Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: GUN FREE ZONES, again

  1. #1
    Administrator   
    Join Date
    12-19-02
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    10,433

    GUN FREE ZONES, again

    Oleg Volk
    A Human Right | Blog

  2. #2
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-20-08
    Posts
    4,829
    Good one... it brings the self defense point HOME!

    I do NOT think that it is too graphic either.

    Thank you.

    Catherine
    Closed Account

  3. #3
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    10-13-05
    Location
    Canuck in SE WA State.
    Posts
    3,164
    Just remember folks ecole polytech is in Canada, where I'm from, while technically you can use lethal force to defend yourself, there are a plethora of safe storage and other laws that would make defending yourself with a firearm very cumbersome in Canada.

    That is why we must cherish & defend what we have here in so many States in the USA.

  4. #4
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-14-06
    Location
    CNY
    Posts
    1,728
    Very in-your-face and very effective, but having Ecole Polytechnique at the top is somewhat jarring, VT is far more memorable than the Canadian shooting to the average person.

  5. #5
    Administrator   
    Join Date
    12-19-02
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    10,433
    EP happened in 1989, and I organized by date.
    Oleg Volk
    A Human Right | Blog

  6. #6
    Member  
    Join Date
    08-04-08
    Location
    eastern Massachusetts
    Posts
    8,699
    I really don't need the blood, Oleg. The references are sickening enough.

  7. #7
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    05-09-06
    Location
    Appleton, WI
    Posts
    433
    I think that the blood is what really would drive it home to sheeple. Yes, the tragedies are bad in name, but I think the blood really drives home the horror of the fact that these people were slaughtered because they were PROHIBITED from protecting themselves.

    BTW, I had no idea what the EP reference was in regard to. No offense, but you might want to use something more public would recognize. Not trying to ignore the suffering of Canadians over that tragedy, but it isn't very forward in the public mind as are the other two.
    "Justice is the one thing you should always find."-Toby Keith & Willie Nelson Beer for my Horses
    " The old stuff always works and always will." - Andreu Swasey, athletic trainer

  8. #8
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    02-15-08
    Location
    Las Vegas,Nevada
    Posts
    587
    Nice visual graphic...definitely makes the point!

  9. #9
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-12-06
    Posts
    439
    Another excellent poster, Oleg.

    The only change I might suggest is self defense should be allowed "EVERYWHERE."

    JM2C

    Poper
    The NRA is a service organization for all firearms owners and users, and for anyone more concerned with Second Amendment rights than in spouting nonsense about them. It's available to everyone and can't possibly be considered an elitist or exclusive group except by the malicious, the ignorant, or the dimwitted. - Robert Hairless

    "The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's good-by to the Bill of Rights."
    -- H.L. Mencken

    ...mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent...
    --Adam Smith

  10. #10
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    05-27-06
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1,656
    I like the Ecole Polytechnique being at the top -- I knew about that shooting, but it had largely dropped it from tip-of-tongue; the other two events listed brought it into focus fast.

    I think if you changed the order, it would be less effective.

    Great poster -- this one looks good for color printing and putting up around campuses nationwide.

    timothy

  11. #11
    Administrator   
    Join Date
    12-19-02
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    10,433
    It is available in high resolution from my web site http://olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/
    Oleg Volk
    A Human Right | Blog

  12. #12
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    08-22-08
    Location
    Somewhere in Canada.
    Posts
    270
    In fact in Canada the criminal code says clearly that you CAN use lethal force to protect your life, but you can NOT bring the tools needed to use that right, so if you are not in your own property, you are screwed.
    A school in U.S. is a gun-free zone (I know, in one state it's a gun-welcome zone), and EVERY Canadian school is a DANGER-FREE zone.
    Warning; this post may contain text matter not suitable for the weak-minded or immature thinker. Reader's discretion is advised.
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  13. #13
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    04-28-08
    Location
    NC Sandhills
    Posts
    1,089
    Perfect.

    Absolutely perfect.
    3KB

    "When confronted by a hungry wolf, it is unwise to goad the beast... But it is equally unwise to imagine the snarling animal a friend and offer your hand..." - Cicero

  14. #14
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    04-29-06
    Location
    Auburn, NY
    Posts
    1,060
    I need to preface this comment by restating that I have the highest respect for Oleg. In fact, I probably admire and respect him more than anyone else who I've not had the pleasure of meeting in person.

    We are fighting a propaganda war against those who seek to maintain the defenselessness of the average college student.

    I doubt that there is anyone who fails to understand the basic point that armed students could stop an attacker. Even the most anti or anti-gun people probably understand this. Those who truly don't are few and far between and probably less common than those who claim to not believe it in the the interest of not giving any ground in the debate.

    The problems that we face in this struggle come from the fact that antis are more scared of armed students than they are scared of psychopathic killers on a rampage. These people have weighed the options in their heads and due to their misunderstanding of the situation, have concluded that the costs (however imagined) of arming students do not outweigh the benefits. These people are misinformed, surely, but they are not stupid. Their opinion will not waver until the cost-benefit ratio tips the other way in their own mind.

    There are two ways that we can go about this:
    1. Try to make them more scared of mass killers until this fear eclipses their fear of armed students. I believe this method is destined to fail because with more fear comes more restrictions and less rational decisions re: gun control laws.
    2. Assuage their fear of armed students until the truth can be seen that armed students are safe and responsible and not a threat. This can be done by showing armed students in the positive light of who they really are. Show examples of colleges which allow carry on campus and the lack of problems that they face.

    In my opinion this new poster is more of option 1 and thus doomed to failure. Oleg you have done much better in the past with option 2.
    On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

  15. #15
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-28-05
    Location
    Southeastern,CT
    Posts
    3,950
    I think the blood is perfect. enough with the sanitzed goody two shoes graphics... Sometimes a dose of reality is in order.
    WWW.CCDL.US Connecticut Citizens Defense League

    "We The People" not "You The Government"!

  16. #16
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    04-28-08
    Location
    NC Sandhills
    Posts
    1,089
    I doubt that there is anyone who fails to understand the basic point that armed students could stop an attacker. Even the most anti or anti-gun people probably understand this.
    I think you are giving them too much credit.

    The true believers in the "Guns are Evil" crowd are the same people who think that a woman should file a date rape claim in the morning instead of slapping a guy to emphasize her "No" because slapping a guy who gets fresh that way is "violence". And I'm not talking real rape here -- just the ordinary dance of male-female courtship relations where guys get away with what they can and women set their boundries.

    There may be some acting as cynically as you're claiming, but there is a very large contingent of those who really believe that an armed aggressor can be stopped by talking nicely to him and can't be stopped by a civilian's gun.

    Its obviously false to anyone who thinks about it in a logical fashion but logic isn't the strong point for these people. They only emote, they don't think.
    3KB

    "When confronted by a hungry wolf, it is unwise to goad the beast... But it is equally unwise to imagine the snarling animal a friend and offer your hand..." - Cicero

  17. #17
    New Member  
    Join Date
    10-23-08
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    29
    The true believers in the "Guns are Evil" crowd are the same people who think that a woman should file a date rape claim in the morning instead of slapping a guy to emphasize her "No" because slapping a guy who gets fresh that way is "violence". And I'm not talking real rape here -- just the ordinary dance of male-female courtship relations where guys get away with what they can and women set their boundries.
    3KB, what you said here is not cool. Just because a woman didn't use violence to say no, she wasn't raped? Or it wasn't "real rape," it wasn't something that could traumatize her, leave her with a traumatic stress disorder (like PTSD) and ruin her life?

    A judge in Italy ruled several years ago that a woman who claimed she was raped was lying and could not possibly have been raped. Why? She was wearing jeans, and given that the material was undamaged, it would have been impossible to remove her jeans without her cooperation.

    I suppose you are making a joke. But that didn't it make it any less jarring and painful to me personally (I may be the only one offended by this, BTW, and I know it).

    Thanks for reading this. You've been here longer than I have, you know more than I do what is acceptable behavior on this board. Like I said, I might be the only person offended, and if so, the tone should remain the same (I am the noob, after all). I just wanted to speak up.

    ~bookmoth

  18. #18
    Member  
    Join Date
    03-24-06
    Location
    Ft. Worth, TX
    Posts
    84

    Variation on a theme...

    Hi Oleg,

    How about a gun-free workplace version?

    nainc
    "I'm gonna need you to go ahead and come in on Sunday, too." -- Lumbergh

  19. #19
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-04-05
    Location
    Stephenville TX
    Posts
    789
    Very in-your-face and very effective, but having Ecole Polytechnique at the top is somewhat jarring, VT is far more memorable than the Canadian shooting to the average person.
    Agreed; while I've heard that if you die in Canada, you die in real life, I'm not sure anyone actually believes that.

  20. #20
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-14-08
    Location
    South Central Kansas
    Posts
    284
    I like it. A lot. I am a youngun so I didn't know about the Canadian reference.
    You can't get into a boxing match with a Norinco 982!

  21. #21
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    04-28-08
    Location
    NC Sandhills
    Posts
    1,089
    3KB, what you said here is not cool. Just because a woman didn't use violence to say no, she wasn't raped? Or it wasn't "real rape," it wasn't something that could traumatize her, leave her with a traumatic stress disorder (like PTSD) and ruin her life?
    First, I'm a woman -- that's probably relevant in this issue.

    And yes, I do believe that if a woman isn't using the means she has at her disposal to make her refusal plain and unambiguous she bears some of the responsibility for what happens.

    That means screaming, "Get your <deleted> hands off of me you <deleted> jerk" at the top of her lungs instead of softly mumbling, "Er, maybe, I don't think, uh, I'd probably rather not," while a heavy bass beat from the woofer speaker drowns her out.

    And it means exercising a woman's time-honored right to deliver a stinging slap across a guy's face if he won't take a verbal "No" for an answer. That's not "violence" in the shocked, horrified, get-me-the-smelling-salts-before-I-faint sense that the anti crowd use the word. That's self-defense and a sign that a woman values herself enough and takes herself seriously enough to stand up for her own rights.

    A culture that encourages women to smack the face of a guy who gets too fresh is a culture that values a women's right to choose her mating partners far more than a culture that preaches passivity does.

    IMO, a woman who passively allows a guy to have his way with her and never draws a firm line can't decide the next morning that she regretted going along with it and claim she was raped.

    That's not fair to the guy, who can legitimately have believed that if she never said "No!" -- especially if she cooperated about getting undressed -- it means she was willing, and its not fair to the real rape victims who were overpowered after they said "No!" or otherwise rendered helpless.

    If a woman is traumatized by the consequences of her own wishy-washiness she needs to consider the events a lesson in why she should grow a spine.
    3KB

    "When confronted by a hungry wolf, it is unwise to goad the beast... But it is equally unwise to imagine the snarling animal a friend and offer your hand..." - Cicero

  22. #22
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    04-01-08
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    1,925
    I like to call "gun free zones" "target-rich zones". Maybe you can work that into this somehow

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •