Mass shooting

[WIP]

Why is that? Hire additional police officers and deputies through local departments……..you wouldn’t even have to put the new hires into the schools…..

It's worth noting that the NRA is most actively the proponents of self-protection, and many of their members express open hostility to law enforcement.....example would be if you look up how they interpret Waco or Ruby Ridge; and yet here's Wayne LaPierre calling for America to be turned into a police state with a cop or a rentacop with a gun standing in front of every school!

[Bonam]

Don't need your less. Although you are right often when putting math into words you have to be careful at the words you picked. If you asked for a clarification I would have given you the formula

I did not require clarification, as I have seen many freshman students make the same mistake and knew what you meant, hence why I offered a correction instead.

Thanks for nothing though, and thanks for not addressing what I was talking about. Anything not to talk about the problem right guys?

It's already been talked about to death in multiple threads totaling over 150 pages.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Bonam

[punked]

I did not require clarification, as I have seen many freshman students make the same mistake, hence why I offered a correction instead.

It's already been talked about to death in multiple threads totaling over 150 pages.

You would think it has been talked about to death but one sides refuses to admit there is even the need for discussion.

[Bonam]

You would think it has been talked about to death but one sides refuses to admit there is even the need for discussion.

That may be, personally, I offered my input on the subject a while back and do not see a need to do so again, hence why my comment here was restricted in scope to your use of %.

[punked]

That may be, personally, I offered my input on the subject a while back and do not see a need to do so again, hence why my comment here was restricted in scope to your use of %.

Which is fine and I thank you for the correction although it didn't add anything to the argument. If people were confused by my poor math into English they could have asked and I would have written the formula. I think everyone understood what was being said though because I showed the math in this very thread not more then a few pages ago. Which is why I didn't think it necessary to post it again.

Edited December 24, 2012 by punked

[Bonam]

Which is fine and I thank you for the correction although it didn't add anything to the argument. If people were confused by my poor math into English they could have asked and I would have written the formula. I think everyone understood what was being said though because I showed the math in this very thread not more then a few pages ago. Which is why I didn't think it necessary to post it again.

Excellent. In that case, feel free to return to your regularly scheduled discussion. I'm sure BC_2004 and AW are waiting.

[Wilber]

Not entirely correct. 600% more means that they have our rate, plus 600% more in addition to that, meaning 7 times our rate. If you want to use the phrasing x% more to express a rate that is 6 times ours (as is punked's intent), it would be correct to say that the US has 500% more. Alternately, to avoid any possibility of confusion, one could simply say that the US has 600% Canada's rate.

OK, was just using 600 as a number. I didn't know whether it was 500 or 600 in reality. I agree, 6 times is not the same as 600%.

[punked]

OK, was just using 600 as a number. I didn't know whether it was 500 or 600 in reality. I agree, 6 times is not the same as 600%.

6 times is the same as 600% however 6 times is not the same as 600% MORE.

[Wilber]

It's worth noting that the NRA is most actively the proponents of self-protection, and many of their members express open hostility to law enforcement.....example would be if you look up how they interpret Waco or Ruby Ridge; and yet here's Wayne LaPierre calling for America to be turned into a police state with a cop or a rentacop with a gun standing in front of every school!

Massacres like this are problems that could impact the NRA's rice bowl. They want it to go away without their ox being gored. The safety of kids or anyone else is secondary to that objective.

[Wilber]

6 times is the same as 600% however 6 times is not the same as 600% MORE.

Damn, that's what I meant. Jeez you guys are picky.

[punked]

Damn, that's what I meant. Jeez you guys are picky.

I get what you saying. Just putting it in a simple formula is so much easier but not eveyone understands the notation.

[Wilber]

Here we go again.

http://www2.wspa.com/news/2012/dec/24/14/report-fire-crews-shot-gunman-ar-5232002/

[cybercoma]

Any different than the empty room in the house? The clothes and other personal possessions? All the toys that are already lying around from previous years? All the photos that the family has? The report cards from school? Sorry but I don't see any difference.

The toys at Christmas are just one more thing. You asked what was particular about it happening just before Christmas.

[Wilber]

Any different than the empty room in the house? The clothes and other personal possessions? All the toys that are already lying around from previous years? All the photos that the family has? The report cards from school? Sorry but I don't see any difference.

I see a difference. The empty room, old toys and artifacts are reminder of a history and experience lived. The unopened gifts are a reminder of a future and experiences that will never be realized.

Merry Christmas everyone.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Wilber

[The_Squid]

Apparently they're supposed to write studies without conclusions.

Yes, the center for disease control has never blamed smoking for lung cancer, cuz, you know, that woul be promoting a "side of an issue".

