The most dangerous cities in Canada - A Maclean's exclusive

[ILYR]

Originally Posted by midnightrambler

I read the full Mclean's article, and honestly I do not give much creedence to the stats.

For instance say there is 8 murders in Regina in a given year, for simple purposes that is 4 for every 100,000 people which is double the national average.

Say Toronto has 100 that is 2 for every 100,000 people, ie the national average.

The stats don't really make any sense because if Regina had 4 murders instead of 8 and Toronto had 50 instead of a hundred, Regina would still be double the national average.

Safety and stats really have no correlation when compared to cities 25 times the size.

Your numbers are confusing. Based on what you have Regina would still have double the number of murders per 100,000 people compared to Toronto, but not necessarily the national average (both cities murder rates reduced by 50%). The national average would also change to reflect the changes in Regina and Toronto. So I am confused how "Regina would still be double the national average."

[eemy]

That's a good point, midnightrambler. Maclean's should really publish the most dangerous neighbourhoods in Canada.

[vid]

Originally Posted by midnightrambler

I am willing to bet a good portion if not 80-90% happened in the same neighbourhoods throughout the country.

Exactly. Most of Thunder Bays murders are in three areas: Downtown Fort William, along Simpson Street (which is right beside Downtown Fort William) and Northwood (A large suburban area with a large poor contingent). Occasionally, there will be a murder elsewhere, like the convenience store shotting in PA in 2005 or suspicious death in Academy Heights. And in almost all cases, the victims were murdered by someone they know. Except for the shooting in Port Arthur in 2005, none of these were done by strangers. One woman murdered in early 2005 (had her arm ripped off in a district-run seniors home) was murdered by her own son. This isn't a "he could have killed anyone" situation because not anyone was his mother, and not everyone's son is like that. Very few are! Several murders in the past few years have been drug users killed by their dealers.

These numbers might look significant but they lack context.

[Mayor Quimby]

Per capita stats are the most accurate reflection of any stat or demographic for comparing areas of different populations.

As for the article, if you read it and the following article, along with the first page editorial, you will see how a mayor is suppose to react to such facts. Sam Katz took it on the chin and responded as a Mayor should with humility. He admitted to the issue, said they were accurate and then showed Macleans the programs that are currently running. Now compare that to Pat Fiacco reaction last year to the Most Dangerous Neighbourhood in Canada and his recent, "no comment".

I am deeply confused at the amount of kill the messaenger reactions. Macleans isn't try to ruining cities or promote others, it is just trying to provide though provoking truthful articles.

Everyone can bitch and whine about this and that but the fact is these top 3 cities have more crime per person then any other and are well above the national average. Yes, crime may be dropping in these places but its obviously dropping much faster in other places. Since these 3 cities tend to be in the top 5 annually.

[midnightrambler]

Originally Posted by ILYR

Your numbers are confusing. Based on what you have Regina would still have double the number of murders per 100,000 people compared to Toronto, but not necessarily the national average (both cities murder rates reduced by 50%). The national average would also change to reflect the changes in Regina and Toronto. So I am confused how "Regina would still be double the national average."

Yeah I agree, my numbers are a little confusing. But so are Mclean's. The article was so 'tabloidish' and really doesn't paint a good picture of the west. It could almost be labeled as a smear campaign. Here is a better depiction of the numbers:

Ok say the murder rate is 4 murders for every 100,000 people in Regina, that means the average person has a less than 0.00004% chance of getting murdered in Regina per year. (I say less than 0.00004%) because that takes into account that the rate could go drastically up or down depending on how many take place in a given year and the fact that murders don't usually happen to average people, it's more likely to be stab happy people with problems already.

Ok now say Toronto has 2 murders for every 100,000 people, that is a 0.00002% chance for the average person getting shanked.

Now you tell me if there is much of a fucking difference between a 0.00002% and a 0.00004% chance.

[ReginaGuy]

Originally Posted by midnightrambler

Ok now say Toronto has 2 murders for every 100,000 people, that is a 0.00002% chance for the average person getting shanked.

Now you tell me if there is much of a fucking difference between a 0.00002% and a 0.00004% chance.

not even. In Canada, there is almost no chance of being murdered unless you're involved with gangs or drugs.

[Mayor Quimby]

Originally Posted by midnightrambler

Yeah I agree, my numbers are a little confusing. But so are Mclean's. The article was so 'tabloidish' and really doesn't paint a good picture of the west. It could almost be labeled as a smear campaign. Here is a better depiction of the numbers:

Ok say the murder rate is 4 murders for every 100,000 people in Regina, that means the average person has a less than 0.00004% chance of getting murdered in Regina per year. (I say less than 0.00004%) because that takes into account that the rate could go drastically up or down depending on how many take place in a given year and the fact that murders don't usually happen to average people, it's more likely to be stab happy people with problems already.

