I agree that it's a moral failing if the people that we don't deal with that problem in a more graceful and humane way.
I agree that it's a moral failing if the people that we don't deal with that problem in a more graceful and humane way.
Spoiler: it isn't mathematically possible.
One, phrase your statement properly. You intended to compare neighborhood to corresponding neighborhood between the two countries. Not "Britain's".
Two, as others have mentioned. You have no basis for invoking Simpson's Paradox.
> Explain how Simpson's Paradox works here. Explain how it can be mathematically possible for each state/city/etc to have a lower murder per capita than the national murder per capita. Use concrete numbers as examples.
Three, how does your example satisfy my comment?
Four, I know Simpson's Paradox. I also know the difference between knowing something and knowing the name of something.
Not true. It absolutely works with simple rate comparisons.
I was just pointing out that it's not okay to say "the unconditional rate of murder in A is greater than the unconditional rate of murder in B, therefore A is more dangerous than B". While it may be true that A is more dangerous than B, the implication is wrong.