|
03-22-2018, 09:25 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Beijing, Canada
Posts: 1,470
|
|
Gun violence in Canada - must read
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gun-...nada-1.4585097
Expert says Trudeau government's choice of baseline year makes crime stats look worse than they really are
The year 2013 has been enjoying a bit of a renaissance lately in government talking points and statistics.
The alarming crime stats presented by Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale at the guns and gangs summit earlier this month in Ottawa all took 2013 as their point of comparison. Goodale pointed to a sharp increase in gang shootings since that year.
That memorable year returned again as the Liberal government on Tuesday advanced its proposed firearms legislation, Bill C-71, making the case that the country had seen a sudden increase in firearms offences since … 2013.
"Gun homicides are up by two-thirds" since 2013, Goodale warned — citing what sounds like a shocking explosion of violence.
"Averages and relationships and trends and graphs are not always what they seem," Darrell Huff warned in his 1954 classic How to Lie With Statistics. "There may be more in them than meets the eye, and there may be a good deal less."
The average citizen, hearing how gun crime has soared since 2013, might well conclude that something alarming has been going on.
In fact, it's "a good deal less."
What appears to make 2013 attractive as a point of comparison is that any year in the past half century can be made to look alarming by comparing it to 2013.
That's because 2013 saw Canada's lowest rate of criminal homicides in 50 years, and the lowest rate of fatal shootings ever recorded by Statistics Canada.
In 2013, Canadians killed each other at the lowest rate since 1966 — 30 per cent below the average of the previous three decades. Statistics Canada's homicide report for 2013 clearly identifies it as a record-breaking year.
"To be worth much, a report based on sampling must use a representative sample," wrote Huff.
But 2013 does not represent any kind of Canadian norm. Choosing it as a baseline could be seen as an example of what statisticians call "selection bias."
"They obviously picked the one year where it was lowest, so as to maximize the impact, the one year to make the change look most drastic, essentially," said Pierre-Jérôme Bergeron, who teaches statistics at the Department of Mathematics and Statistics at the University of Ottawa.
The McGill-trained statistician, who authored a paper called How to Engage in Pseudoscience With Real Data, said it doesn't look like an honest mistake, either.
"Here, I'm pretty sure they saw 2013 at the bottom, and said, 'We're going to pick that,'" he said. "Just like climate change deniers will say, 'It hasn't warmed since 1998,' but they pick 1998 because it was so hot, one of the highest, and is actually an outlier."
Bergeron noted that while statisticians often look back at recent data in five-year blocks, the Trudeau government has oddly chosen to measure only four years (2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016). Taking the data set back to 2012 would be the more normal practice — but it wouldn't produce the same impression of rocketing gun violence.
University of Ottawa criminologist Holly Johnson specializes in methodologies of measurements of crime and has coordinated surveys of violence and crime for Statistics Canada and the UN.
"I don't know the motivation or reasoning behind it," she said, "but certainly choosing the lowest rate in decades of data would suggest there's a reason for that, trying to make a point of some sort.
"Statistics can be misused, and to take a high point or a low point to try to make a political point is something I think we should all watch for.
"Statistics for rates of population that are based on very rare events, such as firearms homicides, tend to fluctuate, quite a great deal, actually."
Johnson said an objective statistician, looking for a baseline for comparison, typically would look at how a particular year compares to the average of the 10 years preceding it, to gauge how one specific year stacks up against the norm.
"A few years does not a trend make."
Johnson adds: "Certainly I wouldn't call it a crime wave."
We don't yet know how 2018 will turn out for homicides, but there's a good chance it will be worse than 2013 — because every year since 1966 has been worse than 2013.
But based on Canada's latest-known homicide rate (1.68 per 100,000 in 2016), it's also likely Canada's homicide rate in 2018 will be similar to or lower than it was 10 years before in 2008 (1.83 per 100,000) — or in 1998 (1.85 per 100,000), 1988 (2.15 per 100,000), 1978 (2.76 per 100,000) or, for that matter, 1968 (1.81 per 100,000).
Indeed, the rate today is not far from where it was in 1928 (1.55 per 100,000).
The Trudeau government points out that the sub-category of homicides with firearms has gone up, and this is true … if one takes 2013 as a starting point. Otherwise, not really.
CBC asked Goodale's office why he chose to use 2013 as a baseline.
"Crime rates generally in Canada have been on the decline for more than two decades," said spokesman Scott Bardsley in an email, "but offences involving firearms have become more prevalent, especially since 2013.
"Many communities across the country have been facing a steady increase in gun violence over the past five years. This trend is a break from overall declines in crime over recent decades.
"More broadly, our caucus has heard from Canadians across the country who are concerned about gun violence. Better is always possible."
