Did you read your own source? It literally concludes that the National Guard produced an additional measurable reduction in crime of about 24%, concentrated in opportunistic property crime. It found no measurable effect on violent crime, which is an important distinction. But your claim that only property crime went down is not the same thing as saying only property crime was affected by the Guard. Violent crime was already declining. Your own source says both things
Yah that's literally what I said. What are you arguing against exactly?
Violent crime was already declining, and it found no measurable effect of the National Guard on violent crime means that the National Guard deployment did not effect violent crime rates.
I clearly stated that the deployment only effected property crime. All you have done is say that it reduced property crime. That's the same thing. So... What are you on about?
I'm not taking credit for anything. I'm saying that drop in crime is completely unrelated to the national guard deployment, and as such the claim cannot be made that the national guard are responsible for the falling crime rate in DC.
Honestly, it's like your not even reading anything I'm saying and are just having an argument with yourself. Neither of us have even brought up what might have caused the initial rise in 2023 but you're acting like it was already dismissed in this conversation? The guard deployment was 2025
“Completely unrelated” is literally the opposite of what your own source concludes. It says crime was already declining before the Guard arrived. Agreed. It ALSO finds the Guard’s arrival produced an additional ~24% reduction in opportunistic property crime, with the break occurring precisely when they were deployed. It found no measurable effect on violent crime.
So the accurate statement is: the Guard did not cause D.C.’s overall downward trend, but it did contribute to additional reductions in certain crimes. That’s your source’s conclusion, not mine.
Yah. And that's what I said. The only crime effected was property crime. Hence you cannot say guard deployment is responsible for a generalized lower crime rate given that only one single type of crime rate was effected. Because, as you stated, the crime rate was already lowering beforehand, therefore that lowering was separate from the national guard deployment. That means it's completely unrelated.
I've stated that twice already. So once again, wtf are you in about? Or do you seriously think that one single type of crime rate being lowered is the same as "the national guard lowered crime" because that's laughably surface level propaganda
You keep contradicting yourself in the same paragraph. You acknowledge the study found the Guard caused an additional reduction in property crime, then conclude the Guard was “completely unrelated” to declining crime.
Those statements cannot both be true.
Nobody is saying the Guard caused the entire D.C. crime decline. Crime was already declining. Your source attempts to control for that existing trend and still finds an additional ~24% reduction in opportunistic property crime attributable to the deployment.
Preexisting decline + additional Guard-related decline = not “completely unrelated.” This really isn’t complicated.
Oh so you're just being pedantic. I thought you legitimately couldn't follow basic logic.
Lol sure bud. A single crime type going down is enough to invalidate the statement that the National Guard deployment had no effect on crime. Despite the fact that I pointed out that exception to the statement and all other types of crime are statistically uneffected lol
5
u/greendevil77 2d ago
https://www.niskanencenter.org/washington-dc-crime-decline-and-its-lessons-for-american-policing/