Do you notice that the Left always categorizes “gun crime” as different than “other” violent crimes?

It might seem odd that the Left always wants to talk about gun crimes, gun murders, gun deaths as if putting a gun into the equation makes a violent crime less violent somehow. Personally, I do not wish to get shot, nor do I wish to  be stabbed, or beaten with a bat, or hammer, or to be jumped by a gang of thugs, a gang of NFL cheerleaders is a different story but that is a another matter altogether. The point here is that the Left cannot win the debate over guns by sticking with legitimate stats. So they use emotional appeals, or cooked statistics that are meant to make us believe that gun violence is  a raging epidemic, and that America is awash in gun deaths. Of late their tactic seems to be to segregate crimes, committed with a gun from other violent crimes committed with other weapons. Zion’s Trumpet links to Mark Steyn who explains that while the Left loves to hold the UK up as a shining example of the glorious bliss that are gun bans, the truth is that the UK is a lot more violent than America.

Between the introduction of pistol permits in 1903 and the banning of handguns after the Dunblane massacre in 1996, Britain has had a century of incremental gun control—“sensible measures that all reasonable people can agree on.” And what’s the result? Even when you factor in America’s nutcake jurisdictions with the crackhead mayors, the overall crime rate in England and Wales is higher than in all 50 states, even though over there they have more policemen per capita than in the U.S., on vastly higher rates of pay installing more video surveillance cameras than anywhere else in the Western world. Robbery, sex crimes, and violence against the person are higher in England and Wales; property crime is twice as high; vehicle theft is higher still; the British are 2.3 times more likely than Americans to be assaulted, and three times more likely to be violently assaulted. Between 1973 and 1992, burglary rates in the U.S. fell by half. In Britain, not even the Home Office’s disreputable reporting methods (if a burglar steals from 15 different apartments in one building, it counts as a single crime) can conceal the remorseless rise: Britons are now more than twice as likely as Americans to be mugged; two-thirds will have their property broken into at some time in their lives. Even more revealing is the divergent character between U.K. and U.S. property crime: In America, just over 10 percent of all burglaries are “hot burglaries”—committed while the owners are present; in Britain, it’s over half. Because of insurance-required alarm systems, the average thief increasingly concludes that it’s easier to break in while you’re on the premises. Your home-security system may conceivably make your home more safe, but it makes you less so.

Conversely, up here in the New Hampshire second congressional district, there are few laser security systems and lots of guns. Our murder rate is much lower than Britain’s and our property crime is virtually insignificant. Anyone want to make a connection? Villains are expert calculators of risk, and the likelihood of walking away uninjured with an $80 television set is too remote. In New Hampshire, a citizen’s right to defend himself deters crime; in Britain, the state-inflicted impotence of the homeowner actively encourages it. Just as becoming a drug baron is a rational career move in Colombia, so too is becoming a violent burglar in the United Kingdom. The chances that the state will seriously impede your progress are insignificant.

Now I’m Canadian, so, as you might expect, the Second Amendment doesn’t mean much to me. I think it’s more basic than that. Privately owned firearms symbolize the essential difference between your great republic and the countries you left behind. In the U.S., power resides with “we, the people” and is leased ever more sparingly up through town, county, state, and federal government. In Britain and Canada, power resides with the Crown and is graciously devolved down in limited doses. To a north country Yankee it’s self-evident that, when a burglar breaks into your home, you should have the right to shoot him—indeed, not just the right, but the responsibility, as a freeborn citizen, to uphold the integrity of your property. But in Britain and most other parts of the Western world, the state reserves that right to itself, even though at the time the ne’er-do-well shows up in your bedroom you’re on the scene and Constable Plod isn’t: He’s some miles distant, asleep in his bed, and with his answering machine on referring you to central dispatch God knows where.

Yes, I know, Liberals will screech that this piece was written over a decade ago, but, as recent stats show, the UK is still a lot more violent than America. The murder rate, burglary rate, robbery rate and stabbing rate are all much higher in the UK. Yes, I understand the Left will ignore those facts. In fact, I have heard more than one Liberal say that somehow a gun makes every crime worse. Not sure how that happens, but we are dealing with Liberals here, their arguments do not have to make sense, they just have to feel like they do to Liberals. Despite the negative impact on the feelings of liberals facts still do matter. And the fact is this. the Left has been pushing gun control for a long time, and they often use the UK as the shining example of how the UK is a more safe nation. This is simply not true

Britain’s violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa – widely considered one of the world’s most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour. 

The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show: 

  • The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
  • It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
  • The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
  • It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.

But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.

Less guns means less crime? No, it does not. The USA has a violent crime rate of 466 per 100,000 people. Canada, another panacea of strict gun laws has a rate of 935 per 100,000 people. In the UK, which bans guns, the rate is 2,034 per 100,000 people. FIVE TIMES the rate in America. 

