Code Pink disrupts NRA statement

| December 21, 2012

We’ve been listening all week from the Left that the NRA is cowardly because they’ve been silent since the shootings last Friday. So the NRA makes a statement today. And a Code Pink loser disrupts the statement by holding up a sign in front of Wayne LaPierre which states that “NRA Kills”. here’s a screen shot of the little douche getting hauled off;

Code Pink NRA

Suppose the NRA disrupted Joe Bite-Me’s press conference yesterday while he was discussing the impending assault weapons ban with morons like former DC Police Chief Ramsey. What would be said today. While I’m writing this, there’s another disruption at the press conference by another Code Pink dingus. (Reports are that it was Susie Benjamin, but I missed it because I was writing this)

The NRA has 8 million members who vote. It’s not just Wayne LaPierre – eight million of us. Wayne just happens to speak for us. Code Pink shoudl be outside my house protesting – I’ve been a member since 1977 before anyone tried to take my guns from me. Me and eight million other Americans are your real enemy, Code Pink.

LaPierre’s money quote – “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

ADDED: I wonder if the Secret Service leave their guns in their office when they escort the President to a “gun free zone” school. They should if “gun free zones” are as safe as we’re told.

Category: Code Pink, Guns

Comments (128)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. 68W58 says:

    “We must silence them, and take away their guns…”

    The totalitarian left rears its predictable head. The left cares about guns only tangentially to their main goal-what they really want is to ban opposition to their politics (notice how our new friend wants to “silence them” first). Making it impossible for individuals to defend themselves is only an intermediate step in the process of implementing their agenda of controlling all aspects of human behavior.

  2. Ex-PH2 says:

    @100 & 101 – Get a grip, guys.

    Satire (not very good satire) raises it’s fine-haired S.O.B.’s head.

  3. jhtrotter says:

    @99, I can understand why guns in schools seem insane. I barely survived grammar school being terrorized by catholic nuns wielding wooden assault rulers. Can’t imagine the long term repercussions of the daily threat of getting mozambiqued by a H&K .40 armed deputized nun for planting my gum under the desk chair.

  4. Hondo says:

    I don’t think comment 99 was satire, Ex-PH2.

    How’s the weather out there near the People’s Republic of Berkeley these days, almazul? Is El Cerrito a part of the People’s Republic yet, or are you still just a “fellow traveler”? Or would that be “useful idiot”?

  5. Jonn Lilyea says:

    If you couldn’t tell, we got a link at Huffibbington Post.

  6. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    PorscheBob SquarePants repeatedly says that no one wants our (add vulgarity here) guns. He then proceeds to tell us that we don’t need certain guns. So, what he is struggling to say is that no one wants ALL of our guns, just some of them. There are so many fails in his assertion that it is truly laughable. From income tax to gay rights and all points in between, we are always assured by the lefties, the government, or both, that we are the alarmists, that we are the ones projecting the ridiculous. But history tells us different.

  7. Ex-PH2 says:

    Hondo, Jonn — thanks for the heads up. I think it was the punctuation that threw me off.

  8. Hondo says:

    2-17 Air Cav: of course Porch-Boy doesn’t want our “fornicating” guns. He only wants our firearms. Remember –

    “This is my rifle
    This is my gun
    This one’s for shooting
    The other’s for fun.”

  9. UpNorth says:

    @#98. I said somewhere else, the SRO was out doing the job that the unarmed security guard, or the assistant principal or the attendance officer should have been doing, checking on smokers.

  10. Insipid says:

    @42- Hondo- You got that from an extremely misleading report. The report 1. fails to take into account that England tabulates its crimes at per 100k and we do it per 1 million and 2. It fails to take into account the fact that England and the United States tabulates violent crimes differently.

    The UK rate includes common assault — simple assault, no injuries, the lowest level of assault. The US rate does not.
    The UK figures include “sexual offences”. The US figures include only “forcible rape”. 15% of the recorded crime figure for violent crimes the UK is “harassment”. The U.S. does not count that as violent crime.

