Browse By

Is Violence on the Rise or Fall in the United States? The Answer Depends on How Much You Squint.

Last week, a comment left here by Ella reacted to Peregrin Wood’s characterization of Radical Islamic Instant Internet Brainwashing Hypnowave stories as an unfounded social panic. Ella claimed that it is right to be afraid, since here in the United States we have become so much more violent over the years:

“Violence, for whatever reason, it becoming accepted as normal in the USA now? How many college students have been gunned down in the past 10 years? How many civilians that are not ever mentioned other than in local media? How many officers that are not mentioned in national media? How many students in the lower grades have come to live in fear because of the shootings and killings in schools in other towns? America is becoming more violent rapidly, but it took years for it to get this way.”

I responded briefly, without citing any sources of information, that this simply wasn’t true.

“America is NOT becoming more violent. It is far LESS violent than in the past, actually. What has soared is the mass media fascination with violence. The scare is all about how people perceive the world, not about the world as it actually is.”

And Ella responded:

“Violence, according to some, is escalating in at least some American cities, over a year ago.

Currently, people in America that have died since January 1, 2015 from: Mass shooting 43; Domestic violence 1102; Murder by gun 8674; Homicide 12,678; Suicide 29,825.”

At that point, I offered to share some broader data, which is why I’m writing this article.

Ella’s earlier quote notes that trends in crime are best observed over long periods, since any one year might be unusually calm or violent but over many years such spikes and dips tend to resolve into trends. It’s a good argument, similar to the call people make about observing climate over long periods of time rather than reacting in a panic to one day’s weather.

So let’s look over a long period of time. I’ve patched together data from the annual Uniform Crime Reports data release called Crime in the United States, specifically Table 1 (national trends from 1995-2014) and Table 8 (city crime rates for a particular year).

Here’s the trend nationally:

U.S. Violent Crime Rate and Murder Rate per 100,000 people, 1995-2014. Source: Crime in the United States Table 1


Quite clearly, without doubt, violent crime in general and murder in particular (both of which Ella mentions) are on a notable decline.

Ella raises the case of the possibility of particular rises in particular cities during the current year.  The New York Times article to which she refers cites Washington DC, New Orleans, St. Louis, Milwaukee and Baltimore as places where there may be spikes of violent crime and murder occurring compared to last year, 2014.  I can’t share crime statistics for 2015 for those cities because, well, 2015 isn’t done yet.  Besides, it usually takes criminologists about 9 months to tabulate all the data.  But even if the perception of crime spikes in these cities compared to 2014 is accurate, against what trend are those spikes occurring?  Against the trend of crime over the last 25 years.  Let’s look at those trends for the cities Ella refers to (except for St. Louis, which like a handful of other cities has not had its crime data reported consistently in the FBI’s Crime in the United States over the last 25 years):

Violent Crime Rate per 100,000 people in 4 cities, 1989-2014. Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports

Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter Rates in 4 Cities, 1989-2014. Source: Uniform Crime Reports from the FBI

For violent crime in general, all four cities but Milwaukee have been experiencing a decline in violent crime over the past 25 years.  For murder in particular, Washington and New Orleans have experienced sharp declines in recent years, while Baltimore and Milwaukee have experienced a very small declines.

What does this mean?  For the nation overall, there clearly has been a decline in reports of violent crime.  For three of the four of the cities Ella mentions, violent crime has also been on the decline.  For Milwaukee in particular, a spike in violent crime in 2015 would occur against a backdrop of previous rises in violent crime (although not in murder), and would be therefore particularly worrisome.  But for the other cities, a violent crime spike compared to 2014, unless staggeringly large, would still represent a decline compared to previous years.

America in general appears to be quite a bit safer than a generation ago.  However, if you look hard for particular examples, in particular places, at particular times, and perhaps squint a bit, ignoring the general trend and other particular cases, panic-sustaining fear may be maintained.  Be careful not to exercise this maneuver repeatedly, especially within an hour after eating: a painful brain cramp may follow.

27 thoughts on “Is Violence on the Rise or Fall in the United States? The Answer Depends on How Much You Squint.”

  1. Leroy says:

    If one notes activities in certain cities, one does see specific rises in violent crimes over a short-term cycle.

    Over the last couple of months, Cleveland (OH) for example, has been experiencing a sharp rise in gun violence. Most has been drive-by shootings (and appear gang territory related) and have NOTHING to do with the “radical Islamics”. Even this increase is only noted as compared to the last few years. Twenty years ago, thirty years ago, forty years ago were much more violent.

    As a retired (30 year) police officer, I can assure you that the 1970s and 1980s were specifically much more violent than today… to include especially gun violence (and still by far the years where many more police officers were killed / assaulted each year than today).

    As a logical human, I can access annual. FBI Crime Report statistics which show me the same thing. The time period where we had minimal Muslim presence in this country had MORE violent crime than today.

    The Law Enforcement community has dealt with severely violent organizations over these past 40-50 years. The Italian / Sicilian (Catholic) mafia. Drug cartels (Jamaican, Columbian, Mexican, etcetera – none Islamic). Street gangs which became national in scope (think Bloods, Crips, Vice Lords, etcetera – all non Islamic). Outlaw motorcycle gangs which went national to international (Hell’s Angels, Outlaws, Banditos, etcetera – none Islamic). International ethnic mafias (Russian, Bulgarian, etcetera – only one, Albanian, that is Islamic related and well down the “problem list”). Black nationalist groups (primarily of late 1960s and through the 1970s – and considerably small groups – and only two of which were home grown American native Afro-American Islamics). Anti government white nationalist oriented “militia groups” (in the late 1980s and through the 1990s, a MAJOR law enforcement concern… yet basically 100% white and 100% ultra fundamentalist Protestant).

    As to these mass shootings, the regular gun violence in a country of 320 (plus) MILLION people dwarfs that specific small slice of violent crime / gun violence in this country.

    And I don’t know for sure as I didn’t read the NYT article cited by “Ella” in her response, but I would strongly believe that the article was in regard to violent crime increases (in a few select cities) in general…. not by strictly “radical Islamics”. In fact, the media today – with its extensive and intensive presence – is (IMO) a part of WHY people today perceive that violent crime is highly increased. “Local” coverage stations (and Internet sites) now have a much, much larger geographical area than they did 20+ years ago. A local Cleveland TV station covered Cleveland and the immediate inner suburban metro area and reported violent crimes from and into that smaller area. Today it covers NE and North Central Ohio from Sandusky to Ashtabula and south to Akron, Canton, Mansfield, etcetera… and covers violent crimes in that whole area and reports them to that whole area.

    The other problem is (IMO) that of the “Christian” Right pushing an agenda to attach a “radical Islamic” tag to as many acts of violence as possible. In truth, major acts of violence (the example given of college / school shootings specifically) are very minimally committed by Muslims. Most are disgruntled, mental-problem white males who are non Islamic.

    (I would note in watching TV reports of the Oregon college shooting that the perpetrator was a lone white male – with no indicators of a radical Islamic involvement. I note that MOST media reports include comments from ONE – the same – student, not a victim or direct witness, who claims that the shooter was asking victims to stand up and asking them what their religion was and then shooting them if they said that they were Christian – which, even if true, doesn’t automatically mean that the shooter was Islamic, or Hindu or Jewish or ANY religion as he could have been atheist. The student (if the full tape is shown – which isn’t always the case – then ends with “from what I’ve been told”!!! I have tracked that comment back to only ONE other person: the – devout “Christian” grandmother of one of the victims who said that this was what her granddaughter victim survivor told her in a post shooting telephone call. Until I hear repeated corroborations of that shooter statement by multiple shooting survivors and DIRECT witnesses, I personally am going to assume that this is NOT true, but simply more rightwing claims, whether substantiated or not, of “Christian persecution”.)

  2. Leroy says:

    In more closely reading Ella’s comments (at the provided link on the other post), I think that she has America confused with northern Nigeria, northern Chad, the Sudan, and other locations where there are VERY LARGE populations of Islamics.

    Smouldering (Christian) towns? Slaughtered (Christian) civilians? Survivors returning to these scenes of butchery only because they could run fast enough?

    In America???

    Where SPECIFICALLY????

    In some of those other areas, yes, but NOT here. And in those areas the Christians respond (and often initiate) in kind. Slaughtering Muslim civilians, killing their women and children, burning their towns – all simply because they are Muslim.

    Just as Muslims and Hindus do against each other in the India – Pakistan – Kashmir region. Just as Jews and Muslims do in the Palestine area. Just as Sunnis and Shias (both Muslims) do in Syria, Iraq, etcetera, and fundamentalist Muslims and moderate Muslims do in Yemen, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, etcetera (and just as Protestants and Catholics did in North Ireland for decades not too long ago… or historically how the religious wars between Catholics and Protestants did against each other just a few hundred years ago which resulted in over FOUR MILLION dead).

    And as far as Communism, I don’t know where you (Ella) got your information (did you actually live through most of that era or maybe have selective memory???) – but it is totally FALSE!

    Look at our major conflicts since WW2.

    Korean War.

    Vietnam War.

    Both were against COMMUNIST aggression.

    Either one alone cost more American dead and wounded than ALL the radical Islamic attacks against the United States EVER…. and very easily.


    And how about coming right to the brink of nuclear war that would have caused hundreds of millions likely multiple billion) killed and collapsed civilization? Once during the Cuban Crisis (1962) and once during the Yom Kippur War (1973). Both times right to the brink of nuclear weapons launches. And yet Communism was never truly a danger (go tell my friends on the Vietnam War Memorial Wall that)???

    And then the direct minor conflicts that pointed specifically to the United’s States (and the West) versus Communism – like Grenada. And even more so, all the indirect conflicts where we would back one side while the Communists (Russia, China, Cuba mainly) would back the other side. The Congo. Angola. Rhodesia. South Africa. El Salvador. Nicaragua. Guatemala. Afghanistan (the 1979-89 Soviet-Afghan War where we significantly supported the radical Afghan Muslims fighting against the Soviet armies, moderate Afghan Muslims and Afghan communists…. yes, Ella, during that time we were ALLIES with radical Muslims like Osama bin Laden and those who later morphed into al Qaeda and ISIS – during the Reagan administration). Millions were killed. In fact if you count the scores of millions of their own people and each other and other people that Communist nations and groups have killed, the count would be well OVER 100 million people. More people easily than were killed in WW2 on ALL sides combined.

    And Communism was never really a threat like “radical Islamism” is? (Or still a potential threat… after all North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, and that very large country, uh, CHINA are not “radical Islamics” but still are Communist countries – with two of them, especially China, being certified nuclear powers).

    The fact is that it is most probable that radical Islam will NEVER be the threat that Communism was.

    Even today, the world’s greatest threat is the immense nuclear arsenal that exists (especially in those ADVANCED countries that have very advanced nuclear weapon delivery systems that are “intercontinental” – like those possessed by us and Russia and China and France and England and NOT those of Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea who do not have advanced INTERCONTINENTAL delivery systems).

    Nine current states / nations. One former Communist (now very highly nationalistic Russia). Three Western nations: United States, England, France. Two Communist nations: China, North Korea. Two “independent” nations: Israel, India. ONE Islamic country (and very radical though the United States has been their ally since the 1960s!): Pakistan.

    Why did that huge arsenal come into existence?

    An estimated 17,000 nuclear warheads, with 4,300 known to be IMMEDIATELY operational! Of course in 1968, at the height of that non-threatening Cold War there were 68,000 nuclear warheads – operationally active (had we gone to nuclear war in 1973 due to the Yom Kippur War going out of control, the result would have been devastating).

    Because of the Cold War (which wasn’t really that “cold” after all was it?) between Communism and the United States and The West!

    Give me a break!

    Ignorance in this Age of Information is so offensive as to be an abomination.

    1. ella says:

      I’ll repeat this real quick Leroy: “Smouldering (Christian) towns? Slaughtered (Christian) civilians? Survivors returning to these scenes of butchery only because they could run fast enough?” You are right, I did not clarify that I was speaking of Iraqi villages and towns. Also cities and towns in other Middle Eastern nations that have been violently overthrown by Islamic conversion invasion – jihad.

      1. Jim Cook says:

        But in the portions of your comment I cite you are clearly talking about the U.S.

  3. Leroy says:

    What Jim said.

    Your initial premise was that violent crime was rising significantly in the United States. As compared to over the years and years ago.

    It is not. In fact, it is going DOWN significantly.

    Then you based that (fictitious) rise on – to a significant sense – “radical Islamics” (and at that point you are talking about HERE, the USA, not worldwide). When in fact there is almost NO violent crime by “radical Islamics” in the United States.

    So as you (in YOUR mind) slide smoothly into talking about hundreds of smouldering, ruined towns, thousands of killed civilians (and specifically Christian), etcetera, ANY reader would have assumed – as you never specified otherwise – that you are still talking USA… especially as that was the thrust of your opening agenda, about the “rise of violent crime in the United States”.

    But what really bites your “explanation” in a tender area is that when you say (now) that you meant to be referring to Iraq and Syria, then how do you connect your statements about all of these massive Christian victims (the Christian Persecution card) WHEN CHRISTIANS ARE A VERY SLIM FRACTION OF THOSE BEING VICTIMIZED???

    The vast, vast majority of victims in these “crimes” (actually acts of war, but illegal so they would be war crimes… but we also did those war crimes against Iraqi, Afghan, Pakistani, etcetera civilians only at a MUCH higher proportion) are other Muslims. Sunni Muslims against Shia Muslims, Sunni Muslims against Kurdish Muslims, Shia Muslims against Sunni Muslims, Turkish Muslims against Syrian Muslims, Turkish Muslims versus Syrian Muslims, Iraqi Muslims versus other Iraqi Muslims, Syrian Muslims against other Syrian Muslims, fundamentalist fanatical Muslims versus moderately secular Muslims, and politically fundamentalist Muslims versus politically moderate Muslims.

    What is THE key words that jumps out at you as far as who 95% of the victims are (no matter which side)?


    95% of the victims are other Muslims, NOT any type of Christian.

    Have there been Christian victims? Yes.

    Have Christian ethnic groups at times retaliated in a similar fashion (or likewise even initiated their own attacks)? Yes.

    But at least 95% of the victims have been Muslim (there’s NOT a lot of Christians living in those areas, or did you not grasp that?).

    And as to Muslim populations, you do the same thing. After complaining about Muslim populations soaring in this country, you then jump statistically to Europe (most Muslims were inserted into Europe over decades as these immigrants were Europe’s form of MIGRANT WORKERS (who did the very manual, low paying jobs that Europeans didn’t want to do). So citing Europe’s Muslim population (and trying to make an American “some day” comparison) is totally unfair.

    How many immigrant Hispanics are in the United States?

    How many Hispanic immigrants are in the United States (and PLEASE… don’t quote Spain’s population, the population of Spain is European Spanish, and NOT Hispanic)?


    Muslims are (to a very, very strong degree) Europe’s Hispanic lower class workers (as immigrant Hispanics are likewise, to a strong degree, our Muslim “guest workers” – as they used to be referred to in then West Germany).

    BTW, in the United States, 17.1% of the population is Hispanic or Latino (mostly by far citizens or legal immigrants), 13.2% are African-American.

    What percentage are (regardless of Race or ethnicity) Muslim – of any type?

    15%? 10% 5%

    How about LESS THAN ONE PERCENT!!!!

    That is 0.6% or 6/10th of 1%!!!

    There are more Buddhists in this country than there are Muslims (0.7%).

    There are almost as many Hindus in this country (0.4%) as there are Muslims (and Hindus, due most specifically to a drastically rising Sikh population, is the FASTEST growing compared to Muslims or Buddhists).

    Buddhists and Hindus together are almost twice the population as that of Muslims (1.1% versus 0.6%).

    And Jews (who MAY at one time been “Jehovah’s Chosen People – at least until they lost that designation, but in any case are NOT Christian) make up 1.7% of the American population! Almost three TIMES as many as are Muslim.

    So quote accurate figures and compare apples to apples (and not apples to oranges).

    Also… at least define Jihad as it applies to the Islam religion correctly.

    As per the recognized Islamic Supreme Council of America:

    You can blather on with more replies that “explain away” things in a most fictitious manner, but personally, I would rather you just said “thank you”, and went on your way (to partially quote “Colonel Jessup”).

    1. ella says:

      It has been a little while and I have been watching the ‘violence’ some articles that come across my email. One that stands out is in Los Angles, where, after researching their files, have found that there was a 23% increase (over what has been reported) in violent crimes there this year.
      There has been more violence than I had imagined, as I usually don’t read that sort of news, just browse the headlines.

      One of the points of difference between the Muslim teachings and Christian teaching is, of course, that Jesus was a Prophet only. That he could not be God, as some teach. Some years after His Crucifixion, he dictated a series of letters to John, His disciple. In Revelation 4:14 that he is “…the beginning of the creation of God.” And that was the Word.

      Today there are things being taught that were added hundreds of years later by individuals. They are not any part of the Bible or included in it, in any prior editions. The “Rapture” is one such fallacy. When young people and sometimes older people, find out that they have been lied to by people who are supposed to be respected teachers, they lose faith instead of going back to learn the truth. That also makes it much easier for someone of another faith to lure them into another religion. That it comes with killing people who never believed the lies to begin with is not a matter for thought, to them. This is causing a ‘separation of church and people’ in this country today.

  4. Leroy says:


    There’s a lot of links over here to the TRUTH about what’s going on with crime rates, specifically Crimes of Violence.

    You have to remember that an upswing (likely temporary) in some place like Los Angeles (which doesn’t have one of the higher crime rates to start with… the violent crime rate in Milne’s Camden, NJ is SEVERAL TIMES higher than that of LA), but it IS NOT indicative of what is going on in the United States – or even in California.

