. :)
..and your doing it.
"you're".
Sorry, freedom of speech..
[]'s
OMG thank you.
Your welcome
I'll try to remember the next time your on Usenet.
Please do.
Just got back from corn-stealing. Farmers always plant right
next to highways. Most don't know that 20 meters from each side of a
highway belongs to the people. So it's perfectly legal to fill a bag
of corn (or peanuts, or beans, or manioc) and take it home. As long as
you respect the 20 meter limit. Beyond that they can shoot you.
Good exercise. And my freezer is full. Well, as much corn as I
can eat in a couple of months.
[]'s
On 6/16/2025 3:10 PM, AMuzi wrote:
My point was that there's no general rule and should not be.
Firearms can be useful, they are also frequently misused, and violence
of all sorts happens with or without firearms.
The general rule is: If you have a firearm for "defense" it's because
you're afraid of something or someone.
Whether or not the fear is justified is a separate matter. In general,
the safer the environment actually is, the more timid the gun owner must be.
I don't see how those points can be logically denied.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 22:20:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/16/2025 3:10 PM, AMuzi wrote:
My point was that there's no general rule and should not be.
Firearms can be useful, they are also frequently misused, and violence
of all sorts happens with or without firearms.
The general rule is: If you have a firearm for "defense" it's because
you're afraid of something or someone.
People taking precaution for things they fear is a pretty common
occurrence. Many precautionary actions, such as carrying a gun have
little or no downside, unless the person is actually afraid of guns.
Everyone is afraid of something. Krygowski is afraid of dogs, guns and bi-directional bike paths. His greatest fear is having to look at
himself, his behavior, his lifestyle, and his motivations.
Whether or not the fear is justified is a separate matter. In general,
the safer the environment actually is, the more timid the gun owner must be.
"Rules" straight out of Krygowski's fertile imagination
I don't see how those points can be logically denied.
There's so much you group thinking, gun fearing wussies don't see.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/17/2025 3:56 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 22:20:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/16/2025 3:10 PM, AMuzi wrote:
My point was that there's no general rule and should not be.
Firearms can be useful, they are also frequently misused, and violence >>>> of all sorts happens with or without firearms.
The general rule is: If you have a firearm for "defense" it's because
you're afraid of something or someone.
People taking precaution for things they fear is a pretty common
occurrence. Many precautionary actions, such as carrying a gun have
little or no downside, unless the person is actually afraid of guns.
Everyone is afraid of something. Krygowski is afraid of dogs, guns and
bi-directional bike paths. His greatest fear is having to look at
himself, his behavior, his lifestyle, and his motivations.
Whether or not the fear is justified is a separate matter. In general,
the safer the environment actually is, the more timid the gun owner must be.
"Rules" straight out of Krygowski's fertile imagination
I don't see how those points can be logically denied.
There's so much you group thinking, gun fearing wussies don't see.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
'Fear' yes but not without reason. Does 'fear' apply to all
the millions of people with a baseball bat and/or machete
near the door or only firearms? 'Prudence' may be a better
word.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 20:16:25 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 17:25:56 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 18:22:48 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 17:17:10 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 18:49:33 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen >>>>><beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <102pecp$1ngsl$1@dont-email.me>,
Mark J cleary <mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:
To pull the trigger with a real gun that would take a set of >>>>>>>circumstances that would almost non-existent at least in my general >>>>>>>living area.
That might be, but the Second Amendment and DC v Heller say that people >>>>>>can carry for self-defense or for any reason, in general. So people can >>>>>>do what they want in this regard. And the First Amendment says you're >>>>>>free to post your disagreement without fear of prosecution. :)
..and your doing it.
"you're".
Sorry, freedom of speech..
[]'s
OMG thank you.
Your welcome
I'll try to remember the next time your on Usenet.
Please do.
Just got back from corn-stealing. Farmers always plant right
next to highways. Most don't know that 20 meters from each side of a >>highway belongs to the people. So it's perfectly legal to fill a bag
of corn (or peanuts, or beans, or manioc) and take it home. As long as
you respect the 20 meter limit. Beyond that they can shoot you.
Good exercise. And my freezer is full. Well, as much corn as I
can eat in a couple of months.
[]'s
I picked vegetables as a kid on the farm. I didn't enjoy it then, I
wouldn't enjoy it today. I get it today from the freezer section of
the grocery store.
FWIW, I wouldn't live in a place where a farmer's crop belonged to
"the people."
On 6/16/2025 11:07 AM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jun 15 13:37:09 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 15:25:59 -0500, Mark J cleary
<mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:
So we go ride out bikes out in the middle of nowhere. I am not a FOID
carry I have not guns but my brother suggest the Bryna? I myself
probably would not be taking it on a bike but who knows.
My thought is I live alone and I sleep downstairs on the couch. I
sometimes keep the patio door open to let in all the cool night air. I >>> got thinking someone could just drop in although I leave the outside
lights one.
But if I had a Bryna I could just take aim and it is about 15 feet away >>> to disable someone. Frankly in my days as a long distance runner with
dogs I would have used one at least 3 times in the past. I came upon a >>> dog that attacked me. On a bike in unfamiliar territory it might we
worth it certainly if you are touring across country.
Spelling problem. It's a Byrna:
<https://byrna.com>
I don't know anything about it or self-defense strategy. In my
uninformed opinion, a paintball gun is much cheaper and possibly
equally effective.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=paintball%20gun&udm=2>
that you would even bother with a paintball gun.When you have nothing of value to protect I'm sure that you can protect it with a paintball gun. After you showed us your pile of old broken down bicycles without even one in which even Frank would coinsider riding condition I am rather surprised
You misread the statute. Deadly force is not lawful to
protect property, only human life.
On 6/15/2025 4:25 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
So we go ride out bikes out in the middle of nowhere. I am not a FOID
carry I have not guns but my brother suggest the Bryna? I myself
probably would not be taking it on a bike but who knows.
My thought is I live alone and I sleep downstairs on the couch. I
sometimes keep the patio door open to let in all the cool night air. I
got thinking someone could just drop in although I leave the outside
lights one.
But if I had a Bryna I could just take aim and it is about 15 feet away
to disable someone.
It sounds like you fear a home invasion. How many have there been in
your area in, say, the past five years? What sort of neighborhood do you
live in? Are your fears actually realistic?
Where is this patio door? An open patio door will usually be apparent
only to someone prowling around a person's back yard, so unless you know
that lots of people walk around your back yard at night, invasion by
that route seems unlikely. And there should be ways of allowing the door
to be open enough for ventilation, but not enough to let someone burst in.
From the website: "A PROVEN SELF-DEFENSE OPTION FOR A DANGEROUS WORLD"
Yep, inciting paranoia for profit! And anecdotes about customers who
don't dare go out into the world without this toy.
I don't think the world is scarily dangerous. I've never, ever needed
such a thing, none of my friends or extended family have ever needed it,
and I doubt you will ever need it.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 12:04:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/16/2025 11:48 AM, Mark J cleary wrote:
Could go to the trouble of getting a FOID and buying a gun but that is
not me and I would not have reason to use on as such. The Byrna is not
firearm as such and while it could cause serious harm probably not.
However just having one seems ok and the downside is do I want to spend
the money for something like very limited situations? At least if a
situation really did occur I would have no trouble using it but a real
gun would be hard. To pull the trigger with a real gun that would take a >> set of circumstances that would almost non-existent at least in my
general living area.
I'd think the circumstances for ever using this toy are also almost >non-existent.
And keep in mind, to use it effectively in your imaginary home invasion >scenario, you'd have to have it almost immediately at hand, and you'd
have to suddenly awaken and be immediately alert and coordinated enough
to grab it, aim and fire. I think that would be very, very unlikely.
The entire strategy is driven by fear. Read John 14:27
How could Krygowski possibly know anything about using a gun?
On 6/17/2025 9:10 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2025 3:56 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 22:20:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/16/2025 3:10 PM, AMuzi wrote:
My point was that there's no general rule and should not be.
Firearms can be useful, they are also frequently misused, and violence >>>>> of all sorts happens with or without firearms.
The general rule is: If you have a firearm for "defense" it's because
you're afraid of something or someone. ...
'Fear' yes but not without reason. Does 'fear' apply to all the
millions of people with a baseball bat and/or machete near the door or
only firearms? 'Prudence' may be a better word.
"Prudence" is related to fear, because without something to fear at
least a little bit there's nothing to be prudent about. And whether the >proper word is prudence or paranoia depends on the actual level of risk.
Unlike some here, I think it's nonsense to say that nothing is
quantifiable, that _everything_ is subjective. That attitude is just a
lazy thinker's way of pretending one's uninformed opinion is always right.
I don't buy that attitude - maybe in part because in my profession, I
was paid to (among many other things) correct other's mistakes. My
education taught me to pay attention to data, and I taught that to others.
So let's concentrate on one topic, and ask about data. Our timid
tricycle rider will not ride on a quiet suburban bike path unless he has
a handgun ready within seconds to shoot someone. What's the data
justifying that paranoia? What's the frequency of people on that path
needing deadly force to defend themselves? What's the risk of serious
attack per million hours of Florida path riding?
I think the risk is so low that nobody has bothered to even begin counting.
Earlier this year I rode several Florida bike paths, as well as many
streets and roads. Neither I nor the Floridians I rode with carried
weaponry, and I'm sure if I'd proposed it those Floridians would have >scoffed.
But if someone does refuse to ride without a handgun, it can only be
because there is some level of fear - in this case, a fear greater than
that of the young mothers pushing baby carriages on the same trail. You
can say the level of risk is too high for him, in his personal reality;
but that's the reality of a timid, timid person. You can call it
"prudence" but it's really paranoia.
And about the possibility of a home invasion that started this thread:
For the location where the Deacon lives, how often do home invasions
happen? I'm betting the count is almost precisely zero. But what's the
data?
On 6/17/2025 9:46 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Am I afraid of being attacked again? No, not while I have one of my
guns with me.
You're afraid to be without the gun. Little kids are afraid to be
without their stuffed animals. It's variations on a theme, but your
version allows you to still pretend to be a little bit manly.
On the other hand, there's nothing I can do about
careless vehicle drivers, so I am afraid of them.
That's another statement of paranoia, plus ignorance on at least two
points. You're so afraid of motor vehicles that you (essentially?) never
ride near one, unlike everyone else here. You ignorantly exaggerate the
level of risk. And you are ignorant of riding techniques that do reduce
the already small risk posed by motorists.
This program is highly respected. Its techniques work. >https://cyclingsavvy.org/
And it was developed in <gasp!> Florida.
On Sun Jun 15 23:07:46 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/15/2025 4:25 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
So we go ride out bikes out in the middle of nowhere. I am not a FOID
carry I have not guns but my brother suggest the Bryna? I myself
probably would not be taking it on a bike but who knows.
My thought is I live alone and I sleep downstairs on the couch. I
sometimes keep the patio door open to let in all the cool night air. I
got thinking someone could just drop in although I leave the outside
lights one.
But if I had a Bryna I could just take aim and it is about 15 feet away
to disable someone.
It sounds like you fear a home invasion. How many have there been in
your area in, say, the past five years? What sort of neighborhood do you
live in? Are your fears actually realistic?
Where is this patio door? An open patio door will usually be apparent
only to someone prowling around a person's back yard, so unless you know
that lots of people walk around your back yard at night, invasion by
that route seems unlikely. And there should be ways of allowing the door
to be open enough for ventilation, but not enough to let someone burst in. >>
From the website: "A PROVEN SELF-DEFENSE OPTION FOR A DANGEROUS WORLD"
Yep, inciting paranoia for profit! And anecdotes about customers who
don't dare go out into the world without this toy.
I don't think the world is scarily dangerous. I've never, ever needed
such a thing, none of my friends or extended family have ever needed it,
and I doubt you will ever need it.
If he never needs it, what difference does it make if he carries it? Plainly you don't believe in the Constitution or the Supreme Rulings in questions of the 2nd Amendment so it is no surprise that you believe that Constitutional freedoms are for youruse only.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 19:53:05 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 20:16:25 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 17:25:56 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 18:22:48 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 17:17:10 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>>>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 18:49:33 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen >>>>>><beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <102pecp$1ngsl$1@dont-email.me>,
Mark J cleary <mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:
To pull the trigger with a real gun that would take a set of >>>>>>>>circumstances that would almost non-existent at least in my general >>>>>>>>living area.
That might be, but the Second Amendment and DC v Heller say that people >>>>>>>can carry for self-defense or for any reason, in general. So people can >>>>>>>do what they want in this regard. And the First Amendment says you're >>>>>>>free to post your disagreement without fear of prosecution. :)
..and your doing it.
"you're".
Sorry, freedom of speech..
[]'s
OMG thank you.
Your welcome
I'll try to remember the next time your on Usenet.
Please do.
Just got back from corn-stealing. Farmers always plant right
next to highways. Most don't know that 20 meters from each side of a >>>highway belongs to the people. So it's perfectly legal to fill a bag
of corn (or peanuts, or beans, or manioc) and take it home. As long as >>>you respect the 20 meter limit. Beyond that they can shoot you.
Good exercise. And my freezer is full. Well, as much corn as I
can eat in a couple of months.
[]'s
I picked vegetables as a kid on the farm. I didn't enjoy it then, I >>wouldn't enjoy it today. I get it today from the freezer section of
the grocery store.
FWIW, I wouldn't live in a place where a farmer's crop belonged to
"the people."
If he ILLEGALY plants it in a PUBLIC place, who do you think
it belongs to? Who has the most money?
That's not how it works.
[]'s
On Sun Jun 15 23:07:46 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
I don't think the world is scarily dangerous. I've never, ever needed
such a thing, none of my friends or extended family have ever needed it,
and I doubt you will ever need it.
If he never needs it, what difference does it make if he carries it?
On Mon Jun 16 12:08:44 2025 Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 12:04:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
The entire strategy is driven by fear. Read John 14:27
How could Krygowski possibly know anything about using a gun?
Even worse - how could Krygowski know ANYTHING about the Bible?
His heart is filled with nothing but hate for every other living thing on this earth.
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 13:02:56 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 19:53:05 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 20:16:25 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 17:25:56 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 18:22:48 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 17:17:10 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>>>>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 18:49:33 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen >>>>>>><beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <102pecp$1ngsl$1@dont-email.me>,
Mark J cleary <mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:
To pull the trigger with a real gun that would take a set of >>>>>>>>>circumstances that would almost non-existent at least in my general >>>>>>>>>living area.
That might be, but the Second Amendment and DC v Heller say that people >>>>>>>>can carry for self-defense or for any reason, in general. So people can >>>>>>>>do what they want in this regard. And the First Amendment says you're >>>>>>>>free to post your disagreement without fear of prosecution. :)
..and your doing it.
"you're".
Sorry, freedom of speech..
[]'s
OMG thank you.
Your welcome
I'll try to remember the next time your on Usenet.
Please do.
Just got back from corn-stealing. Farmers always plant right
next to highways. Most don't know that 20 meters from each side of a >>>>highway belongs to the people. So it's perfectly legal to fill a bag >>>>of corn (or peanuts, or beans, or manioc) and take it home. As long as >>>>you respect the 20 meter limit. Beyond that they can shoot you.
Good exercise. And my freezer is full. Well, as much corn as I
can eat in a couple of months.
[]'s
I picked vegetables as a kid on the farm. I didn't enjoy it then, I >>>wouldn't enjoy it today. I get it today from the freezer section of
the grocery store.
FWIW, I wouldn't live in a place where a farmer's crop belonged to
"the people."
If he ILLEGALY plants it in a PUBLIC place, who do you think
it belongs to? Who has the most money?
That's not how it works.
[]'s
The idea of something belonging to "the people" is nonsense. What it
really means is that it belongs to the bosses who run the government.
That's true in the USA, and it's even more true, and more disturbing
in socialist countries
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 16:38:51 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Mon Jun 16 12:08:44 2025 floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 12:04:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
The entire strategy is driven by fear. Read John 14:27
How could Krygowski possibly know anything about using a gun?
Even worse - how could Krygowski know ANYTHING about the Bible?
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 13:00:13 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 13:02:56 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 19:53:05 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 20:16:25 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 17:25:56 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 18:22:48 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 17:17:10 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 18:49:33 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <102pecp$1ngsl$1@dont-email.me>,
Mark J cleary <mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:
To pull the trigger with a real gun that would take a set of >>>>>>>>>> circumstances that would almost non-existent at least in my general >>>>>>>>>> living area.
That might be, but the Second Amendment and DC v Heller say that people
can carry for self-defense or for any reason, in general. So people can
do what they want in this regard. And the First Amendment says you're >>>>>>>>> free to post your disagreement without fear of prosecution. :) >>>>>>>>
..and your doing it.
"you're".
Sorry, freedom of speech..
[]'s
OMG thank you.
Your welcome
I'll try to remember the next time your on Usenet.
Please do.
Just got back from corn-stealing. Farmers always plant right
next to highways. Most don't know that 20 meters from each side of a >>>>> highway belongs to the people. So it's perfectly legal to fill a bag >>>>> of corn (or peanuts, or beans, or manioc) and take it home. As long as >>>>> you respect the 20 meter limit. Beyond that they can shoot you.
Good exercise. And my freezer is full. Well, as much corn as I
can eat in a couple of months.
[]'s
I picked vegetables as a kid on the farm. I didn't enjoy it then, I
wouldn't enjoy it today. I get it today from the freezer section of
the grocery store.
FWIW, I wouldn't live in a place where a farmer's crop belonged to
"the people."
If he ILLEGALY plants it in a PUBLIC place, who do you think
it belongs to? Who has the most money?
That's not how it works.
[]'s
The idea of something belonging to "the people" is nonsense. What it
really means is that it belongs to the bosses who run the government.
That's true in the USA, and it's even more true, and more disturbing
in socialist countries
Well, Brazil is neither socialist nor fascist. Does the
concept of a democracy scare you?
[]'s
On 6/17/2025 12:44 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:17:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Unlike some here, I think it's nonsense to say that nothing isSure you paid attention to the nonsense data that said that having a
quantifiable, that _everything_ is subjective. That attitude is just a
lazy thinker's way of pretending one's uninformed opinion is always right. >>
I don't buy that attitude - maybe in part because in my profession, I
was paid to (among many other things) correct other's mistakes. My
education taught me to pay attention to data, and I taught that to others. >>
gun in your house made it more likely to get shot.
<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 (adjusted hazard
ratio, 7.16 [CI, 4.04 to 12.69]); 84% of these victims were female."
<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."
Krygowski is totally obsessed with me.
:-) HA! _That_ got an outright laugh!
yeah.....about that.....
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 16:25:08 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Sun Jun 15 23:07:46 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
I don't think the world is scarily dangerous. I've never, ever needed
such a thing, none of my friends or extended family have ever needed it, >>> and I doubt you will ever need it.
If he never needs it, what difference does it make if he carries it?
If he passes out and one of those millions of untreated
psychos picks it up, and uses it to kill innocent bystanders, it
doesn't make a difference to me.
OTOH I don't live there.
[]'s
`On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 17:42:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:44 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:17:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Unlike some here, I think it's nonsense to say that nothing isSure you paid attention to the nonsense data that said that having a
quantifiable, that _everything_ is subjective. That attitude is just a >>>> lazy thinker's way of pretending one's uninformed opinion is always right. >>>
I don't buy that attitude - maybe in part because in my profession, I
was paid to (among many other things) correct other's mistakes. My
education taught me to pay attention to data, and I taught that to others. >>>
gun in your house made it more likely to get shot.
<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 (adjusted hazard
ratio, 7.16 [CI, 4.04 to 12.69]); 84% of these victims were female."
<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."
<CHUCKLE> Krygowski lacks the intellectual ability to see that his
cite doesn't even address his claim that guns in the home make it more
likely you'd be shot.
The study looked at 626 shootings in several cities. There's no
mention of how and why they picked those cities. They could have been
cherry picked because the results fit their agenda.
Dimbulb Krygowski doesn't question the data because it fits his
agenda, so he just repeats what the people (who are they, and what's
their agenda) who ran the study tell him.
Krygowski is totally obsessed with me.
:-) HA! _That_ got an outright laugh!
...and Krygowski demonstrates agaon, that he is totally obsessed with
me. I'll bet he lies awake night thinking what he can say to get back
at me for pointing out what a wussy he is.
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 18:12:57 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
`On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 17:42:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski >><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:44 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:17:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Unlike some here, I think it's nonsense to say that nothing is
quantifiable, that _everything_ is subjective. That attitude is just a >>>>> lazy thinker's way of pretending one's uninformed opinion is always right.
I don't buy that attitude - maybe in part because in my profession, I >>>>> was paid to (among many other things) correct other's mistakes. My
education taught me to pay attention to data, and I taught that to others.
Sure you paid attention to the nonsense data that said that having a
gun in your house made it more likely to get shot.
<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 (adjusted hazard >>>ratio, 7.16 [CI, 4.04 to 12.69]); 84% of these victims were female."
<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."
<CHUCKLE> Krygowski lacks the intellectual ability to see that his
cite doesn't even address his claim that guns in the home make it more >>likely you'd be shot.
The study looked at 626 shootings in several cities. There's no
mention of how and why they picked those cities. They could have been >>cherry picked because the results fit their agenda.
Dimbulb Krygowski doesn't question the data because it fits his
agenda, so he just repeats what the people (who are they, and what's
their agenda) who ran the study tell him.
Krygowski is totally obsessed with me.
:-) HA! _That_ got an outright laugh!
...and Krygowski demonstrates agaon, that he is totally obsessed with
me. I'll bet he lies awake night thinking what he can say to get back
at me for pointing out what a wussy he is.
When he first posted that study I had a look at then numbers and yes,
IF there is a gun in the house AND a homicide is committed in the
house it will likely be committed with a gun. Which seems logical.
But this has NO relationship to his unspoken conclusion that a gun in
the house results in homicides.
On 6/17/2025 9:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 18:12:57 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
`On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 17:42:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:44 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:17:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Unlike some here, I think it's nonsense to say that nothing is
quantifiable, that _everything_ is subjective. That attitude is just a >>>>>> lazy thinker's way of pretending one's uninformed opinion is always right.
I don't buy that attitude - maybe in part because in my profession, I >>>>>> was paid to (among many other things) correct other's mistakes. My >>>>>> education taught me to pay attention to data, and I taught that to others.
Sure you paid attention to the nonsense data that said that having a >>>>> gun in your house made it more likely to get shot.
<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 (adjusted hazard
ratio, 7.16 [CI, 4.04 to 12.69]); 84% of these victims were female."
<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."
<CHUCKLE> Krygowski lacks the intellectual ability to see that his
cite doesn't even address his claim that guns in the home make it more
likely you'd be shot.
The study looked at 626 shootings in several cities. There's no
mention of how and why they picked those cities. They could have been
cherry picked because the results fit their agenda.
Dimbulb Krygowski doesn't question the data because it fits his
agenda, so he just repeats what the people (who are they, and what's
their agenda) who ran the study tell him.
Krygowski is totally obsessed with me.
:-) HA! _That_ got an outright laugh!
...and Krygowski demonstrates agaon, that he is totally obsessed with
me. I'll bet he lies awake night thinking what he can say to get back
at me for pointing out what a wussy he is.
When he first posted that study I had a look at then numbers and yes,
IF there is a gun in the house AND a homicide is committed in the
house it will likely be committed with a gun. Which seems logical.
But this has NO relationship to his unspoken conclusion that a gun in
the house results in homicides.
"Overall rates of homicide were more than twice as high among
cohabitants of handgun owners than among cohabitants of nonowners."
What part of that don't you understand?
On 6/17/2025 9:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 18:12:57 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
`On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 17:42:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:44 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:17:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Unlike some here, I think it's nonsense to say that nothing is
quantifiable, that _everything_ is subjective. That attitude is just a >>>>>> lazy thinker's way of pretending one's uninformed opinion is always right.
I don't buy that attitude - maybe in part because in my profession, I >>>>>> was paid to (among many other things) correct other's mistakes. My >>>>>> education taught me to pay attention to data, and I taught that to others.
Sure you paid attention to the nonsense data that said that having a >>>>> gun in your house made it more likely to get shot.
<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 (adjusted hazard
ratio, 7.16 [CI, 4.04 to 12.69]); 84% of these victims were female."
<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."
<CHUCKLE> Krygowski lacks the intellectual ability to see that his
cite doesn't even address his claim that guns in the home make it more
likely you'd be shot.
The study looked at 626 shootings in several cities. There's no
mention of how and why they picked those cities. They could have been
cherry picked because the results fit their agenda.
Dimbulb Krygowski doesn't question the data because it fits his
agenda, so he just repeats what the people (who are they, and what's
their agenda) who ran the study tell him.
Krygowski is totally obsessed with me.
:-) HA! _That_ got an outright laugh!
...and Krygowski demonstrates agaon, that he is totally obsessed with
me. I'll bet he lies awake night thinking what he can say to get back
at me for pointing out what a wussy he is.
When he first posted that study I had a look at then numbers and yes,
IF there is a gun in the house AND a homicide is committed in the
house it will likely be committed with a gun. Which seems logical.
But this has NO relationship to his unspoken conclusion that a gun in
the house results in homicides.
"Overall rates of homicide were more than twice as high among
cohabitants of handgun owners than among cohabitants of nonowners."
What part of that don't you understand?
On 6/17/2025 12:30 PM, cyclintom wrote:
If someone enters your property with a gun, you are protecting your
life even if they intend to only steal your car. I cannot tell the
intentions of ANYONE assaulting me in any way.
What if a person with a concealed carry license, or a person in an open
carry jurisdiction, carries his gun and enters your property to ask directions? Would you really blow him away?
<https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/12/us/michigan-man-shooting-at-teen-asking- directions>
That kid didn't even carry a gun. But you seem to be saying that if he
had, the homeowner should have killed him.
And of course, the kid is black.
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 14:38:49 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 16:25:08 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Sun Jun 15 23:07:46 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
I don't think the world is scarily dangerous. I've never, ever needed
such a thing, none of my friends or extended family have ever needed it, >>>> and I doubt you will ever need it.
If he never needs it, what difference does it make if he carries it?
If he passes out and one of those millions of untreated
psychos picks it up, and uses it to kill innocent bystanders, it
doesn't make a difference to me.
OTOH I don't live there.
[]'s
If he passes out and an untreated psychos takes his car keys and uses
to kill innocent bystanders...
--
cheers,
John B.
On 6/17/2025 6:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:30 PM, cyclintom wrote:
If someone enters your property with a gun, you are protecting your
life even if they intend to only steal your car. I cannot tell the
intentions of ANYONE assaulting me in any way.
What if a person with a concealed carry license, or a person in an open
carry jurisdiction, carries his gun and enters your property to ask
directions? Would you really blow him away?
<https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/12/us/michigan-man-shooting-at-teen-asking-
directions>
That kid didn't even carry a gun. But you seem to be saying that if he
had, the homeowner should have killed him.
And of course, the kid is black.
At least he was found guilty, Such incidents many times have more dire >consequences with fewer penalties.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180305202556/https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/05/24/man-acquitted-of-killing-japanese-exchange-student/34a75a09-0a7b-468d-89c5-d6d8d7504f7c/
And of course, the shooter was acquitted of murdering a teenager dressed
for a halloween party.
"Hattori was dressed as John Travolta in "Saturday Night Fever" and was >brandishing nothing more menacing than a camera"
but hey, louisiana....
then there's this:
https://apnews.com/article/hide-seek-shooting-louisiana-girl-neighbor-b59a1232f3fd309e1afd02174026fad7
"A Louisiana man faces aggravated assault and battery charges after
firing a gun at children who were playing hide and seek outside his
home, wounding a 14-year-old girl, according to the local sheriff’s >office.....The girl suffered a gunshot wound to the back of the head
early Sunday"
simple searches don't show what the result of the charges are. I guess
he should be let go, after all, all he did was shoot a 14 year old in
the head while she was running away....Small price to pay for paranoid
white males to keep their deadly toys.
(and yes, andrew, we know you're going to counter with the 'hundreds of
case where guns were successfully used in self-defense'...again, the
deaths of a few innocent kids are a small price to pay for paranoid
white males to keep their deadly toys)
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 18:12:57 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
`On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 17:42:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:44 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:17:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Unlike some here, I think it's nonsense to say that nothing is
quantifiable, that _everything_ is subjective. That attitude is just a >>>>> lazy thinker's way of pretending one's uninformed opinion is always right.
I don't buy that attitude - maybe in part because in my profession, I >>>>> was paid to (among many other things) correct other's mistakes. My
education taught me to pay attention to data, and I taught that to others.
Sure you paid attention to the nonsense data that said that having a
gun in your house made it more likely to get shot.
<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 (adjusted hazard
ratio, 7.16 [CI, 4.04 to 12.69]); 84% of these victims were female."
<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."
<CHUCKLE> Krygowski lacks the intellectual ability to see that his
cite doesn't even address his claim that guns in the home make it more
likely you'd be shot.
The study looked at 626 shootings in several cities. There's no
mention of how and why they picked those cities. They could have been
cherry picked because the results fit their agenda.
Dimbulb Krygowski doesn't question the data because it fits his
agenda, so he just repeats what the people (who are they, and what's
their agenda) who ran the study tell him.
Krygowski is totally obsessed with me.
:-) HA! _That_ got an outright laugh!
...and Krygowski demonstrates agaon, that he is totally obsessed with
me. I'll bet he lies awake night thinking what he can say to get back
at me for pointing out what a wussy he is.
When he first posted that study I had a look at then numbers and yes,
IF there is a gun in the house AND a homicide is committed in the
house it will likely be committed with a gun. Which seems logical.
But this has NO relationship to his unspoken conclusion that a gun in
the house results in homicides.
On 6/17/2025 9:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 18:12:57 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
`On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 17:42:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:44 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:17:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Unlike some here, I think it's nonsense to say that nothing is
quantifiable, that _everything_ is subjective. That attitude is just a >>>>>> lazy thinker's way of pretending one's uninformed opinion is always right.
I don't buy that attitude - maybe in part because in my profession, I >>>>>> was paid to (among many other things) correct other's mistakes. My >>>>>> education taught me to pay attention to data, and I taught that to others.
Sure you paid attention to the nonsense data that said that having a >>>>> gun in your house made it more likely to get shot.
<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 (adjusted hazard
ratio, 7.16 [CI, 4.04 to 12.69]); 84% of these victims were female."
<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."
<CHUCKLE> Krygowski lacks the intellectual ability to see that his
cite doesn't even address his claim that guns in the home make it more
likely you'd be shot.
<SNICKER>
Floriduh dumbass is too deluded and lacking in intellectual ability to >comprehend:
"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."
let me help you out, dumbass, the cite _directly_ addresses his claim
that guns in the home make it more likely you'd be shot, and explicitly >states such. Only a floriduh dumbass could read "Guns kept in homes are
more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting"
and "Overall rates of homicide were more than twice as high among
cohabitants of handgun owners than among cohabitants of nonowners"
and conclude "doesn't even address his claim that guns in the home make
it more likely you'd be shot."
This is right up there with you seeing two government reports stating
the military specified the design of the AR-15, tested it, bought 80,000
of then, and designated them as standard issue, then stating "the AR-15
was a weapon the military never wanted and never used"
It's an embarrassment to know I have any interaction with such a deluded
and willfully ignorant asshole like you.
The study looked at 626 shootings in several cities. There's no
mention of how and why they picked those cities. They could have been
cherry picked because the results fit their agenda.
"could have"...talk about cherry picking...lol
Dimbulb Krygowski doesn't question the data because it fits his
agenda, so he just repeats what the people (who are they, and what's
their agenda) who ran the study tell him.
at least he has data, rather than a dumbass who sticks his fingers in
his ears and chants "fox news" repeatedly when he hears something he
doesn't like
Krygowski is totally obsessed with me.
:-) HA! _That_ got an outright laugh!
...and Krygowski demonstrates agaon, that he is totally obsessed with
me. I'll bet he lies awake night thinking what he can say to get back
at me for pointing out what a wussy he is.
lol....dumbass once again demonstrates what an ignorant narcissistic
fucktard he is.
When he first posted that study I had a look at then numbers and yes,
IF there is a gun in the house AND a homicide is committed in the
house it will likely be committed with a gun. Which seems logical.
But this has NO relationship to his unspoken conclusion that a gun in
the house results in homicides.
hey, stupid....it isn't unspoken, it's explicitly stated there there's a >direct relationship between a gun in the home and an increase in
homicide. Are you taking kunich lessons in dumbassery again?
On 6/17/2025 9:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 18:12:57 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
`On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 17:42:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:44 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:17:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Unlike some here, I think it's nonsense to say that nothing is
quantifiable, that _everything_ is subjective. That attitude is just a >>>>>> lazy thinker's way of pretending one's uninformed opinion is always right.
I don't buy that attitude - maybe in part because in my profession, I >>>>>> was paid to (among many other things) correct other's mistakes. My >>>>>> education taught me to pay attention to data, and I taught that to others.
Sure you paid attention to the nonsense data that said that having a >>>>> gun in your house made it more likely to get shot.
<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 (adjusted hazard
ratio, 7.16 [CI, 4.04 to 12.69]); 84% of these victims were female."
<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."
<CHUCKLE> Krygowski lacks the intellectual ability to see that his
cite doesn't even address his claim that guns in the home make it more
likely you'd be shot.
<SNICKER>
Floriduh dumbass is too deluded and lacking in intellectual ability to >comprehend:
"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."
let me help you out, dumbass, the cite _directly_ addresses his claim
that guns in the home make it more likely you'd be shot, and explicitly >states such. Only a floriduh dumbass could read "Guns kept in homes are
more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting"
and "Overall rates of homicide were more than twice as high among
cohabitants of handgun owners than among cohabitants of nonowners"
and conclude "doesn't even address his claim that guns in the home make
it more likely you'd be shot."
This is right up there with you seeing two government reports stating
the military specified the design of the AR-15, tested it, bought 80,000
of then, and designated them as standard issue, then stating "the AR-15
was a weapon the military never wanted and never used"
It's an embarrassment to know I have any interaction with such a deluded
and willfully ignorant asshole like you.
The study looked at 626 shootings in several cities. There's no
mention of how and why they picked those cities. They could have been
cherry picked because the results fit their agenda.
"could have"...talk about cherry picking...lol
Dimbulb Krygowski doesn't question the data because it fits his
agenda, so he just repeats what the people (who are they, and what's
their agenda) who ran the study tell him.
at least he has data, rather than a dumbass who sticks his fingers in
his ears and chants "fox news" repeatedly when he hears something he
doesn't like
Krygowski is totally obsessed with me.
:-) HA! _That_ got an outright laugh!
...and Krygowski demonstrates agaon, that he is totally obsessed with
me. I'll bet he lies awake night thinking what he can say to get back
at me for pointing out what a wussy he is.
lol....dumbass once again demonstrates what an ignorant narcissistic
fucktard he is.
When he first posted that study I had a look at then numbers and yes,
IF there is a gun in the house AND a homicide is committed in the
house it will likely be committed with a gun. Which seems logical.
But this has NO relationship to his unspoken conclusion that a gun in
the house results in homicides.
hey, stupid....it isn't unspoken, it's explicitly stated there there's a >direct relationship between a gun in the home and an increase in
homicide. Are you taking kunich lessons in dumbassery again?
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 18:08:45 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 18:12:57 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
`On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 17:42:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:44 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:17:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Unlike some here, I think it's nonsense to say that nothing is
quantifiable, that _everything_ is subjective. That attitude is just a >>>>>> lazy thinker's way of pretending one's uninformed opinion is always right.
I don't buy that attitude - maybe in part because in my profession, I >>>>>> was paid to (among many other things) correct other's mistakes. My >>>>>> education taught me to pay attention to data, and I taught that to others.
Sure you paid attention to the nonsense data that said that having a >>>>> gun in your house made it more likely to get shot.
<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 (adjusted hazard
ratio, 7.16 [CI, 4.04 to 12.69]); 84% of these victims were female."
<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."
<CHUCKLE> Krygowski lacks the intellectual ability to see that his
cite doesn't even address his claim that guns in the home make it more
likely you'd be shot.
The study looked at 626 shootings in several cities. There's no
mention of how and why they picked those cities. They could have been
cherry picked because the results fit their agenda.
Dimbulb Krygowski doesn't question the data because it fits his
agenda, so he just repeats what the people (who are they, and what's
their agenda) who ran the study tell him.
Krygowski is totally obsessed with me.
:-) HA! _That_ got an outright laugh!
...and Krygowski demonstrates agaon, that he is totally obsessed with
me. I'll bet he lies awake night thinking what he can say to get back
at me for pointing out what a wussy he is.
When he first posted that study I had a look at then numbers and yes,
IF there is a gun in the house AND a homicide is committed in the
house it will likely be committed with a gun. Which seems logical.
But this has NO relationship to his unspoken conclusion that a gun in
the house results in homicides.
Did the "researchers" picked those three cities because they had the
shooting data they needed to support their agenda?
The conclusions are full of holes.
Krygowski is easily led around by the nose because he's lacks the intellectual capacity to analyse. He appears to be one of those "learn
by rote" individuals. I've had some waste of space teachers like that.
"Learn by rote" means to learn something through repetition and
memorization, without necessarily understanding its meaning or
principles. It's a process of memorizing information in a mechanical
way, often focusing on verbatim recall rather than comprehension."
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/17/2025 6:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:30 PM, cyclintom wrote:
If someone enters your property with a gun, you are
protecting your life even if they intend to only steal
your car. I cannot tell the intentions of ANYONE
assaulting me in any way.
What if a person with a concealed carry license, or a
person in an open carry jurisdiction, carries his gun and
enters your property to ask directions? Would you really
blow him away?
<https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/12/us/michigan-man-shooting-
at-teen-asking- directions>
That kid didn't even carry a gun. But you seem to be
saying that if he had, the homeowner should have killed him.
And of course, the kid is black.
At least he was found guilty, Such incidents many times have
more dire consequences with fewer penalties.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180305202556/https:// www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/05/24/man- acquitted-of-killing-japanese-exchange- student/34a75a09-0a7b-468d-89c5-d6d8d7504f7c/
And of course, the shooter was acquitted of murdering a
teenager dressed  for a halloween party.
"Hattori was dressed as John Travolta in "Saturday Night
Fever" and was brandishing nothing more menacing than a camera"
but hey, louisiana....
then there's this:
https://apnews.com/article/hide-seek-shooting-louisiana- girl-neighbor-b59a1232f3fd309e1afd02174026fad7
"A Louisiana man faces aggravated assault and battery
charges after firing a gun at children who were playing hide
and seek outside his home, wounding a 14-year-old girl,
according to the local sheriff’s office.....The girl
suffered a gunshot wound to the back of the head early Sunday"
simple searches don't show what the result of the charges
are. I guess he should be let go, after all, all he did was
shoot a 14 year old in the head while she was running
away....Small price to pay for paranoid white males to keep
their deadly toys.
(and yes, andrew, we know you're going to counter with the
'hundreds of case where guns were successfully used in self- defense'...again, the deaths of a few innocent kids are a
small price to pay for paranoid white males to keep their
deadly toys)
On 6/18/2025 7:12 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 6:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:30 PM, cyclintom wrote:
If someone enters your property with a gun, you are
protecting your life even if they intend to only steal
your car. I cannot tell the intentions of ANYONE
assaulting me in any way.
What if a person with a concealed carry license, or a
person in an open carry jurisdiction, carries his gun and
enters your property to ask directions? Would you really
blow him away?
<https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/12/us/michigan-man-shooting-
at-teen-asking- directions>
That kid didn't even carry a gun. But you seem to be
saying that if he had, the homeowner should have killed him.
And of course, the kid is black.
At least he was found guilty, Such incidents many times have
more dire consequences with fewer penalties.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180305202556/https://
www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/05/24/man-
acquitted-of-killing-japanese-exchange-
student/34a75a09-0a7b-468d-89c5-d6d8d7504f7c/
And of course, the shooter was acquitted of murdering a
teenager dressed for a halloween party.
"Hattori was dressed as John Travolta in "Saturday Night
Fever" and was brandishing nothing more menacing than a camera"
but hey, louisiana....
then there's this:
https://apnews.com/article/hide-seek-shooting-louisiana-
girl-neighbor-b59a1232f3fd309e1afd02174026fad7
"A Louisiana man faces aggravated assault and battery
charges after firing a gun at children who were playing hide
and seek outside his home, wounding a 14-year-old girl,
according to the local sheriff’s office.....The girl
suffered a gunshot wound to the back of the head early Sunday"
simple searches don't show what the result of the charges
are. I guess he should be let go, after all, all he did was
shoot a 14 year old in the head while she was running
away....Small price to pay for paranoid white males to keep
their deadly toys.
(and yes, andrew, we know you're going to counter with the
'hundreds of case where guns were successfully used in self-
defense'...again, the deaths of a few innocent kids are a
small price to pay for paranoid white males to keep their
deadly toys)
No one has been more clear than I on that subject.
Deadly force is lawful to counter a credible threat to human
life, such as a home intruder at 3am. It is not reasonable
or lawful for imaginary situations or property, such as a
guy stealing hubcaps in the street outside. Or a child in
the yard.
State Statutes are relatively uniform in that regard.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:30:13 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/17/2025 9:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 18:12:57 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
`On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 17:42:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:44 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:17:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Unlike some here, I think it's nonsense to say that nothing is
quantifiable, that _everything_ is subjective. That attitude is just a >>>>>>> lazy thinker's way of pretending one's uninformed opinion is always right.
I don't buy that attitude - maybe in part because in my profession, I >>>>>>> was paid to (among many other things) correct other's mistakes. My >>>>>>> education taught me to pay attention to data, and I taught that to others.
Sure you paid attention to the nonsense data that said that having a >>>>>> gun in your house made it more likely to get shot.
<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 (adjusted hazard
ratio, 7.16 [CI, 4.04 to 12.69]); 84% of these victims were female." >>>>>
<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."
<CHUCKLE> Krygowski lacks the intellectual ability to see that his
cite doesn't even address his claim that guns in the home make it more >>>> likely you'd be shot.
<SNICKER>
Floriduh dumbass is too deluded and lacking in intellectual ability to >>comprehend:
"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."
let me help you out, dumbass, the cite _directly_ addresses his claim
that guns in the home make it more likely you'd be shot, and explicitly >>states such. Only a floriduh dumbass could read "Guns kept in homes are >>more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting"
and "Overall rates of homicide were more than twice as high among >>cohabitants of handgun owners than among cohabitants of nonowners"
and conclude "doesn't even address his claim that guns in the home make
it more likely you'd be shot."
This is right up there with you seeing two government reports stating
the military specified the design of the AR-15, tested it, bought 80,000
of then, and designated them as standard issue, then stating "the AR-15
was a weapon the military never wanted and never used"
It's an embarrassment to know I have any interaction with such a deluded >>and willfully ignorant asshole like you.
The study looked at 626 shootings in several cities. There's no
mention of how and why they picked those cities. They could have been
cherry picked because the results fit their agenda.
"could have"...talk about cherry picking...lol
Dimbulb Krygowski doesn't question the data because it fits his
agenda, so he just repeats what the people (who are they, and what's
their agenda) who ran the study tell him.
at least he has data, rather than a dumbass who sticks his fingers in
his ears and chants "fox news" repeatedly when he hears something he >>doesn't like
Krygowski is totally obsessed with me.
:-) HA! _That_ got an outright laugh!
...and Krygowski demonstrates agaon, that he is totally obsessed with
me. I'll bet he lies awake night thinking what he can say to get back
at me for pointing out what a wussy he is.
lol....dumbass once again demonstrates what an ignorant narcissistic >>fucktard he is.
When he first posted that study I had a look at then numbers and yes,
IF there is a gun in the house AND a homicide is committed in the
house it will likely be committed with a gun. Which seems logical.
But this has NO relationship to his unspoken conclusion that a gun in
the house results in homicides.
hey, stupid....it isn't unspoken, it's explicitly stated there there's a >>direct relationship between a gun in the home and an increase in
homicide. Are you taking kunich lessons in dumbassery again?
I'm pretty sure that there many far owners of guns who have not been
shot than those who have. According to Junior's and Krygowski's
"logic" that would indicate that owning a gun makes you less likely to
be shot.
On 6/18/2025 9:11 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 7:12 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 6:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:30 PM, cyclintom wrote:
If someone enters your property with a gun, you are
protecting your life even if they intend to only steal
your car. I cannot tell the intentions of ANYONE
assaulting me in any way.
What if a person with a concealed carry license, or a
person in an open carry jurisdiction, carries his gun
and enters your property to ask directions? Would you
really blow him away?
<https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/12/us/michigan-man-
shooting- at-teen- asking- directions>
That kid didn't even carry a gun. But you seem to be
saying that if he had, the homeowner should have killed
him.
And of course, the kid is black.
At least he was found guilty, Such incidents many times
have more dire consequences with fewer penalties.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180305202556/https://
www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/05/24/man-
acquitted-of- killing-japanese-exchange-
student/34a75a09-0a7b-468d-89c5-d6d8d7504f7c/
And of course, the shooter was acquitted of murdering a
teenager dressed  for a halloween party.
"Hattori was dressed as John Travolta in "Saturday Night
Fever" and was brandishing nothing more menacing than a
camera"
but hey, louisiana....
then there's this:
https://apnews.com/article/hide-seek-shooting-louisiana-
girl- neighbor-b59a1232f3fd309e1afd02174026fad7
"A Louisiana man faces aggravated assault and battery
charges after firing a gun at children who were playing
hide and seek outside his home, wounding a 14-year-old
girl, according to the local sheriff’s office.....The
girl suffered a gunshot wound to the back of the head
early Sunday"
simple searches don't show what the result of the charges
are. I guess he should be let go, after all, all he did
was shoot a 14 year old in the head while she was running
away....Small price to pay for paranoid white males to
keep their deadly toys.
(and yes, andrew, we know you're going to counter with
the 'hundreds of case where guns were successfully used
in self- defense'...again, the deaths of a few innocent
kids are a small price to pay for paranoid white males to
keep their deadly toys)
No one has been more clear than I on that subject.
Deadly force is lawful to counter a credible threat to
human life, such as a home intruder at 3am. It is not
reasonable or lawful for imaginary situations or property,
such as a guy stealing hubcaps in the street outside. Or a
child in the yard.
State Statutes are relatively uniform in that regard.
How about if a guy riding a tricycle on a suburban bike path
sees someone who makes him nervous? Is he allowed to kill
the guy, or is he limited to just "winging" him?
On 6/18/2025 9:04 AM, AMuzi wrote:
`On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 17:42:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
<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 (adjusted hazard >>>>>> ratio, 7.16 [CI, 4.04 to 12.69]); 84% of these victims were female." >>>>>>
<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."
All unclear to me.
As with Andrew Cuomo's awakening in his term as HUD Secretary, the
question was put to him, "Is public housing violent because he residents
are armed, or do public housing residents arm themselves because the
projects are violent?"
I'd posit that firearm ownership in Poland Ohio is most probably
drastically lower than in North Lawndale Chicago. The subsequent
statistics reflect both neighborhood dangers for the residents (or lack
thereof) as well as the cultural makeup of the residents at large.
First, this village has a long history of Republican dominance. That
usually translates to pro-gun stances. It's also prosperous enough that
most residents can afford as many guns as they want. I've mentioned the
guy around the block who was convinced there would be an invasion from
the inner city, and was armed to the teeth and beyond. When he died, the >collection of guns and ammo became quite a problem for his widow.