    This is why it is stupid and misleading to compare crime rates from one country to another since different countries count crimes in different ways. The only fair way to count this is to look at murder rates by gun violence. And I don’t think you really want to go there.

  11. Insipid says:

    What puzzles me is that he didn’t just let Code pink take the stage. I’m not sure how much more disasterous it could of been then Lapieres presentation.

  12. Hondo says:

    Once again, Sippy provides exact numbers without a verifiable source. Why no source, Sippy?

  13. NHSparky says:

    Okay, sippy–we’ll bite–when put into offenses per 100K, GB is still 4-5 times higher than the US. Now regardless of your parsing, while a 10-15 percent difference might give you some credence, a factor of 5? Nice try, but no.

  14. Insipid says:

    @112- Hondo, you didn’t give a source either when you stated that there were 4 times as many violent crimes in England. In fact you very rarely give sources unless if you’re doing a blog. Plus unless the source is redstate or breitbart you all dismiss it as “liberal media”.

  15. Hondo says:

    Sippy: the source has been cited elsewhere on TAH. NHSparky cited it in a related discussion thread, and I think you even posted on that thread yourself. I assumed you’d seen it. It was from a UK newspaper.

    Let me see if I can find it for you, since you’re obviously either unwilling or incompetent to do so for yourself. After all, it’s Christmas. Consider my doing so a Christmas present.

  16. Hondo says:

    Here ya go, Sippy. A link to the article is posted on multiple threads here, and you indeed have commented on at least one of those discussions yourself.

    I guess you must have “forgot” that one.

    As your Christmas present, here’s the direct link:

    The article gives the normalized rates (total violent crimes per 100k residents) for a number of countries. The rate for the UK: 2,034 per 100k residents. The rate for the US: 466 per 100k residents. Hell, even Canada’s rate is 2x that of the US: 932 violent crimes per 100k residents.

    Merry Christmas, and you’re welcome.

  17. Insipid says:

    Mmmmm…. Epic fail. Your own article says precisely the same thing i told you:


    But criminologists say crime figures can be affected by many factors, including different criminal justice systems and differences in how crime is reported and measured. In Britain, an affray ( English term, fight that disturbs the peace) is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured…..

    But Police Minister David Hanson said: ‘These figures are misleading.
    Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime.

    Furthermore, that study is the equivelent of one put out by the Koch brothers or, if you prefer the Brady Campaign or Organizing for America. It’s not exactly an unbiased source that wants acurate statistics. This was put out by the Tories to discredit labour to win an election, The BBC looked at this study and found it to be extremely misleading in that they “forgot” to mention that the government had changed its methods of reporting crime:


    But a BBC investigation found that the Conservatives omitted Home Office warnings that the figures for the periods before and after 2002 were not comparable because of a change in the way violent crime was recorded.

    Instead of police officers deciding whether an incident should be recorded as a violent crime, the decision was given to the alleged victim, with the effect of forcing up recorded violence by an estimated 35% in the first year, according to the BBC.

    The British Crime Survey suggested that people’s experience of violent crime has in fact fallen by around 50% since 1995.

    (if you’re going to insist that i quote sources each and every time, you should at the very least tell me how to do quotes here.)

    Anyway, don’t you have your hands full getting everything completely wrong about the United States? I don’t see why you feel the need to branch out.

    Merry Christmas to you too.

  18. Joe Williams says:

    Sippy,the Bobbies were ordered to find ways to write the reports up so the reports did not read like violent crimes.

  19. Insipid says:

    @119- Joe Williams- one of the points made in the article is that they changed their record keeping so that it was the alleged victim who gets to decide on whether the crime is violent, not the “bobby”. That alone, according to the Guardian article increased the # of reported violent crimes by 35%.

    I’m not sure why you would believe that the British necessarily falsify reports more than Americans.

  20. Hondo says:

    Sippy – boy, you really are working on earning your nickname “the Pinhead” today.

    Epic fail? Hardly. And your response is so predictable – right out of the lib playbook, actually.

