34

Inconvenient facts: what is the real difference in violent crime between the U.S. and Great Britain?

Piers Morgan has been peddling his mantra of the U.S. being the “wild west” in terms of gun violence, and continues to make the point that the U.S. has a relatively high number of gun related deaths compared to Great Britain (GB).  In literal numbers, yes, the U.S., with its Second Amendment, and roughly six fold greater population (316 million in the U.S. vs. about 51 million in England excluding Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland; about 60 million with them included), demonstrates a higher level of gun related deaths, about 210 to 30,364, adjusted for population in 2009.  Of course, with a virtually complete gun ban, one wonders how those gun related deaths occurred at all, given that GB is a relatively small island with a fifth of the U.S. population and no open borders.  But I digress.

Let’s use the liberal’s own logic to examine this: has disarming the population of GB made their citizens safer?  According to a Gallup poll taken in 2006 (the most recent they have on the subject), the overall crime rate is lower in the U.S. than GB (or Canada).  Of course, the public perception is that crime is on the increase has risen, despite sharp declines in U.S. violent crime rates.  It is my considered opinion that the overly sensational coverage of crime by the media is responsible for this.

Actually, in GB, since 1997, when the Labour Party took control and the Firearms Act of 1997 was enacted, effectively disarming the British public, there has been a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offenses.  As a historical note, this bill passed as a result of the “Snowdrop Petition” that was generated as a result of 16 children being shot in Dunblane.  Sound familiar?  As Rahm Emmanuel put it:

You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.

As a result of “doing things they couldn’t do before”, British citizens have no means of defending themselves against gangs of knife wielding thugs, and even if they did, the government is in the practice of prosecuting the victim, not the perpetrator.  Criminals see gun free zones, or countries in this case, as welcome mats.  Places where people can defend themselves, not so much.  To pop the liberal balloon that says more guns equals more crime, if you actually look at the statistics, in GB and Chicago, after similar gun bans, homicides continued to increase (with a bit of a spike in GB after 1997, coincidentally), while in places like Washington DC, Florida and Texas, when right to carry laws became effective, murder rates continued a sharp decline or actually increased the decline.  Where is all the “wild west” gun play that liberals like Piers Morgan pontificate about?  Where it has always been: in their minds.  That and Hollywood.

The figure that really counts in this discussion, and is rarely if ever used by the media, is the rate of violent crime per 100K people.  In GB, this important figure is over 2000/100K, while in the U.S., the rate is 466/100K.  That’s right, less than one quarter of the British number.  Now honestly, given the facts, where would you feel safer walking on a dark street at night, GB or the U.S.?  If an assailant is in front of you with a baseball bat, demanding your money, will you feel better that he doesn’t have a gun?  Want to bet that a major contributor to our significantly lower rate of violent crime compared to GB is because we still have the right to defend ourselves with a weapon?

Where do we turn to find a historically based, sound defense of the Second Amendment and the right to arm oneself in self defense?  Oddly enough, Pravda, which has become a more reliable news source than most of our self proclaimed “important” media.  In an article published shortly after the Newtown murders, one Stanislav Mushin commented as follows:

For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room.  Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases.  As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China) or homemade bombs (everywhere), insane people strike.  They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack.  What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or “talking to them”, it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.

The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly.  So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted?  Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture?

From his lips to a politician’s deaf ear.  Deranged or fanatical people will always find a way to vent their violence on innocents; they just are less inclined to do so when the innocents can defend themselves.  Let’s not repeat Britain’s mistakes.

Last but not least, maybe the only people we need to fear with guns are the very people that publicly rail against gun ownership.  Case in point: on CNN Piers Morgan and his liberal peanut gallery “joked” about shooting talk show host Alex Jones, who cleaned Morgan’s clock on a gun ownership debate on a previous night.  Now why would they feel the need to “joke” in the very vernacular that would get a conservative roundly criticized (along with the requisite accusations of being crazy)?  To demonstrate that this is the common thought among liberals, just look at the Twitter comments that follow the video in that piece.  See any peaceniks, or do you see near sociopathic commentary by drooling, slack jawed, liberal anti gun nuts?  Why are the self appointed guardians of the public peace so violent?

Liberal, heal thyself.

Filed in: Featured, Government, Media Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Related Posts

Bookmark and Promote!

From the owners: This section is for comments from Radio Vice Online's registered readers. Never assume the owners of this site agree with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use - a must read if you wish to contribute here - may lose their posting privileges. Just because we've let a similar comment stand in the past does not mean we'll let it stand in the future.

34 Responses to "Inconvenient facts: what is the real difference in violent crime between the U.S. and Great Britain?"

  1. JBS says:

    Britain is off my bucket list.
    A question for all of the Anglophiles: If guns are banned, where are all of these guns for murders and assaults (no figures cited) coming from?
    Could it be from violent criminals — ones with a history of violent crimes? And, as in the US, are most of the murder victims other criminals?

  2. ricbee says:

    The last time I was in London I was bumped heavily & the bumper gave me a look that showed it was no accident. I’m 6’2″, 210 & able to defend,but the UK is becoming to ugly for me to go back to.

