FBI: Violent crime rate declines again

[Darkdante]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/17/crime.rate/index.html

I wonder if they took into account the massive amount of people that has died in events that also took place in this administration. Like thousand of people dying in 9-11, the iraq war, and the New Orlean floods. Or even the increased amount of people deployed to other countries.

Sure your crime rate will go down when you remove thousands of people from the population.

Its a given. :?

Pretty sad when you try to take credit for that saying your stifer "laws" are the reason for it.

 

[Rones]

Unbelievable. It truly doesn't matter what happens, you will find a way to blame it on Bush won't you? Crime goes up, blame it on Bush. Crime stays same, blame Bush for not improving it. Crime actually goes down, and you still reach for excuses to blame Bush. Go find something better to blame on Bush than natural disasters (which caused more crime despite the deaths) and unprecidented terrorist attacks (which was 4 years ago, so a bit late to be the cause of crime change). I'm also disappointed that you insinuate our military personnel our a major source of crime and that by having them overseas is a cause of decreased crime rate. You are really reaching to find some way to blame.

 

[Darkdante]

Unbelievable. It truly doesn't matter what happens, you will find a way to blame it on Bush won't you? Crime goes up, blame it on Bush. Crime stays same, blame Bush for not improving it. Crime actually goes down, and you still reach for excuses to blame Bush. Go find something better to blame on Bush than natural disasters (which caused more crime despite the deaths) and unprecidented terrorist attacks (which was 4 years ago, so a bit late to be the cause of crime change). I'm also disappointed that you insinuate our military personnel our a major source of crime and that by having them overseas is a cause of decreased crime rate. You are really reaching to find some way to blame.

Rones get the "gist" of the post first, then respond. Its that I"m sick of this President trying to take credit for things that are not happening. In the very same article they try to disprove numbers saying that certain crime rates have gone up by saying that it is due to population increase. While they do not use the same mentality to disprove all the "benefits" they seem to claim thier new "laws" that they put into effect, give us.

And you come here yet again in your blind support for Bush to find any reason what-so-ever to flame me.

Did you even read the post? Where in this post did I say that Bush caused the floods?

In the past I have said he could have prevented the amount of deaths that there were. But of course I guess I'm not the only person guilty of "reaching" to support my favored guy now arn't I?

 

[Nitram]

IDK thats quite a drop from '95. I dont know if you can blame that on anything, did you ever consider it might just be true? If so thats a good thing, why do you have to shoot it down?

 

[Darkdante]

Because as any criminologist will tell you. Violent crime always drops during times of war.

 

[Rones]

Rones get the "gist" of the post first, then respond.

Oh I certainly got the gist of your post, but you missed mine. In your post, you claim that the drop in crime rate was because of people dying in 9-11, New Orleans flood, and having less people because they are over seas. I am attacking that rediculous logic. You didn't address Bush taking credit until your very last line. The rest is a clear stab at Bush. You criticize me of blindly defending him, yet here you are blindly attacking him for no reason, that is hypocrisy.

Sure your crime rate will go down when you remove thousands of people from the population.

Your point is totally irrevelent because even with those deaths, they are a drop in the bucket compared to how much our population grows. I can't say with certainty that the crime rate drop was caused by Bush's laws, but you have not provided legitamate counter evidence either (please provide a source for your crimnologist, the one I know said nothing of that). If you remember from our financial discussions, I repeatedly point out that much of what goes on in the country is neither to the credit nor blame of the president. You however want to blame everything on the president, so by your logic he should also be to blame for all the good stuff that happens. :wink:

I'm not defending Bush because I'm a fanboy, I'm doing it because you are making a very stupid argument.

Edit: Heck, I just reread the article and it doesn't even mention Bush or his administration. No where does Bush try to take credit for this. The article even says there are no certain reasons, only speculations so far:

The annual report offers no reasons for the trends, but the exhaustive statistical data provides criminologists and academics with raw material to examine.

Experts have attributed declines in recent years to a variety of factors, including an aging population and harsher punishments such as mandatory sentences.

Like I said before, you are pulling stuff out your butt to try to find something to throw at Bush, because there is nothing to throw at him here.

 

[Darkdante]

Posting against on this shitty PHP site pisses me off. You forget to save once and it logs you out and you lose everything. :evil:

 

[The Druw]

George Bush isn't the reason for things. Not completely. Believe it or not the government is more than one man. =O gasp.

 

[Nitram]

George Bush isn't the reason for things. Not completely. Believe it or not the government is more than one man. =O gasp.

Can't understand why people can't grasp that one.

 

[Strid]

Either way it's in the peoples hands to raise or lower crime. You got more idiots walking around you're gonna have more crime and vise versa. That is what it all comes down to.

 

[resipsa]

There are many problems with these kinds of reports, particularly when making comparisons across periods of time or among different states. Is the definition of "Violent Crime" the same today as it was 10 years ago? Does the report include only convictions, convictions and arrests, or convictions - arrests - and reported but unsolved crimes? Is the study controlled for differences in criminal laws between states? Different states include different crimes in their definition as violent. States amend laws to make them broader or narrower. Is this taken into consideration?

One example: In New York, and many other states, rape can only occur at the time of penetration. After penetration, if she tells you to stop and you don't, it's not rape. (It may be another crime, but I'm not sure). During the last 10 years, other states (California in case law, Illinois by statute) have defined this as rape. By broadening their definition of rape, those states have increased their reported/arrested/convicted number of rapes even though the actual number of acts may have not changed.

The FBI report relies on data compiled and reported by state and local law enforcement agencies. While the FBI makes a good attempt to be consistent, this is not necessarily the case with the reporting agencies.

It is not uncommon for elected officials to quote a report of rising crime to justify increased funding, then during the next election campaign quote a different report which might have used different reporting standards to take credit for a declining crime rate.

Short term studies within a state, with proper controls for these variables, are pretty reliable. Long term and national studies are usually not.

*Edit* I found this piece of data very interesting in light of the recent extension of VAWA (Violence Against Women Act):

Most suspects were adult men using firearms, and about one in five murder victims was female.

VAWA allocates millions of dollars to protecting women from violence even though 80% of murder victims are male :roll:
I wonder what the stats are on gender of victims of non-lethal violence.

 

[Trippyhippy]

George Bush isn't the reason for things. Not completely. Believe it or not the government is more than one man. =O gasp.

More like not at all.

He's a figurehead. He's been bought and sold 100 times over just like every other president we've had this century.

Darkdante, you want someone to blame, Blame Karl Rove, John Ashcroft, Condaleeza Rice or Donald Rumsfeld. Blame the House, Blame the Senate.

GWB is as ignorant as a person can be and still get elected. He's not just a figurehead, he's a bad figurehead. He might as well just be a puppet.

I think the thing that pisses me off most is the people he lets control him. Democrats are no better, they are puppets too. Just a different group controls them.

There are a few exceptions. From what I've seen John McCain, Robert Byrd and Patrick Leahy are about the only ones that don't repeat what they've been told to say. That's not to say there aren't more, but the list is short.

Wanna know who the losers were in the last Presidentail Election? There were two of them: Americans and Democracy.

This country is going downhill fast. The assholes that people think run this place will be the first with their backs against the wall when the revolution comes.

 

[Mr.Wonko]

This country is going downhill fast. The assholes that people think run this place will be the first with their backs against the wall when the revolution comes.

I just can't help but wonder how many times this has been said of every administration.

 

[Trippyhippy]

This country is going downhill fast. The assholes that people think run this place will be the first with their backs against the wall when the revolution comes.

I just can't help but wonder how many times this has been said of every administration.

I wasn't saying it in reference to this adminstration. I'm saying it in reference to capitol hill in general. Democrats/republicans/independants alike. When the poor(50% of the country) get their head out of their ass and realize what the Rich(5% of the country) are doing to them, there is gonna be a big violent bloody mess.

"The genius of our ruling class is that it has kept a majority of the people from ever questioning the inequity of a system where most people drudge along, paying heavy taxes for which they get nothing in return. " -Gore Vidal

It might not be in my lifetime, but the American public will overthrow it's leaders and draft a new constitution and all that mess.

 

[resipsa]

This country is going downhill fast. The assholes that people think run this place will be the first with their backs against the wall when the revolution comes.

I just can't help but wonder how many times this has been said of every administration.

I wasn't saying it in reference to this adminstration. I'm saying it in reference to capitol hill in general. Democrats/republicans/independants alike. When the poor(50% of the country) get their head out of their ass and realize what the Rich(5% of the country) are doing to them, there is gonna be a big violent bloody mess.

"The genius of our ruling class is that it has kept a majority of the people from ever questioning the inequity of a system where most people drudge along, paying heavy taxes for which they get nothing in return. " -Gore Vidal

It might not be in my lifetime, but the American public will overthrow it's leaders and draft a new constitution and all that mess.

Actually, 12.5% of the population lives below the federal poverty line.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/26/news/economy/poverty_survey/
That 12.5% benefits greatly from our taxes. It's the middle class that gets the shaft.

 

[Panda]

what revolution. there will be no revolution. enough of america is pacified that people arent going to do anything but bitch.

and the youth that is pissed off? they're too scared to do anything.

just face it. this is our country and this is the way its going to be. nothing is going to change until we all fucking die by some weird world aggro. i'd like to see your argument proving me wrong.

 

[Darkdante]

I feel like I just joined the internet "Mafia" now that I've had the audacity to dare post anything bad about our President. :roll:

Once your in you never get out......

Though it pains me to dig this up, since i'm being accused of "running away" I guess I gotta respond to this.

Oh I certainly got the gist of your post, but you missed mine. In your post, you claim that the drop in crime rate was because of people dying in 9-11, New Orleans flood, and having less people because they are over seas. I am attacking that rediculous logic. You didn't address Bush taking credit until your very last line. The rest is a clear stab at Bush. You criticize me of blindly defending him, yet here you are blindly attacking him for no reason, that is hypocrisy.

You confuse me. First you say Bush is not the only person running the country and its not all his fault. So when I use the word administration instead of Bush you get mad and say I"m really saying Bush.

:?: :?: :?:

How am I blindly attacking him? All this stuff is clear as day. Why have a leader if your not gonna give him accountablity?

Your point is totally irrevelent because even with those deaths, they are a drop in the bucket compared to how much our population grows.

Which deaths Rones? You mean the ones that consist of younger people who statistically are involved in more crimes than the older generation that has not suffered the same amount of deaths? Or the deaths of all those people in the slums who again are involved in alot more crimes than the general population that has not suffered those deaths.

Another thing you need to consider is that people tend to do less crime in times of war when family memebers and such are off giving thier lives in some other country. You also need to consider all the people that this President is sending over seas, again from the younger generation and mostly males, who statistically again make up most of the violent crime offenders.

What does all that lead up to? Less violent crime of course. I might as well add another stab in to fuel the fire. Its Presidents Clintons increase huge increase in the police force and prison terms that we are just now seeing the effects of.

If you remember from our financial discussions, I repeatedly point out that much of what goes on in the country is neither to the credit nor blame of the president. You however want to blame everything on the president, so by your logic he should also be to blame for all the good stuff that happens. :wink:

Of course! What else is there a leader for other than to steal all the glory from the people who do the real work, and pass the blame when he then fucks up? Bottom line Rones. He's the President, he's the man to blame.

When you don't get a raise at work, do you immediately blame yourself and never your boss? If you are you are a fool. At work however you cannot do what I do, but you also must recognize the fact of who is in charge and calling the shots. After that you can then decide what you need to do to change the way your boss sees you.

It would be a nice world if the only decisions that mattered were the ones we made for ourselves but that is not how it is. This is why we need to vote, its because the President matters, and his decisions affect our lives greatly.

You however seem to think that the decisons that we make for ourselves is the only thing that matter. Hell if I was living on "blue lagoon" maybe that might be the case, but I don't, I live in America.

 

[Darkdante]

George Bush isn't the reason for things. Not completely. Believe it or not the government is more than one man. =O gasp.

He is of course getting paid to do something about it.

 

[Darkdante]

Either way it's in the peoples hands to raise or lower crime. You got more idiots walking around you're gonna have more crime and vise versa. That is what it all comes down to.

I'd more so use this mentality to say. Its should be in another countries hands to fix thier own problems rather than having us to go over there and fix it for them. Using this mentality we should fix our own problems as well.

 

[Rones]

So when I use the word administration instead of Bush you get mad and say I"m really saying Bush.

Well it's true. To most people Bush is synomous with administration. This is largely due to people refering to it as Bush's administration and the free interchange in news articles between the term Bush and administration. However, if you wanted to not target Bush, you could use a term like US government, US legislators, US senators/representatives/congessmen, or any term that does not specfically target Bush and his immidiate staff.

How am I blindly attacking him? All this stuff is clear as day.

If it was that clear and clean cut, you wouldn't have so much trouble defending it or providing sources to support your argument.

Your point is totally irrevelent because even with those deaths, they are a drop in the bucket compared to how much our population grows.

Which deaths Rones? You mean the ones that consist of younger people who statistically are involved in more crimes than the older generation that has not suffered the same amount of deaths? Or the deaths of all those people in the slums who again are involved in alot more crimes than the general population that has not suffered those deaths.

Hmm, I think you forgot which deaths you were even referring to.

First you said deaths from 9-11. People killed in the twins towers I estimate to be mostly middle aged law abiding citizens. Removing them from the population would cause crime to appear to rise.

Second, you said deaths from our soldiers. Again, this is a sample of young to middle aged law abiding citizens. Their death would not cause a drop in crime, but actually the appearance of an increase becaus their are more crimnals now vs law abiding citizens.

Third, you said deaths from New Orleans. First I want to point out that the entire article is refering to crime rates in 2004. Anything that happened in New Orleans since then is not included in their statistics (Such as hurricane Katrina in 2005. Second, I was under the assumption that the people killed were largely the elderly and disabled who could not escape the flood or were trapped in their homes. The death caused by the storm surage and winds would kill an equal distribution of good citizens and criminals most likely. Third, keep in mind the number of deaths in New Orleans is extremely small compared to the total population of the U.S. 1,281 deaths last I heard. Natural disasters always happen and kill off people (San Francisco Earthquakes for example), not just during Bush's presidency.

Fourth, you mention troops deployed over seas. I find this insulting of our military forces to imply that our soldiers are at fault for the crime rate and that their removeal causes a lower average crime rate per person. Our soldiers (for the most part), are shining examples of law abiding citiznes. If you want to claim crime rates drop just because we are at war, I would like to see your source and some statistics to support this. I will also point out that the crime rate has been declining since before the Afghanistan or Iraq war.

Of course! What else is there a leader for other than to steal all the glory from the people who do the real work, and pass the blame when he then fucks up? Bottom line Rones. He's the President, he's the man to blame.

That is how you think. That does not mean everyone else is required to think that way. Did I blame Clinton for every little thing that went wrong? No. Do I blame him for things he personally decided on that turned out wrong, yes.

When you don't get a raise at work, do you immediately blame yourself and never your boss?

Do you blame the president of a large corporation with hundreds of thousands of employees for you not getting your raise? Only if you are a fool. Blame doesn't jump from the bottom to the top, nor vice versa.

What does all that lead up to? Less violent crime of course. I might as well add another stab in to fuel the fire. Its Presidents Clintons increase huge increase in the police force and prison terms that we are just now seeing the effects of.

Good for Clinton. If you want to blame/credit this on Clinton, that's fine becaues guess what....Bush isn't trying to take credit for this (his name isn't in the article). You (DarkDante) are the one trying to get Bush to claim credit for it and then you are turning around and saying he is wrong for taking credit (which he didn't do in the first place).