Bad outcome
 

On 1/18/2014 2:39 PM, Poco Loco wrote:

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



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).



Do both of you have something in your eye?

Bad outcome
 

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:04:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 1/18/2014 2:39 PM, Poco Loco wrote:

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



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).



Do both of you have something in your eye?


It's catchy!

Bad outcome
 

In article ,
says...

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.

Well, they aren't. For obvious reasons.

Bad outcome
 

On 1/18/2014 6:10 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:04:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 1/18/2014 2:39 PM, Poco Loco wrote:

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



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).



Do both of you have something in your eye?


It's catchy!


I was starting to think there was some sort of mutual attraction going on.

Bad outcome
 

On 1/18/14, 7:02 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/18/2014 6:10 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:04:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/18/2014 2:39 PM, Poco Loco wrote:

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



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).



Do both of you have something in your eye?


It's catchy!


I was starting to think there was some sort of mutual attraction going on.



Nothing more than my winking at Herring because I think his real
motivation for repeatedly posting homicide numbers from these urban
areas has nothing to do with his being upset about the deaths, and
everything to do with his desire to be more subtle about his disdain for
black people.

Bad outcome
 

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 19:02:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 1/18/2014 6:10 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:04:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 1/18/2014 2:39 PM, Poco Loco wrote:

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



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).



Do both of you have something in your eye?


It's catchy!


I was starting to think there was some sort of mutual attraction going on.


It's Harry's way of calling me a racist without calling me a racist.

Bad outcome
 

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 19:09:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/18/14, 7:02 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/18/2014 6:10 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:04:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/18/2014 2:39 PM, Poco Loco wrote:

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



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).



Do both of you have something in your eye?


It's catchy!


I was starting to think there was some sort of mutual attraction going on.



Nothing more than my winking at Herring because I think his real
motivation for repeatedly posting homicide numbers from these urban
areas has nothing to do with his being upset about the deaths, and
everything to do with his desire to be more subtle about his disdain for
black people.

Gosh, I should have read this first!

I guess I'm as racist as those assholes collecting and posting the data, eh?

Why do you focus on the extremes and leave the hundreds go without comment, and then talk about how
bad 'Merika' is?

Bad outcome
 

On 1/18/2014 3:36 PM, 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.

I've heard enough. Thanks.

Bad outcome
 

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 20:49:48 -0500, Hank wrote:

On 1/18/2014 3:36 PM, 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.

I've heard enough. Thanks.

BTW, if you sent something to the salmonbaitatgmail.com address, it didn't get here. Try the
jherringatcoxdotnet. They should both work.

Bad outcome
 

On 1/18/2014 8:43 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 19:02:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 1/18/2014 6:10 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:04:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 1/18/2014 2:39 PM, Poco Loco wrote:

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



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).



Do both of you have something in your eye?


It's catchy!


I was starting to think there was some sort of mutual attraction going on.


It's Harry's way of calling me a racist without calling me a racist.

Why is he bashful about it all of a sudden?