Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

yes_its_him t1_izeidby wrote

Reply to comment by H_Lunulata in [OC] Guns in the US and Canada by pigecoin69420

Your conclusion sounds more like an assumption so far. Why not look and see if that's actually the case?

The assault rate in Canada is reportedly 575 vs. 246 in the US per 100,000.

Burglary is 438 in Canada vs. 376 for the US.

There could be differences in the way metrics are aggregated, but I don't think the conclusion that they are "very much not equivalent" is founded just because the numbers surprised you.

13

Alwaysunder_thegun t1_izejbvr wrote

I was surprised as well. But as I thought about it it made sense. I was in lots of fights as a kid. In vancouver or homeless population , and thus petty theft is out of control. We also might report things more often. It's not that hard to believe.

2

Rat_Salat t1_izesuv2 wrote

Doesn’t pass the smell test tbh.

−1

yes_its_him t1_izeu8vj wrote

Who needs facts when we have preconceived notions?

3

Rat_Salat t1_izezmmy wrote

Maybe you can just keep Canada out of your health care and gun control debates.

Your disinformation seeps into the consciousness up here.

−1

yes_its_him t1_izezxrt wrote

I am not doing anything except reporting what governments say in their official numbers.

You seem to be the one making random evidence-free assertions

3

Rat_Salat t1_izf3eld wrote

I'm not gonna write a research paper to debunk this American gun propaganda. All you have to do is drive from Toronto to Buffalo, Windsor to Detroit or from Vancouver to Seattle to know that these numbers aren't accurate.

Triple the violent crime rate, despite having a third as many murders. Sure, seems totally accurate. Graph isn't accurate on that one either. Canada's murder rate isn't as low as OP suggests.

0

pigecoin69420 OP t1_j2dyhe0 wrote

Numbers are important to understanding the world, though of course there could be bias in any data set. It would be really worthwhile if you could identify a potential cause for bias in the data set. When data seems strange, it could be a sampling artifact (bias), or it could be real and up to us to uncover the reason for the strangeness...
I'll put my tin-foil speculations hat on for a second to offer a pro gun explanation for the data: what if higher rates of gun ownership led overall to fewer crimes overall because some sort of deterrence from gun owning population?
The point is, it could be bias, however the differences are quite large, suggesting that it's more likely to be incomplete understanding of the factors at play, warranting research studies to investigate why such differences in crime might exist between two quite similar countries.

1