Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Screw it, there are naked women out on my lawn so im going to go look at that.

They have different curves!

And if the deviation is large enough today could be your lucky day!

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
My god guys, have you seen what he has done? He has gotten people on dakka who normally disagree and fight to join hands.......

and still trying to detract from the facts, what can't handle the truth? does the increase in school shootings by kids go against your statistics?


anywhoo i'm done here this poor thread has gone so far off track its ugly, lets agree to disagree shall we?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
My god guys, have you seen what he has done? He has gotten people on dakka who normally disagree and fight to join hands.......

Only way to complete the circle here is if sirlynchmob shows up on our side


now THAT would be a day for Dakka to remember.

 d-usa wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Screw it, there are naked women out on my lawn so im going to go look at that.

They have different curves!

And if the deviation is large enough today could be your lucky day!

they are two standard deviations

Asterios wrote:

and yet you still ignore the facts, that shows in the past 26 years 76+ more shootings in schools were committed by kids 17 and under then in the 29 years before, and you say its the same, tell me where did you learn to count?

On Friday 10 people each punch you in the face 1 time.
On Saturday 1 person punches you 6 times.

On what day were you punched more often?

Asterios wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
My god guys, have you seen what he has done? He has gotten people on dakka who normally disagree and fight to join hands.......

and still trying to detract from the facts, what can't handle the truth? does the increase in school shootings by kids go against your statistics?


anywhoo i'm done here this poor thread has gone so far off track its ugly, lets agree to disagree shall we?

no, I will agree you have no idea what you are talking about and stats don't lie

Ah, I always love the "Lets agree to disagree" line when it's used for "I'm completely wrong but still want to hold onto my wrongness".

~Hey kids, sometimes you're just wrong.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
My god guys, have you seen what he has done? He has gotten people on dakka who normally disagree and fight to join hands.......

Only way to complete the circle here is if sirlynchmob shows up on our side


now THAT would be a day for Dakka to remember.

I'm just waiting for that... keep it up.

And Asterios, the Bell Curve is still very much used today in statistics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Ah, I always love the "Lets agree to disagree" line when it's used for "I'm completely wrong but still want to hold onto my wrongness".

~Hey kids, sometimes you're just wrong.

Yup.

ok you guys still say crime is down, yet you keep forgetting the all presence fact of statistics, which is they are based on a % of the population, to give you an idea, say a city in one year has 1,000 crimes with 100,000 citizens so that would be a 1% crime rate, now say the population doubles next year to 200,000 citizens, and this time there are 2,000 crimes committed, has the crime rate gone up? not according to your statistics since the crime rate is still at 1%.

now according to the FBI crime is down (which you guys keep spouting) yet that goes in the face of the fact Prisons are over crowding and new ones being made that are overcrowded, if crime was down, the prisons should not be overcrowded should they?

now here is the instance where we are both right, crime is up with more people committing crimes, but the statistics say other wise because of the increase in population.

as to the bell curve, it is flawed in that it does not account for variables and selections, the bell curve works in the perfect world, but in reality it can be altered and become permeable by just one action, and become totally wrong by the lack of another action. actions its not designed to allow for.

Asterios wrote:
now according to the FBI crime is down (which you guys keep spouting) yet that goes in the face of the fact Prisons are over crowding and new ones being made that are overcrowded, if crime was down, the prisons should not be overcrowded should they?.

Well, the fact that prisons are overcrowded may be the reason that crime is going down. Here's a quote from an article I recently read:

The scholarly consensus is that mass incarceration accounted for about 10 to 20 percent of the overall crime drop since 1992. “If you did a thought experiment, let’s add a million people to the prison system, and let’s suppose 1 percent of them are really serious habitual offenders who commit 50 crimes per year, that’s a reduction of half a million crimes,” Roman says. “Whether the destruction of communities associated with mass incarceration is worth it? That’s a completely different question.”

There are quite a few theories as to why crime is falling, from abortion legalization, lead gas reduction, technology, economic boom of the 90's etc. Its really an interesting topic deserving of its own thread.

 nels1031 wrote:

There are quite a few theories as to why crime is falling, from abortion legalization, lead gas reduction, technology, economic boom of the 90's etc. Its really an interesting topic deserving of its own thread.

I'd still say that the access of pr0n has contributed to the decrease of crime.

If you're stressed out, as the great kronkonian used to say:
Rub one out!

 nels1031 wrote:

Asterios wrote:
now according to the FBI crime is down (which you guys keep spouting) yet that goes in the face of the fact Prisons are over crowding and new ones being made that are overcrowded, if crime was down, the prisons should not be overcrowded should they?.

