Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: 8 & 9 year old girls riding bicycles
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2024 11:09:55 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <vkrs8k$122sr$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vkhm89$2h8fe$2@dont-email.me> <vkhpof$2h1bh$5@dont-email.me>
 <vki72v$2jua1$1@dont-email.me> <ds8pmjpog5pqp5qh8398h1vll4io6pc944@4ax.com>
 <vkibm0$2k6dp$4@dont-email.me> <vkjutj$31vi7$1@dont-email.me>
 <d12rmjp9frfabptifd3urpsfpti8q02c0b@4ax.com> <vklv5t$3hqna$1@dont-email.me>
 <4d3tmjpls6sgqp6oip46p5ac7rrgtjjcbh@4ax.com> <vkmegc$3l35p$8@dont-email.me>
 <vkmoh3$3npu0$1@dont-email.me> <tvrumjtb7855mroak7ih3fupt417g8b031@4ax.com>
 <vkp6e4$co6u$3@dont-email.me> <96b1njl212289anovffe9amjbhet5ml6i0@4ax.com>
Reply-To: frkrygow@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2024 17:09:57 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e565bf56673244fd5cddddfaabc3a975";
	logging-data="1117083"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX185lJqUmIEYX2uSuKnFHwafTI13pwuziUw="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wNIxDoEBWJcQC9jA6SV/akI0AFA=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <96b1njl212289anovffe9amjbhet5ml6i0@4ax.com>
Bytes: 4634

On 12/28/2024 9:07 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 10:45:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 12/27/2024 10:40 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 12:35:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/27/2024 9:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> ... shot with a gun in your home ...
>>>>>
>>>>> The question is whose firearm?  More likely by your own by negligence/
>>>>> misadventure or by the invader's weapon?  Decide and either arm yourself
>>>>> or not depending on your own risks and your own assessment of those risks.
>>>>
>>>> As I recall, a large portion of the gun deaths in the home happen to
>>>> wives or partners of men who own guns. Angry fights turn into shootings.
>>>>
>>>> And as I recall, those are much more common than armed home invasions.
>>>> Those are actually quite rare.
>>>>
>>>> As John has related in some detail, if someone does burst into your home
>>>> and threatens violence, having a gun in the home is very unlikely to help.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, that isn't true. I had a gun which was stored in the bedroom. I
>>> was sitting, eating, at the table, in a different room when the three
>>> guys kicked the door in and rushed into the house. Had I been in the
>>> bed room when it happened it would have been a different story.
>>
>> "Coulda, woulda, shoulda..."
>>
>> You had a gun in your house, probably for "protection." You are one of
>> the tiny percentage of Americans who ever suffer a true home invasion.
>> Your gun did you no good, because you don't go around inside your home
>> with your gun always within easy reach. That latter fact is true of
>> almost all gun owners.
>>
>> Deal with it.
>>
>>> The question of whether a gun in the house is useful is a far more
>>> complex problem then one single incident can explain. See
>>> https://www.heritage.org/gun-rights/commentary/11-more-cases-which-responsible-gun-owners-saved-lives
>>
>> Ah, eleven anecdotes, doubtlessly found by enthusiastic search! Versus
>> many, many hundreds of data points collected in unbiased and disciplined
>> scientific ways.
> 
> I'm beginning to think that you are some sort of phony. First you use
> one data point, i.e. my experience to "prove" your point and then
> condemn someone that used 11 times as many that prove you are wrong.
> 
> Is this some sort of psychic thing... "Right or wrong, I'm always
> right"?

I'm trying to communicate. I'd prefer to use study results generated by 
proper data collection and analysis. If the people here were more 
scientifically inclined, that should be sufficient for communication and 
discussion. It's what science does.

But I'm dealing with people who routinely post one or two anecdotes in 
attempts to "prove" that all data must be false. So in an attempt to 
communicate with them, I contribute an occasional anecdote.

Want to use _only_ large volume data in this discussion? I'm game. But 
it'll never happen.

-- 
- Frank Krygowski