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 1/18/14, 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?

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.

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.

On 1/18/2014 3:36 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

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.


Teens usually *are* in the same age group Harry.

The violence witnessed today is far more complex than simple ethnic,
racial or urban vs suburban statistics can define, IMO.

It's more related to declining values/morals, drugs, economics and for
the biggest reason (I still believe), lack of active and motivated
parenting.

Then, of course, even that has changed. If teens don't like what their
parents prescribe, they can sue them ... and win.