On 2/13/2025 10:15 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/13/2025 12:04 AM, John B. wrote:
I wonder whether the below is of interest to anyone?
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/5/25/how-alternative-facts-
threaten-us-democracy
It seems to provide a very sad state for the U.S. political system.
pffffft.
Peruse any 'fact check' site to see how the most slanted bias prefers to call itself 'fair and objective'.
Examples? And examples of their bias?
Did Trump really get millions more votes than Biden in 2020?
Are most glaciers worldwide not really shrinking?
Did COVID treatments really kill more people than the disease did?
ISTM that most people who complain about common fact checking outlets
really mean "My beliefs conflict with their facts."
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 04:01:53 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 13:04:50 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
I wonder whether the below is of interest to anyone? >>https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/5/25/how-alternative-facts-threaten-us-democracy
It seems to provide a very sad state for the U.S. political system.
I read a wee bit of it, but generally, no, political "analysis" of any >kind, from any point of view is of no interest to me.
Regarding news, I only want to know what has happened. I have no
interest in someone's opinions of why it happened or what might happen >next.
It's almost impossible to find "hard news." If I want to know what >happened, I have to look through several news sources and filter out
the new sources' agendas. Popular mass media is well down the list of
where I'll be looking.
If the question is, "who do you trust?"
As for me, I only trust the people who I've gotten to know close up
and have proven themselves to be trustworthy.
If the question is, "who do you believe?"
As for me, in regards to people I haven't established as trustworthy,
I seldom believe what they say, only what they do.
I pay almost zero attention to speeches, political, religious, or >commercial.
Ah,but's true news? Most of the excuses for the revolutionary war were
lies. The tea dumped in Boston harbor would have, due to a change in
English tax laws, sold for a cheaper price then the illegal tea
smuggled in illegally by Boston ship owners.
The Spanish American War was certainly, partially due to a fight for
readers by the New York Journal and the New York World who were
involved in their own battle to sell the most newspapers - war would
be just what they need to boost sales.
Ah. Well, that's one opinion piece. Is it accurate? How should we check? Shall we go down that rabbit hole?
I'll agree there is bias across the political - and probably every other
- spectrum. But as usual, I think it's foolish to point to one or
several incidences of failure and use that, as some do, to condemn an
entire system.
You, Andrew, have a tendency to do that with laws, with implications
that because a certain law is not 100% obeyed or enforced, that laws are worthless. (I'm aware that you're careful not to say that outright, but
only by implication.)
Our tricycle rider has a strong tendency to do that with any information source other than his own imagination. He proudly says or implies that
no outside sources can be trusted, and that he alone can tell what facts
are real and true.
Again, bias exists. But there are actual truths, and not every opinion
is correct. On most issues, it should be possible to do sufficient
tests, or research, to determine what is true and what is not. The
hardest part is finding people who will agree that their own biases are mistaken.
To finish with a compliment, you're one of the few people here who has admitted from time to time that you were wrong.
Was that said officially in the US? Certainly even with Boris who well does like an mis truth or two! They talked about flattening the curve ie keeping folks out of hospital which the vaccines will reduce the probability, but also with lockdowns to slow infection down as the vaccine will not stop
that, thats why lockdowns where needed to prevent intensive care being overwhelmed.
As I recall, in Ohio Dr. Amy Acton did talk about the vaccine and social distancing flattening the curve. I don't recall any statements that the vaccine would be 100% effective in preventing contagion, and I'd be very surprised if that was said, since AFAIK no vaccines are 100% effective.
There's been far too much Monday Morning Quarterbacking about Covid.
People on one side of politics seem to forget that when infections first spread, hospitals were absolutely overwhelmed, even formerly healthy
people were dying, medical staff were working non-stop, triage tents
were set up in hospital parking lots, etc. The virus was an unknown and
was causing great damage.
Certainly, some initial scientific findings were errors. But that's a
normal part of science: People do research, publish findings, others try
to replicate, and mistakes are corrected. Given the crisis at hand,
health and government officials were not wrong to bet on safety, even if
some of the steps (like washing down door handles) ultimately turned out
to have low value.
People on one side of the political spectrum seem to have a tendency
toward absolutism. One scientific mistake tells them _all_ science is useless. One failed law tells them _all_ laws are useless. One bad
politician tells them _all_ politicians are useless - except their own,
of course.
The world is a bit more complicated than that.
https://www.rev.com/transcripts/joe-biden-covid-vaccine-booster-shots-speech-briefing-transcript
Although there may be someone holding the beliefs you
exaggerate above, none of them correspond here on RBT. Many
people, I included, think any assertion, scientific or
otherwise, ought to withstand inquiry, testing and
corroboration. Sadly, this is now a critical existential
issue among the sciences as errors in published papers,
forcing withdrawal, is skyrocketing, whether due to outright
fraud or rank incompetence. There are hardly enough people
replicating procedures to verify conclusions in scientific
papers and if there were more that would likely expose yet
more error.
And in the instant case, politicians should also not be
exempt from inquiry, testing and verification of their
assertions.
On 2/15/2025 1:45 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/15/2025 11:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/15/2025 9:49 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
How about some low hanging fruit? The Official Policy
Statement, which was enforced by censorship and
manipulation, was that the mRNA jab would prevent
contraction of the Wuhan virus and block contagion as well
(those constituting the definition of a vaccine). Neither
is actually true.
The interested reader might peruse the record of 'fact
check' statements on that. Other examples abound.
Was that said officially in the US? Certainly even with Boris who
well does
like an mis truth or two! They talked about flattening the curve ie
keeping
folks out of hospital which the vaccines will reduce the probability,
but
also with lockdowns to slow infection down as the vaccine will not stop >>> that, thats why lockdowns where needed to prevent intensive care being >>> overwhelmed.
As I recall, in Ohio Dr. Amy Acton did talk about the vaccine and
social distancing flattening the curve. I don't recall any statements
that the vaccine would be 100% effective in preventing contagion, and
I'd be very surprised if that was said, since AFAIK no vaccines are
100% effective.
There's been far too much Monday Morning Quarterbacking about Covid.
People on one side of politics seem to forget that when infections
first spread, hospitals were absolutely overwhelmed, even formerly
healthy people were dying, medical staff were working non-stop, triage
tents were set up in hospital parking lots, etc. The virus was an
unknown and was causing great damage.
Certainly, some initial scientific findings were errors. But that's a
normal part of science: People do research, publish findings, others
try to replicate, and mistakes are corrected. Given the crisis at
hand, health and government officials were not wrong to bet on safety,
even if some of the steps (like washing down door handles) ultimately
turned out to have low value.
People on one side of the political spectrum seem to have a tendency
toward absolutism. One scientific mistake tells them _all_ science is
useless. One failed law tells them _all_ laws are useless. One bad
politician tells them _all_ politicians are useless - except their
own, of course.
The world is a bit more complicated than that.
https://www.rev.com/transcripts/joe-biden-covid-vaccine-booster-shots- speech-briefing-transcript
That's a pretty long reading assignment. But skimming it, I didn't see
where he claimed 100% protection. Again, AFAIK no vaccine does 100%. I
don't think it was ever promised or anticipated by anyone with decent knowledge.
Although there may be someone holding the beliefs you exaggerate above, none of them correspond here on RBT. Many people, I included, think any assertion, scientific or otherwise, ought to withstand inquiry, testing
and corroboration. Sadly, this is now a critical existential issue
among the sciences as errors in published papers, forcing withdrawal, is skyrocketing, whether due to outright fraud or rank incompetence. There
are hardly enough people replicating procedures to verify conclusions in scientific papers and if there were more that would likely expose yet
more error.
It would help if you would give relevant examples. Yes, I'm aware that
there is and has been scientific fraud. But it's a small percentage of
the output of Science, and it doesn't mean that we should pretend the
entire mechanism of science should be ignored.
As far as people on RBT espousing the views I paraphrased, most people
are careful to make implications rather than outright statements. You
have made many, many remarks disparaging various laws with words like
"How's that law working out?" Was I wrong to interpret that as "Laws
don't work"?
Our bike path tricycle rider has many times disparaged almost all
sources of information - except, somehow, the ones he chooses to listen to.
John has many times implied that all? or most? studies are biased to worthlessness, repeating his anecdote about a man who claimed he can
make any study yield whatever data is desired.
Tom goes so far as to claim that there was a major recession and stock
market crash during Obama's term, despite mountains of info proving that false.
And in the instant case, politicians should also not be exempt from inquiry, testing and verification of their assertions.
Yes, there have been problems. I'm fully aware. But I'm also aware that
good science greatly exceeds faulty science.
So what's the solution to the problems that exist in science? To label
_all_ scientific studies worthless? To rely on Ouija boards or medieval biblical studies for the truth? To say there is no such thing as truth,
or that all opinions are equally valid? To champion ignorance, and
disparage knowledge, education, science? Really?
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...)
On 2/17/2025 11:43 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
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.
:-) "Places with restrictions on weapons have less use of them" is
_very_ hard for some people to understand!
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.
Canadians average about 37 guns per 100 citizens. Americans average
about 120 guns per 100 citizens. And Canada restricts gun types. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Canada
Yes, some people in both nations are hunters, farmers, etc. with
rational and practical reasons for owning guns. Some are target shooting hobbyists. But the U.S. dominates in the number of people who are so
afraid that they feel they _must_ have a gun for "protection."
Despite the paucity of guns intended for "protection," Canadians don't
seem to suffer from hordes of bad guys beating down front doors of
homes. And I've not read of Canadian bike path users suffering from
vicious attacks - although I suppose anything is possible!
On 2/17/2025 9:15 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Odd you mention socialism. Mexico wrote the world's first socialist Constitution. How's that going for the first 100 years? Any positive results yet?
:-) Ah! A change in topic!
It seems that "socialism," however you define it, doesn't work as well
in Mexico as it does in, say, Norway, Netherlands, Finland, France,
Germany, Canada, etc. etc. etc.
But by many measures, those countries work at least as well as the U.S.
You've brought up that anecdote many, many times in response to a study
that showed results you didn't like. Your clear implication was that
studies are not to be trusted.
On 2/16/2025 8:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:17:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:48:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
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." ...
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.
I did not say "the gun was at fault." I said those in houses with guns
are more likely to suffer serious violence than those in houses without
guns, no matter where they live. I don't blame the gun. I blame the
people owning and/or using the gun. But nevertheless, those who got the
gun "for protection" tend to come out worse.
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.
OK, John, if you were a researcher, what data would you use to answer
this question:
Are people living in a house with a gun safer or more at more danger
than people living in a house with no gun?
Remember, to a researcher, tales of your childhood don't count as
research. Neither do your strongly held opinions. You need good data.
(I suspect you'll evade answering my question.)
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 19:31:53 GMT, cyclintom <[email protected]>
wrote:
Frank is scared shitless of guns.
Tom, I would be more afraid of you than of Frank:
(07/20/2013)
"SLPD Handcuffs Good Samaritan and Ransacks His Home" <http://sanleandrotalk.voxpublica.org/2013/07/20/no-good-deed-goes-unpunished-slpd-handcuffs-good-samaritan-ransacks-his-home-over-100-year-old-gun/>
Note that the article was written by Tom based on his comments to
previous article bashing the San Leandro PD: <http://sanleandrotalk.voxpublica.org/2011/06/13/time-to-clean-up-the-san-leandro-police-department/#comment-3237>
lol...as if anyone should accept your perverted interpretation of "masculinity"
On 2/17/2025 3:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
City of Chicago, with among the most restrictive regulation in the
country (even yet, in defiance of a specific Supreme Court ruling) is 2,665,000 people and suffers 550~650 firearm homicides per year.
