If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The must be spanking more - Violent crimes jump in first half of2006
WASHINGTON - Murders, robberies and other violent crimes reported in the United States jumped 3.7 percent in the first half of the year, continuing a troubling upswing that began in 2005, the FBI said Monday. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11497293/ Remember the claim by anti-spanking zealotS like Kane, who said that violent crimes have been declining steadily for the last 40 years because of parents are spanking less? Using that logic, parents must be spanking more now. Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutually exclusive? ;-) Doan |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The must be spanking more - Violent crimes jump in first halfof 2006
Doan wrote:
WASHINGTON - Murders, robberies and other violent crimes reported in the United States jumped 3.7 percent in the first half of the year, continuing a troubling upswing that began in 2005, the FBI said Monday. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11497293/ I understand it would not have served your little rant below, or you were too tired from public wanking, or buddy wanking with Greg, but really, you should have included this: "Department officials have cited as possible reasons a surge in gang-related violence, spreading use of the illegal drug methamphetamine and demographics, with children of the baby-boom generation entering the years when individuals are most likely to commit crimes." Remember the claim by anti-spanking zealotS like Kane, who said that violent crimes have been declining steadily for the last 40 years because of parents are spanking less? A correlation possibility was pointed out. Seems we were wrong about the spanking reduction...butt then it could just be the numbers, represented by percentage of the total population as well. That's too simple a logic for you? Using that logic, parents must be spanking more now. Using your lack of logic, there could be other factors involved. A percent increase would and could relate to a number of variables, such as population increase, and second generation immigrant populations which are often disaffected youth who do turn to crime. At one time in this country you'd be hard pressed to find Asian violent criminals. Now we have a great many of them. Second generation, born in this country, or came as very small children, and their families are working to assimilate but have not moved forward very quickly because of bigotry and economics. The children have lost the connection to their culture and have not as yet fully assimilated. Also we have a ten year upsurge in violent crime related to drugs, specifically meth. The drug of choice for the violent. Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutually exclusive? ;-) Truth and Doan, forever estranged. 0;-] You aren't aware we have a population that just passed 300 million? 300,423,906, as of a few minutes ago, according to the population clock at: http://www.census.gov/ In fact, the 2000 census showed a 13.2% increase in population in just ONE decade. That would make the percentage of "Murders, robberies and other violent crimes reported in the United States jumped 3.7 percent" as an increase over the previous year kind of wimpy by comparison. And likely pretty much a normal curve over the decade...considering the other variables you just sort of kinda maybe forgot to include....R R R R R R R Are you aware that those populations with the highest crime figures are traditionally spanking societies? And that they are the fastest growing population segment? I guess I was wrong, by the way, as according to Straus the population that is the most vulnerable are still being spanked, toddlers: http://www.law.emory.edu/cslr/pressr...paretherod.htm Oct. 6, 2004 "Yet prevalence of spanking has remained high: nearly all children have been spanked in their lives because 94 percent of parents spank toddlers." Tell us about logic again, Doan. It's to laugh. Or possibly you wish to argue with me about "bad file" versus "corrupted file instead?" Find something to divert attention, Doan. Quick! R R R R R RR RR ... Doan |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The must be spanking more - Violent crimes jump in first halfof 2006
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:
You aren't aware we have a population that just passed 300 million? 300,423,906, as of a few minutes ago, according to the population clock at: http://www.census.gov/ In fact, the 2000 census showed a 13.2% increase in population in just ONE decade. That would make the percentage of "Murders, robberies and other violent crimes reported in the United States jumped 3.7 percent" as an increase over the previous year kind of wimpy by comparison. And likely pretty much a normal curve over the decade...considering the other variables you just sort of kinda maybe forgot to include....R R R R R R R Hahaha! Once again, you exposed your STUPIDITY in public! It doesn't matter what the population is, Kane. Since the rate computed is ALWAYS per 100,000! GOT IT, STUPID Kane? How is it that you are so stupid? That just makes your claim that you are "published", researcher... HILARIOUS!!! Doan |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The must be spanking more - Violent crimes jump in first half of 2006
Doan wrote: On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote: You aren't aware we have a population that just passed 300 million? 300,423,906, as of a few minutes ago, according to the population clock at: http://www.census.gov/ In fact, the 2000 census showed a 13.2% increase in population in just ONE decade. That would make the percentage of "Murders, robberies and other violent crimes reported in the United States jumped 3.7 percent" as an increase over the previous year kind of wimpy by comparison. And likely pretty much a normal curve over the decade...considering the other variables you just sort of kinda maybe forgot to include....R R R R R R R Hahaha! Once again, you exposed your STUPIDITY in public! It doesn't matter what the population is, Kane. Since the rate computed is ALWAYS per 100,000! Yes, and it's a percentage, which matters how? Crime tends to go up in crowded surroundings, bright boy. Go and look at the cities and towns data. GOT IT, STUPID Kane? How is it that you are so stupid? About what? That just makes your claim that you are "published", researcher... HILARIOUS!!! You cherry picked again, Doan, leaving out all the other information I posted. Why is that? It's stupid, if you are going to cherry pick to leave this item in, Doan: "considering the other variables you just sort of kinda maybe forgot to include" And I see you deliberately snipped the variables comments from the report that I posted. Why is that, Doan? They were the reason, other than spanking, that might have been the reason for the increase. Your usual dishonorable method of posting and attacking in one area to hide from the information in another that confounds your claim. You are a liar by your act of omission, Doan. This is common for you. Doan Kane |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The must be spanking more - Violent crimes jump in first halfof 2006
On 18 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:
Doan wrote: On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote: You aren't aware we have a population that just passed 300 million? 300,423,906, as of a few minutes ago, according to the population clock at: http://www.census.gov/ In fact, the 2000 census showed a 13.2% increase in population in just ONE decade. That would make the percentage of "Murders, robberies and other violent crimes reported in the United States jumped 3.7 percent" as an increase over the previous year kind of wimpy by comparison. And likely pretty much a normal curve over the decade...considering the other variables you just sort of kinda maybe forgot to include....R R R R R R R Hahaha! Once again, you exposed your STUPIDITY in public! It doesn't matter what the population is, Kane. Since the rate computed is ALWAYS per 100,000! Yes, and it's a percentage, which matters how? Crime tends to go up in crowded surroundings, bright boy. Go and look at the cities and towns data. Hahaha! Still exposing your stupidity, Kane? According to you, until recently, crime has been declining for the past 40 years! Remember that, Kane? So was the population declining or increasing during that 40 years? YOU ARE STUPID and so is your claim that you are "published"!!! Doan |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The must be spanking more - Violent crimes jump in first halfof 2006
Doan wrote:
On 18 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote: You aren't aware we have a population that just passed 300 million? 300,423,906, as of a few minutes ago, according to the population clock at: http://www.census.gov/ In fact, the 2000 census showed a 13.2% increase in population in just ONE decade. That would make the percentage of "Murders, robberies and other violent crimes reported in the United States jumped 3.7 percent" as an increase over the previous year kind of wimpy by comparison. And likely pretty much a normal curve over the decade...considering the other variables you just sort of kinda maybe forgot to include....R R R R R R R Hahaha! Once again, you exposed your STUPIDITY in public! It doesn't matter what the population is, Kane. Since the rate computed is ALWAYS per 100,000! Yes, and it's a percentage, which matters how? Crime tends to go up in crowded surroundings, bright boy. Go and look at the cities and towns data. Hahaha! Still exposing your stupidity, Kane? According to you, until recently, crime has been declining for the past 40 years! Nope. Never said that. Quote me exactly by link to the post, and see what I actually said. Remember that, Kane? Sure. I remember that's not what I said. What I said recently does compute though. YOU see what YOU want to see, and then make YOUR arguments on your delusional reconstruction of the actual thing the other person said. So was the population declining or increasing during that 40 years? Increasing, of course. But I made no such claim that "crime has been declining for the past 40 years.' I did mention 40 years or so, though. YOU ARE STUPID and so is your claim that you are "published"!!! I am published. And I didn't make the claim you say I did. Let's cut to the chase, liar. An increase over last year of 3.7 percent in violent crimes is not significant when one considers all the possible variables ... and in fact isn't much of an increase at all. You are barking again. Yell some more. It's cute. Here's your post, Doan. Let me explain how stupid it was to make your claim. "WASHINGTON - Murders, robberies and other violent crimes reported in the United States jumped 3.7 percent in the first half of the year, continuing a troubling upswing that began in 2005, the FBI said Monday. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11497293/ Remember the claim by anti-spanking zealotS like Kane, who said that violent crimes have been declining steadily for the last 40 years because of parents are spanking less? Using that logic, parents must be spanking more now. Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutually exclusive? ;-) Doan " What would a 3.7 percent change have to do with a 40 year trend? See how simple that was? I suspect you have, as you boys that think you are more intelligent than others will do, is shoot yourself in the foot. Notice the upswing didn't start until ONE YEAR AGO. Now go get that smoking hole in your foot fixed, little fool. You still don't know how to play chess, and how to feint or protect yourself from one. I knew you'd bury yourself pretty quickly. Your opening was so unbelievably stupid. The trend in violent crime (a little clue there as to what YOU got wrong about MY claim) for 30 years, up to 2003, had one hump in it, and overall is far far lower than in 1973. It will take a long time for an increase of 3.7 percent a year to bring it back up to anywhere near where it was in 73, bright boy. Thus, I believe my claim still stands. According to Straus the spanking rate has dropped, not in numbers of children spanked, but in the amount of spanking that goes on. And for how long in a child's life. I'd say there is going to be a correlation found eventually. The homicide rate in particular has decreased over 42% between its record high point in 1991 and 2005. Interestingly, as more and more states banned paddling in schools. Hmmm..I wonder? You will see, if you care to look, that our most interesting population, youth, had some amazing changes in arrest rates, for violent crime, midway from 1970 to 2003. A peak half to two thirds of the way along over the years, roughly across the all the youth age groups, then steady, and then dramatic drops in rate to a much lower rate during that last half to third. Now this is even with burgeoning gang activity throughout those years, Doan. One reason for the peak, I'd guess. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/data/violarr.wk1 MS Office or clones will display this spreadsheet. Or the old "Works" obviously. Are they still selling that crippled thing? And if you actually look at the charted data for the span from 1960 to 2006, 46 years, you'll find the following: http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonl...cfm?stateid=52 Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate 1960 - 5.1, 2006 - 5.6, but with a major hump at that 1980 - 10.2, just 26 years ago. Almost three decades. Get the picture yet, brilliant one? So we have a high, 26 years ago of 10.2, with a 2006 drop to 5.6. Not bad, eh? For a drop in the number one violent crime statistic? The 0verall numbers are high, but they lump some property crime in there, and please remember my little hint about your stupid claim about my claim. When I say violent crime I mean person to person violent. Look at the other person to person ones. Forcible Rape had a comparatively similar high, same year, but did not drop as low as from the 1960 figure. Can you guess why the reports would be such a low rate in 1960, and so much higher than that (but still lower than the 1980 rate) in 2006? Think hard about the nature of the crime. We are seeing truly dramatic decreases over all in violent crime in this country, Doan. The assault rate is nearly half now what it was in 1992. Yet another decade measure. Like all person to person violent crime, it's dropping steadily. A tic of 3.7 is hardly significant over all. We say much bigger ones than that in the past. Those three categories of violent person to person crime have DROPPED, even in the past year, Doan. Look at the categories of violent crime that do not show contact with another person that were included to get that 3.7% increase. You, stupid, can't even read a chart...or won't. That's the stupid thing, Doan. To make your claims and NOT have reviewed the data. And in fact, my brilliant little friend, the aggregate violent crime rate, including those non person-to-person rates has been dropping steadily from 1991 high of 758.1 to last year's 463.2. Not a single year, throughout, until this one, did the rate have any increase. None. QED Now you are exposed again for both a liar AND a fool. Unless of course you just made an honest mistake about my claim, and what this current FBI report really means in terms of one tiny increase this year after more than a decade of dropping rates. Doan Spanking? Who knows. There are many variables, but as I recall this all came out of claims by a cop that wrote a book about the need for more beating of kids to stop the rising crime rate...that didn't even actually exist when he wrote the book. That burned your little bunnies when Chris kicked his butt all over the Web. Didn't it, Doan? Kane |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The must be spanking more - Violent crimes jump in first halfof 2006
0:- wrote:
.....typo corrections.....see ** Doan wrote: On 18 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote: You aren't aware we have a population that just passed 300 million? 300,423,906, as of a few minutes ago, according to the population clock at: http://www.census.gov/ In fact, the 2000 census showed a 13.2% increase in population in just ONE decade. That would make the percentage of "Murders, robberies and other violent crimes reported in the United States jumped 3.7 percent" as an increase over the previous year kind of wimpy by comparison. And likely pretty much a normal curve over the decade...considering the other variables you just sort of kinda maybe forgot to include....R R R R R R R Hahaha! Once again, you exposed your STUPIDITY in public! It doesn't matter what the population is, Kane. Since the rate computed is ALWAYS per 100,000! Yes, and it's a percentage, which matters how? Crime tends to go up in crowded surroundings, bright boy. Go and look at the cities and towns data. Hahaha! Still exposing your stupidity, Kane? According to you, until recently, crime has been declining for the past 40 years! Nope. Never said that. Quote me exactly by link to the post, and see what I actually said. Remember that, Kane? Sure. I remember that's not what I said. What I said recently does compute though. YOU see what YOU want to see, and then make YOUR arguments on your delusional reconstruction of the actual thing the other person said. So was the population declining or increasing during that 40 years? Increasing, of course. But I made no such claim that "crime has been declining for the past 40 years.' I did mention 40 years or so, though. YOU ARE STUPID and so is your claim that you are "published"!!! I am published. And I didn't make the claim you say I did. Let's cut to the chase, liar. An increase over last year of 3.7 percent in violent crimes is not significant when one considers all the possible variables ... and in fact isn't much of an increase at all. You are barking again. Yell some more. It's cute. Here's your post, Doan. Let me explain how stupid it was to make your claim. "WASHINGTON - Murders, robberies and other violent crimes reported in the United States jumped 3.7 percent in the first half of the year, continuing a troubling upswing that began in 2005, the FBI said Monday. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11497293/ Remember the claim by anti-spanking zealotS like Kane, who said that violent crimes have been declining steadily for the last 40 years because of parents are spanking less? Using that logic, parents must be spanking more now. Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutually exclusive? ;-) Doan " What would a 3.7 percent change have to do with a 40 year trend? See how simple that was? I suspect you have, as you boys that think you are more intelligent than others will do, is shoot yourself in the foot. Notice the upswing didn't start until ONE YEAR AGO. Now go get that smoking hole in your foot fixed, little fool. You still don't know how to play chess, and how to feint or protect yourself from one. I knew you'd bury yourself pretty quickly. Your opening was so unbelievably stupid. The trend in violent crime (a little clue there as to what YOU got wrong about MY claim) for 30 years, up to 2003, had one hump in it, and overall is far far lower than in 1973. It will take a long time for an increase of 3.7 percent a year to bring it back up to anywhere near where it was in 73, bright boy. Thus, I believe my claim still stands. According to Straus the spanking rate has dropped, not in numbers of children spanked, but in the amount of spanking that goes on. And for how long in a child's life. I'd say there is going to be a correlation found eventually. The homicide rate in particular has decreased over 42% between its record high point in 1991 and 2005. Interestingly, as more and more states banned paddling in schools. Hmmm..I wonder? You will see, if you care to look, that our most interesting population, youth, had some amazing changes in arrest rates, for violent crime, midway from 1970 to 2003. A peak half to two thirds of the way along over the years, roughly across the all the youth age groups, then steady, and then dramatic drops in rate to a much lower rate during that last half to third. Now this is even with burgeoning gang activity throughout those years, Doan. One reason for the peak, I'd guess. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/data/violarr.wk1 MS Office or clones will display this spreadsheet. Or the old "Works" obviously. Are they still selling that crippled thing? And if you actually look at the charted data for the span from 1960 to ** 2003, **43 years, you'll find the following: http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonl...cfm?stateid=52 Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate 1960 - 5.1, **2005 - 5.6, but with a major hump at that 1980 - 10.2, just 26 years ago. Almost three decades. Get the picture yet, brilliant one? So we have a high, 26 years ago of 10.2, with a 2005 drop to 5.6. Not bad, eh? For a drop in the number one violent crime statistic? The 0verall numbers are high, but they lump some property crime in there, and please remember my little hint about your stupid claim about my claim. When I say violent crime I mean person to person violent. Look at the other person to person ones. Forcible Rape had a comparatively similar high, same year, but did not drop as low as from the 1960 figure. Can you guess why the reports would be such a low rate in 1960, and so much higher than that (but still lower than the 1980 rate) in **2005? Think hard about the nature of the crime. We are seeing truly dramatic decreases over all in violent crime in this country, Doan. The assault rate is nearly half now what it was in 1992. Yet another decade measure. Like all person to person violent crime, it's dropping steadily. A tic of 3.7 is hardly significant over all. We say much bigger ones than that in the past. Those three categories of violent person to person crime have DROPPED, even in the past year, Doan. Look at the categories of violent crime that do not show contact with another person that were included to get that 3.7% increase. You, stupid, can't even read a chart...or won't. That's the stupid thing, Doan. To make your claims and NOT have reviewed the data. And in fact, my brilliant little friend, the aggregate violent crime rate, including those non person-to-person rates has been dropping steadily from 1991 high of 758.1 to last year's 463.2. Not a single year, throughout, until this one, did the rate have any increase. None. QED Now you are exposed again for both a liar AND a fool. Unless of course you just made an honest mistake about my claim, and what this current FBI report really means in terms of one tiny increase this year after more than a decade of dropping rates. Doan Spanking? Who knows. There are many variables, but as I recall this all came out of claims by a cop that wrote a book about the need for more beating of kids to stop the rising crime rate...that didn't even actually exist when he wrote the book. That burned your little bunnies when Chris kicked his butt all over the Web. Didn't it, Doan? Kane |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The must be spanking more - Violent crimes jump in first halfof 2006
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:
Doan wrote: On 18 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote: You aren't aware we have a population that just passed 300 million? 300,423,906, as of a few minutes ago, according to the population clock at: http://www.census.gov/ In fact, the 2000 census showed a 13.2% increase in population in just ONE decade. That would make the percentage of "Murders, robberies and other violent crimes reported in the United States jumped 3.7 percent" as an increase over the previous year kind of wimpy by comparison. And likely pretty much a normal curve over the decade...considering the other variables you just sort of kinda maybe forgot to include....R R R R R R R Hahaha! Once again, you exposed your STUPIDITY in public! It doesn't matter what the population is, Kane. Since the rate computed is ALWAYS per 100,000! Yes, and it's a percentage, which matters how? Crime tends to go up in crowded surroundings, bright boy. Go and look at the cities and towns data. Hahaha! Still exposing your stupidity, Kane? According to you, until recently, crime has been declining for the past 40 years! Nope. Never said that. Quote me exactly by link to the post, and see what I actually said. Here it is: Kane: CNN.com - FBI: Violent crime rate declines again - Oct 17, 2005 The US violent crime rate declined 2.2 percent last year, continuing a decade-long downward trend in serious offenses, the FBI said Monday. www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/17/crime.rate/index.html - 40k - Cached - Similar pages Was I wrong on the claim of 30 - 40 years? Depends entirely on which crime figures you track, how far back you go, and what the methods of collection of information were then and now. AF: Yup! It's all depended on what the meaning of "is" is, right? ;-) Boy! You make Clinton looked like an amatuer! Remember that, Kane? Sure. I remember that's not what I said. Hahaha! Reagan had problem remembering too! Maybe you should be the next president! What I said recently does compute though. YOU see what YOU want to see, and then make YOUR arguments on your delusional reconstruction of the actual thing the other person said. Hihihi! I spoke the truth and exposed not only your STUPIDITY but LIES after LIES after LIES! So was the population declining or increasing during that 40 years? Increasing, of course. But I made no such claim that "crime has been declining for the past 40 years.' I did mention 40 years or so, though. Yup! All depended on what the meaning of "is" is! YOU ARE STUPID and so is your claim that you are "published"!!! I am published. And I didn't make the claim you say I did. Hihihi! Of couse you didn't, must be your twin that made it. Let's cut to the chase, liar. An increase over last year of 3.7 percent in violent crimes is not significant when one considers all the possible variables ... and in fact isn't much of an increase at all. Hihihi! It's only 3.7 percent! You are barking again. Yell some more. It's cute. I am not a Kane9! Here's your post, Doan. Let me explain how stupid it was to make your claim. "WASHINGTON - Murders, robberies and other violent crimes reported in the United States jumped 3.7 percent in the first half of the year, continuing a troubling upswing that began in 2005, the FBI said Monday. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11497293/ Remember the claim by anti-spanking zealotS like Kane, who said that violent crimes have been declining steadily for the last 40 years because of parents are spanking less? Using that logic, parents must be spanking more now. Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutually exclusive? ;-) Doan " What would a 3.7 percent change have to do with a 40 year trend? It exposed you as a STUPID LIAR! See how simple that was? I suspect you have, as you boys that think you are more intelligent than others will do, is shoot yourself in the foot. Notice the upswing didn't start until ONE YEAR AGO. Now go get that smoking hole in your foot fixed, little fool. Hihihi! It must be that population increase! You still don't know how to play chess, and how to feint or protect yourself from one. Hahaha! And you just exposed yourself as a STUPID LIAR, as Cindy Lauper say, time after time. I knew you'd bury yourself pretty quickly. Your opening was so unbelievably stupid. Hihihi! You are looking in the mirror again. The trend in violent crime (a little clue there as to what YOU got wrong about MY claim) for 30 years, up to 2003, had one hump in it, and overall is far far lower than in 1973. It will take a long time for an increase of 3.7 percent a year to bring it back up to anywhere near where it was in 73, bright boy. Hahaha! Showing your STUPIDITY again. Here are the data from DOJ: * The homicide rate nearly doubled from the mid 1960's to the late 1970's. * In 1980, it peaked at 10.2 per 100,000 population and subsequently fell off to 7.9 per 100,000 in 1984. * It rose again in the late 1980's and early 1990's to another peak in 1991 of 9.8 per 100,000. Thus, I believe my claim still stands. THAT IS WHY YOU ARE STUPID! ;-) According to Straus the spanking rate has dropped, not in numbers of children spanked, but in the amount of spanking that goes on. And for how long in a child's life. I'd say there is going to be a correlation found eventually. The homicide rate in particular has decreased over 42% between its record high point in 1991 and 2005. It doubled from the mid 60's to the late '70's, STUPID! Interestingly, as more and more states banned paddling in schools. Hmmm..I wonder? You are STUPID! You will see, if you care to look, that our most interesting population, youth, had some amazing changes in arrest rates, for violent crime, midway from 1970 to 2003. A peak half to two thirds of the way along over the years, roughly across the all the youth age groups, then steady, and then dramatic drops in rate to a much lower rate during that last half to third. Trying to fit that square peg into a rouhd hole, Kane? Now this is even with burgeoning gang activity throughout those years, Doan. One reason for the peak, I'd guess. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/data/violarr.wk1 MS Office or clones will display this spreadsheet. Or the old "Works" obviously. Are they still selling that crippled thing? And if you actually look at the charted data for the span from 1960 to 2006, 46 years, you'll find the following: http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonl...cfm?stateid=52 Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate 1960 - 5.1, 2006 - 5.6, but with a major hump at that 1980 - 10.2, just 26 years ago. Almost three decades. Get the picture yet, brilliant one? See the figure for 1960, STUPID? So we have a high, 26 years ago of 10.2, with a 2006 drop to 5.6. Not bad, eh? In 1960, it's 5.1, STUPID! For a drop in the number one violent crime statistic? The 0verall numbers are high, but they lump some property crime in there, and please remember my little hint about your stupid claim about my claim. When I say violent crime I mean person to person violent. Look at the other person to person ones. Forcible Rape had a comparatively similar high, same year, but did not drop as low as from the 1960 figure. Can you guess why the reports would be such a low rate in 1960, and so much higher than that (but still lower than the 1980 rate) in 2006? Think hard about the nature of the crime. We are seeing truly dramatic decreases over all in violent crime in this country, Doan. Yeah! Lower than they were in the '60's??? The assault rate is nearly half now what it was in 1992. Yet another decade measure. Like all person to person violent crime, it's dropping steadily. A tic of 3.7 is hardly significant over all. We say much bigger ones than that in the past. They must spanked alot in 1992 then! ;-) Those three categories of violent person to person crime have DROPPED, even in the past year, Doan. Look at the categories of violent crime that do not show contact with another person that were included to get that 3.7% increase. Hahaha! You, stupid, can't even read a chart...or won't. That's the stupid thing, Doan. To make your claims and NOT have reviewed the data. Hahaha! What was it back in the 60's, Kane. Read the char for me, STUPID! And in fact, my brilliant little friend, the aggregate violent crime rate, including those non person-to-person rates has been dropping steadily from 1991 high of 758.1 to last year's 463.2. Not a single year, throughout, until this one, did the rate have any increase. None. What happend from 1960's to 1991, Kane. Were they increase or decrease? QED Now you are exposed again for both a liar AND a fool. You exposed yourself to be STUPID LIAR! Unless of course you just made an honest mistake about my claim, and what this current FBI report really means in terms of one tiny increase this year after more than a decade of dropping rates. Now just a "decade"??? Come on, Kane. You are losing it! ;-) Doan Spanking? Who knows. There are many variables, but as I recall this all came out of claims by a cop that wrote a book about the need for more beating of kids to stop the rising crime rate...that didn't even actually exist when he wrote the book. Hahaha! That burned your little bunnies when Chris kicked his butt all over the Web. Didn't it, Doan? Where is Chris? Is he still think of you as STUPID? ;-) Doan |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The must be spanking more - Violent crimes jump in first halfof 2006
Doan wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On 18 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote: You aren't aware we have a population that just passed 300 million? 300,423,906, as of a few minutes ago, according to the population clock at: http://www.census.gov/ In fact, the 2000 census showed a 13.2% increase in population in just ONE decade. That would make the percentage of "Murders, robberies and other violent crimes reported in the United States jumped 3.7 percent" as an increase over the previous year kind of wimpy by comparison. And likely pretty much a normal curve over the decade...considering the other variables you just sort of kinda maybe forgot to include....R R R R R R R Hahaha! Once again, you exposed your STUPIDITY in public! It doesn't matter what the population is, Kane. Since the rate computed is ALWAYS per 100,000! Yes, and it's a percentage, which matters how? Crime tends to go up in crowded surroundings, bright boy. Go and look at the cities and towns data. Hahaha! Still exposing your stupidity, Kane? According to you, until recently, crime has been declining for the past 40 years! Nope. Never said that. Quote me exactly by link to the post, and see what I actually said. Here it is: Kane: CNN.com - FBI: Violent crime rate declines again - Oct 17, 2005 The US violent crime rate declined 2.2 percent last year, continuing a decade-long downward trend in serious offenses, the FBI said Monday. www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/17/crime.rate/index.html - 40k - Cached - Similar pages Was I wrong on the claim of 30 - 40 years? Depends entirely on which crime figures you track, how far back you go, and