On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 13:45:09 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

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.

I don't believe I've mentioned race one time. And, (wink, wink) I'm not the one compiling the
statistics (wink, wink). Nor am I one focusing on exceptions and then generalizing to include all
'Merikans' (wink, wink).

On 1/18/2014 10:01 AM, 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.



You obviously know what you would accept as correct answers to the Qs
you posed. How about you let us in on what you think you know.

On 1/18/2014 1:45 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
I don't mention age or race (even obliquely) nearly as often as you do.

How often is acceptable? We've done this exercise with you on many
occasions. As it turns out the answer is always, whatever Harry does,
says, has, or knows, sets the standard. I'm not being judgmental, just
making an observation, that's all.

On 1/18/14, 2:39 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 13:45:09 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

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.

I don't believe I've mentioned race one time. And, (wink, wink) I'm not the one compiling the
statistics (wink, wink). Nor am I one focusing on exceptions and then generalizing to include all
'Merikans' (wink, wink).


Uh-huh. Wink. wink. wink.

On 1/18/14, 2:41 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/18/2014 10:01 AM, 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.



You obviously know what you would accept as correct answers to the Qs
you posed. How about you let us in on what you think you know.


Actually, I don't know, since I am not obsessed with the violent
criminal happenings in either urban or suburban area. My suspicion is
that the violent teens in most places are pretty much in the same age
group.

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 15:36:58 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/18/14, 2:41 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/18/2014 10:01 AM, 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.



You obviously know what you would accept as correct answers to the Qs
you posed. How about you let us in on what you think you know.


Actually, I don't know, since I am not obsessed with the violent
criminal happenings in either urban or suburban area. My suspicion is
that the violent teens in most places are pretty much in the same age
group.

How would you refer to *your* obsession?

In article ,
says...

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?

Unless guns are universally registered, it's just guessing.
Do you think universal registration violates the 2nd?
I have no opinion on that. You might have an opinion.
But the reason for lack of registration is the 2nd.
In any case, statistics on ownership are garbage.

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 15:38:19 -0600, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...

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?

Unless guns are universally registered, it's just guessing.
Do you think universal registration violates the 2nd?
I have no opinion on that. You might have an opinion.
But the reason for lack of registration is the 2nd.
In any case, statistics on ownership are garbage.

I don't think universal registration, in and of itself, violates the 2nd. I do think that universal
registration makes universal confiscation much more feasible. I also think that a President, if so
inclined, may try to conduct such a confiscation through another 'executive order'. Luckily, their
are still enough Democrat gun owners to keep a lid on what Congress does. I think they are also
influential in keep a lid on what the President does.

I agree that the statistics are probably garbage.

On 1/18/2014 9:40 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 21:41:55 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 1/17/2014 9:27 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 20:31:27 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


I found some data that covers 1973 to 2012 (39 years).

The percentage of households with one or more firearms has decreased
over that period from 49.1 percent in 1973 to 34.4 percent in 2012.
The percentage peaked in 1974 at 54 percent and the lowest was 2010 at
32.3 percent.

So, again, I put the blame solely on the lack of parenting.


I wonder where they got that data. I've never been asked how many firearms I own on any census or
survey I can remember. I'll bet there are a whole hell of a lot of unregistered, illegal handguns
floating around our big problem cities that aren't included in those households.



I found the data I posted at:

http://www.gunpolicy.org/

I don't know where they get their data from but I suspect it's from
random surveys.

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


That's why I think the data is based on random surveys. Also, that
particular statistic is for percentage of households with one *or more*
firearms. I think it represents a shrinking ownership but those who
have guns will typically have several.

On 1/18/2014 4:38 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

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?

Unless guns are universally registered, it's just guessing.
Do you think universal registration violates the 2nd?
I have no opinion on that. You might have an opinion.
But the reason for lack of registration is the 2nd.
In any case, statistics on ownership are garbage.


Unless you interpret the "shall not be infringed" part as meaning
registration is unlawful, I don't see anything in the 2nd that would
otherwise prohibit registration. My opinion is they *should* be
registered.