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.

NRA’s gun safety program for kids pays off in Michigan

Remember when some journalists freaked out when Martha Dean advocated firearm safety training in Connecticut schools? Well that same training worked out pretty good for four young kids in Michigan who found a loaded revolver while playing hide and seek. Stop; Don’t Touch; Leave the Area; Tell an Adult.

Read more

Someone freaks out at sight of pistol at Middletown, Conn. City Hall

In Connecticut, it is legal to carry a pistol either openly or concealed as long as you have a Connecticut Pistol Permit. If you call the police and complain about someone carrying a pistol walking down the street, or running errands at City Hall, the standard reply should be “that would be completely legal to do.” Not the case in Middletown, Conn. today.

Read more

Feel-good firearm legislation in Connecticut – Gun offender registration

In Connecticut, after you serve your time in jail and complete your probation for killing a person with a knife, there is no requirement – or current suggestion by lawmakers – to require you “register” as a knife offender. Heck, there is no requirement you register with the state even if you are a convicted murderer. But if you commit your crime with a gun, you’re a different class of scumbag.

Read more

New Connecticut firearm legislation around the corner?

Don’t panic. Although the Connecticut State Legislature is always “discussing” new legislation, to my knowledge no “real” bills are actually in the pipeline. That said, members of the legislature have meetings and discuss ideas, and this year – like every other year – gun laws are being discussed.

Read more

Christie steps in and commutes sentence of New Jersey man convicted in gun case

We covered this story and few weeks ago and looks like we have a happy resolution. If you remember, Brian Aitken, had been convicted of illegally carrying two guns and was sentenced to 7 years in prison. Except that the guns were purchased legally, and the Judge never allowed the jury to hear specific exception clauses in New Jersey law that would have likely acquitted Brian in this case. Christie has stepped in, thankfully.

Read more

Trifecta for tyranny

We posted what follows on November 11, 2010.  In light of recent events, perhaps it is time to repeat it.  Guns…Fast and Furious, wealth…the rich aren’t paying their fair share, religion… Read more

Matthews on the Tea Party: “They have guns, it’s scary.”

This is old, it’s tiring, and it’s really starting to tick me off. Chris Matthews with Andrea Mitchell yesterday afternoon is promoting his upcoming special on “The New Right” and the Tea Party. Mitchell gives him the chance to promote the show … and Matthews feeds right into the lefty paranoia machine. “They’ve got guns. It’s scary.” Read more

Now you’re gun toting racists

We dealt with this yesterday on the show … but it certainly, it is worth watching for yourself. Chris Matthews, bless his heart tried to explain why an avoid communist killed JFK because he was influenced by right wing extremism. His guest Gerald Posner (Daily Beast) agrees the protestors are just a loaded magazine away from going violent.

If it weren’t so  sad … and this kind of talk dangerous in itself for continuing to stoke the flames … it might be funny.


And let’s not forget that the only incidents of violence out there have been from the pro Obmacare folks … check out Steve’s post from August, “Thug Morning Wrap Up”. Then, remember this one?


Oh by the way, he has since filed for workers comp. No, not Gladney silly, the thug who conducted the beating.

CNN instructs America on “assault” rifles

… and once again gets it wrong. I am sometimes stunned at the media’s lack of knowledge of firearms, and the 2nd Amendment. My guess is the world in which they live this is perfectly acceptable but it not only shows their ignorance but prejudice as well.

Here’s Jack Cafferty on the Situation Room at 5 p.m. describing a weapon-carrying man at a rally in Arizona. I actually agree with Jack that bringing the weapon to a rally as a “statement” is a silly stupid idea. A weapon in public should only be carried in defense … not as a form of protest. It’s not a prop or a toy.

BUT, Jack doesn’t say this. It’s just … well … scary.

Some points to remember as you watch. An AR 15 is not, repeat, is not an automatic weapon. Automatic weapons are illegal and I believe the new AR 15’s cannot be converted into automatic weapons. You can’t squeeze off shots any faster than a Baretta 45 or a S&W MP 45 or a Glock or … well you name the handgun.

Edited to add (Steve): The National Firearms Act (NFA) from 1934 rules apply when it comes to automatic weapons. You can buy a fully automatic weapon if you fill out the right forms with the federal government, go through the background check and pay a $200 stamp tax on each weapon you want to buy. Surprised? Of course, there are no “new” select-fire weapons on the market and you can’t just go out and order one either, you’re restricted to pre-ban weapons and they are not cheap, and very regulated. I’ll try to post more about this subject in the future.

Secondly, distance is irrelevant. The man is carrying open in a crowd.

But CNN is playing to an audience that will believe this crap, unfortunately.


To Jack’s credit … he got corrected … and thus he corrected the errors at the end of the hour. How many saw it? Good question. More importantly, why would Jack shoot off his mouth without checking first?  Damage done … nothing to see here … move along.


It now appears the whole thing was a setup … Rick Sanchex yesterday interviewed the “reporter”, Earnest Hancock, who talked with the man carrying the AR 15. Sanchex of course, is aghast. While Hancock does not give and inch. The “good stuff” comes about 3 minutes in.


Update: This story is picking up steam this morning … and you gun owners are the target. This from the Washington Post. To the president’s credit, he says he defends their right. But the rest of the article is filled with hysteria … or is it? (emphasis mine)

Anti-gun campaigners disagreed with Gibbs’s comments, voicing fears that volatile debates over health-care reform are more likely to turn violent if gun control is not enforced.

“What Gibbs said is wrong,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “Individuals carrying loaded weapons at these events require constant attention from police and Secret Service officers. It’s crazy to bring a gun to these events. It endangers everybody.”

The past week has seen a spate of men carrying firearms while milling outside meetings Obama has held to defend his health-care reform effort. On Monday, a man with an AR-15 semiautomatic assault rifle strapped to his shoulder was outside a veterans’ event in Phoenix. He was one of a dozen men who reportedly had guns outside the forum.

Phoenix police made no arrests, saying Arizona law allows weapons to be carried in the open.

I guess the implication here is that there should be a law. I think these folks are hurting 2nd Amendment advocates, but that’s just me. You make the call. Agree or disagree. Take the poll.