what the methods of collection of information were then and now. AF: Yup! It's all depended on what the meaning of "is" is, right? ;-) Boy! You make Clinton looked like an amatuer! Remember that, Kane? Sure. I remember that's not what I said. Hahaha! Reagan had problem remembering too! Maybe you should be the next president! Here's your statement: "According to you, until recently, crime has been declining for the past 40 years!" Notice the word "crime" and no adjective? No "violent crime?" Here's what I actually said from the old post you are quoting: First the quote of CNN: "The US violent crime rate " Then my comment: "Depends entirely on which crime figures you track," And my leading question, NOT a claim: "Was I wrong on the claim of 30 - 40 years?" Which, of course, as usual, you failed to answer, Doan. You are constructing yet another lie little boy. What I said recently does compute though. YOU see what YOU want to see, and then make YOUR arguments on your delusional reconstruction of the actual thing the other person said. Hihihi! I spoke the truth and exposed not only your STUPIDITY but LIES after LIES after LIES! You speak the "truth" you construct, just as you did with the stupidity above of trying to say I was mistaken or lying when I asked a QUESTION YOU, Doan, failed to answer. So was the population declining or increasing during that 40 years? Increasing, of course. But I made no such claim that "crime has been declining for the past 40 years.' I did mention 40 years or so, though. Yup! All depended on what the meaning of "is" is! For you I would suppose. Not for me. I made a claim, based on the CNN piece of VIOLENT CRIME declining. And you still haven't responded to that claim. You dodged then, and you dodge again now. Taking a comment out of context. Typical liar. YOU ARE STUPID and so is your claim that you are "published"!!! I am published. And I didn't make the claim you say I did. Hihihi! Of couse you didn't, must be your twin that made it. Where did I say that "crime" had been going down for 40 years, Doan? Point to it IN CONTEXT of my entire statement, which would include the subject under discussion VIOLENT CRIME. Let's cut to the chase, liar. An increase over last year of 3.7 percent in violent crimes is not significant when one considers all the possible variables ... and in fact isn't much of an increase at all. Hihihi! It's only 3.7 percent! Yep, look at the charts I linked to and you'll say drops of as much as 20 points in one year to the next, 10, 15, few less than 5 points. That makes a rise of 3.7 percent look rather puny. The only rise in fact since 1991. You are barking again. Yell some more. It's cute. I am not a Kane9! Sure you are. Just pray you don't run into anyone hungry enough to cook you. Here's your post, Doan. Let me explain how stupid it was to make your claim. "WASHINGTON - Murders, robberies and other violent crimes reported in the United States jumped 3.7 percent in the first half of the year, continuing a troubling upswing that began in 2005, the FBI said Monday. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11497293/ Remember the claim by anti-spanking zealotS like Kane, who said that violent crimes have been declining steadily for the last 40 years because of parents are spanking less? Using that logic, parents must be spanking more now. Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutually exclusive? ;-) Doan " What would a 3.7 percent change have to do with a 40 year trend? It exposed you as a STUPID LIAR! I asked you a question from that old post, you didn't answer. The subject under discussion, of course, was violent crime. I am neither stupid, nor a liar. You are both. As I said, you reconstruct in your deluded mind, what others have said, even doing so in quoting Straus, and then scream, as you just did, that someone is stupid because they can't see you delusion for the truth. Of course they can't. It's YOUR delusion. See how simple that was? I suspect you have, as you boys that think you are more intelligent than others will do, is shoot yourself in the foot. Notice the upswing didn't start until ONE YEAR AGO. Now go get that smoking hole in your foot fixed, little fool. Hihihi! It must be that population increase! What, in a rate per 100k. R R R R R . You still don't know how to play chess, and how to feint or protect yourself from one. Hahaha! And you just exposed yourself as a STUPID LIAR, as Cindy Lauper say, time after time. Well, I asked YOU a question, that you were so stupid as to quote. A question is not a statement of fact, it's just a question. The subject, which you forgot to snip, was the CNN piece of VIOLENT CRIME. Care to explain? Where did I state that crime, just crime, dropped for 40 years? I knew you'd bury yourself pretty quickly. Your opening was so unbelievably stupid. Hihihi! You are looking in the mirror again. I don't think so, child. The trend in violent crime (a little clue there as to what YOU got wrong about MY claim) for 30 years, up to 2003, had one hump in it, and overall is far far lower than in 1973. It will take a long time for an increase of 3.7 percent a year to bring it back up to anywhere near where it was in 73, bright boy. Hahaha! Showing your STUPIDITY again. Here are the data from DOJ: * The homicide rate nearly doubled from the mid 1960's to the late 1970's. Yep. I made no claim otherwise. Notice my mention of a hump...that means upward, delusional Doan. * In 1980, it peaked at 10.2 per 100,000 population and subsequently fell off to 7.9 per 100,000 in 1984. The charts I posted include the same thing and I pointed it out. * It rose again in the late 1980's and early 1990's to another peak in 1991 of 9.8 per 100,000. Yep. I pointed that out from other charts. Then, Doan, what did the rate do? Did it go down as 2003 approached, or did it go up? Come on, liar. Show us. Thus, I believe my claim still stands. THAT IS WHY YOU ARE STUPID! ;-) Nope. I pointed to an overall trend and said so, and posted the increases then the drops. According to Straus the spanking rate has dropped, not in numbers of children spanked, but in the amount of spanking that goes on. And for how long in a child's life. I'd say there is going to be a correlation found eventually. The homicide rate in particular has decreased over 42% between its record high point in 1991 and 2005. It doubled from the mid 60's to the late '70's, STUPID! Notice 1991 to 2005? I notice you avoided posting an URL to your quoted data. Any reason you didn't want to make it easy for others to see the whole chart? The homicide rate, Doan, alone, was not the subject of discussion. You are once again avoiding what I actually said. VIOLENT crime. Homicide is but one indicator. Interestingly, as more and more states banned paddling in schools. Hmmm..I wonder? You are STUPID! You are a liar. You will see, if you care to look, that our most interesting population, youth, had some amazing changes in arrest rates, for violent crime, midway from 1970 to 2003. A peak half to two thirds of the way along over the years, roughly across the all the youth age groups, then steady, and then dramatic drops in rate to a much lower rate during that last half to third. Trying to fit that square peg into a rouhd hole, Kane? Nope. Youth violent crime rates have often been claimed to be going up, when in fact they were going down. You spankers really have your heads up your asses on that one. Now this is even with burgeoning gang activity throughout those years, Doan. One reason for the peak, I'd guess. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/data/violarr.wk1 MS Office or clones will display this spreadsheet. Or the old "Works" obviously. Are they still selling that crippled thing? And if you actually look at the charted data for the span from 1960 to 2006, 46 years, you'll find the following: http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonl...cfm?stateid=52 Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate 1960 - 5.1, 2006 - 5.6, but with a major hump at that 1980 - 10.2, just 26 years ago. Almost three decades. Get the picture yet, brilliant one? See the figure for 1960, STUPID? I see it, dummy, and so what. Trends. With increasing gang activity from 60 to 2006 (I believe I corrected that to 2005 in a later post) and quite an increase, we still saw it drop to almost the same rate. Pretty impressive. It must be all that spanking going on. So we have a high, 26 years ago of 10.2, with a 2006 drop to 5.6. Not bad, eh? In 1960, it's 5.1, STUPID! Yep. One indicator. You do not have to have all indicators drop for the aggregate to be lower. For a drop in the number one violent crime statistic? The 0verall numbers are high, but they lump some property crime in there, and please remember my little hint about your stupid claim about my claim. When I say violent crime I mean person to person violent. Look at the other person to person ones. Forcible Rape had a comparatively similar high, same year, but did not drop as low as from the 1960 figure. Can you guess why the reports would be such a low rate in 1960, and so much higher than that (but still lower than the 1980 rate) in 2006? Think hard about the nature of the crime. We are seeing truly dramatic decreases over all in violent crime in this country, Doan. Yeah! Lower than they were in the '60's??? Considering the social changes, Doan, you and anyone with a brain knows that it's significant that it had a huge hump in the middle and then dropped to near 60's figures. The assault rate is nearly half now what it was in 1992. Yet another decade measure. Like all person to person violent crime, it's dropping steadily. A tic of 3.7 is hardly significant over all. We say much bigger ones than that in the past. They must spanked alot in 1992 then! ;-) In other words you aren't really willing to argue based on facts. Okay. Those three categories of violent person to person crime have DROPPED, even in the past year, Doan. Look at the categories of violent crime that do not show contact with another person that were included to get that 3.7% increase. Hahaha! Translation: "When ever you see me avoid reality, I shall respond with hahaha or hihihi." You, stupid, can't even read a chart...or won't. That's the stupid thing, Doan. To make your claims and NOT have reviewed the data. Hahaha! What was it back in the 60's, Kane. Read the char for me, STUPID! I know what it was. And in fact, my brilliant little friend, the aggregate violent crime rate, including those non person-to-person rates has been dropping steadily from 1991 high of 758.1 to last year's 463.2. Not a single year, throughout, until this one, did the rate have any increase. None. What happend from 1960's to 1991, Kane. Were they increase or decrease? In other words, what is the meaning of "is." R R R R Trends, Doan. That's all I claimed. Notice, stupid, that the rate of decrease in rates was accelerated over the rate of increase. Something was having an effect. I suspect, though the media would have you think otherwise, Straus' speculation may have something to do with it. He claims that while the rate of spanked children remains the same, from those toddler years spankings, spanking in general has drastically decreased. People are spanking less, and spanking for a shorter span of years. Imagine what might happen if spanking were completely done away with. QED Now you are exposed again for both a liar AND a fool. You exposed yourself to be STUPID LIAR! Afraid not, Doan, but let the reader be the judge. You built on your delusions. Then you claimed I said things I didn't. That is either or both a lie or stupid. Unless of course you just made an honest mistake about my claim, and what this current FBI report really means in terms of one tiny increase this year after more than a decade of dropping rates. Now just a "decade"??? Come on, Kane. You are losing it! ;-) Trends, stupid boy. The deceleration of rates from 60 to around 1991, and the acceleration of rates from 91 to the present. Doan Spanking? Who knows. There are many variables, but as I recall this all came out of claims by a cop that wrote a book about the need for more beating of kids to stop the rising crime rate...that didn't even actually exist when he wrote the book. Hahaha! While I show my willingness to continue the debate, you wish to argue that your view of what I meant by 30-40 years of reduction in the overall rate of VIOLENT crime, constitutes a lie. Here's that skinny, pal. Despite the fact that we have had, for decades, an increase in population both by immigration and by less than legal immigration who mostly DO culturally support harsher Corporal Punishment based parenting practices, we still have had not only a slower increase in violent crime rates prior to 1991 but a faster deceleration since. Figure it out yourself, dummy. That burned your little bunnies when Chris kicked his butt all over the Web. Didn't it, Doan? Where is Chris? Is he still think of you as STUPID? ;-) On the issue of our involvement in Iraq, I would suppose so. Do you think he thinks I'm a dummy on the issues concerning corporal punishment of children? I don't keep track of "where" Chris is. You and your spanking fetish cronies seemed inordinately interested in that. I wonder why? Hoping to make trouble for him at his teaching job at the university? Doan Doan, your assessment of people reading this, and their capacity for gullibility makes plain just how stupid you are to lie as you do. Few but the Gregs and Chris', the latter who choses, despite not having children to spank, not to spank, are about the only people that will go for your bull****. The rest of us can read the data, and draw factual conclusions that indeed, the overall trend in a country that has drastically reduced CP as a tool of choice for parenting is very likely to be related to an overall change in society for the better. Continue your delusions. It helps create a counterpoint that makes all the more clear these facts. We are over all a less violent society than 40 years ago, even against the odds of it happening based on those variables we have so little control over -- who comes here with what cultural values for instance --- and less acceptance of violence in our society and in our parenting. That's what "is," little boy. Kane |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The dramatic violent crime rate drop.... The must be spanking more - Violent crimes jump in first half of 2006
