Murders in U.S. Increased at Slower Pace in 2021, FBI Data Show - WSJ
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The rise in murders in the U.S. slowed in 2021, according to new estimates from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Murders rose 4% last year after increasing nearly 30% in 2020, the agency said. Overall violent crimes dropped 1% in 2021, as robberies decreased.
Soaring murder rates across the country since the onset of the pandemic have made crime a major issue in local and national elections. Law-enforcement agencies have been working to stanch shootings in cities and rural areas .
The national crime estimates for 2021 are based on unusually low participation by local law-enforcement agencies as the FBI makes a transition to a new data-collection system. Law-enforcement agencies covering 65% of the U.S. population submitted data to the new National Incident-Based Reporting System in 2021, compared with 95% in recent years.
While the new system includes more details about each incident, some law-enforcement agencies have been slow to switch over. Most agencies in three of the most-populous states—California, Florida and New York—didn’t report figures, including departments in the two largest cities, New York City and Los Angeles.
The FBI said the new system will become more accurate in coming years as more agencies participate. It said the new system “provides the opportunity to know more about, and better understand, various facets of crime in our nation,” including demographic information on victims and those arrested.
The FBI said it developed a way to estimate crime totals for the agencies that didn’t report this year.
“When you’re having to estimate for 40% of the agencies, that’s going to be a problem, ” said Richard Rosenfeld, a criminologist at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. “During this uptick in homicide…you really want accurate data.”
Mr. Rosenfeld, who studies crime trends for the Council on Criminal Justice, a nonpartisan criminal-justice think tank, said the FBI estimates for 2021 are similar to a 5% murder rise he found in 27 cities last year.
Mr. Rosenfeld said murders might be receding, citing data the Council on Criminal Justice has collected showing homicides in 29 large cities in the first six months of 2022 were down 2% from the same period last year.
“We still have a ways to go to get to prepandemic levels,” he said.
Tags
Who is online
404 visitors
The national crime estimates for 2021 are based on unusually low participation by local law-enforcement agencies as the FBI makes a transition to a new data-collection system. Law-enforcement agencies covering 65% of the U.S. population submitted data to the new National Incident-Based Reporting System in 2021, compared with 95% in recent years.
While the new system includes more details about each incident, some law-enforcement agencies have been slow to switch over. Most agencies in three of the most-populous states—California, Florida and New York—didn’t report figures, including departments in the two largest cities, New York City and Los Angeles.
So let's try to understand this: About a month before an election, the FBI is releasing an estimate on crime without the stats from the major crime centers of NYC and LA among other lawless cities!
How partisn and dishonest!
Time to ignore these 'articles'. I don't know why I waste so much time 'here' in the first place.
Please stay, your presence may not do much for you but it's very illuminative for the rest of us.
Neither does anyone else. There’s the door. Trust me, no one will stop you from leaving.
Well they have to cook the books somehow, everything else they have claimed in this election half cycle has been a lie... what's new...
It sounds like some don't really want to know anyway. It is going to be a voting issue, whether they like it or not.
Get with the times. This is 2022 going on 2023.
Why are you posting information from 2021?????????
Because the 2022 totals aren't in yet. We still have 3 months to go.
THAT'S WHY!
That doesn't answer her question.
In what world does it not?
Actually it does. But you would have to understand how reporting information like this works to understand it.
My questions are never answered 'here'. Just deflections.
[deleted]
There is that.
then plainly you didn't understand the question or answer.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Yeah, it does. It’s literally the only answer anyone needs. You can’t talk about crime data for the whole year of 2022 when the year is only 3/4 complete. A toddler could understand that.
Data for the previous year takes time to compile, and the process is made slower by lack of cooperation from source cities. The seed explained that. All you had to do was read it. The seeded article was published today. Do you imagine that complex data from the whole year, covering the whole country, is immediately distilled and available on January 1st?
Your question was answered before you asked it, making it a pretty stupid question.
