*Reality Check Video* Ben Swann breaks down Piers Morgan's UK vs US violence rate.

Originally posted by ecoparity
reply to post by GrandStrategy

 

What a load of BS. Typical attempt to divert the issue.

"UK crime stats are not comparable because we do a better job of recording violent crime and label some crimes as violence others MAY not".

So, you do a better job of tracking crime but those crimes STILL EXIST. As for the concept that the UK has some types of violent crime that are not considered violence elsewhere? Complete BS.

It's very simple, go to the FBI crime stats page, the UK home office crime stats page, the Australia national crime stats page and do your own comparison. The fact is that while the US is showing a 50 percent reduction in crime these other "liberal gun free utopias" are both showing around 40 percent INCREASES in crime in the same time period.

Stop getting your stats and info from biased sources.

edit on 9-1-2013 by ecoparity because: (no reason given)

I'm astounded you managed a star for such utter, made-up nonsense.

It is an absolute fact that affray is recorded as a violent crime in the UK, no exceptions. This simply isn't true in other places. Usually, unless there's a physical injury the police simply do not log it, that's what happens in a lot of countries. When I say that I'm not using biased sources or diverting the issue, I'm repeating relevant fact.

One of my sources for this is the Daily Mail report on the same figures Ben Swann himself uses. If you're telling me the Daily Mail are a biased source which wants to make crime in Britain look less severe than it is then a lol to your sir

As for the licensing laws, alcohol consumption laws and the binge drinking culture in Britain - these are facts agreed on by all sides. There is nobody, anywhere, apart from you from the looks of things, who denies the significance of alcohol in Britains violent crime rates. It is, as I told you already, readily accepted that half or more of violent crimes are fueled by alcohol. There is no disagreement, politically, on the role alcohol plays in the incidence of violent crime. Only someone from outside of the UK could think alcohol wasn't worth bringing into the discussion!

The Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2006 starts with alcohol related crimes for a reason.

www.ias.org.uk...

That's twice you called BS and twice I'm telling you the matter of fact truth. You could do with actually learning something about the world before storming into threads and acting the fool, talking about subjects you obviously know nothing about.

I can't believe you said the logging of affray doesn't differ by country, you actually slandered it BS, wow.

upload.wikimedia.org...

newsimg.bbc.co.uk...

www.bbc.co.uk...

shall i keep going?

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

Can someone tell me why anyone is listening to Ben Swann anymore?

Wasn't he saying that Paul was winning the primaries, complete with his bogus charts, made up stats, and horrible inaccurate interpretation of the "rules"?

He has been wrong about absolutely everything he talks about, he is the Dick Morris of the Libertarians.

for the same reason we listen to MSNBC, CNN, Fox news. RT and whatever news medium you listen too. They all have used bogus info or bias info. How about those fake sets on CNN during desert storm??

what?? huh?? yeah??

that's what I thought.

reply to post by eLPresidente


Star and flag from the UK.

Originally posted by GrandStrategy
The Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2006 starts with alcohol related crimes for a reason.
shall i keep going?

I suppose. You are basically wanting to divert us to 30 vs 50 or 11000 vs 8000 and playoff your percentage of VIOLENT crime within your population as saying - well its alcohol fueled as if that matters. Ours is alcohol fueled, meth fueled, and prescription medication fueled too.

Your a violent country.

If anyone got drunk and tried to assault me I wouldn't have to fight him hand to hand. Point.


Even drunks know not to mess with someone carrying a pistol.

thank god for mr swan.. cant satand piers and jones..

Originally posted by pasiphae
reply to post by ObjectZero

 

there will never be a complete gun ban. i don't know why people keep saying that when it's never even been considered.

Really? Not even considered huh? Do you know who this woman is?

She is the same one pushing a bill in the Senate right now ...

Originally posted by ararisq

Originally posted by GrandStrategy
The Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2006 starts with alcohol related crimes for a reason.
shall i keep going?

I suppose. You are basically wanting to divert us to 30 vs 50 or 11000 vs 8000 and playoff your percentage of VIOLENT crime within your population as saying - well its alcohol fueled as if that matters. Ours is alcohol fueled, meth fueled, and prescription medication fueled too.

Your a violent country.

If anyone got drunk and tried to assault me I wouldn't have to fight him hand to hand. Point.

edit on 1/9/2013 by ararisq because: (no reason given)

Even drunks know not to mess with someone carrying a pistol.

edit on 1/9/2013 by ararisq because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/9/2013 by ararisq because: (no reason given)

Yes. Excuse me for giving some perspective and explaining Britains high crime rate. I should just shut up and let you yanks live in your yank fantasy land where britain has a high crime rate because of a lack of guns, despite violent crime going down as gun restrictions went up

reply to post by GrandStrategy


Violent crime rates in the US have also dropped ... even though so many own guns.

www.cnn.com ....

Violent crime in the United States fell for the fifth consecutive year in 2011 with murder, rape and robbery all going down

www.foxnews.com ...

Violent crimes unexpectedly jumped 18 percent last year, the first rise in nearly 20 years, and property crimes rose for first time in a decade. But academic experts said the new government data fall short of signaling a reversal of the long decline in crime.

"2011 may be worse than 2010, but it was also the second-best in recent history,"

The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics reported Wednesday that the increase in the number of violent crimes was the result of an upward swing in simple assaults

"These simple assaults are so low-level in severity that they are not even included in the FBI counts of serious crime,"

So it is an apples to apples comparison after all.

The UK IS more violent ...

Originally posted by TheMindWar
At least someone has got it right. My mother in law has been burgled, my daughters boyfreind was mugged and we live in a villiage and and a small town.

Violent crime in the UK is out of control as a direct result of the nanny state trying to domesticate honest and decent people by making them unable to defend themselves.

I know several people that had their (and their loved ones) lives threatened and the only thing that got them out of the dangerous situations was a household firearm.

I'm fortunate enough to not have been put into a situation like that.

Over 2 million people a year use firearms in self-defense.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
I have seen so many of this guy's videos online, yet he is on a local Cincinnati station.

WHY IS HE NOT ON NATIONALLY!!???!

Because puppets like Piers Morgan, Anderson Cooper and Sean Hannity are much easier to control than people like Ben Swann, who uses his own brain and critical thinking to report facts and doesn't give you his opinion.

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

Can someone tell me why anyone is listening to Ben Swann anymore?

Wasn't he saying that Paul was winning the primaries, complete with his bogus charts, made up stats, and horrible inaccurate interpretation of the "rules"?

He has been wrong about absolutely everything he talks about, he is the Dick Morris of the Libertarians.

If you make the accusations, you should bring the evidence.

Ben Swann has been accurate in his reports, if you say he has 'bogus charts', 'made up stats', and 'horrible inaccurate interpretation of the rules' please provide the PROOF. OR, instead of trying to discredit him, why don't you challenge his points made in the video in the OP of THIS thread?

Why don't you make a thread about it and we can all fact check your evidence? Maybe I can start a thread for you if you are too shy. I really don't mind. Really!

I have seen this and it was well done. I really like Ben Swan's intestinal fortitude. He is one of these few on the Fox networks that I think is worth a listen and I follow his material as it is always well presented.

Originally posted by GrandStrategy

Originally posted by ararisq

Originally posted by GrandStrategy
The Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2006 starts with alcohol related crimes for a reason.
shall i keep going?

I suppose. You are basically wanting to divert us to 30 vs 50 or 11000 vs 8000 and playoff your percentage of VIOLENT crime within your population as saying - well its alcohol fueled as if that matters. Ours is alcohol fueled, meth fueled, and prescription medication fueled too.

Your a violent country.

If anyone got drunk and tried to assault me I wouldn't have to fight him hand to hand. Point.

edit on 1/9/2013 by ararisq because: (no reason given)

Even drunks know not to mess with someone carrying a pistol.

edit on 1/9/2013 by ararisq because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/9/2013 by ararisq because: (no reason given)

Yes. Excuse me for giving some perspective and explaining Britains high crime rate. I should just shut up and let you yanks live in your yank fantasy land where britain has a high crime rate because of a lack of guns, despite violent crime going down as gun restrictions went up

Really? Because there is hard hard HARD evidence, by criminologist, and liberal FORMER gun control advocate Gary Kleck that says otherwise. Guns = overall decrease in crime & Gun Control DOESN'T necessarily lower crime by its intended means. I recommend reading his book/study; "Guns and Violence: A Summary of the Field".


& I don't know if you missed this part of the report.

-The UK has the second highest crime rate in the EU
-The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate
-The 4th highest burglary rate
-EU named Britain, 'most violent country in the EU'
-In the EU, there are 2034 violent crimes per 100,000 people (more than 4 times the rate of the U.S. @ 466/100,000)

There is also this, which refutes the using of stats to come to bogus conclusions in relation to gun deaths in the U.S. Not necessarily saying you disagree with this notion or agree with it but it helps to provide context.

Most people ignore the fact that the US has a very special relationship to guns .. the 2nd Amendment has been established to prevent one thing: Deterring tyrannical government. It's in insurance for the people that a Government works for the People and not the People of the Government. Many will argue with me on this, but I see the 2nd as a balance of military power between Government, States and the People - used by the people as a last resort if all law fails to give the people a chance for self-preservation.

Ironically enough the Obama Administration is trying to repeat history by trying to disarm it's own citizen. Last time that happened it ended in the "Glorious Revolution" and the "King" was overthrown and the English Bill of Rights established which saw "gun ownership" as a long standing individual natural right.. sure enough it all happened in England.

Funny fact is also that "the right to have arms" was mostly done to preserve hunting rights for the Elite in England ...

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

Can someone tell me why anyone is listening to Ben Swann anymore?

Wasn't he saying that Paul was winning the primaries, complete with his bogus charts, made up stats, and horrible inaccurate interpretation of the "rules"?

He has been wrong about absolutely everything he talks about, he is the Dick Morris of the Libertarians.

If you make the accusations, you should bring the evidence.

Ben Swann has been accurate in his reports, if you say he has 'bogus charts', 'made up stats', and 'horrible inaccurate interpretation of the rules' please provide the PROOF. OR, instead of trying to discredit him, why don't you challenge his points made in the video in the OP of THIS thread?

