Now here’s a guy who has his head screwed on right. Crime rate isn’t about guns, its about poverty. But when you have a population and politicians that don’t want to do any investigation beyond “the crime was committed with a gun, therefore we should ban guns” you end up with crime stats like those in England and Wales. And personally, I like it better here, where I’m 3.5 times less likely to be raped or mugged or the victim of some other violent crime.
Absolutely fantastic presentation. Should be forwarded to major media agencies and politicians.
I posted this on Facebook the other day, this is an Epic presentation.
You’ve got your head on right and I always agree with you. But you are much to liberal with your use of “epic”. Switch it up with legendary or triumphant. Hit the thesaurus hard.
How about direct to Joe Biden, who dosn’t seem to want to meet with the pro-gun side of the equation?
The NRA needs to put this dude on the payroll today and he needs to be their public speaker.
and, we all need to become spokespersons for the 2A.
i just re-upped my NRA membership, and joined/paid dues to four other pro-2A groups (GoA, RMGO.org, SAF, CCRKBA).
i’ve been online responding to polls, letters to the editor, articles, etc.
tomorrow, i’m lighting up my congress-critter’s fax and phone lines with a print version of this guy’s video.
But MB#s says this is all lies. The UK is a crime free paradise.
Any country that can spawn the satanborn Piers Morgan is far from paradise…
Please, if anything Satan has taste. I hear Piers offered to sell his soul but the Satan said he wouldn’t pay.
Actually it is a Worker’s Utopia
Excellent presentation. A must watch. Let’s make this go viral. I am sending it everyone.
Thanks for the H/T. Not.
Numerous tipsters. But thank you Sr. Diggler.
Wow, that was awesome.
Doogie Howser comes thru. I like this guy.
I saw this earlier, and it’s fantastic. But I cannot agree that poverty and education have anything to do with crime rates. This has been disproven innumerable times.
Crime is not a result of poverty. The poor are not more inclined to be criminals. If the rule of law prevails in a culture, the poor will be as peaceful as anyone else, if not more so.
To take it even further…poverty stricken folks are very, very unlikely to commit the savagery that these mass murderers have committed.
They may be poor, but they are not often crazy.
Yet at the same time we have an inner city youth that is essentially sociopathic, antieducation, and solely interested in getting rich quick. Drugs, and drug crime, abound. What are the sources and solutions to these problems? How do we break the backs of the gangs that through peer pressure lead to such a “you owe me” culture, and what I can take is mine?
Murder rate has little to nothing to do with mass murder…
Great info, presented well.
Hi grasp of facts are excellent but his idea of causation is wrong. It is NOT poverty. The US has the wealthiest poor people in the world. It’s a moral problem. It’s a lack of fathers involved, or better yet actually living in a stable marriage, with their children. We have allowed the government to become too many young women’s husbands instead of an actually responsible man. IMHO
I agree overall Doug but even if we were to get rid of or severley limit welfare, it wont nessecarily force mom to find a steady dad. Ive known a few single moms that didnt rely in my tax dollars but did rely on the highest bidder she could for a period of time, then the bid would open up when she gets bored.
But one thing for sure is that we know the geographic location of the most serious problem.
Well done, succinctly stated.
Sorry Wayne, get out./// I thought he could have beat up feinswine a little more(lol), other than that, great job, Randy
AMEN…posted to FB.
RF and Nick please send this to NRA and GOA good video to show people. My hat is off to him bless him.
Damn, that’s good stuff.
Letter to Feinstein 2.0 will have to include this! (As also will my letter to Mr. Gary Miller).
Thanks for another great post, and for sending us the Truth!
I so badly want someone to filibuster the Senate while reading the transcript of this video. Then the ignorant might learn something.
“And personally, I like it better here, where I’m 3.5 times less likely to be raped or mugged or the victim of some other violent crime.”
Of course your chances of being victimized go up dramatically if you’re imprisoned, which if far more likely to happen to you in the US.
Then…don’t go to prison. Problem solved.
6 minutes, 36 seconds of logic, facts and truth from a lone individual on the web; versus denial, delusion and out right lies fromn the multi- billion dollar juggernaut of the propoganda arm (authorized journalists) of the Liberal/Progressives movement.
