When a rise in crime isn’t a rise in crime
Seems that violent crime is on the rise in the past year. So, the Feds want to do something about it:
Nationally, violent crime rose 2.2 percent last year, the first increase since 2001
The article concludes with:
However, Justice officials said Monday that even with the recent surge, the overall national violent crime rate remains lower than any year ever measured except for 2004.
Err, if 2005 is greater than 2004 then how can 2004 be the highest? I’m confused.
Update: Oh, and I blame assault weapons. I mean, I see those bullet-hoses out their walking the streets all the time.
October 17th, 2006 at 8:33 am
2005 crime rate is greater than the 2004 crime rate.
2005 crime rate is still lower than the 2000-2003 crime rate.
2004 crime rate is lower than 2000-2003/2005.
October 17th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Is this where we blame it on Bush?
October 17th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Yeah, that doesn’t make sense. Then again, what about the government giving contradictory statistics surprises you? I’m guessing that what Justice officials say in that last line is bogus.
October 17th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
2004 was the lowest, not the highest.
Assuming (safely) that violent crime rates fluctuate, rates had been dropping or remaining constant from 2001 to now, but apparently they have hit bottom in 2004 and are going up again–and despite the rise, they are still lower than in any other year but the low year of 2004.