Mystery of the US homicide rate

[Almighty Colin]

Anyone have any idea why the US homicide rate took off from 1904 to 1907 and stayed high? Note that the homicide rate is lower today than it was 90 years ago. The question remains though. Why did it ever take off in the first place and why from 1904-1907?

US Homicide rate (per 100k)

1900 1.2
1901 1.2
1902 1.2
1903 1.1
1904 1.3
1905 2.1
1906 3.9
1907 4.9
1908 4.8
1909 4.2
1910 4.6
1911 5.5
1912 5.4
1913 6.1
1914 6.2
1915 5.9
1916 6.3
1917 6.9
1918 6.5
1919 7.2
1920 6.8
1921 8.1
1922 8
1923 7.8
1924 8.1
1925 8.3
1926 8.4
1927 8.4
1928 8.6
1929 8.4
1930 8.8
1931 9.2
1932 9
1933 9.7
1934 9.5
1935 8.3
1936 8
1937 7.6
1938 6.8
1939 6.4
1940 6.3
1941 6
1942 5.9
1943 5.1
1944 5
1945 5.7
1946 6.4
1947 6.1
1948 5.9
1949 5.4
1950 5.3
1951 4.9
1952 5.2
1953 4.8
1954 4.8
1955 4.5
1956 4.6
1957 4.5
1958 4.5
1959 4.6
1960 4.7
1961 4.7
1962 4.8
1963 4.9
1964 5.1
1965 5.5
1966 5.9
1967 6.8
1968 7.3
1969 7.7
1970 8.3
1971 9.1
1972 9.4
1973 9.7
1974 10.1
1975 9.9
1976 9
1977 9.1
1978 9.2
1979 10
1980 10.7
1981 10.3
1982 9.6
1983 8.6
1984 8.4
1985 8.4
1986 9
1987 8.7
1988 9
1989 9.3
1990 10
1991 10.5
1992 10
1993 10.1
1994 9.6
1995 8.7
1996 7.9
1997 7.4
1998 6.8
1999 5.7

[B]



Last edited by Colin at Oct 1 2003, 05:17 AM

[slavdogg]

Colin, interesting 1904-7 were the years of good economic expansion if i'm not mistaken.

while the years it hit over 10 were the years of recession or right/before after it.

and where id 1990 go ?

I watched bollowing for Calimbine for the first time yesterday.. good movie.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by slavdogg@Oct 1 2003, 04:56 AM
and where id 1990 go ?

Oops. Thanks.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by slavdogg@Oct 1 2003, 04:56 AM
while the years it hit over 10 were the years of recession or right/before after it.
US Recessions in

1902-1904
1907-1908

From: http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

Note: 32 recessions since 1857. About one per president. Rate seems to be slowing down. Can we defeat the downturn in the business cycle? Is this a good goal? The last 2 recessions were two of the shortest ever.

[slavdogg]

Originally posted by Colin@Oct 1 2003, 05:23 AM
Can we defeat the downturn in the business cycle?
Will never happen
We gotta have the lows to enjoy the highs :)

[KC]

Originally posted by slavdogg@Oct 1 2003, 04:56 AM
I watched bollowing for Calimbine for the first time yesterday.. good movie.
What about it did you think was good?

I thought it was a good execution of a biased look at a very controversial issue. He made a strong argument, but it was so biased that it makes the whole thing look questionable.

I thought it was entertaining, but the skewed facts and misleading storyline was bullshit.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by KC@Oct 1 2003, 10:29 PM
I thought it was entertaining, but the skewed facts and misleading storyline was bullshit.
Michael Moore is a great entertainer. No doubt. I liked the movie. It was entertaining, funny, and the cartoon in the middle killed me. As far as a serious piece though it falls far short. It's what happens when a comedian makes a movie.

I mean the idea that governmental belligerency causes increased violence in a nation has no support.

Moore also doesn't discuss the fact that the homicide rate in the US is the same today as it was in 1913. Modern media isn't causing higher homicide rates in the US. Homicide rates in the US were high before modern media even existed.

As you said, "skewed".

[slavdogg]

Originally posted by KC@Oct 1 2003, 10:29 PM
What about it did you think was good?
The cartoon :okthumb:

I kinda looked passed all the bullshit and skewed facts other than difference in homicide rates in US and Canada. That really got me thinking... am still thinking :huh:

There is some truth about Fear in the society as he described it. And that fear compounds and grows from all the little things we see or hear and warnings we read and it starts in childhood.

Today for example i was taking a piss at the gym and above the urinal there was a sign saying something like "dont leave valuables in the locker and make sure to lock it before you leave" Right away i thought about 2 things my Rolex in the locker and the this movie … than smiled and walked away. :) You see little things like this even if not taken seriously subconsciously instill fear in the society. Add on top of that all media influences and some will really believe it and will end up buying a bunker and moving to Colorado thinking the world is about to end.


That was about all i found interesting and entertaining, but that still doesnt explain what Colin pointed out about homicide rates in 1913 and now even though we know nothing else about life in 1913 to really compare.

[KC]

The thing about fear was interesting..

One of the Anti-Bowling sites pointed out that Michael Moore himself was playing off the fear in his own movie.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

"9. Fear. Bowling probably has a good point when it suggests that the media feeds off fear in a search for the fast buck. Bowling cites some examples: the razor blades in Halloween apples scare, the flesh-eating bacteria scare, etc. The examples are taken straight from Barry Glassner's excellent book on the subject, "The Culture of Fear," and Moore interviews Glassner on-camera for the point.

Then Moore does exactly what he condemns in the media.

Given the prominence of schoolyard killings as a theme in Bowling for Columbine, Moore must have asked Glassner about that subject. Whatever Glassner said is, however, left on the cutting-room floor. That's because Glassner lists schoolyard shootings as one of the mythical fears. He points out that "More than three times as many people are killed by lightning as by violence at schools."

I suppose we might go farther, and ask if Moore's film is not illustrative of what it condemns. Moore argues that the media (a) distorts reality, and (B) hypes fear of other Americans, because © fear is good for a fast buck. Moore distorts reality, hypes fear of other Americans ("are we nation of gun nuts, or just nuts?") and, well, made several million fast bucks. "

[KC]

The cartoon was funny.. I remember laughing pretty hard.

[KC]

Originally posted by Colin@Oct 1 2003, 04:36 AM
Anyone have any idea why the US homicide rate took off from 1904 to 1907 and stayed high? Note that the homicide rate is lower today than it was 90 years ago. The question remains though. Why did it ever take off in the first place and why from 1904-1907?

It would be really interesting to look at the numbers from 1850 on.. Back in the real Wild West days.. when everyone carried a firearm.

I wonder if an armed society was able to keep crime down. I'm sure the record keep of such things was pretty non existent back then.

[Brad_wishing]

9.2 was the highest I browsed in that list. Pretty crazy.

I don't know. I have a feeling that was something to do with the rise in changing culture... lots of immigration and such in the very early 1900s?

[slavdogg]

Originally posted by Brad_wishing@Oct 2 2003, 08:23 PM
I don't know. I have a feeling that was something to do with the rise in changing culture... lots of immigration and such in the very early 1900s?
Wasnt there huge immigration influx in 1990's and 80s ?

There are 35 million imigrants in this country right now, and the crime rate is the same as 90 years ago.

lots of immigration doesnt explain anything

[KC]

Originally posted by slavdogg+Oct 2 2003, 08:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (slavdogg @ Oct 2 2003, 08:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Brad_wishing@Oct 2 2003, 08:23 PM
I don't know. I have a feeling that was something to do with the rise in changing culture... lots of immigration and such in the very early 1900s?
Wasnt there huge immigration influx in 1990's and 80s ?

There are 35 million imigrants in this country right now, and the crime rate is the same as 90 years ago.

lots of immigration doesnt explain anything[/b][/quote]
It could have something to do with people from Ukraine! ;)

[slavdogg]

Originally posted by KC@Oct 2 2003, 09:29 PM
It could have something to do with people from Ukraine! ;)
Serge started it :D

1979 10
1980 10.7

had something to do with $2 he had in his wallet

[joshuawk]

hey kc paidcounter.com is for sale on domainanmesystems.com

:)

[Almighty Colin]

Saame rise in Finland beginning 1905.

"The increase in homicide rates in Finland from the 1880s onwards is clearly connected with industrialization. As such it is not an exception even in the West European context. Many West European countries experienced a rise in violent crime during the early days of industrialization. However, in Finland this rise was much sharper and turned out to be a permanent one. And what is more: in 1905 the rise became a homicide wave, which lasted till the first half of the 1930s."

Analysis of the Finland situation.
http://www.om.fi/optula/8610.htm

"The first problem is the general trend: why did industrialization cause a much sharper and longer rise in serious violent crime in Finland than in western Europe? There are at least two probable factors in the background of this phenomenon: firstly the one-sided economic structure based on forest industry, and secondly the czarist political system. In the last decades of the 19th century and at the beginning of the new one, homicide, and especially the increase in homicide, was centred in new industrial cities and towns, especially in towns based on wood processing industry, as well as in the rural lumber communes. Unlike western Europe, in Finland industrialization was mostly based on forest industry. The new forest industrial towns arose mainly in the middle of woodland. For a long time they lacked even a basic infrastructure to house and control the population. In towns where industrialization took place in old urban setting, violent crime was considerably lower. Forest industry was also a very male-dominated industry and very sensitive to economic fluctuations. The variations in production were directly reflected in the number of workforce. Both the factors had their own impact on the demographic structure of the forest industry towns, their population consisted mainly of young single men, the turnover was high, and the housing conditions even worse than in other industrial towns. To counterbalance the dull living conditions, the income level of the workers was, however, relatively high and this meant that alcohol consumption was also high. Together all these factors provided an exceptionally explosive demographic mixture.

The same kind of conditions created violent communities also, for example, in North America."

[Bishop]

I want to understand the Mystery of threads from 2003 coming back to life.. haha

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Bishop@Mar 3 2004, 09:37 AM
I want to understand the Mystery of threads from 2003 coming back to life.. haha
That one is easy to solve :okthumb:

[JerryW]

Originally posted by Colin@Mar 3 2004, 06:49 AM
Saame rise in Finland beginning 1905.

Ford start production in 1904. Could it be the car that caused the increase?

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by JerryW+Mar 4 2004, 06:15 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JerryW @ Mar 4 2004, 06:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Mar 3 2004, 06:49 AM
Saame rise in Finland beginning 1905.

Ford start production in 1904. Could it be the car that caused the increase?[/b][/quote]
That's funny because it's one of the things I thought of too. The only thing I could think of is that there would be a greater and more obvious separation between the "haves" and "have-nots" with a bunch of people riding in cars and so forth.

If you look at where homicides are committed today you see a disproportionate number of them are committed by young black men. This would, and I only assume, mean that such crimes are primarily occuring in the ghetto (upwardly mobile black men not likely to be murderers). So maybe urban ghetto-ization is the answer. I don't know the history of that. Maybe it was a change in statistical reporting (more cities, more states reporting). Just a guess.

Maybe it was Coca Cola replacing cocaine with caffeine ;-) (1905)

[HeadPimp]

One other thing to remember is the reporting of statistics... That affect numbers like this dramatically. Plus not all statistics are real. For example the average life span rose dramatically in the USA over the last 100 years. That mean people really are living to an older age.. Nope, but far less infants and children die now days, which dramatically affects the averages...

[Joe Sixpack]

Americans are not a peace-loving people.

Peacemongers are seen as traitors.

:stout:

[Dravyk]

Two guesses ... maybe better reporting? Maybe cheaper handguns?

It's probably a rather simple answer, just one hard to figure out from this distance in time.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by HeadPimp@Mar 5 2004, 02:44 AM
One other thing to remember is the reporting of statistics... That affect numbers like this dramatically. Plus not all statistics are real. For example the average life span rose dramatically in the USA over the last 100 years. That mean people really are living to an older age.. Nope, but far less infants and children die now days, which dramatically affects the averages...
Hey, read the post above yours! ;-) "Maybe it was a change in statistical reporting (more cities, more states reporting)."

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Dravyk@Mar 5 2004, 05:58 AM
Two guesses ... maybe better reporting? Maybe cheaper handguns?

It's probably a rather simple answer, just one hard to figure out from this distance in time.
I'm betting on the opposite horse. A handful of variables that will never be disentangled completely from the data. Trying to find an unknown number of variables out of hundreds of potential variables that have an influence on one statistics is a damned difficult task.

Wig,

How's the US homicide rate chart look?

[wig]

From a predictive standpoint, I do not think there is enough participation of groups to provide any usable analysis.

Homicides tend to be individual acts, separate from any mass participation.

I would venture to guess that homocides are more within the realm of chaos and randomness rather than pattern and order.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by wig@Mar 5 2004, 08:09 AM
From a predictive standpoint, I do not think there is enough participation of groups to provide any usable analysis.

Homicides tend to be individual acts, separate from any mass participation.

I would venture to guess that homocides are more within the realm of chaos and randomness rather than pattern and order.
Why then, would the US homicide rate be so consistently high compared to Western European nations? Why did homicide rates increase in nearly all Western nations beginning in 1961?

Seems to me there is a large and somewhat orderly component modified by random, chaotic events.

[Peaches]

Originally posted by Colin@Mar 5 2004, 11:31 AM
Why did homicide rates increase in nearly all Western nations beginning in 1961?
My personal opinion - a lot of it has to do with the lack of fathers in the household. I'll try to find it later today, but I read what I think was a CDC study that showed the statistics of the prison population had an incredibly high number of males raised by single mothers.

[Gunni]

It's just that you yanks are bloodthirsty psychos :nyanya: :awinky:

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Peaches+Mar 5 2004, 11:17 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peaches @ Mar 5 2004, 11:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Mar 5 2004, 11:31 AM
Why did homicide rates increase in nearly all Western nations beginning in 1961?
My personal opinion - a lot of it has to do with the lack of fathers in the household. I'll try to find it later today, but I read what I think was a CDC study that showed the statistics of the prison population had an incredibly high number of males raised by single mothers.[/b][/quote]
I agree. Francis Fukuyama's book "The Great Disruption" covers some of the evidence for that. Good book for anyone interested. No, I won't trade it.

Births to unmarried mothers stabilized for the first time in at least half a century in the mid-1990s. Almost exactly on the year crime rates began to drop.

[Peaches]

Originally posted by Colin@Mar 5 2004, 12:41 PM
I agree. Francis Fukuyama's book "The Great Disruption" covers some of the evidence for that. Good book for anyone interested. No, I won't trade it.
:nyanya:

Births to unmarried mothers stabilized for the first time in at least half a century in the mid-1990s. Almost exactly on the year crime rates began to drop.
But the kids born in the mid 1990's wouldn't have any effect on the prison population in the mid 1990's. :unsure:

[Almighty Colin]

Here you go, Peaches. Interesting. The divorce rate peaked about 1980. So did the homicide rate.


US Homicide rate (per 100k) (Divorce rate) (per 1000)

1900 1.2 (.7 Divorce rate)
1901 1.2
1902 1.2
1903 1.1
1904 1.3
1905 2.1
1906 3.9
1907 4.9
1908 4.8
1909 4.2
1910 4.6 (.9)
1911 5.5
1912 5.4
1913 6.1
1914 6.2
1915 5.9
1916 6.3
1917 6.9
1918 6.5
1919 7.2
1920 6.8 (1.6)
1921 8.1
1922 8
1923 7.8
1924 8.1
1925 8.3
1926 8.4
1927 8.4
1928 8.6
1929 8.4
1930 8.8
1931 9.2
1932 9
1933 9.7
1934 9.5
1935 8.3
1936 8
1937 7.6
1938 6.8
1939 6.4
1940 6.3 (2.0)
1941 6
1942 5.9
1943 5.1
1944 5
1945 5.7
1946 6.4
1947 6.1
1948 5.9
1949 5.4
1950 5.3 (2.6)
1951 4.9
1952 5.2
1953 4.8
1954 4.8
1955 4.5
1956 4.6
1957 4.5
1958 4.5
1959 4.6
1960 4.7 (2.2)
1961 4.7
1962 4.8
1963 4.9
1964 5.1
1965 5.5 (2.0)
1966 5.9
1967 6.8
1968 7.3
1969 7.7
1970 8.3 (3.5)
1971 9.1
1972 9.4
1973 9.7
1974 10.1
1975 9.9 (4.9)
1976 9
1977 9.1
1978 9.2
1979 10
1980 10.7 (5.2)
1981 10.3 (5.3)
1982 9.6 (5.1)
1983 8.6 (5.0)
1984 8.4 (4.9)
1985 8.4 (5.0)
1986 9 (4.8)
1987 8.7 (4.8)
1988 9 (4.8)
1989 9.3 (4.7)
1990 10 (4.7)
1991 10.5 (4.7)
1992 10 (4.8)
1993 10.1 (4.6)
1994 9.6 (4.6)
1995 8.7 (4.4)
1996 7.9 (4.3)
1997 7.4 (4.3)
1998 6.8 (4.2)
1999 5.7 (4.1)

