Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Bad outcome
On 1/17/2014 10:48 PM, Califbill wrote:
amdx wrote: Watching Dr. Phil, the story is about four boys, 16 and 17 years old that decided to rob a vacant home. When they got into the home, it turns out the owner was home and came out with his gun. The home owner shot and killed one of the boys. Because of the murder* committed during the commission of a crime the three living boys were convicted of a murder and each sentenced to 50 years. I'm usually pretty hard on people that don't know what's theirs and what's not, but 50 years for a 16 year old is pretty tough. *not sure why they keep calling it a murder. If it is like California, if a murder is committed during a felony, all are guilty of murder, not just the one who did the actual killing. Basically all are guilty of the same crime. I understand that, but this one is different, in that the murder was committed by the home owner, not by the burglars. Just a bit of an oddity. Mikek |
#22
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Bad outcome
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/ |
#23
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Bad outcome
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. |
#24
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Bad outcome
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? |
#25
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Bad outcome
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. 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. I haven't the interest you obviously have in the ages and races of urban shooters. |
#27
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Bad outcome
amdx wrote:
On 1/17/2014 10:48 PM, Califbill wrote: amdx wrote: Watching Dr. Phil, the story is about four boys, 16 and 17 years old that decided to rob a vacant home. When they got into the home, it turns out the owner was home and came out with his gun. The home owner shot and killed one of the boys. Because of the murder* committed during the commission of a crime the three living boys were convicted of a murder and each sentenced to 50 years. I'm usually pretty hard on people that don't know what's theirs and what's not, but 50 years for a 16 year old is pretty tough. *not sure why they keep calling it a murder. If it is like California, if a murder is committed during a felony, all are guilty of murder, not just the one who did the actual killing. Basically all are guilty of the same crime. I understand that, but this one is different, in that the murder was committed by the home owner, not by the burglars. Just a bit of an oddity. Mikek Actually in Calif. If a death occurs it is murder. If the death happens during a crime. Does not really matter what caused the death, or who dies. |
#28
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Bad outcome
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?" |
#29
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Bad outcome
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:20:37 -0600, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... I wonder...could that be due to the population increase over the past 40 years coupled with the source of the increase? The number of small arms either manufactured or imported during the past 25 years has gone from about 3.7 million to 8.7 million. I suppose DHS accounts for a bunch, but it has only about 230,000 employees. Even giving each of them a couple guns doesn't account for the growth. The handgun chart is really weird, showing 5% gains and drops in household possession in two year periods. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/co..._with_handguns You can't get accurate stats on guns. Violates the 2nd. In what way? |
#30
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Bad outcome
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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Eclipse Abandonment Outcome | Cruising |