The Black Vault

at1with0 wrote:I don't know how many mass shootings but I would assume it's less than ten per year. If there are 100,000 schools then that would be less than 10 in 100000 which I think is 0.01% chance of it happening at any given school.

Here is a list of US school shootings I found. I think if you look at them, mostly are suicides, with no other deaths or injuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sc ... ted_States

So, I guess to calculate a real result, you'd need a definition of what constituted a "mass murder" at school, then go from there. By this list, I would say the odds are much greater than 1:100,000. Interesting question, however.

WEll if it was as high as 1%, then 1% of 100,000 schools would be cites of mass murders. 1% of 100,000 is 1,000.

I don't think 1,000 schools per year are cites of mass murders.

.01% sounds like a much better upper bound on the probability.

I love Mel's movies, in real life he is something different. I actually watched Ransom last night, never seen it before. But one thing is for certain, even Mel hides his Australian accent, so at least he is embarrassed about something important.

greeney2 wrote:I love Mel's movies, in real life he is something different. I actually watched Ransom last night, never seen it before. But one thing is for certain, even Mel hides his Australian accent, so at least he is embarrassed about something important.

I used to be a big fan of Mel Gibson until his rant. I still am.. some of his movies still remain towards the top of the list. But I have a hard time admitting that.

Rant? Did he go off on the Jews again?

greeney2 wrote:Bad enough you embarrass yourself denying the figures of your own criminal bureau, but to use Mel Gibson as an example for anything, given his worldwide shame of a reputation is pretty pathetic. Aside from turning a tragedy on all these dead people into another Rath anti-american rant, is typical of your caliber. No pun intended.

greeney2 wrote:You have your own problems to solve in Australia! Gun control did not solve them.

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

April 13, 2009

It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," D.C. Examiner, April 8, 2009.

http://www.examiner.com/x-2879-Austin-G ... te-gun-ban

Greeney2 You keep quoting something called the Australian Criminal bureau ..

Like i said ..... you keep quoting inaccurate figures from fake U.S web sites to back up fake statistics, claimed by people who's only agenda is to lie & mislead in the hope of posting & publishing miss-information so they can hold onto their guns.

Tell me .... Where is this Australian Criminal Bureau, from. Because it does not exist anywhere in Australia.

(( It's not even a real Agency )) the web site you linked to just made it up & made up the research papers & crime statistics to back up his/her lies to disseminate misinformation to support their positions to own guns so they can continue to kill & commit crimes.

greeney2 wrote:another Rath anti-american rant, is typical of your caliber. No pun intended.

Since when is telling the truth & accurately recording history Anti-American.

Unless your saying anything that exposes American Lies & propaganda is Anti-American. ( is that why you dislike Julian Assange so much is it. ) because he exposed U.S lies & propaganda to the world.

greeney2 wrote:Bad enough you embarrass yourself denying the figures of your own criminal bureau, but to use Mel Gibson as an example for anything, given his worldwide shame of a reputation is pretty pathetic.

Oh & Mel Gibson is an American Remember ..... He was Born in the USA. ( so is it any wonder he is a racist & a revisionist. )

greeney2 wrote:Bad enough you embarrass yourself denying the figures of your own criminal bureau, but to use Mel Gibson as an example for anything, given his worldwide shame of a reputation is pretty pathetic. Aside from turning a tragedy on all these dead people into another Rath anti-american rant, is typical of your caliber. No pun intended.

Anti-American ...... iv never been Anti- American.

I am however Anti-lies & Propaganda. ..... I am Against the USA claiming the history & achievements of other Nations ( not just Australia's ) as evidence by my posts about Australia's inventions & movies & war history that the USA keeps trying to pass of & claim as it's own.

Just because i post the truth about something that goes against the lies & propaganda that the American people are told to believe. even when the facts are not true. ( example ... How the Movie saving private Ryan was about an Australian & an Australia battle against the Germans & there where no U.S troops there. or how The Great Escape Was Also About an Australian battle & there where no Americans there. ..... Or how Felix the cat is an Australian film / cartoon & not American as you all claim on the internet. [ John Cainmaker ] ) or how Australian's created Wi-Fi or Instagram or Google maps or invented the black box ... ect ect.

blackvault wrote:

at1with0 wrote:I don't know how many mass shootings but I would assume it's less than ten per year. If there are 100,000 schools then that would be less than 10 in 100000 which I think is 0.01% chance of it happening at any given school.

Here is a list of US school shootings I found. I think if you look at them, mostly are suicides, with no other deaths or injuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sc ... ted_States

So, I guess to calculate a real result, you'd need a definition of what constituted a "mass murder" at school, then go from there. By this list, I would say the odds are much greater than 1:100,000. Interesting question, however.

So your in Agreement with me after all .... that you can't compare figures from different studies, unless you / they use the same mathematical formula to calculate the statistics accurately.

There are a million ways to get statistical facts to say whatever the author wishes the study to say.

narrow or broaden the base or filed to include or exclude certain people, genders & or ethnic groups, or age groups. you can also redefine the meaning of a crime by putting it into a different group / field.

See Greeney2's post on the definition of rape/sexual assault where he quoted a third party source.

( In the article the source tried to claim that rape was called sexual assault in Australia ) a blatant lie.

Just another example of how unreliable web site run by unknown people trying to push an agenda can influence the minds of people who will only ever seek out information to support their already per-formed opinions. regardless of the lies & miss representation of the facts & figures these people put out onto the internet.

rath wrote:

So your in Agreement with me after all .... that you can't compare figures from different studies, unless you / they use the same mathematical formula to calculate the statistics accurately.

What are you talking about??? I am not good at math at all, and I think a 1st grader can figure this out. You are comparing apples and spaghetti, and somehow, that makes sense to you.

First, YOU (rath) and I were talking about a decline in a statistic. That's it... a DECLINE. We took into consideration population; and you get a result / percentage of decline. Although you wanted to ignore the real math of it - that's what you and I were discussing.

Here, above, someone else (NOT rath) and I were discussing the calculation of ODDS of something happening. MUCH different. You can't compare the two scenarios/discussions - as they take different rationales, formulas, and math to figure out. You can try, in whatever thread you want, to make me look stupid with your sarcasm and false logic... but it isn't working.

Rath, since you trash every source that's thrown at you, I'd like to ask this honestly.

You don't believe 1+1=2. You don't believe U.S. news agencies. You don't believe statistics. You don't believe in Santa Claus.

Tell me, what are your sources of information? What NEWS agencies do YOU get your information from that you consider clean, unbiased, and FACTUAL?

rath wrote:There are a million ways to get statistical facts to say whatever the author wishes the study to say.

That's right, rath.

blackvault wrote:Tell me, what are your sources of information? What NEWS agencies do YOU get your information from that you consider clean, unbiased, and FACTUAL?

If rath is consistent, then he'd have to question every source of information but does he?