Dean's World

Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.

International Crime Statistics

One of the more interesting things I learned in this charming movie is that Canada has a violent crime rate almost twice that of the United States. I was rather startled so I started checking some statistics and it's basically correct. Canada's murder rate is lower than America's, but its total violent crime rate is damn near twice as high as ours. Fascinating.

I tried finding online free sources of international crime data and was surprised how tough it was to find. But I did find this New Zealand Ministry of Justice report comparing New Zealand to other major countries, which coincidentally includes Canada, the United States, the UK, and a number of other countries for comparison.

I'm some kind of weird geek that things like this fascinate me....

Posted by Dean | Permalink | Technorati Trackbacks
Steven Malcolm Anderson (www):
Canada, like Britain and Australia, has instituted gun control. When the honest are disarmed, then criminals rob and rape, if not murder, with impunity.
9.8.2005 3:54am
Martin L. Shoemaker (www):
As soon as I can recover from a dead video card, I'll have a post in this vein. If you're geeked about crime statistics, it will be a nice graphical overview of crime rates. But the graphic is locked in a machine with no video.
9.8.2005 4:10am
Gary R (mail) (www):
I guess we can quote former DC mayer Marion Berry: "Outside of the murders, our crime rate is pretty low."
9.8.2005 11:14am
Dean Cochrane (www):
You have to be very careful when you compare crime rates between countries. Everybody has their own definition of 'violent crime'.

As they say in the New Zealand study you cited.

I would say that the difference in rates of reported crime has more to do with the reporting than the crime.
9.8.2005 11:27am
Arnold Harris (mail):
The crime only becomes violent when someone makes the mistake of burglarizing me while I'm in the house, armed and dangerous, and I shoot him dead.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
9.8.2005 5:17pm
B. Durbin (www):
"in the house, armed and dangerous"

Arnold, with you that phrase is redundant.
9.9.2005 12:20am
Jim Monk (mail) (www):
I haven't seen Michael Moore hates America yet but I remember when Roger Ebert gave it a favourable review and mentioned his astonishment at the Canadian crime stats. A number of Canadians wrote him in protest.

It turns out it is very difficult to compare the official stats of Canada and the US. We have one criminal code, the US over 50. Definitions vary widely. The US does not track charges and incidents the way Canada does.

Statistics Canada published a report back in December 2001 that described the problem and made some partial comparisons.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/011218/d011218b.htm

They said that, on a per capita basis, Canada has less violent crime, but more break-ins, car theft and arson.

Stuart at moorelies.com got caught by this too.

http://moorelies.com/news/archives/display.cfm?newsID=540
9.9.2005 5:05am
Dean Esmay:
If you just read the New Zealand report I linked, it they explain how they normalized the data between countries. It's not that hard.
9.9.2005 6:43am
Jim Monk (mail) (www):
Dean,

To me both the New Zealand and the Canadian reports seem reasonable in their approach to the problem. Yet they make opposite conclusions.

I don't know the truth.

I do know that I feel safer in downtown Detroit than I do here in downtown Windsor, just across the border. With the younger drinking age we get an alarming number of fights, stabbings and shootings.

Canadians have no grounds for complacency.
9.9.2005 8:24am
Arnold Harris (mail):
BD,

When we are out doing shooting practice on a gun range, we are not armed at all unless and until we come up to the line or step into the designated shooter's box under immediate control and direction of a qualified range safety officer, who orders the shooter to load and made ready. At that point, the shooter is armed. But he is not dangerous, because his intent is only to shoot at carefully delineated paper, steel or frangible targets.

In a home defense situation, where a burglar is in my house, and I must assume that he is armed, and therefore dangerous. In which case, I too am armed, and I am prepared to kill him.

Which is precisely what I will do if I spot him with a weapon in his hands, even if it is not directly pointed at me. It takes only a split second to redirect the aim of a firearm, at which point I am at risk of death at the hands of the burglar. Therefore, I factually have no choice but to neutralize him first. If this makes me dangerous, so be it.

"Neutralize him" means to render him incapable of doing me any harm. Which means he gets two quick rounds aimed right in the center of his bodymass. Guaranteed to lift his body up a couple of inches and drop him lengthwise to the floor about 1-3 feet back from where he had been standing. In other words, neutralized.

If his finger is still inside the trigger guard of his firearm, I clear the family out of there, with one of them calling the sheriff's department. Then I remain under cover with my firearm ready and never taking my eyes off the burlar until the police arrive.

Like any other conscientious firearm owner, I think carefully about what I will do in any contingency that I can envision. It goes without saying that I know every square inch of my house, including the basement and garage, and I can report further that I have trained myself in this by walking around every inch of the house in pitchblack darkness, making no noise whatsoever and keeping my ears alert for someone else's breathing anywhere in the same room.

And if I can do all this as I have described, at 71 years of age, so can any of the rest of you. Or, if you want to be victims, suit yourself.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
9.9.2005 4:39pm