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.
People aged 20-34 years old make up 45% of violent crime victims. Most victimes come from teenagers. You remove alot of people from either of these age groups and you'll get a major drop in crime, you remove from both, well, you figure that out.
I'm not arguing about people from 9-11. Those would I'd assume be mostly law-abiding citizens. But then again money does make you do wierd things and those people are around money all day. I have no statistics on that for or against. However as I've said before, like when people are over seas fighting a war, when you have a death in the family people tend to do less crime. And when you have 5,000 people die, this affects a great many people.
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.
I stand corrected Rones.
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.
You can find it insulting all you want. That doesn't change the facts. Soilders we send are of the younger age, and statistics don't lie. People of younger age are victims of more than half the violent crimes that happens in this country. When you keep them busy sending them to another country to fight a war, rotating thousands at a time. You get violent tendencies out of thier systems, and their familes are affect the same.
And our crime rate has been slowly dropping since 1992.
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.
Thats not how I think. Thats how it is. Not for every situation, but in Bush's case, YES.
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.
So if that President cuts the budget in your division, its not his fault your boss can't give you a raise? So if that President puts a freeze on pay raises for the company, thats not his fault your boss can't give you a raise? So if that President hires a dumbass who only cares for himself and not you, as your boss, and you never get a raise because he's such an ass, thats not the Presidents fault?
How many more you want Rones? You can be small minded and think only those people directly involved with you affect you, or you can see reality.
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).
Any thing that happens during his administration, HE WILL TAKE CREDIT FOR.
Don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise.