|
Bad outcome
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. |
Bad outcome
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 15:47:14 -0600, 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. Perhaps Dr. Phil is not a lawyer. It would be interesting to see the actual story. |
Bad outcome
On 1/17/2014 4:15 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 15:47:14 -0600, 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. Perhaps Dr. Phil is not a lawyer. It would be interesting to see the actual story. Reading the article, I now see why they called it murder, Damn it! http://www.elkharttruth.com/article/...WS05/709129981 Mikek |
Bad outcome
On Friday, January 17, 2014 4:24:11 PM UTC-6, amdx wrote:
On 1/17/2014 4:15 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 15:47:14 -0600, 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. Perhaps Dr. Phil is not a lawyer. It would be interesting to see the actual story. Reading the article, I now see why they called it murder, Damn it! http://www.elkharttruth.com/article/...WS05/709129981 Mikek "Becker said the tragic results of the burglary could have been avoided if the teens had decided against breaking into Scott’s house. " Best line in the whole article. |
Bad outcome
|
Bad outcome
On 1/17/2014 7:19 PM, BAR wrote:
In article , says... 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 one of these young men had killed the homeowner they would all be faced with the same outcome. 50 years ago when I was about that age if I ever got caught with some friends entering a vacant building, I'd probably be hauled down to the police station along with my friends and all of the parents, read the riot act by the cop on duty and then sent home to face the real punishment at the hands of my old man. Today you get shot or sent to prison for 50 years. Is it me or has the concept of parenting and teaching right and wrong gone out the window? It seems like many young people today have many anger issues and absolutely no respect for authority, rules, laws or respect for the property of others. |
Bad outcome
On Friday, January 17, 2014 8:00:09 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
50 years ago when I was about that age if I ever got caught with some friends entering a vacant building, I'd probably be hauled down to the police station along with my friends and all of the parents, read the riot act by the cop on duty and then sent home to face the real punishment at the hands of my old man. The difference is, 50 years ago the chance of you and your friends packing heat is very low. As we've all seen, the chance of it now, with the numbing of our young by Hollywood's glamorization of violence along with video games, etc., has increased that chance many times. I'm, unfortunately, on the side of the homeowner. It's a consequence of the loss of morals by society in general. |
Bad outcome
|
Bad outcome
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 20:00:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 1/17/2014 7:19 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... 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 one of these young men had killed the homeowner they would all be faced with the same outcome. 50 years ago when I was about that age if I ever got caught with some friends entering a vacant building, I'd probably be hauled down to the police station along with my friends and all of the parents, read the riot act by the cop on duty and then sent home to face the real punishment at the hands of my old man. Today you get shot or sent to prison for 50 years. Is it me or has the concept of parenting and teaching right and wrong gone out the window? It seems like many young people today have many anger issues and absolutely no respect for authority, rules, laws or respect for the property of others. Look at 'homicide, dc' or homicide, chicago, or homicide detroit and check out the ages of the suspects. Very young, most of them. |
Bad outcome
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 20:31:27 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 1/17/2014 8:09 PM, wrote: On Friday, January 17, 2014 8:00:09 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: 50 years ago when I was about that age if I ever got caught with some friends entering a vacant building, I'd probably be hauled down to the police station along with my friends and all of the parents, read the riot act by the cop on duty and then sent home to face the real punishment at the hands of my old man. The difference is, 50 years ago the chance of you and your friends packing heat is very low. As we've all seen, the chance of it now, with the numbing of our young by Hollywood's glamorization of violence along with video games, etc., has increased that chance many times. I'm, unfortunately, on the side of the homeowner. It's a consequence of the loss of morals by society in general. I guess I agree although there is statistical data that would suggest the opposite is true in terms of having access to firearms. 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. |
Bad outcome
On 1/17/2014 9:27 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 20:31:27 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 1/17/2014 8:09 PM, wrote: On Friday, January 17, 2014 8:00:09 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: 50 years ago when I was about that age if I ever got caught with some friends entering a vacant building, I'd probably be hauled down to the police station along with my friends and all of the parents, read the riot act by the cop on duty and then sent home to face the real punishment at the hands of my old man. The difference is, 50 years ago the chance of you and your friends packing heat is very low. As we've all seen, the chance of it now, with the numbing of our young by Hollywood's glamorization of violence along with video games, etc., has increased that chance many times. I'm, unfortunately, on the side of the homeowner. It's a consequence of the loss of morals by society in general. I guess I agree although there is statistical data that would suggest the opposite is true in terms of having access to firearms. 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. |
Bad outcome
In article , says...
On 1/17/2014 7:19 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... 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 one of these young men had killed the homeowner they would all be faced with the same outcome. 50 years ago when I was about that age if I ever got caught with some friends entering a vacant building, I'd probably be hauled down to the police station along with my friends and all of the parents, read the riot act by the cop on duty and then sent home to face the real punishment at the hands of my old man. Today you get shot or sent to prison for 50 years. Is it me or has the concept of parenting and teaching right and wrong gone out the window? It seems like many young people today have many anger issues and absolutely no respect for authority, rules, laws or respect for the property of others. Parenting now is telling them they are all winners and they can do no wrong. |
Bad outcome
In article , says...
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 20:31:27 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 1/17/2014 8:09 PM, wrote: On Friday, January 17, 2014 8:00:09 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: 50 years ago when I was about that age if I ever got caught with some friends entering a vacant building, I'd probably be hauled down to the police station along with my friends and all of the parents, read the riot act by the cop on duty and then sent home to face the real punishment at the hands of my old man. The difference is, 50 years ago the chance of you and your friends packing heat is very low. As we've all seen, the chance of it now, with the numbing of our young by Hollywood's glamorization of violence along with video games, etc., has increased that chance many times. I'm, unfortunately, on the side of the homeowner. It's a consequence of the loss of morals by society in general. I guess I agree although there is statistical data that would suggest the opposite is true in terms of having access to firearms. 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. Extrapolated from census and other data. |
Bad outcome
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. |
Bad outcome
"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: On 1/17/2014 8:09 PM, wrote: On Friday, January 17, 2014 8:00:09 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: 50 years ago when I was about that age if I ever got caught with some friends entering a vacant building, I'd probably be hauled down to the police station along with my friends and all of the parents, read the riot act by the cop on duty and then sent home to face the real punishment at the hands of my old man. The difference is, 50 years ago the chance of you and your friends packing heat is very low. As we've all seen, the chance of it now, with the numbing of our young by Hollywood's glamorization of violence along with video games, etc., has increased that chance many times. I'm, unfortunately, on the side of the homeowner. It's a consequence of the loss of morals by society in general. I guess I agree although there is statistical data that would suggest the opposite is true in terms of having access to firearms. 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. Most people would not answer the question. There are very few illegal unregistered weapons in California. Only those "assault weapons" on the banned list, that people had before the ban, and did not register. Otherwise, no permit or license is required to own a firearm in this state. federal and state laws now require a transaction to go though an FFL holder, but that has only been for some years. When I bought my Rem. 1100, I bought it at the firearms dealer on 2nd street in downtown San Francisco. No waiting period for long guns. They wrapped in paper and handed it to me, and I walked out the door. The records are not supposed to go to the state! |
Bad outcome
On 1/17/14, 9:24 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 20:00:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 1/17/2014 7:19 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... 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 one of these young men had killed the homeowner they would all be faced with the same outcome. 50 years ago when I was about that age if I ever got caught with some friends entering a vacant building, I'd probably be hauled down to the police station along with my friends and all of the parents, read the riot act by the cop on duty and then sent home to face the real punishment at the hands of my old man. Today you get shot or sent to prison for 50 years. Is it me or has the concept of parenting and teaching right and wrong gone out the window? It seems like many young people today have many anger issues and absolutely no respect for authority, rules, laws or respect for the property of others. Look at 'homicide, dc' or homicide, chicago, or homicide detroit and check out the ages of the suspects. Very young, most of them. 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. |
Bad outcome
On Friday, January 17, 2014 8:31:27 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/17/2014 8:09 PM, wrote: On Friday, January 17, 2014 8:00:09 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: 50 years ago when I was about that age if I ever got caught with some friends entering a vacant building, I'd probably be hauled down to the police station along with my friends and all of the parents, read the riot act by the cop on duty and then sent home to face the real punishment at the hands of my old man. The difference is, 50 years ago the chance of you and your friends packing heat is very low. As we've all seen, the chance of it now, with the numbing of our young by Hollywood's glamorization of violence along with video games, etc., has increased that chance many times. I'm, unfortunately, on the side of the homeowner. It's a consequence of the loss of morals by society in general. I guess I agree although there is statistical data that would suggest the opposite is true in terms of having access to firearms. 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 guess we're saying the same thing. It's not the number of firearms available, but rather the attitude of the people that put their hands on them. You and your friends wouldn't have thought of taking a pistol to that imaginary breakin, much less actually pulling the trigger on another human being.. Unfortunately, many people (not just the young) seem numb to the concept of killing someone being wrong. I agree that's it's lack of parenting, but also think it's repeated exposure as well. |
Bad outcome
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 |
Bad outcome
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 22:58:19 -0500, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 20:31:27 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 1/17/2014 8:09 PM, wrote: On Friday, January 17, 2014 8:00:09 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: 50 years ago when I was about that age if I ever got caught with some friends entering a vacant building, I'd probably be hauled down to the police station along with my friends and all of the parents, read the riot act by the cop on duty and then sent home to face the real punishment at the hands of my old man. The difference is, 50 years ago the chance of you and your friends packing heat is very low. As we've all seen, the chance of it now, with the numbing of our young by Hollywood's glamorization of violence along with video games, etc., has increased that chance many times. I'm, unfortunately, on the side of the homeowner. It's a consequence of the loss of morals by society in general. I guess I agree although there is statistical data that would suggest the opposite is true in terms of having access to firearms. 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. Extrapolated from census and other data. I don't remember answering any gun questions on the census. I think I'd remember if I had. Heck, I'm not that old! |
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 |
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/ |
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. |
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? |
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. |
Bad outcome
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. |
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. |
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?" |
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? |
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. |
Bad outcome
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). |
Bad outcome
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. |
Bad outcome
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. |
Bad outcome
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. |
Bad outcome
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. |
Bad outcome
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? |
Bad outcome
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. |
Bad outcome
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. |
Bad outcome
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. |
Bad outcome
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com