Effectively you’re saying that a status quo of stable-percentage murders is okay. I (and others on this post) are saying that any non-zero percentage is bad. So I guess we fundamentally disagree then.
Nobody thinks murder is okay, and if this is the way you conduct discourse you're probably working against your own goals.
There is a lot more behind a statistic than just a number or trend-line, one which often requires single or multiple policy changes that could take years. So yes, observing that the trend line goes and keeps going down is good, a sharp rise is a cause for concern. That is not the same thing, at all, as thinking the status quo is just fine.
The article premise was not "Environmental Activists continue to be murdered at a rate higher than the general populace".
It instead implies that it is an increasing problem, without giving us the tools to evaluate the claim or understand the scope of the problem.
If you want to accept such claims as true, go ahead. That practice won't arm you to understand your world better, but will instead make you excitable and easily swayed.
