Canada: Our Violent Neighbors to the North

[Crazed Rabbit]

Canada, it turns out, had a violent crime rate more than twice that of the USA's. Yes, twice. It turns out Canada isn't really the land of peace and security. You're more likely to get mugged in Toronto than New York.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...547.shtml?s=ic
which cites this article:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...5-81061c3cee14

Hmm. Arming citizens and punishing criminals vs disarming citizens and coddling criminals. I guess we know which works better.

Crazed Rabbit

[JAG]

*yawn*

[Adrian II]

Canada, it turns out, had a violent crime rate more than twice that of the USA's.

Lol. You quote a Carl Limbacher who is quoting a certain Alan Gottlieb who quotes Donald Frum who makes some big statistical claims without quoting any supporting statistical source at all. And this passes for news in the Rabbit's universe? That is pathetic, you usually do much better.

Alternatively this may be your idea of a joke, in which case I share your sentiments - but you can't be too careful these days...

[Goofball]

Canada, it turns out, had a violent crime rate more than twice that of the USA's. Yes, twice. It turns out Canada isn't really the land of peace and security. You're more likely to get mugged in Toronto than New York.

First of all, as AII said, you're going to have to show the source of those stats if you want anybody to assign them any credibility. I don't discount them totally because I do agree we are a little too easy on criminals, but I would like to see the source.

Hmm. Arming citizens and punishing criminals vs disarming citizens and coddling criminals. I guess we know which works better.

Who said we are disarming our citizens?

By the way, any 8 year-olds shoot any 7 year-olds in Canada lately?

[Xiahou]

First of all, as AII said, you're going to have to show the source of those stats if you want anybody to assign them any credibility. I don't discount them totally because I do agree we are a little too easy on criminals, but I would like to see the source.

You pretty much have to find it on your own. Both sets that I found are for crime reported to police per 100,000 people for 2003.

I saw the number for Canada in several places, but it was in a nice table here.

The US numbers were easy to find- I got this report straight from the FBI's website.

The total violent crime rates:
Canada - 963
USA - 504.8

[Lentonius]

people can make statistics match their opinions...

although for canada this is quite odd, but looking at canada, being signnificantly colder in parts than thier sountherly friends, more people would live in the big cities, where as in the U.S many people still live in the 'old country' where crime is very rare

[Crazed Rabbit]

Thanks to Xiahou for showing the statistical tables.

And this passes for news in the Rabbit's universe? That is pathetic, you usually do much better.

Considering it's true, yes. Now that my good friend Xiahou has provided the statistics, perhaps we can get on to the discussion instead of trying to deride the source.

Who said we are disarming our citizens?

Mainly, disarming wise, I'm speaking of not letting people carry firearms around with them, like the US states which allow concealed weapons.

*yawn*

Not much else to say when the facts contradict your theories on prison and gun ownership, is there?

Crazed Rabbit

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Are the multiple atrocities among the Inuit skewing the data?

Perhaps Canadian statistics include violence during hockey matches -- or is that hockey getting in the way of all that lovely droog-like violence?




I can just see our grim-faced national guards lined up on the border, nervously checking their ammo clips as they await a ravening horde of....Canadians.

[Sheep]

Perhaps Canadian statistics include violence during hockey matches

YES!!! You are a genius!

Gun prohibition is unconstitutional. I am a huge supporter of the First Amendment so I can't help but also support the Second.

That doesn't mean there can be no control over guns where public safety is concerned. The First Amendment does not allow yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. But other than not selling them to kids or convicted felons, I don't think we should be too heavily regulated on our guns.

Also guns are cool.

PS - I realize that none of the above applies to Canada. :)

[Adrian II]

Thanks to Xiahou for showing the statistical tables.

Oh yeah, I love them already. They flatly contradict what you said Carl Limbacher said Alan Gottlieb said when he quoted Donald Frum. Frum started by saying murder is going up in Canada. Hahaha. Here is what Xaihou's source says:

Canada's national crime rate increased 6% in 2003, its first substantial gain in over a decade. The increase was driven by a surge in counterfeiting across the country, as well as an increase in most property crimes and minor offences such as mischief and disturbing the peace. The violent crime rate remained virtually unchanged. (..) On the other hand, the national homicide rate fell 7% last year to its lowest level since 1967.

That's a fine mess your friend got you in!

[Byzantine Prince]

This is ridiculous, our crime rates are tiny. The city of Victoria for example has had something like 2 murders in the last 50 years. Beat that!

[Azi Tohak]

You can't see me! I have my head in the sand! You can't see me!

Azi

[Goofball]

You pretty much have to find it on your own. Both sets that I found are for crime reported to police per 100,000 people for 2003.

I saw the number for Canada in several places, but it was in a nice table here.

The US numbers were easy to find- I got this report straight from the FBI's website.

The total violent crime rates:
Canada - 963
USA - 504.8

I suspect that apples are not being compared to apples here, but I am not absolutely sure, because I couldn't find the source of the 504.8 number you quoted above. But a few points:

In Canada's violent crime rate, by far the largest number is "assault" with an aggragate number of 263,103 in 2003. Compared to the next highest number, "robbery" at 28,332, that figure is seriously skewing the total. Keep in mind the "assault" figure would include domestic violence (I will point out the significance of this in a moment) and bar fights. Which begs the question: How many of those bar fights or wife beatings would have turned into murders if we allowed people to walk around with concealed handguns?

Another thing skewing the figures is obvious if you are familiar with Canadian regional factors. The violent crime rates per 100,000 are by far the highest in Canada's least populated areas: Nanuvit, the NWT and the Yukon. Those areas are populated mainly by aboriginal peoples and most of that violent crime is attributable to domestic violence. This is due to a whole raft of social problems that are too numerous to go into now. It is certainly not due to (as conservative Americans would suggest) the fact that we don't have enough guns in Canada.

On that note, I would also point out that Alberta, which is Canada's leader in % of household that own firearms, ranks roughly middle of the pack for violent crimes committed in all of the provinces. So clearly, there is no demonstrable negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in Canada.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Oh yeah, I love them already. They flatly contradict what you said Carl Limbacher said Alan Gottlieb said when he quoted Donald Frum. Frum started by saying murder is going up in Canada. Hahaha. Here is what Xaihou's source says:

Do point out where. Frum only stated that murders have gone up in Toronto.

That's a fine mess you've got yourself in!


(That's a funny picture, by the way)

This is ridiculous, our crime rates are tiny. The city of Victoria for example has had something like 2 murders in the last 50 years. Beat that!

Translation: Facts?! Bah! We're better because I say so! Our crimes rates really are smaller!

Crazed Rabbit

[Ser Clegane]

Hmmm ... comparing statistics ... fun

Let's see where the differences are (thanks for providing the links, Xiahou ):

"Murder" rate in the US 2003: 5.7
"Homicide" rate in canada 2003: 2

The US rate is considerably higher - but, is the definition for "Murder" in the US the same as for "Homicide" in Canada?
I would assume that it is very similar, but I am not sure here.

Now to the segment that is responsible for the higher "violent crime" rate in Canada:

"Aggravated Assualt" rate in the US in 2003: 295
"Assault (Level 1, 2, 3)" rate in Canada 2003: 746

Now, is anyone here familiar with the definition of "Aggravated Assault" in the US vs "Assault (Level 1, 2, 3)" in Canada?
As there seem to be various levels of "assault" included in the Canadian statistics I have the distinct feeling that we are comparing apples and oranges here.

As long as these definitions aren't clarified, argueing about the effects of gun control seems to be rather moot...


EDIT: just saw Goofball's post whioch goes into the same direction ... it seems I am typing to slow

[Hurin_Rules]

Canada's rates of homicide and assault per capita are much lower than in the USA. These statistics come from a couple of years ago, but the rates are not even comparable.

E.g. the homicide rate per 100,000 in Canada was 1.8 in 2002; in the USA for the same year, it was 5.5. For assault, it was a bit closer, but Canada was still lower, at 4.0 as opposed to 5.7.

Source: http://www.ccsd.ca/pubs/2002/olympic/indicators.htm

It is true that rates of violent crime have been rising of late, and the article does have a kernel of truth to it in arguing that our perception of Canada as violence free is erroneous. Rates for some types of crime are higher in Canada than in the USA. Nevertheless, when it comes to homicides, the two countries are not very close.

Much of the confusion may be attributable to differences in definitions of 'violent crime' and 'assault'. It seems, for example, that the Canadian statistics include a far wider range of things in the category of 'violent'.

e.g. "In Canada, Criminal Code classifications of violent crime include assaults ranging from less serious offences such as threats to use violence, or pushing or shoving, through serious attacks which result in physical injury; sexual assaults; robbery which may involve a threat to use force, a display of a weapon, use of a weapon and actual physical force; abduction; infanticide, attempted murder, murder and manslaughter. Most violent crime, 58% overall, consists of charges classified as minor assaults. Only 13% involves more serious assaults, 11% sexual assault, 11% robbery, and 7% `other' including 0.24% murder or manslaughter (Statistics Canada 1994)."

[Source: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...a&ct=clnk&cd=3 ]

By contrast, it seems US statistics include only "murder/manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault". [Source: Xiahou's link to the FBI website].

So, in essence, the entire article is based on an erroneous assumption by the author of the article in the National Post. This is not unexpected. The Post is a very poor and wholly partisan newspaper that constantly makes serious errors. The author's mistake was in assuming that the definitions of 'violent crime' were the same. They are not. Most of Canadian 'violent crimes' are threats and displays of weapons, 'crimes' that are not even counted as 'crimes' by the US. You're comparing apples to oranges-- or, to be more exact, apples to a single orange.

If the National Post would make a more serious committment to objectivity--or at least hire more intelligent reporters-- we could have avoided all of this confusion.

[Goofball]

Hmmm ... comparing statistics ... fun

Let's see where the differences are (thanks for providing the links, Xiahou ):

"Murder" rate in the US 2003: 5.7
"Homicide" rate in canada 2003: 2

The US rate is considerably higher - but, is the definition for "Murder" in the US the same as for "Homicide" in Canada?
I would assume that it is very similar, but I am not sure here.

Now to the segment that is responsible for the higher "violent crime" rate in Canada:

"Aggravated Assualt" rate in the US in 2003: 295
"Assault (Level 1, 2, 3)" rate in Canada 2003: 746

Now, is anyone here familiar with the definition of "Aggravated Assault" in the US vs "Assault (Level 1, 2, 3)" in Canada?
As there seem to be various levels of "assault" included in the Canadian statistics I have the distinct feeling that we are comparing apples and oranges here.

As long as these definitions aren't clarified, argueing about the effects of gun control seems to be rather moot...


EDIT: just saw Goofball's post whioch goes into the same direction ... it seems I am typing to slow

Exactly. Here are the definitions: (source http://www.statcan.ca/english/kits/justic/2-10.pdf)

In Canada:

Assault Level 1: Minor assault (this would include things as minor as a somebody being puched and knocked down, if it was reported to police)

Assault Level 2: Incidents involving a weapon or bodily harm (this would still include most bar fights)

Assault Level 3: Aggravated assault.

In the US: (source, many, but here is one: http://www.denvergov.org/2001_crime_...plate34716.asp)

Aggravated Assault: Aggravated Assault is an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. This type of assault usually is accompanied by the use of a weapon or by means likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

[Duke of Gloucester]

SG is right. The FBI defintion of violent crime is "murder, nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robber and aggravated assault". In
Canada, violent crimes are: homicide, attempted murder, 3 levels of assualts, other assualts, 3 levels of sexual assault, other sexual offences, abduction and robery. It seems very unlikely that these two different defintions are comparable, unless aggravated assualt covers all of the individual crimes counted in the Canadian study.

[Navaros]

You're more likely to get mugged in Toronto than New York.

I find this highly unlikely.

Toronto has 4 or 5 really bad ghetto areas. If you are walking in any of those, you are indeed likely to get mugged.

However, if you are in any part of the city that is not in those ghettos, chances of being mugged are virtually zero.

I wager that the same principle would apply in New York, only with New York having many more bad areas.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Aggravated assault - Attack or attempted attack with a weapon, regardless of whether or not an injury occurred and attack without a weapon when serious injury results.

With injury - An attack without a weapon when serious injury results or an attack with a weapon involving any injury. Serious injury includes broken bones, lost teeth, internal injuries, loss of consciousness, and any unspecified injury requiring two or more days of hospitalization.

Threatened with a weapon - Threat or attempted attack by an offender armed with a gun, knife, or other object used as a weapon, not resulting in victim injury.

From the US Department of Justice: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstrac...efinitions.htm

It would appear, since aggravated assualt can mean assualt without a weapon when serious injury occurs, that aggravated assualt covers assualt levels 2 and 3 in Canada, according to Goofball.

E.g. the homicide rate per 100,000 in Canada was 1.8 in 2002; in the USA for the same year, it was 5.5. For assault, it was a bit closer, but Canada was still lower, at 4.0 as opposed to 5.7.

I don't think those stats were from 2002. It was published in the first half of 2002, and usually stats lag behind a few years. Nor does that site seem the most reliable; they aren't a governmental organization and don't really give sources. The homicide rate is not that surprising, but if assault really makes up the greater part of the violent crime rate for Canada, which is double that of the US (at least as reported-a has been said the comparisons may not be valid) then it would stand to reason that the assualt rate is higher in Canada.

e.g. "In Canada, Criminal Code classifications of violent crime include assaults ranging from less serious offences such as threats to use violence, or pushing or shoving, through serious attacks which result in physical injury; sexual assaults; robbery which may involve a threat to use force, a display of a weapon, use of a weapon and actual physical force; abduction; infanticide, attempted murder, murder and manslaughter. Most violent crime, 58% overall, consists of charges classified as minor assaults. Only 13% involves more serious assaults, 11% sexual assault, 11% robbery, and 7% `other' including 0.24% murder or manslaughter (Statistics Canada 1994)."
...
Most of Canadian 'violent crimes' are threats and displays of weapons, 'crimes' that are not even counted as 'crimes' by the US. You're comparing apples to oranges-- or, to be more exact, apples to a single orange.

As in the above definition, the US includes threats of attacks with weapons as aggravated assault. Thus, they do count most of the same crimes as Canada does. And if threats w/weapons are classified as minor assualts, then Canada's higher assault rate is not due to comparing different things.

Crazed Rabbit

[Xiahou]

Which begs the question: How many of those bar fights or wife beatings would have turned into murders if we allowed people to walk around with concealed handguns?

Probably very, very few. If you think you can backup your implication though, I'd invite you to look into the percentages of total domestic violence occurences that involved firearms in the US. I could've sworn you were shotdown on this assertion before though.

It is certainly not due to (as conservative Americans would suggest) the fact that we don't have enough guns in Canada.

I'm not suggesting that. I don't care if increased crime in Canada is due to firearm restrictions or not- you can do what you want. What I do think it suggests is that less guns does not equal less crime- which is the main fallacy used by US gun grabbers to justify their policies.

[Duke of Gloucester]

As in the above definition, the US includes threats of attacks with weapons as aggravated assault. Thus, they do count most of the same crimes as Canada does.

No, because violent crimes in Canada include 2 levels of assualt not covered in the US and a whole range of sexual crimes too. The biggest difference between the 2 figures seems to be the differences between "agravated assualt" and "assualts level 1, 2 and 3". I think it is clear that the definition of violent crime includes more offences in Canada than in the US, and this may tell us something about how violent the US is compared with Canada.

[Watchman]

While we're throwing numbers around, I figured I might as well add this to the pot since I've had it lying in my Favourites for a while now. I can't vouch for the site in general, but at least they appear to be working on standardized yardsticks which as everyone should know is the barest minimum for any even remotely acceptable statistical comparision.

Note, incidentally, what rank as "top stats" for the US and the company it keeps at the head of the per capita rankings...

What part of that is supposed to help convince me guns reduce crime ?

[Ser Clegane]

While we're throwing numbers around, I figured I might as well add this to the pot since I've had it lying in my Favourites for a while now. I can't vouch for the site in general, but at least they appear to be working on standardized yardsticks which as everyone should know is the barest minimum for any even remotely acceptable statistical comparision.

Note, incidentally, what rank as "top stats" for the US and the company it keeps at the head of the per capita rankings...

