PDA

View Full Version : Americans see less crime than Britons, Canadians


azdesertrhino
02-10-2006, 04:57 AM
Americans see less crime than Britons, Canadians
By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 9, 2006

Historians, world leaders and assorted pundits with Yankee bashing in mind have long cultivated the idea that America is a violent place.
Not so, says Gallup, which released a report yesterday revealing that the nation is not necessarily Dodge City: The impact of crime is lower in the U.S. than in Britain, and in many cases Canada.
"The U.S. is often seen from abroad as a relatively lawless society, with murders and gun-related crimes aplenty. But a series of Gallup surveys in Great Britain, Canada and the U.S. suggest the image is somewhat distorted," noted David W. Moore of the Gallup News Service.
It's close, but the United States emerged as the least crime-ridden.
In three polls of 3,025 persons -- about 1,000 in each country -- 32 percent of the Americans said they or someone in their households had been a victim of crime of some type within the previous year. Among Canadians, the figure was 33 percent; among Britons, 36 percent.
About 71 percent of both Canadians and Britons, compared with 67 percent of Americans, said there had been more crime in their respective countries in the previous 12 months.
Gallup also asked respondents whether they had been mugged, assaulted or had property stolen, among five other unpleasant experiences. Overall, Britain proved the most dangerous, with a quarter of the respondents reporting that they or a family member had been a victim of crime. Canada and the United States were tied at 21 percent.
On specific crimes, 22 percent of the British reported their home, car or property had been vandalized. The figure was 17 percent among Canadians and 15 percent among Americans.
About 7 percent of the Britons said they had been mugged or physically assaulted; the number was 4 percent for both Canadians and Americans. Car theft was higher in Britain as well, with 5 percent reporting the crime, compared with 3 percent of Canadians and 2 percent of Americans.
Americans had experienced the most home computer or Internet-based fraud, with 8 percent reporting it; the number was 7 percent among British respondents and 6 percent among Canadians.
Canadians had the highest incidence of money or property stolen, with 17 percent reporting it. Among Americans, it was 16 percent; among British, 13 percent. The countries tied in sexual assaults (1 percent in all three), strong-arm robbery (2 percent) and home break-ins (4 percent).
Meanwhile, 45 percent of Britons said they lived within a mile of an area where they were afraid to walk alone at night. The figure was 38 percent among Americans and 35 percent among Canadians.
Forty-two percent of British respondents said they had considerable confidence in their police to protect them from violent crime. Among Canadians, the figure was 67 percent; among Americans, 53 percent.
The surveys were conducted between October 13 and December 20 last year.

http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=21346

xFallen
02-10-2006, 06:23 AM
Americans see less crime than Britons, Canadians
By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 9, 2006

Historians, world leaders and assorted pundits with Yankee bashing in mind have long cultivated the idea that America is a violent place.
Not so, says Gallup, which released a report yesterday revealing that the nation is not necessarily Dodge City: The impact of crime is lower in the U.S. than in Britain, and in many cases Canada.
"The U.S. is often seen from abroad as a relatively lawless society, with murders and gun-related crimes aplenty. But a series of Gallup surveys in Great Britain, Canada and the U.S. suggest the image is somewhat distorted," noted David W. Moore of the Gallup News Service.
It's close, but the United States emerged as the least crime-ridden.
In three polls of 3,025 persons -- about 1,000 in each country -- 32 percent of the Americans said they or someone in their households had been a victim of crime of some type within the previous year. Among Canadians, the figure was 33 percent; among Britons, 36 percent.
About 71 percent of both Canadians and Britons, compared with 67 percent of Americans, said there had been more crime in their respective countries in the previous 12 months.
Gallup also asked respondents whether they had been mugged, assaulted or had property stolen, among five other unpleasant experiences. Overall, Britain proved the most dangerous, with a quarter of the respondents reporting that they or a family member had been a victim of crime. Canada and the United States were tied at 21 percent.
On specific crimes, 22 percent of the British reported their home, car or property had been vandalized. The figure was 17 percent among Canadians and 15 percent among Americans.
About 7 percent of the Britons said they had been mugged or physically assaulted; the number was 4 percent for both Canadians and Americans. Car theft was higher in Britain as well, with 5 percent reporting the crime, compared with 3 percent of Canadians and 2 percent of Americans.
Americans had experienced the most home computer or Internet-based fraud, with 8 percent reporting it; the number was 7 percent among British respondents and 6 percent among Canadians.
Canadians had the highest incidence of money or property stolen, with 17 percent reporting it. Among Americans, it was 16 percent; among British, 13 percent. The countries tied in sexual assaults (1 percent in all three), strong-arm robbery (2 percent) and home break-ins (4 percent).
Meanwhile, 45 percent of Britons said they lived within a mile of an area where they were afraid to walk alone at night. The figure was 38 percent among Americans and 35 percent among Canadians.
Forty-two percent of British respondents said they had considerable confidence in their police to protect them from violent crime. Among Canadians, the figure was 67 percent; among Americans, 53 percent.
The surveys were conducted between October 13 and December 20 last year.

