On 1/18/14, 1:17 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 11:07:58 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 1/18/14, 10:33 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:01:49 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 1/18/14, 9:54 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 08:00:14 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
Look at the ages of your typical young men who are shooting up suburban
schools. "Very young, most of them." Is there a statistically
significant difference between the ages of urban and suburban shooters?
What was wrong with the parents of the Columbine shooters or Adam
Lanza's mother?
The point is, I think, is that there have been a great number of drastic
societal changes since the 1950s, and those changes, *including*
parenting and many, many other factors, have brought us the "shoot 'em
up" society we have today.
Sociology and other "people" sciences reveal many of the questions and
answers.
Here, these are the top 25 most dangerous neighborhoods in the country. Note how often Chicago and
Detroit are listed. Suburban school shootings, although horrific, account for a very, very, small
percent of the total.
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/nei...neighborhoods/
John, I know you have an agenda with your never ending repeating posts
about urban crime, but that's NOT what I was asking.
My question was, "Is there a statistically significant difference
between the ages of urban and suburban shooters?"
You and others were trying to make a point about the young age of
shooters, and you once again dropped in your urban slam, on the
assumption, I suppose, that it is only young urban kids who engage in
such behavior.
That would be an incorrect conclusion.
Further, the URL you just posted on dangerous neighborhoods doesn't
address the original point on "age," either.
Hey, I'm just the liberal arts graduate here, eh? I'm not the
math/science major some of you guys are. But I did pay attention in the
two college level statistics courses I took.
FOAD, I'm not the one with an 'agenda', I'm just pointing to data. I suppose the compilers of the
data may have an agenda. The fact is that if you take out the killings in those and similar
neighborhoods, the USA would probably rank right up there with Sweden in terms of 'safety'. Here's a
nice list of 'suspects' in DC homicides. Check out the ages. You'll find a large percent are under
25.
The point made about the young age of shooters is very valid.
I find it strange that your 'agenda' excludes the major sources of homicides in this country. You'll
grab an exception here and there, a la jps, and talk about how bad 'Merika (your word) is. Why is
that?
I asked if there were differences in age between the urban and suburban
shooters. I did not ask for one of your endless tirades about urban
violence. You bring up the urban violence in Chicago probably several
times a week. That seems to indicate you have an "agenda.
I don't think I bring up the urban violence in Chicago (or elsewhere) any more than you and jps
bring up the exceptional cases and use them to further your 'agenda'.
My "agenda" in the shootings revolves around our gun culture and the
easy access almost everywhere to firearms. It doesn't exclude any
geographic areas, since the shootings are taking place just about
everywhere.
Well then, rather than focus on the exceptions, focus on the problem!
I haven't the interest you obviously have in the ages and races of urban
shooters.
My bad. I thought you'd asked, "Is there a statistically
significant difference between the ages of urban and suburban shooters?"
Indeed, but I was looking for a difference, not more of your same
singling out of urban areas. As in, "Is there a statistically
significant difference between the ages of urban and suburban shooters?"
And, of course, I'm not nearly as interested in the ages and races as
you are. Not nearly as interested, as in, I don't mention age or race
(even obliquely) nearly as often as you do. Everyone understands what
you really are referring to when you keep bringing up Chicago. Wink.
wink. wink.