Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Ove Interest?
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2025 12:23:57 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 183
Message-ID: <5hljsjd5f5f7l6q0dm8nemjhmn05ptq7of@4ax.com>
References: <v1eesj1afpl0s266dieqqbf15kkjg986d4@4ax.com> <3j3fsjl1o2ve00dbrbqbirg73nmvk5tna0@4ax.com> <vq8jgp$295bb$2@dont-email.me> <0jkfsj9cn7dm5g6s90l1o01p8k3bem8qt9@4ax.com> <vq9us7$2g05k$2@dont-email.me> <o66hsj50vtkesfs1cq58dunkma5qe4qp8d@4ax.com> <vqab7g$2igoj$2@dont-email.me> <sdqhsj1g7m216gnkbeqmigb80h6jchhq0u@4ax.com> <vqattr$2ltco$1@dont-email.me> <am7isjh2seg9g7podldj34l5ch97gbr1us@4ax.com> <p3risjdg146hhif7q3rrqnsmeg6pkgkrp5@4ax.com> <vqcjq7$325io$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2025 18:24:00 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c47354688cee48e73c653b0dcfcd5380";
	logging-data="3233707"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+nal3yJcNAl9EwvxDDVrPjK4jwAGIPqRQ="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:EPQWiVUScwwLbpilLWdPY391X7M=

On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 11:51:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/6/2025 4:56 AM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Mar 2025 11:38:24 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 19:31:40 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/5/2025 6:34 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 14:12:33 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 12:35 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 11:41:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2025 11:41 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The subject of this post was originally "home shootings" and it
>>>>>>>>> appears that you are now slip sliding away from this  subject as the
>>>>>>>>> Swiss data shows that you don't know what you are talking about.
>>>>>>>> John, YOU were the one who "slip slided" away from data on American home
>>>>>>>> shootings, by pivoting to Switzerland gun ownership and shooting deaths.
>>>>>>>> You pretended not to notice that Switzerland has far, far lower gun
>>>>>>>> ownership rates than the U.S., and also has far lower gun homicide rates
>>>>>>>> than the U.S.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let's "slip slide" back to the question at hand, OK? Does having a gun
>>>>>>>> in an American home make the home safer or more dangerous? IOW, does a
>>>>>>>> gun make it less likely someone will be shot (presumably by "bad guys")
>>>>>>>> or _more_ likely someone will be shot - usually by another member of the
>>>>>>>> household?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The answer is: It's not even close. The guns make things more dangerous.
>>>>>>>> I've found NO data showing the gun makes a household safer. Instead:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally
>>>>>>>> justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven
>>>>>>>> criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Conclusions: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a
>>>>>>>> fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide
>>>>>>>> attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Overall rates of homicide were more than twice as high among
>>>>>>>> cohabitants of handgun owners than among cohabitants of nonowners
>>>>>>>> (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.78 to 3.05]). These elevated
>>>>>>>> rates were driven largely by higher rates of homicide by firearm
>>>>>>>> (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.83 [CI, 2.05 to 3.91]). Among homicides
>>>>>>>> occurring at home, cohabitants of owners had sevenfold higher rates of
>>>>>>>> being fatally shot by a spouse or intimate partner..."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can give more links - not that it will help. But those are two of the
>>>>>>>> studies that specifically set out to answer the question at hand. Other
>>>>>>>> studies found the same overall facts, and found they were true even in
>>>>>>>> "nice" neighborhoods, so don't pretend this is just a slum problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> These researchers came up with the questions above, and set out to
>>>>>>>> gather data and answer them. I've asked you several times how YOU would
>>>>>>>> answer the question in a scientific way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You've failed to answer that. So if you have data showing guns in the
>>>>>>>> house make it safer, post links already.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Easily munipulated "data" collected by gun haters.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fact is that massive numbers of poeple live with guns in their homes
>>>>>>> with no problems.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> C'est bon
>>>>>>> Soloman
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And yet something well past 100 million USAians are armed at
>>>>>> home.
>>>>>> Last night for example:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://710wor.iheart.com/content/2025-03-05-onlyfans-model-amouranth-opened-fire-on-thieves-during-robbery-attempt/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some people feel firearms are unnecessary, that a kind word
>>>>>> is enough. Again last night:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://ktla.com/news/local-news/gas-station-clerk-shot-point-blank-in-l-a-county-robbery-attempt/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's score that. The armed woman shot the criminal and was
>>>>>> unharmed. The unarmed clerk took a bullet point-blank and
>>>>>> fortunately lived to become another victim of The Medical
>>>>>> Billing Industry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Peruse the situation, make your own decision.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note the change in argument above. It started with did a gun in the
>>>>> home actually make the home more dangerious and as soon as evidence
>>>>> was posted that it just wasn't true in Switzerland Frank in a frantic
>>>>> effort to somehow prove his point has gone slipping sliding away to
>>>>> does a gun in the house make it safer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, it's a complex problem.
>>>>
>>>> Most people will never be in that situation. Trouble is, you
>>>> don't know that, and the incidence is not negligible.
>>>>
>>>> Successful defense has been made with baseball bats, knives
>>>> and other items. That is to say that while firearms can be
>>>> handy, they are not absolutely necessary. (for a 95lb woman,
>>>> a purse pistol makes more sense than a bat or a blade)
>>>>
>>>> Ownership of a firearm is one thing but being readily
>>>> accessible and ready to fire is another. Under many local
>>>> ordinances, firearms must be locked, which greatly stymies
>>>> defense when decisions are final in less than a second.
>>>>
>>>> Then there's software. Most firearms owners do not get
>>>> regular range time and so will more probably fumble away
>>>> decisive time or even shoot themselves than successfully
>>>> defend under sudden, immediate attack and under a wave of
>>>> adrenaline.
>>>>
>>>> And then there's negligence and yes, sadly, would-be
>>>> defenders do shoot relatives and other innocents after
>>>> hearing a bump in the night.
>>>>
>>>> So while I'm generally supportive of firearms for self
>>>> defense, especially home defense, I recognize this is a
>>>> varied, complex and unclear area in many aspects.
>>>
>>> I came across this study just the other day
>>> https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506
>>> a total of 420 home killing of which 209 were committed by firearm and
>>> 211 by other means.
>>>
>>> Now, any killing is a terrible thing but one has to view with some
>>> skepticism someone that ignores the major cause of death to emphasize
>>> the minor cause.
>>>
>>> Can his motives be viewed as impartial, or simply a means of
>>> emphasizing his own opinions.
>>>
>> 
>> Re Frank's opinion :-(
>> 
>> Some time ago I advanced the documented evidence that rural states
>> appeared to have fewer firearm homicides then urban and good old
>> Frankie said that didn't matter, But now see
>> https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1448529/
>> The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.87,
>> 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most rural
>> counties."
>> 
>> Which translate, in short, to the fact that Frankie  lied. The
>> question then becomes... can we believe anything he says. "-)
>
>Gosh, John, if only the question under discussion was urban vs. rural 
>firearm death rates! Then you might actually have a glimmer of a point - 
>a 3% difference. (3% is not much of a point, but I'm trying to be 
>charitable.)
>
>The question I've been discussing is the difference between households 
>with guns and households without guns. Your own post stated a near 
>tripling, i.e. 2.7 times more danger of getting shot. "keeping a gun in 
>the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased 
>risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7...)"
>
>You seem unwilling (or unable?) to focus on the question being 
>discussed. Is it a logic failure or a desperate attempt to change the 
>subject?


Krygowski has finally understood that correlation does not imply
causation, so now it's merely "associated with increased risk."

Risk, is, of course, a subjective evaluation, so in the objective
sense, his claim is illogical.

--
C'est bon
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========