But if, rather than picking the lowest year for comparison, one were to ask how 2016 compared with a decade before, one would find that the rate of firearms homicides remained boringly unchanged. It was 0.69 per 100,000 in 2005, and 0.59 in 2006, and 0.57 in 2007. It dipped during 2013 and was back at 0.62 per 100,000 in the supposedly alarming year of 2016.
The rate of homicides with handguns in Canada in 2016 was 0.36 per 100,000. Ten years ago, it was 0.38 per 100,000.
None of that constitutes a "steady increase."
One might also look back at the long-term trend, and note with satisfaction that the rate at which Canadians are being killed with firearms has seen a historic decline of more than 50 per cent from its high point of 1.26 per 100,000 in 1975.
The rate of killings and crimes committed with non-restricted long guns has declined by more than three-quarters since the 1980s. Robberies involving guns also have declined by more than 75 per cent during the same period.
That is what a statistician might reasonably call "a steady decrease."
So it's not accurate to say that "offences involving firearms have become more prevalent, especially since 2013." It would be more accurate to say offences involving firearms appear to have become more prevalent if we use the abnormal year of 2013 as a baseline.
And that's not hard to do because, as Mark Twain pointed out, "facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable."
|
03-22-2018, 09:32 AM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 1,529
|
|
Cbc
I was shocked when I heard this on CBC this morning.
|
03-22-2018, 09:38 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: GP AB
Posts: 16,239
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtr
I was shocked when I heard this on CBC this morning.
|
Exactly, seems like a story they would suppress. Glad it's out there!
__________________
'Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves a banana, they'll never climb another tree.'. Robert Heinlein
'You can accomplish a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.' Al Capone
|
03-22-2018, 10:03 AM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 817
|
|
If I was prime minister !
I could fix the gun problem in 5 mins .
Make importing guns from the US a ten year sentence .
Any crime with a fire arm in the commission of said ,
Automatic 20 yr. minimum ..
Then knives, screwdrivers , baseball bats , automobiles,
And on and on ....it's Madness ....
And that's it exactly but we have no mental health services.
We give all tax dollars payed to the Feds , to terrorists .
|
03-22-2018, 10:19 AM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Gods Country
Posts: 1,706
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMichaud
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gun-...nada-1.4585097
Expert says Trudeau government's choice of baseline year makes crime stats look worse than they really are
The year 2013 has been enjoying a bit of a renaissance lately in government talking points and statistics.
The alarming crime stats presented by Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale at the guns and gangs summit earlier this month in Ottawa all took 2013 as their point of comparison. Goodale pointed to a sharp increase in gang shootings since that year.
That memorable year returned again as the Liberal government on Tuesday advanced its proposed firearms legislation, Bill C-71, making the case that the country had seen a sudden increase in firearms offences since … 2013.
"Gun homicides are up by two-thirds" since 2013, Goodale warned — citing what sounds like a shocking explosion of violence.
"Averages and relationships and trends and graphs are not always what they seem," Darrell Huff warned in his 1954 classic How to Lie With Statistics. "There may be more in them than meets the eye, and there may be a good deal less."
The average citizen, hearing how gun crime has soared since 2013, might well conclude that something alarming has been going on.
In fact, it's "a good deal less."
What appears to make 2013 attractive as a point of comparison is that any year in the past half century can be made to look alarming by comparing it to 2013.
That's because 2013 saw Canada's lowest rate of criminal homicides in 50 years, and the lowest rate of fatal shootings ever recorded by Statistics Canada.
In 2013, Canadians killed each other at the lowest rate since 1966 — 30 per cent below the average of the previous three decades. Statistics Canada's homicide report for 2013 clearly identifies it as a record-breaking year.
"To be worth much, a report based on sampling must use a representative sample," wrote Huff.
But 2013 does not represent any kind of Canadian norm. Choosing it as a baseline could be seen as an example of what statisticians call "selection bias."
"They obviously picked the one year where it was lowest, so as to maximize the impact, the one year to make the change look most drastic, essentially," said Pierre-Jérôme Bergeron, who teaches statistics at the Department of Mathematics and Statistics at the University of Ottawa.
The McGill-trained statistician, who authored a paper called How to Engage in Pseudoscience With Real Data, said it doesn't look like an honest mistake, either.
"Here, I'm pretty sure they saw 2013 at the bottom, and said, 'We're going to pick that,'" he said. "Just like climate change deniers will say, 'It hasn't warmed since 1998,' but they pick 1998 because it was so hot, one of the highest, and is actually an outlier."
Bergeron noted that while statisticians often look back at recent data in five-year blocks, the Trudeau government has oddly chosen to measure only four years (2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016). Taking the data set back to 2012 would be the more normal practice — but it wouldn't produce the same impression of rocketing gun violence.
University of Ottawa criminologist Holly Johnson specializes in methodologies of measurements of crime and has coordinated surveys of violence and crime for Statistics Canada and the UN.
"I don't know the motivation or reasoning behind it," she said, "but certainly choosing the lowest rate in decades of data would suggest there's a reason for that, trying to make a point of some sort.
"Statistics can be misused, and to take a high point or a low point to try to make a political point is something I think we should all watch for.
"Statistics for rates of population that are based on very rare events, such as firearms homicides, tend to fluctuate, quite a great deal, actually."
Johnson said an objective statistician, looking for a baseline for comparison, typically would look at how a particular year compares to the average of the 10 years preceding it, to gauge how one specific year stacks up against the norm.
"A few years does not a trend make."
Johnson adds: "Certainly I wouldn't call it a crime wave."
We don't yet know how 2018 will turn out for homicides, but there's a good chance it will be worse than 2013 — because every year since 1966 has been worse than 2013.
But based on Canada's latest-known homicide rate (1.68 per 100,000 in 2016), it's also likely Canada's homicide rate in 2018 will be similar to or lower than it was 10 years before in 2008 (1.83 per 100,000) — or in 1998 (1.85 per 100,000), 1988 (2.15 per 100,000), 1978 (2.76 per 100,000) or, for that matter, 1968 (1.81 per 100,000).
Indeed, the rate today is not far from where it was in 1928 (1.55 per 100,000).
The Trudeau government points out that the sub-category of homicides with firearms has gone up, and this is true … if one takes 2013 as a starting point. Otherwise, not really.
CBC asked Goodale's office why he chose to use 2013 as a baseline.
"Crime rates generally in Canada have been on the decline for more than two decades," said spokesman Scott Bardsley in an email, "but offences involving firearms have become more prevalent, especially since 2013.
"Many communities across the country have been facing a steady increase in gun violence over the past five years. This trend is a break from overall declines in crime over recent decades.
"More broadly, our caucus has heard from Canadians across the country who are concerned about gun violence. Better is always possible."
But if, rather than picking the lowest year for comparison, one were to ask how 2016 compared with a decade before, one would find that the rate of firearms homicides remained boringly unchanged. It was 0.69 per 100,000 in 2005, and 0.59 in 2006, and 0.57 in 2007. It dipped during 2013 and was back at 0.62 per 100,000 in the supposedly alarming year of 2016.
The rate of homicides with handguns in Canada in 2016 was 0.36 per 100,000. Ten years ago, it was 0.38 per 100,000.
None of that constitutes a "steady increase."
One might also look back at the long-term trend, and note with satisfaction that the rate at which Canadians are being killed with firearms has seen a historic decline of more than 50 per cent from its high point of 1.26 per 100,000 in 1975.
The rate of killings and crimes committed with non-restricted long guns has declined by more than three-quarters since the 1980s. Robberies involving guns also have declined by more than 75 per cent during the same period.
That is what a statistician might reasonably call "a steady decrease."
So it's not accurate to say that "offences involving firearms have become more prevalent, especially since 2013." It would be more accurate to say offences involving firearms appear to have become more prevalent if we use the abnormal year of 2013 as a baseline.
And that's not hard to do because, as Mark Twain pointed out, "facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable."
|
Fear mongering, that's all this is, a complete load of crap, now , the opioid crisis, that is concerning.
And really, who gives a rats ass if criminals are killing themselves with guns, I couldn't care less!!
Last edited by wildbill; 03-22-2018 at 10:27 AM.
|
03-22-2018, 10:34 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: On the border in Lloydminster
Posts: 8,364
|
|
Liberals caught lying out loud again
The shocking part is CBC reported it
|
03-22-2018, 10:35 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 139
|
|
Thanks! This is a very good article.
|
03-22-2018, 10:57 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Leduc
Posts: 144
|
|
That's a pretty thorough tearing-apart of the Liberal narrative.
Hopefully the media and public can keep up this kind of pressure.
|
03-22-2018, 11:49 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Near Edmonton
Posts: 15,049
|
|
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gun-...nada-1.4585097
Take a read through the comments. The Libs are taking a pasting, even from anti gunners on this one. They do rightly deserve it on this front and so many others.
|
03-22-2018, 12:06 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 679
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newellknik
I could fix the gun problem in 5 mins .
Make importing guns from the US a ten year sentence .
Any crime with a fire arm in the commission of said ,
Automatic 20 yr. minimum ..
Then knives, screwdrivers , baseball bats , automobiles,
And on and on ....it's Madness ....
And that's it exactly but we have no mental health services.
We give all tax dollars payed to the Feds , to terrorists .
|
You mean importing or smuggling? It's a big difference.
|
03-22-2018, 12:40 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,522
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newellknik
I could fix the gun problem in 5 mins .