Like I give a shit what you think.
At least I think.
The fact that you don’t give a shit is apparent to all.
[Deleted]
[deleted]
removed for context
Removed for context
Removed for context
Are you looking for fiscal year 22 data or the calendar year?
In this world. What world were you in when you wrote it.
And, as usual, they will claim that their deflections were the answers.
The one that saw riots, looting & murder during the summer of 2020.
When you ask something, and people respond to you, then that is what is commonly known as an answer.
"And, as usual, they will claim that their deflections were the answers."
I see they brought in tacos, their big guns, so to speak, to defend them. And to insult me.
I wouldn't work for them, they'll stiff you on the bill, like trumpturd.
You mean murderers like Kyle Rittenhouse who shot those protesters, non-violent protesters, just because?
Kyles 3 shots were excellent examples of why we need the second amendment. He defended himself against 3 worthless scumbag pieces of crap.
No, he is the worthless scumbag piece of crap - a fine young republican. Shooting/killing/murdering people for no reason. Again, a fine young republican. Already has three murders on his rap sheet. He'll go far as a republican.
Because his life was threatened.
I think he shot more than 3 shots total actually , but do you know why he wasnt attacked after the last one was shot ?
because he still had bullets in his magazine that no one could say one way or another how many he had left , and he had shown through actions if attacked , he would defend himself .
in otherwords he was armed and able to defend himself with greater force than he would have been subject to if unarmed .
The FBI is releasing the 2021 information only now. Why doesn't the FBI release information in a more timely manner? Why is the FBI stonewalling?
Or is the FBI only releasing information and data to meddle in elections?
Another living in denial/alternate reality.
For a second time in the last 2 years.
Oh My Lord! Is it “Ignorant Comment Day” around here? How hard is it to read the flippin seed? It’s not even that long.
It’s basic reading. The FBI isn’t stonewalling anything. They’re doing their best to produce information in a setting that makes that very difficult.
A smarter question might have been “why are they releasing anything before they have complete information?” And If I had to guess, I’d say it might be because they’re required to release information about this time of year. Why would I guess that? Because I followed a link in the story to this:
Same kind of information, but from the previous year - published at the end of September. So, maybe a week earlier. Hardly significant.
So much for equity. A response, in kind, to a comment gets called out. And the original comment is even quoted in the response. All talk, no walk.
You know that. I know that. But the original commenter wanted to completely ignore that. Hence the response. (Which was intentionally obtuse (sarcastic?) in keeping with the original comment.)
Most of the triggers for Federal reporting are based upon fiscal year which begins Oct. 1. The particular release discussed in the seed is likely a requirement for the end of FY2022 which ended Sept. 30. (Calendar year 2021 ended a quarter after FY2022 started which may explain the lag.) The FBI also releases quarterly statistics based on calendar year. So, more recent data is available; it just wasn't reported by the WSJ.
What is interesting is that the information is being reported in a 'more is less' manner. The number of murders increased but it's not that bad because the increase was less than the previous year. I don't know if that was how the FBI reported the information or if that was an artifact of some sort bias in WSJ reporting.
He’s not. The FBI is posting the information and the Wall Street Journal did the story today. The information doesn’t get much fresher than that.
You can’t very well talk about crime for the whole year of 2022 when it’s still October of 2022. There are still three months left in the year. Do you not understand that? The most recent year you could possibly talk about, as a whole, would be 2021. Even a casual glance at the seed and the employment of just a couple of brain cells should make all of that obvious.
Fuck off.
You always come up with the best retorts.
[Deleted]
How about you first? And keep doing it tomorrow and the next day. Every comment from you on this seed has been devoid of meaningful contribution. And that is not atypical.
“WAAAAHHHH! My questions are never answered! I just want to troll and not be held accountable for it. Fuck off meanies. WAAAAA!”
Maybe she is doing the best that she can.
The trolls and those not being held accountable would be the poster of this 'article' and all his thumbs up buddies. Yours too.