[Peaches]

I'm not convinced the divorce rate, especially since it's in single digits, has that much to do with it. I would wager the majority of the prison population came from mothers who were never married.

Then again, I'm NOT a numbers person. :(

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Peaches@Mar 5 2004, 11:47 AM
But the kids born in the mid 1990's wouldn't have any effect on the prison population in the mid 1990's. :unsure:
Yeah. Seems more likely the falling divorce rates are correlated with both lower crime rates and children born to unmarried mothers. Mothers just more likely to be married now, period.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Peaches@Mar 5 2004, 11:52 AM
I'm not convinced the divorce rate, especially since it's in single digits, has that much to do with it. I would wager the majority of the prison population came from mothers who were never married.

Then again, I'm NOT a numbers person. :(
That's a good bet, I'd like to see those numbers. bet they are much higher than the average.

The low percentages shouldn't matter. It could have a major effect because there are few homicides in a year compared to the number of married/divorced people.

The divorce rate has dropped 23% relative to where it was in 1981. Compare this to a total US population of something like 280 million.

[Peaches]

Originally posted by Colin@Mar 5 2004, 12:58 PM
The divorce rate has dropped 23% relative to where it was in 1981. Compare this to a total US population of something like 280 million.
I still agree the prison population has an abnormal amount of "fatherless" men in it, I'm just hesitant to think the divorce rate has much to do with it.

IME, the divorce rate amongst my friends and family has dropped because people are opting not to get married, not always because more marriages are staying together. :okthumb:

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Peaches+Mar 5 2004, 12:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peaches @ Mar 5 2004, 12:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Mar 5 2004, 12:58 PM
The divorce rate has dropped 23% relative to where it was in 1981. Compare this to a total US population of something like 280 million.
I still agree the prison population has an abnormal amount of "fatherless" men in it, I'm just hesitant to think the divorce rate has much to do with it.

IME, the divorce rate amongst my friends and family has dropped because people are opting not to get married, not always because more marriages are staying together. :okthumb:[/b][/quote]
You're right, Peaches. The marriage rate is decreasing too.

Also of note is that the US divorce rate is very high compared to most nations and that the unmarried mothers rate for black families in the US is much higher than as a whole. Interesting because of the huge difference between black and non-black homicide rates in the US. About 7x I think.

[Meni]

Originally posted by Colin+Oct 2 2003, 03:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Oct 2 2003, 03:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--KC@Oct 1 2003, 10:29 PM
I thought it was entertaining, but the skewed facts and misleading storyline was bullshit.
Michael Moore is a great entertainer. No doubt. I liked the movie. It was entertaining, funny, and the cartoon in the middle killed me. As far as a serious piece though it falls far short. It's what happens when a comedian makes a movie.

I mean the idea that governmental belligerency causes increased violence in a nation has no support.

Moore also doesn't discuss the fact that the homicide rate in the US is the same today as it was in 1913. Modern media isn't causing higher homicide rates in the US. Homicide rates in the US were high before modern media even existed.

As you said, "skewed".[/b][/quote]
Colin
he's not a 'comedian'
he's a filmmaker
and didn't he point out
even in the cartoon
we the white of the US
FEAR everything
and we have a lot of guns around
Fear plus guns
and we had guns in the 1905
right?