    I provide hard data. Your response? Change the subject, coupled with asserting the data is false while providing no supporting evidence whatsoever that the data is even suspect, much less false.

    Yes, the article says the statistics might not be comparable. However, it does not (1) detail how they might not be comparable, (2) demonstrate that they are in fact not comparable, or (3) attempt to do either of the above. In short, it makes an unsupported assertion about the data which it fails to substantiate in any way. You grabbed that unsupported assertion and ran with it. You like doing that when it suits your purposes.

    Sorry fella – not gonna let you get away with that here. Put up or shut up. Find and cite some data to support your assertion – hard data. And post verifiable references.

    Provide proof of how UK and US crime statistics are indeed calculated differently. Or admit you can’t and were wrong. Or just shut up about the matter. Or keep on arguing your nonsense without providing proof and making yourself look like more of a fool than it’s already been proven you are. Any of those is fine with me.

    Further, some of the material you quote above to “prove” the statistics are “not comparable” refers to comparing current and past UK statistics – not those from foreign nations. That’s clear from the context of the quote you posted above. Next time, try to post a supporting quote that is applicable to the discussion at hand, please. The fact that the UK changed it’s reporting method 10 years ago is of interest in comparing pre-2002 and post-2002 UK statistics. It is of little or no interest in comparing current UK and other-nation statistics. Not even a good try at a smokescreen.

    And as for quoting that “perception” crap: give me a break. Perception is exactly that – perception, which may or may not be accurate, and can easily be manipulated. (Remember the edited 911 call audio regarding Martin originally released by NBC compared to later full transcripts? Initial perception there turned out to have been intentionally manipulated to be far different than reality.) Hard data is another thing entirely. That’s much harder to manipulate.

    Oh, by the way: (1.0/1.35) x 2,034 is much greater than 432 – 3.49 times greater, to be precise. So even accepting the dubious claim you cite about a 35% increase due to “victim categorization” and discounting the British crime rate appropriately (a 35% increase means the correction factor is 1.0 / 1.35 = 0.74, not 1 – 0.35 = 0.65), the British violent crime rate is still roughly 3.5 times higher than the US violent crime rate.

  21. Dick Tracy, Private Dick says:

    Hondo, try this link to an independent UK crime survey agency:

    There is also this link, which is to another independent survey. I’m tickled by the fact that they are including data on bribes. Too cool:

  22. Joe Williams says:

    Joe,DAMN we share the same first name. The Bobbies were ordered to do creactive writing so a carjacking read like a stolen car etc. As to dieing off,yes I will. I have now trained my thrid generation in firearms. Heavy on the safety of use. My Grandsons went to the hunters safety course and told me the course just repeated what I had already traught them. Die off yes but we pass on our legacy of free men and choices. Joe

  23. Insipid says:

    @ 121- Hondo- Tantrums do not negate the epic fail, they enhance it. The article does detail why violent crime is no comparable from one country to another. It states that, in the UK, an argument without injury that disturbs the peace will be counted as a violent crime. That’s not the case here. The article that I gave further stated that in 2002 the recording of whether something is or is not a violent crime has been left up to the alleged victim. That’s not the case here.

    Also, the people within your article that are saying that crime is all-to-hell in the UK is the oposition party. The ones that say they’re not comparable are criminologists. The ones without “skin in the game” are generally considered to be the better arbiters.

    But if you want more, here the European Commission did a statistical analysis of Crime throughout Europe:

    Money quote:

    There are differences between countries in systems of legal and criminal justice; in definitions of crimes[1]; methods of reporting, recording and counting crimes; and the proportion of reported to unreported crime[2]. So it is not usually possible to make direct comparisons of crime types and levels between countries…..

    The analysis goes on further to state:

    Homicide is a type of violent crime, and is defined as the intentional killing of a person, including murder, manslaughter, euthanasia and infanticide. It excludes death by dangerous driving, abortion and help with suicide.

    Because of its seriousness, homicide is fairly consistently reported, and definitions vary less between countries than for some other types of crime.

    So, gun deaths and homicides the limited thing that those in favor of gun control are talking about IS comparable. The nebulous thing you’re talking about, violent crime, isn’t.

    The purpose of the “study” by the Tories was political. It was to say: “Look how bad it is in the UK, elect us!” Your purpose in shilling the article is also political.

    What’s hysterical is your double standard. If I state a fact concerning ALL black Senators and ALL black Governors and the SINGLE black President, well that’s simply not detailed enough. I can’t make a generalization about it being a disadvantage to be black and seek elective office until i consider every Secretary of State and congressman and dogcatcher elected as well.

    But here, we’re supposed to take at face value a rival parties politically motivated report. A report that doesn’t specify how each of the countries count what constitutes a violent crime or a robery or a rape etc. Without that breakdown it is impossible to take seriously.

    Plus even if we were to take your rediculous assertions at face value, and assume that there is a one to one correlation between statistics in two different countries, isn’t that MORE evidence that we should curtail guns in the United States?

    This article:

    shows that the incredibly violent society of England and Wales has a hopmicide by firearms rate of 0.07 per 100,000 whereas ours is 2.97 per 100,000. And no, before you say it, Professor Plum is not making up the difference by killing you in a cloakroom with a candlestick. Here’s an article that lists ALL homicides and you will see that the UK’s homicide rate is STILL far lower. The UK suffers a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100K and the US suffers one of 5 per 100K.

    So if the UK which- according to the Torries and you- is this horribly no-good barbaric violent society and is STILL experiencing a homicide rate of nearly 5 times LESS that ours because of its gun ban, imagine how peaceful our relatively sedate society would be if we implimented the same ban? Monaco (0 per 100K) HERE WE COME!

  24. Hondo says:

    That’s just more null content ranting from you, Sippy.

    You claim that the US and UK measure violent crime differently? Fine. Provide documentation that proves the US and UK crime rates are measured differently. And also show how those same differences in measurement change the approximately 4.70:1 greater violent crime rate in the UK (2034:432), as measured by official statistics from each country. Until you’ve done that – and you have not done that above – you’re merely stating an opinion. You’ve proven nothing.

    Bottom line: you’re still obfuscating above, Sippy. You have not proven your assertion that the UK has a lower overall violent crime rate than the US. Comparing the official statics from the two nations definitively indicates otherwise. You have not shown how the two nations statistics are acquired differently, what effect any hypothetical difference in data acquisition has on their respective violent crime rate calculations, or even that the two nations’ data are in fact are acquired differently. Further: until you show how any hypothetical differences between the two nations’ methods of acquiring those statistics exist and how those differences affect the result, you’re merely spouting an unsupported opinion.

    You do that (spout unsupported nonsense) here quite often, but everyone here recognizes that for what it is. We all know it’s merely partisan rhetoric that has little basis in fact and which you cannot prove is correct when challenged.

    And remember: the discussion concerns total violent crime rate, not merely homicide. Homicide is not the only violent crime.

  25. Insipid says:

    You’ve crossed the point a long time ago where you should of just surrendered gracefully and admitted that comparing violent crimes in two different countries is a pretty dumb idea. You should of also admitted that relying on political hype from another country is equally dumb.

    I never made the assertion that the “Uk has a lower overall crime rate than the U.S.” In fact, i said the exact oposite, that it is impossible to compare overall crime between countries. Not only did I do that but I found a non-political analysis that stated the exact same thing. The ONLY thing I am comparing is homicide rates, particularly gun deaths. Nothing else. That is something which the same analysis site states CAN be fairly compared. That is an apples to apples comparison, yours is not.

    Furthermore, i did not list “hypothetical” differences between the two methods of tabulating violent crime. I stated specifically that the U.S. does not count public disturbance as a violent crime, that the U.S. does not allow the alleged victim to determine whether it is a violent crime.

    Since I’M not the one who was making the bold assertions comparing violent crime in two different countries, I’m not the one who it is incumbent upon to jump through hoops to prove a point. You’re the one insisting that the UK is a vastly more violent place than the U.S.A. therefore it is up to you to 1. make sure that there are like for like definitions of what constitutes a violent crime and 2. Make sure that they both report violent crimes equally. If you went by REPORTED violent crime, Somalia is a much safer place than either country. Not having a working government to actually report crimes to tends to do that for you.

    But since i’m a giver, i’ll actually make it easier for you, Hondo. Here’s a 67 page PDF that actually lists what constitutes violent crime in the UK:

    You’ll note that there are several infractions here that constitutes violent crime in the UK that does not constitute violent crime in the U.S.A.. One of those is possession of a weapon (page 33):

    Possession of offensive weapon without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

    Having an article with a blade or point in a public place.

    Another is endangering life at sea (27)

    Sending unseaworthy ship to sea.

    Not waiting to save lives in collision (not even a crime in the U.S., let alone a violent crime. Generally there is no good samaritan rules in the U.S.. Though i do think some states have them.)

    Failing to assist ships in distress or persons in danger at sea.

    Cruelty to and neglect of children (47)

    Taking children to nurse for reward.

    Allowing child or young person to be in brothel.

    Neglecting to provide for safety at children’s entertainment.

    Harassment: (page 35)

    Anyway, have fun carefully tabulating every single report of violent crime in the UK and taking out ALL of those which would not count in the U.S.A.. And then after doing that you’ll also take into account other variables such as different reporting methods to give us a fully accurate, non-politically motivated run-down of violent crime in the UK vs. the USA. Either that, or you can just come to the same conclusion the criminologists came to, that such comparisons are impossible to make and you can just enjoy your XMAS with your family.

    Believe it or not, and for whatever it is worth, i sincerely hope you do the latter and have a happy holiday.

    • Hondo says:

      That’s “lower violent crime rate”, Sippy – not “lower crime rate”. Apparently it’s too much to ask for you to get that right, but no matter.

      In disputing the comparison of official figures showing the contrary, that’s exactly what you’re doing – albeit indirectly. You’re disputing the comparison showing the UK violent crime rate to be approximately 4.70 times higher that of the US violent crime rate. The only meaningful reason for you to dispute it is that you are contending that the UK violent crime rate is in fact lower, and that the comparison is invalid because the statistics are not comparable. (I don’t believe even a fool like yourself would be jumping through these hoops if you actually believed the UK violent crime rate was in fact higher than that of the US as the official statistics show.)

      Ergo, logically that’s exactly what you’re indirectly claiming – e.g., the UK violent crime rate is indeed lower than that of the US, but that fact is masked by bad statistics. So that means it’s your responsibility to support that argument.

      I’ll grant you this: for once, you might have found actual credible data rather than simply MSU or rehashing previously-discredited liberal or Democratic talking points. And that data might – or might not – support your argument. But you still haven’t proven anything at this point.

      All you did so far is point to a source data from the UK. You haven’t yet identified (1) how the UK data differs from comparable data for the US, comprehensively, for all violent crimes in each nation; (2) whether the differences between the two sets of data are substantial, or even if they exist; (3) if any differences exist, if those differences are meaningful; or (4) if any meaningful differences exist, whether they support or refute your hypothesis. In short, you’ve got a lot of work left to do to prove your argument.

      I’m not going to make your argument or do your work for you here. After all: you’re the one disputing official government statistics showing that the UK has nearly a 5x greater violent crime rate than the US – so you are the one who has the burden of proving those official statistics wrong or misleading. I’m OK with accepting the official figures from each nation at face value until someone can prove to me otherwise that I shouldn’t.

      So far you haven’t done that. All you’ve done is point to some UK data and make hand-waving claims to the effect that “you can’t compare US and UK crime data; they’re ‘different'”. OK – then show us HOW they’re different, IF any difference exists and/or is even relevant, and HOW BIG AND IN WHAT DIRECTION any differences that might exist actually are.

      Enjoy your holiday today also, Sippy. Rest up; looks you’ve got a lot of work in front of you to justify your position above. Enjoy.