Guns, and the Liberals that Hate People that Have Them

You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” -Rahm Emanuel, failed mayor of a failed city, known as Chiraq.

That is what liberals (and you know who you are) are doing at this very moment, in response to the shootings in Las Vegas, perpetrated by a man that was very obviously mentally deranged.  In their typical knee-jerk response modes, they blame the gun and the gun industry and the so-called “Gun Lobby” for the shootings.
Why is that?
Another meme states:
The liberal always blames the gun, and anyone that has one, even if they lived on the other side of the country.  Take this no-talent imbecile:
So he’s doing what liberals do.
He, and other leftists in the LEC (Liberal Entertainment Complex) and Congress are standing on the bodies of the dead, in order to score political points.  Liberals are incapable of making rational, reasoned arguments to support points, and there are reasons for that:
1:  They’re not rational.  Anybody that thinks that they can simply declare when someone is to be considered a living, Human Being is definitely not rational.
2:  They have no powers of reason.  Any political party that allows a person like this to remain in a lawmaking capacity:
is definitely lacking in reason.
3:  They really don’t have any points.  Trying to craft legislation to punish millions for something they haven’t done is about as pointless and senseless as it gets (but we are talking about people that literally murdered members of the US Army in an insurrection so they could keep Black people as slaves, after all, and helped the Nazis after World War 2, so this can’t really be that shocking).
Let’s also not forget that Kimmel is also the no-talent son-of-a-bitch that stood on the still living body of his own son to hawk socialist health care (something that a rich person like himself would never get into, because he can just pay for everything with cash, leaving everyone else to suffer and die under a health care system like a nationwide VA on cocktail of bad steroids and bath salts).  Oh, and he’s not even smart enough to craft his own arguments; he had to consult with a genius like Chuck – the “Schmuck” – Schumer to stick his hand up his ass, and work his mouth like a puppet.
I’d be embarrassed having to admit that I’m too stupid to formulate my own thoughts on a matter that I claim to be so important to me, but, we are talking about liberals, who are, by definition, to mentally unaware to experience things like shame.
Me, personally, I’m a Constitutional Originalist, and consider The Federalist Papers a valid source of intel on the U.S. Constitution, as well (and the writers of the U.S. Constitution and it’s amendments also made their own notes).
Originalism is a method of constitutional interpretation that focuses on how a provision of a constitution would have been understood at the time of its ratification.
I accept the wisdom of the Framers and the Founders, on this matter, not the people that want to re-write their words to tickle their own personal fancies:
“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
Samuel Adams (a relative of mine!), Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
And, even though he’s one of the Framers I like least, because he didn’t believe Blacks had the same rights as Whites:
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
And my great^6 granddad:
john adams on guns
My great^6 grandpappy!
And let’s not forget BIG DADDY GEORGE:
george mason on guns
“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
George Mason, Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12 1776
And let’s not forget PAT:
patrick henry on guns
“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
Patrick Henry, Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution
And now, let’s look at the “wisdom” of the modern liberal of the Slave Party, all of whom feign respect for the Founders and the Framers (and most couldn’t tell you the difference between the two groups):
Then there’s not-funny, arch-racist, so-called “comedienne” Sarah Silverman:
Liberals like to say the stupidest, most outrageously evil things, then run and hide behind “I’m a comedian!  It’s comedy!  It’s satire!” to avoid the consequences of what they say and do.  I won’t accept that, and neither did this guy, Colion Noir:
Let’s get down to brass tax.  The Slave Party – to which people like Jimmy Kimmel and his ex-girlfriend Sarah Silverman ( belong – is the source of racism and ethnic strife in this country.  They pioneered racist domestic terrorism and institutionalized racism, and have perpetuated this, to this very day, in a political party in which racism and racial superiority is considered a BEDROCK FOUNDING PRINCIPLE (a fact that Slave Party liberals hide, or pretend they don’t know about, to this very day).
Let’s look at the real reason the Slave Party didn’t want Blacks to have firearms, enjoy the right to self protection, and still don’t want people they consider “racially” inferior to have those rights:
The Ku Klux Klan – a Slave Party paramilitary terrorist organization – have not only targeted Blacks and other “people of color”, but Whites that were considered political and/or ideological “opponents”.  Yes, that means that if you didn’t speak and believe as they dictated you to, you were considered just as low as a Black person, or, as liberals call us, “niggers”, and were marked for death, just like they/we are.
Today, this discrimination still persists.  Not only do you see White liberals like Silverman exposing herself, while hiding behind the words “comedy” and “satire”, not only do you see the true sellouts (slaves that dropped the dime on other slaves for not doing their “master’s” bidding), but you have the Slave Party looking to disarm every single member of the population that ideologically disagrees with them.  This means if you’re an actual Christian (not a lip service one, like the Obamas and Clintons), if you believe in the Constitution, a Veteran, etc.  Take a look for yourself:
You’re only kidding yourself, if you think terrorism comes from Conservatism, the “Right Wing”, or the “Far Right”.
true political spectrum2
In fact, you’re outright lying to yourselves, if you believe that.
People, pardon the pun, but stick to your guns.  Don’t let liberals lead you to believe that the actions of a few should dictate how the majority should be treated.  Don’t let them convince you that the criminal minority should change how the law-abiding majority should be dealt with.  I’m sure liberals won’t like this post, but:
tough shit2
You should know, by now, that this blog doesn’t exist to please you.
You can keep spreading lies about America and gun violence, but statistics (things you claim – falsely – to like) show you to be liars:
You like to say stupid things like:  “If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get one”, well, the same logic applies to you:  “If you don’t like guns, don’t buy one, asshole.”  Conservatives want a society where people are armed and responsible.  An example of that is Plaino, TX.
Whittle points out that Plano, Texas with a population of 273,000 people, has a murder rate of only 0.4 per 100,000 people. He also mentions that they are one of the most heavily armed cities in the nation. Go figure!
Then, you’ve got leftist enclaves like Detroit, which observe leftist ideals on “gun control”:
Where does the US place on the worldwide murder rate? America came in at 111th place with only 4.7 murders per 100,000 people as of 2012 figures and the only reason we rank that high is because of the murder rates in Democratically controlled gun restricted cities like Detroit with a murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate of 54.6 per 100,000 people. As Bill Whittle points out in the video below, if Detroit was its own country it just beat out Venezuela as the second highest murder rate in the world. Whittle goes on to show a list of 13 cities in the US that are run by Democrats and have strict anti-gun laws who have murder rates far greater than the national average.
Conservatives want a society where people can protect themselves.  From each other, and from overreaching, unconstitutional and tyrannical government.
Liberals want everyone they don’t like disarmed or murdered by overreaching, unconstitutional and tyrannical government.  Liberals want only (some) police and military units to have firearm access.  Where did we see something like that, before?  Oh, yeah!:
No wonder you Slave Party Democrats like violent, racist socialists so much.
In any event, I’m sure Conservatives know all this, and accept logic and reality.  The liberals reading this, however, are either completely ignorant of it, downright stupid, or simply refuse to accept reality, because it interferes with something more important to them:  their narrative.  Stricter gun laws are demonstrably not what this country needs to stop gun crime, or murder, in general.  Cain, the world’s first murderer (and probably first Human liberal) committed his crime – 2nd degree murder – with a stone.
The problem isn’t guns.  It’s the people holding them.  Don’t blame the weapon, blame the murderer.  Leftists, after taking over things like the public school system, have made a full-court press to drive out things like any positive acknowledgment of Christendom, or even patriotism.  Tell me, liberals, how many mass shootings like the one in Las Vegas or Columbine High School occurred during the days of school prayer?  You’ve cheapened life, and outright devalued it.  How many people have you murdered, through abortion, all under the guise excuse that unborn children aren’t Human?
Sure, there are mental illness problems, but we can’t trust liberals to institute systems for that, either, because the first thing you’ll do is declare everyone not like yourselves mentally ill, and incapable of making rational decisions, like how and when to use firearms.  No, the problem is deeper than that.  There is a sickness in the souls of you virtually soulless people.  A disease called evil.  You devalue life, you call evil good, and good evil.  You raise kids in your backwards, twisted ideology, and wonder why they are so violent, murderous and have such utter contempt for all life, including yours, and their own.  Then, instead of blaming yourselves, you blame God, the Bible, Christians, Conservatives, Rrepublicans and GUNS.  We look at you, and see you for the dangerous, twisted losers you really are.  You look at yourselves, and each other, and you see superior, enlightened beings that must take over all society, and re-make it in your own image, regardless of what other people want.  Until you can accept reality, the biggest threat to this country doesn’t come from without, but from within, and that threat is you.
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

-President Abraham Lincoln, 1st Republican president (though liberals like to falsely claim he was part of the Slave Party), murdered by a liberal that was angry he fought to preserve the rights of others liberals didn’t believe deserved Human rights or dignity.

I am VIRUS-X, REPUBLIC COMMANDO, and I approve this message.

~ by virusx on October 5, 2017.

30 Responses to “Guns, and the Liberals that Hate People that Have Them”

  1. Is it not worth considering that relatively easy access to a weapon designed to kill, based on a document written hundreds of years ago (reflecting very different political and social conditions, to say nothing of the types of gun), is contributing to the gun crime problem in the USA? I can’t advocate banning the gun, but surely regulations over how easy they are to obtain (didn’t the Vegas shooter get all his legally?) need changing?

  2. You apparently didn’t even read the article. Guns are not the problem. Immoral or outright amoral people that have no value for Human life are. If you’d’ve actually read the article, you’d see that cities in America with the highest per capita of gun ownership – like Plano, Texas – are a lot less plagued with violent crime, than places that have gun laws that resemble the anti Human rights laws, where you come from. Detroit and Chicago are examples of that. Strictest gun laws, leaving law abiding people no avenue to defend themselves against violent thugs. The Constitution is not based on different political or social conditions, because they still exist, to this very day. The nation is governed by people that would prefer to rule (like they do in your country, where you HAVE no constitutional rights), instead of govern. People like that become tyrants. If a tyranny erupts here, we can defend ourselves from it, and destroy it. If it continues where you are, where you can’t even elect your own PM, you will simply bow down to it, and accept your lot as serfs. And “assault” weapons existed during the time of the Constitution, and pre-dated it ( Maybe you should read that document that you see as being based on “different political and social conditions” and “different types of gun”, along with the Federalist Papers associated with it. It clearly states:

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Who is the Militia?

    “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
    — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

    My relative (who helped defeat the people from your country that sought to deprive us of our God-given rights) said:

    “That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms … ”
    — Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

    “Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”
    –Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

    And, finally, the fundamental difference between us is that, in this country, I am a Free Man, whereas in your nation, you are not.

    “No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
    — Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

    Maybe Colion Noir can talk some sense into you.

    Where you come from, you have no rights. You have privileges granted to you by a socialist government. In America, our rights are God given, and merely defended by our government.

  3. [QUOTE]You apparently didn’t even read the article. Guns are not the problem. Immoral or outright amoral people that have no value for Human life are. If you’d’ve actually read the article, you’d see that cities in America with the highest per capita of gun ownership – like Plano, Texas – are a lot less plagued with violent crime, than places that have gun laws that resemble the anti Human rights laws, where you come from. Detroit and Chicago are examples of that. Strictest gun laws, leaving law abiding people no avenue to defend themselves against violent thugs.[/QUOTE]

    Actually, the ease of access to a weapon designed to kill is almost certainly a contributing factor behind the widespread gun crime in the US, where in 2014 over 30,000 deaths as a result of guns were recorded – – that’s 82 deaths per day. Granted, those figures include suicide (another issue where ease of access to firearms causes problems), but it’s a shocking statistic – the same number of people were killed by guns as were killed in traffic accidents, despite there being 258 million registered car owners vs 91 million registered gun owners. In America, you are three times more likely to be killed by a gun than by a car.

