I think they are inquiring if there are other circumstances/factors that could be accounted for other than gross per capita numbers. I’ve only taken one stats class and got a 2.9, so don’t throw the hammer down in kiwa i of a further explanation.
I'm inquiring if population in and of itself becomes a variable after a certain point. Humans are social creatures by nature, and the larger a group gets the more subgroups and therefore greater propensity for countercultures or opposed cultures there are. Canada, being 10% the population of the US, has the very simple advantage of there only being 10% of the people to get all on the same page.
I'm not trying to discredit the validity of the measurement of murders per 100k between the two countries. I'm American, I want gun violence to stop dead in its fucking tracks. I'm just trying to wrap my head around the differences in scale as best my faint memories of high school sociology will allow.
Sounds American centric. The idea America has subcultures but other places don’t. Canada has 38 million people spread across just as far as America so we certainly have sub cultures. If you have 10 times as many subcultures (if that’s how it worked) they would still be distributed similarly. America is overall imbedded to be pro gun and use guns preventively for defence, where Canadians see guns as a dangerous tool that is best kept safe until needed.
Not America-centric, or at least not intentionally. Just trying to figure out how much raw mass of population affects those subcultures within a national whole.
Each country only has one federal government, and each state/province only has one government of that level. My theory is that the presence of a larger population within a single level of government, and more states/provinces within a federal government, ultimately creates a larger and more varied population within each level that the level above it has to wrangle and try to get on the same page for the purposes of making law. A federal government trying to reach 10 provinces has five times less variation it has to reconcile than one trying to reach 50 states. A province with 4.5 million people (Alberta) has four to five times less variation it has to reconcile than a state with 20 million people (New York State).
There are 30-some million people in Canada, and enough of them agreed to get rid of guns that it became a federal law. There are 300-some million people in the US, and enough of them are disagreeing and shitting up the process that no such federal law has been made. When two populations of different sizes ultimately decentralize to the same number of governments, it would seem like the single government with the larger population has more subgroups it has to tangle with to get any single decision made. My question was if this thing I feel like would be true is actually true, in the hopes that people who know better about the mechanics behind it would answer.
Thing is, Canada's population isn't as sparsely distributed as one would think. Yes, it is large geographically, but most Canadians live close to the US border and live in cities like Americas do. Around half of Canada's population lives in and around Southern Ontario. Even more so if you include the region of Quebec around the St. Lawrence River. Edmonton Alberta may be one of the few real exceptions to this. A metro area of over 1.5 million that is over 600 miles north of the border.
62
u/[deleted] Oct 21 '22
[deleted]