US murder rate hits lowest level since 1900, report says

Always in His Presence · Friday at 10:59 AM

US murder rate hits lowest level since 1900, report says

Murders fell 21% last year in 35 large U.S. cities — the biggest one-year drop ever and likely the lowest rate since 1900, Axios-reviewed data shows.

Watch the left say it isn't the emphasis of law enforcement from the Trump administration -

camille70 · Friday at 11:22 AM

Always in His Presence said:
US murder rate hits lowest level since 1900, report says

Watch the left say it isn't the emphasis of law enforcement from the Trump administration -

Your own article brings up that possibility.

Say it aint so · Friday at 11:27 AM

In totality:

iluvatar5150 · Friday at 11:32 AM

Always in His Presence said:
US murder rate hits lowest level since 1900, report says

Murders fell 21% last year in 35 large U.S. cities — the biggest one-year drop ever and likely the lowest rate since 1900, Axios-reviewed data shows.

Watch the left say it isn't the emphasis of law enforcement from the Trump administration -

Why do we have to "watch the left" when your own article says this:

violent crime was already falling to a two-decade low in Biden's final year, calling into question whether Trump's policies have made an impact.

Here in Baltimore, murder numbers started plummeting in 2023:

Crime in Baltimore - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Similar trends in DC:

Crime in Washington, D.C. - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and nationally:

Crime in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, what's the theory here? How did Trump stop murders in 2023? Did he borrow Obama's time machine? Did he use his breaks between tweeting from Mar-a-Lago to go out and play Batman?

MarkSB · Friday at 11:37 AM

I love how every trend has to be a direct result of the actions of the president or a certain political party. Even though its been shown time and time again that things like this depend heavily on economic conditions and other societal factors.

Palmfever · Friday at 11:39 AM

True, it is down, yet it is accepted and agreed with in one demographic.

‘Assassination culture’ is on the rise, especially among women, study warns

New survey reveals women are 15% more likely to tolerate political violence, with heavy social media use driving concerning "assassination culture" trends.

www.wrganews.com

GoldenBoy89 · Friday at 2:02 PM

Sounds like good news. Not sure why this needs to be politicized.

iluvatar5150 · Friday at 3:09 PM

GoldenBoy89 said:
Sounds like good news. Not sure why this needs to be politicized.

Some folks feel the need to uncritically credit Trump with everything good that correlates to his time in office.

Boomboomchucka · Friday at 4:03 PM

By nature, Liberal interpreters twist whatever data whatever source text and turn the author into a puppet for their special interest (eisegesis). Undoubtedly, Liberals benefit the Democrat narrative.
US-Dem? Let me now use the "ignore" feature. Personally, I believe crime would plummet if the hypocrites on the Left would forfeit their own Constitutional "rights". No arguments here.

Boomboomchucka · Friday at 5:19 PM

Boomboomchucka said:
Liberal/Dems don't want to be "American" they want to redefine "America". Their interpretation of the Constitution bears no resemblance to the original intent of the authors. For example, the 1st amendment has been reinterpreted to include pornography (porneia) and to umbrella religion, under which is the right to practice witchcraft, sorcery, satanism, etc., the way I see it if they had no constitutional rights to abuse, they'd be less likely to deceive themselves and others in the crimes committed or infringe upon the actual rights conveyed by our forefathers. In a way I'm grateful our system has checks and balances, while not infallible the system does "slow" the process of depravity. Our forefathers knew well that man is depraved (2/3rds of the soldiers that died on the battlefield of the Revolutionary War were Calvinist in theology) and implemented checks and balances under the conviction that man himself and anything he touches becomes corruptible.
While this is my conviction, I understand G-d raises up wicked leaders so the wicked will be damned in their unrighteousness. Saw a Somali sentenced today on X and he asked to be deported rather than sentenced to prison, his request was denied and he was sentenced to 30yrs in state prison and then to be deported after time served. Who were they following in the crimes committed? Of course, they haven't yet faced any accountability or responsibility except potential votes in the next election.
To the Liberal the 1st Amendment includes the right to blaspheme, bear false witness, to lie, to gossip, etc., and that's because they "interpret" the 1st amendment as "Freedom" of the depraved nature of man to express himself. I'll stop my rant here because this leads me to why I don't believe in the "10 commandments" in the secular court system. The notion that capital punishment could occur w/out the same consequence for anyone that bears false witness for capital crimes is too risky. In other words, somebody makes the allegation that person A committed treason and lied. If found innocent than that person that lied should face the death penalty.

A lot of the issues today would have been avoided. Our forefathers had laws that 1) required property ownership to vote and 2) only citizens could own property. Let's just say that the founding fathers understood who and who doesn't have an invested interest in this country. Before I die I'd like to see these laws returned the requirement as well to have served in the military to be "Commander and Chief". Trump call himself a "moderate" and says this country hasn't seen anybody from the "far right" yet. I agree w/ Trump.

Desk trauma · Friday at 5:36 PM

Boomboomchucka said:
A lot of the issues today would have been avoided. Our forefathers had laws that 1) required property ownership to vote and 2) only citizens could own property. Let's just say that the founding fathers understood who and who doesn't have an invested interest in this country.

They could have also clearly written the things you wanted, no religious rights for non-Christians no offensive speech, etc, if that was their intent.

Before I die I 'd like to see these laws returned the requirement as well to have served in the military to be "Commander and Chief". Trump call himself a "moderate" and says this country hasn't seen anybody from the "far right" yet. I agree w/ Trump.

That would have made Trump ineligible for the office.

Boomboomchucka · Friday at 5:41 PM

Desk trauma said:
They could have also clearly written the things you wanted, no religious rights for non-Christians no offensive speech, etc, if that was their intent.

That would have made Trump ineligible for the office.

Yes, they could have defined religion, but could they have defined it in such a future way as now? Consider the historical context, beliefs, and convictions of "the people" as well their representatives. Did the representatives at the time disregard the belief of the peoples?
One thing is clear, man has the faculties or "potential" to be an image bearer of G-d, but the natural man uses his faculties to become more cunning than any beast of the field. Is there anything worse than somebody that twists what is plainly stated to justify animalistic behavior? My point is, how clearly could G-d have been? Do not eat of.....

And yes, that would have made Trump ineligible. I'm for mandatory service like Israel and S. Korea, two years, I'd vote for it (no exemptions).

Pommer · Friday at 6:02 PM

Boomboomchucka said:
Before I die I'd like to see these laws returned the requirement as well to have served in the military to be "Commander and Chief".

Please for to inform us when this was a “requirement”, thank you and welcome to CF & forum 909!

Boomboomchucka · Friday at 6:13 PM

Pommer said:
Please for to inform us when this was a “requirement”, thank you and welcome to CF & forum 909!

Thank you for the welcome @Pommer, and here's 1 reference: Voting Rights and Restrictions in Pre-Emancipation America | Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
Other references require "inference" from laws passed by states which essentially had taken away voting rights from anybody that didn't own property, at times the historical narrative about said laws seemingly were aimed at minority groups to either eliminate the possibility of their naturalization or keep them from voting. Of course, today a simple ID requirement could be the compromise to help ensure voter integrity. In the meanwhile, the right should push for the restoration of said old laws. Every time the Right compromises... it is like the vice in between two extremes. On one hand unbelief, and on the other belief in G-d. Is it a virtue to compromise and take a step back or turn away from G-d? Of course, the context means everything.
Today, at least as far as I am aware slaves of the state (prisoners) cannot vote. Merely, suggesting that not everybody is "entitled to vote, and in the case of slaves of the state that law pertains to anybody of any race, color, etc. And another point is that the right to vote can be revoked. Same applies for the 1st and 2nd amendments etc.

Enjoy

Pommer · Friday at 6:19 PM

Boomboomchucka said:
Thank you for the welcome @Pommer, and here's 1 reference: Voting Rights and Restrictions in Pre-Emancipation America | Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
Other references require "inference" from laws passed by states which essentially had taken away voting rights from anybody that didn't own property, at times the historical narrative about said laws seemingly were aimed at minority groups to either eliminate the possibility of their naturalization or keep them from voting. Of course, today a simple ID requirement could be the compromise to help ensure voter integrity. In the meanwhile, the right should push for the restoration of said old laws. Every time the Right compromises... it is like the vice in between two extremes. On one hand unbelief, and on the other belief in G-d. Is it a virtue to compromise and take a step back or turn away from G-d? Of course, the context means everything.
Today, at least as far as I am aware slaves of the state (prisoners) cannot vote. Merely, suggesting that not everybody is "entitled to vote, and in the case of slaves of the state that law pertains to anybody of any race, color, etc. And another point is that the right to vote can be revoked. Same applies for the 1st and 2nd amendments etc.

Enjoy

I didn’t see where this essay asserted that the commander-in-chief was required to have “served”.

Boomboomchucka · Friday at 6:26 PM

Pommer said:
I didn’t see where this essay asserted that the commander-in-chief was required to have “served”.

That's not what I referenced (property ownership). That's something I'd like to see rather than the qualifications for President/Commander and Chief. Obviously, such was favorable in the history of America. Certainly, the number of Presidents that served are listed in contrast to the Presidents that never served in the military.

BPPLEE · Friday at 6:32 PM

This thread has taken a strange twist

Boomboomchucka · Friday at 6:37 PM

BPPLEE said:
This thread has taken a strange twist

I hope well w/in the topic, some credit Trump or his political party for the lower murder rate. As to why some believe the reestablishment of law and order and reinforcing both legal prosecution and enforcement are the cause. If I derailed the thread by suggesting the issues today could have been avoided by said citizenship and voting requirements implying that this could have occurred sooner than later, then I apologize.

BPPLEE · Friday at 6:39 PM

Boomboomchucka said:
I hope well w/in the topic, some credit Trump or his political party for the lower murder rate. As to why some believe the reestablishment of law and order and reinforcing both legal prosecution and enforcement are the cause. If I derailed the thread by suggesting the issues today could have been avoided by said citizenship and voting requirements implying that this could have occurred sooner than later, then I apologize.

No need to apologize friend

Desk trauma · Friday at 6:39 PM

Boomboomchucka said:
Yes, they could have defined religion, but could they have defined it in such a future way as now?

If their intent was as narrow as you contend they would have to define it in great detail. That they did not narrowly define first amendment rights as only apply to Christians and excluding blasphemous speech I don't see the basis for you claim that it was their intent to do so.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

US murder rate hits lowest level since 1900, report says

Jesus is the only Way