On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 8:52 AM, frank theriault <knarftheria...@gmail.com> wrote: By the way, Scott, here again (from my previous post, originally from Statistics Canada, our central government statistics gathering agency) is Canada's definition of violent crime (in the context of the entire quote):
> "The violent crime rate declined by 2.2% in 1996, marking the > fourth consecutive annual decrease. Prior to these declines, > the violent crime rate increased for 15 straight years. Much of > this increase is directly attributable to a large increase in the > rate of common assaults (level 1), the least serious form of > assault, which accounts for 6 in 10 violent crimes. Compared to > 1986, the 1996 violent crime rate is 24.4% higher. If the category > of assault level 1 is excluded from total violent crime, the increase > drops to only 6.7%." And, from the website from which you got your US violent crime stats, here's ~their~ definition of violent crime: "Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault." Since 60% of our "violent crime" is common assault, which is ~not~ included in the American stats you provided, how meaningful is your initial assertion? cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