Make importing guns from the US a ten year sentence .
Any crime with a fire arm in the commission of said ,
Automatic 20 yr. minimum ..
Then knives, screwdrivers , baseball bats , automobiles,
And on and on ....it's Madness ....
And that's it exactly but we have no mental health services.
We give all tax dollars payed to the Feds , to terrorists .
|
You could make it the death penalty for smuggling and any crimes with firearms the problem would still exist. Criminals don’t think/care about concenquences.
|
03-22-2018, 01:00 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 614
|
|
Best post in the CBC comments section:
When a politician uses statistics to try and explain something you have to view them like you would a Bikini. What they show you is tantalizing but isn't nearly as important as what they are using them to hide.
Still chuckling about that one.
|
03-22-2018, 02:24 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,882
|
|
Crime in Canada looks to be improving to me. Any interpretation of best fit would give you that... unless you only used 2013 to 2016 for guns.
What is likely skewing the data is this graph.
__________________
It is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself. Charles Darwin
|
03-22-2018, 02:39 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 180
|
|
Usually I don't both reading more than a couple of paragraphs if it is the CBC that is putting it out. I am pleasantly surprised at the unbiased reporting of the facts and the Liberals lying again. That was a great article, hopefully it will gain traction to those that were sitting on the fence as far a gun control issues go. I am not holding my breath.
|
03-22-2018, 03:34 PM
|
|
Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,654
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean2
|
The 3rd "most liked" comment:
"Banning guns because " cry min als" have too many is like castrating yourself because your neighbor has too many kids....."
|
08-16-2018, 07:13 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 405
|
|
|
08-16-2018, 08:15 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: On the border in Lloydminster
Posts: 8,364
|
|
Bill would allow cities to ban sale of handgun ammunition, Mitzie Hunter says
Another example of how utterly clueless Liberals are, does she think the gangbangers buy their ammunition from Canadian tire? The gangs can import tons of drugs but can't import a few boxes of 9mm clueless!
"Gun violence must end," she added.
The legislation— Bill 30, Fighting Back Against Handguns Act (Handgun Ammunition Sales), 2018 — has passed first reading. Under the bill, municipalities would be able to ban the sale of handgun ammunition by enacting bylaws. The bill contains provisions that state a person who violates the bill would be liable for a fine of not more than $50,000.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...D7776200016867
|
08-16-2018, 08:21 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 940
|
|
The bill won’t go anywhere since Ford has already said he’s against any sort of ban, not to mention they would them be forced to define “handgun ammunition” in the bill and defend the glut of lawsuits that came after they defined it.
|
08-16-2018, 08:43 AM
|
|
Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,654
|
|
I know this is way, way to logical for the standard politician, but why not start enforcing the gun laws we already have and actually putting some of these people in jail!
|
08-16-2018, 09:12 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,449
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trochu
I know this is way, way to logical for the standard politician, but why not start enforcing the gun laws we already have and actually putting some of these people in jail!
|
Because that would mean they actually have to do something. Rather than appear to be doing something while doing absolutely nothing.
|
08-16-2018, 09:31 AM
|
|
Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: A bit North o' Center...
Posts: 11,150
|
|
They should just make murder illegal, that should fix it...
|
08-16-2018, 10:52 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 55
|
|
If only our politician's could be more realistic and truthful about the potential root cause for gun violence.
Mentioned in the CBC news link:
" Countless research has found that gun violence is rooted in social and economic inequality."
The government has a low priority in keeping the public informed with relevant statistics.
How dangerous are PAL holders:
https://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/St...PAL-Police.pdf
Table 1. Police officers victim of homicide (1997-2013)
Firearm licence Total
Yes 3
No 14
Unknown 1
Total 18
Source: Special Request, Statistics Canada,
Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Homicide Survey
I am guessing municipal/provincial/federal governments don't have a solid strategy to deal with social and economic inequality.
Trudeau wants to be known as an international ambassador of goodwill instead of addressing social and economical inequality in our country:
https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/keith-be...b_9226722.html
"It was interesting to read David Akin's numbers on Trudeau's dollar handouts in his first 100 days in office. By his calculations*it amounts to $5.3 billion, of which slightly less than a billion dollars was spent inside Canada."
And recently $2 billion over five years, starting in 2018-19 to an african country;
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/can...dget-1.4556537
The Liberals sure have social and economic equality as one of their priorities - under control !!
I am only being sarcastic about the Liberals inability to govern the country !!! I feel very sorry for the innocent victims and their families caught in the crossfire of gun violence.
The Liberals and John Tory are trying to distract us from learning about the truth, with being unable to help disadvantaged Canadians = "spin doctor"
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:04 AM.
|