A few things that hit me about the list: Toronto and Canada are not in the US. Toronto is not even really part of any earthly civilization. The fact that these two distinct nations were blurred into one speaks volumes about the authors and the people attempting to equate them. Secondly, the weird comments about religion. Being British born and Canadian by choice, I do not see anything remarkable about religion in the USA. On the other hand, I have seen a dangerous decline in the culture of religion in much of the country of my birth (England). The comments from a person who comes from a Socialist country who finds it 'hilarious' that Americans are weary of socialism are, in themselves, hilarious. Americans SHOULD be weary of socialism, unless they would like to see their nation subsumed into some regional bloc - as was that man's homeland. Lastly: Guns. There are lots of guns here, too. Gun rights are very important to Canadians who do not live in one of our satellite civilizations (ie Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver). Have a look, if you have time, at the gun ownership rates in this country. Some of the highest in the world. So, I find this one hard to believe as anything more than a sneering political comment by the Scots folks. When I was a boy, gun ownership was the norm in the UK, too. I had a rifles course (in cadets) at a range IN MY SCHOOL. But that was before the great disarmament of that nation... so maybe those folks are only in their 20's? At any rate, we - in Canada - still have high gun ownership rates and low crime rates. The UK? The opposite.
EDIT: I should note on the religious comments that I have travelled extensively in Europe, South West Asia, and Central and South America (including the Indies) and have seen plenty of public displays of religion. The differences were that in Europe public preaching was dominated by Islamic preachers. In the Americas it is quite common to see public displays of religious faith. The 'styles' of that display vary, surely, but religiosity is very much alive and well from Cape Horn to the Arctic. The remarks about creationism are an epic display of ignorance.
Just to clarify simpleton statistics, the CDC data show the following US homicide rates...
White male: 2.9 White female: 1.3
Black male: 51.5 Black female: 5.8
Hispanic male: 13.5 Hispanic female: 1.8
Native American male: 17.6 Native American female: too few instances
Asian male: 2.8 Asian female: too few instances
The Progressive welfare/family/entitlement policy mix has been outstandingly successful for creating a murderous, violent culture for non-Asian minority males.
As usual, you're comparing Ford Pintos to iPads. The UK rate you cited is a combined rate for males and females of all ages. The data I cited are segregated by race, sex, and age (10 - 24 yrs, the age cohort most likely to commit homicide), and are in no way comparable to a overall national rate.
And yes, it is higher for those white males in that age cohort - but even if one absurdly assumes that tells a story worth knowing, your point is still irrelevant to the fact that the US Progressive policy for minorities, and particularly for young black males has been an unmitigated disaster as far as violent crime is concerned.
Hoo, Gun ownership and crime rates do not equate to homicide. The crime rates I was referring to are violent crimes - not specifically homicides, but figures that includes them as part of the total number. Rape, violent assaults, muggings, home invasions, gang violence etc. Some of which result in murder, others that do not. The differences in shooting deaths is quite profound when comparing the US and Canada. The reason? I suspect it has to do with handgun permits. In order to legally own and carry a handgun in Canada you have to get a restricted weapons permit and a carry permit. This does not make it impossible, but the checks on handguns are much more of an ordeal here. We have always had a 'thing' about pistols. Long guns, semi-autos, and various other weapons that are used for hunting, ranching, and home defence are quite easy to come by. The equivalent of taking a written drivers test and a one time fee in most provinces will grant you access to these weapons. There are also very strict rules about storage of these weapons, so many people just cannot be bothered with exercising these rights. That said, I only know personally of one family that does not have any guns or rifles - at all- in the home. Most families have at least a shotgun or semi about the house. When I lived in Toronto, that was not the case.
Troi: "Crime among blacks in the US was always much higher"
Source?
And by the "Progressive policy mix", I do not mean the Civil Rights Act (particularly since a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for it). I specifically stated I was referring to the "welfare/family/entitlement policy mix".
I should also note that the lack of personal firearms (ATC here vs Conceal and Carry in the US) probably accounts for the lower violent crime rates in the USA. Also the deaths by shooting statistics often include self defence, legal homicides (ie police shootings etc), and even suicides. My point is that the 'gun culture' in Canada is a live and well. We face much less restrictions than the UK, but still enjoy a low violent crime rate. A more noticeable difference is in the incarceration and prosecution processes. We have a lot less people in prison for non violent offences and there is much less of a stigma concerning a 'record' for petty crimes such as drug possession. The prison industry (ie criminal college) is far less entrenched here. People convicted of less serious offences are most likely to be sentenced to some sort of public or volunteer work. All that said, a great shame on this nation are the rates on the native lands. These semi-autonomous regions are like the wild west in many ways - and are extremely corrupt. Have a look at the murder rates for Winnipeg (surrounded by 1st nations lands) and you'll see what I mean.
Hoots tootles: "The US is the least "Progressive" country in the West, Grandpa. With the highest murder rate"
The US is also the least White nation in the "West". Refer back to the CDC data above. The destruction of minority family structure and single parenting has been an unmitigated disaster for minority males and a core ambition of Progressive policy in the United States.
Check this out for some relevant data, 'Admiral'. Murder rates among blacks have been about 10-fold higher than among whites from at least as long ago as the 1920s until the 1970s, then suddenly dropped to about 6.5-fold and stayed like that until today.
How is that consistent with "Progressive policy mix" being the cause of the higher rate among blacks?
The reason I'd like to see those numbers, Troy, is because they are pretty suspect. The idea that black violence has declined since the 1920's is pretty far-fetched. There were no Crips or Bloods in those times.
If your stat is correct--and I can't confirm it--I suspect that the explanation doesn't suit your cause very well. What I mean is that the white homicide rate has probably risen faster than black homicide rates, which necessarily changes the proportion.
If my hunch is correct, that only proves that white Americans and black Americans today are more prone to murder than they were fourty, fifty, or sixty years ago. We've adopted a lot of "progressive" policies since those times, including gun control, and it has only made us more murderous toward our fellow man.
Again, I'd like to see the data. It appears that you are using figures in a very misleading way to drive home a point.
Look at the table at the bottom of page 5 and the text above it.
What I mean is that the white homicide rate has probably risen faster than black homicide rates, which necessarily changes the proportion.
No, it's the black rate that has gone down faster.
If my hunch is correct, that only proves that white Americans and black Americans today are more prone to murder than they were fourty, fifty, or sixty years ago.
No, murder rates have gone down across the board.
Again, I'd like to see the data. It appears that you are using figures in a very misleading way to drive home a point.
The table on page 5 is about victimization by race. Look further down to page 6 or 7 for the race of offenders. The table on page 5 is rather irrelevant to the conversation we're having.
The table does not go back to 1920. According to the homicide by perpetrator, black homicide peaked in 1980. It's gone down since then, but 1980 was well within the age of the Great Society, War on Poverty, and other well-meaning progressive programs.
The 1970's was a time of exploding crime rates precisely because the idea of crime and punishment were abandoned. The new philosophy was that of the perpetrator as victim of societal forces.
The table on page 5 is about victimization by race. Look further down to page 6 or 7 for the race of offenders. The table on page 5 is rather irrelevant to the conversation we're having.
The table on page 5 is of course very relevant, since the vast majority of murders are within race. The tables on pages 6 and 7 confirm that.
The table does not go back to 1920.
That's right, and that's why I referred to the text above the table, where they do refer to murder in the 1920's and before.
According to the homicide by perpetrator, black homicide peaked in 1980. It's gone down since then, but 1980 was well within the age of the Great Society, War on Poverty, and other well-meaning progressive programs.
But murder rate has gone down, and faster among blacks than among whites, and during all this time the "well-meaning progressive programs" were in effect. So how can you possibly construe these data as supporting the claim that such programs don't work?
how did i know that this was going to turn into an america-bashing session?
here's what i couldn't believe when i came to america. black and white could eat, drink, and socialize together in the same restaurant. hard work really paid off but some people didn't want to do that hard work, so they complained that the system was stacked against them.
You knew it was going to devolve into an America-bashing session because that's all liberals ever do. God and country are the two dirtiest words in the English language to these people.
here's what i couldn't believe when i came to america. black and white could eat, drink, and socialize together in the same restaurant. hard work really paid off but some people didn't want to do that hard work, so they complained that the system was stacked against them.
Hard work obviously doesn't always pay off. Real wages have been decreasing, and many families can hardly get by even if both parents have full time jobs. There is no level playing field. If you are born poor, odds are that you will remain poor, partly because it's harder to get a decent education when you're from a poor family. To suggest that the poor are lazy shows that you are an asshole.
A few things that hit me about the list:
ReplyDeleteToronto and Canada are not in the US. Toronto is not even really part of any earthly civilization. The fact that these two distinct nations were blurred into one speaks volumes about the authors and the people attempting to equate them.
Secondly, the weird comments about religion. Being British born and Canadian by choice, I do not see anything remarkable about religion in the USA. On the other hand, I have seen a dangerous decline in the culture of religion in much of the country of my birth (England).
The comments from a person who comes from a Socialist country who finds it 'hilarious' that Americans are weary of socialism are, in themselves, hilarious. Americans SHOULD be weary of socialism, unless they would like to see their nation subsumed into some regional bloc - as was that man's homeland.
Lastly: Guns. There are lots of guns here, too. Gun rights are very important to Canadians who do not live in one of our satellite civilizations (ie Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver). Have a look, if you have time, at the gun ownership rates in this country. Some of the highest in the world. So, I find this one hard to believe as anything more than a sneering political comment by the Scots folks. When I was a boy, gun ownership was the norm in the UK, too. I had a rifles course (in cadets) at a range IN MY SCHOOL. But that was before the great disarmament of that nation... so maybe those folks are only in their 20's? At any rate, we - in Canada - still have high gun ownership rates and low crime rates. The UK? The opposite.
EDIT: I should note on the religious comments that I have travelled extensively in Europe, South West Asia, and Central and South America (including the Indies) and have seen plenty of public displays of religion. The differences were that in Europe public preaching was dominated by Islamic preachers. In the Americas it is quite common to see public displays of religious faith. The 'styles' of that display vary, surely, but religiosity is very much alive and well from Cape Horn to the Arctic.
DeleteThe remarks about creationism are an epic display of ignorance.
crus: At any rate, we - in Canada - still have high gun ownership rates and low crime rates. The UK? The opposite.
DeleteMurder rates per 100,000 people per year:
Canada 1.6
UK 1.2
US 4.7
Hoo
Just to clarify simpleton statistics, the CDC data show the following US homicide rates...
DeleteWhite male: 2.9
White female: 1.3
Black male: 51.5
Black female: 5.8
Hispanic male: 13.5
Hispanic female: 1.8
Native American male: 17.6
Native American female: too few instances
Asian male: 2.8
Asian female: too few instances
The Progressive welfare/family/entitlement policy mix has been outstandingly successful for creating a murderous, violent culture for non-Asian minority males.
Even among white males, the homicide rate in the US is higher than the total in the UK or Canada.
DeleteHoo
As usual, you're comparing Ford Pintos to iPads. The UK rate you cited is a combined rate for males and females of all ages. The data I cited are segregated by race, sex, and age (10 - 24 yrs, the age cohort most likely to commit homicide), and are in no way comparable to a overall national rate.
DeleteAnd yes, it is higher for those white males in that age cohort - but even if one absurdly assumes that tells a story worth knowing, your point is still irrelevant to the fact that the US Progressive policy for minorities, and particularly for young black males has been an unmitigated disaster as far as violent crime is concerned.
Hoo,
DeleteGun ownership and crime rates do not equate to homicide.
The crime rates I was referring to are violent crimes - not specifically homicides, but figures that includes them as part of the total number. Rape, violent assaults, muggings, home invasions, gang violence etc. Some of which result in murder, others that do not.
The differences in shooting deaths is quite profound when comparing the US and Canada. The reason? I suspect it has to do with handgun permits. In order to legally own and carry a handgun in Canada you have to get a restricted weapons permit and a carry permit. This does not make it impossible, but the checks on handguns are much more of an ordeal here. We have always had a 'thing' about pistols. Long guns, semi-autos, and various other weapons that are used for hunting, ranching, and home defence are quite easy to come by. The equivalent of taking a written drivers test and a one time fee in most provinces will grant you access to these weapons. There are also very strict rules about storage of these weapons, so many people just cannot be bothered with exercising these rights. That said, I only know personally of one family that does not have any guns or rifles - at all- in the home. Most families have at least a shotgun or semi about the house.
When I lived in Toronto, that was not the case.
Troi: "Crime among blacks in the US was always much higher"
DeleteSource?
And by the "Progressive policy mix", I do not mean the Civil Rights Act (particularly since a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for it). I specifically stated I was referring to the "welfare/family/entitlement policy mix".
Sleep it off.
The US is the least "Progressive" country in the West, Grandpa. With the highest murder rate. If anything, it isn't "Progressive" enough.
DeleteHoo
I should also note that the lack of personal firearms (ATC here vs Conceal and Carry in the US) probably accounts for the lower violent crime rates in the USA. Also the deaths by shooting statistics often include self defence, legal homicides (ie police shootings etc), and even suicides.
DeleteMy point is that the 'gun culture' in Canada is a live and well. We face much less restrictions than the UK, but still enjoy a low violent crime rate.
A more noticeable difference is in the incarceration and prosecution processes. We have a lot less people in prison for non violent offences and there is much less of a stigma concerning a 'record' for petty crimes such as drug possession. The prison industry (ie criminal college) is far less entrenched here. People convicted of less serious offences are most likely to be sentenced to some sort of public or volunteer work.
All that said, a great shame on this nation are the rates on the native lands. These semi-autonomous regions are like the wild west in many ways - and are extremely corrupt. Have a look at the murder rates for Winnipeg (surrounded by 1st nations lands) and you'll see what I mean.
Hoots tootles: "The US is the least "Progressive" country in the West, Grandpa. With the highest murder rate"
DeleteThe US is also the least White nation in the "West". Refer back to the CDC data above. The destruction of minority family structure and single parenting has been an unmitigated disaster for minority males and a core ambition of Progressive policy in the United States.
"It Takes a Village" ain't working.
Check this out for some relevant data, 'Admiral'. Murder rates among blacks have been about 10-fold higher than among whites from at least as long ago as the 1920s until the 1970s, then suddenly dropped to about 6.5-fold and stayed like that until today.
DeleteHow is that consistent with "Progressive policy mix" being the cause of the higher rate among blacks?
Troy, your link doesn't work. I'd like to see those numbers.
DeleteJoey
The reason I'd like to see those numbers, Troy, is because they are pretty suspect. The idea that black violence has declined since the 1920's is pretty far-fetched. There were no Crips or Bloods in those times.
DeleteIf your stat is correct--and I can't confirm it--I suspect that the explanation doesn't suit your cause very well. What I mean is that the white homicide rate has probably risen faster than black homicide rates, which necessarily changes the proportion.
If my hunch is correct, that only proves that white Americans and black Americans today are more prone to murder than they were fourty, fifty, or sixty years ago. We've adopted a lot of "progressive" policies since those times, including gun control, and it has only made us more murderous toward our fellow man.
Again, I'd like to see the data. It appears that you are using figures in a very misleading way to drive home a point.
Joey
Sorry about that, Joey - good link here I hope."
DeleteLook at the table at the bottom of page 5 and the text above it.
What I mean is that the white homicide rate has probably risen faster than black homicide rates, which necessarily changes the proportion.
No, it's the black rate that has gone down faster.
If my hunch is correct, that only proves that white Americans and black Americans today are more prone to murder than they were fourty, fifty, or sixty years ago.
No, murder rates have gone down across the board.
Again, I'd like to see the data. It appears that you are using figures in a very misleading way to drive home a point.
Look for yourself.
The table on page 5 is about victimization by race. Look further down to page 6 or 7 for the race of offenders. The table on page 5 is rather irrelevant to the conversation we're having.
DeleteThe table does not go back to 1920. According to the homicide by perpetrator, black homicide peaked in 1980. It's gone down since then, but 1980 was well within the age of the Great Society, War on Poverty, and other well-meaning progressive programs.
The 1970's was a time of exploding crime rates precisely because the idea of crime and punishment were abandoned. The new philosophy was that of the perpetrator as victim of societal forces.
Joey
Joey:
DeleteThe table on page 5 is about victimization by race. Look further down to page 6 or 7 for the race of offenders. The table on page 5 is rather irrelevant to the conversation we're having.
The table on page 5 is of course very relevant, since the vast majority of murders are within race. The tables on pages 6 and 7 confirm that.
The table does not go back to 1920.
That's right, and that's why I referred to the text above the table, where they do refer to murder in the 1920's and before.
According to the homicide by perpetrator, black homicide peaked in 1980. It's gone down since then, but 1980 was well within the age of the Great Society, War on Poverty, and other well-meaning progressive programs.
But murder rate has gone down, and faster among blacks than among whites, and during all this time the "well-meaning progressive programs" were in effect. So how can you possibly construe these data as supporting the claim that such programs don't work?
Think, Joey.
troy: Think, Joey.
DeleteNo fair, troy.
Hoo
how did i know that this was going to turn into an america-bashing session?
ReplyDeletehere's what i couldn't believe when i came to america. black and white could eat, drink, and socialize together in the same restaurant. hard work really paid off but some people didn't want to do that hard work, so they complained that the system was stacked against them.
naidoo
You knew it was going to devolve into an America-bashing session because that's all liberals ever do. God and country are the two dirtiest words in the English language to these people.
DeleteJoey
here's what i couldn't believe when i came to america. black and white could eat, drink, and socialize together in the same restaurant. hard work really paid off but some people didn't want to do that hard work, so they complained that the system was stacked against them.
DeleteHard work obviously doesn't always pay off. Real wages have been decreasing, and many families can hardly get by even if both parents have full time jobs. There is no level playing field. If you are born poor, odds are that you will remain poor, partly because it's harder to get a decent education when you're from a poor family. To suggest that the poor are lazy shows that you are an asshole.