    But that’s somewhat of an aside – consider the homicide rates globally – countries with more guns have more gun deaths – of developed countries, the USA is far worse than anywhere else, with 10 gun deaths per 100,000 people every year, compared to say, France (2.83), Germany (1.01), the UK (0.23), Australia (0.93) and Japan (0.06). Is there a correlation between the availability of firearms and overall homicide rates? Well, compared the countries I just listed…

    USA: 4.88 Per 100,000 people.
    France: 1.58
    Germany: 0.85
    UK: 0.92
    Australia: 0.98
    Japan: 0.31

    So of the comparison countries, the US has a much bigger problem, not only with gun crime but with homicide in general. Co-incidence? Or does this reveal a more telling problem with the love affair with deadly weapons?

    To answer, it’s best to look at how other countries have fared since introducing tighter gun control laws. Since Australia introduced tighter controls, the homicide rate has dropped by 20%. Japan has virtually forbidden firearm ownership and has very low homicide rates compared to the USA, and for that matter, fares well against the other nations too.

    After the Dunblane tragedy, we changed our laws here. We have never had a repeat of that horrible incident. Guns are still available but controls are in place – it is a common misconception that guns are completely banned here; they are merely under stronger regulations.

    Are we not free because we don’t place a higher value on the right to own a deadly weapon? I tend to think that our sense of freedom is not so fragile that it depends on fear-mongering, which is what gun culture appears to be to me. Then again, I am on the outside looking in. However, consider that if the US government ever did decide to become tyrannical, with the backing of the military and police, then would the existence of guns in the hands of civilians actually be able to resist trained, disciplined soldiers with access to gunships, warplanes, tanks, mortars and drones? Such a philosophy might have made sense back in the 1700s, but it doesn’t now.

    I will end with a simple statement – the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. In this case, repeated inaction is doing nothing to stop mass shootings and gun crime.

  4. “Actually, the ease of access to a weapon designed to kill is almost certainly a contributing factor behind the widespread gun crime in the US, where in 2014 over 30,000 deaths as a result of guns were recorded – – that’s 82 deaths per day. Granted, those figures include suicide (another issue where ease of access to firearms causes problems), but it’s a shocking statistic – the same number of people were killed by guns as were killed in traffic accidents, despite there being 258 million registered car owners vs 91 million registered gun owners. In America, you are three times more likely to be killed by a gun than by a car.”

    Maybe you should actually expand on that by telling the whole truth. According to the FBI, you’re more likely to be beaten to death, than shot with a rifle.

    Furthermore, violent crime has been on the decline (

    “New information released by the FBI revealed that Americans are much more likely to die from getting beaten, clubbed or stabbed to death than to be murdered using an AR-15 or any other rifle.

    The FBI’s report for violent crime in 2014 revealed that only 248 people were killed from any form of rifle including rifles in the AR-15 platform.

    In contrast, 3,827 people were killed from being stabbed or beaten to death. That means that you are 15.4 times more likely to die from a stabbing or beating than a rifle. Handguns accounted for the vast majority of firearms deaths.

    The numbers also indicated that murder with all guns has been on a steady decline, and was at a new recent low in 2014, with 8,103 total firearm murders committed. That is a decline of 351 murders since 2013, and a decline of 1,096 from 2010.”

    You’re cherry picking data, and even admitting you’re conflating suicides, which inflate gun death statistics. And, again, as I’d previously stated, if you’d’ve read the article, you’d see that the first murder was committed with a stone, millennia before the invention of even the bow & arrow, much less the AR-15 or AK-47.

    I’m not trying to address all homicide, or suicide. You can do that in a post you write. However, again, if you want to cherry pick, then I can cherry pick, myself, with something that’s actually accurate: the homicide rate of the US would be significantly lower, were it not including leftist political enclaves, which have gun laws that are unconstitutional. I’ve already mentioned that, and it was both in the article, and in a posted video in the article. If access to things that can kill people are a problem, how about answering why Plano, Texas (something else I mentioned, but you avoided mentioning, twice) has such a low homicide rate, much lower than France, Germany, the UK, Australia and Japan?

    Once again, I will mention what a Framer stated, which is:

    “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
    – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

    He also said this:

    “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery”
    Thomas Jefferson January 30th 1787

    Going back AGAIN to the article that was un-read, a reasonable conclusion is to blame the person that committed the crime. An un-reasonable course of action is to blame the tools that the criminal utilized, and not focus on the criminal.

  5. Oh, and I did forget this:

  6. There are things I haven’t mentioned – such as the following, and I note that my previous comment is still sitting in the moderation queue:

    Let’s also look at legislation per state. Mississippi, as per 2015, had a firearm death rate of 19.6 out of 100,000 – it’s worth pointing out that these figures probably include suicide and accidents, however this issues only serve to add to the idea that greater gun control is necessary, to prevent these problems as much as homicides. (source – Mississippi also has some lax laws on guns (

    Mississippi is currently a Republican state. It voted Republican in 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016.

    Let’s look at another state. Alabama. Again, 19.6 gun deaths per 100,000 people. Alabama is also pretty slack on gun control laws. Again, Alabama has voted Republican at the last election, and has done so since 1976. Another state with a serious problem with gun deaths is Louisiana, with 20.4 per 100,000. Once again, gun laws are weak, and once again, from 2000 onward the state has voted Republican.

    Let’s delve deeper. Alaska has the worst mortality rate as a result of guns of all US states. 23.4 deaths per 100,000 people. Alaska voted Republican at the 2016 elections, and has voted Republican for several of comparatively recent elections (back to at least 1980, I stopped checking at that point). No licence is required to carry a handgun, even openly or concealed, in Alaska. So in fact, the top four states listed by the CDC site are all Republican states and all have comparatively weak gun control laws.

    Make that the top five. Wyoming has comparatively weak gun laws, and has voted Republican since at least 1968.

    Montana, similar situation to Wyoming, in every respect. Next is New Mexico, the first state to have any meaningful and recent history of voting Democrat. Behind New Mexico is Missouri, the first state on the list to have enacted any meaningful regulations. Missouri has a mixed voting history but is currently Republican.

    So 7/8 states – the eight worst states for gun deaths – are Republican and the top seven states all have slack gun control laws. In many states, irrespective of their voting history, it’s the states with the weakest rules that have the highest death rates. You may say it’s not fair to include suicides and accidents in these figures, but if these deadly weapons were not so easily available, would the casualty rate be so high?

    The fact remains (and it’s one you haven’t addressed), there are more homicides in the USA – substantially more – than in other developed countries that have more robust laws in place. You may point to an article on violent crime in the UK – are you going to compare the figures to Australia, Japan, France and Germany? Are you going to present the figures for violent crime in the USA, and the weapons involved?

    The Vegas killer was able to legally purchase 49 weapons. Let that sink in. Why would anyone need 49 weapons, and why would this not somehow send up a flare to the authorities? The system is failing, mass shootings continue to happen, the USA continues to have higher homicide rates (both with guns and overall) than many other developed nations, and yet the focus is always on ‘Constitutional rights’. There are 59 people in Vegas, and over 30,000 every year, who pay the ultimate price for that right.

  7. Looks like there are some things you didn’t mention, Timon.

  8. But, honestly, it looks like the United Kingdom with all its gun control has a very serious violence problem. In the United States the FBI statistics actually show that violent crime is on the decline. On the other hand, in the United Kingdom, where you are, violent crime is actually increasing, and getting worse. Some of those crimes actually involve the use of firearms, but even without them your crime is getting very much out of control, and there are cities in the United Kingdom that ranked very firmly among the most dangerous places in Europe. Let that sink in.

  9. Yet overall, we are much less likely to be murdered. Besides, you’ve ignored the details on other countries with tighter gun laws. What answer do you have for Japan?

  10. By the way, as of 2014, the US was still more violent than the UK in some areas –

  11. By the way, it still looks like the UK is becoming increasingly violent, with or without guns.

    Also, since the UK’s gun control is the path to Nirvana (where people are killed and violently assaulted without guns, normally), if we removed the cities from the US that had gun control laws more in like with Europeans’, what do you think happens to America’s average? Tell me.

  12. Tell you what, I’ll answer your questions when you address mine, including the details in the comment that is still for some reason unpublished.

  13. I’ve read the article, which appears to focus more on the left/right political divide in the US, rather than focusing on the problem of gun crime and how to stop it. The fact remains – the USA has a bigger problem with gun crime than any other developed nation – you cite Plano in Texas, yet ignore the wider, national comparisons – such as the USA having a homicide rate more than twice as high as France, and nearly six times that of Japan.
    Whilst it’s true that crime rates in the US have been falling, it remains true that firearms form a major percentage of homicides – in 2011, firearms were actually used in 68% of murders.
    It remains the case that US homicide rates, including those committed by firearms, remain substantially higher than in other developed nations –
    According to the FBI, in 2014, out of 11,961 homicides, over 8,000 of those involved a firearm. Also note that this ratio of more than 50% of total homicides (in fact, we’re looking at two thirds) is pretty consistent from 2010 to 2014.
    So whilst in your initial use of the FBI data you refer to the rifle, but ignore the overall picture of how guns contribute to the homicide rate.

  14. Here’s an answer:

    And I haven’t exerted control over your comments. They appear, as they appear. I’m not guiding that.

  15. There is a comment of mine that has been awaiting moderation for the past few days. If you like I can repost it.

  16. Go ahead.

  17. After reading the first paragraph the videos that I’ve posted have already addressed that, including the fact that the UK has proven that disarming people and depriving them of their right to self-defense does not change anything. The violence rate remains the same. Also, the videos addressed the fact that the British deceptively classify what violent crimes are versus what the FBI classifies as a violent crime. The bottom line is, look at the statistics from the home office and the FBI, the UK has a far higher rate of violent crime, then the United States. And the UK deprives people of their right to self-defense through arms, and still they have high incident violence.

  18. Even if we take your videos as gospel (I am doing my own research, which will be drawn from sources I’ll link to), this does not address why the USA has a much higher homicide rate (arguably the most serious crime of all), both with *and* without guns, than the UK. Furthermore, as I have mentioned, the USA is substantially worse in this area than several other nations – France, Germany, Australia and Japan were the other comparison countries, all have more robust controls in place, and all have much lower homicide rates than the USA.

  19. How do you know the US has a higher homicide rate, considering how the home office classifies virtually anything as a violent crime, if it’s done against a person? And mentioning France and Germany and all these other countries over and over again is a useless exercise. The numbers speak for themselves. And as for the homicide rate of the United States, apparently you are still not reading the article and you are not watching any of the videos because almost all of them have addressed that, directly.

  20. The official information on homicide rates yields the details. The FBI site listed the rate over a number of years and in each case firearms were listed as the main implement – by far outstripping anything else. A comparison with other nations beyond the UK and USA is also very much warranted, as it goes to prove that tougher measures do work. Do you consider it a co-incidence that Japan has very strict gun laws and a homicide rate six times lower than the US? Is it co-incidence that France has tougher laws and half the murder rate of the USA?

    Did you also know that comparatively recently (circa 2010), the USA had a higher rate of rape than the UK (and France, Germany, Japan…)?

    The other point, one you raised, is that the UK classifies violent crime differently to the US. Once adjustments are made and the playing field is the same, the difference is nowhere near what it is made out to be.

    With this in mind, it is a fallacy to suggest the UK is a much more violent place than the US.

  21. And, again, I answer that even the experts are saying this is not an apples-to-apples comparison. Also, you have not addressed the question I posed to you regarding how can you make your comparisons knowing that the British home office has such a different definition of what constitutes a violent crime? Also, you did not address the fact that the vast majority of the violence in America (addressed in several of the videos) takes place in large metropolitan areas and that have gun control laws that are closer to yours, then those outlined in the Constitution. Thus far, all you’ve done is say the same thing over and over again, and keep saying the same names of countries over and over again, as opposed to a dressing why the UK has such a high incident of violence supposedly without guns, and what the US violence index will be like if those specific metropolitan areas were removed from the equation.

  22. I’ve already pointed out that this is not a direct comparison, therefore claiming the UK is inherently more violent than the US, given the different metrics in play, is to commit a fallacy. When adjusted, is the crime rate actually much higher in the UK? If you had looked at the information I provided, you will see it is not, and in fact, the US retains a greater problem with rape, and as we already know, a far greater problem with the most serious violent crime, murder. You seem to want to ignore the statistics on this particular crime.

    It’s also worth noting that the cities with the worst crime rates for violent crime are St Louis, Detroit, Memphis and Milwaukee, whilst four of the safest cities for this statistic are in California. What sets California apart from the states of Missouri, Michigan, Tennessee and Wisconsin is that California has far more robust gun control measures than the other four.

    Furthermore, you seem determined to make this into only a US vs UK comparison, when right from the start I had pointed out that there are several countries with more thorough gun control regulations that also have much lower homicide rates. The significance of this cannot be overstated or ignored.

  23. If it’s not a direct comparison, then why even use it? And as for claiming the UK is more “inherently” violent, those are your words. In the words of your own Home Office, crime is becoming an increasing problem in England, and spiraling out of control.

    I’ve posted again and again that the FBI (whos statistics you use, only when you think they back your arguments, and even then you pick and choose what to pay attention to) stated that while there is an increase of violence in some states, overall, there has been, and continues to be, a drastic reduction in violent crime.–violent-crime-in-us-on-the-decline-356367939963

    Meanwhle, while the UK continues to treat it’s citizens are serfs, denying them their right so self preservation by depriving of them of their rights through Natural Law, gun ownership in the US is literally on the increase.

    Funny how that happens, with crime declining. You claim the crime rate, when “adjusted” shows that, somehow, a country with a much, much lower population is less violent, and yet you do not show that ‘adjustment’. Why is that? I also note that you also didn’t note that knife and GUN violence are on the increase in the UK ( I needn’t ask why. You also are telling lies, such as the US having some sort of sexual assault problem, when it is well known that Europe’s Malma ( and the African continental nation Congo ( have those distinctions. Not even 60 seconds of research could’ve yielded that (or common knowledge), but you chose to lie. Terrible.

    And you’re trying to repeat what I have said, and turn it around to suit your own argument. It won’t work. The cities that you named are all leftist cities, like the UK, and their gun control measures are in defiance of Natural Law, Constitutional Law and Human Rights. More Conservative states, such as Oklahoma, Texas and Georgia, don’t have those kinds of crime problems, outside of some leftist enclaves (big cities). I posted a video that went in depth into this, and obviously, you didn’t watch it. Face it: your arguments are completely a result of hoplophobia. You point at examples that prove nothing, and offer no solutions.

  24. […] a recent discussion over the pros and cons of gun control measures (and the wider question of whether guns actually […]

  25. It’s pretty bold to accuse me of dishonesty Virus, considering your earlier cherry-picking of FBI data, even when the site itself contradicted you (it showed homicides with firearms as representing 65% of total homicides, whilst the homicide with firearms rate per 100,000 people far outstrips the total rates of the UK, France and Japan COMBINED. Say what you want about the murder rate falling, it remains much higher, both with guns and in total, than many other developed nations.

