Brit "Journalist" tells KABA to quit linking

Status
Not open for further replies.
azrickd,

Which is again nonsense - I have repeatedly shown both here and on TFL the limitations of that view, as well as demonstrated how that view, as well as JLM's "work" falls down when viewed against history and fact.

Why is it noone with relevant experience of the UK agrees with the KABA position azrickd? Is it because its so clearly, demonstrably and ludicrously incorrect?

Still, when you are forced to say:

And since you have nothing of substance to say regarding his position, you concede by default.
Click to expand...

I think its clear who is right on this. If angel (or those who hide in his petticoats) seeks to put his theory to the test, we are only eight hours away and I am sure he will be able to prosper in this "nation of cowards".

:barf:
 
Agricola. You are unresponsive as usual.

As to your comment that nobody agrees with the KABA position, you might wish to speak with Joyce Malcolm. She wrote several books on the subject.

You can start here: "Guns and Violence: The English Experience"

Otherwise, it appears you are debating in a vacuum since you won't reply to points presented.

I waste no further time with you today.

Rick
 
agricola assumes that I am trying to sway *his* position.

I wouldn't attempt such a feat. It would be like Milton Friedman attempting to get Fidel Castro to renounce socialism. Castro knows it's a failure, but he would be unwise to admit it at this juncture.

My purpose is to show the others where to find the info to thwart agri's silly arguments (that is, whenever he bothers to make one). Joyce Malcolm awaits.

Rick
 
agricola
i have responded to all the decent points raised on this thread,
Click to expand...

Actually, you still haven't provided us with a US law or case which would
support a lawsuit being brought against KABA. The server is in the US, so US laws apply. The US won't allow him to be subjected to UK laws because the UK has already barred the RIAA from bringing lawsuits against UK users.
 
are we being deliberately obtuse? that womans articles and the book have been done to death, mainly on TFL but also here. They have also been debunked by Tim Lambert on his website:

http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/UK

cannibal,

the point i was making is that a case could be made under UK law for breach of copyright based on the 1988 Act; why should I have to provide a US case that would allow it?
 
the point i was making is that a case could be made under UK law for breach of copyright based on the 1988 Act; why should I have to provide a US case that would allow it?
Click to expand...

The server is in the US and is not subject to the 1988 Act because it is a UK law. How many times does this have to be stated? And as I said before:
The US won't allow him to be subjected to UK laws because the UK has already barred the RIAA from bringing lawsuits against UK users.
Click to expand...
 
Agricola

that article doesnt use part of the story without comment upon it - which the original article did. as an aside, here is another link that would breach England and Wales copyright legislation on KABA:

http://keepandbeararms.com/news/kabanews/display_day_archive.asp?d=3/3/2004

look for "UK: Robbers guilty of murdering man who chased them" - doesnt credit the source at all and has no commentary/critique/other news story.
Click to expand...
There is a synopsis of the article and the link to the article which, upon clicking on same, reveals to the person so clicking the full attribution of the article and the article "in toto".:D

We will start abiding by UK law when we move there and, even though I am a Peel, I have no such desire now or ever.
 
Sorry, Angricola. You're out of order. I cite Malcolm so that people can read her book to chart the law and rule changes from "The Home Office" which changed Brits from a nation which were expected to fight crime to one which is expected to submit to it.

This is a trend with you, Angricola. You have a penchant for avoiding direct argument. You lose again.

BTW, I read the Tim Lambert articles. He's talking about crime rates in the late 1990s and finds fault with Joyce Malcolm for using police statistics which show an increase in crime while he favors the BCS "survey" which asks a very small sample of the population about crime... The BCS survey shows crime going down.

So, as usual, you're off topic -- again.

Rick
Going out for ice cream.
 
azrickd,

Ah, but the "Police" data (as has been made abundantly clear by myself) is actually affected by repeated changes in the counting rules, which has had the effect of increasing the numbers of violent and gun crimes by expanding the definitions of those crimes.

Lambert also points this out as well, and provides links and an explanation in simple terms, so you cant have either read it, or you read it but didnt understand it.

Pointing out the huge flaws in Malcolms work is important, because it shows that the US gun lobby and its retained academics are not perfect, especially when it tries to understand the mother country. Was it Colin Greenwood who said:

The ban on handguns has been a total irrelevance and underlying crime trends have continued unchanged now that only outlaws have guns.
Click to expand...

http://www.pierrelemieux.org/greenwood-citizen.html
 
agricola,

I know it's off topic, but why do you post here? It seems that all you do is refute what a socialist hole England is.

I'm just curious,



David
 
You know, I like the British. But this thread has just reinforced one pretty harsh truth about Britain: Agricola, your government sucks. Vote in some "evil" gun-toting capitalists and reform your civil law, please. Just look at the rest of Europe for some incentive. ;) That what KABA did would fall outside of fair use in Britain just seems... insane. When a journalist publishes a story, he doesn't get to choose who reads it. Sorry :(.

Sucks that you guys basically gave the gift of good government to the world, and now don't seem to be enjoying that luxury yourselves. Still, I think we can lay off the name-calling of the Brits. In my experience, I've found that there is no group of people more intelligent, agreeable, sensible, or witty. Except for we Americans, of course.

P.S. Why is your food so much-maligned? I actually quite liked the English cuisine. And tea time? Probably the best food-related invention in the history of the world.
 
Again, angricola, you're off-topic.

I cite Malcolm as she traces the Brit government's restricting the right of self defense (key date is 1953). For some reason you want to talk about the relative accuracy of two different sets of crime data in the late 1990s as if one refutes the other.
affected by repeated changes in the counting rules, which has had the effect of increasing the numbers of violent and gun crimes by expanding the definitions of those crimes.
Click to expand...
Arguably making them more reflective of the actual situation.

I'm well aware of the reporting changes of the police data in GB.

As an epidemiologist, I have the choice of using survey data such as BCS as well as end-point reporting data (such as the police data). Surveys don't tend to cut the mustard (no pun intended for Lott's research partner) with me. That's why Lott's data is more useful than Kleck's, even though both show a positive RKBA position.

I'm not sure why you can't seem to stay on-topic. Perhaps it's just a debate tactic you like to use.

Rick
 
When I visited England in the early 80s for an extended stay, I had never run into a more sensible society. When I did so again in the late 90s - my daughter was born in Stoke-on-Trent - I was aghast at the rudeness and aggressiveness of the folk at large.

Ag, you have gone down the tubes, and facing this truth is the only way out of it...
 
Rather than "Nation of Cowards", I think "Nation of Subjects" is more correct. The British have always been a nation of subjects going back to when the Romans were there setting them straight. I'm not sure cowards is accurate, but subject is very close. Those who didn't have the Subject gene left for the U.S. long ago leaving the UK where they are now.
 
I ccouldn't resist sending a little email of my own.

"Dear Mr. Truscott:

Maybe you can clear something up for me. I keep reading stories about crimes being committed with the perps using handguns. I thought guns were banned in the UK. How can criminals be using guns, if guns are illegal? Have I been misinformed about the status of firearms in the UK?

Thanks for your help.

Sincerely,


Redhead."


Does that sound too insincere? :D
 
azrickd,

No - Malcolms data for the late 1990's - which forms a part of her work - falls down for the reasons already shown.

The correlation made between the rise in certain types of crimes and the gun bans is simply wrong, which is something you continually ignore by reference to me going "off-topic" (the truth is clearly "off topic" then). Since this forms a key plank of the "UK gun bans have caused rises in crime" theory (the bans having taken place between 88-98), this period is key to understanding the relationship (or lack of one, as Greenwood points out) between gun bans and the rise in certain categories of crime (but Lambert shows this best).

This makes her conclusions from that period doubtful (if not fraudulently so, since its obvious to anyone who even dabbles in the statistics the reason for the rises). This also destroys the position KABA, and you, have adopted.