    This is an article from a right-wing wingnut online “newspaper” (that has been caught several times exaggerating, misinterpreting data, and plain lying in their reporting by several fact-checker organizations):

    “Sudden Spike in Violent Crime Across US Raises Alarm”

    Now compare that with ALL the information in the links shown at the top of my Reply.

    See the difference?

    As to your confusion, you yourself pointed to a major problem that you have in understanding these things (if you look closely at your post).

    1. ella says:

      Yes, it is important to remember that crime rates rise and fall over long periods of time. I guess what I am looking at is that misrepresentation in one given major population area, might be reflected in another area of large population. As in LA:

      “LAPD underreported serious assaults, skewing crime rate for 8 years

      Los Angeles Times | October 15, 2015 | 5:01 AM
      The Los Angeles Police Department misclassified an estimated 14,000 serious assaults as minor offenses in a recent eight-year period, artificially lowering the city’s crime levels, a Times analysis found.
      With the incidents counted correctly, violent crime in the city was 7% higher than the LAPD reported in the period from 2005 to fall 2012, and the number of serious assaults was 16% higher, the analysis found. When presented with the findings, top LAPD officials acknowledged the department makes errors and said they were working to improve the accuracy of crime data reporting.

      Not necessarily because of ‘radical Islam’, but as a reflex action, by those with the tendency, within the population to mimic or in some other way demonstrate that violent nature. And are the major population areas in general doing the same thing, understating their violent crime, in order to look better? Taking a closer look at rural and sub-urban areas in that same light, I believe will reflect another disturbing trend. That law enforcement is avoiding a lot of ‘lesser’ crimes of violence, only becoming involved when they have no choice. Worse, taking measures to see that ‘citizen victims’ do not report these ‘lesser crimes’ be being negative in person response. This is generating a general distrust and dislike of law enforcement. It may be leading to the uptick in ‘crime against cops’. Not necessarily killing cops.

      1. Jim Cook says:

        Ella, you do hit on an important point here. Philadelphia and NYC police departments have been caught manipulating their crime statistics too. This is an institutional problem. However, declines have been seen in victim reports to the National Crime Victimization Survey, too, an indication that some real decline is going on.

        1. ella says:

          It may be that a real reduction in violent crime is happening. Or it may be that people, for one reason or another, have begun to be more afraid to report the crimes than to bend to the reason for the violent crime. Not murder,lets hope, but forcible theft, rape, beatings, things of that nature. Of course I have heard Chicago, or the surrounding areas, are becoming more violent in the murder category. Another thing that makes crime seem worse, or maybe increases it, are Federal election cycles. Sounds strange, I know, but consider the fear factor. During major national elections, in the past anyway, campaigns have played on the fears of the voters. In theory, if they create an irrational fear then tell the voters they can solve the problem, the voters will flock to them. I am noticing a difference in the campaign strategies of a few candidates this time. Frankly, I admire Trump for trying to encourage the American people to have some self respect and pride in their nation again. And with Sanders, he rejects mud slinging to speak of his own principles and ideas, what he wants to see done. Two admirable candidates – to me. It might be interesting to see if there is an uptick in crime the year of and the year before major elections of the past.

          1. Leroy says:

            Ella… You are right back to proving my point.

            You “have heard”? Have you read that? Have you gone to multiple UNBIASED sources to corroborate that “information”… or is simply “hearing that” good enough for you? And, if so, is it a temporary upward blip? Or part of a long-term pattern.

            And what would people GAIN from not reporting crimes? Possibly one might not report a crime if they absolutely knew who did it and were afraid of retaliation… but in 99%% of crimes people don’t have a clue as to who did it.

            And who could engineer such a conspiracy? The crime reports come from local, county, regional, state and federal law enforcement agencies. With over 90% off those coming from local and county agencies (mainly from local agencies). And there are thousands and thousands of such agencies. So some unknown group (the ZOG / Mossad according to RWM) is supposed to have agents throughout all of these law enforcement agencies and are forcing them to force their citizens to NOT report crimes?

            And the thing is, MOST Americans never suffer from being a victim of a crime! If you live in a county that has combined crime rate of 730… that means that out of 100,000 people there were 730 crimes (that’s how crimes rates are calculated for comparison purposes – per 100,000 population). Also, multiple crimes are OFTEN counted for one incident. Someone kidnaps, rapes, and murders a person. That is ONE incident of crime (with ONE victim)… but goes into the Crime Reports as THREE CRIMES (at least – it could even be more… for example if the perpetrator broke into the victim’s house and used a gun in committing the crime, now you are up to FIVE reported crimes… all in one incident). Again, MOST Americans aren’t ever victimized by crimes – and of those who are, most (by far) are victims of Property Crimes!

            And I cannot imagine how not reporting crimes (so you would have a fake low crime rate) would create a scare tactic. A true scare tactic would be to do just the opposite. If you had a REAL, for true, high crime rate OR if you could somehow manipulate the statistics to read higher (which is already done to a large extent as was described above), then that fictional HIGH crime rate would be a scare tactic, but it is simply not something that can be done nationally to affect the actual crime rate (the FBI Crime Report is a huge book that is put out every year – not just some summary – and it lists EVERY agency, which is required to file their agency’s reports, and what their reporting was; it then adds up county totals, state totals, etcetera).

            Frankly I am very disappointed that you can have ANY admiration for Trump, much less as much as you do for Sanders. I have seen nothing but mudslinging and disrespect from Trump (especially when it comes to minorities and women) and nothing from him (zero) where he indicates bringing pride back to this country. In fact, just the opposite.

            Unfortunately because you have such a haphazard way of mining “news data” (even if it really is just someone’s opinion – or outright lies) and then failing to corroborate it and then equally haphazard methods of processing, I don’t think that you can develop a truly defined stance on… whatever.

            I mean, come on, Trump and Sanders are exact OPPOSITES!

          2. ella says:

            Trump and Sanders are exact opposites – yes they are. That is why they represent their respective Party’s so well. Of course it is difficult to know if either of them actually has an idea what they would do concerning foreign policy. Other than Trump has stated he will utilize the national trade system. A good idea, but it does little for what to do if Iran decides to start bombing Israel. However, he has enough sense to strongly counsel with his military leaders, and other who can advise him. He knows the Congressional leaders and many other Congressmen individually, so he will not lack advice. He is apologetically outspoken about how he feels about America being great again, and although he has better sense than to say so, I will, America has fallen off a log and the world is in greater disarray because of it. Just take a good look at how many terrorist attacks have occurred in the past year – over 13,000 world wide in 2014 – no small uptick from 2006! There is obvioiusly a cause behind the happening. But I am going to read a rather lengthy study on the subject as follows:

            Sanders has a basic view that he is very serious about, he is Socialist with a great deal of legislative experience. He is also of an age to have seen and experienced enough to know how to view issues of importance. But he too will need a great deal of counseling due to his strong Socialistic views. But that is the backbone and history of the Democrat Party, which has been gravitating in public rhetoric toward the Republican view, but not in practice. It is time for them to stand for what they are and quit dithering. We don’t need to become a Russian satellite to gradually alter politically and economically. Better gradually, don’t you think?

            But back to crime. Granted the majority is property crime, but that in intimidating people as well. When someone else can cross your property, steal something from you, and walk away saying there is nothing you can do about it, please tell me where is the law? When did it stop protecting the property owners? Many times the owner knows exactly who ‘did it’, but because a photograph or video of the crime taking place is required, the person quite literally can do as they please without consequence. A victims word is worthless today, at least in such minor circumstances. But you say that few in the general population are subjected to violent crime. One would hope so. Crimes have moved into ‘better’ neighborhoods today – the pickings are richer. Businesses – large businesses – are protecting themselves with crime prevention measures, or going solo on the Internet. That has dropped crimes rates. What does it say about the population though? That more are willing to be involved in crime – mostly on a lower level. It could be said that is because of the increase in population, or it could be said that more of the ‘forgotten’, no job, of no consequence, people are desperate enough to. Granted I am opinionated, but not without basis.

          3. Leroy says:

            “But he too will need a great deal of counseling due to his strong Socialistic views. But that is the backbone and history of the Democrat Party, which has been gravitating in public rhetoric toward the Republican view, but not in practice.”

            No, the whole reason that Sanders would get the nomination (and possibly win the election) is because he IS a Socially (a believer in the Socialist Democracy form of government and governing as gets practiced by so many First World countries around the world that are WAY ahead of us today). His supporters do NOT want him “counseled” into the mainstream Democrat mode.

            And you have it backwards. Too many Democrats talk up a Liberal, even a Progressive agenda – but then their ACTIONS show too often a leaning towards “accommodation” with the Republicans. Definitely not what you stated!

            As to Iran bombing Israel, why is that OUR problem? Israel has several HUNDRED nuclear weapons (bombs and missile warheads) and can wipe Iran (and everyone around them) off the map if ever truly threatened. And Iran knows that.