http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=21346

I'd need more raw data, but that poll is flawed. I actually tend to believe it, but I think it is flawed. The sample size for Canada and Britain is far larger than the US due to population differences. I cannot say it is statistically significant but I suspect that it would be. We also don't know the geographic diversity of the sample which will skew the results dramatically. Those differences in crime rates may not be statistically different. In other words. Ho hum. We could assume Gallup knew what they were doing, but who paid for the poll? That may even make a difference, sadly.

Now, I do believe the premise is sound. I just question the science in this particular case due to the stated numbers.

It simply doesn'ty make sense that removing guns will reduce crime (I think it would actually go up) or violent crime. It is a silly premise for reasons oh so obvious.


Barry

xFallen
02-10-2006, 07:30 AM
Well said Barry...Those difference are even small to the eye...Are we really going to split hairs over a 3% difference? In other words, is 3% very meaningful?

[stats 101]

And to all that don't know what Barry is referring to when he says 'significantly different'....

It means that if we were to re-sample, say 99 more times, we would NOT find a difference between countries 95 out of 100...I say 95, because by CHANCE alone some sample will differ.

Another thing to keep in mind when thinking about a significant statistical difference...as the SAMPLE SIZE gets LARGER, SMALLER differences are MORE likely to be significant...

[/stats 101]


Also note though, that since the differences are so small one might conclude thatit doesn't matter. IN other words, removing guns will NOT make a difference. I agree with that hypothesis.

Guns are NOT THE PROBLEM PEOPLE.

Take responibility for your own existence. Raise children properly. Enforce laws on the books. Participate in your own community protection. THAT will drive criminals to the fringes.

I'll tell ya, you don't want to be a gun toting crook in Florida or many other States that sanction concealed carry.


Barry

xFallen
02-10-2006, 08:08 AM
Althought to be fair Barry, the opposite is just as likely true...That having guns makes no difference...

But I agree with you latter comments anyhow...

But that leaves you with no reason to eliminate them yet there are reasons to keep them...dead argument (because it got shot by a handgun). :D :D

My1stJeep
02-10-2006, 08:36 AM
Let's see, is 3% a significant difference....

Well let's base that on say 10 million people...

That would equate to 3,200,000 at 32% and 3,600,000 at 36% (yes I know that is 4%, however between the highest percentage and lowest percentage listed in the original article these are the numbers). Even if we went from Canada to GB it would be 3,300,000 at 33%.

So is there a big difference, let us say about 300,000 people different.

That is only if all the countries were about equal in population. I have no idea how many people are in Canada and GB, or really an exact number in the gold ol' USA, just wanted to show, that in my opinion if 3% equated to an extra 300,000 lives being affected that ya, it is a big number.

xFallen
02-10-2006, 08:58 AM
Let's see, is 3% a significant difference....

Well let's base that on say 10 million people...

That would equate to 3,200,000 at 32% and 3,600,000 at 36% (yes I know that is 4%, however between the highest percentage and lowest percentage listed in the original article these are the numbers). Even if we went from Canada to GB it would be 3,300,000 at 33%.

So is there a big difference, let us say about 300,000 people different.

That is only if all the countries were about equal in population. I have no idea how many people are in Canada and GB, or really an exact number in the gold ol' USA, just wanted to show, that in my opinion if 3% equated to an extra 300,000 lives being affected that ya, it is a big number.

Yes, from a qualitative standpoint that is probably a big number to most people. From a quantitative standpoint, which is what the stats are trying to show, it may not be. But, it may be. The point is there is insufficent data to draw the conclusion asserted in the original statement.


Barry

xFallen
02-10-2006, 09:53 AM
Also, like Barry originally mentioned, if the sampling procedure was biased in anyway you would not be able to generalize that percent difference to the total population. So your numbers would be off.

Make no mistake: I am pro-freedom and want the maximum in civil liberties and a minimum of governmental interference. Freedom comes with a cost. The cost should NOT be freedom.

We don't need more anti-freedom laws, we need fewer.


Barry

xFallen
02-10-2006, 03:06 PM
Hey, I am all for freedom...however I say that with an understanding that freedom is NOT an absolute concept.

It depends upon how you define and constrain it, I suppose...

TRobertsRN
02-10-2006, 08:57 PM
What did this survey state was its margin of error? Plus or minus what percent?