Perhaps this would be solved if Malcolm "lost" her data, in the same way that Lott did - but probably not by much (and in any case, Malcolm has no need to pose as a female to promote her work). Still, I guess those folks at KABA have no interest in any theories that dont promote their single-issue view on the world. Maybe you and angel could improve the state of RKBA in the West Indies in the hope of improving their woeful cricket side?

romulus,

It hasnt gone down the tubes - growing up during the thatcherite "golden years" as one did, I can honestly say this is infinately superior to that time, if of course by no means perfect. Do you really think two visits to the UK, widely separated in space and time represent a definitive viewpoint on this debate?

riverdog,

My country's history shows how wrong you are.
 
Discussion is moot

Since, in more recent communications with Nicki, the author has acknowledged and admitted that he has no legal recourse through either legal system...

C-ya.
 
Angricola,

I swerve off-topic yet again while you assign me an argument I have not made.

My argument is that the Brit government made it difficult for its Subjects to defend itself Lonnnngggg before the 1990s gun bans. It began 50 years ago (came to a head, actually) with no particular or additional gun ban. The Home Office changed the rules on how a British Subject could defend himself from crime (gun or no gun). It began the tilt in favor of the British criminal that continued for the next five decades to the point where a crime victim was better off just sitting and taking it, rather than lift an offensive finger if the criminal was merely using a thumb.

You deride Malcolm's use to statistics for estimating 1990s crime rate, but her report of policy changes in the 1950s is separate from statistical arguments.

I'm sure you can see the difference. I don't expect you to admit it, however.

KMKeller and Shamaya are correct. Truscott's threatening e-mail to KABA was a bluff.

My single hope in starting this thread in this forum was that the silly journalist would receive a handful of e-mails calling him out. In that, I find success.

That we've been able to expose angricola yet again is just bonus time.

Rick
 
azrickd,

so when you said:

I cite Malcolm so that people can read her book to chart the law and rule changes from "The Home Office" which changed Brits from a nation which were expected to fight crime to one which is expected to submit to it.
Click to expand...

you in fact meant one change? you didnt mean an ongoing process of gun registration/bans as Malcolm did? I concede, I am confused by this, since your initial posts suggested that the 1990's statistics, which form a large part of Malcolm's online works, would of some relevance in this debate. One would have also thought that raising Malcolm into this debate might have brought all of her works, not just a few lines of her book, into focus.

The fact that Malcolm's data for this period is full of holes deeply affects her conclusion - that the bans (both actual and the 1950's change in issuing regulations) have had an effect on the levels of crime, just as Lott's increasing (but ignored) problems with regard to his data affect his conclusions, and of course as Bellisiles problems affected his conclusions.

This is probably why you have abandoned it and focused on the 1950's change.

Still, I guess since you have been reduced to using a misspelling of my name as one of the main planks of your "argument", the debate has not a great deal to run (though I might be wrong - since Angel and you of course believe that fifty-odd million people are a "nation of cowards" suggests that you have much more BS left).
 
Regarding "subjects"

riverdog,
My country's history shows how wrong you are.
Click to expand...
Does this mean that you aren't subjects, have never been a subject or just prefer to not be considered a subject? Or was I just wrong about the Romans? Seems Braveheart was all about some of the Scots trying very hard to not be subjects but you folks around London can't make that claim.
 
Do you really think two visits to the UK, widely separated in space and time represent a definitive viewpoint on this debate?
Click to expand...

I did not present it as a definitive viewpoint, merely as an observation that supports what I read and what I'm being told by my in-laws who are English and have lived there longer than you - unless you're an octogenarian cop. The separation in time makes clearer the degradation of public mores.

I would guess that as an agent of the state you have a vested interest in defending the creep of state control in people's lives as you are responsible for its implementation, but it would be impolitic to admit that you are an actor in England's declining freedoms. No?

I understand the position you're in...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
KABA Writer (David Codrea) Investigated for Questioning Civil Authority
2 3
Replies
58
Views
2K
TheBluesMan
T
D
  • Locked
Journalists and 'Leakers' Feel Heat
Replies
1
Views
284
meef
M
M
  • Locked
Indiana--support needed
Replies
6
Views
428
Nick1911
N
2
  • Locked
A Pizza Delivery Driver's View of Gun Control
Replies
16
Views
1K
tunaman
T
2
  • Locked
The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban - A Public Opinion Nightmare
Replies
0
Views
690
2dogs
2
Back
Top