Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Riding a bike a protection and in general
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:30:24 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <1034csg$6vne$3@dont-email.me>
References: <102na8l$144h0$1@dont-email.me> <102o1q2$1c79l$4@dont-email.me>
 <EFg4Q.1102994$mjgd.3302@fx09.iad>
 <ir935k5a2kso0npqj5q1atj98jimo4384v@4ax.com>
 <go245k9tds31rm7koiglquf6ss8mhhj2fq@4ax.com> <102uak5$33miq$2@dont-email.me>
 <6ko65k1vfknli2b2d3u22miiacr1cfa81p@4ax.com> <10303qt$3lqdl$4@dont-email.me>
 <o5h75kdppqj73uv0kr0c8sq4v1holbsjk6@4ax.com> <1031a5d$3uv0j$3@dont-email.me>
 <1033bqg$3pve5$7@dont-email.me> <sbka5kl5m3nanqrl8kgnt2voudor1td4fg@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 21:30:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="483e06f607cb227b2abbb8b5bd621a79";
	logging-data="229102"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18QtpTcuQE++3gWbB91tjtL0UL/efFbxe8="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TI+/oWZCSfSJsMilv18TFVVC3Ac=
In-Reply-To: <sbka5kl5m3nanqrl8kgnt2voudor1td4fg@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-US

On 6/20/2025 8:53 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 06:06:07 -0400, zen cycle
> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/19/2025 11:25 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 6/19/2025 4:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 00:31:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "If a person does get a gun for "protection," they or someone in their
>>>> household becomes much more likely to get shot"
>>>> --Krygowski
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense. There are probably more people who bought a gun for
>>>> protection who have not been shot, than people who bought a gun for
>>>> protection who have been shot.
>>>
>>> Wow.
>>>
>>> Can one of Mr. Tricycle Rider's allies please explain his logic mistake
>>> to him? I'm beyond trying to help him learn to think.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If he would have bothered to read the study, he'd know that there are in
>> fact more people who bought a gun for protection who have not been shot
>> than people who bought a gun for protection who have been shot.
>>
>> The fact that he thinks the study is bogus because more people who
>> bought a gun for protection who have not been shot than people who
>> bought a gun for protection who have been shot shows that he didn't read
>> the study, and if he did, he didn't understand it.
>>
>> The claim "there are more people who bought a gun for protection who
>> have not been shot, than people who bought a gun for protection who have
>> been shot" does not negate the the conclusion of the study that having a
>> gun in your home makes you more likely to get shot.
>>
>> It's likely that the dumbass will never be able to understand the
>> distinction because:
>> a) he reading comprehension is too weak to understand statistical analysis
>> 2) his automatically dismisses anything not fed to him by his magatard
>> echo chamber.
>>
>> but as I mentioned before, trying to expose him to new concepts and use
>> objective rationale has little more possibility of success that trying
>> to convince a dog not to lick it's own ass.
>>
>> IOW - it's just the willfully ignorant dumbass being a willfully
>> ignorant dumbass.
>>
> All this ge-gaw ignores the fact that more then 40% of US adults live
> in a household where there are guns.
> https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/42-percent-the-number-of-adults-living-in-a-home-with-a-gun/

It doesn't ignore that at all.

> 
> 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 if you use the dumbasses "logic". Nothing in any of the information 
presented by anyone supports the asinine perspective that owning a gun 
makes it _likely_ someone in the home will die from someone using the 
weapon.

There's a difference between 'likely' and 'more likely'. I'll leave that 
up to you two idiots to try and understand.

> --
> cheers,
> 
> John B.
> 


-- 
Add xx to reply