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

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

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

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

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

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