What a sad and pathetic statement of the level of corruption, degeneracy and just plain ignorance we are fighting against.
The fact that people still look to these “jounalists” as anything more than just plain National Enquirer level hacks is astounding to me.
To be fair, this video is very well produced and not without an undertones indicative of – if not bias – then perspective. Even if the speaker says he wants to find out for himself, the video is clearly coming from a particular position.
That does not make me agree with its message any less.
And, I’d be curious to hear from others on the point raised by BeninMA, below.
Great presentation, except he loses me on a point at the end. If we have six times more large metropolitan areas, isn’t that balanced by the fact that we also have six times the population of Endland and Whales?
No, because we are looking at rates of violent crime, not just raw numbers. The rate of violence in England/Wales is 3.5 times higher as crime per 100,000 people. This equation equalizes the population differential. Since we have six times the population and six times the metro areas, the populations are demographically equal.
You’re right, the 3.5 number is legit. But in trying to explain why there’s a higher murder rate in the US, he points out that most of this crime happens in large metropolitan areas, which the US has more of. The inference being that we have more murder purely as an artifact of a demographic difference. Except the problem is that this doesn’t prove that there is a demographic difference. If we have six times the large metropolitan areas, we also have six times the population. Really, the legitimate comparison when talking about crime rates would be to look at what percentage of the population actually lives in large metropolitan areas and compare that. I’m interested in seeing the numbers, but I’d be very surprised if the US has a significantly higher percentage of its population living in cities larger than 250,000 when compared with the UK.
One of the best rebuttals yet! Short & full of facts, from the horses’ own ‘mouths’: Fed’s and the RedCoats’.
Also on a superficial PR note, glad the man in the video is hipster-ish and not some OFWG…as per a natural appeal to politically correct liberal/RINO rabid gungrabbers’ ‘sensibilities’.
That said, next time you guys hear liberals/RINOs yap “sensible gun control,” think Full-0n Gun Ban, or at the legislative negotiating table, something close to it as possible.
In FeinSKUNK’s 1995 CBS 60min interview, she clearly, under no uncertain terms, testifies on camera that if she could’ve had 51 votes in Senate to completely ban all guns, she she would have, gladly! And now, in her officially released AWB 2.0 tidbits finally reveals the same rapacious intention to fully repeal 2A, as she testified in 1995, has come full circle, in black and white print.
But, worst of all, no matter how illegal, seditious, and UnConstitutional it all may be, the rest of liberal/RINO ilk who support this sorry excuse for 80yr old bag of human filth, actually are serious, like Bolshevik serious.
The most hilarious part? “Spork” actually deludes all of that sounds completely sane, and reasonable. And Bill Maher deludes Republicans live in their own bubble.
Progressives and the Phony Gun Debate
This piece demonstrates that the issue has never been about gun violence, it is about guns. the banners, despite the protestation of our paranoia about a “slippery slope,” are in fact intent on getting all the guns in the mistaken belief that eliminating guns will save innocent lives. What the statistics for England and Wales demonstrate is that gun deaths will likely decline, just as the banners would hope, but the overlooked fact is that violence will not decline, and in England’s case, has dramatically increased.
Weapons favored by violent criminals in England are those which can be fashioned or bought without risk of death or raising alarm of the authorities.
We’re talking walking sticks, bats, knives, hammers, golf clubs, uncontrolled dogs, rocks inside socks/handkerchiefs/scarves, glass bottles, tire prys, steering wheel brace locks, weighted chains, steel toe capped boots, fist loads of all variety such as carribiners;flashlights;keyring fob and the like.
These are articles that can be carried broad daylight overtly swung about in a playful gesture yet not gain attention until the victim is bleeding and clothes are torn in the fray.
Violent crime is not about poverty.
I was brutally assaulted while riding a bicycle by two males also on bicycle’s.
They demanded while bludgeoning me over the skull and face with a bike lock chain inbetween punches to the face that I surrender my own bicycle.
They did not need, nor were capable of riding away with the stolen property granted they were already occupying saddles, handlebars and peddles.
Thus I deduce anyone claiming violent crime is caused by poverty isn’t even born yet into this world filled with violent people.
Shared. Good stuff!
You guys loved it, I know. But he didn’t clearly tell us how much violent crime comes from non-urban centers. He only said the urban centers account for twice the national average. Do you think that was an accident. Non-urban violent crime is not insignificant.
About the UK, in spite of his pretend clarification, he didn’t tell us exactly what crimes are considered violent in the UK compared to the US. Was that another accidental oversight? And with his tone of voice he let us know that the tremendously lower murder rate doesn’t really matter.
He’s just another biased gun-defender, slicker than Mr. Colion, but more or less the same.
When the law is on your side pound the law. When the facts are on your side pound the facts. When you have neither pound the table. You spend a lot of time pounding the table.
“But he didn’t clearly tell us how much violent crime comes from non-urban centers.”
Does it matter? The overall violent crime rate is 3.5 times lower in the US.
Where did you get “3.5 times lower” from?
My point is, Mr. Slick in the video sluffed over the fact that there is plenty of gun violence outside of the major urban areas.
“Mr. Slick” uses facts to make his argument. How about you dispute ANY of his factual assertions (or show why they are misleading) and THEN tell us why you don’t accept his conclusions.
Robert, I told you why I don’t accept his conclusions. Are you ignoring what I said and in the same breath, what, accusing me of ignoring facts?
1. But he didn’t clearly tell us how much violent crime comes from non-urban centers.
2. he didn’t tell us exactly what crimes are considered violent in the UK compared to the US.
Through these two omissions, he did what all you guys do. He presented a slick and seemingly-convincing argument which was really smoke and mirrors.
“Where did you get ‘3.5 times lower’ from?”
It’s in the video. He links to his sources.
You’re conveniently ignoring the fact that we have a violent crime rate that is 3.5 times lower than that of England and Wales (the disparity is even greater if you look at the entire UK). If you want people to think different gun laws are responsible for higher murder rates in the US, you must also be prepared to accept the idea that our more permissive gun laws may be responsible for discouraging violent crime.
Now, is it possible that England counts different crimes as “violent.” Sure. It’s also possible that they’re reported differently by local police or that the victims report crimes at a different rate than here in the US. There’s all sort of reasons we can think of to ignore the statistical difference. You can say the same about comparing crime rates between US states and even municipalities (much has been made of under-reporting crimes in NYC, for example). But to dismiss the difference between countries, you should be prepared with an actual reason to believe there’s a systemic variation between them.
Over the course of my career I have had many occasions to travel offiicially to the UK. The force protection briefer has always stressed that the assumption that the UK is a safe place is false. They always tell you that there are many neighborhoods where it is like walking around in SE DC after dark. They also tell you that crime is much more uniformly spread out through the country than it is in the US.
So as usual you are blowing smoke to hide the fact that the crime statistics do not support gun control. So instead of stomping your feet like a child and decrying the actual crime numbers why don’t you take up Tarrou’s point and argue why allowing other violent crimes to rise by some percentage is an acceptable tradeoff for a lower the US murder rate.
Here’s where gun control and gun advocates talk past each other. We 2A folks point to the lack of correlation between murder rates and firearms, the higher violent crime rates in many stricter nations. Gun control advocates point to our relatively high murder rate and the rate of mass shootings. Now, on a basic level, these positions are not incompatible. It is true we have a relatively high murder rate. We also have more mass shootings, even than nations that have a similar rate of gun ownership. That doesn’t answer the question of how to improve.
But if we take the data superficially, I am interested in what Mikenumbers and others have to say about the implied tradeoff? If we could trade three murders per 100k for a thousand muggings, rapes, assaults and attempted murders per 100k, is that worth it? If we grant for the sake of argument that the only difference between the US and England crime rates is gun laws (false, I know), then it is implied that if we eliminate private weapons altogether, that is the result. How many beatings offset a murder? How many rapes? What is the cost-benefit analysis whereby we choose how much more violent crime is acceptable in return for less murder?
Um, Nick? Seeing that you’re a guy, I doubt you’re any more likely to get raped in the UK than you are here…
I realize that I’m late to this thread, but here’s an article that correlates rates of violent crime in America (and elsewhere) with atmospheric lead concentrations caused by leaded gasoline in the post-war era.
Don’t be alarmed by the source (Mother Jones). The article avoids discussion of guns.