Thoughts on violence in Canada? How do you think the VDR could be lowered? Feel free to comment below.
Lifetime Chance Of Dying By Someone Else’s Hands (2008 rate): 1/646
Lifetime Chance Of Dying By Someone Else’s Hands (Duration of Life Expectancy): 1/193
Average Military Death Rate over Nation’s History: 8.5
Average Homicide/Execution Rate over Nation’s History: 1.7
Category Of VDR– # of Years-% of Nation’s History-Year of Last Occurrence
DECIMATION– 3 (2.1%) 1917
EXTREME UPHEAVAL– 2 (1.4%) 1944
EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF– 3 (2.1%) 1945
WATCH YOUR BACK– 1 (.7%) 1942
HARSH LIVING– 0
SOMEWHAT STABLE– 1 (.7%) 1941
SOME CONCERN– 0
LOW LIKELIHOOD– 5 (3.5%) 1953
PEACEFUL– 31 (22.0%) 2005
UTOPIA– 95 (67.4%) 2008
Canada has enjoyed a pretty laid back history, 89.4% of it has been in the lowest two categories, Peaceful and Utopia. It should be noted that having to use a blanket 1.4 estimated homicide rate pre-1926 causes a Utopia rating to occur more often than it actually should. Surely there were slight spikes in homicides and executions during that time which are unaccounted for here. The reasons that Canada has had such a low violence history is studied and discussed often. Two of the points most often brought up that make it differ from it’s colonial brother the United States are:
1) The fact that Canada rejected a government change, and so does not have the same history of dramatic overthrow at the heart of it’s guiding principals.
2) Also, and less open to speculation, is the relative lack of violence in Canada’s westward expansion. At that time, there simply were not as many Native Americans populating the Canadian provinces (vs their substantial numbers in the US); and in settling these territories the government usually dispatched Mounties first, in order to make sure an area was safe before sending the civilians in. Contrast this to the United States which used civilian settlers as the driving force of it’s westward expansion. Their communities and traveling parties had to deal with the understandably belligerent Native Americans in a very real “life and death struggle” kind of way. It is at least one of the reasons that the perception and purpose of firearms psychologically differs in the two countries. Whereas firearms are thought of as instruments to ensure personal security in the US, in Canada they are thought in the context of hunting tools first and foremost.
Like the United States, Canada has enjoyed a constant increase in population throughout it’s history. With no famines, wars, or viral outbreaks major enough to halt population growth, or reverse it.
I don’t know that any two nations on Earth (especially not ones on either side of the globe) share as much of a similar nation building history, and hence violent death history, as Canada and Australia. Both were primarily formed by British interests, and remain to this day UK Commonwealth entities. The military histories of both too are dominated by their participation in British wars. Like Australia, Canada does not have a threat to it’s national borders (unless you consider those pesky Americans), making their enormous contributions in WW1 and WW2 all the more shocking and worthy of regard.
Australia’s slight VDR differences with Canada lie in the fact that their early history was marred with higher Domestic Manslaughter numbers (in this regard, Australia is similar to the US). To be fair though, my statistics for Canada only begin in 1867, and Canada very well might have had a more violent history during the early 19th and 18th centuries.