jay pettitt on 2/3/2006 at 19:48
Today's post is brought to you by the number '3' and the word 'Association'.
In the UK Butterfly Knives and Flick Knives are singularly associated with violent crime, criminal culture and brutal attacks. They are knives evolved for use as weapons. They have a clear and identifiable history with criminal and gang culture.
Sure, a blade is a blade is a blade and technically you can use a butterfly knife to snip a plastic tie. But given their association, people are gonna wonder why you think it's a good idea to use a weapon associated with brutal attacks, terrible wounds and instilling fear and terror instead of using a utility knife like a normal person.
A swastika is just an ideogram. But it's one with an association, so If you've got a swastika tattooed on your forehead, you can expect people to take offense.
TheGreatGodPan on 3/3/2006 at 03:13
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Next you'll be telling me the difference in UK and US gun laws has nothing to do with the differing rates of gun crime.
Crime in England seems to have increased sharply following 90s gun laws, and the most restricted weapons (handguns) saw the sharpest rise. I already posted this a while back but the (
http://www.minjust.nl:8080/b_organ/wodc/publications/08-icvs-h2.pdf) victimization rate over there is higher than here. The crime rate in England had been lower than the U.S long before their gun laws were all that different. So yes, I am saying the differing rates of gun crime have little to do with gun laws and will continue to say so until I see evidence of gun crime (not counting suicide) dropping more sharply than other violent crime following the passage of gun control legislation.
I can see the logic behind letting police stop people if they have weapons, but the only people that are going to be prevented from actually obtaining banned items are the ones who follow the law anyway.
Shug on 3/3/2006 at 04:04
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
I can see the logic behind letting police stop people if they have weapons, but the only people that are going to be prevented from actually obtaining banned items are the ones who follow the law anyway.
GROUND-BREAKING
Nicker on 3/3/2006 at 07:43
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
...but the only people that are going to be prevented from actually obtaining banned items are the ones who follow the law anyway.
Restriction isn't so about stopping reasonable, law abiding people from obtaining illegal weapons, it is about giving the police legal grounds to confiscate those weapons and detain people who carry and / or sell them. If we fail to identify and restrict weapons clearly intended for use against people (as oppopsed to against packing tape) we deny law enforcement an important tool for controlling that threat and the people who pose it.
Your argument smacks of the one used around people who own 'legal' weapons and end up using them for illegal purposes (usually crimes of passion / convenience). When they do that they become criminals and the "law abiding weapons owners" disown them and disavow any responsibility for putting the legal weapons in their hands in the first place. A tidy bit of deception if you ask me.
Naartjie on 3/3/2006 at 12:49
Quote:
Originally posted by Havvoc:Don't be so damn picky. England and Britain is the same to Americans.
In that case, feel free to carry on believing that if you want to look dumb in front of every foreigner you meet in future (though in my case, you've already made a fine job of it.)
Quote:
Plus, Wallace was English only by the fact that England owned Scotland, thus he was politically English. He was Scottish by blood.
You're a bit confused about history at this point...William Wallace was exceptional because he was one of the only members of the minor nobility who never swore allegiance to Edward I of England, who in any case also never 'owned' Scotland; he tried to assert feudal superiority over the kingdom, hoping to turn Scotland into a client state of England with a puppet king. I can happily explain in more detail if you don't understand.
I take it you watched Braveheart, then?
Quote:
Would you rather me say that I'm American and that I hate all other countries? No, I doubt that. I'm proud of being a descendant from all those lines, so I'm going to proclaim it all I wish.
No, I'd rather you just simply said you were American and got on with it. You're not a 'proud' descendent past the point that you like to pose as some sort of multicultural icon. I doubt you could tell me the first thing about most of the cultures you claim descent from without looking it up on Wikipedia. It would be like me trying to pose as an Anglo-Norman Viking-Celt - pretty ridiculous. You have two things in life to define you - your cultural upbringing and your nationality. And in your case, my friend, that makes you American.
Quote:
Like I said, I don't like to argue, so you can both argue with a brick wall now. I'm out of this one.
That's fine, as long as you now understand what's right and what's wrong about what you've been saying in the lastr few posts.
Convict on 3/3/2006 at 17:20
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
With an autoknife. What are you going to use it for? Opening cardboard boxes?
You never know when you are going to become the next Victim of Crates! :eek:
EDIT: And what are you trying to do here encouraging ppl to be Americans Naartjie? :P
But anyway isn't there some kind of Native American revival thing about? So it doesn't seem unreasonable for someone to claim partial or whole Cherokee heritage. And isn't there some kind of Viking island celebration that happens up north where you live (some kind of annual festival)?
