More statistics that prove gun homicides haven’t gone down in Britain

I nabbed these charts from John Lott’s website where he refuted Piers Morgan after being called a liar and silenced the other night during Morgan’s show. Here are two charts. The first one is strictly homicides by firearm:

Notice that gun homicides were around 50 in 1996 the year before they banned handguns. And then notice how it never really goes below that except in 2009 and 2010. Every other year it’s at least the same or higher. Sometimes much higher. It did sky rocket after the handgun ban but it begins to descend after 2002. But I say forget about that. There still is no trend after 1996 that shows homicides by firearms decreasing below what they were before they banned handguns.

Understand how history repeats itself with today’s persecution of Christians in Islamic countries and compare to the plight of the Jews in Nazi Occupied Europe. Click here for details.



The second chart is all homicides:

Here again, notice that the homicide rate is around 600 when they banned handguns and how it never goes below 600. In fact in most years it’s much higher, just like the chart above.

If anything neither of these charts show that banning handguns has any affect on reducing homicides by firearm or by other weaponry. If anything you could make an argument that banning handguns increased it.

So how is it again that Piers Morgan tells John Lott that he’s a liar?

Go check out John Lott’s post where he goes into much more detail.

Comment Policy: Please read our 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.

159 thoughts on “More statistics that prove gun homicides haven’t gone down in Britain

  1. Why has the killings dropped from 2003. Isn’t the reduction of guns(that takes time), showing some effect? Why did gun killings almost get halved after 2003? What happened. The only thing I can see is that guns was reduced.

    1. I don’t trust any stats coming out of Europe.

      I just read a report on infant mortality. Europe claims to have a much lower rate of infant mortality than the US. Did you know that Europe does not count premature births as live births? If a child is born with a handicap, they don’t count that as a live birth. Oh, and underweight babies are not counted as live births either and neither are babies born to teenage girls. In other words, the only births counted as “live births” in many European countries are full-term, perfectly healthy babies. Is it any wonder their infant mortality rate is much less than the US? If they can be this dishonest about infant mortality, how can we trust them with homicide rates?

      I also just tonight read a bunch of articles from law enforcement in England where officials are saying the homicide stats are hogwash. That was the word they used, “hogwash”. Law enforcement officials are saying the numbers are fraudulent to convince the rest of the world that their gun control policy is working. I suppose it depends on what “counts” as a homicide.

      It is also interesting to note that England spends millions of dollars a year to support gun lobbying within the UN and they have been actively engaged in trying to pass legislation that would FORCE gun restrictions on the populations of other countries including the US. If they are trying THIS HARD to force gun control on the rest of the world, would it really surprise you to find out they had skewed their statistics?

  2. HAHAHAHA notice 50 homicides in 2009 and they go up a bit….HAHAHA US over 11,000 yea they don’t know what the heck they are doing…HAHAHA

        1. The graph shows no change in the total number. So I would question your claim of effectiveness. The question you overlook is why @600 people felt murderous in Britain, compared to @11,000 in the US.

          I would also question your perception of how gun control works in the UK. Since guns were banned/restricted, they have become far more widespread – both legal and illegal – in society.

          1. Not saying what you say isn’t true but you are going to have to link me to your evidence I think you are wrong. I have never read any of those stats.

            1. It’s not a matter of statistics. Ten years ago your average bobby looked like a bobby, now they look like robocop, with tasers and peppersprays, and body armour. The reason they give is because of gun violence.

              Add to this the increased number of bobby’s with heckler and koch who casually walk the street – there was a time when this would have been shocking, but people appear to just think it normal now. And the irony is that there is an ongoing debate about whether the police should be armed, when in reality they are already – just not officially.

              I notice you do not address why in the US 11,000 people felt the desire to kill someone when only 600 did in Britain, both before and after the gun ban. That is the real issue. And because it is a complex social issue relating to how social policy and governance actually works, it is not addressed in this debate.

              1. The gun homicides in UK in 2009 were 18 in US over 11,000 and 31,000 gun related deaths what is to debate.

                It all seems so silly trying to compare.

                1. I have asked you why so many people in America feel the need to kill others, and you are completely unwilling to address that issue.

                2. I’m sorry, I really don’t have an answer for that. Crime I suppose but it seems so much larger then that. Why, what do you think?

                3. I know the answer has nothing to do with guns. And it doesn’t have much to do with crime.

                  Though what intrigues me is why you think that the murder rate will fall because of restricting guns, when the facts show that it has not changed in Britain – guns or no guns (though quite why Britain is used as a comparison is frankly silly – for one thing in Britain we actually count the votes cast in an election before we declare the winner)

          2. So don’t pick the UK, pick any first world nation. They all have far more restrctive gun control legislation and every one has far less violent gun crime. So you choose I will give you the numbers.

            Further don’t waste my time telling me what the answer doesn’t have to do with. Tell me what the reason is they have so much gun related murder becauae we could do this all day ( I know it doesn’t have to do with the price of eggs ).

            Finally if you can be so sure it doesn’t have anything to do with guns tell me why, because they are sure doing a lot of killing if they have nothing to do with it.

            Sorry, you were to quick off the mark, they count all the votes where I live too. Canada to smart by half.

            1. Frank, you are indeed persistent. There are a thousand stats against you, but put them all aside. Look only at the one stat that you put forth. You claim that the gun ban in 1997 in the UK is the reason for the low gun deaths there compared to the US. You ignore completely the fact that the gun death total was no lower after the gun ban than it was before. In fact, it skyrocketed for many years.

              That is a simple fact that you cannot disprove no matter how many unrelated facts you want people to show you so you can laugh at them. Laugh all you want. The onus is on you to prove your argument and after 2 full weeks of playing around, you have not done that.

              And btw, ignoring it is not disproving it. Calling it false is not disproving it. Show me a link that disproves it. I realize you will come back with your ‘2009, 18 deaths’ story, but that doesn’t disprove what I said. Everything else you attempt is just a distraction.

              Try facing reality, because until you face the facts, you’re just blathering.

              1. How do you know it would not have been higher, every first world nation has tougher gun control laws then the US and every nation has far lower gun related homicides and deaths.

                Explain that, no more blather explain how Americans shoot hemselves at 3,4,5…10 times higher rate then any of them. Are you that thick explain to me why that is the case.

                You guys are all the same you get all balled down in such minor detail, tell me why you people keep frikken killing each other with guns and why guns aren’t a problem.

                1. Ha, That’s your answer? Where’s the link to prove it? Come on, Frankie, you can do better than that. We banned guns cause it would have been higher if we didn’t? Ha.

                  Frank, your whole point in saying ban guns was because the UK banned them and that was the difference. Those were your words. Are you now backing down from them? Pretty petty to say we are all balled down with minor details when you can’t even come up with one link to prove your whole basis of whining.

                  Come on, Frank. You gotta do some work here. You’re slipping and the middle school debate club is going to give you a bad grade.

                2. OK Nukboy here you go they went up in the short term but significantly declined, I have been trying to tell you that for 3 DAYS.

                  Now about every other country being much much much safer what do you have to say. Oh I got it do a survey, get your University to sponser it, remember the University of we don’t grant degrees.

                  I know it is useless but you kill way more people with guns admit it.

                  According to bare statistics, the ban initially appeared to have little impact, as the number of crimes involving guns in England and Wales rose heavily during the late 1990s to peak at 24,094 offenses in 2003/04.

                  Since then the number has fallen in each year. In 2010/11 there were 11,227 offenses, 53% below the peak number, according to the official crime figures. Crimes involving handguns also fell 44% — from 5,549 in 2002/03 to 3,105 — in 2010/11.

                3. You entire argument is gun deaths in the UK are a fraction of the US gun deaths specifically because of the gun ban in the UK. You were very specific about that. You didn’t want to talk about gun crime, other crime or anything but raw gun death numbers, because you thought that was foolproof.

                  Looking at the chart above, gun deaths were an average of 60/year through the 90s. I’ll give you that when the ban happened all other crime skyrocketed, as we all told you it will here, including gun deaths (up to 100/year in 2002). They are presently at 60/year as of 2011 – obviously a dramatic decrease from the early 90s, no? NO!

                  Now you want to say that gun deaths are declining from 2004 because of the gun ban in 1997? You are floundering again and attempting to divert the main argument you started with. There are many causes to the high crime culture that we have here in the US, and many people wanted to discuss that with you. But you chose to stick to your one trick pony that didn’t exist. So live with it.

                  Please explain, using links, why the gun deaths in the UK have remained at about the same level for the last 2 decades (given that they skyrocketed between 1997 and 2004 and then started to come back down to earlier levels). There definitely is a reason why it’s coming down (I already told you what that was), but it sure wasn’t the gun ban of 1997.

                  I need links Frank.

                4. OK Nukeman lets just say you are right about the UK, I don’t believe it but let us just say you are.

                  Can you then tell me why the US has the highest per capita total of gun related deaths as compared to all the other first world nations with gun control by a country mile.

                  If it isn’t the proliferation of guns then what is it.

                5. The increase in gun crime on the early 2000’s was directly related to immigration – particularly from Eastern Europe.

                  I remember being rather shocked at Albanians trying to sell AK47’s on Swaffham market.

                6. From below:

                  ‘Can you then tell me why the US has the highest per capita total of gun related deaths as compared to all the other first world nations with gun control by a country mile.’ – Frank

                  Yes, Frank, I can. You didn’t say please, though.

                7. OK Nukeman lets just say you are right about the UK, I don’t believe it but let us just say you are.

                  Can you then tell me why the US has the highest per capita total of gun related deaths as compared to all the other first world nations with gun control by a country mile.

                  If it isn’t the proliferation of guns then what is it.

                  OK Nukeboy, where is your answer I’ve given you plenty of times. I notice you like asking the questions but you are completely incapable of answering for your indefenceable postion.

                8. Before you start typing out more crap read this too, you are wrong again.

                  Criminologist Peter Squires said the real picture shows a slight but significant decline in the use of firearms since Dunblane. The figures don’t tell the whole story, he said, but “the murder rate has fallen and all the indicators are moving in the right direction.”

                9. You will never learn, Frank. We’re trying to teach you how to be a conservative, but you just keep bucking the pain. Oh, well. I tried and that’s all one can do before one has to put the horse down for good. Sorry.

                10. “Gun related” is the operative phrase here. Of course, if someone breaks into my home with a knife, and I have no gun, I am still going to be dead, aren’t I? Do you really think it matters to me if I’m dead from a knife or a gun? Yes, fewer guns probably do equate to fewer “gun-related” deaths. That’s because the victims are all sitting ducks and the killers don’t need a gun to get the job done.

                  Many serial killers have used strangulation as a means of killing. A woman, without a gun, is pretty much defenseless against a man. I’m 5’3 and weigh 120 lbs. How much of a chance do you think I would have of defending myself against a 180 lb. man if I had no gun? I can tell you, zilch.

            2. You are the one wasting people’s time. You chortle like a loon, admit you don’t understand the issues, admit you don’t have any solution, but apparently you are favour undermining the Bill of Rates.

    1. From below:

      ‘OK Nukeboy, where is your answer I’ve given you plenty of times. I notice you like asking the questions but you are completely incapable of answering for your indefenceable postion.‘ – Frank

      Well, Frank, I have a post ready to go. But I was waiting to see your reply, as you have been obnoxious and derisive to everybody on this site so far. It looked like you might be turning around with your last couple of statements, which were semi-curteous, but I see it was just a ploy to get another response you can attempt to play with. So I will save the reply for when you gain some knowledge of the subject first.

      Quite frankly, I don’t care whether you learn or not. I can post the response and watch you flail while you mock and deride every line, but that would require that I respond again, which I’m not interested in doing. Didn’t you notice that no one wanted to reply to your comments in the most recent thread:

      http://www.therightscoop.com/the-untold-story-of-gun-confiscation-after-hurricane-katrina/

      Understand that there is a common knowledge on this site that will totally ignore the inane such as yourself. Try to realize that. You haven’t ‘given me plenty of times’. You haven’t given anyone anything but laughter. Please do yourself a favor and go try to learn something, then come back. Your taunting for simple, silly sophomoric debating doesn’t affect anyone here. One would have thought you would have learned that by now.

      Have a nice day, Frank.

      1. HAHAHAHA..Here I can compress your long winded non answer….I don’t know but it is not the guns HAHAHAHA

        Talk about providing humour….you can’t think, you can’t answer the question and I knew you couldn’t because guns is the answer.

        1. Oh, Frank, you’re back to square one (what’s it been – 2 weeks now). You need to show the link that explains how the UK gun ban of 1997 turned a 60/year gun death into a 100/year gun death and then, as you said, dramatically dropped it 14 years later to an amazingly low 60/year. When you do that, I will post the real reasons for the culture of violence, both here and overseas.

          1. HAHAHAHA can’t answer it eh, you say the reason isn’t guns or gun control as to why Americans kill each other at an alarming rate. Have the highest gun related homicides and gun related deaths.

            Fine if that is true then why do you people keep killing each other that far outstrips other first world nations?

            Answer…PLEASE

            1. Once again, distraction. We are not going to go over all the posts that we had over the last 2 weeks. (is that the only way you get a conversation with anyone?) Your point was that the UK gun ban was the reason for the low death rate in your ‘first world’ countries. That was false and it has always been false. Everything else has been a distraction with you.

              You try to get someone to reply, then you counter with another point. I told you I know why the crime violence is high in the US (and it’s also high in the UK, with Scotland being higher than the US), but your key point was that it was the gun ban in the UK that was the difference. Try to stick with it or give it up.

              You might want to go back and reread your posts (you do know how to do that, right?). I’m still waiting for the link, Frank. Ask mommy, if you have to, I don’t care. Get all the help you can and need. It’s alright.

              1. Gun related homicides Ger 269, Cz. Rep. 181, Can 144, Pol 111, Spain 97, Port 90, Switz 68, Aus 59, Swed 58, Jpn 47, Austria 25, UK 14, Den 14, Irl 12, N.Z 10, Lux 0 Iceland 0

                17 countries more population then US and stricter gun control 998 gun related homicides

                United States of America 9369 gun related homicides. Ten times higher then all 17 countries combined.

                Ok I ask again please answer, if it is not the proliferation of guns in the US and doesn’t have anything to do with gun control. Then what is it, why do you folks keep shooting each other.

                http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

                1. (shakes head sadly) Not again, Frank. That was the wrong link. I’m sure you made a mistake, but I’ll give you another chance.

                2. AAAAhhhh no it is not is english you first language. Now stop trying to avoid the question. Answer please.

                3. Oh, you mean that link has a hidden part that explains why the gun ban of 1997 in the UK was the reason for gun deaths being so low? I guess I missed that.

                4. HAHAHAHAHA have a nice day you have been totally exposed. In future think of these words. I taught them to my children and they have used them and are very successful. Think critically don’t be a sheep.

                  Happy New Year.

                5. So there are people opposed I am shocked, here explain this.

                  Frank888121 hours agoin reply to Nukeman60

                  Gun related homicides Ger 269, Cz. Rep. 181, Can 144, Pol 111, Spain 97, Port 90, Switz 68, Aus 59, Swed 58, Jpn 47, Austria 25, UK 14, Den 14, Irl 12, N.Z 10, Lux 0 Iceland 0

                  17 countries more population then US and stricter gun control 998 gun related homicides

                  United States of America 9369 gun related homicides. Ten times higher then all 17 countries combined.

                6. You really don’t get it, do you Frank. People keep trying to tell you and all you can spew is one point over and over and over again. In 2008, there were 28 gun crimes per day in England and Wales (not much of a gun control, I’d say). Scotland has a higher crime rate than the US (not a goal to seek, either). People over there are screaming for a means to defend themselves against tyranny and all you can do is say, “I don’t believe it – it’s not true”. Well it’s too bad you don’t want to believe reality, but that is not a good argument.

                  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576406/28-gun-crimes-committed-in-UK-every-day.html

                  (By the way, when were the gun deaths in the UK ever at 14? You can look at the chart above alone to see that is false. You might want to start double checking your sources. They are feeding you a line of crap and you are buying it because that’s what you want to see).

                  Perhaps the gun deaths are low because the criminals have no one to oppose them, so they don’t have to kill anyone. Is that the culture you were looking for – one in which the criminals can do whatever they want unopposed?

                  I’d rather have a culture that is well-armed and well-trained and able to kill the perpetrator rather than one that is held as slaves to the criminal component. We are a free society here. It doesn’t look like it’s so free over there.

                  BTW, try to have a debate with people, Frank. Very few people even respond to you simply because you only spew nonsense without discussing all the viable facts that are presented to you. We’re tired of trying to teach you. Perhaps, you are used to being promoted to the next class without ever learning, but around here it doesn’t work. You have to earn your believability.

                  Edit: BTW, Frank, you do realize that your source is a survey, right? I know how much you’ve talked about surveys. This same survey has 183,000 people per 100,000 in the UK with drug crimes. No culture of crime there, huh? (you need to search better sources – you do know what a search is don’t you?)

                7. Nukeman you as an American would be jumping for joy if you only had 28 gun crimes a day. Not deaths crimes.

                  In the US:

                  48,676 were intentionally shot who survived or 133 people a day

                  12,632 were killed in criminal firearm deaths or 34 people died every day

                  Do you realize Americans in gun related crime kill more people in one day, then the UK people kill in an entire year.

                  You have got to be kidding me, this comparisons a joke by anyone’s standard.

                  .

                  Typically, there are approximately 30,000 US deaths due to firearms in the US each year.

                  In 2007 according to the Centers for Disease Control Faststats and the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control WIQARS Leading Causes of Nonfatal Injury Reports:

                  48,676 people were intentionally shot who survived. (NCIPC)
                  18,610 people were unintentionally shot who survived. (NCIPC)
                  17,352 suicides (intentionally shot themselves who died) (CDC)
                  12,632 criminal firearm deaths (killed in a crime by guns) (CDC)
                  This does not include deaths of people intentionally or unintentionally shot for legal reasons (Like the police shooting a suspect).
                  The above total is 97270 people shot in the US in 2007. About a third (29984) died, and it is likely that the total number of Americans shot is at least 100,000 given that all types of gunshot injuries/deaths are not included.

                  In the US, every day during 2007, about 266 Americans were shot. Every day, a third of them (82 daily) died.

                8. You have no point Frank. People would be ‘thrilled’ if there were no death in the world. I would not be thrilled if having no gun deaths, meant losing our freedom and enslavement. Try to do a little reading. You throw out all viable information surrounding a culture of crime to focus on gun deaths alone. In doing so, you come to erroneous assumptions and conclusions and demand that we accept that. Wake up.

                  No matter what idiocy you post next, this is my last post on this thread. Talking to someone who has no point is pointless in itself, as humorous as it has been. You can’t even keep a consistent thought here.

                9. Nukeman, why are you mad at me and call me names. You post an article trying to show that the UK has a huge crime problem even with gun control.

                  All I do is point out to you that by way of comparison there numbers are fantastic and really are an argument for gun control and the I show you how the US numbers stack up against their’s and in one day more Americans are killed in gun related crime then are killed in the UK in a year.

                  I simply point out that the comparison is somewhat laughable. Then as usual you go off. This is a debate you can’t win the US is a far more dangerous and deadly culture and the most significant reason for this is very lax gun control.

                10. You have no point Frank. People would be ‘thrilled’ if there were no death in the world. I would not be thrilled if having no gun deaths, meant losing our freedom and enslavement. Try to do a little reading. You throw out all viable information surrounding a culture of crime to focus on gun deaths alone. In doing so, you come to erroneous assumptions and conclusions and demand that we accept that. Wake up.

                  No matter what idiocy you post next, this is my last post on this thread. Talking to someone who has no point is pointless in itself, as humorous as it has been. You can’t even keep a consistent thought here.

                11. Nukeman you as an American would be jumping for joy if you only had 28 gun crimes a day. Not deaths crimes.

                  In the US:

                  48,676 were intentionally shot who survived or 133 people a day

                  12,632 were killed in criminal firearm deaths or 34 people died every day

                  Do you realize Americans in gun related crime kill more people in one day, then the UK people kill in an entire year.

                  You have got to be kidding me, this comparisons a joke by anyone’s standard.

                  .

                  Typically, there are approximately 30,000 US deaths due to firearms in the US each year.

                  In 2007 according to the Centers for Disease Control Faststats and the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control WIQARS Leading Causes of Nonfatal Injury Reports:

                  48,676 people were intentionally shot who survived. (NCIPC)
                  18,610 people were unintentionally shot who survived. (NCIPC)
                  17,352 suicides (intentionally shot themselves who died) (CDC)
                  12,632 criminal firearm deaths (killed in a crime by guns) (CDC)
                  This does not include deaths of people intentionally or unintentionally shot for legal reasons (Like the police shooting a suspect).
                  The above total is 97270 people shot in the US in 2007. About a third (29984) died, and it is likely that the total number of Americans shot is at least 100,000 given that all types of gunshot injuries/deaths are not included.

                  In the US, every day during 2007, about 266 Americans were shot. Every day, a third of them (82 daily) died.

    2. From below:

      ‘HAHAHAHAHA have a nice day you have been totally exposed. In future think of these words. I taught them to my children and they have used them and are very successful. Think critically don’t be a sheep.

      Happy New Year.’– Frank

      You really don’t want to answer the one true question that made you start this entire thread with you, do you? UK gun ban, Frank. UK gun ban.

      There are many discussions that people have on this site that explain the culture of violence that permeates this society here in the US and overseas as well. We go over them all the time. You were never interested in knowing it, that’s why I refrained from telling you, as it is useless to discuss with a sophomore who refuses to discuss.

      You have one agenda, but that agenda got tripped up when you failed to answer the one question that destroys your argument. Now you are trying to hide from that argument and that question.

      Interesting. It says a lot about you, Frank. However, just for your New Year’s pleasure, I will post it here and then I will post with you no further. I will not be interested in your responses, as I already know what they will be. You, of course, will attempt many times to bait me, taunt me, and deride me (all showing your level of intelligence), but it never gets you around the point that you can’t answer, Frank. The UK gun ban, Frank. The UK gun ban.

      We have a culture of violence in the world. It is prominent in our large cities, of which the US has the vast majority. All other ‘first world’ countries (as you call them) have the same problem, but they have fewer metropolitan centers. Guns are indeed the weapon of choice for the criminal component of these cities, but banning guns from law-abiding citizens neither stops the crime nor deters the criminals from getting them. There are many ways to get them and they will always get them.

      In Europe, after the gun bans, gun deaths did not go down, but other forms of crime increased dramatically, mainly because the law-abiding citizens were no longer able to defend themselves (in fact, in England, it is against the law for them to carry any form of defense – brilliant). Even with the gun bans, guns are prominent in crimes. The problem is not in the weapon, but rather in the culture. It’s on our TVs, in our movies, and saturated in our kids video games.

      For one thing, stop letting repeat criminals out of prison. Stop putting them back on the street. That is where a majority of crime lies. Utilize the laws we already have and stick to them. For another thing, we must rid ourselves of gun-free zones. They are only easy-kill zones. In the last 50 years all mass murders with over 4 victims, save one (The Gabby Giffords crime), were committed in gun-free zones. Period. Guns are vital. Both Switzerland and Israel realize this and have trained their people accordingly. People need to be well-armed but also well-trained. That is essential to gun ownership. It changes the viewpoint of the person when they learn gun responsibility.

      We need a return to personal responsibility and a return to better moral values that our public schools are no longer teaching. It’s an entitlement society and one in which anything goes and no one is responsible for their own actions. This is a long term solution and one I’m not sure will be accomplished through our corrupt education system. That’s why many of us are homeschooling our kids and teaching them the true values of life at an early age (that includes gun safety and gun knowledge).

      As the liberal centers of our country get worse and worse (ie, Chicago, Boston, DC, you name it), the culture of violence will necessarily skyrocket. Where I live is fairly tame, but we are headed for an economic collapse in this country the magnitude of which no one has ever seen before. Just because my area is safe, doesn’t mean the infection won’t spread to me. That is a common deadly mistake to make (you have already stated that you made that mistake even though you don’t realize it). I’m personally ready for it, along with many, many of my friends. We will survive and start it all over again, hopefully with a better handle on it.

      The rest? Well it’s going to be a bit of chaos for them and they can only hope someone like me and my friends are there to protect them, as they may well be defenseless without guns and without the knowledge of how to survive on your own. Just my point of view.

  3. I would prefer to see these numbers as a per capita percentage rather than totals. I respect Lott and his work. I believe from what I’ve read gun crime is down, although violent crime in the UK such as home invasions has soared.

  4. Just a quick post– This is going viral, and I sure some here may have already posted this: Orangeone and other’s i see– sorry, not trying to over shadow your’s…. 🙂

    The calling-out for the deportation of CNN’s Piers Morgan for Subversion. He is colluding with the Globalists to attack our 2 Amendment. I believe it’s important that this petition meet’s it’s required signatures to get “this limy” out of our country.

    Anyway’s, just thought I would pass this along….

    BTW: ~Merry Christmas~ everyone, and many blessing’s wished to you all for the coming New Year, sincerely CG..’

  5. Scoop how dare you use facts to prove someone wrong. Remember the libs have their own facts and they play the heart string card cuz it just feels that it is so. Peirs is an idiot that needs to return to England. If he felt the country was so great then why does he stay here in the US? Oh thats right cuz here in the US he can hire security that can defend him with guns legally. Just sayin

    1. Er no…

      He’s in the US because he is supposedly popular due to appearance on the Apprentice – he tried the same trick to revive his career here, but no one fell for it.

      Oh, and if he were back here – aside from being unemployable (apart from the odd moronic column in the Mail) – he would also be facing possible charges akin to Rebecca Brookes (but without the £11 million pay off to keep his mouth shut while doing stir) for phone hacking.

  6. Morgan: “If I do get deported from America for wanting fewer gun murders, are there any other countries that will have me?” he wrote.”
    Piers, you lying p*ick!
    You will be reported FOR distorting facts on TV and for trying to disarm honest people!!
    Who will “have” you??? You-know-who might “have” you ;)……. plus Cuba and North Korea
    ….the fat boy ruling N. Korea might “have” you too, although you are very, very ugly.

  7. Thanks Scoop. In fact looking at empirical evidence over the longer term also, the theory of banning to lessen violent crime has been thoroughly discredited. Britain is not evidence to support more gun control for the general population.

  8. One pertinent question is what to do about the nuts who were making a bomb and blew themselves up in a Greenwich Village town house. That bomb was intended for a dance. If they had not blown themselves up we would be remembering a serious atrocity on the scale of OKC. Nor was it an isolated matter -for those who remember NYC in the early seventies. Those weather underground types had lots of weapons, and the money to get more, as well as contacts to evade the manhunt. They did not gun down children – they were going to blow them up.

  9. The problem with stat charts like this is that they never provide enough contextual information to produce useful conclusions. One person can gun down 50 people, and that may be the year’s gun violence. But who’s doing the shooting? Home owners defending their family? Gang members killing each other?

    Obviously there was a dramatic spike in gun-related homicides between 1999-2002, which leads me to one irrefutable conclusion: that Tony Blair causes gun violence.

    1. do you know that a killed Mexican is “black”, but Mexican-offender is “white”?
      Just to falsify statistics, “officially”, per gove order.

        1. Rush talked about that more than once; remember “white Mexican Zimmerman”?, plus:
          “The FBI and the U.S. Census Bureau, along
          with mainstream media purposely distort criminal statistics and conveniently
          classify Mexican-Americans as white because they do not want the American public to know the truth–that Blacks are responsible for committing the
          vast majority of crimes here in the United States.”
          Link: http://richardboyden.com/Black%20On%20White%20Hate%20Crime%20Statistics.htm

  10. The Brits have Baseball bats to defend themselves. Remember when they were buying out the stores during their Occupy movement?

  11. After reading the story and looking at the charts; my first thought was that some will try and twist these numbers, like so many statisticians do, when trying to prove their point. When you argue logic, and disagree with that logic then many will resort to numbers. Statisticians on both sides will quickly point to one particular set of numbers while the opposing side will point to yet another set of numbers.

    Point 1. The simple truth is that for any gun to harm or destroy another, it must have human involvement. Once anyone understands this, the argument of getting rid of guns theory starts to lose its power, so the natural trend is to use numbers. This is nothing new and seems it will never change.

    Point 2. Only criminals like gun control, it weakens the population in the defense of their homes and property. Look at all controlling governments through history and you will find the point of order to locate all gun owners and quickly disarm them. This in affect abolishes the general public’s ability to defend itself and become sheep for the shearing. While many will portray Adolph Hitler as someone that encouraged gun-ownership, when you take a look at the actual Gun Legislation you can see the intent a bit clearer. Hitler shared his thoughts very clearly in reference to who should and who shouldn’t own guns.
    http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html

    Point 3. If the gun control zealots are going to use the stance that guns kill and therefore should be banned, then other means of destruction of human beings must also be addressed and abolished.
    9/11 – Jet planes must be deemed illegal as they cause massive deaths not only in accidents, but when the plane is used as a weapon.

    Automobiles – The argument that the automobile has become an instrument of death can be made very easily. The auto kills and injures more than its fair share.
    http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/teen_drivers/teendrivers_factsheet.html (Teens)

    The Cell Phone – Ok, this is a continuation of the auto, but if the gun fearing populace is going to over protect us, then we must acknowledge the rising trend of idiots texting while driving and then accidentally destroying others.

    One could list everything in the world as a possible weapon; but the fact is that all of these instruments have one common variable, the human being. So if all of these protective zealots wish to keep humans safe, we must outlaw people. The problem with this is, as I stated earlier in point 2 of this lengthy post, only the criminals will break the law therefore only criminals will be around when you outlaw people.

  12. And don’t forget violent crime other than crimes committed with handguns. Britain has the highest violent crime rate (from assault to rape) than any other country in Europe. Even if they do have lower handgun-related deaths, they still have a huge problem with crime and it’s only getting worse, and more dangerous.

    1. And this despite CCTV camera’s everywhere. Here we have a war on drugs and yet it’s still a major problem. If we can’t even stop the flow of drugs how are we going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?

    2. I am guessing a lot of that violent crime is coming from the muslim hoards they are allowing to take over.

      1. Have a very Merry and Happy Christmas with all your family, dear ABiC!

        We’re all set – even down to the special treats for the housewolf, LOL.

  13. Allow me to add a few extra points:

    • from 1997 to 2010, we had the “New Labour” (=old socialist) government, led by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, who ‘introduced’ the attitude that criminals are all victims themselves, and who encouraged all sorts of criminals to use the ‘human rights’ legislation pushed by the EU as defense. It’s no accident that Mr Blair’s wife, a lawyer, is a partner in the bigeest law firm dealing with ‘human rights abuse’ …:

    • during that time, the NewLab government encouraged uncontrolled immigration, especially of muslims from Pakistan, with the aim of making Britain ‘less hideously white’ and to diminish the influence of mostly white conservative voters. Look up ‘Andrew Neather’, and ‘Neathergate’ …;

    • the uptick in violent crimes in 2011 is due to the August riots of that year, I’m sure you’ve seen the images yourselves;

    Regarding why the violent crime rates dropped after 2002/2003: the government changed the way how crime was reported. In fact, various governments have been fiddling with the crime statistics to make themselves look good.

    1. Merry Christmas, colliemum! I always appreciate your insight from across the pond! By the way…I am the mother of two border collies myself! 😀 Couldn’t raise four kiddos without them!

      1. Merry Christmas to you, notebene – to all your family and of course to your Border Collies! I’m sure they were absolutely invaluable in keeping your ‘flock’ in check, and teaching them manners!
        😉

        1. The manners part is a test….if you follow the wagging tails, you can find out who the latest Christmas cookie thief is! 😀 Usually my hubby!

          1. Oooh yesss!

            That scene is very well known to me as well, from the times when my husband was still alive: a suspicious quiet and absence of housewolves from their usual places always meant hubby was into some food I was saving, from fruit to raisins to cookies to cheese to cooked meat …

    2. Regarding why the violent crime rates dropped after 2002/2003: the government changed the way how crime was reported‘ – c

      I was curious about that reason. Thank you, Colliemum. It is much like the way we keep changing the definition of ‘unemployed’ here in the US. In order to keep the numbers down, we must change the parameters rather than fix the problem.

      1. Yes indeed: governments are very adept at shuffling numbers and statistics, and spend more time doing that and lying about it, a.k.a ‘explaining’, than dealing with problems.

        One data reshuffle coming to you is the way how they calculate inflation: it’s not the RPI (Retail Price Index) any longer, which they use, bu the CPI (Consumer Price Index), where government makes up an arbitrary ‘basket’ of goods people buy, some of which have indeed become cheaper – like PCs or iPods.
        Sadly, pensioners are not buying an iPod or PC each month, they need to buy food, but food inflation is calculated down … so there’s low inflation, hurrah! So no need for higher interest rates on savings, hurrah, so the impoverishment of the prudent middle classes is going ahead, full steam.

        1. Add to that the effects of QE1 (over $1 trillion), QE2 ($600 billion), QE3 ($40 billion/month indefinitely), and QE4ever (another $45 billion/month until unemployment reaches 6.5% – which may be never), and you have a suppressed inflation that will eventually necessarily skyrocket uncontrollably (hyperinflation).

          Yep, government manipulations of the numbers really works wonders, doesn’t it. When will they (and we) ever learn?

            1. No need, the gov’t doesn’t want you to eat that bread because it will make you obese 🙂 Eat only the veggies you grow in your garden……

    3. Thank you mum, should learn to look down before I post 🙂 You will see I did a shout out to you just above here :):)

  14. Will Obama confiscate the guns from Americans and give them to the Syrian rebels? Should only government agencies have guns, like Nazi Germany?

    1. Hey, Obama and Holder give free guns by the thousands to Mexican drug n’ murder gangs and Al Qaeda et al…but wants to take them off wait for it…law abiding AMERICAN CITIZENS. Think what this means. We are already utterly defenseless with a massively rising crime rate in Australia, and without freedom of speech and with a left infested ever more regulating Labor Party and a First Principles bereft alleged ‘conservative’ party. All is lost. DO NOT LOSE YOUR GUNS! No, really. Colonel Neville.

      1. Thank you, sir for your comment. To support your comment, I offer this link:

        Now our government led by the anti-gun lobbyists and advocacy groups, along with Zero and his accomplices are using the deaths of innocent people, including of course the deaths of children, to further their gun control agenda. They would be most pleased to abolish firearms altogether, which would also please the anti-gun cadre of the United Nations, of whom they are beholden.

    2. according to demo-rat nadler of N.Y. believes that the govt should have the monopoly on ligitiment violence. refer to CNS web site

    3. Exactly! The first thing a totalitarian government does is confiscate weapons from it citizens. History is replete with such examples.

      1. That’s why it’s not accurately taught in our institutions of public indoctrination. A person won’t learn from the past, if he/she is not properly taught history. All those in our public edumacational system are being taught is revisionist history. Hey, the White House has been busy doing that to White House historical records and continue to do so right now.

  15. Hey, wait. How are guns getting into the hands of the citizenry there? Guns can’t get into the country because it’s surrounded by water. How are the guns getting into the hands of criminals there? I thought guns were confiscated and destroyed in Britain. Hmmm.

    This is interesting:

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/17/britain%E2%80%99s-criminal-utopia/#ixzz1hnrG6Ctx

    http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2011/it-will-never-happen-here.aspx?s=european+gun+crime&st=&ps=

    http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2001/gun-laws-around-the-world-do-they-work.aspx?s=european+gun+crime&st=&ps=

    It doesn’t appear that the folks in Britain have been all too happy about their “gun ban” over there. Militant, extremist types in Europe are loving “gun free” societies. Don’t let the facts or proof get in the way, though.

    1. thank you PHB! you given me a schooling that should be required of our state deptment employees. i was unaware of these shootings in G.B.

      1. You’re welcome, sir. It’s not too hard to find the information if you either use search engines or go to the public library. I need to go to the library more. I like going “old school” better than Googling something. It’s just finding the time to get to the library and do the research that is the kicker. 🙂

        1. PHB, with your links, i used the computer find out more about the hungerford and dunblane murders. all i can say, is that history may repeat itself here in America. where i work, none of us had heard of these either. blame self interest, blame the media, blame the lack of interest of what is, and has happen globally

  16. It would be interesting to find out what exactly happened in 2003-2004 to start bringing this number down. Did the citizenry start packing in spite of the law, because they were fed up with the gun ban and increased homicides? Or did they start doing something else that deterred the assailants? It’s obvious, guns weren’t responsible for the increase, but what is responsible for the decrease?

    In the US, as well, it’s hard to say guns are responsible when gun sales soar at the same time homicides decrease. But truth to the liberal is something you make up on the Sunday talk shows, so go figure.

    1. The London bombings were in 2005. The UK law enforcement started carrying sub-machine guns in 2009 so that deterrent might be part of why the decrease then.

      Colliemum, you live in the UK, any insights?

  17. It would be a better chart if it took into account population growth. The UK population grew from 57.2 million in 1990 to 62.6 million in 2011, or 9.4%.

    1. it’s hard to say that an increase in population automatically means an equivalent bump in crime. That said, there is a near 10% bump from point of the ban and 2011 – netting the ban zilch. One thing is for certain – the ban didn’t have near the effect that pro-gun control zealots predicted.

      1. Here in the U.S., there is the influx of illegals from which we have to consider. The numbers coming in might not be as great as in the past, but when you have several MS 13 types coming into the U.S. for instance, they are not entering with contributing as a productive citizen in mind.

        1. A little late, but welcome to the TRS community! I’m enjoying reading your comments and encourage you to stay and continue to contribute! 🙂 Merry Christmas!

    2. Actually we’re just talking about England and Wales where the population grew from 51M in 1991 to 56M in 2011. Still about a 9% increase.

      But you make it sound like a huge difference. It’s not. That 9% would only account for 5 homicides.

      And what about 2008? 2007? 2006? and on and on? You can’t just cherry pick the numbers and say that the handgun ban is making a difference. There isn’t a strong trend here that would suggest that. If anything a stronger contrarian argument could be made.

      As I said above, the handgun ban clearly hasn’t done anything to stop gun homicides, nor homicides in general. There’s just no trend to prove it.

      1. “You can’t just cherry pick the numbers and say that the handgun ban is making a difference.”

        You can IF you’re a Liberal! Since when did the Liberals ever let true facts get in the way of their agenda? They ‘cherry pick’ and distort the truth to fit their agenda, and the media follows them without question.

        Thanks for the info Scoop! More than ever, I REALLY appreciate your efforts in helping to get the truth out and knowing we are not alone in this battle to save our country!

        1. Good point, conservative58. The truth to a liberal is what they want it to be and the facts be damned. That is why journalistic integrity in the mainstream media has ceased to exist. I do not even waste time with MSNBC or CNN as the they have absolutely no perception of the truth. I could not even tell you where Piers Morgan’s bully pulpit is if it wasn’t for the Right Scoop.

      2. I see you if you follow the link, Lott’s got the homicide rates there, and yes, it’s inconclusive (rises then falls after the ban), especially when you factor in the effect of putting in CCTV cameras everywhere across the UK over the last 20 years.

        I’d say the general premise of banning assault weapons in the U.S. is to reduce the carnage of the classic white-or-asian-male-loner mass shootings of strangers, not so much to reduce the overall homicide rate, which doesn’t budge if you take out the mass killings.

        On that score, the UK, Australia and Canada have done much better so far, with no real repeats of their worst mass shootings of strangers (i.e. Dublane, Tasmania, Ecole Polytechnique, respectively) experienced over the last 20+ years, whereas in America it’s become bi-monthly.

        In Canada, white-male-loner mass shootings of strangers still happen from time to time, but they usually top out at 3-4 people, due to the restricted access to military style weapons.

        1. Bad guys always find a way around gun bans. The reason they can get away with killing so many people is they choose “gun free” zones. Don’t they know it’s illegal to have a gun in a gun free zone? Oh right, criminals don’t obey laws!

          We need assault weapons so we can defend ourselves against a rogue gov’t. We need to have the exact same weapons as our gov’t. That is what the 2nd amendment is for.

          1. “We need to have the exact same weapons as our gov’t. That is what the 2nd amendment is for.”

            So you have artillery, aircraft carriers, tanks and f-16s in your backyard in case you need to take on the government? Should be an even match then. Bravo!

            Personally, I’d agree that an assault weapons ban in the U.S. wouldn’t do much right away, because so many heavy duty weapons are already in circulation. That wasn’t the case in the UK, Australia and Canada, where confiscation with compensation was possible. It’s too far gone in the U.S., and confiscation is a non-starter with so many gun nuts in the U.S.

            1. Don’t be ridiculous.

              You are aware that before every mass murder in the 20th century, the gov’t took their guns? You are aware that in the US over a million violent crimes are stopped every year because a law abiding person had a gun? How many women in the US are able to stop a rape because they have a gun? You Europeans are screwed. No guns and millions of muslims. Look what muslims are doing in the ME and African countries. Slaughtering the Christians. If all those Christians were armed they would stand a chance…not against the bombs, but the other killings they’d stand a chance.

              1. Mass murder by the U.S. government against its own citizens is an imagined problem. Nutjobs walking into malls, theatres and schools and killing random people with assault weapons is a real problem in the U.S. right now. If those losers only had handguns, they wouldn’t have done as much killing in such a short time. Same goes for any Muslim terrorists trying a Mumbai-style attack on U.S. soil. Banning assault weapons is a pretty modest move that may reduce the death toll in mass killings while still allowing for full self defence for a law-abiding citizen in normal day-to-day life, using a less powerful weapon like a handgun.

                Muslim populations growing in Europe and sub-Saharan Africa = a totally different issue.

                1. No, the real problem in the US is mental health and much more of a danger to its citizens as suicide is now the leading cause of death by injury (close to 40K deaths in 2010) among Americans.

                2. I said it was “a problem” not “the problem”. There are lots of problems, including I agree mental health treatment, which is very difficult. I deal with it in my own family. This Newtown shooter was from a very well-off family, so money was not an issue in his treatment or lack thereof.

                  I’ve worked for several months in Detroit and its suburbs, where I’d definitely want a handgun if I was there longer-term, and now I’m in Toronto, where I don’t need one. Life’s way better in Ontario than Michigan for ordinary people, and our stricter gun laws are one small part of the reason.

                  Even in Detroit, I can’t see how an assault rifle would protect me much better than a shot gun and handgun would in my home and when out and about in the city. Some of my co-workers in Michigan whom I quite liked were “gun-nuts” and it was pretty easy to see that their desire to own guns was driven in part by apocalyptic fantasies and emotional and self-esteem issues rather than reasonable self-defence needs.

                  I’m a moderate conservative, so I’d still take Midwest U.S. gun nuts over leftist U.S. campus radicals any day! Lol.

                3. I would personally like to see the proof that your life in Ontario is better because of Canada’s strict gun laws. Then I invite you and your shotgun to visit Chicago (similar to Detroit with a gang-filled minority population that isn’t punished because of its race) and see how well you defend yourself against a gang.

                  Quoting my friend PatrickHenrysBody above: “Here in the U.S., there is the influx of illegals from which we have to consider. The numbers coming in might not be as great as in the past, but when you have several MS 13 types coming into the U.S. for instance, they are not entering with contributing as a productive citizen in mind.”

                  Would you care to be the country abutting Mexico and nearest to Cuba for awhile?

                4. Just wait until your muslim population hits 10%…that is when they start killing the infidels…get back to us on your strict gun laws…because the muslims will have guns.

                5. “Mass murder by the U.S. government against its own citizens is an imagined problem.”

                  NO, it’s called ROE (rules of engagement) and it is policy for our soldiers, which has greatly increased fatalities of US military personnel. Our military doesn’t loose wars, our politicians do!

                  Seems to me Canada recently had a mass murderer cutting people up and mailing their remains. Also there was a fellow in Vancouver a number of years back feeding people to his pigs. Oh and what about the shoes with feet in them that keep being found in the waters off Vancouver… You see mass murders happen even in POT smoking, free loving, peaceful Canada.

                  Can you please tell me what is meant by “assault weapons”? I want to be sure I understand what you think it means. I ask this because those whom use this generic buzz word usually have no idea what exactly it means. Also I will add that originally the latest school shooting was for several days said to be hand guns. The rifle was still in the car and there has been video to prove it. In addition I will add that in the confines of a shooting such as this a hand gun would be more than necessary to commit such heinous acts. The logic you are applying lacks substance ands is more of the same old leftist attack and distract. Fact is a nut job in a class room wielding a machete against children would be just as affective, look at Africa to see point.

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju_NllT1iDo Here is one link of video showing the rifle, notice also this rifle is not of AR variety!

                6. If o has his way, he will kill us in the millions….his domestic security force….his good buddy Ayers’s Weatherunderground wanting to kill us by the millions….o saying right before the election that the future workers of the US WILL be blacks and hispanics…

                7. How about mass murder in Russia. Did the Russians think mass murder is an imagined problem?
                  How about mass murder in China. Did the Chinese think mass murder is an imagined problem?
                  How about mass murder in Cambodia. Did the Cambodians think mass murder is an imagined problem?
                  How about mass murder in Armenia. Did the Armenians think mass murder is an imagined problem?
                  There are a lot more examples.
                  Do you, as a leftist, suscribe to the fantasy that the politicians in the USA are somehow different and wouldn’t ever consider killing their own citizens.
                  S*** I’ld bet you were advocating killing NRA members a week ago.

              2. Ditto Keyes! Let’s also include the children (female and male) that have used firearms to protect themselves when perps broke into the homes knowing they were alone. A young lady in OK took out 2 perps (killed one, wounded the other subsequently caught) and a young boy defended himself and his sister recently.

                1. I will also include a family member that is alive today because they had a gun as the bad guy was telling him to get down on the bathroom floor.

                2. Thank you for that addition!  Lives saved because there were guns in the home and the children were trained to respect them and use them if necessary.

            2. The US had an assault weapons ban under President Clinton. Then Columbine happened. You might want to read this speech, delivered to Congress, by the father of one slain. http://www.kennbutler.com/KENNS+KORNER/Previous+Kenns+Korners/A+Columbine+Fathers+Speech.html

              BTW, CT has an assault weapons ban, had armed security in Newtown between 2000 and 2003 and CHOSE not to renew the request for the federal grant that paid for it. Choices have consequences.

              You choose to live in Canada and I respect that. We choose to live in the United States of America, under OUR Constitution, which was framed by OUR forefathers who had great insight into tyranny, England. We cherish our rights as bestowed upon us by God. We bow to no government and shall not have our rights taken away by the US or any other country’s government or royalty.

                1. So? We need assault rifles to protect us from the feds.

                  The 2nd amendment is about protecting us from a rogue gov’t.

          2. I think we are going to need these sooner than later, too. Facts are pesky things, when the populace is unarmed, they are easier to remove. aka(exterminate).

        2. I think it’s hard to associate the gun laws’ effect with mass shootings (epecially racially specific shooters?) if there isn’t a large amount of occurrences in those countries before the bans or new laws.

          Bottom line is that Canada’s homicide rate rose 7% in 2011 and that shouldn’t happen with strict gun laws in place (according to gun control activists).

          One last thing – are the 430+ murders this year in Chicago less devistating than the recent mass shootings? Are those murders performed mostly by citizens that were able to acquire their guns through a legal process?

          1. I’d say, of course, from a divine point of view, the tragedy of the murders is the same.

            But it’s pretty obvious that most Americans don’t care too much about the Chicago murders, deeming it a local problem, with a lot of it being “live by the sword, die by the sword” gang violence, and thus a kind of rough street justice. Plus, the killings happen one or two at a time, and most victims are black and not first graders.

            1. Please be careful of your generalities. You do not reside in our country and do not have the voice of its people. There are many children killed in all countries. I bet if we analyzed the Canadian health care system, we would find more children dying in your country daily for lack of proper medical care than are killed by gun in the United States. So where is the real travesty? And before you say it doesn’t happen, I live in MN and we have Canadians coming to our University of Minnesota medical center, our Mayo Clinic and other specialty medical centers EVERY DAY because they cannot timely receive care in Canada.

              1. Bingo! The reason Canada’s socialized medicine “works” is because 90% of Canadians live within a hundred miles of the US border….ahem.

        3. I would not call the results inconclusive. They are very conclusive: there is NO correlation between banning hand guns and the gun murder rate. There are specific rules in statistics that declare when one can assume a correlation or the lack of a correlation, and I am pretty sure, just from the visual data (having worked with statistics for 30 years) that we can make the “NO correlation” conclusion.

        4. Dear TangoPivot:
          Sorry I missed this post by you when I made my post above. I see that you did follow through and look at the original post.

          Thanks for your other comments. The UK has continued to have multiple victim public shootings like the taxi cab driver who killed 12 people 2.5 years ago. Other countries in Europe have also continued to have shootings despite having stricter gun control than either Australia or Canada. For example, Germany has had 2 of the 4 worst K-12 school shootings.

      3. Dear RightScoop:
        Thanks for posting this discussion. The piece that I had also reported the homicide rate and you get very similar results to the raw data. The only reason that I did the raw numbers was because Morgan and Amanpour were making their claim in terms of raw numbers, not rates.

    3. Dear TangoPivot:
      If you look at the post, you will see that I also provided the homicide rate. The reason that I also posted the number of homicides is that both Piers Morgan and Christiane Amanpour were referencing the raw number and thought that I should also show it the way that they were arguing.

Comments are closed.