jameson
Emperor
That's irrelevant - we're talking a rate, not the absolute number of incidents.
So much for gun control.
- Thread starter skadistic
- Start date
About 1/10th ... but what's your point?
For every 100,000 people in Canada, violent crime will involve 236 of them. For every 100,000 people in the States, 500ish will be affected.
For every 100,000 people in Canada, violent crime will involve 236 of them. For every 100,000 people in the States, 500ish will be affected.
Bronx Warlord
Squad Leader
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2004
- Messages
- 2,449
It's hardly irrelevant, we both know this.
More people = more. More crime, more taxes, more everything.
So again, what is the population differance between the two nations?
More people = more. More crime, more taxes, more everything.
So again, what is the population differance between the two nations?
About 1/10th.
Bronx Warlord
Squad Leader
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2004
- Messages
- 2,449
So a nation 1/10th the size of the US has half the violent crime rate... you call that progress?
They're not really connected.
The average American does not pay more taxes that the average Canadian, but Canadians pay way less taxes total.
We have about 1/20th the number of incidents that you guys have, even though we only have 1/10th your population.
The average American does not pay more taxes that the average Canadian, but Canadians pay way less taxes total.
We have about 1/20th the number of incidents that you guys have, even though we only have 1/10th your population.
Little Raven
On Walkabout
Someone not do statistics so well.Bronx Warlord said:So a nation 1/10th the size of the US has half the violent crime rate... you call that progress?
jameson
Emperor
Bronx Warlord, if the violent crime rate in Canada is half that of the USA and Canada has 10% of the inhabitants of the USA, that means the actual number of incidents in Canada is 20 times smaller than in the USA.
edit: nm
edit: nm
Bronx Warlord
Squad Leader
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2004
- Messages
- 2,449
Of course there not when it makes your point a pretty crappy one.
Ok bro... you just told me there were 10 Americans to every 1 Canadian... see how we could end up with more money if there are nine more Americans paying into the system for every Canadian. Basic math. I know you know it.
Um... you just said.
Wich one is it?
I'm quite sure (but this is due to reading the paper, not statistics) that the majority of people hurt by guns in Canada are criminals (drug dealers shooting each other, gang fights, etc.)
Is that also true in the States?
Is that also true in the States?
I'm saying the same thing. Okay, let's assume that there about about 30 million Canadians and about 300 million Americans.
Every year there are about 75,000 violent incidents in Canada
Every year there about about 1,500,000 violent incidents in the States.
Every year there are about 75,000 violent incidents in Canada
Every year there about about 1,500,000 violent incidents in the States.
Bronx Warlord
Squad Leader
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2004
- Messages
- 2,449
Not entirely sure, but even if we go by your logic the criminals in Canada are hardcore as hell. 1/10th of them are doing the work of half of all the American criminals.
Granted at this point I'd like to say I IMHO think Canada is a safer place to live in regards to metro areas... but the facts you guys gave could really use some work, cause the numbers don't work out all that well in your favor.
Granted at this point I'd like to say I IMHO think Canada is a safer place to live in regards to metro areas... but the facts you guys gave could really use some work, cause the numbers don't work out all that well in your favor.
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
Canada having less violent crimes is irrelevant in a gun control discussion.
The UK out does both Canada and the US in terms of violent crimes.
The latter allows gun ownership while the first has a 100% ban on all firearms.
Not allowing guns around doesn't seem to help the UK combat violent crime. But having guns around doesn't mean the violent crime rate will go down.
The UK out does both Canada and the US in terms of violent crimes.
The latter allows gun ownership while the first has a 100% ban on all firearms.
Not allowing guns around doesn't seem to help the UK combat violent crime. But having guns around doesn't mean the violent crime rate will go down.
Sigh, no ....
Suppose we have 1/10th criminals you do. Our violent crime rate means that the average Canadian criminal will hurt half as many people (total) as the average American criminal. He's half as 'hardcore'.
Put it another way, each Canadian citizen has only 1/2 the chance of being victimized in a violent crime, compared to the average American. You're really not seeing that part of the statistic that says 'per 100,000 people'.
El_Machinae said:
Apparently so.
The data on that page shows that roughly 3/4 of the gun homicide victims in the US had criminal records.
Okay, I've got another way of saying it.
Suppose there is a town of 100,000 people in the United States, and a town of 100,000 people in Canada.
There will be (on average) twice as many violent crimes in the US town vs. the Canadian town.
In addition, there are 10 times the number of towns in the States vs. Canada.
Igloodude, I cannot give counter stats on that one, but thanks for that.
Suppose there is a town of 100,000 people in the United States, and a town of 100,000 people in Canada.
There will be (on average) twice as many violent crimes in the US town vs. the Canadian town.
In addition, there are 10 times the number of towns in the States vs. Canada.
Igloodude, I cannot give counter stats on that one, but thanks for that.
jameson
Emperor
Bugfatty300 said:
Fortunately, the link I provided earlier also allows us to recalculate the crime rate for the UK according to the American definition. It works out to approximately 153 incidents per 100,000 - less than one-third of the US rate.
pboily
fingerlickinmathematickin
please, please, please people... this is too funny.
1. the article in question cites an article by D. Frum of the National Post, also a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/....html?id=fb715fde-9cee-42e2-ae75-81061c3cee14
2. It turns out that Frum was talking about crime victimization rate, not crime rate. Bah, what's one word, right? Well, it goes like this: victimization rate is NOT crime rate. Rather, it tells how many people feel they have been the victim of a crime. In the event that people aren't used to crime, say (whether that be in Canada or the States) they will tend to report more crimes than if they've been desensitized to it. Does it mean they're making it up? no, but it's estimated that only 28% of rapes are reported, say. (I'll find the link)
3. In the event that we're looking for actual crime rates, the number favour Canada but to be fair, we're not doing so great either. http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/011218/d011218b.htm
Scroll down and you'll get the following list: basically, we're doing substantially better when it comes to murder (Can: 1.8/100000, US: 5.5/100000), robbery (Can: 88/100000, US: 145/100000) and aggravated assault (Can: 143/100000, US: 324/100000), (note here that the Canadian definition has been changed to match that of the American definition) but the Americans have us beaten when it comes to breaking and entering (Can: 924/100000, US: 728/100000), and we're about even on thefts (Can: 2745/100000, US: 2889/100000).
4. So why not just come out and say that it is the crime victimization rate (in either article) or better yet point to the actual study. I don't know. I really don't know. If only there was a way for us to connect the original writer to some Conservative American Foundation....
1. the article in question cites an article by D. Frum of the National Post, also a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/....html?id=fb715fde-9cee-42e2-ae75-81061c3cee14
2. It turns out that Frum was talking about crime victimization rate, not crime rate. Bah, what's one word, right? Well, it goes like this: victimization rate is NOT crime rate. Rather, it tells how many people feel they have been the victim of a crime. In the event that people aren't used to crime, say (whether that be in Canada or the States) they will tend to report more crimes than if they've been desensitized to it. Does it mean they're making it up? no, but it's estimated that only 28% of rapes are reported, say. (I'll find the link)
3. In the event that we're looking for actual crime rates, the number favour Canada but to be fair, we're not doing so great either. http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/011218/d011218b.htm
Scroll down and you'll get the following list: basically, we're doing substantially better when it comes to murder (Can: 1.8/100000, US: 5.5/100000), robbery (Can: 88/100000, US: 145/100000) and aggravated assault (Can: 143/100000, US: 324/100000), (note here that the Canadian definition has been changed to match that of the American definition) but the Americans have us beaten when it comes to breaking and entering (Can: 924/100000, US: 728/100000), and we're about even on thefts (Can: 2745/100000, US: 2889/100000).
