No it is not.
Different countries have different reporting methods of crime, what you are referring to is a comparison of headline rates of violence between the US and UK, without taking into account those differences in reporting - I know you are doing this, as I have seen it a number of times before.
For example; in the UK threatening violence goes under violent crime statistics, whereas in the US only actual violence is counted in their statistics. Why the UK records those non-violent incidents under violent crime statistics is anybody's guess, but that is what they do and comparisons of headline rates are therefore flawed.
The only rates that are comparable between the UK and US are murder rates, because the UK actually changed the way they record them to be more inline with international methods, even then there are some differences, e.g. murders in the UK are counted from the date they are discovered, whereas in the US they are from the date of the murder - this does not usually make much of a difference, but explains why there was such a big jump after Dr Harold Shipman was caught. Even though most of his murders happened years before, they were counted in the discovery years.
The Harold Shipman murder rate jump was also used by idiots trying to claim the UK gun control was not working, by only using headline homicide rates without realising that a) those crimes happened in the years before gun legislation came in, and b) he did not use a weapon.
This is just gibberish.The propensity for violent crime to ignore economically different locations is much, much bigger than the US. But I guess that just means you guys discriminate less right....