(Needless to say, they were never needed, despite his paranoia.)
Second, I've referenced other studies here that proved that the "more
guns = more household shooting deaths" was NOT related to "neighborhood >dangers." It was as true in peaceful suburbs as inner city apartment
blocks.
I can't imagine a study design to reveal any underlying truth (or lack
thereof), given that armed citizens are generally wan to discuss the
subjects.
That translates to "I can't imagine I'll ever agree with a gun-skeptic >study."
On 6/18/2025 8:55 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Wow.
I'm pretty sure that there many far owners of guns who have not been
shot than those who have. According to Junior's and Krygowski's
"logic" that would indicate that owning a gun makes you less likely to
be shot.
The ignorance on evidence in that paragraph is simple astonishing. It
fails at basic logic - or at some even lower level.
On 6/18/2025 8:15 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 8:48 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 14:38:49 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 16:25:08 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Sun Jun 15 23:07:46 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
I don't think the world is scarily dangerous. I've never, ever needed >>>>>> such a thing, none of my friends or extended family have ever
needed it,
and I doubt you will ever need it.
If he never needs it, what difference does it make if he carries it?
    If he passes out and one of those millions of untreated
psychos picks it up, and uses it to kill innocent bystanders, it
doesn't make a difference to me.
    OTOH I don't live there.
    []'s
If he passes out and an untreated psychos takes his car keys and uses
to kill innocent bystanders...
Gee, I didn't realize cars were designed to kill people.
how about 'If he passes out and an untreated psychos takes his ball-
point pen and uses to kill innocent bystanders...'
or 'If he passes out and an untreated psychos takes his bike multi-
tool and uses to kill innocent bystanders...'
Unfortunately, the sarcasm fails, because some here have tried to
seriously make that same argument. They believe that because someone was
once killed by a rock, that guns are no worse than rocks.
Body counts, costs to society, advantages vs. disadvantages, etc. don't matter to those who fetishize their guns enough.
On 6/18/2025 9:11 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 7:12 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 6:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:30 PM, cyclintom wrote:
If someone enters your property with a gun, you are protecting your
life even if they intend to only steal your car. I cannot tell the
intentions of ANYONE assaulting me in any way.
What if a person with a concealed carry license, or a person in an
open carry jurisdiction, carries his gun and enters your property to
ask directions? Would you really blow him away?
<https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/12/us/michigan-man-shooting- at-teen-
asking- directions>
That kid didn't even carry a gun. But you seem to be saying that if
he had, the homeowner should have killed him.
And of course, the kid is black.
At least he was found guilty, Such incidents many times have more dire
consequences with fewer penalties.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180305202556/https://
www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/05/24/man- acquitted-of-
killing-japanese-exchange- student/34a75a09-0a7b-468d-89c5-d6d8d7504f7c/ >>>
And of course, the shooter was acquitted of murdering a teenager
dressed for a halloween party.
"Hattori was dressed as John Travolta in "Saturday Night Fever" and
was brandishing nothing more menacing than a camera"
but hey, louisiana....
then there's this:
https://apnews.com/article/hide-seek-shooting-louisiana- girl-
neighbor-b59a1232f3fd309e1afd02174026fad7
"A Louisiana man faces aggravated assault and battery charges after
firing a gun at children who were playing hide and seek outside his
home, wounding a 14-year-old girl, according to the local sheriff’s
office.....The girl suffered a gunshot wound to the back of the head
early Sunday"
simple searches don't show what the result of the charges are. I guess
he should be let go, after all, all he did was shoot a 14 year old in
the head while she was running away....Small price to pay for paranoid
white males to keep their deadly toys.
(and yes, andrew, we know you're going to counter with the 'hundreds
of case where guns were successfully used in self- defense'...again,
the deaths of a few innocent kids are a small price to pay for
paranoid white males to keep their deadly toys)
No one has been more clear than I on that subject.
Deadly force is lawful to counter a credible threat to human life, such
as a home intruder at 3am. It is not reasonable or lawful for imaginary
situations or property, such as a guy stealing hubcaps in the street
outside. Or a child in the yard.
State Statutes are relatively uniform in that regard.
How about if a guy riding a tricycle on a suburban bike path sees
someone who makes him nervous? Is he allowed to kill the guy, or is he >limited to just "winging" him?
On 6/18/2025 8:15 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/17/2025 8:48 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 14:38:49 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 16:25:08 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Sun Jun 15 23:07:46 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
I don't think the world is scarily dangerous. I've never, ever needed >>>>>> such a thing, none of my friends or extended family have ever
needed it,
and I doubt you will ever need it.
If he never needs it, what difference does it make if he carries it?
If he passes out and one of those millions of untreated
psychos picks it up, and uses it to kill innocent bystanders, it
doesn't make a difference to me.
OTOH I don't live there.
[]'s
If he passes out and an untreated psychos takes his car keys and uses
to kill innocent bystanders...
Gee, I didn't realize cars were designed to kill people.
how about 'If he passes out and an untreated psychos takes his ball-
point pen and uses to kill innocent bystanders...'
or 'If he passes out and an untreated psychos takes his bike multi-tool
and uses to kill innocent bystanders...'
Unfortunately, the sarcasm fails, because some here have tried to
seriously make that same argument. They believe that because someone was
once killed by a rock, that guns are no worse than rocks.
Body counts, costs to society, advantages vs. disadvantages, etc. don't >matter to those who fetishize their guns enough.
On 6/18/2025 12:37 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 11:25 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Deadly force is lawful to counter a credible threat to human life,
such as a home intruder at 3am.
I'll note that a gun is unlikely to help if someone does burst into your
home intent on violence. John has told us several times about the
incident when that actually happened to him as his family ate dinner. Of >course, he doesn't eat dinner with his gun in a holster at his side, so
his gun was no use.
It is not reasonable or lawful for
imaginary situations or property, such as a guy stealing hubcaps in
the street outside. Or a child in the yard.
State Statutes are relatively uniform in that regard.
How about if a guy riding a tricycle on a suburban bike path sees
someone who makes him nervous? Is he allowed to kill the guy, or is he
limited to just "winging" him?
There's no provision in the laws for 'warning shot' or 'wing'*. Deadly
force is lawful to stop a threat to human life. Check your Ohio Statutes.
It might be good for our timid tricyclist to review exactly what he's
allowed to do with the gun he carries whenever he rides.
IIRC, he started carrying it after someone tore his jacket. That doesn't
seem like a creditable threat to human life.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:22:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/18/2025 8:55 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Wow.
I'm pretty sure that there many far owners of guns who have not been
shot than those who have. According to Junior's and Krygowski's
"logic" that would indicate that owning a gun makes you less likely to
be shot.
The ignorance on evidence in that paragraph is simple astonishing. It
fails at basic logic - or at some even lower level.
Krygowski says it's illogical but doesn't have the intellectual
capacity explain his contradiction. Logic is not one of Krygowski's
strong points
On 6/18/2025 1:25 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Wow, Krygowski is totally obsesssed with me and what I do.
Whereas I pretty much limit my posts about him to his behavior here on
RBT,...
This is amazing cognitive dissonance! Our timid tricyclist has such a >consistent record of responding to almost every post I make, that others
have remarked on it several times. Some fairly neutral people have
suggested he stop the practice, saying "it's not a good look" for him.
I suppose some unbiased party could actually count up his responses to
my posts, vs. my responses to him.
But then, he's made it clear that he disdains objective reality. His
post above is more evidence of that.
On 6/18/2025 4:23 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:52:46 -0400, Catrike RyderI'm trying to limit my time wasted on the ineducable.
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:22:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/18/2025 8:55 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Wow.
I'm pretty sure that there many far owners of guns who have not been >>>>> shot than those who have. According to Junior's and Krygowski's
"logic" that would indicate that owning a gun makes you less likely to >>>>> be shot.
The ignorance on evidence in that paragraph is simple astonishing. It
fails at basic logic - or at some even lower level.
Krygowski says it's illogical but doesn't have the intellectual
capacity explain his contradiction. Logic is not one of Krygowski's
strong points
Come on Frankie, don't run and hide.... explain what you think "fails
basic logic" in this paragraph.
(And this is one of the problems with trolls. When one ignores them,
they pretend they won. But this guy's obsession with me just gnaws at
him, full time.)
On 6/18/2025 1:25 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Wow, Krygowski is totally obsesssed with me and what I do.
Whereas I pretty much limit my posts about him to his behavior here on
RBT,...
This is amazing cognitive dissonance! Our timid tricyclist has such a consistent record of responding to almost every post I make, that others
have remarked on it several times. Some fairly neutral people have
suggested he stop the practice, saying "it's not a good look" for him.
I suppose some unbiased party could actually count up his responses to
my posts, vs. my responses to him.
But then, he's made it clear that he disdains objective reality. His
post above is more evidence of that.
On 6/17/2025 8:48 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 14:38:49 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 16:25:08 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Sun Jun 15 23:07:46 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
I don't think the world is scarily dangerous. I've never, ever needed >>>>> such a thing, none of my friends or extended family have ever needed it, >>>>> and I doubt you will ever need it.
If he never needs it, what difference does it make if he carries it?
If he passes out and one of those millions of untreated
psychos picks it up, and uses it to kill innocent bystanders, it
doesn't make a difference to me.
OTOH I don't live there.
[]'s
If he passes out and an untreated psychos takes his car keys and uses
to kill innocent bystanders...
Gee, I didn't realize cars were designed to kill people.
how about 'If he passes out and an untreated psychos takes his
ball-point pen and uses to kill innocent bystanders...'
or 'If he passes out and an untreated psychos takes his bike multi-tool
and uses to kill innocent bystanders...'
--
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:12:28 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/17/2025 6:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:30 PM, cyclintom wrote:
If someone enters your property with a gun, you are protecting your
life even if they intend to only steal your car. I cannot tell the
intentions of ANYONE assaulting me in any way.
What if a person with a concealed carry license, or a person in an open
carry jurisdiction, carries his gun and enters your property to ask
directions? Would you really blow him away?
<https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/12/us/michigan-man-shooting-at-teen-asking- >>> directions>
That kid didn't even carry a gun. But you seem to be saying that if he
had, the homeowner should have killed him.
And of course, the kid is black.
At least he was found guilty, Such incidents many times have more dire >>consequences with fewer penalties.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180305202556/https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/05/24/man-acquitted-of-killing-japanese-exchange-student/34a75a09-0a7b-468d-89c5-d6d8d7504f7c/
And of course, the shooter was acquitted of murdering a teenager dressed
for a halloween party.
"Hattori was dressed as John Travolta in "Saturday Night Fever" and was >>brandishing nothing more menacing than a camera"
but hey, louisiana....
then there's this:
https://apnews.com/article/hide-seek-shooting-louisiana-girl-neighbor-b59a1232f3fd309e1afd02174026fad7
"A Louisiana man faces aggravated assault and battery charges after
firing a gun at children who were playing hide and seek outside his
home, wounding a 14-year-old girl, according to the local sheriff’s >>office.....The girl suffered a gunshot wound to the back of the head
early Sunday"
simple searches don't show what the result of the charges are. I guess
he should be let go, after all, all he did was shoot a 14 year old in
the head while she was running away....Small price to pay for paranoid >>white males to keep their deadly toys.
(and yes, andrew, we know you're going to counter with the 'hundreds of >>case where guns were successfully used in self-defense'...again, the
deaths of a few innocent kids are a small price to pay for paranoid
white males to keep their deadly toys)
As if banning guns is a viable solution.
On 6/17/2025 9:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 18:12:57 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
`On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 17:42:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:44 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:17:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Unlike some here, I think it's nonsense to say that nothing is
quantifiable, that _everything_ is subjective. That attitude is just a >>>>>> lazy thinker's way of pretending one's uninformed opinion is always right.
I don't buy that attitude - maybe in part because in my profession, I >>>>>> was paid to (among many other things) correct other's mistakes. My >>>>>> education taught me to pay attention to data, and I taught that to others.
Sure you paid attention to the nonsense data that said that having a >>>>> gun in your house made it more likely to get shot.
<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 (adjusted hazard
ratio, 7.16 [CI, 4.04 to 12.69]); 84% of these victims were female."
<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."
<CHUCKLE> Krygowski lacks the intellectual ability to see that his
cite doesn't even address his claim that guns in the home make it more
likely you'd be shot.
<SNICKER>
Floriduh dumbass is too deluded and lacking in intellectual ability to >comprehend:
"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."
let me help you out, dumbass, the cite _directly_ addresses his claim
that guns in the home make it more likely you'd be shot, and explicitly >states such. Only a floriduh dumbass could read "Guns kept in homes are
more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting"
and "Overall rates of homicide were more than twice as high among
cohabitants of handgun owners than among cohabitants of nonowners"
and conclude "doesn't even address his claim that guns in the home make
it more likely you'd be shot."
This is right up there with you seeing two government reports stating
the military specified the design of the AR-15, tested it, bought 80,000
of then, and designated them as standard issue, then stating "the AR-15
was a weapon the military never wanted and never used"
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:30:13 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/17/2025 9:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 18:12:57 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
`On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 17:42:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:44 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:17:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Unlike some here, I think it's nonsense to say that nothing is
quantifiable, that _everything_ is subjective. That attitude is just a >>>>>>> lazy thinker's way of pretending one's uninformed opinion is always right.
I don't buy that attitude - maybe in part because in my profession, I >>>>>>> was paid to (among many other things) correct other's mistakes. My >>>>>>> education taught me to pay attention to data, and I taught that to others.
Sure you paid attention to the nonsense data that said that having a >>>>>> gun in your house made it more likely to get shot.
<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 (adjusted hazard
ratio, 7.16 [CI, 4.04 to 12.69]); 84% of these victims were female." >>>>>
<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."
<CHUCKLE> Krygowski lacks the intellectual ability to see that his
cite doesn't even address his claim that guns in the home make it more >>>> likely you'd be shot.
<SNICKER>
Floriduh dumbass is too deluded and lacking in intellectual ability to >>comprehend:
"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."
let me help you out, dumbass, the cite _directly_ addresses his claim
that guns in the home make it more likely you'd be shot, and explicitly >>states such. Only a floriduh dumbass could read "Guns kept in homes are >>more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting"
and "Overall rates of homicide were more than twice as high among >>cohabitants of handgun owners than among cohabitants of nonowners"
and conclude "doesn't even address his claim that guns in the home make
it more likely you'd be shot."
This is right up there with you seeing two government reports stating
the military specified the design of the AR-15, tested it, bought 80,000
of then, and designated them as standard issue, then stating "the AR-15
was a weapon the military never wanted and never used"
It's an embarrassment to know I have any interaction with such a deluded >>and willfully ignorant asshole like you.
The study looked at 626 shootings in several cities. There's no
mention of how and why they picked those cities. They could have been
cherry picked because the results fit their agenda.
"could have"...talk about cherry picking...lol
Dimbulb Krygowski doesn't question the data because it fits his
agenda, so he just repeats what the people (who are they, and what's
their agenda) who ran the study tell him.
at least he has data, rather than a dumbass who sticks his fingers in
his ears and chants "fox news" repeatedly when he hears something he >>doesn't like
Krygowski is totally obsessed with me.
:-) HA! _That_ got an outright laugh!
...and Krygowski demonstrates agaon, that he is totally obsessed with
me. I'll bet he lies awake night thinking what he can say to get back
at me for pointing out what a wussy he is.
lol....dumbass once again demonstrates what an ignorant narcissistic >>fucktard he is.
When he first posted that study I had a look at then numbers and yes,
IF there is a gun in the house AND a homicide is committed in the
house it will likely be committed with a gun. Which seems logical.
But this has NO relationship to his unspoken conclusion that a gun in
the house results in homicides.
hey, stupid....it isn't unspoken, it's explicitly stated there there's a >>direct relationship between a gun in the home and an increase in
homicide. Are you taking kunich lessons in dumbassery again?
