In article , "M. W. Eglestone"
wrote:
> THIS, is an example, Mike, of the problem I am having with the
> "Winning
> Team" and their "News Articles" that are deceptive and misleading..
> You Folks Presented The Following:
> -----------------------------------
> -----------------------------------
> NRAWinningTeam.com extends it's comprehensive report on Australia
> with highlights of an Oct. 10th BBC News article showing that the
> UK is going the SAME WAY AS AUSTRALIA.
> CRIMINALS ARE HAVING A FIELD DAY!
> Just one example...
> "...The crime rate is expected to soar for the first rise in
> five years when official figures are published this week.."
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> MWE: The article was quite different from what you portrayed it
> to be.
I quote the article exactly, and draw the inference that the British
Government won't draw for you. This is a search for TRUTH, remember?
That means taking the stock info that is handed us by the BBC and
making sense out of it, not accepting what it says wihout delving
deeper.
You aren't nieve enough to believe that the BBC is going to
TELL US if crime is going up becauise all guns have been banned,
are you? We know that crime MUST go up, there's no question from
the research of John Lott, Gary Kleck and a host of others.
So our task is to point at the falsehoods of the gun banners and poke
holes in their falshoods with the tools these researchers have given
us. You can do that, can't you? Or do you believe the British
Government over Lott, Kleck and the others?
> It certainly had nothing to do with Gun Laws,
Now how do you know that?!!? And to use the word "certainly"?
Are you really an NRA member AND pro-self-defense?
I just can't square your blind acceptance of that BBC News article.
After all, I never set out to prove a case in a court of law, but
from the HUGE responses I'm getting, I guarantee you I've created
serious doubt about the voracity of that BBC report.
Except for you, that is.
You expect the BBC to admit that the British Gun Ban is responsible?
Puh-lease!
>and nearly nothing
> to do
> with a REAL rise in the crime rates in the U.K.
It certainly did. The article I linked to states (and I include the
quote on the web page) that the rise is "...mainly due to a new method
of counting crimes ... However... the figures produced by the old
method... will also show a rise in crime..."
Get that last part? That's what they don't want to stress, but must be
stressed.
"
> Here are the significant portions of the article:
> --------------------------------------------------
Sorry. You are thinking like a government beauraucrat.
You've got to realize these are real victims that are being
laid down in the wake of gun control, and their goveernment
will hide and obfuscate just as it did to pass the ban.
Stopping your thinking processes with the words on their page
is simply nieve. Don't stop there. Mr. Egelstone.
> ----------------------------------
> ----------------------------------
> MWE: You were VERY DISHONEST with the opener for that article
> because the
> article you presented didn't support your assertion.
Indeed it does. Under both old and new methods of accounting, crime is
up in the UK, by the BBC's own admission. THE QUESTION IS THE
INTEGRITY OF THE BBC REPORTING, not the inferences I am drawing.
All I am doing is making clear the inconsistencies between their
actions (banning virtually all guns) and the results (crime going
up, no doubt about it). You would rather impugn my integrity
rather than have the BBC explain that?
>You were
> fully aware of
> that when you wrote the headers. Crime may be up slightly in the
> U.K.
But how do you know it's up "slightly"? Didn't you yourself say
that the real change couldn't be determined? (I disagree, BTW, and
think that the old method showed significant increases also. NOTE:
that the BBC article doesn;t specify that value, does it? Now
why aren';t you curious why not?
>but is
> sure can't be attributed to the "Gun Laws"
Why not? Are you educated in these matters? What do you expect to
happen when you remove the citizens access to defensive tools?
Surely criminals wouldn't take advantage of the situation, now, would
they? Never happen, right Mike?
Or do you believe that simply because the BBC didn't tell you
that gun laws had anything to do with it. they don't?
Methinks you doth protest too loudly. Especially for a gun-owner who
is worried about losing his rights, or for someone who is in the least
bit concerned for his former gun-owning British brethern.
Now you sound like an NRA hater in drag.
>which are the primary
> thing the
> "Winning Team" should be concerned with. A new method of COUNTING
> and
> RECORDING criminal activity is not, "CRIMINALS ARE HAVING A FIELD
> DAY"...
Aren't you listening?
UNDER BOTH OLD AND NEW COUNTING METHODS, CRIME INCREASED.
THEY DIDN'T QUANTIFY THE INCREASE UNDER THE OLDER METHOD.
WHY NOT? WOULDN'T THAT HAVE PROVIDED A CLEAR PICTURE OF WHAT
CRIME HAS DONE?
No, there's a reason the didn't include those numbers. Geez,
man, this is one of the biggest NEWS organizations in the world!
Demand they act like it!
That one line, about crime going up under the old method too, tells the
whole story. No, it's not a complete story, but only because they
didn't give that complete set of statistics. Why not? You have a
nose, don't you? It smells things, doesn;t it? Why do I have to keep
leading you around by it?
> I expect HCI to tell lies and present deceptions. I'll be damned
> if I'll
> accept the SAME THING from people who are supposed to be
> representing the
> interests of NRA members and Gun Owners.
> If you want to play those types of games, take my name OFF the
> list of
> folks you purport to represent.
Mr. Egelstone, you can remove your name from any list you choose. I
doubt you are helping any cause I'm associated with anyway.
> My standards for the TRUTH are
> much higher
> than that!!
I'm happy for you. I guess the thousands that are passing around
my information to Legislators at all levels of government, the many
.gov and .edu sites that are hitting it, the tremendous discussion
taking place on MANY forums... we'll all just slosh along way down
here without you.
Cheerio!
Mike Haas
PS: Odd that, in your sig, you express distrust of those that
want to infringe on human freedom, but trust the British media and
government when it comes to crime statistics following a
country-wide gun ban.
> --
> Mike Eglestone
> Senior Master Sergeant (E-8)
> United States Air Force, (Retired)
> ----------------------
> "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It
> is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves."
> -William Pitt (The Younger), Speech - House of Commons - 18 Nov.
> 1783
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
|