Are you kidding?!!!???? I used stats can, rcmp, macleans and academic papers you can't get more legit stats than that.
Shooting at Eaton Centre
- Thread starter gcostanza
- Start date
If you actually have all the data, native and black population for every city in Canada, and its murder rate, in an excel sheet, I can run a little regression test and we can see. I bet you that the following model will predict the murder rate pretty accurately on average over all cities:MAybe you should just give up because without stats I will never agree with your opinions..... I prefer facts.
And to be clear so you can understand
1) yes blacks commit crimes
2) once you go outside of Toronto black crime problems are not widespread because once you go past the 5 blackest cities that I listed the black populations drop to below 2% pretty quickly with most cities having 1 point something or even less than 1 percent of the population.
X1 * city-population + X2 * black-population + X3 * native-population + X4 * average-income + Y = murder-rate
I suspect that when you control for city size and income, that suddenly the number of blacks and natives becomes very significant, even in small towns.
What's wrong with your analysis is that city-population is a VERY significant factor. It dominates the amount of gang crime and obscures the effect of black populations in smaller places if you don't control for it.
Prove that it was suppressed otherwise it's just another opinion.Do you say that smugly knowing that the black community lobbied to have the stats suppressed? You can think whatever you like. Anyone who might still be reading this can go and look at the police blotter and see just how little credibility you have in your statements. If anyone's still reading it, and you want them to respect you, you probably should acknowledge the very evident facts that are visible in the Toronto, Edmonton, Winnipeg police blotters.
Go read some newspapers from the 1990's back when the black community was in fits about the government keeping race based statistics, that they claimed would be used to justify racial profiling.Prove that it was suppressed otherwise it's just another opinion.
That's why I provided a list of the top 5 cities for people AND top 5 cities for blacks.If you actually have all the data, native and black population for every city in Canada, and its murder rate, in an excel sheet, I can run a little regression test and we can see. I bet you that the following model will predict the murder rate pretty accurately on average over all cities:
X1 * city-population + X2 * black-population + X3 * native-population + X4 * average-income + Y = murder-rate
I suspect that when you control for city size and income, that suddenly the number of blacks and natives becomes very significant, even in small towns.
What's wrong with your analysis is that city-population is a VERY significant factor. It dominates the amount of gang crime and obscures the effect of black populations in smaller places if you don't control for it.
I provided links for most of my info and google for the rest.
You can do your spreadsheet if you like but I'm not going to bother doing BOTH sides of a discussion. At that point it becomes a monologue.
Providing the top 5 cities for people and the top 5 cities for blacks doesn't cut it, because you haven't controlled for population size. You've just juxtaposed them. You actually need to control it, by including it in a formula and finding out how much of an effect it has, and then eliminating that via a regression.
In this formula, X1 * city-population + X2 * black-population + X3 * native-population + X4 * average-income + Y = murder-rate, I'll bet you we find X1 > X3 > X2 > 1 > X4. What's your bet?
In this formula, X1 * city-population + X2 * black-population + X3 * native-population + X4 * average-income + Y = murder-rate, I'll bet you we find X1 > X3 > X2 > 1 > X4. What's your bet?
Again you are asking me to do your work.Go read some newspapers from the 1990's back when the black community was in fits about the government keeping race based statistics, that they claimed would be used to justify racial profiling.
But let's be honest here. What you read in the papers is biased information. It's not supposed to be. But if you watch how certain issues are dealt with there's often a slant towards sensationalism. Not saying their angle is wrong. Just that things can be one sided.
Have you noticed that once the police have a suspect, they no longer report on race? They only report race now before they catch a person, while it's still relevant to apprehending someone by giving a good description to the public. After that point they suppress any information about the race of the people they process. That was directly at the insistence of the black community a couple of decades ago. Previously the police, etc., used to report race based statistics. Until two years ago it was actually illegal for them to collect race based statistics, but the law was changed and it's now legal for them to collect them. However, they have publicly stated they refuse to disclose the race based statistics for fear of inflaming the community (we all know, the black community).Again you are asking me to do your work.