  3. gillie28 says:

    Morgan is a media-hog (you can replace that word), and himself a joke.  Just an attention-getting jerk, and wouldn’t waste time mentioning him.  Please don’t deport him!  The statistics you stated about the UK make valid points.  Knifings have replaced gunshots.  FWIW, think violent videos, rappers, mtv and general lessening of standards contributed to UK youths emulating US gangs…what a mess!  Where I live now – tail end of southern Europe – there is little violence, even their revolution in early 70′s was very peaceful.  Also, not the same obsession with tv, videos and internet.  Families normally remain intact and children nurtured.  However, hunting is still very popular, so there are definitely guns available.  The majority of crimes committed here are mostly by those who have invaded EU from Eastern Europe, in organized criminal gangs, and targetting foreign residents.

  4. stinkfoot says:

    Without brainwashed masses the liberals would have nothing- the lefties who have become ensconced in Washington are closed to facts that are inconvenient to their agenda– debating fact with them is pointless- the key to breaking their agenda is reaching the 47% “Gimmee-crats” who repeatedly vote them in based on what they promise to continue handing out.
     
    Piers Morgan is the political equivalent of a carpet bagger.

  5. kateinmaine says:

    isn’t piers implicated in the uk/guardian phone hacking scandal?  he’ll probably go to jail if deported–from what i’ve observed, he’ll probably thrive with incarceration…  back on topic, facts  are meaningless to such a tabloid hack.  it’s about stirring things up to save his american job.  wonder if old piers has accurately gauged the fickle nature and attention span of the average lib?  probably not.  he can float the wild, wild west all he wants.  the best response is ‘a clockwork orange’.

    • Dimsdale says:

      LOL!  I am assuming that we are both thinking the same thing when you say “thrive in incarceration”!   And I could not agree more!

  6. cjstrand says:

    I’d be more interested in a comparison with Australia than the UK.  The US is more likely to continue to allowsome guns than ban all, so we would be in a situation more akin to Australia.

    • Dimsdale says:

      I picked GB because it has seemingly become the “role model” for American liberals, particularly with respect to all the panty bunching subsequent to an analogous elementary school shooting.  The libs would like nothing better than a British style, wide scale confiscation of guns, which is as patently stupid as seizing all legally owned cars because a drunk driver plowed into a school bus.  I agree though, and if I had more time, I might have squeezed in the Aussies.
       
      We’ve seen it with health care, haven’t we?

  7. sammy22 says:

    I am not for the confiscation of guns (and neither is the majority of Americans). I am for a saner approach to gun possession. In spite of Steve’s urging I don’t see much of an attempt at a “dialogue” in the postings.

    • We have politicians in Connecticut submitting legislation making it a felony to posses any gun that holds more than one round. That’s outright confiscation. We have state legislators that want this and think it is appropriate. To start a “dialogue” with these fools is exactly the same as negotiation with the devil. They submit this crap and then say they support the 2nd Amendment. Hogwash.

    • By the way … I have no idea what a “saner” approach to gun possession is. In Connecticut, are you familiar with the bull shit you need to go through in many towns to get a pistol permit? It’s down-right humiliating and in many towns they treat you like third-class peasants.

    • Dimsdale says:

      If the government did not autonomously set up the invitations to criminals called “gun free zones”, the question of the sanity of a gun abuser would likely be answered quickly, and in kind.  I just read that the nut that shot up that movie theater planned far ahead, for months.  Does anyone not think that the low hanging fruit of a gun free zone didn’t enter into his calculations?  I notice that when the pols set up gun free zones they will be occupying, they include plenty of armed protection at the same time.

  8. sammy22 says:

    I thought you wanted to promote a “dialogue” with “ordinary people”, not the politicians. As to a saner approach, I would say that some restrictions should be placed on “assault” weapons (or whatever you want to call them), more complete/timely background checks and maybe more issues…. And try to keep in mind that we should be talking about the whole US, not just CT. 

    • Dimsdale says:

      I have yet to have a dialogue with the government.  Did I miss that phone call/email/town meeting?
       
      Polls are not a dialogue.

  9. sammy22 says:

    In spite of Steve’s exhortations the preaching continues to be to the choir in all the posts I have read on gun issues. And, Dims you seem to have missed the point about my response to Steve’s comment.

    • Dimsdale says:

      Perhaps, but our limited circle of dialogue is inconsequential to the dialogue the pols are supposed to be having as our representatives.  They are not, choosing rather to scream hysterically, standing on a table with their skirts held up.
       
      The alternative to “preaching” is being a good little prole and doing what our “betters” in the government say.

    • gillie28 says:

      Sammy, “preaching to the choir” posts….you obviously haven’t read some of mine.  Can see no reason for semi-automatics to be sold.  On the other hand, the powers-that-be need to go and clear out all the guns in hands of criminals before they take them from law-abiding citizens, they can start with Chicago gangs…but, we all know that’ll never happen.  Think gun control can never happen in US because it’s just beyond the point of recovering what’s already out there.  Personally, am against owning weapons because of other beliefs.  One day this will come to pass “And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” (Isaiah 2:4), but it will take Divine intervention to reach that point, not political baloney.

  10. sammy22 says:

    gillie28, I agree with you. There are too many guns already in possession of  “law abiding” and “not-law abiding” citizens. Most of the posts (excluding yours) do not seem to even acknowledge that there is a problem. Law abiding citizens become “not law  abiding” citizens only AFTER they sell/give/barter etc. guns with already “not law abiding citizens” according to postings here. Does that mean that everything is just dandy and more guns should keep being poured into an already “full-of-guns” nation?

    • Lynn says:

      I don’t believe the number of guns is important. we have laws on the books that can’t be followed now, I don’t see how more laws will help. I do see that white males between the ages of 18-22 are responsible for most of the mass shootings. Usually there are indications that these are troubled or sick kids. We need better ways of identifying and placing them in a safe environment for themselves and the rest of society.

    • Dimsdale says:

      And thus, you hit the crux of the problem: “not law abiding” citizens will still be “not law abiding” when the next round of legislative hysteria occurs.
       
      Are you implying that more laws will magically make criminals law abiding? 
       
      Good luck with that.

  11. sammy22 says:

    Lynn, accidentally or deliberately guns and ammo are going from the supposedly “law abiding” citizens into the hands of supposedly “disturbed” individuals. The Aurora, CO gunman made lots of purchases on-line; nobody was checking, and until he started shooting he was a “law abiding” citizen.

    • Lynn says:

      I don’t believe the problem can be solved by eliminating guns. We need to have better ways of dealing with disturbed people. The monster who shot the people in the movie theater booby trapped his apartment hoping to kill the police who,would search his apartment.  Notice he did not set up a gun to shoot them, he set up a bomb. Sick young men will use anything to kill people.  We can discuss each case and point to one detail in one case or another. The common denominator is mentally disturbed people. 

    • Dimsdale says:

      So, according to you, sammy, everyone is a potential criminal, and more so if they own a gun?

      Getting back to the post, how has gun confiscation reduced violent crime in Great Britain?  The disturbed people have switched to knives and other means of assault.
       
      I repeat my question: in which country would you feel safer walking down a dark, deserted street in the middle of the night?

  12. sammy22 says:

    Lynn, and how do you profile them before they start shooting? And, did I say: “Eliminate guns”?

    • @sammy22 – No, you did not say eliminate guns, rather you clearly imply availability needs to be restricted since people can not be trusted. Now it’s time for us to hear your suggestions. Just a short comment with bullet points will be fine. Thank you.

    • Dimsdale says:

      Watch the movie “Minority Report”, sammy.

  13. sammy22 says:

    @Steve, suggestions have already been made (see my comment to your response) on Jan 12 above.

    • I want specifics, not just a “saner approach to gun possession.” You say “some restrictions on assault weapons.” Exactly what restrictions would you propose that do not trample on my 2nd Amendment rights? What is an assault rifle? We already have background checks – and criminals don’t care – but I agree we need to have a discussion about mental illness and how it is treated/ignored. I’m wondering though, how we will mandate private medical records be shared with the government. Certainly if one is medically ill and considered to be a danger to his or her family or the community around them, we may be able to stop them from legally purchasing or owning a firearm, but if they really are a danger, should we not be taking additional steps? Legally purchased firearms are not the only option for the very few mentally ill people who go off and kill people.

  14. sammy22 says:

    I give up: let’s do nothing. Let’s just wait for another horrible event and wring our hands. And then do nothing again.

    • Did I say don’t do anything? No, I didn’t and you just ignored what I wrote. That said, horrible things happen every single day. It sucks. But if you go through life thinking “the government must do something” every time there is a horrible event or tragedy, you’ll be disappointed every time. The federal AWB was implemented, and Columbine happened. After the AWB expired, the most horrific VT mass shooting took place by someone without a rifle and without the dreaded 20-30 round high-capacity magazines. Evil does exist, and evil does not play by the government’s rules.

       

      Let’s also look at sentencing guidelines. Let’s look at why the federal government is not prosecuting people who fill out the ATF-4473 form and lie on that form. Let’s see if this “gun free zone” crap is working. … 

  15. sammy22 says:

    It seems to get personal for some reason: “But if you go through life thinking “the government must do something” every time there is a horrible event or tragedy, you’ll be disappointed every time.”  I don’t need lectures from you. Or maybe this is the generic “you” which is being used. And, unless I am sadly mistaken: sentencing and prosecuting are after the fact events.. Not good enough for me.

    • Dimsdale says:

      And the major problem with a disarmed citizenry is that the police protection is also “after the fact events”.
       
      Not good enough for me.

  16. Anne-EH says:

    Has anyone ever noticed that anytime polticos want to attack the United States Constitution, they bring in a group of children to be used as “shields”?
    Remember dictators are shown in pictures with little children.

© 2008-2014 Radio Vice Online Inc. All rights reserved | FAQ | Terms of Use | Advertise
Implemented and managed by Spider Creations LLC.