Path: ...!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Ove Interest?
Date: 17 Feb 2025 17:30:27 GMT
Lines: 145
Message-ID: <m1ha1jFhf3dU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <9ed2rjdp07d6kh573u6ghkdbcnjt0t1lrt@4ax.com>
 <voro9s$ekdl$1@dont-email.me>
 <dgc3rjph84p7gn62it0p52thhg0fb9lvvh@4ax.com>
 <82g3rj196rf6gou38ev0k232eu5h419jhp@4ax.com>
 <votfeh$ns08$3@dont-email.me>
 <lrh4rjpqrohdo3842c94fm5prb85mcvc8d@4ax.com>
 <jo05rj5g8vvnoe9rrm427qi8oajhaikmri@4ax.com>
 <dpu5rjdh7lkcfn2hbep1f7jriicfbklscb@4ax.com>
 <l266rjtgm0u9889f8bj1pnofoqc6ndpche@4ax.com>
 <8u86rjtd67dfp2vqop5tm2qvved9ifm42b@4ax.com>
 <m1h79cFh20eU1@mid.individual.net>
 <63r6rjprb64dv8qe7o813aiunatp6cfjvs@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net xKL2NCVY1i8vDqw/DPk8Kw0BnNlTOKoa/uNToT6Rm0DN0EL8Lu
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lQK3H9cOOjpoZ8RXKiu9dnmqaaY= sha1:mGUDux3hZEB04yCaDH/CrUGc3j0= sha256:JcuG2JCtI4WIR8XzLuzgY9ALbVXaiFEyk63MQsmEhbI=
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Bytes: 7818

Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
> On 17 Feb 2025 16:43:24 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
> 
>> Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 18:25:18 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 04:10:05 -0500, Catrike Ryder
>>>> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 08:34:16 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
>>>>>> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2025 5:48 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> well the gun in the house thing is certainly, correct.... as long as
>>>>>>>>> someone in the house wants to shoot you :-)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> But  I suspect that many people live in houses where the other partner
>>>>>>>>> doesn't want to shoot his, hers, its,  partner.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> What you posted, John, is blindingly obvious. But it avoids the point 
>>>>>>>> that I've made, and that data has confirmed.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> <LOL> Nonsense...  
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> A very large proportion of people with guns in the home say they have 
>>>>>>>> the gun for "protection." That is, they believe they are less likely to 
>>>>>>>> be subject to serious violence if they have a gun readily available.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with guns 
>>>>>>>> in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and that's 
>>>>>>>> true no matter where they live. The serious violence normally does not 
>>>>>>>> come from outsiders. It comes from someone in their own house.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Beyond that, the gun isn't very likely to be useful against outside 
>>>>>>>> aggressors, as your own personal story indicated.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I know you love guns, but what I've posted are the facts. You should be 
>>>>>>>> able to love guns while understanding that their value is highly overrated.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> "The data is clear that their assumption is false. The people with
>>>>>>> guns in the house are _more_ likely to suffer serious violence, and
>>>>>>> that's true no matter where they live."
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Nonsense, there's no data that even hints at such a thing. The idea
>>>>>>> that the reason someone might be "more likely to suffer serious
>>>>>>> violence" because they have a gun in their home is ridiculous beyond
>>>>>>> rational thought.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I suspect that if you were to study all cases of someone murdering
>>>>>> another person in the same household you will find many cases where a
>>>>>> gun was used. However that doesn't mean that it is the gun that is at
>>>>>> fault. As I've mentioned my own family had guns in the house for at
>>>>>> least three and counting my kids four generations with no problems and
>>>>>> growing up in rural New England guns were not uncommon, as I've said,
>>>>>> every farm family, for sure, had at one. How else to keep the fox out
>>>>>> of the chicken house.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I could go even further. In early colonial times, before any thought
>>>>>> of a nation some colonies had a law that every adult male MUST have a
>>>>>> weapon and bring them to church on Sunday so that a check could be
>>>>>> made that he actually had a weapon and ammunition. Strange, isn't it
>>>>>> that with a gun in every house in settlement there are no records of
>>>>>> massive gun deaths.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In short, the statement that a gun in the house is dangerious is just
>>>>>> what the "Anti Gunners" want to hear and so they repeat it over and
>>>>>> over and over.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The old saying that "guns don't shoot people, people shoot people"
>>>>>> really is true.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Krygowski insists that correlation implies causation, a common
>>>>> fallacious argument used by people who don't know any better.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I suspect that people who don't vote are more likely to suffer
>>>>> violence than people who do vote. If that were true, according to
>>>>> Krygowski's twisted "logic," not voting is dangerous.
>>>> 
>>>> I came across something today that references the danger of guns in
>>>> the house that Frankie would have us be live is a major danger.
>>>> that
>>>> https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2848468/
>>>> "During 2006 and 2007, again, approximately 70 percent of gun-shot
>>>> deaths were suicides."
>>>> 
>>>> So now Frankie is preventing suicides. He already justified killing
>>>> children in autos and now if he can just do away with the black pickup
>>>> trucks ...... (and that guy next door with the machine gun...)
>>> 
>>> OMG, OMG, OMG! Do you mean that if we take away people's guns nobody
>>> will be able to commit suicide, and nobody will be able to kill their
>>> domestic partners?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> C'est bon
>>> Soloman
>>> 
>> 
>> Opportunity is certainly seems to have a effect, on the whole places with
>> restrictions on weapons have less use of them, it’s certainly not a hard
>> concept to understand or equally can see it around the world.
>> 
>> This said your neighbours to the North who seem to have very broadly
>> similar set in terms of general set up, seem to do much less killing of
>> each other so unlikely Frank I’m unconvinced it’s the whole thing, clearly
>> if one has less access but unless I’m mistaken the Canadian have guns maybe
>> not as many but guns are about but they don’t have the levels of gun
>> violence that the US does.
>> 
>> Roger Merriman
> 
> There's very different cultures between big blue US cities where
> there's so much violent crime and Canadian cities. Guns are not the
> problem. The crime culture is the problem. Take away a criminal's gun
> and he still a criminal.
> 
> --
> C'est bon
> Soloman
> 
I’d note that in the UK while criminals I’m sure can get guns, because of
the response ie for career criminals or even folks somewhere in between,
Gun use means your now the priority and if your viewed as threat by a
firearm officer they will kill you.

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

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

Roger Merriman