            Pakistan has had nuclear weapons for years. They now have probably 40-50 nukes. Why haven’t they attacked their bitter enemy India? Or – seeing as how Pakistan is fanatically Muslim – attacked Israel? Why? Because both India and Israel also have nukes (Israel has a LOT – probably as many as Communist China).

            As to crime, that horse has long since been beat to death… except that you don’t get it! The crime rate (total, crimes of violence, property crimes) has been steadily going DOWN for years. No, for decades. But you just cannot acc that statistics don’t lie. Apparently Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or some other Rightwing Wingnut at some point spread the LIE that crime is increasing, so to you that’s the Truth (an article that mentions a temporary rise in crime in 3 or 4 cities only is NOT reflective of the whole country… while the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report manuals – which EVERY law enforcement agency reports to as far as the crimes in their jurisdiction – shows a consistent downward slide in the crime rate.

            As I stated before, there are a LOT of links as to the TRUTH of the dropping crime rate at:


          4. ella says:

            One point of Hillary’s plan for the economy that sounds so much like the same point given by the Republicans, on the campaign trial and in Congress: (Not talking about the second place candidate, but Democrat economic policy. Remember, Sanders was considered an odd-ball, not quite an outsider, with little or no chance.)
            “The first step is to boost the economy. How? Give tax cuts to the middle class and small businesses,…”

      2. Leroy says:


        Here is the point that I was HOPING that you’d find:

        “There has been more violence than I had imagined, as I usually don’t read that sort of news, just browse the headlines… ”

        And THAT is a major problem throughout America.

        The failure to READ.

        We just want to scan headlines and summaries. We want our “news” and “facts”.in 30-second sound bytes. And even then we tend to gravitate to ONLY those “news” and “facts” sources that fulfill our own personal beliefs. We almost never read an English-language foreign newspaper or online news source. We pretty much NEVER go to a fact-finder site to check the veracity of questionable / suspicious / illogical “statements” and comments. We do NOT differentiated between OPINION and FACT (especially if the opinion fits the mold of our PERSONAL bias and the fact demolishes that bias).

        By “we”, I mean MOST – but not all – Americans (and FACTS have shown that to be more likely a problem with the rightwing as compared to the leftwing – though the later has that problem also).

        There’s a lot of reasons for that phenomena. Two big ones are (a) human nature and (b) advanced technology (fairly uncontrolled 24/7 television and Internet literally overwhelming one with incoming “data” – a LOT simply not true, reported out of context, exaggerated, etcetera; which (greatly) increases the need proportionately for corroboration and verification.

        1. ella says:

          Leroy, you are right, I missed that point. The Internet used to be the go to place for the clear picture. Now there is a lot of misinformation being slathered all over this ‘hallowed’ ground as well. True headlines are, I’ve found out, often very misleading in content. That should not be allowed and certainly not good journalism. I watch RT sometimes. They only rarely concern themselves with such things as legal problems in the US. Baltimore and Ferguson being two exceptions. It would be difficult to find any one source that could provide an accurate picture of the ‘way things are’ over the whole country. Since I no longer get out and about, as such, there are only a few avenues left open. A tightly controlled society will eventually come out of its’ corner though. Odd, some complain that we befriended Cuba even though they continue in their ways of tight control over the population, and it is maintaining. But they never had a free society as we have. We were able to live in relative peace and freedom, to feel safe walking down most streets or roads, and in our own homes. Would you describe it that way in 2015, or in the previous 25 years or so?

  5. Leroy says:

    It would probably be impossible to find a SINGLE source that could provide the straight scoop on the way things are. And even if you were out and about constantly every day, there’s NO way that you would be able to keep track with what is going on in the country. You would – at best – know what’s happening in YOUR little corner (which may or may not reflect the majority of America – or possibly very little off the true America). Forget 95% of TV news media. It has to live off of 30-second sound bytes and on controversial and fearful news stories. The Internet “can” be a monster… but it also can be a savior once you find news sites that you can trust with a fairly good consistency.

    And actually Cuba – over the last few years – has opened up.considerably. And with us dropping sanctions and trade embargoes and begin re-establishing diplomatic ties and allowing business activity, Cuba will open up drastically. It has happened in every country that we embargoed who we then open ties back up with.

    And actually, we are able to live in peace and freedom as much today as at anytime in the last 25 years (with one exception). Crime rates are down from where they were 25 years ago. Violent crimes are significantly down. I look out the window and see people jogging by, walking by, kids playing. My wife and I go for walks and bike rides through the various neighborhoods and shop at various malls with no concerns. We visit regional / state parks and all is well. The only thing we are real careful with is getting back in before it gets completely dark… not because of crime concerns, but because of a growing skunk population in the warm weather.

    Now if I sat back and listened to Fox and Rush and Glenn, etcetera, well I probably would be too afraid to ever leave the house because of the MASSIVE amount of crime “out there” (which is all one Big Fat Lie).

  6. ella says:

    Point two:

    “The third step is to support long-term economic growth. Hillary would combat “quarterly capitalism” by raising short-term capital gains taxes for those earning $400,000 or more a year, the top 0.5% of taxpayers.”

    Did you know that people earning $400,000 a year are among the top .05% of the American population? What “top” percentage are millionaires? Billionaires? Must be an eentsy weensy percentage of a percentage. And is “quarterly capitalism” (to show she is socialist, not capitalist) the same thing as “quarterly gains”?

  7. Leroy says:

    That 0.5% quote (that those earning $400,000 or more a year make up 0.5% of taxpayers) is not a quote from Hillary, but a quote from the “U. S. Economy” publication.

    Plus you are confusing percentage of taxpayers (their criteria) with percentage of population (your criteria). Nowhere near all of the population are taxpayers (children for example, spouses / partners who don’t work, people on disability, etcetera). So 0.5% of taxpayers is a LOT different than 0.5% of the population.

    “A quarterly report prepared by the Economist Intelligence Unit on behalf of Barclays Wealth in 2008 estimated that there were 16.6 million millionaires in the USA… ”

    Since there are roughly 320 million Americans, this figure would mean that about FIVE (5) percent of the population are millionaires.

    And that figure is obviously higher today as that 16.6 million figure was based on 6.7 million households. And as of 2013 there are now 9.6 million households that are millionaires.

    The Washington Post has the total number slightly lower, but specifies that it works out to 5% of the ADULT population.

    Yahoo Finance (in 2014) reported that those worth $1 million or more own more wealth than the lower 92% of Americans! Now THAT is what you call Income Inequality!

    But, in any case, the statement that people earning $400,000 a year are 0.5% of taxpayers is a HUGE understatement! Maybe a misprint… probably more like 12.5% or 14.5% or something like that.

    Figures on billionaires are not as quickly available. However, worldwide the richest 1% of people owned more (much more) that the lower half combined.

  8. Leroy says:

    Actually, having found the list k, the top 1% of the world’s wealthiest people control 48% of the wealth of the entire world!

    “If trends continue, Oxfam predicts that the most-affluent will possess more wealth than the remaining 99 percent by 2016, The New York Times reported.

    Drill down the numbers even more and you’ll learn that (just) the 80 wealthiest people in the world possess $1.9 trillion, which is almost the same amount shared by some 3.5 billion people at the bottom half of the world’s income scale.

    Thirty-five of the lucky 80 were Americans with a combined wealth of $941 billion. Germany and Russia shared second place, with seven uber-rich individuals apiece.”

  9. Leroy says:
    1. Jim Cook says:

      Very good site indeed.

      1. Leroy says:

        Of course Ella says that Donald and Bernie have the same exact position on the Inequality issue, so both deserve our equal consideration.

        (Eye roll)

  10. Leroy says:

    And how this got twisted from Violence in the United States to talking (out of the blue) about Hillary’s economic policies (as first posted back on October 24th – Ella) is beyond me….

  11. Leroy says:

    And as far as the first point:

    “One point of Hillary’s plan for the economy that sounds so much like the same point given by the Republicans, on the campaign trial and in Congress… ”

    Republican presidential and Congressional candidates PRIMARILY talk about tax cuts and tax breaks to Big Business, major corporations, and the ultra wealthy. A few of them may occasionally speak about those tax breaks to include the Middle Class and small businesses, their track record consistently shows that the GOP’s intended recipients for major tax breaks are the ultra wealthy and general wealthy.

    Hillary’s position on the economy isn’t as far to the highly liberal / Progressive side as Bernie is, but her approach is as different as night and day from ANY of the Republican candidates!

    Comparing them as similar is shepherd ignorance.

  12. Leroy says:

    Possibly there should be a reporting category as to violent crimes (to include suspicious unethical incidents as local authorities so rarely hold officers accountable) committed by police officers:

  13. ella says:

    It is time to refresh this topic for the end of the calendar year 2015. As even more news of mass a shooting is being developed, the news has become a tiresome subject. As of Oct. 1, 2015 there had been 294 mass shooting in the United States. How many more since then?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!