Why don't you make a thread about it and we can all fact check your evidence? Maybe I can start a thread for you if you are too shy. I really don't mind. Really!

edit on 9-1-2013 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)

The fact that Paul got embarrassed in the primaries should show how "accurate" his charts were.

Originally posted by Cynicaleye

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

Can someone tell me why anyone is listening to Ben Swann anymore?

Wasn't he saying that Paul was winning the primaries, complete with his bogus charts, made up stats, and horrible inaccurate interpretation of the "rules"?

He has been wrong about absolutely everything he talks about, he is the Dick Morris of the Libertarians.

If you make the accusations, you should bring the evidence.

Ben Swann has been accurate in his reports, if you say he has 'bogus charts', 'made up stats', and 'horrible inaccurate interpretation of the rules' please provide the PROOF. OR, instead of trying to discredit him, why don't you challenge his points made in the video in the OP of THIS thread?

Why don't you make a thread about it and we can all fact check your evidence? Maybe I can start a thread for you if you are too shy. I really don't mind. Really!

edit on 9-1-2013 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)

The fact that Paul got embarrassed in the primaries should show how "accurate" his charts were.

Really? Based on the interviews I've heard with Ron Paul since the elections, he seems optimistic about the young people that like his message. So optimistic, he plans to do more college campus tours with the first one starting at the end of this month. That doesn't seem like an embarrassed man to me.

Everybody can make an accusation.

Can you back that up? not with an opinion, but by evidence?

Which charts were inaccurate? Did Ben make the charts himself or did he reference them as somebody else's work?

If you throw it out there, be ready to back it up. Speaking of which, I've never seen you make a post of any substance nor do I expect you to at any point in the near future. I can be surprised though if you actually do come back here and provide some real evidence.

Again, I predict you won't but thats just my opinion based on my interactions with you in the past.

Oh cmon all of you .... obviously UK or the US both have problems with violence. After looking at the statistics, saying one is more violent than another is like saying a river is wetter than a lake.

The question the subject in the OP and Peirs Morgan is actually trying to get at is: Does increased levels of firearms ownership increase overall violent crime rates?

From the available evidence you have to say NO it does not reduce overall violent crime rates.

But asking "Does increased levels of firearms ownership increase overall violent crime rates?" is not the right question because not all violent crimes involve firearms

I think that a more relevant question we should be asking is "Does increased levels of firearms ownership increase homicides involving firearms?"

On the back of some basic evidence, it seems the answer is YES.

US - 88,000 firearms/100,000 pop = 3.7 firearm related homicides/100,000
UK - 6,200 firearms/100,000 pop = 0.04 firearm related homicides/100,000

The UK has 10% the rate of gun ownership but a 1% the rate of firearm related homicides than the US.

I would like to point out that this is no way suggests that the US is a more violent country than the UK. More likely it points to the effectiveness of the firearm ownership licensing and restriction laws that exist in the UK.

Source, source

Therefore, on the surface, it looks like a reduction in firearm ownership reduces the rate of firearm related homicides.

So does the question then become:

Does the US want to reduce the rate of firearms related homicides?

What the UK and the US constitutes as a "violent crime" differs and thus is reflected in their violent crime statistics. The UK categorizes MORE types of crime as violent crime than the US does.Every other country also has differing idea's on which crimes constitute violent crime and as a result what get's included in the violent crime statistics for that country..a clue to this should have been South Africa showing favourably as having less violent crime than the UK....doe's anybody actually believe that the UK is a more dangerous place to live than South Africa...seriously?!

The way in which crime including violent crime is reported and recorded differs between the UK and the US...

Overall violent crime in England and Wales as dropped by 47% from 1995 to 2010/2011 and at the moment the trend remains pretty much stable...

Even though violent crime as reduced significantly since 1995 the UK's and the rest of the world's PERCEPTION of how much violent crime occurs here goes in the opposite direction and people BELIEVE there is MORE violent crime than there was 17 years ago....but this contradicts the actual violent crime trend's. This mean's the only presumption that can be made is that the public are getting this idea of PERCEIVED increase in violent crime that doesn't exist from somewhere....

I think another reality check is let's not believe everything the media tells us and the manipulation of the truth they exhibit. I'm not here to say that my country doesn't have it's own problem's...but I am sick of the way in which the truth and statistics are twisted.

Thia whole post makes no sense to me.The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with crime or hunting.The way people look at it now.You have to think that people think our founding fathers were idiots.Guns were around a long long time before the 2nd amendment was written.Does anyone think that it NEVER occured to the authors that guns could also be used by criminals?Of course they knew that.

The 2nd amendment was about U.S citizens keeping their weapons to insure their rights.Watch the video.

reply to post by Horza


Not necessarily.

The large majority of deaths by firearms in America are gang related and/or take place cities with 250,000 population or more.

Given that stat, we must ask ourselves, do these crime-prone people get their arms legally or illegally? If there are even minor percentages of guns being acquired illegally to kill others within the stat above, then it completely skews the notion 'that more guns mean more deaths' resulting in the idea that we should regulate/ban guns because of such and such...