But let's be honest here. What you read in the papers is biased information. It's not supposed to be. But if you watch how certain issues are dealt with there's often a slant towards sensationalism. Not saying their angle is wrong. Just that things can be one sided.
The law was changed because the black community now want to prove that the police stop blacks more than other people, and were frustrated by the lack of statistics on the matter, which they themselves were instrumental in suppressing 20 years ago or so.
After ranking the cities I put beside them their ranking for MURDER RATE no need to calculate it. You earlier claimed that there were greater factors than poverty yet you include it in your formula.Providing the top 5 cities for people and the top 5 cities for blacks doesn't cut it, because you haven't controlled for population size. You've just juxtaposed them. You actually need to control it, by including it in a formula and finding out how much of an effect it has, and then eliminating that via a regression.
In this formula, X1 * city-population + X2 * black-population + X3 * native-population + X4 * average-income + Y = murder-rate, I'll bet you we find X1 > X3 > X2 > 1 > X4. What's your bet?
Can you explain what X1 to 4 is supposed to represent?
X1 thorugh X4 are factors representing the strength of the influence of population, black population, native population, and income. It's how you do a regression test, which is the primary way a statistician would look at this. Not the hokey way you are trying to do it, which is deeply flawed, and guaranteed to return an invalid result. Google "regression test" and learn. If you have Excel and you set it up properly with the data, Excel can calculate the values of X1 through X4 for you, by running a regression over your data.After ranking the cities I put beside them their ranking for MURDER RATE no need to calculate it. You earlier claimed that there were greater factors than poverty yet you include it in your formula.
Can you explain what X1 to 4 is supposed to represent?
Once you run a regression you can also calculate whether X1, X2, X3 or X4 are statistically significant. If they're not, you can't say anything about them. Your approach doesn't even contemplate significance.
Personally, I think race should be part of the description but can understand the frustration of feeling like it paints all blacks in a bad light.Have you noticed that once the police have a suspect, they no longer report on race? They only report race now before they catch a person, while it's still relevant to apprehending someone by giving a good description to the public. After that point they suppress any information about the race of the people they process. That was directly at the insistence of the black community a couple of decades ago. Previously the police, etc., used to report race based statistics. Until two years ago it was actually illegal for them to collect race based statistics, but the law was changed and it's now legal for them to collect them. However, they have publicly stated they refuse to disclose the race based statistics for fear of inflaming the community (we all know, the black community).
The law was changed because the black community now want to prove that the police stop blacks more than other people, and were frustrated by the lack of statistics on the matter, which they themselves were instrumental in suppressing 20 years ago or so.
But let's not confuse the lobby groups that got the change to happen to be an accurate reflection of how blacks in toronto feel.
While not black, when I listen to various lobby groups and interest groups I can't say that they are always reflectiong my feelings.
I'm familiar with linear, quadratic, exponential regression but what you are talking about I am not sure about.X1 thorugh X4 are factors representing the strength of the influence of population, black population, native population, and income. It's how you do a regression test, which is the primary way a statistician would look at this. Not the hokey way you are trying to do it, which is deeply flawed, and guaranteed to return an invalid result. Google "regression test" and learn. If you have Excel and you set it up properly with the data, Excel can calculate the values of X1 through X4 for you, by running a regression over your data.
Once you run a regression you can also calculate whether X1, X2, X3 or X4 are statistically significant. If they're not, you can't say anything about them. Your approach doesn't even contemplate significance.
Why don't you do it since you are the expert? Or is this more of the "just look" style of argument. You do understand how absurd it is to ask someone to argue both sides of an argument right?
Give us some screen shots of the spreadsheets too while you are at it. I'd gladly change my tune.
But personally I suspect that what you will find with regards to black is that it exists but doesn't correlate to how many blacks you have in a city. Unless your sample size is 1 and that 1 city is Toronto.
Anyways, you're welcome to PROVE me wrong. But don't ask me to do both sides.
Well, first of all, the police blotter pretty much proves it for all of Canada's major cities. You can say it hasn't been counted up, but if you actually go look at it, the evidence is so overwhelming there's no point to bother counting it. The shooters in Toronto are almost all black. The shooters in Edmonton, etc., are all almost all natives, other than the ones who are black.
If you insist on the regression test, I can do that, but since you're the one insisting on it, despite the fact the police blotters already overwhelmingly make the point, I will need the following data:
-- Black population by city
-- Native population by city
-- Total population by city
-- Average income by city, or even better, % of city population that is low income
-- Homicides per city per year for the last 10 years
It's relatively straight forward to run the regression once I have that. City size, total population, and poverty are likely positively associated with the murder rate, so by including those in the regression I will eliminate their effect. That will let us see whether the native and the black population of a city are contributing to the homicide rate above and beyond the impact of poverty and city size.
It's better to have 10 year homicide data so that smaller cities become more statistically significant, a place that has 1 murder every 10 years won't be well represented in a single year of data.
But again, in looking at crime in Canada's major cities, we can see pretty damn clearly from the police blotters that blacks and natives are doing almost all the public shooting. There are other shoots, but they're relatively rare. In light of that, and in light of the fact that blacks don't make up enough of the poor for that to be the only factor--the case was made pages, and pages, and pages ago. You just don't want to admit it.
If you insist on the regression test, I can do that, but since you're the one insisting on it, despite the fact the police blotters already overwhelmingly make the point, I will need the following data:
-- Black population by city
-- Native population by city
-- Total population by city
-- Average income by city, or even better, % of city population that is low income
-- Homicides per city per year for the last 10 years
It's relatively straight forward to run the regression once I have that. City size, total population, and poverty are likely positively associated with the murder rate, so by including those in the regression I will eliminate their effect. That will let us see whether the native and the black population of a city are contributing to the homicide rate above and beyond the impact of poverty and city size.
It's better to have 10 year homicide data so that smaller cities become more statistically significant, a place that has 1 murder every 10 years won't be well represented in a single year of data.
But again, in looking at crime in Canada's major cities, we can see pretty damn clearly from the police blotters that blacks and natives are doing almost all the public shooting. There are other shoots, but they're relatively rare. In light of that, and in light of the fact that blacks don't make up enough of the poor for that to be the only factor--the case was made pages, and pages, and pages ago. You just don't want to admit it.
Google is your friend if you are going to do the analysis.Well, first of all, the police blotter pretty much proves it for all of Canada's major cities. You can say it hasn't been counted up, but if you actually go look at it, the evidence is so overwhelming there's no point to bother counting it. The shooters in Toronto are almost all black. The shooters in Edmonton, etc., are all almost all natives, other than the ones who are black.
If you insist on the regression test, I can do that, but since you're the one insisting on it, despite the fact the police blotters already overwhelmingly make the point, I will need the following data:
-- Black population by city
-- Native population by city
-- Total population by city
-- Average income by city, or even better, % of city population that is low income
-- Homicides per city per year for the last 10 years
It's relatively straight forward to run the regression once I have that. City size, total population, and poverty are likely positively associated with the murder rate, so by including those in the regression I will eliminate their effect. That will let us see whether the native and the black population of a city are contributing to the homicide rate above and beyond the impact of poverty and city size.
It's better to have 10 year homicide data so that smaller cities become more statistically significant, a place that has 1 murder every 10 years won't be well represented in a single year of data.
But again, in looking at crime in Canada's major cities, we can see pretty damn clearly from the police blotters that blacks and natives are doing almost all the public shooting. There are other shoots, but they're relatively rare. In light of that, and in light of the fact that blacks don't make up enough of the poor for that to be the only factor--the case was made pages, and pages, and pages ago. You just don't want to admit it.
I've given you conclusive proof in the police blotters. You made an incorrect attempt to gather some different statistics which you so far haven't got right. I was just trying to help you with that.frankcastle said:Google is your friend if you are going to do the analysis.
We don't need that data though, we have the blotters.
Well it is very convenient to just dismiss my calculations. Combine with your just look approachdebates are easy.
I am willing to change just show me the stats. again putting words in my mouth. What a great triple threat for debating.
I need to check myself for putting up with you.
I am willing to change just show me the stats. again putting words in my mouth. What a great triple threat for debating.
I need to check myself for putting up with you.
Your calculations aren't valid, you aren't dealing with the confounding factors of city size and poverty which dilute your numbers making it harder to see the impact of race.
You HAVE to account for those things or you cant claim that race isn't significant, especially since it is so overwhelmingly obvious in the raw police reports.
I'm willing to help you do it if you have the numbers but I'm not willing to accept silly claims about significance based on making a pair of lists and eyeballing them.
You used the word "significance" therefore you need to show your calculation of significance. That would be best done with a regression test.
You HAVE to account for those things or you cant claim that race isn't significant, especially since it is so overwhelmingly obvious in the raw police reports.
I'm willing to help you do it if you have the numbers but I'm not willing to accept silly claims about significance based on making a pair of lists and eyeballing them.
You used the word "significance" therefore you need to show your calculation of significance. That would be best done with a regression test.
Hey fuji, the vast majority of pedophiles are white. Thats a fact. I dont think I ever seen a Jamaican pedophile, have you??!
How do you suggest we as a White community should deal with this very serious problem?? Many boys and girls every year commit suicide, because they cant handle the emotional pain from years of abuse. I'm willing to bet the annual suicide numbers dwarf any Black shootings we have in Toronto.
So again, how do we as a white community solve this pedo problem?? Should we have daily spotchecks where chubby, sweaty, poorly dressed, unshaven White guys are pulled over and interrogated??
How do you suggest we as a White community should deal with this very serious problem?? Many boys and girls every year commit suicide, because they cant handle the emotional pain from years of abuse. I'm willing to bet the annual suicide numbers dwarf any Black shootings we have in Toronto.
So again, how do we as a white community solve this pedo problem?? Should we have daily spotchecks where chubby, sweaty, poorly dressed, unshaven White guys are pulled over and interrogated??
My guess is that the number of pedophiles just follows the demographics, there are proportionally as many white or black or asian pedophiles as there are whites or blacks or asians. As such you would expect about only six percent of pedophiles to be black.
Seems about right to me and you've given no reason to think differently.
This is unlike violent gun crime where blacks commit most of it here in Toronto despite being only a tiny fraction of the population.
Seems about right to me and you've given no reason to think differently.
This is unlike violent gun crime where blacks commit most of it here in Toronto despite being only a tiny fraction of the population.
Ooop, in the US natives and blacks are more likely than average to be pedophiles while whites and Asians are less likely than average.
Got any Canadian data?
If not let's go with this, once again blacks and natives leading the crime stats, though not as much as with gun crime. The 25% higher rate of black pedophiles is most likely the result of lack of education and poverty, unlike gun crime. Natives have a bigger problem, probably the result of institutionalizing kids in assimilation programs leading to cycles of abuse.
http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/...-likely-to-be-pedophiles-and-child-molesters/
Guess you rammed your foot down your throat there Phil..
Got any Canadian data?
If not let's go with this, once again blacks and natives leading the crime stats, though not as much as with gun crime. The 25% higher rate of black pedophiles is most likely the result of lack of education and poverty, unlike gun crime. Natives have a bigger problem, probably the result of institutionalizing kids in assimilation programs leading to cycles of abuse.
http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/...-likely-to-be-pedophiles-and-child-molesters/
Guess you rammed your foot down your throat there Phil..
Last edited:
