Skip to comments.
2002 Crime Rate Lowest Since Records Kept
Fox News ^
| 8/24/03
| Associated Press
Posted on 08/24/2003 7:43:21 AM PDT by jacket
WASHINGTON Violent and property crimes dipped in 2002 to their lowest levels since records started being compiled 30 years ago, and have dropped more than 50 percent in the last decade, the Justice Department reported Sunday.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 next last
Hmmmmm... Interesting isn't it? Crime went down on Bush's watch. I wonder if the libs will suck it up and give credit where credit is due.
1
posted on
08/24/2003 7:43:21 AM PDT
by
jacket
To: jacket
We now have more guns being carried legally than anytime in our history. The armed and legal citizen is the first stop against crime.
2
posted on
08/24/2003 7:48:20 AM PDT
by
cpdiii
(RPH, Oil field Trash and proud of it)
To: jacket
I wonder if the libs will suck it up and give credit where credit is due.Never. It will be credited to Clinton's 100,000 'ficticious' new COPS or maybe it was 'Midnight basketball'!!
3
posted on
08/24/2003 7:52:48 AM PDT
by
jgoode
To: jacket
Some criminologists think tougher prison sentences and more prisons are key factors, because they take more criminals off the streets longer. Ya think?
Men are more likely to be crime victims than women, blacks more likely than whites or Hispanics and people below age 24 more than those who are older.
The same could be said for the perps, as well. But that would be politically incorrect.
To: jacket
Go Bush!
5
posted on
08/24/2003 7:54:50 AM PDT
by
xrp
To: jacket
Unexpected consequences of everyone carrying a cell phone?
6
posted on
08/24/2003 7:56:14 AM PDT
by
Imagine
( A)
To: jacket
Crime went down on Bush's watch. I wonder if the libs will suck it up and give credit where credit is due. Riiight.
" It's the result of policies instituted by Clinton"
7
posted on
08/24/2003 7:59:58 AM PDT
by
Vinnie
To: jacket
Crime went down on Bush's watch. The vast majority of crime is dealt with at the State level.
8
posted on
08/24/2003 8:01:51 AM PDT
by
templar
To: Vinnie
" It's the result of policies instituted by Clinton"Would that be the policy of pardoning terrorists?
9
posted on
08/24/2003 8:02:37 AM PDT
by
jwalsh07
To: zip
PING
10
posted on
08/24/2003 8:04:47 AM PDT
by
BOBWADE
To: jwalsh07
It's the result of over 20 years of unrestricted abortions.
11
posted on
08/24/2003 8:06:00 AM PDT
by
baldy
To: Imagine
12
posted on
08/24/2003 8:07:40 AM PDT
by
BOBWADE
To: cpdiii
"We now have more guns being carried legally than anytime in our history. The armed and legal citizen is the first stop against crime." Add "three-strikes" laws, and I think you have the entire explanation. It certainly wasn't Clinton's "10,000 new cops (that never were)".
To: jacket
"2002 Crime Rate Lowest Since Records Kept"Tom Daschle: "Iam saddened. Deeply saddened."
14
posted on
08/24/2003 8:16:12 AM PDT
by
Cobra64
(Babes should wear Bullet Bras - www.BulletBras.net)
To: jacket
Many of the criminals were taken off the streets and elected to office.
15
posted on
08/24/2003 8:17:11 AM PDT
by
Consort
To: baldy
I am adamantly pro-life for moral and religious reasons, but it has occurred to me that women who get abortions may be making a positive Darwinian contribution to the gene pool. I mean, would it hurt humanity if Gloria Steinem had her tubes tied?
16
posted on
08/24/2003 8:18:26 AM PDT
by
Spok
To: jacket
Thank You George W. Bush
17
posted on
08/24/2003 8:19:08 AM PDT
by
ChadGore
(Kakkate Koi!)
To: Imagine
Unexpected consequences of everyone carrying a cell phone? That is the best reason I have heard regarding the drop in crime. With every potential witness, also being a potential 'reporter', I can see where the paranoia could keep some of the cowardly cretin element from actually performing the crime they would ordinarily normally do.
18
posted on
08/24/2003 8:20:59 AM PDT
by
Hodar
(With Rights, comes Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
To: Spok
I am adamantly pro-life for moral and religious reasons, but it has occurred to me that women who get abortions may be making a positive Darwinian contribution to the gene pool.This is a valid argument. Who is more likely to be a criminal, an unwanted child, who grows up in a violent, drug using, promiscuous home, born to a single, uneducated and unprepared mother; OR a child who is wanted and can be raised by responsible parents?
Simply look at the statistics of who has more abortions, then look at the environment these unwanted children would be growing up in. To remove emotion from the equation, you simply pay a little for an abortion up front, or pay a lot later to prosecute the criminal later(plus the untold number of victims who have been killed, maimed or robbed).
19
posted on
08/24/2003 8:25:57 AM PDT
by
Hodar
(With Rights, comes Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
To: Cobra64
John Kerry: "It saddens me that our young criminals must languish in jail for the sole purpose of increasing this administrations ratings in the polls."
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson