Lies, damn lies, and statistics. He’s making claims about murders and rural vs urban areas and black vs white and then inferring that gun ownership is the overarching cause for the difference in homicide rates, a false cause I might add, and ignores all the other causes, not to mention any other data that might disagree with him (and there is a lot of data that disagrees with him). Homicide rates are higher in urban areas no matter where you live, gun control laws or not, and blacks historically live in more urban areas where there is more crime, resulting in blacks committing more crimes.
The whole thing is ridiculous.
And then this sentence got a laugh:
“In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s-- after decades of ever tightening gun ownership restrictions-- there were more than a hundred times as many armed robberies.”
Well, first off, if there were a hundred times more robberies in London, that would mean there woud be 1200 robberies in London per year in the 1990s. Surely we can see that this is false. Notice also that he leaves out “per capita”, thus allowing population growth to do magic for him.
Violent crime in 1950 was 1053/100,000 people
Violent crime in 2011 was 7572/100,000 people, and that figure has actually been dropping. But it is hardly the scary 100 TIMES MORE CRIME statistic he’s spouting off.
Linearly that’s like a rise of 619%
Compared to the United States:
1960 (Sorry, BJS only goes back that far): 160.9/100,000 people
2009: 429.4/100,000 people
Rise of 166%. But again, that’s linearly, and there was a massive drop in crime in the 1990s, so it probably rose a lot more by 1990. And the UK and the US define violent crime differently, and he doesn’t even touch that issue.
So in essence, this man’s statistics are lies and his lies are lies.
Put more simply: