Baron Von PWN wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Baron Von PWN wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Baron Von PWN wrote:Hey look, roughly a third of the guns and roughly a third of the murders!
Alternatively, roughly a third of the guns and roughly four times the burglaries.
Dunno about you but I'd rather have my Ipod stolen than be shot.
Your error is assuming, even in light of statistical evidence, it's a 1:1 choice.
I would take a 1-in-100 chance of winning $10,000 over a 1-in-5000 chance of winning $100,000. That doesn't mean I prefer $10,000 over $100,000.
Americans prefer a 1-in-5,000 chance of being murdered over a 1-100 chance of having their home broken into, ransacked, and their kids felt-up in bed by Lord Humongous. Canadians may prefer the opposite. I don't presume to judge either choice of priorities. That's why different nations have different laws.
A commentator on the site the stats are coming from had this to say.
The rape statistics for Canada are incorrect. First, Statistics Canada cites 62 sexual offences per 100,000 people for 2009, not the 73 per 100,000 quoted by NationMaster. Second, Canadian crime statistics do not distinguish between actual rapes and lesser sexual offences, but by the severity of the offence depending on how badly the victim was injured or whether a weapon was used, etc. Even unwanted touching constitutes sexual assault in Canada and would be included with all the other sexual offences.
Since fully 98% of the 2009 reported sexual offences were in the least serious category (with 61 per 100,000 people), it is extremely unlikely that the actual rape rate in Canada is even remotely close to the 73 per 100,000 stated on this website.
Considering the common legal basis it may be the same with Australia.
The burglary stat also appears to be out of date or incorrect.
http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/detai ... aries.aspx
On the same note, the US is (almost) unique in cataloging murder based on crimes declared homicide by a coroner versus the UK (and, I believe, Canada) which catalog murders only on conviction. I haven't brought that up because logical discussion can only proceed with a rational agreement on the scientific validity of a base data-set. But, it seems, we've now jumped the shark.
Once a human has embraced a worldview with religious affirmation it's unusual they'll release with any volume of evidence to the contrary. There will always be some method by which the statistics were calculated that will render them invalid; some nuanced excuse about why X data set - which, to this point has been accepted without argument - has now become invalid.
The preceding message marks the End of Reason in this thread, the Start of Evangelism. It's obviously now impossible for the discussion to proceed in a rational manner since it's been declared only data supporting the worldview will be accepted as valid. [Initiate Name-Calling and Flaming Protocol 45-X/#Z]
Aradhus wrote:Also I was responding to the conversation, forgive me for eliminating a zillion quotes to make the posts shorter, so that it would be easier for you to understand. Obviously that didn't work. Next time I will try pictures, k, hon?