I'm pretty sure that there many far owners of guns who have not been
shot than those who have. According to Junior's and Krygowski's
"logic" that would indicate that owning a gun makes you less likely to
be shot.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 16:44:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/18/2025 4:23 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:52:46 -0400, Catrike RyderI'm trying to limit my time wasted on the ineducable.
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:22:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/18/2025 8:55 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Wow.
I'm pretty sure that there many far owners of guns who have not been >>>>>> shot than those who have. According to Junior's and Krygowski's
"logic" that would indicate that owning a gun makes you less likely to >>>>>> be shot.
The ignorance on evidence in that paragraph is simple astonishing. It >>>>> fails at basic logic - or at some even lower level.
Krygowski says it's illogical but doesn't have the intellectual
capacity explain his contradiction. Logic is not one of Krygowski's
strong points
Come on Frankie, don't run and hide.... explain what you think "fails
basic logic" in this paragraph.
(And this is one of the problems with trolls. When one ignores them,
they pretend they won. But this guy's obsession with me just gnaws at
him, full time.)
Another example of Krygowski running away and hiding from my posts
when he can't come up with an answer or a response. He clearly and
obviously has the intellectual capabability of a four year old.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:36:53 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:12:28 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On 6/17/2025 6:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:30 PM, cyclintom wrote:
If someone enters your property with a gun, you are protecting your
life even if they intend to only steal your car. I cannot tell the
intentions of ANYONE assaulting me in any way.
What if a person with a concealed carry license, or a person in an open >>>> carry jurisdiction, carries his gun and enters your property to ask
directions? Would you really blow him away?
<https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/12/us/michigan-man-shooting-at-teen-asking- >>>> directions>
That kid didn't even carry a gun. But you seem to be saying that if he >>>> had, the homeowner should have killed him.
And of course, the kid is black.
At least he was found guilty, Such incidents many times have more dire >>>consequences with fewer penalties.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180305202556/https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/05/24/man-acquitted-of-killing-japanese-exchange-student/34a75a09-0a7b-468d-89c5-d6d8d7504f7c/
And of course, the shooter was acquitted of murdering a teenager dressed
for a halloween party.
"Hattori was dressed as John Travolta in "Saturday Night Fever" and was >>>brandishing nothing more menacing than a camera"
but hey, louisiana....
then there's this:
https://apnews.com/article/hide-seek-shooting-louisiana-girl-neighbor-b59a1232f3fd309e1afd02174026fad7
"A Louisiana man faces aggravated assault and battery charges after >>>firing a gun at children who were playing hide and seek outside his
home, wounding a 14-year-old girl, according to the local sheriff’s >>>office.....The girl suffered a gunshot wound to the back of the head >>>early Sunday"
simple searches don't show what the result of the charges are. I guess
he should be let go, after all, all he did was shoot a 14 year old in
the head while she was running away....Small price to pay for paranoid >>>white males to keep their deadly toys.
(and yes, andrew, we know you're going to counter with the 'hundreds of >>>case where guns were successfully used in self-defense'...again, the >>>deaths of a few innocent kids are a small price to pay for paranoid
white males to keep their deadly toys)
As if banning guns is a viable solution.
Actually, the last time I looked Black Males were leading the pack in
gun crimes reference their numbers (:-)
On 6/18/2025 9:11 PM, John B. wrote:
your examples just add to the example --- an
auto, designed and used ed as a transportation device and kills more
people"accidentally" then the terrifying guns.
Advantages vs. disadvantages, John.
Almost all Americans can live just fine without a gun, but not without a
car.
If a person does get a gun for "protection," they or someone in their >household becomes much more likely to get shot, which belies the idea of
its "protection" value. IOW, good data shows its detriments are greater
than its benefits.
Very few Americans can live without a car. Its transportation value is
huge, and that benefit greatly outweighs the detriment of possibly
causing someone's death.
Advantages vs. disadvantages. Ponder that, getting help if necessary.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:30:13 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/17/2025 9:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 18:12:57 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
`On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 17:42:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:44 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:17:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Unlike some here, I think it's nonsense to say that nothing is
quantifiable, that _everything_ is subjective. That attitude is just a >>>>>>> lazy thinker's way of pretending one's uninformed opinion is always right.
I don't buy that attitude - maybe in part because in my profession, I >>>>>>> was paid to (among many other things) correct other's mistakes. My >>>>>>> education taught me to pay attention to data, and I taught that to others.
Sure you paid attention to the nonsense data that said that having a >>>>>> gun in your house made it more likely to get shot.
<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 (adjusted hazard
ratio, 7.16 [CI, 4.04 to 12.69]); 84% of these victims were female." >>>>>
<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."
<CHUCKLE> Krygowski lacks the intellectual ability to see that his
cite doesn't even address his claim that guns in the home make it more >>>> likely you'd be shot.
<SNICKER>
Floriduh dumbass is too deluded and lacking in intellectual ability to
comprehend:
"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."
let me help you out, dumbass, the cite _directly_ addresses his claim
that guns in the home make it more likely you'd be shot, and explicitly
states such. Only a floriduh dumbass could read "Guns kept in homes are
more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting"
and "Overall rates of homicide were more than twice as high among
cohabitants of handgun owners than among cohabitants of nonowners"
and conclude "doesn't even address his claim that guns in the home make
it more likely you'd be shot."
This is right up there with you seeing two government reports stating
the military specified the design of the AR-15, tested it, bought 80,000
of then, and designated them as standard issue, then stating "the AR-15
was a weapon the military never wanted and never used"
And now has decided is a piece of junk and is well into the use of the
use of a "new" gun. (;-)
On 6/18/2025 9:32 PM, John B. wrote:
I believe that the numbers are that slightly more then 45 percent of
the U.S. population lives in a house where there is a gun.
If guns in the home are so dangerous I guess that the U.S. population
must be decreasing at a rapid rate)
The appropriate statistic would not be total population. It would be gun deaths per capita. And by that metric, the U.S. looks far worse than any similarly prosperous or developed country. There are only poor or third
world countries that look as bad.
Click this site's 2nd column, "Gun Homicide Rate" to sort the list in descending order.
<https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country>
Similar data here:
<https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/insights-blog/acting-data/gun- violence-united-states-outlier>
Two right wing dogmas defy mathematical data:
"The U.S. gun fetish causes no problems"Â and "The U.S. has a great
health care system."
Anyone espousing those views must be innumerate.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:55:51 -0400, floriduh dumbass
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:30:13 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/17/2025 9:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 18:12:57 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
`On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 17:42:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:44 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:17:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Unlike some here, I think it's nonsense to say that nothing is >>>>>>>> quantifiable, that _everything_ is subjective. That attitude is just a >>>>>>>> lazy thinker's way of pretending one's uninformed opinion is always right.
I don't buy that attitude - maybe in part because in my profession, I >>>>>>>> was paid to (among many other things) correct other's mistakes. My >>>>>>>> education taught me to pay attention to data, and I taught that to others.
Sure you paid attention to the nonsense data that said that having a >>>>>>> gun in your house made it more likely to get shot.
<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 (adjusted hazard >>>>>> ratio, 7.16 [CI, 4.04 to 12.69]); 84% of these victims were female." >>>>>>
<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."
<CHUCKLE> Krygowski lacks the intellectual ability to see that his
cite doesn't even address his claim that guns in the home make it more >>>>> likely you'd be shot.
<SNICKER>
Floriduh dumbass is too deluded and lacking in intellectual ability to
comprehend:
"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."
let me help you out, dumbass, the cite _directly_ addresses his claim
that guns in the home make it more likely you'd be shot, and explicitly
states such. Only a floriduh dumbass could read "Guns kept in homes are
more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting"
and "Overall rates of homicide were more than twice as high among
cohabitants of handgun owners than among cohabitants of nonowners"
and conclude "doesn't even address his claim that guns in the home make
it more likely you'd be shot."
This is right up there with you seeing two government reports stating
the military specified the design of the AR-15, tested it, bought 80,000 >>> of then, and designated them as standard issue, then stating "the AR-15
was a weapon the military never wanted and never used"
It's an embarrassment to know I have any interaction with such a deluded >>> and willfully ignorant asshole like you.
The study looked at 626 shootings in several cities. There's no
mention of how and why they picked those cities. They could have been >>>>> cherry picked because the results fit their agenda.
"could have"...talk about cherry picking...lol
Dimbulb Krygowski doesn't question the data because it fits his
agenda, so he just repeats what the people (who are they, and what's >>>>> their agenda) who ran the study tell him.
at least he has data, rather than a dumbass who sticks his fingers in
his ears and chants "fox news" repeatedly when he hears something he
doesn't like
Krygowski is totally obsessed with me.
:-) HA! _That_ got an outright laugh!
...and Krygowski demonstrates agaon, that he is totally obsessed with >>>>> me. I'll bet he lies awake night thinking what he can say to get back >>>>> at me for pointing out what a wussy he is.
lol....dumbass once again demonstrates what an ignorant narcissistic
fucktard he is.
When he first posted that study I had a look at then numbers and yes,
IF there is a gun in the house AND a homicide is committed in the
house it will likely be committed with a gun. Which seems logical.
But this has NO relationship to his unspoken conclusion that a gun in
the house results in homicides.
hey, stupid....it isn't unspoken, it's explicitly stated there there's a >>> direct relationship between a gun in the home and an increase in
homicide. Are you taking kunich lessons in dumbassery again?
I'm pretty sure that there many far owners of guns who have not been
shot than those who have. According to Junior's and Krygowski's
"logic" that would indicate that owning a gun makes you less likely to
be shot.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:55:51 -0400, floriduh dumbassNo, dumbass, that's your perverted "logic".
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:30:13 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/17/2025 9:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 18:12:57 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
`On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 17:42:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:44 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:17:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Unlike some here, I think it's nonsense to say that nothing is >>>>>>>>> quantifiable, that _everything_ is subjective. That attitude is just a
lazy thinker's way of pretending one's uninformed opinion is always right.
I don't buy that attitude - maybe in part because in my profession, I >>>>>>>>> was paid to (among many other things) correct other's mistakes. My >>>>>>>>> education taught me to pay attention to data, and I taught that to others.
Sure you paid attention to the nonsense data that said that having a >>>>>>>> gun in your house made it more likely to get shot.
<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 (adjusted hazard >>>>>>> ratio, 7.16 [CI, 4.04 to 12.69]); 84% of these victims were female." >>>>>>>
<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."
<CHUCKLE> Krygowski lacks the intellectual ability to see that his >>>>>> cite doesn't even address his claim that guns in the home make it more >>>>>> likely you'd be shot.
<SNICKER>
Floriduh dumbass is too deluded and lacking in intellectual ability to >>>> comprehend:
"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."
let me help you out, dumbass, the cite _directly_ addresses his claim
that guns in the home make it more likely you'd be shot, and explicitly >>>> states such. Only a floriduh dumbass could read "Guns kept in homes are >>>> more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting" >>>> and "Overall rates of homicide were more than twice as high among
cohabitants of handgun owners than among cohabitants of nonowners"
and conclude "doesn't even address his claim that guns in the home make >>>> it more likely you'd be shot."
This is right up there with you seeing two government reports stating
the military specified the design of the AR-15, tested it, bought 80,000 >>>> of then, and designated them as standard issue, then stating "the AR-15 >>>> was a weapon the military never wanted and never used"
It's an embarrassment to know I have any interaction with such a deluded >>>> and willfully ignorant asshole like you.
The study looked at 626 shootings in several cities. There's no
mention of how and why they picked those cities. They could have been >>>>>> cherry picked because the results fit their agenda.
"could have"...talk about cherry picking...lol
Dimbulb Krygowski doesn't question the data because it fits his
agenda, so he just repeats what the people (who are they, and what's >>>>>> their agenda) who ran the study tell him.
at least he has data, rather than a dumbass who sticks his fingers in
his ears and chants "fox news" repeatedly when he hears something he
doesn't like
Krygowski is totally obsessed with me.
:-) HA! _That_ got an outright laugh!
...and Krygowski demonstrates agaon, that he is totally obsessed with >>>>>> me. I'll bet he lies awake night thinking what he can say to get back >>>>>> at me for pointing out what a wussy he is.
lol....dumbass once again demonstrates what an ignorant narcissistic
fucktard he is.
When he first posted that study I had a look at then numbers and yes, >>>>> IF there is a gun in the house AND a homicide is committed in the
house it will likely be committed with a gun. Which seems logical.
But this has NO relationship to his unspoken conclusion that a gun in >>>>> the house results in homicides.
hey, stupid....it isn't unspoken, it's explicitly stated there there's a >>>> direct relationship between a gun in the home and an increase in
homicide. Are you taking kunich lessons in dumbassery again?
I'm pretty sure that there many far owners of guns who have not been
shot than those who have. According to Junior's and Krygowski's
"logic" that would indicate that owning a gun makes you less likely to
be shot.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 17:50:35 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:36:53 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:12:28 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/17/2025 6:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:30 PM, cyclintom wrote:
If someone enters your property with a gun, you are protecting your >>>>>> life even if they intend to only steal your car. I cannot tell the >>>>>> intentions of ANYONE assaulting me in any way.
What if a person with a concealed carry license, or a person in an open >>>>> carry jurisdiction, carries his gun and enters your property to ask
directions? Would you really blow him away?
<https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/12/us/michigan-man-shooting-at-teen-asking- >>>>> directions>
That kid didn't even carry a gun. But you seem to be saying that if he >>>>> had, the homeowner should have killed him.
And of course, the kid is black.
At least he was found guilty, Such incidents many times have more dire >>>> consequences with fewer penalties.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180305202556/https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/05/24/man-acquitted-of-killing-japanese-exchange-student/34a75a09-0a7b-468d-89c5-d6d8d7504f7c/
And of course, the shooter was acquitted of murdering a teenager dressed >>>> for a halloween party.
"Hattori was dressed as John Travolta in "Saturday Night Fever" and was >>>> brandishing nothing more menacing than a camera"
but hey, louisiana....
then there's this:
https://apnews.com/article/hide-seek-shooting-louisiana-girl-neighbor-b59a1232f3fd309e1afd02174026fad7
"A Louisiana man faces aggravated assault and battery charges after
firing a gun at children who were playing hide and seek outside his
home, wounding a 14-year-old girl, according to the local sheriff’s
office.....The girl suffered a gunshot wound to the back of the head
early Sunday"
simple searches don't show what the result of the charges are. I guess >>>> he should be let go, after all, all he did was shoot a 14 year old in
the head while she was running away....Small price to pay for paranoid >>>> white males to keep their deadly toys.
(and yes, andrew, we know you're going to counter with the 'hundreds of >>>> case where guns were successfully used in self-defense'...again, the
deaths of a few innocent kids are a small price to pay for paranoid
white males to keep their deadly toys)
As if banning guns is a viable solution.
Actually, the last time I looked Black Males were leading the pack in
gun crimes reference their numbers (:-)
I believe that as a percentage of their population black people have
the highest rates of gun crime victims and perpetrators.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/19/2025 7:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 07:37:47 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:55:51 -0400, floriduh dumbassNo, dumbass, that's your perverted "logic".
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:30:13 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 6/17/2025 9:08 PM, John B. wrote:
But this has NO relationship to his unspoken conclusion that a
gun in
the house results in homicides.
hey, stupid....it isn't unspoken, it's explicitly stated there
there's a
direct relationship between a gun in the home and an increase in
homicide. Are you taking kunich lessons in dumbassery again?
I'm pretty sure that there many far owners of guns who have not been >>>>> shot than those who have. According to Junior's and Krygowski's
"logic" that would indicate that owning a gun makes you less likely to >>>>> be shot.
Much like what Krygowki did, Junior can only reply with a "no it's
not," and without any explanation as to why it's not.
I stand by my claim that it's the same stupd logic Krygowski used to
argue that guns in your home makes it more likely you'll be shot.
On 6/19/2025 3:57 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how
One of my guilty pleasures is making intellectual lightweights who
confront me run away with their tails tucked between their legs. Looks
like I've done it again
good you are, the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around
like it won anyway.
On 6/19/2025 7:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 07:37:47 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:55:51 -0400, floriduh dumbassNo, dumbass, that's your perverted "logic".
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:30:13 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 6/17/2025 9:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 18:12:57 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
`On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 17:42:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/17/2025 12:44 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:17:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Unlike some here, I think it's nonsense to say that nothing is >>>>>>>>>>> quantifiable, that _everything_ is subjective. That attitude is just a
lazy thinker's way of pretending one's uninformed opinion is always right.
I don't buy that attitude - maybe in part because in my profession, I
was paid to (among many other things) correct other's mistakes. My >>>>>>>>>>> education taught me to pay attention to data, and I taught that to others.
Sure you paid attention to the nonsense data that said that having a >>>>>>>>>> gun in your house made it more likely to get shot.
<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 (adjusted hazard >>>>>>>>> ratio, 7.16 [CI, 4.04 to 12.69]); 84% of these victims were female." >>>>>>>>>
<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."
<CHUCKLE> Krygowski lacks the intellectual ability to see that his >>>>>>>> cite doesn't even address his claim that guns in the home make it more >>>>>>>> likely you'd be shot.
<SNICKER>
Floriduh dumbass is too deluded and lacking in intellectual ability to >>>>>> comprehend:
"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."
let me help you out, dumbass, the cite _directly_ addresses his claim >>>>>> that guns in the home make it more likely you'd be shot, and explicitly >>>>>> states such. Only a floriduh dumbass could read "Guns kept in homes are >>>>>> more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting" >>>>>> and "Overall rates of homicide were more than twice as high among
cohabitants of handgun owners than among cohabitants of nonowners" >>>>>> and conclude "doesn't even address his claim that guns in the home make >>>>>> it more likely you'd be shot."
This is right up there with you seeing two government reports stating >>>>>> the military specified the design of the AR-15, tested it, bought 80,000 >>>>>> of then, and designated them as standard issue, then stating "the AR-15 >>>>>> was a weapon the military never wanted and never used"
It's an embarrassment to know I have any interaction with such a deluded >>>>>> and willfully ignorant asshole like you.
The study looked at 626 shootings in several cities. There's no >>>>>>>> mention of how and why they picked those cities. They could have been >>>>>>>> cherry picked because the results fit their agenda.
"could have"...talk about cherry picking...lol
Dimbulb Krygowski doesn't question the data because it fits his >>>>>>>> agenda, so he just repeats what the people (who are they, and what's >>>>>>>> their agenda) who ran the study tell him.
at least he has data, rather than a dumbass who sticks his fingers in >>>>>> his ears and chants "fox news" repeatedly when he hears something he >>>>>> doesn't like
Krygowski is totally obsessed with me.
:-) HA! _That_ got an outright laugh!
...and Krygowski demonstrates agaon, that he is totally obsessed with >>>>>>>> me. I'll bet he lies awake night thinking what he can say to get back >>>>>>>> at me for pointing out what a wussy he is.
lol....dumbass once again demonstrates what an ignorant narcissistic >>>>>> fucktard he is.
When he first posted that study I had a look at then numbers and yes, >>>>>>> IF there is a gun in the house AND a homicide is committed in the >>>>>>> house it will likely be committed with a gun. Which seems logical. >>>>>>>
But this has NO relationship to his unspoken conclusion that a gun in >>>>>>> the house results in homicides.
hey, stupid....it isn't unspoken, it's explicitly stated there there's a >>>>>> direct relationship between a gun in the home and an increase in
homicide. Are you taking kunich lessons in dumbassery again?
I'm pretty sure that there many far owners of guns who have not been >>>>> shot than those who have. According to Junior's and Krygowski's
"logic" that would indicate that owning a gun makes you less likely to >>>>> be shot.
Much like what Krygowki did, Junior can only reply with a "no it's
not," and without any explanation as to why it's not.
I stand by my claim that it's the same stupd logic Krygowski used to
argue that guns in your home makes it more likely you'll be shot.
Here's a statement I encountered today. I don't know the author, but:
"Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how
good you are, the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around
like it won anyway."
And that's why I'm trying to minimize my time dealing with the ineducable.
When I was teaching, I had and "open door" policy at my office. Stidents
were welcome to visit and get help any time I was there, and many took >advantage of that for one-on-one help.
Some of them had far too much trouble understanding the subject matter.
I did my best to help them anyway. But there was a mechanism to
eventually stop them from wasting more of their time and my time. It was
the letter grade "F".
Sadly, there's no mechanism to flunk our timid tricycle rider out of >rec.bicycles.tech
On 6/19/2025 3:57 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how
One of my guilty pleasures is making intellectual lightweights who
confront me run away with their tails tucked between their legs. Looks
like I've done it again
good you are, the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around
like it won anyway.
On 6/19/2025 4:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 00:31:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"If a person does get a gun for "protection," they or someone in their
household becomes much more likely to get shot"
--Krygowski
Nonsense. There are probably more people who bought a gun for
protection who have not been shot, than people who bought a gun for
protection who have been shot.
Wow.
Can one of Mr. Tricycle Rider's allies please explain his logic mistake
to him? I'm beyond trying to help him learn to think.
On 6/19/2025 11:14 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/19/2025 7:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 07:37:47 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:55:51 -0400, floriduh dumbassNo, dumbass, that's your perverted "logic".
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:30:13 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/17/2025 9:08 PM, John B. wrote:
But this has NO relationship to his unspoken conclusion that a >>>>>>>> gun in
the house results in homicides.
hey, stupid....it isn't unspoken, it's explicitly stated there
there's a
direct relationship between a gun in the home and an increase in >>>>>>> homicide. Are you taking kunich lessons in dumbassery again?
I'm pretty sure that there many far owners of guns who have not been >>>>>> shot than those who have. According to Junior's and Krygowski's
"logic" that would indicate that owning a gun makes you less likely to >>>>>> be shot.
Much like what Krygowki did, Junior can only reply with a "no it's
not," and without any explanation as to why it's not.
The data has been presented to you a dozen times.
At this point you
deserve little more attention than "shut the fuck up, asshole"
I stand by my claim that it's the same stupd logic Krygowski used to
argue that guns in your home makes it more likely you'll be shot.
That's because you're a willfully ignorant dumbass who refuses to read
or consider information that runs counter to your magatard echo chamber,
and even if you do, you express a conclusion completely contradictory to
the stated information (as you've done repeatedly in this forum, mr.
"the AR-15 was a weapon the military never wanted and never used").
You're simply not smart enough to have a lucid and/or rational
conversation with.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 11:22:06 -0400, Frank KrygowskiI really can't figure Frank out. Why do you suppose he is so much for his own peesonal freedoms and so against tyhose of others? As far as I can make out, he hates the Constitution except where it applies to his purposes.
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/16/2025 9:09 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/16/2025 6:13 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
As you carry the gun on the trike? Do you practice if not why not?
Most firearm owners practice regularly:
https://www.yellowjersey.org/877/1911flag.jpg
"Regularly"? I doubt that very strongly, unless "regularly" means "once
a year or so" - IOW, not often enough to maintain real skills. There are >thousands of gun owners for each shooting range, and they're not all
that crowded.
Gun owners practice because it's enjoyabble. I do it at my friend's
house in the country.
And skills of any kind tend to be specific. Donning googles and ear >protection and using a rest to carefully aim at a distant target would
be very little help in a home invasion.
Some gun ranges require goggles, for some safety glasses will do. I
have two pais of safety glasses, on shaded, one clear.
It's too different from fumbling
for your pistol in a dresser drawer to shoot the boogey man.
My bedside gun is laying under the lid of an otherwise single gun
case. There will be no fumbling.
Remember
John's account of his actual home invasion? Despite his love of guns,
his did him absolutely no good, largely because it wasn't strapped to
his side.
Strawman....
For specific, thus effective, practice, our timid tricyclist should be >practicing fast draw out of his crotch holster while he's riding,
followed by fast shooting at imaginary pathside menaces. But he's not
doing that. His gun is serving the same function as a teddy bear: it
gives him comfort when he's scared.
Yewwww.... Why is Krygowski now talking about my crotch.
On 6/19/2025 1:19 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 11:28:31 -0400, Frank KrygowskiI ignore you,
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 3:57 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how
One of my guilty pleasures is making intellectual lightweights who
confront me run away with their tails tucked between their legs. Looks >>>> like I've done it again
good you are, the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around
like it won anyway.
Krygowski doesn't argue with me. I back him into a corner and he runs
away...
with trolls. They're not intelligent enough to understand when they're
being shunned.
It must hurt your feelings, knowing that your main obsession in life - >trolling me - just doesn't matter.
On 6/19/2025 11:53 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
Absolutely.
You're simply not smart enough to have a lucid and/or rational
conversation with.
On 6/19/2025 4:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 00:31:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"If a person does get a gun for "protection," they or someone in their
household becomes much more likely to get shot"
--Krygowski
Nonsense. There are probably more people who bought a gun for
protection who have not been shot, than people who bought a gun for
protection who have been shot.
Wow.
Can one of Mr. Tricycle Rider's allies please explain his logic mistake
to him? I'm beyond trying to help him learn to think.
On 6/19/2025 11:25 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/19/2025 4:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 00:31:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"If a person does get a gun for "protection," they or
someone in their
household becomes much more likely to get shot"
--Krygowski
Nonsense. There are probably more people who bought a gun
for
protection who have not been shot, than people who bought
a gun for
protection who have been shot.
Wow.
Can one of Mr. Tricycle Rider's allies please explain his
logic mistake to him? I'm beyond trying to help him learn
to think.
If he would have bothered to read the study, he'd know that
there are in fact more people who bought a gun for
protection who have not been shot than people who bought a
gun for protection who have been shot.
The fact that he thinks the study is bogus because more
people who bought a gun for protection who have not been
shot than people who bought a gun for protection who have
been shot shows that he didn't read the study, and if he
did, he didn't understand it.
The claim "there are more people who bought a gun for
protection who have not been shot, than people who bought a
gun for protection who have been shot" does not negate the
the conclusion of the study that having a gun in your home
makes you more likely to get shot.
It's likely that the dumbass will never be able to
understand the distinction because:
a) he reading comprehension is too weak to understand
statistical analysis
2) his automatically dismisses anything not fed to him by
his magatard echo chamber.
but as I mentioned before, trying to expose him to new
concepts and use objective rationale has little more
possibility of success that trying to convince a dog not to
lick it's own ass.
IOW - it's just the willfully ignorant dumbass being a
willfully ignorant dumbass.
On 6/19/2025 11:25 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/19/2025 4:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 00:31:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"If a person does get a gun for "protection," they or someone in their
household becomes much more likely to get shot"
--Krygowski
Nonsense. There are probably more people who bought a gun for
protection who have not been shot, than people who bought a gun for
protection who have been shot.
Wow.
Can one of Mr. Tricycle Rider's allies please explain his logic mistake
to him? I'm beyond trying to help him learn to think.
If he would have bothered to read the study, he'd know that there are in
fact more people who bought a gun for protection who have not been shot
than people who bought a gun for protection who have been shot.
The fact that he thinks the study is bogus because more people who
bought a gun for protection who have not been shot than people who
bought a gun for protection who have been shot shows that he didn't read
the study, and if he did, he didn't understand it.
The claim "there are more people who bought a gun for protection who
have not been shot, than people who bought a gun for protection who have
been shot" does not negate the the conclusion of the study that having a
gun in your home makes you more likely to get shot.
It's likely that the dumbass will never be able to understand the
distinction because:
a) he reading comprehension is too weak to understand statistical analysis
2) his automatically dismisses anything not fed to him by his magatard
echo chamber.
but as I mentioned before, trying to expose him to new concepts and use >objective rationale has little more possibility of success that trying
to convince a dog not to lick it's own ass.
IOW - it's just the willfully ignorant dumbass being a willfully
ignorant dumbass.
On 6/19/2025 11:25 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/19/2025 4:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 00:31:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"If a person does get a gun for "protection," they or someone in their
household becomes much more likely to get shot"
--Krygowski
Nonsense. There are probably more people who bought a gun for
protection who have not been shot, than people who bought a gun for
protection who have been shot.
Wow.
Can one of Mr. Tricycle Rider's allies please explain his logic mistake
to him? I'm beyond trying to help him learn to think.
If he would have bothered to read the study, he'd know that there are in
fact more people who bought a gun for protection who have not been shot
than people who bought a gun for protection who have been shot.
The fact that he thinks the study is bogus because more people who
bought a gun for protection who have not been shot than people who
bought a gun for protection who have been shot shows that he didn't read
the study, and if he did, he didn't understand it.
The claim "there are more people who bought a gun for protection who
have not been shot, than people who bought a gun for protection who have
been shot" does not negate the the conclusion of the study that having a
gun in your home makes you more likely to get shot.
It's likely that the dumbass will never be able to understand the
distinction because:
a) he reading comprehension is too weak to understand statistical analysis
2) his automatically dismisses anything not fed to him by his magatard
echo chamber.
but as I mentioned before, trying to expose him to new concepts and use >objective rationale has little more possibility of success that trying
to convince a dog not to lick it's own ass.
IOW - it's just the willfully ignorant dumbass being a willfully
ignorant dumbass.
On 6/19/2025 11:25 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/19/2025 4:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 00:31:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"If a person does get a gun for "protection," they or someone in their
household becomes much more likely to get shot"
--Krygowski
Nonsense. There are probably more people who bought a gun for
protection who have not been shot, than people who bought a gun for
protection who have been shot.
Wow.
Can one of Mr. Tricycle Rider's allies please explain his logic mistake
to him? I'm beyond trying to help him learn to think.
If he would have bothered to read the study, he'd know that there are in
fact more people who bought a gun for protection who have not been shot
than people who bought a gun for protection who have been shot.
The fact that he thinks the study is bogus because more people who
bought a gun for protection who have not been shot than people who
bought a gun for protection who have been shot shows that he didn't read
the study, and if he did, he didn't understand it.
The claim "there are more people who bought a gun for protection who
have not been shot, than people who bought a gun for protection who have
been shot" does not negate the the conclusion of the study that having a
gun in your home makes you more likely to get shot.
It's likely that the dumbass will never be able to understand the
distinction because:
a) he reading comprehension is too weak to understand statistical analysis
2) his automatically dismisses anything not fed to him by his magatard
echo chamber.
but as I mentioned before, trying to expose him to new concepts and use >objective rationale has little more possibility of success that trying
to convince a dog not to lick it's own ass.
IOW - it's just the willfully ignorant dumbass being a willfully
ignorant dumbass.
Most firearm owners practice regularly: https://www.yellowjersey.org/877/1911flag.jpg
First, I don't think this is a second amendment issue. This thing is apparently a CO2 gun that shoots a ball of pepper spray.
Second, Deacon Mark posted about the device on a _discussion_ group.
That would give most people a clue that he expected us to _discuss_ it.
So don't try to shut down discussion via "What difference does it make?"
My interest is generated by the ever growing paranoia in this country -
the idea that our world is now so, so dangerous that everyone must carry protective devices, must live in gated communities, must be ready to do battle with home invaders, can never let kids play on their own, must
wear padding and foam hats to use anything with wheels (um, except
cars), must ride bikes ONLY on special surfaces which care tires can
never desecrate, must sign waivers to accept the risk of burns before ordering hot coffee, etc.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 16 Jun 2025 09:40:53 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Mark J cleary <mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:
So we go ride out bikes out in the middle of nowhere. I am not a FOID
carry I have not guns but my brother suggest the Bryna? I myself
probably would not be taking it on a bike but who knows.
My thought is I live alone and I sleep downstairs on the couch. I
sometimes keep the patio door open to let in all the cool night air. I >>> got thinking someone could just drop in although I leave the outside
lights one.
But if I had a Bryna I could just take aim and it is about 15 feet away >>> to disable someone. Frankly in my days as a long distance runner with
dogs I would have used one at least 3 times in the past. I came upon a >>> dog that attacked me. On a bike in unfamiliar territory it might we
worth it certainly if you are touring across country.
Is it a real risk? Let alone the difficulties of awaking and hitting a
target with a handgun, or on the bike being again in a position to hit a >> person.
A shot gun would seem certainly for home defence a more useful firearm but >> I think you re massively overthinking the risks.
Roger Merriman
In my opinion, a person should evaluate the risks and difficulties of self-defense,(and most everything else) based on their own situation
rather than group thinking it.
Most folks think they will do better than they would, and self defence if
one is serious one should practice or it?s largely just going to be a an expensive paper weight.
As you carry the gun on the trike? Do you practice if not why not?
The world is full of people who erroneously believe they're qualified
to advise others on what to think and do.
He asked for advice that?s rather the point of Usenet!
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 06:06:07 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 11:25 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:All this ge-gaw ignores the fact that more then 40% of US adults live
On 6/19/2025 4:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 00:31:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"If a person does get a gun for "protection," they or someone in their >>>> household becomes much more likely to get shot"
--Krygowski
Nonsense. There are probably more people who bought a gun for
protection who have not been shot, than people who bought a gun for
protection who have been shot.
Wow.
Can one of Mr. Tricycle Rider's allies please explain his logic mistake
to him? I'm beyond trying to help him learn to think.
If he would have bothered to read the study, he'd know that there are in >>fact more people who bought a gun for protection who have not been shot >>than people who bought a gun for protection who have been shot.
The fact that he thinks the study is bogus because more people who
bought a gun for protection who have not been shot than people who
bought a gun for protection who have been shot shows that he didn't read >>the study, and if he did, he didn't understand it.
The claim "there are more people who bought a gun for protection who
have not been shot, than people who bought a gun for protection who have >>been shot" does not negate the the conclusion of the study that having a >>gun in your home makes you more likely to get shot.
It's likely that the dumbass will never be able to understand the >>distinction because:
a) he reading comprehension is too weak to understand statistical analysis >>2) his automatically dismisses anything not fed to him by his magatard
echo chamber.
but as I mentioned before, trying to expose him to new concepts and use >>objective rationale has little more possibility of success that trying
to convince a dog not to lick it's own ass.
IOW - it's just the willfully ignorant dumbass being a willfully
ignorant dumbass.
in a household where there are guns. >https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/42-percent-the-number-of-adults-living-in-a-home-with-a-gun/
Given that the population is about 347,215,206 that is a lot of people
and as we are told that living with guns is so dangerous one would
assume that the U.S. will become a barren uninhabited desert .
But it isn't, is it. It grew some 841,526 in 2025.
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 17:32:04 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
As for carrying a gun, I carrry a Bersa .308 on every bike ride...
Bersa .380
--
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 06:06:07 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 11:25 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:All this ge-gaw ignores the fact that more then 40% of US adults live
On 6/19/2025 4:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 00:31:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"If a person does get a gun for "protection," they or someone in their >>>> household becomes much more likely to get shot"
--Krygowski
Nonsense. There are probably more people who bought a gun for
protection who have not been shot, than people who bought a gun for
protection who have been shot.
Wow.
Can one of Mr. Tricycle Rider's allies please explain his logic mistake
to him? I'm beyond trying to help him learn to think.
If he would have bothered to read the study, he'd know that there are in
fact more people who bought a gun for protection who have not been shot
than people who bought a gun for protection who have been shot.
The fact that he thinks the study is bogus because more people who
bought a gun for protection who have not been shot than people who
bought a gun for protection who have been shot shows that he didn't read
the study, and if he did, he didn't understand it.
The claim "there are more people who bought a gun for protection who
have not been shot, than people who bought a gun for protection who have
been shot" does not negate the the conclusion of the study that having a
gun in your home makes you more likely to get shot.
It's likely that the dumbass will never be able to understand the
distinction because:
a) he reading comprehension is too weak to understand statistical analysis >> 2) his automatically dismisses anything not fed to him by his magatard
echo chamber.
but as I mentioned before, trying to expose him to new concepts and use
objective rationale has little more possibility of success that trying
to convince a dog not to lick it's own ass.
IOW - it's just the willfully ignorant dumbass being a willfully
ignorant dumbass.
in a household where there are guns. https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/42-percent-the-number-of-adults-living-in-a-home-with-a-gun/
Given that the population is about 347,215,206 that is a lot of people
and as we are told that living with guns is so dangerous one would
assume that the U.S. will become a barren uninhabited desert .
But it isn't, is it. It grew some 841,526 in 2025.
--
cheers,
John B.
On 6/20/2025 8:53 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 06:06:07 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 11:25 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:All this ge-gaw ignores the fact that more then 40% of US adults live
On 6/19/2025 4:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 00:31:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"If a person does get a gun for "protection," they or someone in their >>>>> household becomes much more likely to get shot"
--Krygowski
Nonsense. There are probably more people who bought a gun for
protection who have not been shot, than people who bought a gun for
protection who have been shot.
Wow.
Can one of Mr. Tricycle Rider's allies please explain his logic mistake >>>> to him? I'm beyond trying to help him learn to think.
If he would have bothered to read the study, he'd know that there are in >>> fact more people who bought a gun for protection who have not been shot
than people who bought a gun for protection who have been shot.
The fact that he thinks the study is bogus because more people who
bought a gun for protection who have not been shot than people who
bought a gun for protection who have been shot shows that he didn't read >>> the study, and if he did, he didn't understand it.
The claim "there are more people who bought a gun for protection who
have not been shot, than people who bought a gun for protection who have >>> been shot" does not negate the the conclusion of the study that having a >>> gun in your home makes you more likely to get shot.
It's likely that the dumbass will never be able to understand the
distinction because:
a) he reading comprehension is too weak to understand statistical analysis >>> 2) his automatically dismisses anything not fed to him by his magatard
echo chamber.
but as I mentioned before, trying to expose him to new concepts and use
objective rationale has little more possibility of success that trying
to convince a dog not to lick it's own ass.
IOW - it's just the willfully ignorant dumbass being a willfully
ignorant dumbass.
in a household where there are guns.
That's been ignored because it's not directly pertinent to the point
being discussed.
To make it relevant, we can note that yes, the U.S. does have
world-leading gun ownership rates. And son of a gun, the U.S. has >near-world-record gun death rates!
The per-capita gun death rate of the U.S. is exceeded only by Mexico and >three or four "third world" countries that are very violent. U.S. is
_far_ worse than any country that's similarly modern and prosperous.
So: More guns per capita, and more gun deaths per capita. Gosh, it's
almost like those facts are related!
On 6/20/2025 9:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/20/2025 5:06 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/19/2025 11:25 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/19/2025 4:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 00:31:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"If a person does get a gun for "protection," they or someone in their >>>>> household becomes much more likely to get shot"
--Krygowski
Nonsense. There are probably more people who bought a gun for
protection who have not been shot, than people who bought a gun for
protection who have been shot.
Wow.
Can one of Mr. Tricycle Rider's allies please explain his logic
mistake to him? I'm beyond trying to help him learn to think.
If he would have bothered to read the study, he'd know that there are
in fact more people who bought a gun for protection who have not been
shot than people who bought a gun for protection who have been shot.
The fact that he thinks the study is bogus because more people who
bought a gun for protection who have not been shot than people who
bought a gun for protection who have been shot shows that he didn't
read the study, and if he did, he didn't understand it.
The claim "there are more people who bought a gun for protection who
have not been shot, than people who bought a gun for protection who
have been shot" does not negate the the conclusion of the study that
having a gun in your home makes you more likely to get shot.
It's likely that the dumbass will never be able to understand the
distinction because:
a) he reading comprehension is too weak to understand statistical
analysis
2) his automatically dismisses anything not fed to him by his magatard
echo chamber.
but as I mentioned before, trying to expose him to new concepts and
use objective rationale has little more possibility of success that
trying to convince a dog not to lick it's own ass.
IOW - it's just the willfully ignorant dumbass being a willfully
ignorant dumbass.
A new paper by Jens Ludwig (could not find a not-paywall copy)
elucidates the area well. Here's a synopsis:
https://www.vpm.org/npr-news/npr-news/2025-05-23/a-new-theory-on-gun-
violence
also:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg26635450-100-how-a-study-in-the-
stockholm-subway-could-help-prevent-violent-crime/
I don't want to do a subscription, so I couldn't read the New Scientist >article. Perhaps you could summarize? But I assume it's got some
similarity to the NPR article - that knowing how to deescalate should
reduce gun deaths (and other deaths).
I agree in principle. Many decades ago I read a very brief little book
on the same theme. It contained an anecdote about a somewhat elderly
woman in a bad neighborhood walking to her apartment with two bags of >groceries. Two men appeared and began walking right next to her, one on
each side, probably to steal her stuff or harm her as soon as they were
all hidden from the view of others. But she flipped the script, so to
speak, by handing each a bag of her groceries and thanking them for
being so nice as to help carry them.
The point, as I recall, was that those planning bad acts have a mental
script in mind, a prediction of how things will go down. If they are >sufficiently derailed, they are defused. Sort of psychological judo.
I think we could stand to learn a lot more about psychological
techniques to calm enraged people and defuse fraught situations.
On 6/20/2025 9:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/20/2025 5:06 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/19/2025 11:25 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/19/2025 4:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 00:31:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"If a person does get a gun for "protection," they or
someone in their
household becomes much more likely to get shot"
--Krygowski
Nonsense. There are probably more people who bought a
gun for
protection who have not been shot, than people who
bought a gun for
protection who have been shot.
Wow.
Can one of Mr. Tricycle Rider's allies please explain
his logic mistake to him? I'm beyond trying to help him
learn to think.
If he would have bothered to read the study, he'd know
that there are in fact more people who bought a gun for
protection who have not been shot than people who bought
a gun for protection who have been shot.
The fact that he thinks the study is bogus because more
people who bought a gun for protection who have not been
shot than people who bought a gun for protection who have
been shot shows that he didn't read the study, and if he
did, he didn't understand it.
The claim "there are more people who bought a gun for
protection who have not been shot, than people who bought
a gun for protection who have been shot" does not negate
the the conclusion of the study that having a gun in your
home makes you more likely to get shot.
It's likely that the dumbass will never be able to
understand the distinction because:
a) he reading comprehension is too weak to understand
statistical analysis
2) his automatically dismisses anything not fed to him by
his magatard echo chamber.
but as I mentioned before, trying to expose him to new
concepts and use objective rationale has little more
possibility of success that trying to convince a dog not
to lick it's own ass.
IOW - it's just the willfully ignorant dumbass being a
willfully ignorant dumbass.
A new paper by Jens Ludwig (could not find a not-paywall
copy) elucidates the area well. Here's a synopsis:
https://www.vpm.org/npr-news/npr-news/2025-05-23/a-new-
theory-on-gun- violence
also:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg26635450-100-how-a-
study-in-the- stockholm-subway-could-help-prevent-violent-
crime/
I don't want to do a subscription, so I couldn't read the
New Scientist article. Perhaps you could summarize? But I
assume it's got some similarity to the NPR article - that
knowing how to deescalate should reduce gun deaths (and
other deaths).
I agree in principle. Many decades ago I read a very brief
little book on the same theme. It contained an anecdote
about a somewhat elderly woman in a bad neighborhood walking
to her apartment with two bags of groceries. Two men
appeared and began walking right next to her, one on each
side, probably to steal her stuff or harm her as soon as
they were all hidden from the view of others. But she
flipped the script, so to speak, by handing each a bag of
her groceries and thanking them for being so nice as to help
carry them.
The point, as I recall, was that those planning bad acts
have a mental script in mind, a prediction of how things
will go down. If they are sufficiently derailed, they are
defused. Sort of psychological judo.
I think we could stand to learn a lot more about
psychological techniques to calm enraged people and defuse
fraught situations.
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 17:20:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/20/2025 9:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/20/2025 5:06 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/19/2025 11:25 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/19/2025 4:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 00:31:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"If a person does get a gun for "protection," they or someone in their >>>>>> household becomes much more likely to get shot"
--Krygowski
Nonsense. There are probably more people who bought a gun for
protection who have not been shot, than people who bought a gun for >>>>>> protection who have been shot.
Wow.
Can one of Mr. Tricycle Rider's allies please explain his logic
mistake to him? I'm beyond trying to help him learn to think.
If he would have bothered to read the study, he'd know that there are
in fact more people who bought a gun for protection who have not been
shot than people who bought a gun for protection who have been shot.
The fact that he thinks the study is bogus because more people who
bought a gun for protection who have not been shot than people who
bought a gun for protection who have been shot shows that he didn't
read the study, and if he did, he didn't understand it.
The claim "there are more people who bought a gun for protection who
have not been shot, than people who bought a gun for protection who
have been shot" does not negate the the conclusion of the study that
having a gun in your home makes you more likely to get shot.
It's likely that the dumbass will never be able to understand the
distinction because:
a) he reading comprehension is too weak to understand statistical
analysis
2) his automatically dismisses anything not fed to him by his magatard >>>> echo chamber.
but as I mentioned before, trying to expose him to new concepts and
use objective rationale has little more possibility of success that
trying to convince a dog not to lick it's own ass.
IOW - it's just the willfully ignorant dumbass being a willfully
ignorant dumbass.
A new paper by Jens Ludwig (could not find a not-paywall copy)
elucidates the area well. Here's a synopsis:
https://www.vpm.org/npr-news/npr-news/2025-05-23/a-new-theory-on-gun-
violence
also:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg26635450-100-how-a-study-in-the-
stockholm-subway-could-help-prevent-violent-crime/
I don't want to do a subscription, so I couldn't read the New Scientist
article. Perhaps you could summarize? But I assume it's got some
similarity to the NPR article - that knowing how to deescalate should
reduce gun deaths (and other deaths).
I agree in principle. Many decades ago I read a very brief little book
on the same theme. It contained an anecdote about a somewhat elderly
woman in a bad neighborhood walking to her apartment with two bags of
groceries. Two men appeared and began walking right next to her, one on
each side, probably to steal her stuff or harm her as soon as they were
all hidden from the view of others. But she flipped the script, so to
speak, by handing each a bag of her groceries and thanking them for
being so nice as to help carry them.
The point, as I recall, was that those planning bad acts have a mental
script in mind, a prediction of how things will go down. If they are
sufficiently derailed, they are defused. Sort of psychological judo.
I think we could stand to learn a lot more about psychological
techniques to calm enraged people and defuse fraught situations.
<eyeroll>
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/20/2025 12:39 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Jun 17 17:54:50 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
First, I don't think this is a second amendment issue. This thing is
apparently a CO2 gun that shoots a ball of pepper spray.
Second, Deacon Mark posted about the device on a _discussion_ group.
That would give most people a clue that he expected us to _discuss_ it.
So don't try to shut down discussion via "What difference does it make?" >>>
My interest is generated by the ever growing paranoia in this country -
the idea that our world is now so, so dangerous that everyone must carry >>> protective devices, must live in gated communities, must be ready to do
battle with home invaders, can never let kids play on their own, must
wear padding and foam hats to use anything with wheels (um, except
cars), must ride bikes ONLY on special surfaces which care tires can
never desecrate, must sign waivers to accept the risk of burns before
ordering hot coffee, etc.
Frank, on Tuesday I had dinner with my cop friend who saved my life, and breakfast the next morning. He told me that there were 5 cases of bicyclists being held up at gunpoint on Redwood Road and their wallets and bicycles stolen.
Wow. That's horrible, Tom! Five cases in what length of time?
FWIW, I haven't heard of such a thing around here, except one incident
on a bike path about 20 miles away, maybe ten years ago. Some teenagers >stopped another teenager and stole his bike.
I just got back from a ~50 mile ride. I have a little hobby of riding to >libraries, and today I visited one I'd never ridden to. I rode through
two city centers and rode over many country and suburban roads to get
there, and I <gasp!> controlled the lane when it was too narrow to
share. The only minor irritation was some girl in a car's passenger seat >yelling something about getting a bicycle license.
You need to move out of that hellhole. You're obviously very unhappy there.
On 6/20/2025 4:25 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 17:20:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/20/2025 9:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/20/2025 5:06 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/19/2025 11:25 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/19/2025 4:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 00:31:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"If a person does get a gun for "protection," they or someone in their >>>>>>> household becomes much more likely to get shot"
--Krygowski
Nonsense. There are probably more people who bought a gun for
protection who have not been shot, than people who bought a gun for >>>>>>> protection who have been shot.
Wow.
Can one of Mr. Tricycle Rider's allies please explain his logic
mistake to him? I'm beyond trying to help him learn to think.
If he would have bothered to read the study, he'd know that there are >>>>> in fact more people who bought a gun for protection who have not been >>>>> shot than people who bought a gun for protection who have been shot. >>>>>
The fact that he thinks the study is bogus because more people who
bought a gun for protection who have not been shot than people who
bought a gun for protection who have been shot shows that he didn't
read the study, and if he did, he didn't understand it.
The claim "there are more people who bought a gun for protection who >>>>> have not been shot, than people who bought a gun for protection who
have been shot" does not negate the the conclusion of the study that >>>>> having a gun in your home makes you more likely to get shot.
It's likely that the dumbass will never be able to understand the
distinction because:
a) he reading comprehension is too weak to understand statistical
analysis
2) his automatically dismisses anything not fed to him by his magatard >>>>> echo chamber.
but as I mentioned before, trying to expose him to new concepts and
use objective rationale has little more possibility of success that
trying to convince a dog not to lick it's own ass.
IOW - it's just the willfully ignorant dumbass being a willfully
ignorant dumbass.
A new paper by Jens Ludwig (could not find a not-paywall copy)
elucidates the area well. Here's a synopsis:
https://www.vpm.org/npr-news/npr-news/2025-05-23/a-new-theory-on-gun-
violence
also:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg26635450-100-how-a-study-in-the- >>>> stockholm-subway-could-help-prevent-violent-crime/
I don't want to do a subscription, so I couldn't read the New Scientist
article. Perhaps you could summarize? But I assume it's got some
similarity to the NPR article - that knowing how to deescalate should
reduce gun deaths (and other deaths).
I agree in principle. Many decades ago I read a very brief little book
on the same theme. It contained an anecdote about a somewhat elderly
woman in a bad neighborhood walking to her apartment with two bags of
groceries. Two men appeared and began walking right next to her, one on
each side, probably to steal her stuff or harm her as soon as they were
all hidden from the view of others. But she flipped the script, so to
speak, by handing each a bag of her groceries and thanking them for
being so nice as to help carry them.
The point, as I recall, was that those planning bad acts have a mental
script in mind, a prediction of how things will go down. If they are
sufficiently derailed, they are defused. Sort of psychological judo.
I think we could stand to learn a lot more about psychological
techniques to calm enraged people and defuse fraught situations.
<eyeroll>
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It's not universally effective but probably largely helpful
IMHO.
On Sun Jun 15 15:00:08 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 17:32:04 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
As for carrying a gun, I carrry a Bersa .308 on every bike ride...
Bersa .380
How many times did you have to look that up?
On 6/20/2025 12:39 PM, cyclintom wrote:(...)
Frank, on Tuesday I had dinner with my cop friend who saved my life, and breakfast the next morning. He told me that there were 5 cases of bicyclists being held up at gunpoint on Redwood Road and their wallets and bicycles stolen.
Wow. That's horrible, Tom! Five cases in what length of time?
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 05:53:58 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 06:06:07 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 11:25 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:All this ge-gaw ignores the fact that more then 40% of US adults live
On 6/19/2025 4:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 00:31:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"If a person does get a gun for "protection," they or someone in their >>>>> household becomes much more likely to get shot"
--Krygowski
Nonsense. There are probably more people who bought a gun for
protection who have not been shot, than people who bought a gun for
protection who have been shot.
Wow.
Can one of Mr. Tricycle Rider's allies please explain his logic mistake >>>> to him? I'm beyond trying to help him learn to think.
If he would have bothered to read the study, he'd know that there are in >>>fact more people who bought a gun for protection who have not been shot >>>than people who bought a gun for protection who have been shot.
The fact that he thinks the study is bogus because more people who
bought a gun for protection who have not been shot than people who
bought a gun for protection who have been shot shows that he didn't read >>>the study, and if he did, he didn't understand it.
The claim "there are more people who bought a gun for protection who
have not been shot, than people who bought a gun for protection who have >>>been shot" does not negate the the conclusion of the study that having a >>>gun in your home makes you more likely to get shot.
It's likely that the dumbass will never be able to understand the >>>distinction because:
a) he reading comprehension is too weak to understand statistical analysis >>>2) his automatically dismisses anything not fed to him by his magatard >>>echo chamber.
but as I mentioned before, trying to expose him to new concepts and use >>>objective rationale has little more possibility of success that trying
to convince a dog not to lick it's own ass.
IOW - it's just the willfully ignorant dumbass being a willfully
ignorant dumbass.
in a household where there are guns. >>https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/42-percent-the-number-of-adults-living-in-a-home-with-a-gun/
Given that the population is about 347,215,206 that is a lot of people
and as we are told that living with guns is so dangerous one would
assume that the U.S. will become a barren uninhabited desert .
But it isn't, is it. It grew some 841,526 in 2025.
Only 2% of the population is psychotic. Problem is, they have
a "right" to "keep and bear arms" too. There is no socialized medicine
in the US, so most go untreated. Some MAGAtards think they should go
to jail. Jail is NOT a place for people that are ill.
They are the main problem, though thousands or "normal" people
die from suicide and while handling guns inappropriately.
[]'s
On 6/20/2025 11:18 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 17:28:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/20/2025 12:39 PM, cyclintom wrote:(...)
Frank, on Tuesday I had dinner with my cop friend who saved my life, and breakfast the next morning. He told me that there were 5 cases of bicyclists being held up at gunpoint on Redwood Road and their wallets and bicycles stolen.
Wow. That's horrible, Tom! Five cases in what length of time?
I don't believe Tom's version, but the story might have been for real
3 years ago. The reason I don't believe it is that Redwood Rd was
closed for an unknown number of years. I don't want to slog through
this mess trying to find the closing and reopening dates:
<https://acsearch.acgov.org/s/search.html?query=redwood+road&collection=acpwa&form=acpwa&profile=acpwa>
This video is from 2022:
"Armed Thieves Target Cyclists in East Bay Hills"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7P-Josj0WY>
Two points:
1) "Let's super-saturate our country with guns. What could go wrong?"
2) And yet, Tom continues to live in that hellhole he hates, despite his >millions.
On 6/20/2025 11:18 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 17:28:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/20/2025 12:39 PM, cyclintom wrote:(...)
Frank, on Tuesday I had dinner with my cop friend who
saved my life, and breakfast the next morning. He told
me that there were 5 cases of bicyclists being held up
at gunpoint on Redwood Road and their wallets and
bicycles stolen.
Wow. That's horrible, Tom! Five cases in what length of
time?
I don't believe Tom's version, but the story might have
been for real
3 years ago. The reason I don't believe it is that
Redwood Rd was
closed for an unknown number of years. I don't want to
slog through
this mess trying to find the closing and reopening dates:
<https://acsearch.acgov.org/s/search.html?
query=redwood+road&collection=acpwa&form=acpwa&profile=acpwa>
This video is from 2022:
"Armed Thieves Target Cyclists in East Bay Hills"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7P-Josj0WY>
Two points:
1) "Let's super-saturate our country with guns. What could
go wrong?"
2) And yet, Tom continues to live in that hellhole he hates,
despite his millions.
On 6/21/2025 12:12 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 11:15:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
2) And yet, Tom continues to live in that hellhole he hates, despite his >>> millions.
Glorified poverty is somewhat popular among the wealthy. They hide
their wealth to deter people from thinking too much about from where
the wealthy obtained their money. Glorified poverty was very
fashionable during the ecological 1960's.
Here's a video on glorified poverty:
https://youtu.be/VAdlkunflRs?t=2
On 6/20/2025 11:18 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 17:28:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/20/2025 12:39 PM, cyclintom wrote:(...)
Frank, on Tuesday I had dinner with my cop friend who saved my life,
and breakfast the next morning. He told me that there were 5 cases
of bicyclists being held up at gunpoint on Redwood Road and their
wallets and bicycles stolen.
Wow. That's horrible, Tom! Five cases in what length of time?
I don't believe Tom's version, but the story might have been for real
3 years ago. The reason I don't believe it is that Redwood Rd was
closed for an unknown number of years. I don't want to slog through
this mess trying to find the closing and reopening dates:
<https://acsearch.acgov.org/s/search.html?
query=redwood+road&collection=acpwa&form=acpwa&profile=acpwa>
This video is from 2022:
"Armed Thieves Target Cyclists in East Bay Hills"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7P-Josj0WY>
Two points:
1) "Let's super-saturate our country with guns. What could go wrong?"
2) And yet, Tom continues to live in that hellhole he hates, despite his millions.
On 6/21/2025 11:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/20/2025 11:18 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 17:28:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/20/2025 12:39 PM, cyclintom wrote:(...)
Frank, on Tuesday I had dinner with my cop friend who saved my
life, and breakfast the next morning. He told me that there were 5
cases of bicyclists being held up at gunpoint on Redwood Road and
their wallets and bicycles stolen.
Wow. That's horrible, Tom! Five cases in what length of time?
I don't believe Tom's version, but the story might have been for real
3 years ago. The reason I don't believe it is that Redwood Rd was
closed for an unknown number of years. I don't want to slog through
this mess trying to find the closing and reopening dates:
<https://acsearch.acgov.org/s/search.html?
query=redwood+road&collection=acpwa&form=acpwa&profile=acpwa>
This video is from 2022:
"Armed Thieves Target Cyclists in East Bay Hills"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7P-Josj0WY>
Two points:
1) "Let's super-saturate our country with guns. What could go wrong?"
2) And yet, Tom continues to live in that hellhole he hates, despite
his millions.
to be fair, it's only 1 million - even after earning a stellar $10/month
for over 5 years now.
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:49:35 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 05:53:58 -0700, John B.
<jbslocomb@fictitious.site> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 06:06:07 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 11:25 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:All this ge-gaw ignores the fact that more then 40% of US adults live
On 6/19/2025 4:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 00:31:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"If a person does get a gun for "protection," they or someone in their >>>>>> household becomes much more likely to get shot"
--Krygowski
Nonsense. There are probably more people who bought a gun for
protection who have not been shot, than people who bought a gun for >>>>>> protection who have been shot.
Wow.
Can one of Mr. Tricycle Rider's allies please explain his logic mistake >>>>> to him? I'm beyond trying to help him learn to think.
If he would have bothered to read the study, he'd know that there are in >>>>fact more people who bought a gun for protection who have not been shot >>>>than people who bought a gun for protection who have been shot.
The fact that he thinks the study is bogus because more people who >>>>bought a gun for protection who have not been shot than people who >>>>bought a gun for protection who have been shot shows that he didn't read >>>>the study, and if he did, he didn't understand it.
The claim "there are more people who bought a gun for protection who >>>>have not been shot, than people who bought a gun for protection who have >>>>been shot" does not negate the the conclusion of the study that having a >>>>gun in your home makes you more likely to get shot.
It's likely that the dumbass will never be able to understand the >>>>distinction because:
a) he reading comprehension is too weak to understand statistical analysis >>>>2) his automatically dismisses anything not fed to him by his magatard >>>>echo chamber.
but as I mentioned before, trying to expose him to new concepts and use >>>>objective rationale has little more possibility of success that trying >>>>to convince a dog not to lick it's own ass.
IOW - it's just the willfully ignorant dumbass being a willfully >>>>ignorant dumbass.
in a household where there are guns. >>>https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/42-percent-the-number-of-adults-living-in-a-home-with-a-gun/
Given that the population is about 347,215,206 that is a lot of people >>>and as we are told that living with guns is so dangerous one would >>>assume that the U.S. will become a barren uninhabited desert .
But it isn't, is it. It grew some 841,526 in 2025.
Only 2% of the population is psychotic. Problem is, they have
a "right" to "keep and bear arms" too. There is no socialized medicine
in the US, so most go untreated. Some MAGAtards think they should go
to jail. Jail is NOT a place for people that are ill.
They are the main problem, though thousands or "normal" people
die from suicide and while handling guns inappropriately.
[]'s
Given that more people die in auto "accidents" then die in firearm
homicides shouldn't we have tests for psychotic auto owners also?
On 6/22/2025 8:23 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/21/2025 11:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/20/2025 11:18 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 17:28:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/20/2025 12:39 PM, cyclintom wrote:(...)
Frank, on Tuesday I had dinner with my cop friend who saved my
life, and breakfast the next morning. He told me that there were 5 >>>>>> cases of bicyclists being held up at gunpoint on Redwood Road and
their wallets and bicycles stolen.
Wow. That's horrible, Tom! Five cases in what length of time?
I don't believe Tom's version, but the story might have been for real
3 years ago. The reason I don't believe it is that Redwood Rd was
closed for an unknown number of years. I don't want to slog through
this mess trying to find the closing and reopening dates:
<https://acsearch.acgov.org/s/search.html?
query=redwood+road&collection=acpwa&form=acpwa&profile=acpwa>
This video is from 2022:
"Armed Thieves Target Cyclists in East Bay Hills"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7P-Josj0WY>
Two points:
1) "Let's super-saturate our country with guns. What could go wrong?"
2) And yet, Tom continues to live in that hellhole he hates, despite
his millions.
to be fair, it's only 1 million - even after earning a stellar $10/month
for over 5 years now.
oops, tom claims his investments are making ~$10,000 a month, not $10.
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 09:39:03 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/22/2025 8:23 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 6/21/2025 11:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/20/2025 11:18 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 17:28:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/20/2025 12:39 PM, cyclintom wrote:(...)
Frank, on Tuesday I had dinner with my cop friend who saved my
life, and breakfast the next morning. He told me that there were 5 >>>>>>> cases of bicyclists being held up at gunpoint on Redwood Road and >>>>>>> their wallets and bicycles stolen.
Wow. That's horrible, Tom! Five cases in what length of time?
I don't believe Tom's version, but the story might have been for real >>>>> 3 years ago. The reason I don't believe it is that Redwood Rd was
closed for an unknown number of years. I don't want to slog through >>>>> this mess trying to find the closing and reopening dates:
<https://acsearch.acgov.org/s/search.html?
query=redwood+road&collection=acpwa&form=acpwa&profile=acpwa>
This video is from 2022:
"Armed Thieves Target Cyclists in East Bay Hills"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7P-Josj0WY>
Two points:
1) "Let's super-saturate our country with guns. What could go wrong?"
2) And yet, Tom continues to live in that hellhole he hates, despite
his millions.
to be fair, it's only 1 million - even after earning a stellar $10/month >>> for over 5 years now.
oops, tom claims his investments are making ~$10,000 a month, not $10.
Tom's monthly income varies:
12/30/2022 <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/8F27oh1Cy4s/m/yHneeKi8BAAJ> "When I said that I made $12,000 on my investments the previous month
I didn't mention that I made $20,000 the previous month."
08/15/2023 <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/qMylsLSMx_A/m/B_hJoZNfAQAJ> "I am making $40,000 a MONTH in interest. on my investments which are
now in protected tax free bond funds."
02/15/2024 <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/6t1qDqyJtsk/m/43AG-IZuAQAJ> "My latest investment report can in and it is !,114,000 or $13,000
more than last month"
06/10/2025 <https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=127453&group=rec.bicycles.tech#127453>
"I had made $30,000 which brought me back to the point before the
losses in April"
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:54:26 |
| Calls: | 10,387 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,060 |
| Messages: | 6,416,667 |