Now I'm done 'here'.
Please say that's not so.
If only.
You mean those who actually read the article and understand how the reporting process works? At any rate, looking at 2.3.3 the trolls are being held accountable.
Don't make promises you won't keep.
Exactly, ancient history.
No one can show me the door like tacos. I'll do as I fucking please.
Of that there is no doubt.
These statistics, outside the panic of politically driven hysteria, are close to meaningless.
For example, a city or state could have 10 murders per 100,000 people, last year. This year they have 15 murders per 100,000 people and the "statistics" record it as a 50% increase (the horror!) which is , statistically, immense.
But in reality it represents 5 more murders per 100,000 population , and that is a small (make that tiny) amount of increase. Besides that these things go up and down all the time. The murder rates were far higher 30 or 40 years ago.
Emphasis on crime rates is a political effort, to scare people into voting for the Republicans.
Yup without the stats from big blue cities they are meaningless.
Emphasis on crime rates is a political effort,
It is an important issue in the coming election.
The policies of defunding the police, bail reform and woke DA's is on the ballot.
Police aren't being defunded ANYWHERE.
What's this? the 5th time?
I don't know when it will sink in.
It won't sink it ever because it's not happening.
I'll sink in when their cities defund the police and the crime affects them. Until then, they'll keep their heads in their 4th point of contact and make moronic claims.
Was the source no good?
Or was it Bull Shit?
I don't think murder & mayhem bother people who never use the subway or public transportation, or the inner city. When one sits behind a computer, crime seems very distant or at least that's the way they act.
You'll get that from people who refuse to leave mommy's basement.
Because it's not happening.
So you and JRIN just make it up as you go?
I work in the inner city.
The safest place in town!
I provided a link showing that the NYPD was defunded to the tune of $1 Billion.
I work in the inner city.
I know....Baltimore, or as the locals call it: "B-more." This may shock you, but a few of us were worried about you the past 2 days.
"I provided a link showing that the NYPD was defunded to the tune of $1 Billion."
"I work in the inner city."
"I know....Baltimore, or as the locals call it B-more. This may shock you, but a few of us were worried about you the past 2 days."
They were not defunded.
Worried about me why? Not that I believe anything you say.
$1 Billion was defunded from the NYPD budget. Didn't you read it?
Worried about me why?
That's right. We don't want anything to happen to you.
We may vigorously disagree, but as far as you are concerned....we don't hate you.
"$1 Billion was defunded from the NYPD budget. Didn't you read it?"
"Worried about me why?"
T"hat's right. We don't want anything to happen to you.
We may vigorously disagree, but as far as you are concerned....we don't hate you."
It's not true. They weren't defunded.
Who is we?
I wouldn't say disagree - I would say disbelieve, discount, don't give credence to, don't believe a word you say, etc., etc., etc.
I also need to add - don't like you, etc., etc., etc.
You don't have to.
I can live with it.
is the basement lined with bubble wrap and have an endless supply of hot pockets ?
And exactly where are we making it up? You've been provided links to the information (that you admittedly refuse to look at) and have provided ZERO to back up your claims.
So you have 2 choices.
Yup...with a desk, computer and a package of skittles. What goes on outside is nobody's business.
"is the basement lined with bubble wrap and have an endless supply of hot pockets ?"
I know that's how/where the majority of gop/gqp supporters reside along with their alternate reality.
They're such fragile and whiny little bitches.
You never provide proof of anything
YOU STFU.
Oh, that's where truth is to be found?
Let me write it down: The truth can be found with Tessylo, John and Ozz.
Ok, I've got it!
Actually, he does provide links.
Maybe if you paid attention instead of blathering on spamming articles you might actually learn something.
Make a sub-note that you have to turn off your critical thinking skills for ANY of it to make sense.
She would need to actually read the linked material to understand that but she's consistently stated that she does not read links. Hard to understand why someone would willing pursue such willful ignorance but it's there for all to see.
I see your hateful personal insult for all to see. I don't read links posted on certain 'articles' by certain members. When I do read said links on these 'articles' 100 times out of 100 they do not reflect what has been stated.
Now to put the clueless remarks and agnorance back on ignore.
Links that don't prove dick and do not back up whatever ignorant claims that have been made 100 times out of 100
In this 'article'.
I understand that last month, Baltimore City only had 14 homicides and 57 non-fatal shootings.
Semantics, right?
And the truth finally comes out.
You seriously did not type that with a straight face, did you?
No...LMAO!
Facts and truth sink in - not lies and ignorance and arrogance.
No, what's shocking is the number is still increasing after the massive 30% jump the year before.
Compare the murder rate to 2019 and only the mathematically illiterate would call the increase "tiny".
But in reality it represents 5 more murders per 100,000 population ,
Its fascinating how you downplay murder though. Where is this perspective after incidents like Uvalde. Shouldn't you dismiss that incident as not noteworthy, since only an exceedingly tiny fraction of school kids were murdered there?
What I find surprising however is that nobody yet has brought up the "easy access to guns" as an excuse. I thought that was one of the main-stay's of the left.
Is an increase of 5 murders per 100,000 population something to get in a national panic over? I think you know the true answer to that. Raw number increases in such small totals are distorted when converted to percentages. Someone who has one dollar can get another one and now they have 100 percent more money than they had before and still cant buy a cup of coffee.
Most people dont understand the reality, they hear that murder rates are up 50% and they freak out. The Republicans are exploiting that this year.
The best one was when they provided a study that claimed people who are cooped-up, as they were during the pandemic, turn violent.
That has to be the most absurd excuse ever posted on NT.
I am not downplaying murder, it is a terrible thing no matter how many there are , one is too many. But is the increase something to get in a national panic over? Not at all.
So there’s no violence problem in the country and there’s no reason to complain about guns, since the chance of being murdered by a gun are so small?
Guess it's all what side of the political divide you are on and what the partisan talking points are. I've seen you practically demand a national panic over a gun murder.
If the crime problem and murder totals are so small, why do gun lovers need to constantly have them with them? Why not leave it at home and everyone can be safe.
I dont think it is the "low" crime rate that makes people want gun control , it is the prospect of grocery shopping when some maniac comes in and slaughters people for the fun of it. Same with the schools.
Of course in raw numbers only an infinitesimal number of people are killed in mass shootings. But the fear the incidents spread is much much more.
I used to take the subway and "el" back and forth to work, in Chicago, almost every day. Part of the way the train passed through the worst neighborhoods in Chicago. I was never afraid that someone was going to shoot me , and that was partially in an era when murder rates were much higher than they are now.
But if I had young kids today I think I would be concerned whether some maniac was sizing up their school.
Uh, that would be a no.
I do think AR-15's and similar should be grandfathered out of production because they are so often the gun of choice in notorious mass murders and they are now a tainted object . And no one needs them (they do "want" them though).
I'd vote for that.
If that's what the people want then fine. But I don't believe doing so would make any difference in the world as there are so many millions of them already out in the public.
I would rather that actual gun laws be actually enforced. On federal form 4473 it's printed right at the top that lying on this form is a felony. In case you don't remember, that's the form one fills out when buying a gun from a licensed dealer so that the background check thru the NICS system can be performed.
If the government is not going to bother to prosecute a felony around gun control then how can they push for additional gun control?
Not to mention there's no teeth in the NICS system at the present time. There's nothing to enforce reporting agencies to forward pertinent information to the NICS system so that background checks can be performed against up to date information. How many of those mass murders could have been stopped by a simple matter of the person not being able to purchase the gun due to the correct information being in the NICS system?
I wouldn't .
personal opinion at best .
That antelope i harvested on my recent hunting trip was harvested with an AR-15, granted , i installed the longer barrel , modifided my magazine so it only held 4 rounds( disassembled the mag and installed a plug to limit how many it would hold, just like one does for a shotgun for duck or goose hunting , done to err on the side of caution because there was nothing in the hunting regs that stated i couldnt have a mag that could hold more if i wanted , but it did exactly as it was suppose to with the first and only shot taken .
it was the right sized tool for the intended job it was used for .
matter of fact i am contemplating "up sizing " to a different cal round , 6.8 mm, while still being able to use what i already have except the upper . but still doing some research on that and cost feasability .
Additionally, why the emphasis on the AR-15 and similar when handguns are used in three times the number of mass murders as long guns?
One of the VERY rare occasions that I can vote your comment up.
Yeah, we certainly can't use statistics for planning. Planning isn't the forte of the political leaders we have now. We just have to accept kneejerk reactions as the status quo because no one saw this coming.
Yep, numbers don't lie. But statistics can be used to lie. 10 murders per 100,000 would be 10 murders in a city of 100,000. But that's 100 murders in a city of 1,000,000. See the difference?
30 or 40 years ago the population size was smaller, too. So, a higher murder rate in a smaller population could still be fewer people murdered then compared to now.
So, the corollary argument would that emphasis on crime rates make Democrats look bad. You know, it would be kinda hard to scare people into voting for Republicans if Democrats had not screwed the crime pooch. What's so amazing is that Democrats use victimhood as a political message and yet want to sweep crime victims under the rug. Unless, of course, it's the right kind of crime against the right kind of people. Then those Democrat knees jerk really hard.
10 per 100,000, huh?
The rate is more like:
St. Louis, MO (69.4)
Baltimore, MD (51.1)
New Orleans, LA (40.6)
Detroit, MI (39.7)
Cleveland, OH (33.7)
Las Vegas, NV (31.4)
Kansas City, MO (31.2)
Memphis, TN (27.1)
Newark, NJ (25.6)
Chicago, IL (24)
Cincinnati, OH (23.8)
Philadelphia, PA (20.2)
Milwaukee, WI (20.0)
Tulsa, OK (18.6)
Pittsburgh, PA (18.4)
Indianapolis, IN (17.7)
Louisville, KY (17.5)
Oakland, CA (17.1)
Washington D.C. (17.0)
Atlanta, GA (16.7)
What city or state are you looking at?
I'm tracking:
Cleveland, OH (33.7)
Las Vegas, NV (31.4)
Kansas City, MO (31.2)
Memphis, TN (27.1)
Newark, NJ (25.6)
Chicago, IL (24)
Cincinnati, OH (23.8)
Philadelphia, PA (20.2)
Milwaukee, WI (20.0)
Tulsa, OK (18.6)
Pittsburgh, PA (18.4)
Indianapolis, IN (17.7)
Louisville, KY (17.5)
Oakland, CA (17.1)
Washington D.C. (17.0)
Atlanta, GA (16.7)
Well he did say "For example". So that really means he made up the statistics to try to prove a point. Unfortunately the only point he seemed to prove is that statistics lie.
Keeping his imagination after childhood may be a good thing.
You make it sound like we are not supposed to care about crime or we should ignore the stats entirely. I haven’t seen denial like this outside of conservatives who want to ignore climate data. What gives?
“The temperature goes up and down all the time. We had bigger storms 30 or 40 years ago.” That’s what you sound like.
So you see the release of this information as being politically driven? Why? The FBI collects and reports data on crime every year. It’s required by law.
This particular report indicates a much slower increase in crime than the previous year. If you are really concerned about politics, you could spin that into “good news.” After all, the administration does exactly that when Inflation increases by “only” 8% instead of 9%.
Lets say you live in a city with a 100,000 population. Maybe Peoria Illinois. Not a big city, but a decent size small city.
Last year there were 10 murders reported in Peoria, but by the end of this year there were 15 murders reported. Do you seriously believe the people of Peoria would freak out about that? Its just a silly argument.
Murder rates are based on 100,000 population. A gain (or loss) of 5 murders in that size group is basically meaningless.
Good job Peoria, your rate is going down. I seem to remember a rate of 22 or 23 per 100,000 a couple of years ago.
I don’t see where anybody is asked to freak out. But would they care? Yeah, I think they would. I live in a town about that size. Every murder is big news. A few more is bad news, and a few less is good news. That’s really not that strange of a perspective.
But like I asked, why are you trying so hard on this story? It’s just a report of data. No politics. No call to “freak out.”
"These statistics, outside the panic of politically driven hysteria, are close to meaningless."
SSDD
Uh hum
Crime has not abated here in Denver, and it's absurd to think murder and violent crime rates have gone down in the bigger cities either. It appears the FBI is attempting to influence another election in order to make Biden look good
You can seen the talking point develop. They've created a new normal of murder rates being 30% higher than they were just three years ago, and they will claim that's a win because the rate of increase has slowed.
That’s reminiscent of the democrats talking points of spending cuts.
We wanted to spend 4 trillion more than last year, but only spent 3.9 trillion more, we cut spending by 100 billion! Look how careful we are with you tax dollars!
This whole discussion is surreal.
While too many are only too willing to debate the fucking statistics, too many families are silently left to bury their loved ones…families shattered, but only collateral damage in tacit acceptance of our murderous gun culture.
Yes, let’s blame the inanimate object instead of the actual criminal.
So ignoring the seed which is actually about statistics, you turn to a partisan talking point. Do you have any actual thoughts on changes that could make a difference or are you only able to regurgitate the talking points?
“…regurgitate…”
A sickening denial that we are daily, hourly, by the minute dealing with a societal curse.
Talking points? How about we just once deal with the reality, our inability to address the multi-faceted issues, and ultimately the human costs?
So I take that as a no you don't really have any thoughts on the subject you brought up. I've brought up my ideas numerous times, I don't remember seeing any reply from you as to the potential of those ideas doing any good.
“…you don't really have any thoughts on the subject…”
Respectfully:
Mandatory background checks. If convicted of any violent crime, you forfeit your right to own a firearm until you go before a judge.
Mandatory gun safety training every time a new weapon is purchased.
No further manufacture of AR style weapons (and please no debate here as we all know the subject) Grandfather in all previous owners.
No private sales. Only by a licensed, regulated retailer. No aftermarket sales of bump stocks or extended magazines.
Just a start, but a step in the right direction that any responsible gun owner should embrace.
And I’m not a gun grabber and realize the 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, but I’m also a realist and see we have a problem…so go ahead and shoot holes in any of these arguments as you must. Been a target of those only so eager to do so without aim every time the subject comes up.
Just my opinion.
Sure.
Why a new class, I still remember what I learned in my NRA gun safety class 58 years ago.
Most firearm homicides are committed with pistols and AR rifles are a small subset of the few killed by rifles.
So I can't sell mine but have to leave them to my heirs?
If convicted of a felony you are already prohibited from owning / possessing a firearm. So that's already law.
For the background checks, they are already mandatory for a purchase from a licensed gun seller. I would take that a step further to put some teeth behind the reporting requirements to the NICS system. Right now the rule is that states and reporting agencies SHOULD report their data in a timely manner. But how many recent shootings have occurred where after the fact we find out that the person had recently purchased their gun but should not have except the data that would have prevented the sales from going thru was not forwarded to the NICS system. Congress should change the law to put some enforcement behind the non-reporting of data.
I disagree with training for every new weapon. How many times does a person need to be told that the bullets come out of the barrel and they need to be careful with where they point it. With some people, no matter how many times they are told it just will not take. I would rather see an annual "life skills" class in every year of primary and high school, this class would have the necessary skills that everybody needs to survive. ie, how to balance a check book, what is interest, what is investing and savings, etc. And in this class twice a year I would want an age appropriate class on gun safety. Too many children get their training on gun handling from TV shows and movies. Getting actual valid safety skills twice a year might stand a better chance. This also then avoids the argument some will have on your suggestion that it's too similar to a poll tax. (ie, if you have to take a class to buy a gun then you should have to take a class before you vote).
I don't believe this would make any difference in how things work out but if the majority of people would vote for something like this then it could become law. Bump stocks are already a illegal item so that's covered ( ) but I don't agree with the extended magazine restriction personally.
Thank you
I believe what he is saying here is that a private owner cannot sell directly but must go thru a licensed retailer to sell the guns. Basically treating every gun sale as if it were an interstate gun sale. Not the first time I've heard this suggestion. I don't know for sure if it would catch on, but I dislike allowing the federal government to get involved in intra-state commerce.
WE actually have these laws, (most of them) in place in Washington State... The biggest problem with them is enforcement, as most of the county sheriff's have reported... WE need laws that CAN be enforced, AND, people willing to enforce them...
The gun problem will have a large chunk of it problem taken away if we ever get to this point... But we never will, they need a fear issue to sell the rest of their social paradigm to the citizens...
And rising murder rates serve that well... (even though they create the situation to cause the rates to rise with lack of enforcement)
So yeah it's not a large or non-rational idea that democrats want the murder rate to rise, gives them more justification for their fear fueled actions...
"tacit acceptance of our murderous gun culture."
Sounds like you're talking about the criminal element...it's not the average legal gun owners who are doing the shooting.
In tacit acceptance of our violent, criminal culture.
Here in our nation's capital, overall crime in D.C. is down, while violent crime is up. Homicides are up 1% over this time last year. Last year's murder rate was the highest in over 20 years.
Our city council has halted police hiring and abolished school resource officers since the police are the enemy. They have also barred police officers from reviewing body-cam footage before writing their reports, no need for more accurate reporting.
Currently, our council is considering an overhaul of the criminal code, to include a proposal to eliminate carjacking as a separate crime as well as reducing penalties for armed robbery and other crimes.
Armed robbery? or is it forcing the rich to pay more in direct taxes?
We are good with both here.
I guess the Supreme Court just told Massachusetts to shove their gun control law.
Maybe someday legislators will figure out what a right is.
I read the news today, oh boy
"Murders In U.S. Increased At Slower Pace In 2021"
And though the news was rather sad
The fact that it's so tolerated
By those who think it's not so bad
Well I just had to laugh
(With apologies to The Beatles)
LINK ->
You can thank many on the left for that crapola. Somehow it will be spun as a Biden success story.
My comment was made without considering party politics. So what you are saying is that if the Republicans are in control, America will have nowhere near the murder rate it has today? The proof will be in the pudding for that.
Great!
Did you actually read what I wrote? It sure doesn't seem possible.
What YOU stated was:
Since just about everyone on the right I know is for law and order, I doubt that they are very tolerant of that rate. Democrats appear to be fine with it based on their policies they put in place.
Guess I've forgotten what it's like to live where about half the population is almost at war with the other half, and even scarier is that so many have the tools to really make it happen. My life is just too damned peaceful, so I'm really not into taking sides.
Hyperbole noted.
From reading many of your posts, I would have never, ever guessed that about you.
You will have noted posts by me as to my agreeing with certain things Trump has done, and disagreeing with (most) others, and that I have posted a comment that I'm not so happy with Biden either, and I think I have been critical depending on issues whether they are left or right, examples of which are how I feel about those who don't respect their flag or anthem. On the other hand the SCOTUS decision to scrap Roe v Wade infuriates me. Some years ago a member we have not seen for a while, who was my first friend on NV and I considered my mentor when I was a social news site novice, produced here a diagram with facts and questions to determine where a member stood between left and right, and I was just a tiny bit left of centre. Not being an American and not living in America does make it simpler. But then you have certain loyalties, so you shouldn't then impose judgement on others who don't.