The Forum > General Discussion > Woman hiding with kids shoots intruder
Woman hiding with kids shoots intruder
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Page 9
-
- All
Posted by csteele, Monday, 7 January 2013 9:34:05 PM
| |
You must lay awake at night wondering why no independent university researcher has arrived at the same conclusion.
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 7 January 2013 9:58:00 PM
| |
Returning to the original post, this happened in Australia,
<A GANG of young thieves has attacked people in their beds with machetes during a string of violent home invasions in Sydney's west, leaving some with horrific and disfiguring injuries. Police say the group, believed to be aged in their teens and early 20s, could also be involved in a number of armed robberies on businesses in the area. They are hunting for up to six youths who stormed six different homes in Auburn between September and November last year. The young offenders stole mobile phones, laptops and cash. Advertisement Six people were injured, one in each robbery, including a man who was left missing a large chunk of his forehead after being hit with an axe. Another man suffered horrific injuries to his face and skull after being attacked with a machete. Detective Sergeant Kaul Leis said that in some of the attacks, the victims were asleep when they were bashed. ''They've stolen minimum amount of property,'' he said. ''They have chosen to go out of their way to inflict horrific injuries. ''It's very graphic and very confronting.''> http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/violent-gang-leaves-victims-disfigured-20130107-2ccv3.html What nonsense it is that in Australia the first knee-jerk reaction of police is to investigate what charges can be laid against the VICTIM of the outrage of home invasion for defending herself and family against attack. Not so long ago that happened to an elderly gent who was confronted by an offender in his home. He defended himself with a pocket knife. Fortunately in NSW recent law change protected him eventually but only after a public outcry in his defence. It wasn't always that way, these law changes have been sneaked in over years at the behest of lobby groups without proper consultation with the community. Same too in the UK where the government is now thinking of allowing defence in the home. Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 11:57:25 AM
| |
"""
These brutal acts of violence are carried out by a group of cowards who think they are above the law,'' said Sgt Leis. """ No! These brutal acts of violence are carried out by a group of thugs who know you can't defend your self in this country because of the "COWARDS" who have taken away our right to self defense! """ Police are now appealing to the public for help tracking the offenders down. """ Why not ask the public how they think we might prevent these things happening more often? """ There is no place in society for people who think they can rob and inflict unwarranted pain on innocent people. """ Really?? Then why sentence people to 10 years in prison with a minimum of 3 months? They're so damn full of it, it's just a sad joke! Posted by RawMustard, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 7:41:01 PM
|
Very trite my friend.
I specifically asked you;
“You name me one incident in this country where more than two lives have been lost to weapon fire from a single assailant since then.”
You said “OK, here you go: Monash University 21 October 2002.”.
You were wrong but rather than concede the point you come up with “Nice of you to forget the five injured at Monash and the heroic actions that prevented further bloodshed.”
I'm not sure there is any kinder way of saying this but that was really insipid.
You said of my post “Just as reminder though, correlation does not imply causation. However in the examples you tender there isn't even correlation, just the usual expected results of randomness.”
It has been thirty odd years since I have had a stab at any statistics but even so I know when someone is talking out their backside.
Tell you what, just to make it easier on the both of us here is a link to an online statistical calculator.
http://getdatadriven.com/ab-significance-test
It is referring to page conversions but is really a simple test of statistical significance between two events.
In 'a' why don't you put in the data from my post. In the ten years (3650 days) before the gun laws there were 8 mass shootings. In the 16 years (5840 days) since there have been zero. The result;
“We are 100% certain that the changes in Test "A" will improve your conversion rate. Your A/B test is statistically significant!”
For the sake of the argument let's include the Monash shooting in 'b'. The result;
“We are 99% certain that the changes in Test "A" will improve your conversion rate. Your A/B test is statistically significant!”
As I have admitted my grasp of statistics is likely be suspect after all these years so if I am wrong show me where. If not then do us all a favour and don't ever repeat the “usual expected results of randomness” rubbish ever again.