This is why the Left talks only of GUN crimes, rather than violent crimes. They are lying by omission. And they KNOW they are lying. So, ask yourself this. Why? If their agenda is not truly reducing crimes, what is it? 

 

Canada stands up beside Israel, and God bless them for that!

Canada’s stand is the good news!

Via JPost:

Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird, who delivered a supportive speech of Israel at the UN before its vote Thursday on the Palestinian statehood, said Friday “the bottom line is we will not let the Jewish people and the State of Israel stand alone when the going gets tough.”

Baird, in a phone interview from New York, said he had “absolutely no hesitation” about taking the podium and opposing the Palestinian bid, something he knew was not a popular position in the hall.

The Canadian foreign minister criticized Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for the hostile tenor of his speech.

“Knowing that he had such overwhelming support, this would have been an occasion for him to reach out to the government and people of Israel, to embrace the Jewish people, to talk about his hopes for peace and be magnanimous,” he said. “Unfortunately it was a rather aggressive speech that will really do nothing to advance the cause of peace or the peace process.”

Baird said he was “disappointed with some countries in Europe for failing to stand up. I thought the Czech Republic was courageous to take the position it did and stand alone in the European Union. I certainly admire their leadership.”

The Czech Republic was the only EU country to vote against the Palestinian resolution, and – along with Israel and Canada – made up a group of nine countries that opposed the bid.

As I said good for you Canada. The bad news in this? The United States ought to be standing right there too, and standing as strong.

The Dutch are finally getting it, I hope

H/T Zion’s Trumpet! Bare Naked Islam has some positive developments from the Netherlands

AP  The Almighty will have to defend his own name from now on: Dutch parliamenthas accepted a motion that will scrap a law making it a crime to insult God. A majority of parties said the European Union nation no longer needs the law, which hasn’t been invoked in the past half-century.

The movement to decriminalize blasphemy gathered strength in the last decade amid a national debate about the limits of freedom of speech. The climax came at the 2011 trial of far-right politician Geert Wilders, when judges ruled he had the right to criticize Islam, even if his opinions were insulting to many Muslims.

The West must never surrender our liberties, which the Left, and the Islamists have been trying to intimidate us into doing for years. Our liberty is what makes the West better, YES, I said BETTER than the rest of the world. If the Left really cares about the world, and equality, let them, for once, try to export Western values to the less free and less successful portions of the world!

Even Joe Biden is sharper than the idiots running the E.U.!

Oh dear, I think we have a new low in the Pit of Eternal Stupidity!

Brussels bureaucrats were ridiculed yesterday after banning drink manufacturers from claiming that water can prevent dehydration.

Wow! I did not think that such stupidity was even possible, but, I guess it proves that the Left is actually devolving.

Producers of bottled water are now forbidden by law from making the claim and will face a two-year jail sentence if they defy the edict, which comes into force in the UK next month.

Last night, critics claimed the EU was at odds with both science and common sense. Conservative MEP Roger Helmer said: “This is stupidity writ large.
Simply unbelievable, of course, when you consider that these morons once banned bananas that were curved………….

Ukip MEP Paul Nuttall said the ruling made the “bendy banana law” look “positively sane”.

He said: “I had to read this four or five times before I believed it. It is a perfect example of what Brussels does best. Spend three years, with20 separate pieces of correspondence before summoning 21 professors to Parma where they decide with great solemnity that drinking water cannot be sold as a way to combat dehydration.

“Then they make this judgment law and make it clear that if anybody dares sell water claiming that it is effective against dehydration they could get into serious legal bother.

EU regulations, which aim to uphold food standards across member states, are frequently criticised.

Rules banning bent bananas and curved cucumbers were scrapped in 2008 after causing international ridicule.

Yes, they actually thought that only straight bananas could be sold. Good freaking grief! No word if they have banned peaches with fuzz yet.
Lance Burri, who is on a hunting trip offers a photo that might sum up the E.U.,

How long until we just admit that our President wants to destroy Israel?

Flag of Israel with the Mediterranean sea in t...

Image via Wikipedia

What else can we assume from actions like this?

(Guardian) — Barack Obama will seek a joint Middle East agreement with David Cameron, insisting that a Palestinian state should be based on pre-1967 borders — a proposal rejected by Israel’s prime minister as “unrealistic” and “indefensible”.

The issue will be raised in private talks between the two men during the state visit by Obama and his wife to London, only the third by a US president in 100 years. Afghanistan, Libya, relations with Pakistan and the global economy — as well as the vacancy for the top job at the IMF — will also make up the agenda.

Despite the outright rejection by the Israeli premier, Binyamin Netanyahu, of a Palestinian state based on the borders that existed before the Six Day War, when Israel captured and occupied the West Bank and Gaza, Obama has already secured the political backing of the United Nations, European Union and Russia who, with America, are collectively known as the “quartet”.

Signalling his determination to keep up pressure on Israel, Obama will be looking to enlist the public support of the UK prime minister. The aim is, in large part, to persuade the Palestinian leadership not to go to the UN in September seeking symbolic backing for an independent state.