4. So why not just come out and say that it is the crime victimization rate (in either article) or better yet point to the actual study. I don't know. I really don't know. If only there was a way for us to connect the original writer to some Conservative American Foundation....
Bronx Warlord
Squad Leader
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2004
- Messages
- 2,449
For 2000, New Zealand's rate of recorded violent crime was 1082 per 100,000 population.However, this figure cannot be directly compared with violent crime rates in other western countries because of definitional and other differences.
In accordance with the American definition of violent crime, the rate of total recorded violent crime for America in 2000 was 506.1 per 100,000, almost four times the rate of 132.6 for New Zealand.
In accordance with the Australian definition of violent crime, the rate of total recorded violent crime for Australia in 2000 was 941.9 per 100,000 population, with New Zealand's rate of 1036.4 ten percent higher than that for Australia.
In accordance with the English and Welsh definition of violent crime, the rates of total recorded violent crime for England in 2000 was 1390 per 100,000 population, and for Wales was 1392 per 100,000 population. New Zealand's total recorded violent crime rate of 1204.5 per 100,000 population was 13 percent lower than both England's and Wales' rates of violent crime.
In accordance with the Canadian definition of violent crime, the rate of total recorded violent crime for Canada in 2000 was 981.7 per 100,000 population, with New Zealand's rate of 551.1 nearly 44 percent lower than that for Canada.
The above comparisons, however, have to be interpreted with caution. Aside from the New Zealand definition of violent crime being adjusted for comparisons to other countries to reduce definitional differences, many other factors can affect crime figures differently from one country to another, such as the rates at which crimes are reported to the police and recorded by them; differences in the point at which crime is recorded; differences in the rules by which multiple offences are counted; whether crime rates are counted in terms of the number of offences, or the number of victims; and changes in data quality over time.
In accordance with the American definition of violent crime, the rate of total recorded violent crime for America in 2000 was 506.1 per 100,000, almost four times the rate of 132.6 for New Zealand.
In accordance with the Australian definition of violent crime, the rate of total recorded violent crime for Australia in 2000 was 941.9 per 100,000 population, with New Zealand's rate of 1036.4 ten percent higher than that for Australia.
In accordance with the English and Welsh definition of violent crime, the rates of total recorded violent crime for England in 2000 was 1390 per 100,000 population, and for Wales was 1392 per 100,000 population. New Zealand's total recorded violent crime rate of 1204.5 per 100,000 population was 13 percent lower than both England's and Wales' rates of violent crime.
In accordance with the Canadian definition of violent crime, the rate of total recorded violent crime for Canada in 2000 was 981.7 per 100,000 population, with New Zealand's rate of 551.1 nearly 44 percent lower than that for Canada.
The above comparisons, however, have to be interpreted with caution. Aside from the New Zealand definition of violent crime being adjusted for comparisons to other countries to reduce definitional differences, many other factors can affect crime figures differently from one country to another, such as the rates at which crimes are reported to the police and recorded by them; differences in the point at which crime is recorded; differences in the rules by which multiple offences are counted; whether crime rates are counted in terms of the number of offences, or the number of victims; and changes in data quality over time.
pboily
fingerlickinmathematickin
If only you had given us any hint that you actually understand what you've copied and pasted: in this particular case, it says that if we use the US definition of violent crimes, we get the following rates for the countries you've mentioned.
US: 506 violent crimes per 100,000 people
Canada: 236 violent crimes per 100,000 people
England/Wales: 153 violent crimes per 100,000 people
NZ: 133 violent crimes per 100,000 people
Australia: 121 violent crimes per 100,000 people
US: 506 violent crimes per 100,000 people
Canada: 236 violent crimes per 100,000 people
England/Wales: 153 violent crimes per 100,000 people
NZ: 133 violent crimes per 100,000 people
Australia: 121 violent crimes per 100,000 people
