It proves to me that you apparently have poor critical reading
skills. That's because the very simple comparison of what
is going on in NYC vs Chicago suggests the association of
leaded vs unleaded gas suggested by the article makes
no sense. It's an obvious contradiction that at least 3 of us
here thought of right from the start. I'd have that contradiction
in mind just thinking about the topic. And I'd evaluate whether
the article addresses it.
You say you read the piece, so I would think you'd know the
answers. But for me the fact that Chicago today has a
dreadful crim rate, while NYC has a low crime rate, with both using
unleaded gas, suggests the above isn't the core issue.
# You say you read the piece, so I would think you'd know the
# answers. But for me the fact that Chicago today has a
# dreadful crim rate, while NYC has a low crime rate, with both using
# unleaded gas, suggests the above isn't the core issue.
- the effect of unleaded gas is a cumulative effect
- other factors can play into such long term effect
And finally, since it was a simple correlation, and NO a causative claim..
It appears that once more you just seem to be intent on jerking off to the
beat of your down drummer.
Yes, it was a causative claim:
"Interesting article in (Atlantic?) about the relation of high lead
levels in environ. and the crime levels that follow in about 20
Not proof, and no proof is claimed, and the author has studied quite
few regions, including NYC, where the statistics for both problems
accurate. Mayor G. got a lot of credit for reducing crime, but it
have been due more to the reduction of lead in gasoline. "
At least 3 others here thought the same thing. A claim that makes
no sense, because Chicago has a high crime rate and NYC a low
one. You are aware that both cities switched from leaded to
unleaded gas at about the same time, are you not?
BTW, have you figured out how that Aprilaire humidifier works?
I know any of the 4 of us could install a simple humidifier and
get it working. Maybe that's why you're so pissed off and get
into so many nasty arguments? You're just mad as hell
because you can't install or get working a humidifier from
the #1 manufacturer. And you're too arrogant and hot headed
to let anyone help you.
It just proves that people who should be trying to convince us they are
mature enough to be trusted carrying guns in public engage in silly,
juvenile name-calling behavior that undermines their position. Ironic,
To be fair, shame on you Norminn, for name calling. In addition, we've not
seen his actual brain so we don't know if it's pin head-sized, pea-sized,
walnut-sized, etc. (-:
A majority of criminologists and sociologists attribute the drop in crime
rates to a number of causes. Many believe that improvements in both
surveillance and forensic technology are the factors most responsible for
the decrease in recent years. Video and DNA evidence is hard to refute and
repeat offenders who used to walk are now serving jail time. Personally I
find those factors far more compelling in explaining the decrease than lead
poisoning but I wouldn't discount the lead theory entirely. I just wouldn't
expect much intelligent discussion of it to happen here.
Of course, those who believe that www.americanrifleman.com or similar sites
are reputable and "neutral" sources of crime statistics have already drawn
the low card in the "forehead" poker game of personal credibility. There
aren't any unbiased studies I know of that can prove the drop of crime has
been caused by an increase in gun ownership. Of course, there's John Lott's
"work" but he impugned his own ethics by using a sockpuppet to give positive
reviews for his book:
There are some other serious problems with Lott's alleged "research" as
<<Lott claimed to have undertaken a national survey of 2,424 respondents in
1997, the results of which were the source for claims he had made beginning
in 1997. However, in 2000 Lott was unable to produce the data, or any
records showing that the survey had been undertaken.>>
Whoops! Faking data and creating fake personalities to review his work
pretty much discredits that "research" completely although it doesn't seem
to keep gun advocates from repeatedly quoting his results as if they were
not just credible, but the gospel straight from God.
About 10 years ago, I saw of about 30 years of statistics from the FBI
and others. The ONLY thing they found that was consistently correlated
to the rise and fall of violent crime was the number of 15-25 males in
the population. The kids do the crimes and either burn out or get
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
On 1/1/2013 11:14 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
You and Dough in the same juvie jail? Chewing on a lot of lead paint?
Always accuse people of lying when you don't understand what is written?
I will repeat....I found the article interesting in the comparison of
lead pollution levels and following changes in crime rates. The article
discusses other factors affecting crime, of course, and one would have
to be an idiot to attribute all violent crime to lead poisoning. That
wasn't the point of the article. Keep calling names...I'm sure you will
go far in life. Down the toilet.
And the fact that there was a dramatic reduction in crime in NYC, and an
*increase* in Chicago
and DC *should* have told you that lead pollution doesn't have very much, if
anything, to do
with crime rates.
But apparently you're not smart enough to figure that out.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.