Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Ove Interest?
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 09:55:48 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 128
Message-ID: <vqcd1k$304r9$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vq7b0j$1v155$1@dont-email.me>
 <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> <vqbahm$2rafp$2@dont-email.me>
 <fipisj9h152rk7hjnu38soldm0ppcm70al@4ax.com> <vqcccj$30mo6$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2025 15:55:49 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e3a311516feb02ba7522a563237848ea";
	logging-data="3150697"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/FcEC4jpEDdnzgSc+vuVzmE42I9WeFuHo="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PgyrTLOlYmbbOXcezFYmfULP1ec=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vqcccj$30mo6$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6820

> On 3/6/2025 3:10 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 00:07:01 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/5/2025 11:38 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 19:31:40 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Which reminds me of John's personal tale of a real home invasion. That
>>> paragraph may explain (in part) why his gun did him no good at all. Only
>>> the most fearful homeowner would keep his gun on his person just in case
>>> someone burst into the home.
>>
>> True, but having a gun close at hand does not necessarily mean it has
>> to be on your person.
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Right. And even most target shooting for sport would probably do little
>>> to prevent that fumbling, because it doesn't usually involve super-fast
>>> grabbing the gun out of storage, quickly loading it, then quickly
>>> hitting a target. Practicing skills is a highly specific exercise.
>>
>> Having a gun locked up in storage makes it useless. Having a gun
>> unloaded makes it almost as useless. Best practice is fully loaded,
>> meaning one in the pipe and with safeties off.
>>
>>>>> And then there's negligence and yes, sadly, would-be
>>>>> defenders do shoot relatives and other innocents after
>>>>> hearing a bump in the night.
>>>
>>> And it's not just mistaking innocents by mistake. I'm sure that a much
>>> larger percentage of intra-household shooting victims are shot
>>> deliberately. A thug of a husband gets furious at his wife and blows her
>>> away.
>>
>> Very rare. The majority of male violence to females regard fists and
>> the notorious blunt objects. More likely the female has enough of the
>> male abuser and blows him away. That's not necessarily a bad thing.
>>
>>> Good points in those three paragraphs.
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> You're dancing away from the question at hand. I said all the data I've
>>> found indicates a gun in the home makes the occupants less safe, and
>>> more likely to be shot by that gun.
>>
>> <LOL> Correlation does not imply causation.

That's what research is for, and that's what the research confirmed. You 
have yet to counter with anything other than more than anecdotes and 
willfully ignorant misinformed opinion.

>>
>>> Your source said the same:  "After controlling for these
>>> characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly
>>> and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide
>>> (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4).
>>> Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or
>>> intimate acquaintance.
>>> "Conclusions: ... Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home
>>> are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family
>>> member or intimate acquaintance."
>>
>> Nonsense, but I believe that illegal drugs kept in the house might by
>> risky.

Again, just like john, you argue with nothing more than anecdotes and 
willfully ignorant misinformed opinion.

>>
>>> You don't seem to realize that you've yet again corroborated my
>>> position. You're failing at logic, John.
>>
>> You get to believe whatever you want, but I notice that in spite of
>> your continuous and monotonous rhetoric you've yet to convince anyone
>> else.

You're completely wrong
- You have no idea what the conclusions are by people who have not commented
- I've read the studies and find them convincing

What I'm not convinced by are your anecdotes and misinformed willfully 
ignorant opinions.

Try producing a study which contradicts what Frank (and now John) have 
posted and you might be able to sustain a rational argument. As of now, 
you're just being a typical willfully ignorant floriduh dumbass

>>
>> "One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over
>> again and expecting a different result."
>>
>> Are you insane?

yet you keep yapping at frank with your daddy issues as if it makes a 
difference, fucking hypocrite.

>>
>> -- 
>> C'est bon
>> Soloman
> 
>