Haven't you been paying attention Andrew? SCOTUS has no relevance anymore.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:36:53 GMT, cyclintom <[email protected]>
wrote:
Not to mention DA's releasing murderers on no cash bail during Biden...
Well, problem solved. Trump's not going to release any
murderers, (unless they are nazis of course) for 4 years, unless he
dies of senility or is impeached, so your crime rate will tend to
zero......
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 07:13:24 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:22:02 -0500, Frank Krygowski ><[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/17/2025 9:15 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/17/2025 7:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/17/2025 3:40 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/17/2025 2:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/17/2025 11:43 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Despite the paucity of guns intended for "protection," Canadians >>>>>> don't seem to suffer from hordes of bad guys beating down front
doors of homes. And I've not read of Canadian bike path users
suffering from vicious attacks - although I suppose anything is
possible!
Right and as noted by Mr Tricycle (and others here over the years) >>>>> Canada enjoys much smaller rates of crime and especially violent
crime overall. Different culture, different population densities,
etc.? Mexico conversely has even more restrictive firearms regulation >>>>> than Canada, and those statutes are many times older, and yet violent >>>>> crime and especially homicide by firearm are radically higher in
Mexico. Different culture with many differences, not only regarding >>>>> homicide.
Mexico is famous for its relatively weak government, its drug cartels >>>> and their control over various levels of government, its massive
illegal importation of American guns, its income inequality, its lack >>>> of legal income opportunities, etc. Yes, there are many factors, but >>>> prevalence of guns is absolutely a big contributor to their problems. >>>> (How much power would the cartels have without guns?)
Of the factors I listed, note how many apply to young American guys
living in inner city ghettos. The situation is much the same. And of >>>> course, in the U.S. efforts to (e.g.) reduce income inequality get
blasted as "socialism," and efforts to restrict the flow of guns are >>>> blasted as "unconstitutional." But without the guns, the murder rate >>>> would have to be much lower. It's a fact that one gang can't quickly >>>> kill four of the opposing gang just by using clubs and knives. It's
just not practical.
Canadians can and do get the guns they need for legitimate uses. The >>>> restrictions are no great burden on them. And partly because their
criminal types have much more trouble getting and keeping guns,
ordinary citizens don't feel the need to nurture Quick Draw fantasies. >>>>
Odd you mention socialism. Mexico wrote the world's first socialist
Constitution.? How's that going for the first 100 years? Any positive
results yet?
:-) Ah! A change in topic!
It seems that "socialism," however you define it, doesn't work as well
in Mexico as it does in, say, Norway, Netherlands, Finland, France, >>Germany, Canada, etc. etc. etc.
But by many measures, those countries work at least as well as the U.S.
That's nonsense. The USA is by far, the most powerful and influential >entity in the world. The countries that Krygowski stated above live
under the protection umbrella of the USA.
Well, that's our boy. Isn't it.
Just yesterday Frank was ranting and raving that I was posting my
experiences and they weren't backed by any "data" and here he is doing
the same thing.
I just looked up Canada as a socialistic country and was inform,ed
that in Canada: "Canada does have some areas of public life that are controlled by the government. For example, libraries, the police
force, and the healthcare system do not operate within a free market. Instead, they are operated as public goods and their budget are paid
for through general taxation."
So much for Frank's statements - Struck out on the first pitch, as it
were :-)
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 21:36:41 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <[email protected]>guns per citizen" and it is likely to be higher than the US since Canada was open frontier for much longer. Guns were necessary7 to feed yourself.
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 07:37:11 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 11:32:35 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <[email protected]> >>wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 19:55:05 -0600, AMuzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/18/2025 7:31 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:36:53 GMT, cyclintom <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon Feb 17 15:20:06 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
Canadians average about 37 guns per 100 citizens. Americans average >>>>>>> about 120 guns per 100 citizens. And Canada restricts gun types. >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Canada
Yes, some people in both nations are hunters, farmers, etc. with >>>>>>> rational and practical reasons for owning guns. Some are target shooting
hobbyists. But the U.S. dominates in the number of people who are so >>>>>>> afraid that they feel they _must_ have a gun for "protection." >>>>>>>
Despite the paucity of guns intended for "protection," Canadians don't
seem to suffer from hordes of bad guys beating down front doors of >>>>>>> homes. And I've not read of Canadian bike path users suffering from >>>>>>> vicious attacks - although I suppose anything is possible!
Frank, as I said elsewhere, you cannot bring yourself to think before posting. 1. Guns last practically forever and modern repeaters showed up in the 1860's 2. Therefore neither you nor the Canadian government have the slightest idea of the "
father corrupt to his very core?
As for lower rates of murder - Canada is s much more homogenous society far less likely to have disputes over customs and morales. Not to mention DA's releasing murderers on no cash bail during Biden whom you loved like a father. Was your own
Here is Liebermann's opening to support your stupid 309 guns per 100 Canadian citizens.
Where is this mythical "here" that you claim quotes my comments on >>>>> Frank posting a Wikipedia article on Firearms regulations in Canada? >>>>> In the years I've been posting to rec.bicycles.tech, I have mentioned >>>>> guns perhaps 3 times. All were technical corrections and none of them >>>>> were recent.
Tom, you're hallucinating that I said anything. Have you been using >>>>> AI software to invent your tales? Better yet, are you really an AI in >>>>> disguise instead of a human? It would seem to be the case if you're >>>>> hallucinating in a similar manner.
Why, he's almost as bright as you (sic).
Improper use of "sic".
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic>
Where is the mythical quotation and error in the above "bright" quote? >>>>>
Change-o-topic:
Has anyone actually tried using an rust prevention concoction such as >>>>> lanolin (sheep oil) based Fluid Film for preventing rust and
corrosion?
<https://www.fluid-film.com>
<https://www.fluid-film.com/products/>
<https://www.fluid-film.com/recreation-applications/>
If so, which version and did it work?
I have not, although linseed oil is effective for a few years.
Thanks. I've tried linseed oil and had storage problems. The bottle >>>would turn rancid after about 5 years. That's a problem with all the >>>plant based oils. Of the various plant based oils, I'm told that >>>linseed oil lasts the longest before starting to stink. Still, it's >>>worth another try.
In the 1990s, products appeared with various mixes including
oxalic acid to convert the red unstable rust to a black iron
oxide which holds primers and paint better. Has to sit 24
hours dry before coating, cheap at any auto parts store.
With the cold weather and high humidity when it's raining, I have to
be careful when to paint. I've painted things in winter, and had to >>>wait until summer for the paint to dry. I've been using a rust >>>converter, which works tolerably well if I use a dehumidifier. >>><https://www.acehardware.com/departments/home-and-decor/cleaning-and-disinfectants/rust-removers/10009>
More recently I've used the newer paints which react with
and bond to red rust (wire brush away loose material and
then paint it- no primer). A bit pricey but very effective.
Depends on your project I suppose.
I hadn't heard about that. I really don't want to paint on top of
rust (or iron phosphate). I'll ask at the local hardware store.
Thanks for the info.
Note: I still haven't tried olive oil for polishing automobile paint.
You might want to look into marine paints as there are steel hull
boats that are painted and don't have rust problems. >>https://www.epifanes.nl/uk/blog/how-to-paint-a-steel-boat >>https://www.boatdesign.net/threads/what-is-the-best-paint-for-a-steel-sailboat.20036/
https://www.taindustrialpaints.co.uk/collections/marine-metal-paints
I don't believe that's a good idea. Marine hull paints include
various rust preventive chemicals. Those would certainly be welcome
in my shower. They also include anti-fouling chemicals formulated to
kill hard and soft organisms (barnacles, mussels, slime, seaweed,
hydroids, algae, biofilms, etc) that can foul the hull. To the best
of my limited knowledge, the protective chemicals are all poisons, and
skin contact is considered dangerous. That would seem to be a bad
idea for my shower.