Colin why is our gun murder rate so high?
canucks have plenty of guns

[Meni]

Colin, why not check the statistics on guys who work in statistics getting laid

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Meni+Mar 5 2004, 12:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Meni @ Mar 5 2004, 12:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Colin@Oct 2 2003, 03:03 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--KC@Oct 1 2003, 10:29 PM
I thought it was entertaining, but the skewed facts and misleading storyline was bullshit.
Michael Moore is a great entertainer. No doubt. I liked the movie. It was entertaining, funny, and the cartoon in the middle killed me. As far as a serious piece though it falls far short. It's what happens when a comedian makes a movie.

I mean the idea that governmental belligerency causes increased violence in a nation has no support.

Moore also doesn't discuss the fact that the homicide rate in the US is the same today as it was in 1913. Modern media isn't causing higher homicide rates in the US. Homicide rates in the US were high before modern media even existed.

As you said, "skewed".
Colin
he's not a 'comedian'
he's a filmmaker
and didn't he point out
even in the cartoon
we the white of the US
FEAR everything
and we have a lot of guns around
Fear plus guns
and we had guns in the 1905
right?

Colin why is our gun murder rate so high?
canucks have plenty of guns[/b][/quote]


Meni, you were smarter when you were not posting!!

Moore is a talented person, but he does not make documentaries - he makes mocumentaries. He has the outcome already decided in his head ( guns are evil, conservatives are evil) and he goes about creating a fiction that leads to his pre-determined outcome. There are some funny parts, but the man is a mere propagandist.

I am not sure if the joke is on people who watch and beleive it as fact, of the rest of us who knows its bullshit and have to deal with morons who beleive it is true.

Last I remembered, I am sure someone from Canada can clear this up, but most guns were outlawed in Canada like the UK - especially handguns.

Oh and the person who said its scared white people with all the guns, this could be the case, but look at murder rate - the biggest chunk it not white people killing white people ( especially based on population percetnages)

[Meni]

Get your calculator and tell me what you get
when you take 58,000
names off the voter list
then you realize that list is 95% inaccurate
so thats what? 55,100 voters who couldn't vote, but could have
and all this equals
Jeb and Kathy delivering FL to GW

thank you for your time :bjump:

[wig]

Originally posted by Colin+Mar 5 2004, 10:31 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Mar 5 2004, 10:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--wig@Mar 5 2004, 08:09 AM
From a predictive standpoint, I do not think there is enough participation of groups to provide any usable analysis.

Homicides tend to be individual acts, separate from any mass participation.

I would venture to guess that homocides are more within the realm of chaos and randomness rather than pattern and order.
Why then, would the US homicide rate be so consistently high compared to Western European nations? Why did homicide rates increase in nearly all Western nations beginning in 1961?

Seems to me there is a large and somewhat orderly component modified by random, chaotic events.[/b][/quote]
Colin,

I really have no idea from a technical perspective.

What I should have said was that using the methodology I use on markets, where there is mass psychology/ participation, I do not think I could assess probabilities on homicide rates going forward. Nor could I attribute the ebb and flow of the rate to natural phenomenon.

Not that it is not there, just that I would be hartd pressed to see it.

I have also never tried to plot the data and apply my methods to it.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by wig@Mar 5 2004, 12:32 PM
I do not think I could assess probabilities on homicide rates going forward. Nor could I attribute the ebb and flow of the rate to natural phenomenon.
I knew that. I was just poking ;-)

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Meni@Mar 5 2004, 12:29 PM
Get your calculator and tell me what you get
when you take 58,000
names off the voter list
then you realize that list is 95% inaccurate
so thats what? 55,100 voters who couldn't vote, but could have
and all this equals
Jeb and Kathy delivering FL to GW

thank you for your time :bjump:
Why would you use a calculator for a simple arithmetic problem?

10% of 58000 is 5800. Half of that is 2900. 58000-2900=55100.

thank you for your time :bjump:

[wig]

Originally posted by Colin+Mar 5 2004, 12:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Mar 5 2004, 12:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--wig@Mar 5 2004, 12:32 PM
I do not think I could assess probabilities on homicide rates going forward. Nor could I attribute the ebb and flow of the rate to natural phenomenon.
I knew that. I was just poking ;-)[/b][/quote]
fucker. ;-))