While any effort to standardize this kind of data is indeed helpful, I am not so sure if these guys actually succeeded.

Some of the datasets seem very ... funny, e.g.

Colombia:
assaults per 1000 capita: 0.59
murder per 1000 capita: 0.62

Ukraine
assaults: 0.112
murder: 0.094

The ratios between assault and murder seem to be extremely unrealistic in these cases

[Xiahou]

Also, the most recent data nationmaster uses for crime is from 2000. To me, that's getting a bit stale.

[Watchman]

They define "murder" as "intentional homicide". That's presumably distinct from mere "assault" presumably does not involve actually killing the victim. For example in "assaults per capita" Colombia ranks a puny #35 with 0.587116 per 1,000 people, but in "murders" a cheerful #1 at 0.617847 per 1,000 people. It comes a respectable second in "murders with firearms" at 0.509801 per 1,000 people. Those decimals make a major difference in comparisions.

Now, either Colombians "murder" each other far more often than "assault"; if this is indeed so, the place is in truly sorry state indeed. However, I suspect the key is the little disclaimer most entries in "Definitions" list - "Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence." I would hazard a guess that Colombians are so numb at serious lethal violence that they simply do not bother reporting or recording lesser cases, or consider them worth bothering the authorities with. Odds are the authorities, for as much or as little they care, are too busy with the "murders" to have time for such trifles.

[Watchman]

To me, that's getting a bit stale.

*shrug* It's indicative, anyway. I have distinct trouble believing truly remarkable changes considerable enough to affect the overall rankings (ie. who's generally on top in what; some shuffling amongst closely ranked nations is of course only natural) would have happened in such a short time, as we'd be talking about fairly profound changes in whole societies.

[Xiahou]

Note, incidentally, what rank as "top stats" for the US and the company it keeps at the head of the per capita rankings...

By the way, what's it like living in the country with the 3rd most per capita crime?

[Ser Clegane]

However, I suspect the key is the little disclaimer most entries in "Definitions" list - "Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence." I would hazard a guess that Colombians are so numb at serious lethal violence that they simply do not bother reporting or recording lesser cases, or consider them worth bothering the authorities with. Odds are the authorities, for as much or as little they care, are too busy with the "murders" to have time for such trifles.

That is indeed very likely - and it emphasizes the problem that one has to face when trying to compare crime statistics from different countries.

If you then in addition try to - based on such statistics - show causalities with single factors you move into the realm of wild guessing.

I think the posts above have established the fact that saying that Canada has higher violent crime rates than the US is not supported by the given data.

However, it seems to be an equal simplification of the issue if we say that the higher homicide rates in the US as compared to Canada can be explained by the difference in how the respective countries regulate gun ownership.
The often cited Switzerland example shows that widely spread ownership of guns cannot explain high homicide rates.
Gun ownership might be a factor - it might be not a factor; Switzerland, Canada and the US certainly differ in more factors than just gun ownership regulation laws - so focussing just on the gun issue isn't enough to understand crime rates.

EDIT: removal of several pelling and grammatical errors - I blame it on the Scotch...

[Crazed Rabbit]

No, because violent crimes in Canada include 2 levels of assualt not covered in the US and a whole range of sexual crimes too. The biggest difference between the 2 figures seems to be the differences between "agravated assualt" and "assualts level 1, 2 and 3". I think it is clear that the definition of violent crime includes more offences in Canada than in the US, and this may tell us something about how violent the US is compared with Canada.

Actually, the US definition of Aggravated Assault would fit 2 levels of assault in Canada. The US also includes forcible rape in its violent crimes, and attempts to rape. While Canada may include some more categories of sexual crimes, it only makes up, according to Hurin_Rules' sources, 11% of Canadian violent crime. It is likely the USA would count most sexual offenses recorded as violent crimes in Canada as a violent crime. Even if they did not count all of them, the impact on the overall violent crime rate would be small.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offen...ible_rape.html

Forcible rape, as defined in the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Assaults and attempts to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included;

I believe the crucial thing to find out is Canada treats threats of assault with weapons as minor assault, and if minor assault covers assault level 1, or assault levels 1 and 2. Goofball's post would seem to indicate that minor assault only overs level 1.

Crazed Rabbit