There might be a product available that only deals with corrosion
problems and leaves out the dangerous chemicals. Maybe: ><https://www.bottompaintstore.com/boat-bottom-paint-c-13523.html>
A little quick skimming seems to indicate that "boat bottom paints"
are all intended to be anti-fouling and therefore not suitable for my >shower. I'll dig deeper (time permitting).
Thanks much.
Yup, I skipped a beat there. A metal hull is usually painted with two
types of paint which I had intended to point out. A topside paint is
intended to protect the upper hull from sun and water and to wear well
waver and a "bottom" paint which contains something to limit re the
growth of things and stuff below the waterline.
See https://www.boatus.com/expert-advice/expert-advice-archive/2014/april/how-long-does-boat-bottom-paint-last
for difference.
Marine paint shops usually list paint contents as most boat people are
(while not necessarily knowledgeably) rather set in their ways and
want "THAT" paint and not any other. Particularly with anti fouling
paints.
One problem is that general speaking marine paint is sold in large
buckets and may be more then you need.
But look around as I did find shops that would decant into smaller
cans.
On 2/15/2025 4:17 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 22:57:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Nobody told me what to believe about you, Mr. Tricycle. I came to my own >> conclusions by reading your posts.
That was because I did what you narcissists can't stand. I discounted
your opinion and then I suggested that I am probably more experienced
than you.
You've done nothing.
Whine or run away... your choice.
Best practice: Ignore the troll.
oh, but he does. As the link above shows, He claims - on his resume - he received a BA in Navigation* from a college that doesn't give BAs**, in response to his employer asking him to get a degree in order to qualify
for a management position (a degree in navigation for an engineering management position?!). That not to ignore the fact that he (allegedly)
got a 4-year degree in 4 years while working full time for a company
that only employed him for 4 years.
Perhaps he was unable
to comply with their request.
"perhaps"?....lol
*At least, that's what is implied with:
"general education - Degree in navigation
Tality requested I get a BA so that they could promote me to department manager
Chabot College - Hayward, CA"
**https://www.chabotcollege.edu/academics/programs.php
He later tried to backtrack and say he got it from Marin College, which
also doesn't have a Batchelor program: https://marin.elumenapp.com/catalog/current/graduation-and-degree-requirements#mainContent
While it doesn't matter much to me, Tom's drivel does not say he earned
any degree but "navigation." Tality may have requested he get a BA, but
he does not list a BA as part of his credentials. Perhaps he was unable
to comply with their request.
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.
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.
First, your assertion is almost certainly wrong. See https://www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-the-guns-make-us-safer-myth/
Second, it doesn't address the question at hand. Again, what researchers
have found is not people in gun households getting shot by home
invaders. Instead, they find its FAR more common that one person in a
gun household is shot by another person living in the same house.
I've known two women who were beaten and threatened with death by their husbands, before their divorces. Both were sure that if the relationship continued, they would have been killed. The most likely tool would have
been the guy's gun.
One can only gaze with amazement at your experiences. I've lived in a
six States, served in the A.F. for 20 years and lived in 5 foreign
countries and I've never known anyone who beat their partner, male or
female. Although I or my wife did know a few couples where the wife
"cheated" on the husband and might have been thought to deserve it.
Since John has never seen a man abuse his wife, wife abuse does not exist.
Nope. I'm sure that they do exist. I merely indicated that, at least
in my experience, they are not common.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/07/16/democrats-masculinity-roundtable-00106105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 04:10:24 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:06:25 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:51:56 -0500, Frank Krygowski >><[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/17/2025 9:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:15:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
I've known two women who were beaten and threatened with death by their >>>>> husbands, before their divorces. Both were sure that if the relationship
continued, they would have been killed. The most likely tool would have >>>>> been the guy's gun.
One can only gaze with amazement at your experiences. I've lived in a >>>> six States, served in the A.F. for 20 years and lived in 5 foreign
countries and I've never known anyone who beat their partner, male or >>>> female.
To be clear: I didn't know either of the men in the relationships I >>>described. I knew both of the women very well. I still don't know many >>>of the details, because it wasn't something I really wanted to talk >>>about with either of them.
And of course, you'll be quick to deny the details I do know.
But a person would be a fool to deny that sort of stuff happens.
I didn't say that things didn't or don't happen, I said that in all my >>years I hadn't seen it happen.
But perhaps I was looking in the wrong direction as your description,
I didn't know either of the men in the relationships I described. I
knew both of the women very well." rather gives a whole new picture, >>doesn't it - You know a "woman well" and her husband objects to it to >>the point that he beats her, gives your statement a whole new
meaning, doesn't it.
Perhaps you are lucky that your wife didn't also discover your >>philandering.
I have to disagree with that presumption. Something like that requires >courage, a willingness to take a risk, and at least a little
masculinity. Krygowski possesses none of those attributes.
You mean that he lisps when he talks?
On 2/18/2025 7:25 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:20:07 +0700, John B. <[email protected]>
wrote:
If the
city of Chicago were to pass a law that anyone poses sing a firearm
in their home would be subject to $50,000 fine and 1 year in jail. or
what penalty would be required to ensure compliance with the law.
What would be the effect on crime in the city (?-)
Probably an increase in crime, especially home invasions.
:-) So, so scary!!!
Damn, such paranoia!
On 2/17/2025 11:54 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Is there criminal use of firearms? Yes there is.
Your reference claims the highest estimates of defensive use are overstated. OK, that is inherent to a range of estimates from many sources.
The fact remains that people do defend themselves, and choose to arm themselves at increasing rates, particularly black women:
https://www.essence.com/news/black-women-gun-ownership-rise/
trend continues, updated:
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2024/10/21/ growing_diversity_of_gun_owners_nationwide_1066453.html
This says to me that they understand their own situation, neighborhood
and risk levels better than you understand their lives.
Sorry, no. It says they _believe_ they understand the risk levels. They _believe_ that getting a gun will make them safer. They _believe_ that there's a reasonable chance they'll use it in self defense. But their
belief does not make those facts true.
We mentioned that the NRA has admitted that the odds of needing a gun
for defense are infinitesmal.
https://www.mediamatters.org/national-rifle-association/nra-commentary-admits-odds-needing-gun-defend-yourself-are-infinitesimal
Infinitesmal on the order of randomly shuffling a deck of cards into
perfect sorted order.
As with all discussions involving probability and large data sets, it
does not mean that it's absolutely impossible to need a gun for defense.
But it does mean that something over 99% of the people who _think_
they'll need it are wrong.
If this were an issue being bet on at Las Vegas, the smart money would certainly not bet in favor of needing a gun.
On 3/3/2025 1:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/3/2025 10:48 AM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Feb 17 11:15:26 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
First, your assertion is almost certainly wrong. See
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-the-guns-make-us-
safer-myth/
Second, it doesn't address the question at hand. Again, what researchers >>> have found is not people in gun households getting shot by home
invaders. Instead, they find its FAR more common that one person in a
gun household is shot by another person living in the same house.
I've known two women who were beaten and threatened with death by their >>> husbands, before their divorces. Both were sure that if the relationship >>> continued, they would have been killed. The most likely tool would have >>> been the guy's gun.
Frank, it is a good thing that you're not within reach or I would make
you a permanent cripple using only my hands which you could have
prevented if you had a gun handy.
:-) Wow! You're SO scary, Tom!
tommy tough guy!!!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 25:36:48 |
| Calls: | 12,106 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,183 |