For 30 years the violent crime rate for the U.S. has risen. From about
1991-92, just a ten year span, it returned to levels in 1960. 30 years up, 10 years down. This year's report for the past year shows an uptic of 3.7 percent. Compared to the preceding ten year period, where year by year reductions in rate of violent crime were was much as 20 percent per year, that is a rather dramatic drop. The relation to spanking by American parents? Whose to say, but Straus notes that while nearly all toddlers are still being spanked, the length of time spanking continues as they age has dropped dramatically, and spanking of older children has dropped preciptiously. Put this together with the fact that we have had a large influx of immigrants whose child rearing culture uses a lot of CP, and more harsh CP at that, this drop in violent crime is remarkable. Why the uptic this past year? According to the claims, there are a number of possible reasons. One of the biggest and most credible I see in my state and others, is a severe cutback in the size of the police force. Less police, more crime. I predict that for a time we will see an increase in violent crime. But not because we are spanking more or less, but because we aren't going to improvement until police forces are back up to strength, and for a time, as they grow, we'll see the arrest rate increase dramatically. This is the report from last year: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/17/crime.rate/index.html FBI: Violent crime rate declines again From Terry Frieden CNN Monday, October 17, 2005; Posted: 11:25 a.m. EDT (15:25 GMT) Source: FBI United States WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. violent crime rate declined 2.2 percent last year, continuing a decade-long downward trend in serious offenses, the FBI said Monday. All major categories of violent crime in the United States declined in 2004, bringing the rates of the most serious offenses, including murders, rapes, robberies and assaults, to a level 32 percent lower than those reported in 1995, the new figures show. The rate of property crimes -- such as burglary, larceny and auto theft -- declined 2.1 percent as well last year. The only category of violent crime in which the number of incidents rose was forcible rapes -- to 94,635 in 2004 from 93,883 in 2003, an increase of 0.8 percent. But accounting for an increase in population, the rate of forcible rapes dropped 0.2 percent. The 523-page FBI Uniform Crime Report is the final compilation and statistical analysis of crime data reported by nearly all state and local law enforcement agencies for 2004. The annual report offers no reasons for the trends, but the exhaustive statistical data provides criminologists and academics with raw material to examine. Experts have attributed declines in recent years to a variety of factors, including an aging population and harsher punishments such as mandatory sentences. In 2004, the number of violent crimes dropped 1.2 percent to 1,367,009 from 1,383,676 in 2003. One murder occurred in the United States every 32.6 minutes, and the murder rate dropped 3.3 percent to 5.5 per 100,000 people (16,137 offenses).The number of murder cases was down by nearly 400 from the previous year. The report said the number of murder victims and the total of suspects were both nearly equally divided by race. Most suspects were adult men using firearms, and about one in five murder victims was female. Last year there were 401,326 robberies, down about 13,000 from 2003, and the robbery rate dropped 4.1 percent to 136.7 per 100,000 people. Arrests were made in 62 percent of murder cases, 55 percent of aggravated assault cases, 42 percent of rape cases and 26 percent of robbery cases, according to the report. Almost 7,700 hate crimes The FBI calculated 7,649 hate crimes -- cases in which offenders were motivated by bias. Of those cases, 53 percent of cases were based on race, 16 percent on religion, 15 percent on sexual orientation and 13 percent were based on ethnicity. Because of changes in reporting procedures, the FBI provided no statistical comparison to the previous year. Of single-bias incidents, the most -- 2,731 -- were described as anti-black, while 954 other cases were labeled anti-Jewish. Of the anti-homosexual cases, 738 were committed against men and 164 were against women. The FBI report also contained two special reports that examine juvenile drug violations and crimes against infants. The drug abuse report said the number of juveniles arrested increased over a 10-year period, from 159,000 in 1994 to 195,000 in 2003. "Trends for overall arrests involving drug abuse suggest that this social problem shows no signs of abating," the report said. In 2003, the last year for which juvenile arrest data was available, nearly 163,000 juveniles were arrested for possession -- 127,000 of those arrests involved marijuana, and 14,000 involved cocaine or opium. Nearly 32,000 juveniles were arrested for the sale or manufacture of drugs, the report found. In what the FBI terms an "exploratory study," a review of data involving infant victims shows that between 2001 and 2003, there were 94 cases of murder including non-negligent manslaughter of infants under 1 year of age. Most of the offenses involved assaults -- 1,023 aggravated assaults and 1,404 simple assaults. There were also 215 kidnappings and 39 rapes. Most of the incidents involved relatives or someone the family trusted. The report said an infant is rarely the only victim but reliable information is difficult to collect. "When incidents occur in private and the witnesses to such crimes either cannot speak for themselves or may be reluctant to speak because of a sense of loyalty to friends and family, it can be difficult for law enforcement to ascertain sufficient information during an investigation to have a case accepted for prosecution," the report concluded.... And for the ten prior years violent crime was down each year. Kane |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Gag | 0:-> | Spanking | 29 | December 7th 06 01:17 AM |
Kids should work... | bobb | General | 108 | December 15th 03 03:23 PM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Foster Parents | 3 | December 8th 03 11:53 PM |
| Kids should work... | Kane | General | 1 | December 6th 03 08:11 PM |