• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

A look at crime worldwide ~ Canadians views on their self described inferiority complex

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: tcsenter
Look at the link I posted above, the violent crime rate in the U.S. is more than twice that of the Canada.

According to the statistics the violent crime rate in the U.S. is 24.7 per 1,000 people, or 2470 per 100,000 people, a lot more than the ~1000 per 100,000 in Canada. This is 2001 data from the Department of Justice, I'm not sure if agree with the collection method, but all the data is there.

The whole premise of this thread is flawed....
Actually, when you know what the hell you're doing, its not.

The Bureau of Justice National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), to which you have linked, attempts to estimate both reported and unreported violent crimes, by interviewing approximately 80,000 Americans age 12 and older in 43,000 households twice each year about their victimizations from crime.

The Canadian Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) to which you've offered NCVS figures in comparison includes only crimes reported to the police through Canada's national incident based reporting system. As you may know, or maybe not, among the five categories of violent index crimes, it is estimated that approx. 50% go unreported to police.

So while the BJS NCVS figures are thought to be on the more liberal end of the estimated number of actual offenses committed, reported and unreported, the Canadian UCR series represents only those crimes reported to police, or roughly half of all violent crimes estimated to occur in Canada by the [rough] 50% rule of thumb.

In fact, the incident-based Canadian UCR is the Canadian equivalent of the incident-based FBI UCR. They are designed to be substantially comparable, unlike the Canadian UCR and BJS NCVS, which are really two entirely different statistical tools.

According to the more comparable FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in 2001 the total US violent crime rate was 504.4 violent crimes per 100,000. According to Canada's Uniform Crime Reports, in 2001 the total Canadian violent crime rate 994.5 crimes per 100,000, nearly twice the US rate.

This does underscore why one shouldn't leap to speak on matters about which they aren't informed enough to prevent themselves from stepping in it. There is more to statistics than gleening numbers from the internet.
First off, you refrence the NCVS earlier but then don't link to the stats.
Well here they are, and guess what, they don't show Canada being more violent than the US at all. Canada's higher overall number comes from more burglary while having a significantly lower assault number than the US.

And comparing the FBI's stats with those of Canada's is completely dishonest. The FBI only includes aggravated assaults in their stats, while Canada's stats include three levels of assault, including level one assault, which is defined as: when one individual, without the consent of another, intentionally applies force, or attempts or threatens to apply force to that other person. Assault may occur without violence but must include a threatening act or gesture.
If you look at Canada's crime stats that make up the 994.5 per 100k, assault is the largest contributer by an order of magnitude. This is including assaults where the only assault was a threatening act.
Sorry, these stats can't be compared. Try again.

