Free Republic

<p>December 29, 2003 -- WASHINGTON - Startling new Army statistics show that strife-torn Baghdad - considered the most dangerous city in the world - now has a lower murder rate than New York.</p> <p>The newest numbers, released by the Army's 1st Infantry Division, reveal that over the past three months, murders and other crimes in Baghdad are decreasing dramatically and that in the month of October, there were fewer murders per capita there than the Big Apple, Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.</p>

<p>By John R. Lott Jr.</p> <p>Despite Saddam Hussein's capture this weekend, many are still pessimistic about controlling the levels of violence in Iraq.</p> <p>Yet, this pessimism largely depends on the numbers one relies on. Take what has become a surprisingly controversial number: Baghdad's murder rate (search). Some assert that in October Baghdad had one of the highest murder rates in the world, while others point to numbers that it was below even the U.S.'s own murder rate. The political overtones are obvious, not just in terms of the Bush administration's successes but as people try to explain why the numbers are as high or as low as they are.</p>

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld created quite a ruckus this June when he said: "You've got to remember that if Washington, D.C., were the size of Baghdad, we would be having something like 215 murders a month." This bothered some simply because it indicated that Iraq was being handled well. But another aspect upset many: that a country where civilians were able to freely own machine guns could have a lower murder rate than our own nation's capital where even handguns are banned. The claim did not sit well with those pushing to renew the assault weapons ban in our own...

Published Friday, December 12, 2003, in Investors' Business Daily, p. A14.   Baghdad's Murder Rate Irresponsibly Distorted By John R. Lott, Jr.   Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld created quite a ruckus this June when he said: “You've got to remember that if Washington, D.C., were the size of Baghdad, we would be having something like 215 murders a month.” This bothered some simply because it indicated that Iraq was being handled well. But another aspect upset many: that a country where civilians were able to freely own machine guns could have a lower murder rate than our own nation’s capital...

Gerald Barnes was killed outside his home this week. No one was quite sure why he died, and nobody seemed to care either. The 44-year-old bachelor was kicked and stabbed to death in the street and neighbours had few good things to say about the man many said was a "bad egg". He died on Tuesday in the town of Dumbarton in Strathclyde, where violent crime - particularly with knives - is on the rise. So much so that Glasgow, the region's main city, is now the murder capital of western Europe. Police were putting up the blue and white...

It was very disheartening to read that we've already had our 91st casualty shot dead. Ninety-one people killed in cold blood, and there's not even a war going on. I can't believe that there's nothing we could have done to reduce or minimize that number. How can our government allow this to happen? No, this isn't the number of soldiers killed in Iraq. This is the number of murders in Oakland so far this year. Oakland isn't a war zone (though some might argue that it is), yet they have more casualties so far this year than U.S. soldiers killed...

<p>Phoenix homicides are up 67 percent this year compared with the same period in 2002, a trend police are at a loss to explain.</p> <p>As of last week, Phoenix police had recorded 105 homicides in 2003, up from 63 at the same time last year.</p>