CthuluIsSpy wrote:If criminals have the temerity to attack police, then logically it would be even more dangerous for innocent folk, as they tend to be unarmed with no training. Hence no-go zones. Just because police can go there, doesn't mean everyone else can.
A no-go zone isn't any place that some people are afraid to go. If that were the case, then the story would be reduced down to the existence of areas with higher poverty and higher crime than citizens are used to. Every country has those areas, it reduces the no-go story down to absolute nothingness.
A no-go zone is meant to be a place so bad that even police won't go there, that's just been left to govern itself. Which if true would be a hell of a thing, and if immigrants were creating areas that bad it would be a reason to consider immigration had failed in that country. Which is exactly why anti-immigration people tell stories about no-go zones.
The problem for those people, of course, is there are no areas so bad that police won't go there. When pushed on it, the anti-immigrant people will fall back on that much weaker definition of no-go as just being an area with high crime while still trying to claim the exciting, scary label of 'no-go zone'. It's a false argument from beginning to end.
All of which is why I was making fun of that other poster. Because we'd been through all of this already in the thread, from the claims of no-go areas to the reduced definition where it just meant higher than average crime, only for that guy to resurrect the thread beginning with the original claim all over again. Its pure nonsense, and needs to be mocked.