The coming meeting between the two men follows evidence of a hardening of criticism of Israel by London. On the eve of the Obamas’ arrival, Middle East minister Alistair Burt accused Israel of “unhelpful and destabilising activity” in announcing the building of 1,500 new settlement units in East Jerusalem ahead of a speech by the president on the Middle East on Friday.

He is actively seeking to pressure Israel into withdraw to borders that are indefensible. Borders that will offer much greater opportunities for Israel’s enemies to launch greater attacks upon it. He demands greater concessions from Israel, a nation that seeks only peace, and to be let alone. And who does he demand these concessions be made to? Terrorists that have been trying to destroy Israel for decades upon decades now. TERRORISTS! Terrorists that butcher innocent Israeli civilians at every opportunity!

I am sorry folks, but I can see nothing in all of this but a desire by our president to destroy Israel. Nothing but the betrayal of an old friend. Nothing but a president that apparently seeks to throw Israel to the wolves. And no, it is not only Conservatives who are outraged at the president’s course of action

Some prominent Jewish Americans are rethinking their support for President Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election bid after he effectively called on Israel to give back territory it has occupied since 1967 to Palestinians.

The backlash after Obama’s keynote speech on the Middle East has Democratic Party operatives scrambling to mollify the Jewish community as the president prepares to seek a second term in the White House.

“He has in effect sought to reduce Israel’s negotiation power and I condemn him for that,” former New York Mayor Ed Koch told Reuters. .

“I believed that then-Senator Obama would be as good as John McCain based on his statements at the time and based on his support of Israel. It turns out I was wrong,” he said.

Exit polls from the 2008 election showed 78 percent of Jewish voters chose Obama over his Republican rival Senator McCain.

“I have spoken to a lot of people in the last couple of days — former supporters — who are very upset and feel alienated,” billionaire real estate developer and publisher Mortimer Zuckerman said.

“He’ll get less political support, fewer activists for his campaign, and I am sure that will extend to financial support as well.”

Zuckerman backed Obama during his 2008 presidential run and the newspaper he owns, the New York Daily News, endorsed the president.

Democratic lawmakers do not get it either

Rep. Steve Rothman (D-N.J.) delivered a similar message, arguing that reverting the borders would only embolden Hamas to launch more attacks.

“A two-state solution agreed upon by the Israelis and Palestinians should be negotiated through direct talks,” Rothman said Friday in a statement, “but it is important to remember that a full return to the 1967 borders will be indefensible for Israel and that talking with terrorists who want to destroy Israel is a non-starter.”

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) echoed that sentiment, saying the 1967 borders “were simply not defensible, and Israel must not be made to return to them.” 

“The President is correct that land swaps built into a peace agreement could make Israel’s borders safe and secure, but make no mistake about it – such territorial adjustments would be very significant so that Israel would no longer be 9 miles wide at its narrowest point.”

And the “International Community” is not all in agreement either

(Globe and Mail) — The Harper government is refusing to join the United States in calling for a return to 1967 borders as a starting point for Mideast peace, a position that has drawn sharp criticism from Canada’s staunch ally Israel.

At a briefing ahead of the upcoming G8 summit in France, federal officials said the basis for the negotiations must be mutually agreed upon.

Israel quickly rejected U.S. President Barack Obama’s proposal for the talks to be guided by the 1967 borders, with mutually agreed land swaps.

“What the government of Canada supports is basically a two-state solution that is negotiated,” a senior federal official said. “If it’s border, if it’s others issues, it has to be negotiated, it cannot be unilateral action.”

Pressed by reporters, federal officials said both the Israelis and the Palestinians have to decide on their bottom lines, which the Israelis have said will not include a return to the 1967 border.

So, what else is there left for us to assume. AGAIN, just like with our economy, we are confronted with this question. Is Obama really this stupid, or does he realize what he is doing? Alan Dershowitz has a definite opinion

As does Gene Simmons

No fucking clue indeed Mr. President!

You Marxist Morons of the Day are……..

Cover of "Mother Earth"

Cover of Mother Earth

The EU, for wanting ban cars in European cities by 2050 to “save Mother Earth”!

(Telegraph) — Cars will be banned from London and all other cities across Europe under a draconian EU masterplan to cut CO2 emissions by 60 per cent over the next 40 years.

The European Commission on Monday unveiled a “single European transport area” aimed at enforcing “a profound shift in transport patterns for passengers” by 2050. . . .

Top of the EU’s list to cut climate change emissions is a target of “zero” for the number of petrol and diesel-driven cars and lorries in the EU’s future cities.

Siim Kallas, the EU transport commission, insisted that Brussels directives and new taxation of fuel would be used to force people out of their cars and onto “alternative” means of transport.

“That means no more conventionally fuelled cars in our city centres,” he said. “Action will follow, legislation, real action to change behaviour.”