Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Photograph of You | A Completely Unscientific Worl... »

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Politics The Children Are Our Targets

Posted by BRADLEY STEINBACHER on June 13 at 11:28 AM

Yesterday, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) tried to ease concerns about violence in Iraq by saying:

“27.51 Iraqis per 100,000 die a violent death on an annual basis. 27.51. Now what does that mean? To me, it really doesn’t mean a lot until I compare it to people that I know or have a feel for the rhythm of this place. Well I by now have a feel for the rhythm of this place called Washington, D.C., and my wife lives here with me, and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, she’s at far greater risk being a civilian in Washington, D.C. than an average civilian in Iraq.”

As it turns out, King may be on to something:

A report released today by the Children’s Defense Fund (CDF,) and based upon data collected by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) finds that more children and teens died as a result of gun violence in 2003 than American fighting men and women killed in hostile action in the first three years of the Iraq war combined.

In all, 2,827 kids and teens were killed in the United States during the calendar year that marked the US invasion of Iraq. At last count, the Department of Defense reports 2,497 US soldiers killed in Iraq.

Permalink

CommentsRSS icon

1

Uh, what's the population of the United States? How many of them are under the age of 18? What's the total number of troops in Iraq and total population of Iraq? These are not comparable numbers, and this statistic is bullshit.

This calls to mind Twain's insight: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Posted by bill | June 13, 2006 11:44 AM

2

Steve King is my hometown's rep. He is an asshole. His district is moronville, therefore he is an appropriate representative for about 80% of his constituency.

Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay | June 13, 2006 12:01 PM

3

What's funny is that the United States has had terrorists in its urban neighborhoods for decades. We just call them gang members.

Posted by Gomez | June 13, 2006 12:05 PM

4

My thinking exactly: bullshit statistics. both sets. "Gun violence" and "violent death" are not the same things. No extra points on attempting to link the two, no matter how much I want to agree with Bradley's point. Gun Violence means a gun was pointed, discharged, and resulted in death. Pointing the gun is violent, but the death (however horrific, btw) could just be an accident Violent Death would mean something really fucked up happened resulting in death. Say, being shot out of hatred or being blown-up by a bomb. Think psycho killer vs. mugging-gone-wrong.

Posted by Phenics | June 13, 2006 12:17 PM

5

We declare war on all Mo Fos killing our children in the USA.
Get them Bradleys rolling down to them city streets and round up them Teen killers. How about a carpet bomb over our major cities and suburbs. That'll teach those pesky child killer terroists.

Posted by King Kong | June 13, 2006 12:31 PM

6

Um, we can't really declare war on the "Mo Fo's" killing children in the U.S. in as much as it is frequently another child holding the gun.

Posted by dewsterling | June 13, 2006 1:20 PM

7

Wow. Where the hell does he get those statistics?

The estimated death count for Iraqis in this war is between 38,355 and 42,747. Keep in mind that Iraq's total population is about one-tenth of the United States' population. So, according to King's logic, more than 300,000 Americans have been murdered in the United States in the past three years, not to mention many thousands more injured? Of course, that doesn't even include the Iraqis who die every year from terrorist attacks and ordinary violent crime. What the fuck?

Posted by keshmeshi | June 13, 2006 2:49 PM

8

I don't get it. By comparing the number dead of U.S. kids with the number of dead U.S. soldiers in Iraq, are we saying that our children will be just as safe on the playground as they would at a Baghdad checkpoint?

Posted by horatiosanzserif | June 13, 2006 2:51 PM

9

I vote for less killing everywhere.

Posted by Seth | June 13, 2006 5:49 PM

10

Seconded. All in favor?

Posted by Horace | June 14, 2006 1:34 AM

11

Not to mention you can't compare a nation's murder rate to that of a single city. Urban death rates are always higher.

If you want to make a comparison, try comparing Baghdad to Washington, DC.

Posted by Aexia | June 14, 2006 11:02 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).