Edit: Oh ya, I should add....
This does underscore why one shouldn't leap to speak on matters about which they aren't informed enough to prevent themselves from stepping in it. There is more to statistics than gleening numbers from the internet. :D
*Buzz* You=Wrong. Both the NCVS and UCR include: "Aggravated Assault, Simple Assault, and Intimidation. The NCVS actually counts almost any violent phsyical threat as a form of assault. Where are you getting your opinion from? Did you just make it up? What you are talking about is the difference between Index Crimes(Part I Crimes) and Part II Non-Index crimes. The FBI records both, and includes both in its yearly reports.
I don't think so. I wasn't comparing the NCVS with the UCR and Canada's stats. They are two seperate issues. Comparing the UCR with Canada's stats is dishonest, because Canada's stats include three levels of assault (including intimidation cases) while the FBI only includes aggravated assault in thier stats (at least the ones tcsenter refed). See here - it clearly states "The offenses included are violent crimes of murder and nonneglegent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault."
Or here where it states the same thing (and contains the 504.4 per 100k cited above)
"Violent crimes are offenses of murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault."
Nope I am right! I already told you there is a difference in Index Crimes and Part II crimes. You said the FBi only records one. That is a lie or stupidity on your part. They record both and the NCVS and UCRs can display both. Thanks for playing. Where are you getting your information? The UCR includes BOTH Part I and Part II crimes. Would you like a scan of the fvcking manual I have here, or can you go ahead and admit you don't know what you are talking about?
Get a clue!! Where am I getting my info?? I provided two links last post.. Did you miss those? You know, the ones tcsenter cited where there are 504.4 crimes per 100k. The links that clearly define that number coming from violent crimes and aggravated assault. Didn't get a chance to read over those, huh? Where is info and stats on Part II crimes? Intimidation isn't even a part II crime, so I don't know why you're bringing it up. The UCR doesn't contain any info on simple assault or intimidation.
Here's a link defining part II crimes. Take a look, you'll learn something.
edit: oops, that link is incomplete.
here is a more detailed list, and yes, simple assault is a part II crime - but part II crimes are not included in the UCR reports we are considering, so this is a moot point. Where can part II crime data be found (the fbi's ucr website only includes part I data, from what I've seen)?
Ok, so I was wrong in this sense, but the point still stands that Part I crimes from the UCR cannot be compared to Canada's info.
Nope, I still have to maintain that you don't know what you are talking about. My professor for CJ was the Chief of Birmingham PD, and handled the UCRs for our city. I also consulted my textbook and internet sources. Part II crimes ARE includes UNLESS purposely omitted.
 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Originally posted by: Millennium
Nope, I still have to maintain that you don't know what you are talking about. My professor for CJ was the Chief of Birmingham PD, and handled the UCRs for our city. I also consulted my textbook and internet sources. Part II crimes ARE includes UNLESS purposely omitted.
Can you provide a link somewhere to UCR stats that include Part II crimes?? Everywhere I look on the UCR website, only Part I crimes are included.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: Millennium
Nope, I still have to maintain that you don't know what you are talking about. My professor for CJ was the Chief of Birmingham PD, and handled the UCRs for our city. I also consulted my textbook and internet sources. Part II crimes ARE includes UNLESS purposely omitted.
Can you provide a link somewhere to UCR stats that include Part II crimes?? Everywhere I look on the UCR website, only Part I crimes are included.
Don't have much time, but hopefully this will help.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,551
3
0
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
You actually believe that Cananda feels inferior to a state like Alabama?? Get real!
Who elected Gray Davis and had energy blackouts?
It sure wasn't Canada. For Alabama's sake I hope the majority of its population knows the difference between California and Canada as it would be a crying shame if Alabama's School System produced morons who couldn't or didn't know the difference.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
You actually believe that Cananda feels inferior to a state like Alabama?? Get real!
Who elected Gray Davis and had energy blackouts?
It sure wasn't Canada. For Alabama's sake I hope the majority of its population knows the difference between California and Canada as it would be a crying shame if Alabama's School System produced morons who couldn't or didn't know the difference.
Nice attempt at a redirection, but I am quite aware of who the leaders are of California, Alabama, and Canada are. You know my dig at Cali, was just in response to your dig at Alabama. You seem to be starting to dislike an actual flamewar. Getting weak in your old age? :D
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,551
3
0
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
You actually believe that Cananda feels inferior to a state like Alabama?? Get real!
Who elected Gray Davis and had energy blackouts?
It sure wasn't Canada. For Alabama's sake I hope the majority of its population knows the difference between California and Canada as it would be a crying shame if Alabama's School System produced morons who couldn't or didn't know the difference.
Nice attempt at a redirection, but I am quite aware of who the leaders are of California, Alabama, and Canada are. You know my dig at Cali, was just in response to your dig at Alabama. You seem to be starting to dislike an actual flamewar. Getting weak in your old age? :D
Why bother. From my observations you will be in a roaring flamewar with another member in no time at all:)

BTW, check my profile and you will see that I am not a residence of California anymore.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
You actually believe that Cananda feels inferior to a state like Alabama?? Get real!
Who elected Gray Davis and had energy blackouts?
It sure wasn't Canada. For Alabama's sake I hope the majority of its population knows the difference between California and Canada as it would be a crying shame if Alabama's School System produced morons who couldn't or didn't know the difference.
Nice attempt at a redirection, but I am quite aware of who the leaders are of California, Alabama, and Canada are. You know my dig at Cali, was just in response to your dig at Alabama. You seem to be starting to dislike an actual flamewar. Getting weak in your old age? :D
Why bother. From my observations you will be in a roaring flamewar with another member in no time at all:)

BTW, check my profile and you will see that I am not a residence of California anymore.
Nah, I already knew you were in Boston when you stopped posting for a good while. Power of intuition. Good luck with things in Boston. ;)
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,551
3
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Don't know if you will find MA in much better shape than CA, Red.
I think that can be said for the vast majority of this country.

 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
17,848
24
81
nice site, notice why you picked assault, only, its the only one the US leads in.....
Actually, this is a win-win situation for you and I whether or not the statistics show that Canada has substantially more crime than the US. It is more than enough, in debunking the myth that Canada is significantly safer than the US, to show that Canada's crime rates are pretty damned bad, even if the US rate might be higher by .66 persons per 100,000. Look at the assualts graph posted earlier. There is not a meaningful difference between 7.98 and 7.32 assaults per capita, not nearly enough of a difference to support the myth that Canada is this oasis of safety vis-a-vis the 'blood thirsty violent Americans'.

You see what's happening?

First, our detractors were certain Canada was not remotely as violent as the United States, let alone MORE violent! So they set out to scour various sources to prove that Canada was not remotely as violent as America.

Having been confronted with consistent data which shows Canada is far more violent than they ever thought or were lead to believe, they now have to settle for proving that Canada isn't more violent than the US, if even only by fractions of a percent less.

It sorta went from 'Canada isn't remotely as violent as the United States!' to 'Ah ha! This graph shows the US has .01% more assaults than Canada so we win and you lose!'

Funny.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
17,848
24
81
Continuing my post above...that's a classic bait and switch, and its an awesome way to debunk widely held misconceptions.

A similar bait and switch was used to debunk the myth that allowing law abiding adults to carry handguns for protection would lead to more violence and bloodshed as various 'Shoot Out at the OK Coral' scenario would unfold on a massive scale. So sayeth the antigunners, promising 'the streets would run red with blood' if CCW laws are passed.

We started to claim the polar opposite of the myth; that allowing law abiding adults to carry handguns actually reduces crime. This sent the antigunners scrambling for 'proof' that CCW increased crime, not decreased it, proof that does not exist because, well, its a myth.

The worst that gun banners could show in attempt to prove us wrong was that CCW laws did not reduce crime, but it also did not increase crime, either, and had no measurable effect on crime either way, good or bad. In doing so, they utterly took the wind out their own arguments against the adoption of CCW laws and debunked the myth for us.

Further, several states actually track their CCW permit holders, monitoring any serious crimes they commit as a group. In every one of these states, without exception, permit holders as a group commit on average between 2 ~ 6 times fewer serious crimes than the adult general population and the vast majority of those serious crimes do not involve or relate in any way to the firearms they are permitted to carry.

The number of CCW states now stands at 34 - 2/3rds of US states - and climbing.
 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Originally posted by: tcsenter
Continuing my post above...that's a classic bait and switch, and its an awesome way to debunk widely held misconceptions.

A similar bait and switch was used to debunk the myth that allowing law abiding adults to carry handguns for protection would lead to more violence and bloodshed as various 'Shoot Out at the OK Coral' scenario would unfold on a massive scale. So sayeth the antigunners, promising 'the streets would run red with blood' if CCW laws are passed.

We started to claim the polar opposite of the myth; that allowing law abiding adults to carry handguns actually reduces crime. This sent the antigunners scrambling for 'proof' that CCW increased crime, not decreased it, proof that does not exist because, well, its a myth.

The worst that gun banners could show in attempt to prove us wrong was that CCW laws did not reduce crime, but it also did not increase crime, either, and had no measurable effect on crime either way, good or bad. In doing so, they utterly took the wind out their own arguments against the adoption of CCW laws and debunked the myth for us.

Further, several states actually track their CCW permit holders, monitoring any serious crimes they commit as a group. In every one of these states, without exception, permit holders as a group commit on average between 2 ~ 6 times fewer serious crimes than the adult general population and the vast majority of those serious crimes do not involve or relate in any way to the firearms they are permitted to carry.

The number of CCW states now stands at 34 - 2/3rds of US states - and climbing.
blah blah blah blah blah.....
Nice off topic rant, but I must say, you're still in denial about Lott and his findings. Are you ever going to admit that his book and the more guns less crime myth has been discredited?? Or are you not intellectually honest enough?
In case you forgot, look here. When a supposedly academic book contains a fabricated study that is cited multiple times and not corrected when called upon, it should not be used for any policy decisions or discussions.
oh ya, and I'm still waiting on those fbi stats...what's the deal?
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
17,848
24
81
Nice off topic rant, but I must say, you're still in denial about Lott and his findings. Are you ever going to admit that his book and the more guns less crime myth has been discredited?? Or are you not intellectually honest enough?
Actually the disputed 'survey' is largely irrelevant to the validity of Lott's thesis or conclusions because they do not hinge upon the survey in disupte. Lott only dedicates a few small statements of his book to the survey, not hinging or resting his thesis or conclusions on it, not even a little bit, its more of an 'aside' or 'bonus'. The main study which Lott undertook, pouring over the records of every single county in the United States encompassing 18 years of data, is the main underpinning of his thesis and conclusions. Lott has provided all that data to more than 20 scholars before publishing his study and book, none published a critique. To date, nobody has managed to materially impeach that study. Lott has behaved improperly on a few accounts, but those are separate issues.

But you misrepresent my statements and position. I do not, as Lott concludes, advance or endorse the view that CCW decreases crime. Indeed, that view was the "bait", as I plainly described it above. What Lott's assertions resulted in was the gun banners scrambling to prove Lott wrong, and they may have caused doubt about Lott's conclusions, but in doing so they proved their own arguments equally as wrong if not more so.

The consensus is now that CCW either has no meaningful 'net' affect on crime, violent or otherwise, or at best does not produce nearly as strong of a net crime decrease as Lott contends. This not only cuts against Lott, but it invariably also cuts against all arguments against CCW as well. Statistics of CCW permit holders in the several states who track crimes committed by permit holders as a group bear this out.

CCW holders commit fewer crimes than the general public, and the vast majority of those crimes they do commit have no relation with the firearms they are permitted to carry, therefore CCW couldn't possibly increase crime when it cannot be shown that those receiving permits are out there shooting up their states at rates any greater than the general population. Indeed, the evidence shows permit holders run afoul of the law at far lower rates than the general population, by some order of magnitude.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
It would seem to me that common sense would tell you anyone that went through the trouble to carry a gun legally , generally has a high level of respect for the law and is unlikely to commit crimes.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY