StarGateWars Forums

Kit-Fox wrote:*ring ring*

'Err Hello, is that a Mr Godwin please? We've some activity to report on the law you commisioned'


-----------


Seriously, your equating the wearing of a hoodie to the wearing of nazi apparel?!?!?! Wow, just wow

Not comparing in severity, only comparing in that both regardless of original use are now synonymous & instantly associated with the their worst uses.

People wearing a swastika are assumed to be racists

People wearing hoodies are assumed to be criminals

There are many other items of clothing, badges, symbols which carry negative associations.

If you choose to wear these you must accept the negative associations that will be applied to you in public.

ps who is Mr Godwin ???

MEZZANINE wrote:Hoodies are banned in many places for the simple reason they're frequently used to avoid being identified on CCTV footage when committing crimes. Same reason you cant wear motorbike helmets in shops, banks, etc

Much as I hate the CCTV culture in the UK, the sad fact is it is necessary because of all the scum, not just shoplifting but also on the streets, car crime, muggings, assaults, antisocial behavior like harassing & intimidating people.

No, what you need is a gun. If people were allowed to own and carry weapons for self defensive and were allowed to use them, then the problem would start to go away.

Look up Godwin's Law on Wikipedia.

[BoT] Jack wrote:

MEZZANINE wrote:Hoodies are banned in many places for the simple reason they're frequently used to avoid being identified on CCTV footage when committing crimes. Same reason you cant wear motorbike helmets in shops, banks, etc

Much as I hate the CCTV culture in the UK, the sad fact is it is necessary because of all the scum, not just shoplifting but also on the streets, car crime, muggings, assaults, antisocial behavior like harassing & intimidating people.

No, what you need is a gun. If people were allowed to own and carry weapons for self defensive and were allowed to use them, then the problem would start to go away.

Look up Godwin's Law on Wikipedia.

Guns are not allowed in the UK, not because we are more civilised, but simply because we recognise that most people are idiots and would kill each other over the smallest of things if it was made that easy.

As for Godwins law, I just looked it up and very amusing but not really relevant here. I never compared people wearing hoodies to Nazi's, I said that symbols and items of clothing ( Like the Swastika which I believe was originally a religious symbol ) become associated with their worst uses. Modern day people who wear Swastika are not Nazi's but they are assumed to be racist just like people wearing hoodies even if they are law abiding citizens are assumed to be criminals. If you wear a swastika you know people will assume you are a racist, and if you wear a hoodie you should by now be prepared for people assuming you are a criminal.

MEZZANINE wrote:

[BoT] Jack wrote:

MEZZANINE wrote:Hoodies are banned in many places for the simple reason they're frequently used to avoid being identified on CCTV footage when committing crimes. Same reason you cant wear motorbike helmets in shops, banks, etc

Much as I hate the CCTV culture in the UK, the sad fact is it is necessary because of all the scum, not just shoplifting but also on the streets, car crime, muggings, assaults, antisocial behavior like harassing & intimidating people.

No, what you need is a gun. If people were allowed to own and carry weapons for self defensive and were allowed to use them, then the problem would start to go away.

Look up Godwin's Law on Wikipedia.

Guns are not allowed in the UK, not because we are more civilised, but simply because we recognise that most people are idiots and would kill each other over the smallest of things if it was made that easy.

As for Godwins law, I just looked it up and very amusing but not really relevant here. I never compared people wearing hoodies to Nazi's, I said that symbols and items of clothing ( Like the Swastika which I believe was originally a religious symbol ) become associated with their worst uses. Modern day people who wear Swastika are not Nazi's but they are assumed to be racist just like people wearing hoodies even if they are law abiding citizens are assumed to be criminals. If you wear a swastika you know people will assume you are a racist, and if you wear a hoodie you should by now be prepared for people assuming you are a criminal.

Not too sure but I think the swastika is the Chinese symbol for peace turned on its side.

ppl need to watch start of Da Vinci code lol

Mezz, it does not matter whether you compared it to being a Nazi, the law it's that Hitler/Nazis will be referenced, which you did.

As for what you said about guns, that doesn't really happen here and in most states Most law abiding citizens have the ability to carry.

[BoT] Jack wrote:Mezz, it does not matter whether you compared it to being a Nazi, the law it's that Hitler/Nazis will be referenced, which you did.

As for what you said about guns, that doesn't really happen here and in most states Most law abiding citizens have the ability to carry.

If you go back through the posts, YOU were the one that used Hitlers name 1st not me.

Also with guns, check out the numbers. Countries with highest number of shootings, highest gun crime etc. Small town America may be safe but that has nothing to do with being armed, and US cities are definitely NOT safer due to gun culture.

You were the first to reference Nazis.

Switzerland has the highest gun ownership rate in the world, and yet also one of the lowest for crime.

America has higher gun violence than the UK, but then the UK has far more muggings and burlaries. A burglar is more likely to burglarize a home when the owner is present in the UK than the US. And our gun violence can be attributed to the gangs that are taking over.

[BoT] Jack wrote:You were the first to reference Nazis.

Switzerland has the highest gun ownership rate in the world, and yet also one of the lowest for crime.

America has higher gun violence than the UK, but then the UK has far more muggings and burlaries. A burglar is more likely to burglarize a home when the owner is present in the UK than the US. And our gun violence can be attributed to the gangs that are taking over.

When it comes to the Swiss ( Who I believe also have the highest number of bomb shelters per capita to run and hide in with their loot instead of using their many guns ), I think The Zapper sums it up best

Zapp: "I hate these filthy neutrals Kif! With enemies you know where they stand but with neutrals? Who knows! It sickens me."

Zapp: "What makes a man turn neutral ... Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"

As for guns, I agree in defending your home & family but the fact is homes still get burgled and with guns in the homes to steal that means illegal guns on the streets. Me and my mates have faced off in many scraps in our younger years, few bumps and bruises, the occasional broken bone or stitches. Now if we had access to guns in those days I wonder how many of us or those we fought would still be alive.

How many schools in countries where guns are legal have had kids go nuts and start killing other students & teachers ??? Is that worth the ability to shoot someone trying to steal your fletscreen TV or PS3 ?

Young & dumb + Guns = Dead people

Rampages will happen whether a person has access to guns or not. It's even happened in England and all the bastard had was a **Filtered** .22lr! How the **Filtered** can you kill that many people with a goddamned .22? The answer, because no one else had guns. Not even the police.

Most gun violence in America is related to drugs and gangs and has little to do with idiots shooting each other because one called the other guy's a **Filtered**.

School shootings aren't that common either. And the only reason they are successful is because no one has a gun to fend off the attacker. When Pearl High was targeted, the shooter planned to attack the middle school too, but was stopped by an armed principal. There was a shooting rampage in a mall recently that was ended really quickly because of an armed citizen. The Texas Luby's massacre went unimpeded because just days before it had been deemed illegal to carry in Texas, so Suzzana Hupp had to leave her sidearm in the car, thus unable to defend herself and save her parents. A guy with a knife went on a largely unimpeded killing spree in Japan because no one there is armed.

Ask yourself why killing sprees always happen at schools and never at a gun range.

Removed

Kit-Fox wrote:

[BoT] Jack wrote:Rampages will happen whether a person has access to guns or not. It's even happened in England and all the bastard had was a **Filtered** .22lr! How the **Filtered** can you kill that many people with a goddamned .22? The answer, because no one else had guns. Not even the police.

The highlighted piece is in fact incorrect Jack & has been for some time in the UK. Each police authority is required to maintain teams of 'Firearms Officers' , who have access to UK military grade firearms/ammunition & also access to non-lethal weapons such as Tasers.

In fact in the last few years normal officers in the UK have been allowed to carry Tasers as they are considered 'non-lethal' by ACPO & the IPCC.

So the police in the UK havent been unarmed for sometime

That's pretty lulz, considering that ALL of our officers carry sidearms on their person at all times with shotguns and rifles in their vehicles.

I realize that your SWAT is armed. But that's not the point, I wasn't saying that no officers are armed, just that beat cops aren't. Which is the point, the people that were there already were unable to do anything because they were unarmed. Unlike in instances such as the recent mall shooting where an off duty officer was able to end it quickly and efficiently using his concealed weapon. When there is a shooting, armed law abiding citizens save lives.

Examples:

The mall shooting
The Pearl Highschool shooting
The UT Clock Tower shooting

Yes, even at UT, one of the most infamous shootings, there were armed citizens and they saved lives. Obviously they were not able to save everyone, but when they started returning fire, the number of casualties dropped off significantly if not entirely.

Removed

The edit made while I was making my post doesn't count.

Still, the point remains that most officers do not have weapons. And a crazy gunman isn't a planned operation. I'm not saying that there was no one with guns that could respond. I'm saying that there was no one with guns when it happened. That's the important difference.