What Piers Morgan doesn’t want you to know about Britain and violent crime

National Review posted this yesterday and this is perhaps why Piers Morgan gets all interrupty when someone tries to explain how bad violent crime is in Great Britain:

According to the Mail, Britons suffer 1,158,957 violent crimes per year, which works out at 2,034 per 100,000 residents. By contrast the number in notoriously violent South Africa is 1,609 per 100,000.

The U.S., meanwhile, has a rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, which is lower than France’s, at 504; Finland’s, at 738; Sweden’s, at 1123; and Canada’s at 935.

As a result of both the different ways in which these statistics are collected and of varying definitions of “violent crime,” there will naturally be some discrepancies between countries. Enough to account for a 5:1 difference between Britain and the United States, though? I rather think not.

Why do Islamic fundamentalists really want to kill us, what drives them and how to fight back? Click here for details.

And here’s a chart from that posting in the Daily Mail in 2009 which shows that the UK tops crime in Europe:

See, we’re not even in the top 10, just as the article pointed out. Maybe someone should show Piers Morgan this chart and make him choke on that rubbish he is getting all self-righteous about.

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • Orangeone
    • kong1967

      It says the page doesn’t exist.

      • Orangeone

        I’ll see if Wolfie can help me.  It’s from someone’s Twitter acct.

      • Orangeone

        Try it now. John’s had trouble with the pix

        • kong1967

          Ugh, you just had to make me see that, lol. Funny, though.

    • RighteousCrow_JustCaws

      Nicely done!

      • Orangeone

        It’s from someone on Twitter and was just the best!

        • BlueGood

          <<<<GAG….you coulda posted a warning to your male friends Orange!

    • lol EW!!

  • Orangeone

    I would contribute to the fund started to send you Scoop! That would be great entertainment watch you teach Mr. Morgan a thing or too. And take Todd Kincannon with you, he knows how to fight with statistics 🙂

  • colliemum

    What Piers Morgan – and actually none of the socialists clamouring for ‘gun control’ – will also never admit is that the judicial system in the UK has broken down ever since the socialists got into power in 1997. The offenders are let go with a slap to the wrist – because of their ‘uman roights, because they can’t help it, and because the prisons are full. So criminals are roaming our streets, and yes, they have guns.

    It is so bad that our police forces – the bobbies on the beat – are now campaigning to be armed. Now if those fabulous British gun control laws were working so perfectly, why would our Bobbies need guns?

    Here’s a report from a police blog (mostly left leaning):
    That’s how well the British gun control laws are working!

    • Sober_Thinking

      Sorry to see that… breaks my heart.

      If things don’t change soon, it appears the UK will either turn Socialist or Muslim.

      • colliemum

        Or proper conservative.
        UKIP is now polling above the coalition partner, the Libdems (really – the name of their party is Liberal democrats), and if the current Tories want any chance of winning the next election in 2015, they will have to turn right, and may even be forced into a coalition with UKIP. And the Tory Grandees know that …

        • I wish you guys had a clone of Sir Winston Churchill.

        • RighteousCrow_JustCaws

          Like turning a steamship, Colliemum; slow but not impossible, as here. I have cousins in GB; let’s see: one lives in the English countryside, one in the Scottish countryside and one mostly in their home in…southern France!
          Still left-leaning, I suspect, though we don’t get into politics. It’s sure reassuring to hear your voice here.

        • mike3e4r7

          Just curious what you thought of the BFP and their viability. In what ways do the UKIP and BFP differ?

        • Sober_Thinking

          That’s very encouraging! Thank you for enlightening me. 🙂

    • 4Hoppes2


    • PatrickHenrysBody

      If the criminals can’t get guns from across the border (both of them), they’ll manufacture them…or they’ll build a bomb or invent the Magnificent Motorized Mexican Mega Machete pinwheel or some other hideous weapon to effect mass casualties. You can’t stop criminals from being criminals, if they don’t have any intention of stopping. They will do what they want until they are stopped and stopped permanently.

  • I am so sick of these foreigners who live in this great nation and enjoy its freedoms and lavish in it’s opulence then turn around and bash it. Then move the hell back to UK or whatever other 3rd world country and enjoy. You femi-nazi’s move to Saudi Arabia or Iran and enjoy the benefits of the great religion on Islam that you all work overtly to praise! Please depopulate as quickly as possible so we red-blooded Americans can repopulate and make America great again! Oh and take the hobo’s in Hawaiian shirts in the Oval Office as well!! Quit complaining and so something about it!! We’ll even turn NYC into a museum of how liberals breed filth, crime, disease, and EVIL!!

    • RighteousCrow_JustCaws

      “I am so sick of these foreigners who live in this great nation and enjoy its freedoms and lavish in it’s opulence then turn around and bash it.”
      …sir paul!

  • Sober_Thinking

    Piers is a phoney, a liar, and a moron.

    Just like with ALL liberals, they refuse to accept the truth… they just deny it and move on with their smug lives.

    Funny how it always comes back to bite them though.

  • Frank8881

    Silly report, every country as has been pointed out has completely different definitions of violent crime.

    The more accepted statisic is deaths due to violent crime per 100,000 people. UK 1.2 deaths, US 4.2 deaths not even close US is much more violent and dangerous.

    • Well that could be true. After all, the US has many cities with astronomical homicide numbers like Chicago. Oh! look’it that, Chicago has strict gun control laws.

      • Orangeone

        And CT has a ban on assault rifles

  • proudhispanicconservative

    From what I’ve seen from Pierce Morgan is that he’s unhappy over here in the United States, the easiest solution would be for him to go back to Britain where he will be safe from “no guns”, oh wait he’s despised in Britain.

  • MadAsHellJack

    Hey Piers you sorry lefty/socialist POS why don’t you take your sorry limey ass back to England if you’re so in love with draconian gun laws and help finish off your motherland! Get the hell out of America, WE DO NOT NEED OR WANT YOUR SORRY ASS, SO GET THE HELL OUT! I am so damn sick and tired of these foreign sonsabitches that come to America and make their fortunes but want to tell us how we should run our country. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

    • I completely share your sentiments MadAsHe!!Jack, but could you please substitute some of the language? Thanks.

      • MadAsHellJack

        @AmericanborninCanada, I am Vietnam Vet in my mid 60s and I am so damn mad most of the time anymore with what is happening to our beloved Country I have a hard time speaking in anything but FOUL language and I know I shouldn’t. I will try to do better but I can’t promise 100% abstention.

        • Like I said, I totally understand, but more so now. Thank you so much for your service. God Bless, and thank you for trying 😉

    • 57thunderbird


  • aposematic

    Leftists believe only guns commit crimes so gunless crimes don’t count.

  • Joe

    This is a repeat from yesterday >>

    US Firearm deaths (2009 – most recent info) 31,347

    ————– Abortions in US >> Over 1 Million annually
    (That’s 2,739 lives aborted DAILY)

    ********************* WAIT !- WHAT ? *************************

    • Frank8881

      Completely miss your point, is it so don’t worry about the people shot?

      • the point I believe is hypocricy

        • Frank8881

          Gun control laws have been proven useless on a city or state basis. Simply because you need borders to enforce which of course city and states don’t have. The only effective control must be on a nation wide basis.

          The Chicago argument is but a red herring eveyone knows that.

          • Doesn’t matter. Criminals will use guns or whatever else they feel like getting to do harm. People have a right to defend themselves. The 2nd Amendment is there for a reason. People have the right to defend themselves against criminals and against a tyrannical government. It’s a right- and folks might want to get used to it.

            • Frank8881

              I do not believe that people don’t have the right to protect themselves and arm under the 2nd amendment. Where you seem to have derailed is the government has the right to limit certain weapons and outright ban others and that appears to be the direction this debate is going.

              • In 1927 Congress passed a law banning the mailing of concealable weapons.

                In 1934 The National Firearms Act of 1934, regulating only fully automatic firearms like sub-machine guns was approved by Congress.

                In 1938 The Federal Firearms Act placed the first limits on selling ordinary firearms. People selling guns were required to have a Federal Firearms License, at an annual cost of $1, and to keep records of the name and address of everyone to whom firearms are sold. Gun sales to convicts and ex felons were prohibited.

                In 1968 The Gun Control Act of 1968 – “…was enacted for the purpose of keeping firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them because of age, criminal background, or incompetence.” — Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. The Act regulated imported guns, expanded the gun-dealer licensing and record keeping requirements, and placed specific limitations on the sale of handguns. The list of people banned from buying guns now included people convicted of any non-business related felony, those found to be mentally incompetent, and drug users.

                In 1972 The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms was created, listing as part of its mission the control of illegal use and sale of firearms and the enforcement of Federal firearms laws. ATF issues firearms licenses and controlled firearms licensee qualification and compliance inspections.

                In 1977 The District of Columbia enacted an anti-handgun law which also required registration of all rifles and shotguns within the District of Columbia.

                In 1986 The Armed Career Criminal Act (Public Law 99-570) increased penalties for possession of firearms by those not qualified to own them under the Gun Control Act of 1986. Also, The Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act (Public Law 99-408) banned possession of “cop killer” bullets capable of penetrating bulletproof clothing.

                In 1989 California banned the possession of semiautomatic assault weapons following the massacre of five children on a Stockton, CA school playground.

                In 1990 The Crime Control Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-647) banned manufacturing and importing semiautomatic assault weapons in the U.S. “Gun-free school zones” were established carrying specific penalties for violations.

                In 1994 The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Public Law 103-159) imposed a five-day waiting period on the purchase of a handgun and requires that local law enforcement agencies conduct background checks on purchasers of handguns. (ATF’s Brady Law web site.) Also, The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322) banned all sale, manufacture, importation, or possession of a number of specific types of assault weapons.
                Major American gun manufacturers voluntarily agree to include child safety trigger devices on all new handguns.

                In 1998 a Justice Department report indicated the blocking of some 69,000 handgun sales during 1977 while Brady Bill pre-sale background checks were required. Also, an amendment requiring a trigger lock mechanism was included with every handgun sold in the U.S. was defeated in the Senate, but the Senate instead approved an amendment requiring gun dealers to have trigger locks available for sale and creating federal grants for gun safety and education programs.
                Later the same year, permanent provisions of the Brady Act went into effect. Gun dealers were now required to initiate a pre-sale criminal background check of all gun buyers through the newly created National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS) computer system.

                In 1999 a 51-50 vote, with the tie-breaker vote cast by Vice President Gore, the Senate passed a bill requiring trigger locks on all newly manufactured handguns and extending waiting period and background check requirements to sales of firearms at gun shows.

                Seems to me, government has been chipping away for years and passing all sorts of things to “limit”- yet it hasn’t helped. Gee, we didn’t hear about so many mass shootings before all of these laws were passed. Don’t recall too many school shootings either back in the days when boys brought rifles to school to go hunting after. Seems that the only places where mass shootings happen are in those places where the criminals know there will be no way for people to protect themselves Do you really belive that that guy would have gone to shoot up a place if he knew people were allowed to carry?

                I haven’t derailed on anything. I believe that’s where those who are in government, and all those who trust every right comes from government have done the derailing. Only problem is, that the rest of the people have to suffer because of it.

                • Frank8881

                  I don’t mean you derailed about this, I’m sorry, I think if you don’t believe that this tragedy is going to mean some meaningful new laws to limit firearm ownerships. You will soon be getting derailed.

                • There is no such thing as a “meaningful new law” to limit ownership. What part is so hard to understand that criminals if they want to shoot, will get a gun? Do you really expect them to follow new “meaningful laws”? The only thing meaningful, will be that it will be that much harder for law abiding citizens to defend themselves.

                • Frank8881

                  What is so hard for you to understand your solution has proven to be a miserable failure. More people are dying and more guns are being sold and more mass school shootings are occuring.

                  In every other first world nation they have gone the opposite direction of you approach and their numbers are far more successful. This is not opinion it is fact.

                • It’s a fact that people are still murdered and assaulted in countries with strict gun control. The fact is, that people have a right to protect themselves. PERIOD. And they can not do that effectively if the government removes their means of protection.

                • KenInMontana

                  Actually what has proven to be a failure is every piece of gun control legislation that has ever been passed and signed into law by the federal government. There are well north of 300 firearms laws “on the books” if they cannot enforce those and solve the problem, one more law is not going to do it either. The last AWB was a miserable failure all the way around.
                  BTW, your gold standard of gun control, England is a miserable failure, that is fact.

                • TWH’s R#1

                  I see you are one of those insane regressive commiecrats with a huge control freak fetish. Have you not read what has happened EVERY TIME the citizens of a country are disarmed? Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Your facts are WRONG, you just won’t admit it.

                • NYGino

                  As usual liberals have their heads firmly planted in the sand (you know what I really want to say but since you’re a moderator ABC I want to be on my best behavior, out of respect for your position of course).

                  This is not a gun control issue, it’s a mental health issue.

                • Well said NY. Yes, sand. lol. Sad.

                • Frank8881

                  I am not a liberal I am a conservative. I just believe the mindless uninformed blather that comes out of some GOP who have not got the capacity to think critically is disturbing.

                  All countries have mental health issues, but these people do not have access to the kind of weapons Americans do and this has lead to alarmingly lower death rates then the US.

                • NYGino

                  I guess there are “laws” and then there are “meaningful laws” must learn to distinguish the difference .

                • Kinda like “legitimate rape?” hahaha

                • Aussieborn

                  Has anyone considered those mass shootings have occurred since the new SRRI medications have become available? Nevertheless, I cannot see any reason at all for someone to want to own an assault rifle (if that is the correct term). Also confused about the terminology of “good guys” and bad guys” – my children used that in kindergarten but not when they grew up. Also calling mentally ill people “evil” is strange as well. Do you call someone who has got cancer “evil” These poor people with mental illness have brains that are “sick” and unfortunately the medical profession is very inadequate in their treatment. My sympathy is with the American people as they grapple with this enormous problem but surely the average person should be able to send their children to school without worrying if some child with a problem has the key to his mother’s gun cabinet?

                • YES!!! SSRIs, YES YES YES!! And they are KNOWN to induce thoughts & feelings of violence, against oneself and against others. Look, Dr. Peter Breggin is a psychiatrist who has been addressing this problem in several books over the last 15+ years. Read anything he’s written, and it talks about how dangerous these drugs are. So far as I know, every last one of the mass shootings that have occurred in the last 20 years were carried out by young men who were of an age to grow up during a time when parents just medicated their kids into submission (because they weren’t allowed to be real parents and enforce disciplinary actions if the kid acted up) and who had been on these drugs (we’re not too sure yet about Adam Lanza, the CT shooter, but it would not surprise me in the least if he was on these drugs).

              • Nukeman60

                I wonder how the patrons of the Colorado theater felt about not having a gun to defend themselves, as the killer was casually walking down the aisle picking off people one after another at his leasure. I know any number of well-armed, well-trained people that would have stopped that rampage in a heartbeat and those people cringing in the seat rows would have felt a lot better than they did.

                That heroic teacher in Connecticut that sacrificed her life for her students may not have had to give up that life had she been armed.

                The Principal who was killed execution style may have been able to survive or at least could have held off the shooter till the police arrived (and saved many, if not all, of those precious children). Instead, she was forced to confront him unarmed, untrained, and unable to stop him.

                You may think banning guns from his mother would have solved the problem, but history, and your own European countries, show that wouldn’t solve the problem. It only exacerbates the problem, rather than mitigating it.

                • Frank8881

                  Yea it doesn’t work anywhere except UK, France, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Brussels etc………… and the US is by far the worse. Yea you’re right. Except for the facts.

                  Oh and if the mother didn’t have the weapons he would not have had any. Another fact

                • Nukeman60

                  And would that have stopped him from going to the school with a chainsaw and killing just as many people, in an even more gruesome fashion? You can’t say that those lives would have been saved by banning guns from law-abiding citizens, but we can say that well-armed and well-trained citizens, either as guards or as teachers, would have stopped him in his tracks.

                  That’s the whole issue here and you’re just not getting it. All you want to do is bash the US for it’s level of gun murders (which are caused by idiotic liberal rules). Who would ever, in their right mind, think that telling the bad guys that we’re a gun-free zone would be a deterrent for keeping them away? Hmmm…

                • Google “zip guns.” You might be *amazed* at what can be manufactured in someone’s basement or garage.

          • Nukeman60

            If a city or a state can’t control their local areas, why do you think government intrusion will. Our government is handing out weapons around the world like candy, so the weapons for criminals is abundant no matter what we do to our law-abiding citizens.

            If the Chicago argument were a red herring, then it would be the same in an area that is open-carry as it is in an area that bans all guns. Your statement is a red herring, that’s all. It is just meant to brush off the facts to make your argument, which is full of holes and has no statistics to back it, seem more plausible.

          • TWH’s R#1

            What planet are you living on? Is the border guarded there?
            Banning guns doesn’t stop violence. There is not and never will be “EFFECTIVE” gun control. Only stupid regressive commiecrats refuse to acknowledge the truth. Because they all have a mental disorder and are completely insane control freaks.

            • Frank8881

              WWWHHOOAA come down not sure we should be playing mental disorder card.

        • Frank8881

          What is hypocritical?

          • The fact that dear leader laments over a tragedy such as innocent little ones getting murdered at school (which may not have happened if people were allowed to carry) yet votes to allow babies being born from botched abortions to die alone in a garbage can… that millions of babies are murdered in this country every day, but we don’t hear anything about those.

            • Frank8881

              Well I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored. Their counter argument could be for someone who is so concearned about the abortion rate in America but won’t even discuss how certain gun control laws could save school childrens lives is the hypocrite.

              • OK- so ban all guns, see how well that works out for you. But, if you do that, I demand they ban all forcepts, scissors, vaccuums and saline solutions- because more children are murdered by those than guns.

                • Frank8881

                  Look I don’t believe in abortion either, I just didn’t understand his post or the hypocrite point.

                • OK. So we’re squared up on this one then I hope.

                • Nukeman60

                  Tell you what, I’ll type real slow so you can understand, then. Obama has no problem with abortion, but feels this gun crime was horrendous. We, on the other hand, feel this gun crime was horrendous and abortion is just as horrendous. Get the difference and hence the hypocricy? Probably not, but then that’s why this argument is raging in the first place, isn’t it.

                  Try to live in Chicago and see if life is better there for you due to the total gun ban that they presently have. Tell the people of Connecticut that they need gun laws and they’ll tell you they already have them.

                  There are specific actions that would better protect our children, but the left refuses to admit it. Putting a sign out front that says, “Criminals, this is a gun-free zone. Attack at your leasure”, just doesn’t seem to be enough.

                • Frank8881

                  I will type even slower for you, there comment is you don’t think the muders are horrendous otherwise you would be doing something about gun control. Got it.

                  I have answered that stupid Chicago point 5 times, use your finger and sound out the words.

                • Nukeman60

                  Your going to have to type even slower. It appears the slowness hasn’t corrected your spelling errors and that first comment didn’t even make sense. Were you typing so slow that you fell asleep?

                  ‘…there [sic] comment is you don’t think the muders are horrendous otherwise you would be doing something about gun control.‘ – f

                  Assuming that assault weapons bans will fix that particular problem is insanely disengenuous. Just by saying that one has to come to the conclusion it was the fault of law-abiding gun owners (those that the laws are directed at) because one is horrified by murder is a stupid argument. Answering the Chicago point any number of times doesn’t matter if your answer is ill-founded, as well.

                  You want all guns banned. You ban all guns from your house, tell the criminals that you are unarmed and they are welcome to anything they want, and move on then. Because your solution will not stop mass murders, individual murders or any other kind.

                • Frank8881

                  It was partly the fault of a law abiding gun owner. His mother had these crazy weapons in her house that he had access to. He tried to buy one legally and was refused. Do you not understand that. That is their point. SHEESH

                  To argue banning some of those weapons would not of worked is also disengenuous how the hell do you know.

                  What part of the borders argument do you disagree with specifically.

                  Finally, every other first world nation seems safe w/o guns in their homes.

                • Nukeman60

                  Do you not understand that the worst mass murder of school children didn’t occur with guns. If he was determined to kill, not finding a gun wouldn’t have stopped him. He would have found some other means to do it. As far as I know fertilyzer hasn’t been banned since Oklahoma and this kid would have killed far more with driving a bomb laden car into the school. But that is all speculation.

                  It appears your only answer to any problem is to find who has guns and take them away from them. That’s your position. However, it is not the solution. I would much rather live in Texas than in Chicago.

                • Frank8881

                  Thank Gawd you finally gave up on your law abidding citizen point.

                • Nukeman60

                  Another liberal tactic. Who says I gave up on a law-abiding citizen point? Thank God you gave up on your ‘all other 1st world countries are safer than the US’.

                • Was the typing with one finger on both hands or just a single digit all together? Trying soooo hard to see “typing s l o w l y” Loved it!!!

                • Frank8881

                  Canada and Britian comment is silly you have no proof, you just say it. I can prove where there is lower gun ownership their deaths by guns is lower. Fact, and more people are alive today because of it.

                • There is lower gun ownership because people are not allowed to own guns. At least in Canada if one is a hunter they are allowed, with major restrictions to own certain guns. HOWEVER my point is- people still die in Canada from gun violence. THOSE people could very well be alive if they had have been allowed to own a gun.
                  Thug criminals will go for the weak… those they know will not be able to fight back. If an armed thug was going to do a home invasion, would he break into the home where there was an unarmed person, or the home next door where the person had a couple of guns?

                  It’s the same thing we’ve been trying to say- this guy STOLE the guns he used. He did NOT care about the laws against stealing. He did NOT care about the local laws against bringing weapons into a gun free zone! He knew no one there would be able to shoot back, so he went.
                  Same thing anywhere else.

                • Frank8881

                  I completely understand you point. The trouble is Canada did not adopt your position they adopted mine. The evidence is now in fewer people killed fewer mass murders. A far safer society maybe the US should examine this approach because it works.

                • It’s not just protection from murderers and criminals- although that is a large part of it. It is protection of the people from a tyrannical government. It keeps the government from subjugating the people (as Brian mentioned earlier) Look at dicatorships under Nazis and Communists. They took the people’s guns away- and murdered millions.

                • Canada did not adopt…Hence one of the reasons I love living in America instead of Canada. I uphold the laws of the land, under the Constitution. It’s too bad many, including many in the Government don’t care about following the same.

                • This whole gun debate is happening because of a staged shooting. Maybe you should be looking to find out who actually did the shooting. Then you should argue gun control based on a real event, and not the story that the MSM is putting out.

                • Frank8881

                  Do you honestly fear that it is irrational.

                • I don’t fear for me. I fear for those who have no way of protecting themselves.

                • Yes, so if Nancy Lanza had not owned the guns, there is a pretty good chance he’d find another way to obtain his firearms – or he would make them at home. And yes, with an internet connection (which gives one access to all KINDS of information) and with access to some pretty basic items you can get from a hardware store, you can make effective firearms at home. I’m just sayin’

                • Agreed. Good points.

                • On that level of thinking, we can say too that if there is less auto ownership, there are less auto deaths. Should we ban cars? More people are alive because of banned guns? Tell that to those who are murdered because they weren’t allowed to own a gun to protect themselves.

                • Frank8881

                  Why cause you like living in a country where more people are murdered.

                • No, because I love living in a land of freedoms given by our Creator and enshrined in our Laws.

                • Nukeman60

                  So Israel and Switzerland are better off because they ban guns, is that what you are saying? Oh, wait, they don’t ban guns there, do they? What is your excuse there. They demand that their people are armed and well-trained in the use of firearms.

                • Frank8881

                  Never compared Isreal I believe they are in a very unique postion. I think we can both agree on that. Switzerland bans the ammunition.

                • Nukeman60

                  Unique in what way? That guns in the hands of their citizens is paramount to their survival? I guess we can both agree on that. Switzerland banned ammo in recent years and that was due to a small minority of liberals sneaking it through their legislation and the citizenry is up in arms about it.

                  It should be a good lesson to our country not to keep letting these liberals ram-rod issues through that don’t solve the problems at hand. Switzerland’s annual gun homicide rate is still 0.52% per 100k, even with all ammo banned. They must be using the guns as clubs, I guess. It won’t take long for that legislation to be reversed there.

                • “the citizenry is up in arms about it.” heh. Nice one Nukefriend. Too bad their arms are without ammo.

                • Frank8881

                  Guns to person and you work out the ratio with UK. You are correct fewer guns fewer deaths thank-you.

                • Nukeman60

                  You could also say fewer cars per person means fewer road fatalities. Is that the reason there are vehicle deaths in the US? You leave out so many variables in these instances that I can’t believe you want all cars banned from both countries. That’s also a liberal idea.

                • Frank8881

                  Yes you are right if you had far fewer cars you would have fewer car deaths. But I see a value in cars. Now answer my question

                • Nukeman60

                  Thank you for seeing our side. We see a value in gun ownership. I thought you would never come around. Finally.

                • Nukeman60

                  I can prove where there is lower gun ownership their deaths by guns is lower. Fact, and more people are alive today because of it.‘ – f

                  So prove it in the US. Show the stats for across the country and give the numbers where lower gun ownership is creating lower deaths by guns (such as Chicago, Boston, DC, etc). And don’t give me that national borders crap. The national borders in Europe are non-existent.

                  What you like to do is play with the numbers. Let’s talk about common sense and a desire to protect our children, not attempt to use all kinds of faulty reasoning to justify banning guns. Guns are not banned anywhere in the world. They are only banned from law-abiding citizens – the very people that need the guns for their own protection (from both enemies from without and from within – don’t forget our Constitution, or is that document unfamiliar to a conservative such as yourself).

                • Frank8881

                  Yes but the nations who make up Eruope have very similar gun laws therefore the common border still works.

                  Can’t make argument for US because the free flow of weapons due to zero border control.

                  Constitution allows government to set limits on how many and types of firearms. US still the most dangerous first world nation in the world. Sorry just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it is not true and is crap.

                • Nukeman60

                  Can’t make argument for US because the free flow of weapons due to zero border control.‘ -f

                  Really? that was your whole point to start with – that national borders would keep the guns out that were banned. You really do have to get a consistent argument here. It would look a lot better.

                  US still the most dangerous first world nation in the world. Sorry just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it is not true and is crap.‘ – f

                  Just because you say this, doesn’t make it true either. But you consistently say it, none-the-less. But it is nice to know that although you say it, you still think it’s crap.

                • Except for the Swiss, right or are they now not part of Europe.

                • Frank8881

                  They don’t allow the guns in at the border in Europe and are not allowed to be purchased get it. They are legally purchased within the US and transfered due to the fact there are no borders.

                  Here read deaths by 100k otherwise stop.


                • Nukeman60

                  Ahhh, a Wikipedia expert. Well, if anybody tries to rob my house, they will be stopped with a gun. If they ban my gun from me, the robbers may be more successful, but at least they won’t say it’s a gun related death. It would be a baseball bat related death. That is indeed more civilized than me stopping them from robbing me.

                  Try to address the problems at hand. Your idiotic one trick pony has been debunked many times over by many different people. Get used to it. Many of us here have read and understand Alinski’s Rules for Radical and Lakoff’s The Little Blue Book. Thanks for playing. Come back next week, won’t you?

                  Edit: Oh, btw, why don’t you address our statements about where in the US these deaths are happening. Doesn’t that fit your agenda? When it is shown that it’s the gun-free areas that the rates are skyrocketing and the gun-toting areas where it’s declining, then maybe you’ll understand. But I doubt it, because you keep ignoring it, so that says a lot about your argument.

                • Nukeman60

                  Another point. If they don’t allow guns in at the border in Europe, then how is there any gun-related deaths at all? You seem to think they stopped the flow. Also, show me the stats in that wiki article that tells you which of the gun-related deaths was from legal guns. I would be curious. Otherwise stop with your one-trick pony argument. It’s gotten old and I’m getting bored with your statements over and over again.

                • Frank8881

                  Do you just comment at large or do you ever provide a shred of evidence US not the most violent nation.

                  I read Horton Hears a Who and I feel like I am talking to someone who would take that on a 2 week vacation so he could finish it.

                • Nukeman60

                  I read Horton Hears a Who. – f

                  You read Horton Hears a Who? I think it’s time to move up the scale now. I tell you the books I read (Alinski and Lakoff) and you come back with your reading prowess? I’m impressed.

                • Frank8881

                  Get back to me when you get some facts

                • Nukeman60

                  Can’t answer it? I didn’t think so. I’m not surprised, but your bubble is now burst on this thread. Better run to another with the same old stale line. Don’t forget to take your WikiPedia and your Horton collection with you. It’s been fun.

                • Frank8881

                  You can’t answer my question, so until you can give me an answer stop. Try thinking critically marshall an argument as to why it isn’t guns.

                • Nukeman60

                  The argument was given to you a dozen times over. Just ignoring them and asking us to repeat them doesn’t make a sound argument. Realize that.

              • Well…let’s analyze this logically:

                1. Cocaine/Crystal Meth is TOTALLY BANNED (and HEAVILY enforced)…how’s that workin out for us? I’ll bet the War on Drugs (which Liberals HATE SO MUCH, and love to point out it’s ineffectiveness/costliness/unconstitutionality) will work just as well as the War on Guns, except the War on Guns will only leave the Gun Dealers armed (just like the Drug Dealers are armed)…is THAT what they want? Gang-Bangers being the only ones armed…does that make ANY sense to you?!?

                2. What laws would you have passed to stop the Connecticut shooter? Name one…just one…I’ll wait. There is NO LAW that would have stopped him (outside an outright ban) since he STOLE the weapons from a law-abiding citizen. So unless you’re gonna take OUR GUNS away so that someone like Lanza can’t STEAL THEM from us to use in mass-shootings, then there is NO LAW that can solve this problem.

                3. So, given the logical sequence of arguments I just laid out, it becomes clear that the only way to stop these events is to DETER THEM, not try to PREVENT them. They CANNOT be prevented, but they can be deterred through show of force. Arm the teachers, and this shit won’t happen anymore. Simple as that.

                4. The 2nd Amendment was NOT set in stone to protect our right to hunt, nor target-shoot. It was put in place to DETER the Government from even ATTEMPTING to subjugate us. We are citizens, not subjects, and our founders knew (by studying the World’s History) that unless the citizenry is ARMED, we cannot hold our Government accountable TO US (since the Government controls a mighty military force). So simply by SHOWING force we can deter any Governmental Action to subjugate us.

                • Frank8881

                  Do you find it slightly incredible, that every first world nation can pass gun control laws . That due to these laws they have far fewer deaths by guns then the US.

                  These same nations have strict weapon regulations on semi automatics and in the last 16 years there have been 29 mass murder school shootings in the US and 14 in the rest of the world. 300 million people vs 6.3 billion.

                  America has over 13,000 muders a year and Canada has 544. Do you believe the US is so dumb they can’t review what these successful nations do that keeps their citizens alive and implement some of their laws. That seems totally logical to me.

                • Fewer gun deaths does NOT equate to fewer violent crimes…ALL of these places that have “fewer gun deaths” have MUCH HIGHER RATES of other types of Violent Crimes, including MUCH HIGHER RATES of murders (just not the “gun kind of murders”). Don’t play that game here…

                • Frank8881

                  No they don’t Brian, from western Europe, Australia New Zealand and Canada. The US have the highest violent crime death numbers including all weapons. They are far away highest in every catagorie.

                • Dude, compare the societal structure!!! If they have 1/10th the population, and are spread out over the same area as the United States, it should come as no surprise that they will have fewer murders!!! DUH!

                • And perhaps you should read this article here (which ranks the U.K. worse than SOUTH AFRICA regarding violent crime): http://www.therightscoop.com/what-piers-morgan-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about-the-britain-and-violent-crime/

                • Check my name. Where was I born and raised? Canada has violent crime and death- yet many people had they had been able to own fire arms would still be alive.
                  Same with Britain.

                • Frank8881

                  Firstly, it is impossible to measure by violent crime stats, each country has a different definition of violent crime. Measure by deaths due to violent crime and gun crime UK 1.2 per 100k Canada 2.4 per 100K US 4.2 per 100K.

                  Your last posts logic is baffling over 13000 deaths by guns in US 544 in Canada multiply by 10 factor Canada would be 5440 deaths. Since you applied the 10 factor on deaths you can’t now dismiss it on urbanization. Canada is equally as urbanized as US based on you 10X factor. In fact I would argue more urbanized.

                  Lastly, you can slice and dice the numbers any way you want the US is the most violent, dangerous nation and also the nation with the most guns per person. That is the commonality and until that it is fixed will always be the most dangerous.

                • Wrong. America has 300+ million people (many of which are urban), Canada has 30+ million people (many of which are urban). All I did with that conversion factor was to equate the TOTAL population of both countries, because otherwise ANY comparison made would be enormously skewed. You CANNOT compare two countries that have a population difference like Canada and America…but since you were ATTEMPTING TO, I simply showed you how to compare the two with any kind of accuracy (while also stating that even MY method was inaccurate, though more accurate than your method).

                  Doing the comparison the way you did it would be like me saying “No one has died in MY HOUSE (population of 4) due to homicide, so I must be doing it right and Canada is doing it wrong, since they’ve had 554 homicides in 2010″…the TOTAL population and the population-density are ENORMOUSLY important, and they are ENORMOUSLY DIFFERENT between America and Canada. And without ACCURATELY accounting for those differences you are just making an ass out of yourself…

                • And I’m guessing you just simply IGNORED the link I posted to you that PROVES you are wrong (with actual STATISTICS, and numbers, and facts…). So I really wish you would just go away. You ARE a Liberal Troll, and you know it…where did we put the troll spray, anyways?!?

                • Nukeman60

                  First you say it’s impossible to measure by violent crime stats and then in the same paragraph you use deaths by violent crime stats to attempt to prove your point.

                  ‘…you can slice and dice the numbers any way you want the US is the most violent, dangerous nation and also the nation with the most guns per person.’ – f

                  While it’s true the US has more guns per person, their gun crime rates are less than other countries with far fewer guns/person. Even your own example of the UK is only 2 people per 100,000 difference from the US. That is two one-thousandths of one percent difference (0.002%). It doesn’t even come close to statistical errors when your talking about 314 million people and 90 million gun owners.


                • Frank8881

                  Come on, with your flawed logic you could never compare any first world nation. The reason you don’t want to is because teh US compares in a terrible way.

                  Also 90% of Canadians live within 150 miles from the American border. You could make the argument as a % of the population they are more urbanized.

                  I read your link and responded the methodolgy is seriously flawed. Countries definitions of violent crimes differ so there is no common definition so you can’t compare.

                • And yet you are the one that ORIGINALLY attempted to compare Canada to the U.S….

                  And the link I wanted you to read…WAS THIS VERY FREAKIN’ PAGE!!! I just wanted you to read it EVEN ONCE, so that you would FINALLY understand what you were yapping about PRIOR to your reading it.

                  And now that you have read it (I’m hoping you’ve read after I told you to, but then again not reading it didn’t stop you from commenting on it the first time), in the trueist Liberal fashion, you are ignoring the facts because you “don’t believe them”, and substituting them with your own.

                • Nukeman60

                  You didn’t address a single point that Brian made. Not one single point. That tells me that your liberal approach was defeated and you must redirect with the same old stats that you previously used. Interesting.

                  You know, you liberals are so easy to understand, because you follow the same old flawed philosophy every time.


                  See if you can figure this stat out. Or ignore it, it doesn’t matter to us. This is only the FBI talking and what do they know about crime anyway. Your point of view is far superior to theirs.

                • Frank8881

                  It became clear to me that like you almost all posters here want to argue me down into the weeds.

                  Most will not even admit the blatantly obvious, US has the highest violent crime rate and most deaths by guns compared to other first world countries.

                  Violent crime has been going down the last few years in most countries I was talking about. Here is Canada’s by way of example.

                  I think I have responded to almost every post here. Why don’t you respond to me and tell me why US has the highest gun death rate. The highest mass shooting rate and is the most dangerous of the countries we have been talking about. If it isn’t guns?

                  in http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2012001/article/11692-eng.htm#a4all the

                • Nukeman60

                  So, if you admit that gun death rates are going down while gun sales are going up, then even a dense idealogue would have to admit that it must be something other than guns that is at issue here. If it were guns, then gun deaths must necessarily go up as gun sales go up. However, it is just the opposite. Looks like having law-abiding citizens well-armed and well-trained is definitely a good idea. Thanks for agreeing.

                • Frank8881

                  Answer my question why do more American die at mass shootings and gun related deaths then any other nation if it is not the proliferation of weapons.

                • Nukeman60

                  You mean like the Norway shootings that killed 69 people? Is that from the proliferation of weapons in Norway? Or is Norway not one of the 1st world countries that you want to include?

                  When you answer the questions that have been addressed to you (and I counted over a dozen that you chose to ignore), then maybe we can have a discussion. Until then, keep spewing that same one stat that you are clinging to.

                • Frank8881

                  Quit being selective and yes I included Norway. Now since 1996 mass school shootings US 29 world 14 US highest death by gun rates most dangerous nation status. If it is not gun proliferation then please please tell me what it is. Answer my question

                • Nukeman60

                  Cute. “Quit being selective.” That was rich, from a man who has been selective all along. Here’s a Wiki for ya, since you like it so well:


                  It shows that school shootings are growing more and more all around the world – not just your little 31 to 14 ratio that you keep touting.

                  Now, try to attempt to address all (a dozen or so) the points made against your philosophy and all which you have conveniently ignored. Are you afraid to address them or are you aware that they tear your position completely apart, and like your liberal brethern, you merely attempt to sidestep the real issue?

                  I guess I would have to ask you why your desire to ban all guns supercedes the desire to protect our children? Why do you hate the children so much?

              • NYGino

                …who’s ox is being gored? Pretty obvious, it belongs to the child that is being murdered.

                • Frank8881

                  I think you didn’t read the tread your question doen’t make sense.

                • NYGino

                  I didn’t ask the question (who’s ox is being gored) you did. I just answered it.

                • Frank8881

                  Gino it was not a question, it was a statement. Read the thread.

      • Joe

        I know you are kidding – but just in case


        Of course both are bad


        I hear very little about

        2,700 deaths of children DAILY by abortion

        doesn’t get as much attention as it should be getting

        ANY type of murder is a bad thing!

        • Frank8881

          Firstly I am opposed to abortion so I could say to you. You are so worried about abortion but you won’t change some gun laws to save school children. Like I said earlier the point is circular.

          • Gun laws were in place in Connecticut… did that save these babies? NO! It was a gun free zone. So was a movie theater. So was Columbine. So was Virgina Tech. So was Paducah. ALL PLACES WHERE the creeps knew no one would be able to SHOOT BACK!

            • Frank8881

              Like I said earlier city or state bans are usless. They can’t be enforced without borders. Gun laws in the other countries are nationwide. That is the only useful gun control legislation.

              • And gun laws in other countries do not keep people from being murdered. In many cases, by guns.

              • toongoon

                Laws are made to keep honest people honest. That’s why we have prisons, people don’t follow the laws. A gun ban keeps honest people from defending themselves, that’s all.
                Chicago is the example of your liberal paradise, and I don’t care how many times you and arrogant friends ignore it.

                • Frank8881

                  Yea that has got a lot to do with what I typed

                • It did have a lot to do with what you typed, because you are advocating that we put in place Chicago-Style Gun-Control on a NATIONAL level, and since it is not working IN ANY WAY in Chicago it would be an unmitigated, ABSOLUTE DISASTER to be instated on the Federal Level…

                  Remember in school when you learned that States were individual laboratories of political/economic innovation, and when a State finds something that works better than other States they would pick up on those innovations, and eventually they would be adopted by the Nation as a whole? Well…Chicago is quite lacking, and no State in the UNION wants to even closely resemble Chicago in almost any way…WHY IN THE WORLD would you look to it as an example of what IS RIGHT?!?

                  ALMOST every single violent city in America has been run by Liberals for the last 3 decades or so with ever-expanding gun-control legislation, and ALMOST every safe city in America has been run by Republicans with lax gun-control legislation. Simple fact that you refuse to accept, and unfortunately those Liberal cities’ murder rates get included with the national totals, making us look like a violent nation as a whole (which we are not).

                  If you took out the top 10 violent cities in America (which happen to be Liberal Meccas), America would suddenly look like the safest place in the World to live. But Liberals have DESTROYED the very CORE of those cities and they are rotting from the inside-out. And you want the REST of America to adopt those same policies that are putrifying Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, New York City, Detriot, Stockton, San Francisco, St. Louis, Newark, New Orleans, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

                  IT DOESN’T WORK…and WE can prove it because WE live in safe areas due to Republican leadership and OUR 2nd-Amendment…

          • Nukeman60

            Knowing that you missed his point is enough for me. You are seriously trying to say to him that the worse number of murders per day via abortion is nowhere near as bad as the deaths in this school shooting? Both of them are horrendous. Banning assault weapons would no more stop this outrage that happened in Connecticut than stopping sex potions from preventing abortions.

            Perhaps you should start comparing the number of violent crimes in liberal states, as a whole, compared to those in Conservative states. Too many people want to say, “oh, the US has far more gun-related deaths than other countries that ban guns”. If we divided the stats up to show the facts of where these problems are, perhaps we could get to the meat of the issue.

            ‘Change some gun laws to save school children’. Yep, you could fool me that you’re conservative, because you just used an Alinski tactic and we don’t fall for those here.

            • Frank8881

              I know you find it troubling but I am a Conservative never voted Liberal in my life. I just believe in gun control. Reasonable people can disagree. I know many conservatives who support varying degrees of restrictions. I am simply offering statistical evidence.As far as your first point that both are terrible I agree. My point was all sides can always claim hypocricy it’s specious.

              With respect to your last point, I agree banning guns at city and state levels is useless. In order to be effective it needs borders to be enforced. That is why it needs to be a nationwide policy.

              • Nukeman60

                Stating that you are a liberal, a conservative, or a green martian on a blog site means nothing. What points you make does. Your statistical evidence is no evidence at all. I saw no links posted that back your twisted logic, but you claim it’s true none-the-less.

                What is specious is your claim that national borders will stop illegal gun activity, much like it would stop illegal drug activity or illegal immigration activity. What you propose is a law suppressing law-abiding citizens and does absolutely nothing to criminals or their actions. You are the kind of person they love the most.

                All you have proven so far is that the US has more people than other countries. What we need to solve the school shootings is viable solutions that would involve being able to protect the children more, not make it easier for someone to wipe them out better.

                When you talk of less mass murders in other countries than here, you might want to do a little research. They are happening all over the world now on a regular basis. Disarming our citizenry will not deter crazy, determined fools from attempting their worst. Being armed and ready will.

                • Frank8881

                  I provided all kinds of evidence in the beginning of these posts. Read it and then post.

                • Nukeman60

                  Yeah, I saw all your comments. Tell me why the UK wants their policemen to start carrying machine guns now. Most countries in Europe have realized that all their idiotic liberal ways are falling apart, haven’t worked, and want to go back to sound conservative ways. That includes gun ownership, no matter what you want to say.

                  Banning guns over there caused more non-gun crimes to increase. If they had allowed law-abiding citizens to own or carry, the crime rate would have gone down, not just switch to another convenient form. When will people like you understand that. Spew the limited stats that you do. It doesn’t hide the overall facts of what’s going on.

                • Frank8881

                  You understand US have the highest crime rate the highest gun related murders. The US has had double the mass murders at schools since 1996 then the rest of the WORLD and these people have failed public policies…..HAHAHA You have got to be kidding..HAHAHA

                • Nukeman60

                  Those of us here don’t consider murdering our children a laughing matter, whether you do or not.

                  As to your repetition of arguments, we already discussed that it has to be broken down as to where in this vast country the murders are occuring. You claim not to be a liberal, but you use liberal tactics to make your points. When you can show me that the areas in our country that are armed and carrying are more dangerous than the areas that are forced to be disarmed, then the discussion can continue.

                  When the schools are publicly made gun-free zones, it draws the criminals and wackos that know they won’t be hindered. There are many schools that are protected by guns (both with hired guards and by gun-carrying teachers). None of these schools have ever had a mass killing and none of these gun-carrying teachers ever attacked their own students.

                  So laugh all you want. You are more of the problem than the solution.

                • Others provided evidence yet you pretty much ignored most of it.

                • NYGino

                  The same reason Obama was elected. Ignoring the truth.

                • yeah. sigh.

  • 911Infidel

    I made mention of gun crimes in England and Wales earlier. These other stats are gong to be lost in the sauce because Piers is not interested in facts. He’s a wanker who should just go back to Britain with Martin Bashir and sod off as they say.

    • Conniption Fitz

      If law-abiding British citizens and cops carried guns, it would ‘eliminate’ the hard core crime and criminals before the state had to pay court costs, lawyers, and years and years of room and board in jails and prisons. Some potential criminals might be deterred from crime because of the firepower they would face. It’s a win-win all around.

      • 911Infidel

        That’s too ‘extreme’. Brits are subjects not citizens. This sarcastic message brought to you by Noah Webster who said:

        “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”

  • 57thunderbird

    Stupid displaced limey would be speaking German if it were not for the USA.Get the h e double hockey sticks out of my country you twonk!

  • warpmine

    In Piers’ mind, violent crime is defined as somebody losing their life, everything else is just crime be it rape, beatings, sharia law or whatever, it all gets wrapped up into a little bundle of insignificant vs crimes resulting in deaths.

  • laceybank

    I can agree with this statistic as a Brit living in Canada. One of the most inhospitable places is inner city UK on a Friday or Saturday night. However , THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE, the issue is GUNS! Piers Morgan is anti-gun, he knows as well as I do that Britain is a violent sociey, I guess we like a good scrap, but imagine that same society with lots of guns on the streets, even worse!!! America needs to get a grip of the number of guns on the streets and should be ashamed of the amount of gun deaths in their relatively “non-violent” society!

    • 57thunderbird

      Outlaws will always find guns when they need them.If you outlaw guns then only the outlaws will have guns.What part of that is difficult for you to understand?

    • Conniption Fitz

      The answer is not guns, it’s better parents and teachers, and preachers.

      And media that inspires good behavior, not violence and lust.

    • MikhailKennedy

      Americans know that they may be shot if they try to have a “good scrap” with somebody who doesn’t want to “scrap” Having a gun means that the bullies cannot have their way with the defenceless. Just knowing that the woman you are thinking of raping may shoot you is a good deterrent. That is why the rate of violent crime is lower in America.
      As for the gun deaths in America being high, a large percentage of this is inner-city violence of gangs on other gangs. Let them kill each other. Good riddance.

    • TWH’s R#1

      Go back home and live in a no go zone. Chicken. The only thing Americans need to get a grip on is the necks of insane regressive commiecrats that want to make us unable to defend against what mao-tse ovomit has planned. Because they stupidly believe, like all their ilk before them, that they somehow will be spared. Morons.

    • Orangeone

      Your argument lacks common sense.

      If America had sealed its borders and stopped encouraging groups of populace to come here and not require integration, things would be different. We also have millions upon millions of illegals from Mexico (violence capital of North America) and every time we try and seal the borders and deport your country and others call us heartless [email protected]

      Our country is filled with gangs that force our inner city children to join, oftentimes by initiation that includes violent crime. If we dare to arrest and convict, we are racists. Now we have moooslims that are killing their children in “honour killings” as does the UK! Again, if we arrest and try them for hate crimes, we are racist and incentive to their culture. I call it B.S.

      We defend ourselves in this country and yes a gun is a GREAT defense weapon. There was a recent incident in this country where 2 men broke into a home where a young girl was home alone. Their intent was to kidnap, rape and likely murder her. She shot and killed one man with her father’s gun and shot and wounded the other, who was arrested shortly thereafter, before they could touch her. To you, that’s gun violence, to me, she is a hero! And both count as cases of gun violence, one as death by gun.

      We will keep our guns and continue to teach our men, women and children to safely use them for hunting and self-defense. After all, many men died fighting the English tyranny to give us that right!

      • And many have fought and died since keeping that right for us! Clapping wildly over here sister. SO well said!

        • Orangeone

          Thank you for that great addition sis! You are absolutely correct.  Many, many, many Americans have fought to retain our freedoms.  And if I may also add, as other Scoopers have said so eloquently, many used their guns to free those under rule by a German dictator!

  • Lives4Freedom


    Piers, we are a free people. We made that clear to your ancestors 230 years ago. Not to dominate, but to simply say, “let us be”.

    What are the odds of you being alive today, if our terrible and violent country, as you suggest, just waited until the Germans plowed through England and made their way across the Atlantic, instead of joining your battle when we did?

    Your Welcome

  • Conniption Fitz

    Hah hah.

    The UK and Europe are in a mess. The sickness of liberalism/socialism/progressivism, abortion, violence, selfishness and immorality have just about killed these nations.

    • Orangeone

      Let’s not forget their immigration programs…

  • NYGino

    “Piers Morgan”

    Sounds like an interesting desert made with seasonal fruit and spiced rum.

    • I’ll be the “Urban Dictionary” could have a FIELD-DAY with a name like “Piers Morgan”…sounds like a sex-act to me! LOL!

      For Example:
      Person A: “Ewwww…what did you do to her?”
      Person B: “I TOTALLY gave her a Piers Morgan!!!”
      Person A: “No WAY!!! Whoa…and she let you?!? WOW!!! What a skank!”

      I say again, Urban Dictionary could go WILD with that name! LOL!

  • KenInMontana
  • Brits hate it when you talk numbers to them. It only reminds them how small, petty, and dangerous their insignificant little country is.

  • Well done Scoop!

  • celestialjunk

    What’s the USA murder rate compared to other Western countries?

    • celestialjunk

      Let’s see: Murder rate by firearm per 100,00 … Spain (.2), Sweden (.41), Switzerland (.77), Norway (.05), England (.07), Canada (.51), USA (2.97).

      Now let’s look at murder rates in genral: Spain (.8), Sweden (1), Switzerland (.7), Norway (.05), Englande (.07), Canada (1.6), USA (4.2

      Houston … we have a problem.

      • capelady

        There are many other ways to kill people… you don’t have to use a gun!

        • celestialjunk

          Indeed, but that’s not the point. The point is that the USA is the most “murder” prone of all Western nations; and the “gun” is the tool of choice more than in any other Western Country. If you add to this stats on gun accidental deaths, and gun suicides … it’s a blood bath in comparison to other Western Nations.

          Don’t get me wrong; I’m not for gun bans etc., … I’m just pointing out that America has a problem with “murder” and gun death from all causes … period.

          Furthermore, with an estimated 280 million guns, the genie is out of the bottle and it ain’t going back in, so in order to curb gun violence, you’ll have to use more draconian methods than others may have to … like police officers in schools.

          Ironically, in my city in Canada, Prince Albert, the largest local high school has a police officer (armed), on duty all day long, every day, from before until after the kids go home.

          • capelady

            Somebody in our schools should be armed – whether it is staff, police, or even a vet who has been unable to find work, which I think is a great idea!!!

            “The wrenching tragedy in Connecticut last week led to much national coverage of gun violence. Not mentioned in most of the coverage is the fact that the U.S. is experiencing a 50-year-low in murders nationwide.”


          • Nukeman60

            Yes, you hit on the crux of the matter. Schools should not be gun-free zones, just sitting there wide open for any wacko to attack, whether it’s with a gun or a chainsaw. The solution to protecting our kids is armed protection, either hired guards or well-trained teachers, or both.

            This horrendous tragedy in Connecticut was just a means for anti-gun activists to jump on their narrative, and they didn’t even wait for the deceased to be buried before they started.

            If stats are going to be used, they need to be used properly. When using gun murder rates or country comparisons, more than one set of figures should be used to be accurate. If you have an equation with 7 variables, saying you solved for one doesn’t solve the equation.

      • jimmie smith

        As a “whole” the euro zone has a higher death rate per 100.000, than the United States due to firearms…besides, doesn’t Switzerland require it’s citizens to keep a firearm for defence?

        • celestialjunk

          Switzerland has an armed citizen army.

          The Euro zone’s murder rate is nowhere near that of the USA … not even close. Even Canada has a higher murder rate than the Euro zone.

      • Source?

        • celestialjunk
          • ApplePie101

            Guardian UK leans socialist-labor, and their data comes from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. Not saying that the information is false, but one has to take these factors into account.

            • celestialjunk

              Wiki for the most part is likely the best data source on the planet because of its self correcting method. My daughter is a med student, and her and her classmates prefer wiki to many text sources as it’s actually more current and just as detailed.

              You can try and search all the data you want, and you’ll always come back to two conclusions. 1. America has an unusually high murder rate for a Western Country. 2. American gun violence (murder, accident, suicide) is unequaled in the Western world.

              • ApplePie101

                This is still just assertion on your part. I would hope that those who research this issue would find better data resources than a socialist news site and an anti-American organization like the U.N.

      • Nukeman60

        Interesting that gun murder rate in Switzerland is 0.77%, per 100,000 when they supposedly ban all ammo. So either they are using the guns as clubs or this is just another proof that banning guns and ammo doesn’t stop the killing.

        Your data also doesn’t break the US down into areas. Chicago, Boston, DC (all gun-banned zones) are all higher crime areas than open-carry states, but we have a tendency to just group it all together as “US”. This is a bit misleading.

        Another point those stats don’t show is the increase in other lethal means after guns were banned. If it’s the guns that are at fault, then the killings should go down, not just switch to another category.

        I’m not saying guns are not dangerous. That’s why we are required to be well-trained in order to carry, but there are many factors in the death rates in all these countries. Stats can be used to serve any purpose.

        • celestialjunk

          The Swiss have ammo … they hunt; and soldiers have their arms and ammo at home.

          Breaking down by area is not relevant when doing a country to country comparison unless you are trying to prove, for example, that US violence is inner city based, while other countries have it across a more general area. In Canada, almost all of our murders are among Indians on reserves or in inner cities. I imagine that most American murder is inner city among minorities … but that still doesn’t change the fact that the rate is the highest in the developed world.

          Your final point is very interesting. Once you’ve got 280 million guns out there, it stands to reason that you need a gun to be safe. America is a gun flooded country; so of course, you want to have a gun.

          Here’s my favorite quote: “Up until all of these people in political office disband their police forces, their Secret Service details, throw down their own arms, armored cars, body armor and other defensive means of interdicting assault they have nothing — not even a moral argument — behind them in their demand that you disarm and become an intentional victim.”

          • Nukeman60

            Unless the Swiss have changed recently, the liberals in that country got ammo in the homes banned in 2007. Soldiers have to store their ammo in armories. And yet, there is still gun crimes.


            The reason I mention dividing up the country to see where the gun violence is deals with the liberals who are using gun stats to say the US is violent and it’s due to law-abiding citizens having guns. The laws are meant to take away the protection of law-abiding citizens. Criminals and wackos care less about the laws and these laws against law-abiding citizens will not solve the problem of violence in our world.

            Using country to country stats that don’t really show anything constructive is totally useless. If a country has a high murder rate with guns, proceeds to take guns away from it’s citizens, and then discovers that the murder rate from other means has increased, then what purpose has that served but to appease the anti-gun activists?

            I like your last comment, though. It cuts to the crux of the matter. I read a quote this morning that sums it up – “Weapons are not conducive to violence; what makes them dangerous is a violence-oriented culture.” This is what we need to address.

            • celestialjunk

              I didn’t realize the Swiss had changed their military rules. They used to be armed to the teeth. They are an active hunting society, so I’m not sure how that works.

              • Nukeman60

                I would hope that it changes soon, as the minority liberal party got it passed as the populace was napping, much like what happens here.

                I just read another article this morning, btw, that shows the US gun crime decreasing for 4 straight years (the stats were from 2006-2010), despite the fact that gun sales were skyrocketing. Cal, Texas, and NY were the highest gun murder states in the nation. While Texas has lax gun laws, Cal has the strictest in the nation.

                This just goes to show that there is more to it than gun ownership and people shouldn’t jump to conclusions just because they want guns banned.

                I quote the FBI from the article:

                The FBI also warns against using the data to rank areas against each other, noting that rankings “are merely a quick choice made by the data user; they provide no insight into the many variables that mold the crime in a particular town, city, county, state, region or other jurisdiction.”

                “Consequently, these rankings lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting cities and counties, along with their residents,” the FBI continued.


                I would think experts like the FBI would understand this data better than us, so the data that ranks countries should be taken with a grain of salt and we all should be careful not to trip into the pitfalls.

                • celestialjunk

                  So, what would happen to the murder rate if you decriminalized drugs … thus collapsing the street price and destroying the international drug trade?

                • Nukeman60

                  I don’t know. Do you? First of all, you don’t know what would happen after decriminalizing drugs. Assuming it would collapse the street price and destroy the international drug trade is just speculation. It might reduce the murder rate, but I doubt it (I am assuming you are talking about the murder rate due to drug deals, but I’m only guessing here).

                  Does that, in any way, correlate to allowing law-abiding citizens to be armed and able to protect themselves? Are you saying that law-abiding citizens would then use drugs? I’m not sure what your correlation is here.

                  Once again, you are using one variable in a seven variable equation and trying to predict the outcome.

                • celestialjunk

                  I know that a very high percentage of murder is tied to drugs; and likewise police are tied down by the War on Drugs. In Europe there is no War on Drugs like in the USA and Canada so the street price is lower, and hence less incentive for the cartels and gangs.

                  As an aside; my son is a police officer and after time on the streets does not believe in the War on Drugs, because it’s been lost. He thinks that crashing the street price would destroy the cartels and vastly reduce the crime rates in inner cities. It’s money that drives the whole inner city crime cycle … money to get drugs, money to sell them … and most ironically, it is Canadian and USA money that drives the War in Mexico.

                  I know that Spree killing isn’t tied to the drug trade, but national murder stats sure are; and getting cash for expensive street drugs is at the root of most street crime.

                • Nukeman60

                  Interesting. It would be well worth seeing what studies have been done about it. I, of course, am against drugs, but I’m also anti-murder. It is obvious that we need to do something about the degrading conditions of our nation. I don’t know if making drugs legal would make things better, but a new philosophy is needed in our environment.

                  I think it’s drugs that are causing a lot of the mental instability as of late. All the so-called legal drugs seem to be rather harmful and getting more prominent in today’s society. Do we turn our lives into an Orwellian society with the government controlling the drugs and, with that, controlling our personal lives? I don’t know how it would pan out.

                  Personal responsibility and a return to God would be good starts at reversing our decaying society, in my eyes, but it appears to be a minority opinion.

      • Well, if you’re going to toss around best case scenarios, how about some worst case scenarios? Like Mexico? Guns are illegal there; period, yet they fall at 9.97. Or Phillipines at 8.93…how about Panama at 16.8? All of these places have stricter gun laws than the US…much stricter. If we outlawed guns, within 5 years we would be on par with some of these countries.

        • celestialjunk

          Why would you want to compare your country to developing countries? The USA is supposed to be “first world” and a world leader.

          • Nukeman60

            Why would we want to compare our country with socialist countries that are now discovering that their socialist ideas have failed and are attempting to return to sanity. Europe is a window into the future for us. Why don’t we use that insight and avoid the failures?

  • GuessWhoFan

    Piers Morgan can go sh!t in his bowler.

  • Aussieborn

    Has anybody noticed that most of these mass shootings are occurring since the introduction of SRRI medication? I sympathise with the American people as they grapple with these terrible problems of not feeling safe to allow your child to go to school, but some of the anger of people on this topic seems over the top and excessive. Not sure also why so many talk about “good guys” and “bad guys” . My children did that in Kindergarten but gave it up as they grew up and realised the complexities in human beings. Also can’t understand why mental ill people are referred to as “evil” – we do not refer people with cancer as “evil” and yet mentally ill people are people whose brains are ill and the medical profession is extremely poor in providing real help. Today many families with a mentally ill child must be living in fear that their child might do something similar . If there were not so many guns around, they would not need to worry so much.

    • If someone killed your kid, would you care to make the distinction between evil or mentally ill? We don’t care to make the distinction either. Evil acts in everyone, moreso in some people than others…and THEY are the ones that shoot up the schools. And if that evil manifested itself in a mentally-ill young adult, then so be it…still evil.

  • Marridge

    Weapons make it illegally into all these European countries, no matter what laws they have on the books. Many come from former East Bloc countries, especially The Czech Republic. Just saw an interesting documentary about this on Dutch television recently. Britain is not immune so Piers why don’t you start at home first.

  • fliteking

    Every time I hear “Piers Morgan” my brains translates it to sound just like “sphincter”

  • ApplePie101

    Daily Mail ran an article about singer Gary Numan’s flight from the UK to the US, The picture of what Britain has become over the past several years is unsettling. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2035898/Why-musician-Gary-Numan-decided-leave-drunken-violent-Britain.html To quote, ‘There’s an undercurrent of violence and aggression and it seems to be fueled by a binge-drinking culture which I don’t see in other countries. The riots showed we have an ever-decreasing degree of compassion and care for other people.’

  • stevenbiot

    But, the murder rate is higher here in the USA. What that tells me is that criminals are being punished for their crimes more in the US than in the UK. Well, time to purchase some more clips for my assault rifles. God speed!

  • chatterbox365

    Piers Moron is nothing but a babbling windbag. Hey buddy…take care of your own backyard before running your mouth about the US.

    With the UK’s crime statistics, guns should be required in every home. And these idiots think they are better than us??

    • Marky_D

      *cough* not all of us are idiots and I certainly don’t think I’m better than anyone! Agree with you about the need for guns in law abiding citizens homes btw!

  • NY199827

    Pierce Morgan should go to jail because he was raped up in that phone hacking crime when he ran that English tabloid rag!! he’s preaching to us about our our 2nd amendment lol!!

  • aposematic

    Why are Leftists so afraid of the truth? It goes against everything they believe!

    • capelady

      You can’t confuse them with facts, they’ve made up their minds!

  • celestialjunk

    Here’s my favorite quote: “Up until all of these people in political office disband their police forces, their Secret Service details, throw down their own arms, armored cars, body armor and other defensive means of interdicting assault they have nothing — not even a moral argument — behind them in their demand that you disarm and become an intentional victim.”


  • bobemakk

    Piers, go back to the UK and make sure you and Paul McCartney stay there and never set foot on American soil again. You are not even citizens and you condemn America and our ways. And by the way Piers, I read that “bobbies” in the UK have access to guns…so stop your griping that the US should pass a new law banning guns, especially in such tumultuous times like these. Look at the statistics listed as well, your country is at the top of the crime list.

  • mikeinidaho

    What Piers Morgan doesn’t know about EVERYTHING would fill the universe!
    A moron looking for a cogent thought. Send his butt back to Merry Old England.

  • davienne

    piers morgan needs to be deported… to stand there as a brit and encite that our government violate our constitution, on gun controle is on the boarder of espionoge… we have enough constitution violators, we dont need any help from the brits… which by the way..we whooped their ass and chased them back to england before we can do it again.. that sorry piece of trash….. and BTW… what a panzie-ass name…

  • Hard to believe Larry King was replaced by someone worse than him.

  • CitizenVetUSA

    Americans are still fighting English Tyranny

  • compare the homicide rates and you start to get a more accurate comparison. “violent crimes” has very very wide differences. the US has 3x the homicides per 100,000.

  • I’m not going to be vague, and just point to “violent crime” statistics, but I’m going to call a spade a spade, and speak directly on GUN CRIMES and GUN HOMICIDE rates in the UK. What Mr. Credibility doesn’t want to speak of is the fact that the last decade in the UK has seen gun homicides and gun violence SKYROCKET some 89%. That means it would probably be safer walking through Chicago at night, with a 20 hanging out of your pocket, and wearing a Bush-Romney t shirt, than it would be tiptoeing through Picadilly.


    What is the similarity between Chicagoland and England? They’re both being run into the ground by liberals, and richly deserve their fates. Morgan is nothing special (which is part of the reason he doesn’t have a job in England, anymore: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3716151.stm). The typical liberal, when confronted directly with an irrefutable fact that they’re wrong, will not admit it. Instead, they will try ignoring you, or make up something just as fraudulent as their first argument, and use it as evidence that they’re right, and you’re wrong. Morgan wouldn’t talk about this, because, quite frankly, it would clearly portray him as the liar he is, and also further drag already struggling CNN further down in the mire of bad ratings (which could get him fired, AGAIN).

    For people like him, its never about honesty; its all about story.

  • PatrickHenrysBody

    Of course, the gun grabbers will say, “Yeah, but the number of gun related deaths in the U.K. is far, far, far lower than those who get killed by guns in the U.S.” Yeah, whatever. How many of those gun deaths were effected by members of law enforcement against those breaking the law…you know, CRIMINALS? What say you monsieur or madam(oiselle) gun grabber?


    Piers, please go back home. Our forefathers came here to get away from you. Why are you following them ? Ours is a free country, if and when it is gone, then what country would be better ?