Pseudo Sol

I often emphasize that sample size is crucial in geography. If the sample size isn't appropriate, the data becomes too vague. This is an issue in how people discuss crime statistics, where the sample sizes are usually too large. In one of my previous articles , I compared citywide crime rates with neighborhood-level rates within the same cities. You'll find that cities are too large of a sample size to provide meaningful crime statistics. Similarly, when discussing Australia, Canada, the United States, or any country colonized by Europeans, Indigenous populations are often treated as homogeneous: with the same culture, history and issues to solve. This assumption is flawed: it is an overly large sample size. I wanted to explore violence in rural Indigenous communities in Canada. Indigenous reservations are often generalized to all be the same, assuming that a rural community on the Pacific Coast is the same as one in Northern Saskatchewan, Southern Ontario, or Baffin Island. Ev...

This is a much more comprehensive, in-depth, larger sample-sized version of a recent post I wrote about the same topic. That analysis was very preliminary. I only had 15 cities in the data and there was a certain other statistical problem I didn't take into account.  I felt rushed to make it because I came across a post on Reddit. It was on r/dataisbeautiful and it had a few maps that correlated homicide with poverty and de-correlated homicide with gun ownership rates or something like that. I saw it x-posted to a subreddit I followed, which was a subreddit about guns. So it was used as a statistical basis to say something like: guns don't cause violence; guns aren't correlated to violence at all; poverty is the correlate, not guns, etc., and it had a lot of thumbs ups, a lot of support in the comments and zero push-back. I saw this Reddit post around the time I had recently finished my most recent analysis of crime at the neighborhood level . Based on the data I was seein...

On my recent post I made a hypothesis and wanted to further investigate homicide rates related to gun violence. I hypothesized that gun violence is more responsible for homicide rates than violence in general. The basis of my hypothesis was comparing neighbourhoods, primarily in St. Louis and Winnipeg, which is a Canadian city. When we looked at the violence other than homicides, the Winnipeg's worst neighborhoods were a little bit worse than St. Louis's worst neighborhoods, being that they had higher sexual violence, higher robbery and higher major assault rates, but the neighborhoods in St. Louis had higher homicide rates. Here's a quote from that post: "of the neighborhoods in Winnipeg with an aggravated assault rate between 3000.0 and 3300.0, the average homicide rate is 81.8. In St. Louis, the average homicide rate in neighborhoods with such aggravated assault rates is 212.6, 2.5 times higher." And my thought here was well, in St. Louis, there's a lot o...

Introduction The data I'm going to present in this post  In this post, I'm going to show quite a bit of data.  (1). Comparing violent crime at the neighborhood level in several Canadian cities (for example: how does the worst neighborhood in Calgary compare to the worst neighborhood in Saskatoon?)  (2). Comparing violent crime at the area / small city sized level in several Canadian cities (for example: how does the North End, Winnipeg compare to Thompson, Manitoba?)  (3). Comparing violent crime at the neighborhood level in Canadians cities and American cities (for example: how does the worst neighborhood in Buffalo compare to the worse neighborhood in Saskatoon?)  (4). Comparing the central business districts / downtowns in each of the Canadian and American cities I have data for (for example: how does the downtown in Edmonton compare to the downtown in Minneapolis?)  (5). City-wide crime rates juxtaposed with their downtown violence score and their most ...