Well, the fact that prisons are overcrowded may be the reason that crime is going down. Here's a quote from an article I recently read:

The scholarly consensus is that mass incarceration accounted for about 10 to 20 percent of the overall crime drop since 1992. “If you did a thought experiment, let’s add a million people to the prison system, and let’s suppose 1 percent of them are really serious habitual offenders who commit 50 crimes per year, that’s a reduction of half a million crimes,” Roman says. “Whether the destruction of communities associated with mass incarceration is worth it? That’s a completely different question.”

There are quite a few theories as to why crime is falling, from abortion legalization, lead gas reduction, technology, economic boom of the 90's etc. Its really an interesting topic deserving of its own thread.

the problem is the amount of people committing crimes is not dropping, its just the population increasing, say you have 100 people and 10 commit a crime, next year you then have 200 people and 10 commit a crime, according to statistics the crime rate has dropped in half, even though the same number of people committed crimes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 nels1031 wrote:

There are quite a few theories as to why crime is falling, from abortion legalization, lead gas reduction, technology, economic boom of the 90's etc. Its really an interesting topic deserving of its own thread.

I'd still say that the access of pr0n has contributed to the decrease of crime.

If you're stressed out, as the great kronkonian used to say:
Rub one out!

Actually Television and especially the news has led to upticks in crime like school shootings, the way the news coverage spotlights school shootings and pretty much makes the shooter look like a rock star with his name being mentioned every minute, it causes others who are so inclined for doing something stupid to think I could do that and become famous. and the internet even adds to that.

If you are talking about crime as a whole, yes, it is generally decreasing. This is a trend we can see.

There are certain crimes that HAVE gone up, such as Identity Theft. The reason why ID theft has gone up is because guys who tried making a living on it, have now realized that the money isn't there any more. In the 1990s, it was estimated that a good, usable ID was worth around $10,000. Now, a list of 100k names and information is worth around $100.



I think that we have shown that there's not been a significant increase in actual school shootings in recent years, however, there HAS been a seismic change in how they are covered by the media. This coverage definitely gives off that they are significantly rising because it's sensational and apparently draws in viewers.


Perhaps Dakka's resident senior citizen can help us here... in the 60s and 70s, even the 80s (so basically, pre-CNN), would you EVER hear about a school shooting in, let's use the Puyallup/Spanaway location from 87, if you lived in a place other than Washington?

To my own memory, the Thurston High shooting was among the first to be really sensationalized. However, I live in Oregon where it happened, which may affect it's coverage. The next one I really remember is Columbine. And yet, according to Wikipedia, there were 2 or 3 shootings in between those.

This is like watching Tyson fight an infant. He's got to be trolling right?

DutchWinsAll wrote:
This is like watching Tyson fight an infant. He's got to be trolling right?

Probably not intentionally. I think he's so set on his opinion and perception that no amount of facts can shift it.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
If you are talking about crime as a whole, yes, it is generally decreasing. This is a trend we can see.

There are certain crimes that HAVE gone up, such as Identity Theft. The reason why ID theft has gone up is because guys who tried making a living on it, have now realized that the money isn't there any more. In the 1990s, it was estimated that a good, usable ID was worth around $10,000. Now, a list of 100k names and information is worth around $100.



I think that we have shown that there's not been a significant increase in actual school shootings in recent years, however, there HAS been a seismic change in how they are covered by the media. This coverage definitely gives off that they are significantly rising because it's sensational and apparently draws in viewers.


Perhaps Dakka's resident senior citizen can help us here... in the 60s and 70s, even the 80s (so basically, pre-CNN), would you EVER hear about a school shooting in, let's use the Puyallup/Spanaway location from 87, if you lived in a place other than Washington?

To my own memory, the Thurston High shooting was among the first to be really sensationalized. However, I live in Oregon where it happened, which may affect it's coverage. The next one I really remember is Columbine. And yet, according to Wikipedia, there were 2 or 3 shootings in between those.

actually with identity theft, the internet has helped that a lot (think of the Nigerian prince), as to news, it has not made access to more school shootings to make it seem there is an uptick, it just sensationalizes it which causes more kids wanting to do it to become famous, me I've lived for well over 40 years (yeah we'll say that much) and I've seen school shootings go from maybe a couple a year to much more, with some kids seeing if they can outdo the one before by having a larger body count, then there is the ones who are going for suicide by cop, which was the prevalent way for some kids to get attention before school shootings became the new fad.

while the percentages will say crime is down, the numbers do not as said earlier. and that's going by the actual number of crimes being committed as opposed the percentage of the crimes being committed based on the population size.

Asterios wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
If you are talking about crime as a whole, yes, it is generally decreasing. This is a trend we can see.

There are certain crimes that HAVE gone up, such as Identity Theft. The reason why ID theft has gone up is because guys who tried making a living on it, have now realized that the money isn't there any more. In the 1990s, it was estimated that a good, usable ID was worth around $10,000. Now, a list of 100k names and information is worth around $100.