    You wish to turn this into a very simple ‘US V UK’ comparison, because you’re under the misguided view that this would help your argument regarding gun crime. You also want to ignore homicide when discussing gun crime, even though it’s the most serious and violent of all violent crime. Arguments about population are misleading and dishonest – look at the *percentages*, once we allow for measuring crimes by the same criteria.

    Hence why, when comparing the rate per 100,000 people, the USA has a homicide rate *fifteen* times higher than Japan, which has some of the strictest gun control measures in the world. The USA also had nearly double the robbery rate of the UK circa 2014, and nearly double that of Germany, and it was 40% higher than Canada.

    Interestingly, Canada’s robbery percentage with guns is around 20%, whereas the USA’s is around 40%.

    So the presence of more guns doesn’t necessarily reduce the rate of robbery, though it does increase the likelihood of a fatal incident during a robbery.

    I’ve been doing my homework into this Virus. I suggest you practice what you preach about that, and look at the links and data I’ve provided. It’s all here:×7

    Finally, I propose, if you have the time, and if you are as confident in your arguments as I am, to take this to a more public arena. is usually quite good for hosting structured debate – there is also, but that tends to be more haphazard. There’s probably a few more out there.

  26. “It’s pretty bold to accuse me of dishonesty Virus, considering your earlier cherry-picking of FBI data, even when the site itself contradicted you (it showed homicides with firearms as representing 65% of total homicides, whilst the homicide with firearms rate per 100,000 people far outstrips the total rates of the UK, France and Japan COMBINED. Say what you want about the murder rate falling, it remains much higher, both with guns and in total, than many other developed nations.” By the way, how many of those homicides were justifiable? You do realize there is a distinction between justifiable homicide, and unjustifiable homicide, right? And, previously, you were complaining about my bringing up the UK and other nations. Actually, YOU were the first one to do that. I never mentioned it anywhere in the article, and it wasn’t mentioned, until you tried using it as a justification for an argument to violate Human Rights in the United States, as they are in the UK.

    And if you’ve been doing your homework, you’re not getting a passing grade. I haven’t ignored gun homicide, at all. The whole article was pointing to the fact that many unjustifiable homicides would be prevented, if more potential victims were armed. So, no, you’re wrong, again, in suggesting I’m “ignoring” it, at all. You, on the other hand, completely ignore, time and again, every answer presented in every evidentiary video, so I’m not going to present them, anymore, because you only look at what you want to look at, while accusing me of doing the same thing.

    I asked you why the UK has an increasing problem with violent crime. You ignored the question, and continued to make comparisons to the UK, France and Canada, dodging the question.

    I asked you why the US has a DEcreasing problem with violent crime, while experiencing an INcrease in legal gun ownership. Again, you ignored the question, and continued to make comparisons to the UK, France and Canada, dodging the question.

    “So the presence of more guns doesn’t necessarily reduce the rate of robbery, though it does increase the likelihood of a fatal incident during a robbery.” That’s the POINT. If someone’s trying to rob you, or commit some other violent crime against you, that’s the point of firearm ownership.

    You also ignored your own point that the violent crime is concentrated in major cities (of which the US has far more than the entirety of the UK). This means more people, with the possibility of more criminality. It also shows that the per capita rates are skewed, thanks to those cities, which have political structures and gun laws more closely matched to your own, instead of what is legal and just. One of the first videos I posted addressed that, and showed what the crime rate would actually be, minus those cities. Those facts were ignored, too. Again, you’ve ignored the evidence the crime is dropping in the US, but not in the UK, and, again, your arguments have amounted to nothing more than European extreme Hoplophobia.

  27. […] is the final part of a little discussion I’ve been having regarding guns, with one ‘Virus-X’. This final part of the […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: