In response to:

U.S. vs Canada: Assault Edition (Part 2)

Archie1954 Wrote: Jan 12, 2013 1:58 PM
The reason non fatal assaults are more than in the US per capita is because in the US many of these assaults would be moved over to the fatal category due to gun proliferation.
TDBLU Wrote: Jan 12, 2013 2:33 PM
Not sure what your point was, but the point of the report is that there Are assaults, firearms or no firearms. BUT, firearms mean LESS assaults over-all, get it ? Fewer agressive minded people will carry out aggresive action, where citizens own firearms. You can either act on a symptom of violence,(use of firearms) or prevent the violence from occurring in the first place. You say that a few million more physical attacks,robberies,burglaries and rapes are something we should tolerate if it fits your victimhood philosophy.
rficara Wrote: Jan 12, 2013 4:23 PM
I see the point very clearly. On top of his head under the foil cap.


Over the holidays, we updated and corrected our original analysis of the rate of assaults in both the United States and Canada. It turns out that one of our original charts had only shown the number of Level 2 and 3 assaults for Canada rather than all nonfatal, nonsexual assaults and our calculation of the total assault rate for Canada was also off by about 30 assaults per 100,000 Canadians.

Today, we're going to revisit that analysis and then take things one step further and do a more direct comparison of the rate of assaults between...