I think that we have shown that there's not been a significant increase in actual school shootings in recent years, however, there HAS been a seismic change in how they are covered by the media. This coverage definitely gives off that they are significantly rising because it's sensational and apparently draws in viewers.


Perhaps Dakka's resident senior citizen can help us here... in the 60s and 70s, even the 80s (so basically, pre-CNN), would you EVER hear about a school shooting in, let's use the Puyallup/Spanaway location from 87, if you lived in a place other than Washington?

To my own memory, the Thurston High shooting was among the first to be really sensationalized. However, I live in Oregon where it happened, which may affect it's coverage. The next one I really remember is Columbine. And yet, according to Wikipedia, there were 2 or 3 shootings in between those.

actually with identity theft, the internet has helped that a lot (think of the Nigerian prince), as to news, it has not made access to more school shootings to make it seem there is an uptick, it just sensationalizes it which causes more kids wanting to do it to become famous, me I've lived for well over 40 years (yeah we'll say that much) and I've seen school shootings go from maybe a couple a year to much more, with some kids seeing if they can outdo the one before by having a larger body count, then there is the ones who are going for suicide by cop, which was the prevalent way for some kids to get attention before school shootings became the new fad.

while the percentages will say crime is down, the numbers do not as said earlier. and that's going by the actual number of crimes being committed as opposed the percentage of the crimes being committed based on the population size.

I want your sources confirming that children are trying to become famous through school shootings and that they are trying to outdo each other.

You are sounding more and more like Clint Eastwood's character from Gran Torino. DURN KIDS GET OFF MA LAWN!

He also apparently lives in the same town.

Asterios wrote:

actually with identity theft, the internet has helped that a lot (think of the Nigerian prince)

Helped?? How? It's more prevalent now than ever.... It just also happens to be extremely devalued.


From a book I was reading while stationed in Germany (I'll have to ask the coworker who owned it what it was called), the way "profitable" ID theft works now is quite a bit different than even 10 years ago. 10 years ago, you could pose as a Nigerian Prince, The FBI Director, etc. get people to respond to your email and get their information. Now, banks are on to that and stop it before much damage can be done.

Now, what ID Thieves have to do in order to be viable as a "profession" is go after unsecured information. The way they do that is to "intercept" the data packets sent between hospitals and insurance companies, or hospitals and banks. See, each system individually is encrypted with it's own special version of encryption, however they often travel via rather "unsecured" means (because seriously, of all the insurance companies, banks and hospitals, etc. how many of them are all going to hire the exact SAME company for encryption??) This means that the ID thieves, instead of getting one name and ruining it, they get 100,000 names, of which the people who use them can maybe get between 5-10 "usable" IDs out of it.

Hence why, instead of being able to be paid between 1-10k dollars, they can make maybe 100 off of a whole list of names.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Asterios wrote:

actually with identity theft, the internet has helped that a lot (think of the Nigerian prince)

Helped?? How? It's more prevalent now than ever.... It just also happens to be extremely devalued.


From a book I was reading while stationed in Germany (I'll have to ask the coworker who owned it what it was called), the way "profitable" ID theft works now is quite a bit different than even 10 years ago. 10 years ago, you could pose as a Nigerian Prince, The FBI Director, etc. get people to respond to your email and get their information. Now, banks are on to that and stop it before much damage can be done.

Now, what ID Thieves have to do in order to be viable as a "profession" is go after unsecured information. The way they do that is to "intercept" the data packets sent between hospitals and insurance companies, or hospitals and banks. See, each system individually is encrypted with it's own special version of encryption, however they often travel via rather "unsecured" means (because seriously, of all the insurance companies, banks and hospitals, etc. how many of them are all going to hire the exact SAME company for encryption??) This means that the ID thieves, instead of getting one name and ruining it, they get 100,000 names, of which the people who use them can maybe get between 5-10 "usable" IDs out of it.

Hence why, instead of being able to be paid between 1-10k dollars, they can make maybe 100 off of a whole list of names.

no I meant the internet has made identity theft much easier, also with identity theft you are lowballing it, since the right theft could net a lot of money, my folks had their identity stolen and had credit cards opened in their name and such (this was 6 years ago) I managed to track where the thieves were and informed the local law of their location and the evidence against them, they were apprehended, but not after running up thousands of dollars of items they stuck the credit companies with.

Asterios wrote:

no I meant the internet has made identity theft much easier, also with identity theft you are lowballing it, since the right theft could net a lot of money, my folks had their identity stolen and had credit cards opened in their name and such (this was 6 years ago) I managed to track where the thieves were and informed the local law of their location and the evidence against them, they were apprehended, but not after running up thousands of dollars of items they stuck the credit companies with.

I feel bad for your parents, however, for the most part, the actual ID thieves, and the people who ruin lives are two separate entities.


As an example. Just last year, when the USA Eagles played against Uruguay for a spot in the Rugby World Cup (later this year!) my friend and rugby coach, along with a group of our HS players, went out to Atlanta to watch the game... The game was on Saturday, so they drove up Friday, got a hotel and had dinner. On Saturday, at dinner, he tried swiping his card (the same one as the hotel and dinner the previous night), only to find out that it had been "stolen"

When he called up the card company, he was informed that he had spent over 6k (on a 4k limit card, somehow) at various Walmarts around the Southeastern US. He had previously informed his bank/card companies that he would be in Atlanta that weekend, so other locations should have flagged for activity. They responded with, "well sir, these charges show that your physical card was swiped at those locations)... The problem with THAT is, that the various charges were about 6 minutes apart, but they were about as far apart as you could imagine... Like, New Orleans, Birmingham Alabama, Louisville Kentucky, Raleigh NC....


Long story short, eventually the money thing got sorted out, LE called in and they had tracked the information and were tracking a "ring" of thieves.

So is he arguing now that school shootings haven't really gotten worse since more kids in school = no higher rate of shootings?

This jumping around is giving me whiplash...

 d-usa wrote:
So is he arguing now that school shootings haven't really gotten worse since more kids in school = no higher rate of shootings?

This jumping around is giving me whiplash...

no they have still increased just as crime has increased while the % of crime based on the population has reduced.

but then again, you are hard of hearing aren't you?

10 people slap you once Friday.
1 person slaps you 6 times Saturday.
What day were you slapped more.

Until you can answer a simple question there is absolutely no point waiting the bandwidth on you to even try to explain rates to you, especially since your revaluations were already addressed pages ago. (Ex: your "if crime is down why more police" question and my "more people at a lower crime rate can still mean more net crime" answer).

I still want your sources confirming that children are trying to become famous through school shootings and that they are trying to outdo each other.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I still want your sources confirming that children are trying to become famous through school shootings and that they are trying to outdo each other.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/crucial-conversations/201204/the-media-is-accomplice-in-school-shootings

http://ithp.org/articles/mediacopycatshootings.html

Confusing "editorials" with "sources" explains a lot.

 d-usa wrote:
Confusing "editorials" with "sources" explains a lot.

you don't read do you? if you did you would have also seen corroborating evidence in the articles (especially the second one) to said articles.

but then again you think everything is all wine and roses.

also Psychology today is a well respected source amongst many.

Asterios wrote:


also Psychology today is a well respected source amongst many.

While true, what you linked to was still an editorial.


The problem with this "theory", and I've seen mental health "experts" on various news programs (CNN, Faux, etc) (and the reason I put experts in quotes, is because I can't even recall the number of times I've seen these people on those shows where credentials are shown, and none have a degree in psychology, psychiatry or even related fields), postulating just such a thing... The problem with it is that there's really no scientific way to study it directly. Sure, we could look at other avenues, or other situations, but it isn't the same at all. On top of that, every human brain is different. I mean, sure, at the scientific level a thought is merely the electrical connection between two points in the brain, but the fact still remains that everyone thinks differently, everyone feels differently, etc. The one commonality most school shooters have, is having been on/taking anti-depressant medications.... And I don't really want to go down that rabbit hole (we had a whole thread on it from the last time school shootings were talked about), so suffice it to say that for the majority of people who are prescribed these drugs, they work fairly well.

Asterios wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Confusing "editorials" with "sources" explains a lot.

you don't read do you? if you did you would have also seen corroborating evidence in the articles (especially the second one) to said articles.

but then again you think everything is all wine and roses.

also Psychology today is a well respected source amongst many.

I could spent the next 30 minutes holding your hand and walking you through the process of actually critically evaluating an article, following the references, and seeing if there is any actual evidence to back up the conclusion of the author.

Or maybe I could have you read your own link where your corroborating evidence isn't corroborating what you are saying:

Scientific Guy wrote:Although it is not known for certain whether mass shootings also show a media-driven copycat effect.

So to continue the previous list:

You: Stuff is worse.
Everybody else: No it isn't rates are going down.
You: No, my neighborhood is bad.
Everybody else: It's the lowest it has been in 2 decades after declining during that time.
You: But school shootings!
Everybody else: 3,000,000 less violent crimes.
You: But 75 more school shootings [insert random wrong statistical calculation for emphasis]
Everybody else: Here are statistics showing how wrong you are.
You: Numbers that don't exist prove me right!
Everybody else: Why don't you provide a source showing you are right?
You: Here it is! [posts editorial and another source saying "there is no way to know if OP is right".

But hey, keep it up!

also Psychology today is a well respected source amongst many.

An editorial in a well respected journal is still an editorial and not a peer reviewed article.

10 people slap you once on Friday.
1 person slaps you six times on Saturday.
What day were you slapped more?