Ok now say Toronto has 2 murders for every 100,000 people, that is a 0.00002% chance for the average person getting shanked.

Now you tell me if there is much of a fucking difference between a 0.00002% and a 0.00004% chance.

Well yeah, it's double the chance.

[ReginaGuy]

Originally Posted by Mayor Quimby

Well yeah, it's double the chance.

If one person has 2 cents, and another person has 4 cents, would you consider the second person rich?

The same applies to perceived "danger". If you have a 0.0004% chance of being attacked in one city, and a 0.0002% chance in another city, would you consider the first city dangerous and the second city safe?

[drew]

Originally Posted by Mayor Quimby

Well yeah, it's double the chance.

Double of zero is still zero. (I would consider .004% to be zero)

When you buy two lottery tickets, you have doubled your chances of winning, but a better way to look at it is that you now instead of a one in a million shot.... you have increased your odds to a whopping two in a million shot!

[Mayor Quimby]

Originally Posted by drew

Double of zero is still zero. (I would consider .004% to be zero)

When you buy two lottery tickets, you have doubled your chances of winning, but a better way to look at it is that you now instead of a one in a million shot.... you have increased your odds to a whopping two in a million shot!

And that is exactly double.

The article never said that one had a good chance of being killed, or any crime committed against them. It just said that these are the cities with the MOST crime per person in Canada.

To play devil's advocate, what are the odds of getting broken into or having your car stolen in Regina vs. Toronto?

[ReginaGuy]

Originally Posted by Mayor Quimby

And that is exactly double.

The article never said that one had a good chance of being killed, or any crime committed against them. It just said that these are the cities with the MOST crime per person in Canada.

To play devil's advocate, what are the odds of getting broken into or having your car stolen in Regina vs. Toronto?

We're pointing out how meaningless the article is. The fact is that all Canadian cities are safe. The chances of a normal person being murdered anywhere is practically zero, yet Maclean's is trying to portray certain cities as "dangerous".

Sure, the article carefully uses words like "more than" and "less than", but it almost makes sure to paint a terrifying portrait of the cities on the list, tricking readers into believing that Western Canada is some kind of burned-to-death steaming pile of crime and death. It's a pure case of sensationalism.

[Mayor Quimby]

Originally Posted by ReginaGuy

We're pointing out how meaningless the article is. The fact is that all Canadian cities are safe. The chances of a normal person being murdered anywhere is practically zero, yet Maclean's is trying to portrait certain cities as "dangerous".

The article tricks people into thinking that western Canada is a scary place, which just isn't true.

Is that your personal perception or data from some private polling you financed?

The article was clearly titled that most dangerous cities in CANADA, so the fact that Canada is safer then Namibia is irrelevant. They aren't portraying anything, they present the facts and stories to support them. Just because you felt personally offended has more to do with you then Macleans. Facts are facts and Regina has the most crime per person in Canada. There is no spinning that fact nor denying that fact. We should accept and move ahead to solve it. We need to stop relying on national trends for crime reduction and start local initiative to reduce it. Lastly, Fiacco needs to stop appointing his supporters like Troy Hagen as Chief of Police.

[ReginaGuy]

Originally Posted by Mayor Quimby

Is that your personal perception or data from some private polling you financed?

The article was clearly titled that most dangerous cities in CANADA, so the fact that Canada is safer then Namibia is irrelevant. They aren't portraying anything, they present the facts and stories to support them. Just because you felt personally offended has more to do with you then Macleans. Facts are facts and Regina has the most crime per person in Canada. There is no spinning that fact nor denying that fact. We should accept and move ahead to solve it. We need to stop relying on national trends for crime reduction and start local initiative to reduce it. Lastly, Fiacco needs to stop appointing his supporters like Troy Hagen as Chief of Police.

who said I was offended? And if sensationalism wasn't the point of the article, then what was? Macleans isn't a peer-reviewed scientific journal or a newspaper, its a privately funded magazine. Macleans doesn't publish articles for the purpose of delivering somewhat boring facts which are publically available via Statistics Canada Maclean's wants to make the story sexy and sell more subscriptions.

There's nothing sexy or exciting about a 0.002% difference in crime rates, so Maclean's states the fact (Regina has a higher crime rate than Toronto), then dresses the article up with scary stories to make it seem as if Regina is Dangerous.

[Mayor Quimby]

Originally Posted by ReginaGuy

who said I was offended? And if sensationalism wasn't the point of the article, then what was? Macleans isn't a peer-reviewed scientific journal or a newspaper, its a privately funded magazine. Macleans doesn't publish articles for the purpose of delivering somewhat boring facts which are publically available via Statistics Canada Maclean's wants to make the story sexy and sell more subscriptions

There's nothing sexy or exciting about a 0.002% difference in crime rates.

Really, that's not in their mission statement.

Oh and by the way, newspapers are privately funded and are trying to sell more subscriptions, also. hmmmm

[Mayor Quimby]

Originally Posted by ReginaGuy

who said I was offended? And if sensationalism wasn't the point of the article, then what was? Macleans isn't a peer-reviewed scientific journal or a newspaper, its a privately funded magazine. Macleans doesn't publish articles for the purpose of delivering somewhat boring facts which are publically available via Statistics Canada Maclean's wants to make the story sexy and sell more subscriptions.

There's nothing sexy or exciting about a 0.002% difference in crime rates, so Maclean's states the fact (Regina has a higher crime rate than Toronto), then dresses the article up with scary stories to make it seem as if Regina is Dangerous.

in response to your edit, Regina is dangerous. Get out of the 'burbs and go for a walk down 7th, 6th or 5th Ave, right now. Tell me how safe you feel?

I'll wait.

[CCF]

Originally Posted by Mayor Quimby

in response to your edit, Regina is dangerous. Get out of the 'burbs and go for a walk down 7th, 6th or 5th Ave, right now. Tell me how safe you feel?

I'll wait.

As opposed to Vancouver, Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton, Halifax, Prince George, Whitehorse....shall I go on? Someone tell me the coordinates of the utopian city where crime is non-existant!

[Only The Lonely..]

Originally Posted by ReginaGuy

who said I was offended? And if sensationalism wasn't the point of the article, then what was? Macleans isn't a peer-reviewed scientific journal or a newspaper, its a privately funded magazine. Macleans doesn't publish articles for the purpose of delivering somewhat boring facts which are publically available via Statistics Canada Maclean's wants to make the story sexy and sell more subscriptions.

There's nothing sexy or exciting about a 0.002% difference in crime rates, so Maclean's states the fact (Regina has a higher crime rate than Toronto), then dresses the article up with scary stories to make it seem as if Regina is Dangerous.

Well said.

[midnightrambler]

We've been over this Mclean's BULL SHIT Before:

Originally Posted by midnightrambler

I read the full Mclean's article, and honestly I do not give much creedence to the stats.

For instance say there is 8 murders in Regina in a given year, for simple purposes that is 4 for every 100,000 people which is double the national average.

Say Toronto has 100 that is 2 for every 100,000 people, ie the national average.

The stats don't really make any sense because if Regina had 4 murders instead of 8 and Toronto had 50 instead of a hundred, Regina would still be double the national average.

Safety and stats really have no correlation when compared to cities 25 times the size.

Put it this way, I wouldn't like to walk around riversdale at 3 in the morning, nor would I enjoy walking around 'the jungle' in Toronto. Where am I more safe? Does it really matter? I'd say you have a decent chance of running into some shit in either place.

On the flip side I could comfortably walk around at 3 in the morning in the burbs... The label 'most dangerous city' doesn't fit, because I am willing to bet a good portion if not 80-90% happened in the same neighbourhoods throughout the country.

[mjpaul]

Saskatoon is a dangerous place.

in moose jaw we get 1 murder every 100 years or so

[DowntownWpg]

Originally Posted by mjpaul

Saskatoon is a dangerous place.

So is Winnipeg, a close second... moved up one spot from last year.

Yesterday, I stopped by here with anticipation of reading all the desperate excuses about the Macleans article. However, that didn't come up. At the same time, some were gushing over the TorStar article about spas, French restaurants, and mini donughts at The Forks.

Some Torontonian may have read the TorStar article about Winnipeg, thought for a second "maybe I'll take a trip to the 'Peg and bask in the metrosexual greatness that it has apparently become." However, then he read the Macleans article and forgot all about the fabulous tales of lavish Pea and Duck soup.

As per usual, the positive stories of Winnipeg will be drastically overshadowed by our rampant crime problem. Not many from elsewhere in Canada (and especially in Winnipeg, for that matter) wears blinders to only see the few positives. Yet, for some, the need to impress outsiders has become a monomaniacal, yet futile obsession.