What a silly notion.

[Bonam]

Scientific conclusion: "Based on the data analyzed in the study, smoking increases the risk of lung cancer by x%."

Political conclusion: "Based on the data analyzed in the study, the government should take steps to discourage smoking."

Scientific conclusion: "Based on the global temperature data presented, the world has warmed by x degrees C over the last 100 years and is projected to increase by y-z degrees over the next 100 years based on models A, B, and C."

Political conclusion: "We should implement a carbon tax to reduce CO2 emissions."

There's a very clear distinction between the two. The first belongs in a scientific study, the second does not.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Bonam

[The_Squid]

Scientific conclusion: "Based on the data analyzed in the study, smoking increases the risk of lung cancer by x%."

Political conclusion: "Based on the data analyzed in the study, the government should take steps to discourage smoking."

Scientific conclusion: "Based on the global temperature data presented, the world has warmed by x degrees C over the last 100 years and is projected to increase by y-z degrees over the next 100 years based on models A, B, and C."

Political conclusion: "We should implement a carbon tax to reduce CO2 emissions."

There's a very clear distinction between the two. The first belongs in a scientific study, the second does not.

Nonsense. The CDC has a mandate to not only study cancer from smoking related causes, but to encourage the cessation of smoking by the public.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/

Why? Because it is common sense that a gov't organization would work to reduce preventable deaths from occurring.

[Bonam]

That's all well and good if that's the mandate of the CDC. I am merely pointing out the difference between "doing a study" and promoting a cause.

[Bonam]

So, one more shooting:

http://www.nytimes.c...-york.html?_r=0

And again we have:

The gunman was identified as William Spengler, 62, who lived at 191 Lake Road, where the fire began, and had served about 18 years in prison for killing his grandmother, the police chief said. Officials said he was imprisoned until 1998, and had remained on supervised parole until 2006.

Mr. Spengler’s motives were unclear, though Chief Pickering said “there were certainly mental health issues involved.”

Why was a mentally ill murderer unleashed back on society to begin with? Where is cybercoma to tell me that infallible mental health professionals must have evaluated him as no longer a risk and that therefore everything is peachy with releasing him (as in the recent thread we had on this issue in Canada)?

And, further, why was he able to procure guns despite his mental condition and prior criminal record?

Edited December 25, 2012 by Bonam

[jbg]

We are in the USA section talking about the USA, we have the usual ones come out and tell the rest of us to stuff it because we are not American while they quickly derail the thread into something else.

Not my view. I comment on Canadian issues all the time.

You are totally welcome even though you and I disagree about just about everything but decorum. And you are wrong 99% of the time, but you are still welcome.

[punked]

So, one more shooting:

http://www.nytimes.c...-york.html?_r=0

And again we have:

Why was a mentally ill murderer unleashed back on society to begin with?

Budget cuts.

[cybercoma]

So, one more shooting:

http://www.nytimes.c...-york.html?_r=0

And again we have:

Why was a mentally ill murderer unleashed back on society to begin with? Where is cybercoma to tell me that infallible mental health professionals must have evaluated him as no longer a risk and that therefore everything is peachy with releasing him (as in the recent thread we had on this issue in Canada)?

And, further, why was he able to procure guns despite his mental condition and prior criminal record?

When did I ever say mental health professionals were infallible? Don't make crap up because you don't understand my arguments.

[TheNewTeddy]

I see a difference. The empty room, old toys and artifacts are reminder of a history and experience lived. The unopened gifts are a reminder of a future and experiences that will never be realized.

Merry Christmas everyone.

As you open your gifts with your kids this morning, keep this quote in mind

Why is it disgusting ? What kind of fool would accept such carnage as being better after "Christmas" ?

[Guest American Woman]

As you open your gifts with your kids this morning, keep this quote in mind

I don't know what you think bush_cheney was saying, NewTeddy, but what he said is true. It's no easier to lose your child after Christmas. Losing your child right before Christmas certainly ruins Christmas - and Christmas will likely never be the same. But that's about the loss of Christmas. As for the loss of the child, that is not going be be any easier to take at any other time of the year - that loss is always going to be just as devastating - and that is what b_c was saying.

Edited December 25, 2012 by American Woman

[TheNewTeddy]

I don't know what you think bush_cheney was saying, NewTeddy, but what he said is true. It's no easier to lose your child after Christmas. Losing your child right before Christmas certainly ruins Christmas - and Christmas will likely never be the same. But that's about the loss of Christmas.

You contradict yourself.

Edited to add:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/24/us/connecticut-newtown-police-holiday/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Edited December 25, 2012 by TheNewTeddy