Email from a critic. Comments?


PDA






Oleg Volk
April 26, 2006, 08:59 AM
I don't have the time to respond in detail, but you might help.

Hi,

I stumbled upon your website, just wondering why you would post such things on your "Stay Safe" (http://a-human-right.com) page?

You openly mock anti-rape protection, stating in short that simply killing the person/seriously wounding the person is the only way to be truly safe.

Now this not only is in-correct, but it also breeds inaccurate rumour.

This site could/would make any women without a hand gun feel insecure about being raped, The irony is that the countries where Handguns are illegal are also the ones with the lowest crime and rape numbers through out the world.

This site uses buss phrases in its small images such as "Police cant be everywhere at once". This is true, its an obvious fact, However the chances of a woman walking alone with no way of running OR defending herself some where the is NO ONE within screaming distance is a rare case.

Spewing forth bogus phrases such as "Strong Women Own Guns...Bimbos Don't"
it gives your site not only NO credibility but shows that the author is probably a man and if not a man a woman whose obviously a fool.

"Considering that neither pepper spray nor tasers are adequate for self-defense" this is just a lie, Any qualified city police officer would laugh at you.

Im going to rap this up by saying, Unless you own a gun shop and are secretly trying to scare people into buying guns from you, Then your wasting your time...

OR

If you were raped and made this site of ignorance and lies to make yourself and others feel better or more uncontrolled of the situation of rape, you have gone about it wrong...

Thanks for your time, you should be shot

Lee Launay

If you enjoyed reading about "Email from a critic. Comments?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Mongo the Mutterer
April 26, 2006, 09:03 AM
This site could/would make any women without a hand gun feel insecure about being raped, That sentance sez it all about this moonbat. If Lee is a woman I guess she will feel "secure" when she is accosted.

ingram
April 26, 2006, 09:05 AM
Thanks for your time, you should be shot

How Ironic

TallPine
April 26, 2006, 09:06 AM
"Considering that neither pepper spray nor tasers are adequate for self-defense" this is just a lie, Any qualified city police officer would laugh at you.
Which is why police don't carry guns .... :rolleyes:

foghornl
April 26, 2006, 09:06 AM
Is the critic author's last name pronounced "LOONEY" ? ? ? ? :confused:

Sinsaba
April 26, 2006, 09:08 AM
"Considering that neither pepper spray nor tasers are adequate for self-defense" this is just a lie, Any qualified city police officer would laugh at you.

You could easily find many police, secuity, rape specialists to refute this. I'm sure you could find news stories with regards to this as well. As a matter of fact, I have a bit of time, I'll see what I can find.

Oleg Volk
April 26, 2006, 09:11 AM
I pointed the author of this email to this thread. Please address his points and not his persona. Be civil.

juggler
April 26, 2006, 09:13 AM
Bad spelling, syntax and grammar…….and no idea who he (she?) is talking to.:rolleyes:

Add the fact that this person has no facts or figures to support their assertions, as well as that wonderful closing wish to do you harm, and I figure this is a nut case.:scrutiny:

A reply is not required nor advised...........personally, rolling in the mud is only fun in volleyball.

EDITED TO ADD

Sorry Olek, there were many posts before I hit send, including your request to addresss the points only.
I think the personality is pertinent in this case, but will comply with your wishes.

grimlock
April 26, 2006, 09:13 AM
It takes all kinds, I guess.

Edited to add the following, since the author may stop by:

You openly mock anti-rape protection, stating in short that simply killing the person/seriously wounding the person is the only way to be truly safe.
NOBODY is truly safe. We all have the right to choose how safe we want to try to be.

This site uses buss phrases in its small images such as "Police cant be everywhere at once". This is true, its an obvious fact, However the chances of a woman walking alone with no way of running OR defending herself some where the is NO ONE within screaming distance is a rare case.
Ask Kitty Genovese about the kindness of strangers.

"Considering that neither pepper spray nor tasers are adequate for self-defense" this is just a lie, Any qualified city police officer would laugh at you.
As was mentioned above, this is the reason that no self-respecting law enforcement officer carries a firearm.

Thanks for your time, you should be shot
If you don't get help at The High Road, please, get help somewhere.

XavierBreath
April 26, 2006, 09:17 AM
Oleg,

I don't believe that an ignorant, insulting, and poorly written email such as this deserves a response at all. It would be beneath you, and pointless. There are some people who will not consider other viewpoints. I suspect this person is one of them.

At least you gave them food for thought, and if they rant and rave about your site somewhere, they may alienate others who are on the fence.

Sometimes the best response is no response.

edited to add: I read Oleg's post #7 after I posted my own. I stand by my remarks, but if you request that I remove them, I will. Basically, what I am asking is why educate he who does not desire to learn? The first criteria of education is a desire to learn. All that can be done here is further entrench someone who is opposed to our position. Why not instead extend an invitation to the range?

Chris Rhines
April 26, 2006, 09:20 AM
Would be easier if he had made any points. As is, Mr. Launay's email is nothing more than shrill ranting from a not-too-bright someone who's had his preconceptions slapped around.

If it were me, I would have brushed him off with a, "Thanks for sharing your opinion." He's not worth anything more.

Save the education for the receptive.

- Chris

Moples
April 26, 2006, 09:23 AM
This site uses buss phrases in its small images such as "Police cant be everywhere at once". This is true, its an obvious fact, However the chances of a woman walking alone with no way of running OR defending herself some where the is NO ONE within screaming distance is a rare case.


Does this person live in the real world? I've seen the streets of Manhattan desolate(granted it was around 1:00am, but I can think of reasons to have to go out that late). Not to mention places like my hometown campus..

Oleg Volk
April 26, 2006, 09:26 AM
An email like this could be a splendid springboard for showcasing our own take on the issue. The replies are not, primarily, for the author but for the lurkers.

GTSteve03
April 26, 2006, 09:28 AM
Sometimes the best response is no response.
Perhaps, but in this case, I feel the best response is to not bother wasting energy trying to convert this person but instead use them as the ideal image of the type of person we are actively trying to fight against.

Some people are just beyond help and we should recognize that and actively avoid wasting our time with them, target them as the enemy and move on.

12-34hom
April 26, 2006, 09:32 AM
Some folks are just bound and determinded to learn the hard way.

That's thier right - i choose another path - my right.

12-34hom.

Oleg Volk
April 26, 2006, 09:32 AM
I wonder where in Australia one would find a place with no one within earshot...

http://fxhome.com/users/profile_cache/profile27901.html
http://llaunaynsw.tripod.com/id3.html

Darkness
April 26, 2006, 09:33 AM
Well, this person obviously has strong opinions on the subject. It's not that the author is some kind of lunatic, but perhaps he or she (hard to tell from the name alone) has a slightly skewed sense of reality. For instance:

However the chances of a woman walking alone with no way of running OR defending herself some where the is NO ONE within screaming distance is a rare case.

Running... hmm.. ever try running away from an assailant who catches you by surprise from behind while wearing pumps? Ever seen stories on the news where a crime is being commited and the persons standing around do nothing to prevent it or to assist the victim in any way?

The author mentions "defending herself". In what fashion? Using pepper spray? I have seen plenty of video where attackers are pepper-sprayed and continue to fight. I have some friends who think it's fun to shock each other with stun guns, and they have built up quite a resistance. Martial arts, perhaps? Do you think a few classes of Tae Bo on video prepares a woman for combat on the street?

I feel the author is hinting that if the woman is properly equipped with a self defense device, and is capable of running, perhaps by wearing fashions which allow a couse of action, that she would be able to avoid or defeat an attacker. Sure, I agree. It all comes down to ability and equipment. The surest way to level the playing field, as it were, is the use of a firearm. Nothing else so effectively makes the potential victim the equal of the attacker. That's the key; proper equipment. Get a firearm.

Hopefully, the author will never need to deal with an actual attack on their person, or that of thier spouse, sister, or other family member. in such an instance, you will see in a big, big hurry, that society will not suddenly come to the rescue. The very first line of defense should be to make ones self capable.

Edit: Wow, lost of replies while I was typing! Hope I didn't get too repetative.

High Planes Drifter
April 26, 2006, 09:36 AM
Overall, his e-mail is simply one long rant. He offers no facts, just his all too close minded opinion. And saying that you should be shot for your views simply shows the level of his maturity. If he is going to come and debate, thats fine. If he just wants to criticize, insult and belittle....................whats that saying about someone who argues with a jackass; which one's the what?:rolleyes:

shermacman
April 26, 2006, 09:37 AM
I would love to respond to the "points" raised. But I can not get past the grammar, sentence structure, punctuation and spelling. If a person can not or will not make an effort to present their opinion intelligently, then there is no intelligent opinion.

Just_a_dude_with_a_gun
April 26, 2006, 09:39 AM
Lee Luanay is 19 year old a "digital artist" from Austrailia.

Just lock the thread. ^^ this is all the explaination you need.

AndyC
April 26, 2006, 09:41 AM
You openly mock anti-rape protection, stating in short that simply killing the person/seriously wounding the person is the only way to be truly safe.

Now this not only is in-correct, but it also breeds inaccurate rumour.

Contrary to what you might want to believe, no reasonable person here wants to kill a rapist or anyone else; to us, a handgun is the simply most reliable option to stop an attacker. Granted, there's a lot of people out there who don't want a firearm, which is fine too - to each their own. However, that doesn't mean that your choice has to dictate mine or anyone else's.

This site could/would make any women without a hand gun feel insecure about being raped, The irony is that the countries where Handguns are illegal are also the ones with the lowest crime and rape numbers through out the world.

I think that you're making assumptions here - where did you get those statistics? It's practically impossible nowadays to get a gun legally in South Africa (where I spent 30 years), but the figures make it the rape-capital of the world.

This site uses buss phrases in its small images such as "Police cant be everywhere at once". This is true, its an obvious fact, However the chances of a woman walking alone with no way of running OR defending herself some where the is NO ONE within screaming distance is a rare case.

Do a Google on "Kitty Genovese" - and look up Jacob Zuma while you're there.

Spewing forth bogus phrases such as "Strong Women Own Guns...Bimbos Don't" it gives your site not only NO credibility but shows that the author is probably a man and if not a man a woman whose obviously a fool.

I don't think the intent was to insult ladies who don't carry guns; rather, it was to celebrate those independent-minded ladies who do.

"Considering that neither pepper spray nor tasers are adequate for self-defense" this is just a lie, Any qualified city police officer would laugh at you.

Any qualified police officer, of which there are many on this forum, would also tell you that there is a large segment of the population that are immune to pepper spray; as for tasers, I don't personally understand the technology enough to bet my life on it.

Im going to rap this up by saying, Unless you own a gun shop and are secretly trying to scare people into buying guns from you, Then your wasting your time...

OR

If you were raped and made this site of ignorance and lies to make yourself and others feel better or more uncontrolled of the situation of rape, you have gone about it wrong...

I'll tell you something - I was raped when I was 11 years old by two men and it will not happen to me again, nor to anyone else I can help.

Thanks for your time, you should be shot
An ironic statement, but never mind. Thanks for your time - personally, I hope you never have to find out first-hand if you're right.

XLMiguel
April 26, 2006, 09:55 AM
Rapists, and predators in general, chose a victim and time and place to their advantage, one that minimizes the chance of getting caught while maximizing their advantage.

Personal safety is a personal responsibilty, and how one choses to affect it is a personal choice, and a weapon, along with the skill and will to use it can be a great equalizer.Pepper spray? I know folks who think it's a nice condiment. Tasers and stunguns are contact weapons. by the time the attacker is close enough to use them, it may already be too late. 9-1-1? That'll get you a free ride to the hospital or morgue. It's a cruel world, Sparky, and you're on your own -

I must wonder what this person thinks is an appropriate response to violent criminals, and why does he/she/it thinks it's appropriate to shot someonw who merely urges people to take responsibility for their own safety and to be properly prepared should trouble arise? As teh guru says, "An unarmed [person] can only flee from eivil, and evil is not vanquished by running away." Some things are worth fighting for, and sometimes, you don't have a choise. What color is the sky in your world, Lee?

Hawkmoon
April 26, 2006, 09:56 AM
This person can't even write English. He/she uses "your" for "you're" (just as one example.) And then there's the closing:

Thanks for your time, you should be shot

Lee Launay
Paraphrased: "You don't support my position and opinion, therefore you do not deserve to live."

Why would you feel any desire to dignify this garbage with any response at all? It doesn't deserve an answer.

hso
April 26, 2006, 09:58 AM
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nforciblerape04.html

In the U.S. rape rates for 2003 were 33/100,000 or 0.033%. Since this rate is based on the total population for the U.S. and roughly half the population is female we could effectivly double the numbers if we want to see the rate of rape for women more prominantly reflected. This give roughly 66/100,000 or 0.066% of women raped in the U.S. in '03.

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page60.asp

In the U.K. rape rates for women in 2001 were 0.3% of women or 3/1,000 or 300/100,000

The U.K. has nearly the most restictive gun laws in the world and yet a woman in the U.K. is nearly 4.5 times more likely to be raped than a woman in the U.S.

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal02.htm

In Canada the rape rates in 2003 were 73.3/100,000 vs the U.S. rate of 33/100,000.

http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/statistics.html

In 2003 in Australia there were 91.7/100,000 vs 33/100,000 in the U.S. making a woman in Austraila nearly 3 times as likely to be raped as in the U.S.

Australia's gun laws obviously make women safer against rape than America's "Wild West" rules.:rolleyes:

Pilgrim
April 26, 2006, 09:59 AM
"Considering that neither pepper spray nor tasers are adequate for self-defense" this is just a lie, Any qualified city police officer would laugh at you.
The United States and Israel maintain an arsenal of nuclear weapons because they realize that even the best conventional weapons aren't always enough to ensure their security.

Pilgrim

armoredman
April 26, 2006, 10:07 AM
Psychotic lunatic, vocally encouraging the violent death of an individual who has done nothing to him. Can't stand the thought of using deadly force against a violent criminal, yet advocates the murder of an individual who's only "offense" is to hold an opinion differing from his. Typical LIEberal, a mind is only open if it is thinking exactly what HE wants. Please, go organize a protest, human chain, sit in, or other useless waste of your time, and leave the real world to us.
BTW, pepper spray can be quite ineffective, and Taser as well. I know - I have worked in prisons for years.

Bubbles
April 26, 2006, 10:17 AM
You openly mock anti-rape protection, stating in short that simply killing the person/seriously wounding the person is the only way to be truly safe.

Now this not only is in-correct, but it also breeds inaccurate rumour.


The vast majority of defensive gun uses do NOT involve firing the gun. Simply showing you've got it and are willing to use it will often send criminals running.

This site uses buss phrases in its small images such as "Police cant be everywhere at once". This is true, its an obvious fact, However the chances of a woman walking alone with no way of running OR defending herself some where the is NO ONE within screaming distance is a rare case.

1) Both men and women who have been attacked have tried running away, screaming, etc. Too often, especially in cities, NO ONE has tried to help or even bothered to call the police.

2) Obviously you've never been pregnant. Otherwise you'd know that toward the end, the growing baby puts a lot of upward pressure on your diaphram, reducing your lung capacity - and your ability to move any faster than a slow walk.

Spewing forth bogus phrases such as "Strong Women Own Guns...Bimbos Don't"
it gives your site not only NO credibility but shows that the author is probably a man and if not a man a woman whose obviously a fool.

A better phrase would have been "Smart Women Own Guns.... Bimbos Don't".

"Considering that neither pepper spray nor tasers are adequate for self-defense" this is just a lie, Any qualified city police officer would laugh at you.

Every been sprayed or tasered, or know someone who has? If the person on the receiving end is mad, determined, or drugged up enough, it has no effect.

Thanks for your time, you should be shot

Now we get to the real issue, and one I've seen often among the gun-grabbers: projection. People often assume other folks are "like them", which isn't unusual, given that we "know" ourselves best. By saying "you should be shot" the author is projecting his/her own violent tendencies onto Oleg. Because the author knows that he/she has these violent tendencies, he/she knows that owning a gun would be a bad idea b/c someone else would most likely end up dead. So, because he/she can't be trusted to own a gun and use it responsibly, obviously no one else can either. Thus, all guns must be banned.

MS .45
April 26, 2006, 10:36 AM
However the chances of a woman walking alone with no way of running OR defending herself some where the is NO ONE within screaming distance is a rare case.


Tell that to enyone who has ever been raped, mugged, or assaulted. If your statement was true then violent crime would be almost non-existant. How many women do you know that can outrun or outfight a man hand-to-hand. The chances of her being able to defend herself drastically increase with a firearm and training. To deny women this fundamental right is unconscionable.

nswtex
April 26, 2006, 10:47 AM
I am fairly new to the whole forum thing, but was wondering why, when someone is being attacked that half of the responses are simply addressing the spelling, grammar, etc. of the author. Is this because there is no real cause for the attack besides our own entertainment, or does it really bother all those English lit majors hanging around the highroad. It is good to see that many more are actually addressing the post with their own opinions. I realize that in this case this ranting is hard to debate, being that there is no real info to back it up but that doesn’t mean I'm going to attack his spelling.

Beav
April 26, 2006, 10:48 AM
here's another site with crime data;

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_rap_percap

XavierBreath
April 26, 2006, 10:51 AM
In the case of lurker's reading, would simply ask why a person would want to restrict another person's options to self defense.

So, Mr. Launay, why do you not want women to have guns?
Are guns a threat to you?
What is "anti-rape protection" anyway?
Freud was fascinated by double negatives.

The irony is that the countries where Handguns are illegal are also the ones with the lowest crime and rape numbers through out the world.Do you have a source on this tidbit before it is refuted?

However the chances of a woman walking alone with no way of running OR defending herself some where the is NO ONE within screaming distance is a rare case.Wrong again. There are many places where others are not within "screaming distance". That is how rapes occur. :rolleyes: Why should a woman have to depend on the generosity of others when she is able to defend herself with a simple tool that she can carry on her person? Why should she have fewer choices in self defense than a police officer?

Considering that neither pepper spray nor tasers are adequate for self-defense" this is just a lie, Any qualified city police officer would laugh at you.No sir, most police officers who have been sprayed in the face with pepper spray and learned to function under those conditions would laugh at you. Pepper spray is a good non-lethal choice under some conditions, but it is not always effective, and in a close in fight, you cannot prevent getting it in your own eyes as well. Most rapes occur at distances of less than two feet. By advocating pepper spray and tasers you are advocating the early application of self defense tools. These tools are great for subduing a suspect for arrest, because the police know what they are going to do and which way they want the encounter to go. You need some distance for effective application of these devices. They are not suitable for close in wrestling/fighting/rape defense.

Unless you own a gun shop and are secretly trying to scare people into buying guns from you, Then your wasting your time...No, Oleg is not. He has converted thousands to effective self defense. By contrast, you have penned a poorly written emotional diatribe seeped in ill informed opinion.

'Card
April 26, 2006, 10:57 AM
Lee Luanay is 19 years old
Come on... this is silly. The only thing more futile than arguing with teenagers is arguing with teenagers on the internet.

They're chock full of righteous indignation, high ideals, no grasp of reality, and are completely unable to seperate their own fragile identity from their opinion on an issue. This is why we put most of them on college campuses where they can safely spout all kinds of absurd nonsense at each other in a closed environment for four years, while the rest of us ignore them completely.

Derek Zeanah
April 26, 2006, 11:17 AM
I was gonna type something up, then thought better of it. Have Tamara reply to the bozo.

ReadyontheRight
April 26, 2006, 11:31 AM
You openly mock anti-rape protection, stating in short that simply killing the person/seriously wounding the person is the only way to be truly safe.

If confronted with this:
http://www.a-human-right.com/_no.JPG
do you think a rapist would press the attack and get killed/seriously wounded or would he turn tail and run away? An armed defender does not always have to discharge her firearm to keep an attacker away.

Defense with a gun results in fewer injuries to
the defender (17.4%) than resisting with less powerful means
(knives, 40.3%; other weapon, 22%; physical force, 50.8%; evasion,
34.9%; etc.) and in fewer injuries than not resisting at all
(24.7%). Guns are the safest and most effective means of
protection. This is particularly important to women, children, the
elderly, the handicapped, the weak, and the infirm, those who are
most vulnerable to vicious male predators.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm

http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Suter/med-lit.txt

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf...ous/cvus72.pdf

This site could/would make any women without a hand gun feel insecure about being raped

I believe that is one of the major points of the website. And one of the points of the human right to keep and bear arms.

The irony is that the countries where Handguns are illegal are also the ones with the lowest crime and rape numbers through out the world.

I don't believe your assertion here. I would like to see your data on this. I DO know that disarming citizens has proven to lower crime (and probably rape) against those who still have guns. Of course, it's not so great for the portions of the populations that are disarmed:

Countries having successful gun control laws in the 20th Century -- and the results of those laws:

1915-1917 Ottoman Turkey, 1.5 million Armenians murdered
1929-1953 Soviet Union, 20 million people that opposed Stalin were murdered.
1933-1945 Nazi occupied Europe, 13 million Jews, Gypsies and others that opposed Hitler, murdered
1948-1952 China, 20 million anti-communists or communist reformers, murdered
1960-1981 Guatemala, 100,000 Maya Indians, murdered
1971-1979 Uganda, 300,000 Christians and political rivals of Idi Amin, murdered
1975-1979 Cambodia, 1 million educated persons, murdered
1995 Srebrenica Bosnians disarmed by the UN, the UN withdrew, Srebrenica was overrun and over 8,000 now-disarmed people were murdered by the Serb army.

That is more than 2000 unarmed men, women and children murdered by their own government for EVERY SINGLE DAY in the 20th century.

This site uses buss phrases in its small images such as "Police cant be everywhere at once". This is true, its an obvious fact, However the chances of a woman walking alone with no way of running OR defending herself some where the is NO ONE within screaming distance is a rare case.

Again, I do not belief your assertion. It only takes two assailants and a street lined with locked buildings to keep a woman from running. It only takes one assailant to keep a woman from running if there is a dead-end alley or a fence.

-In your scenario, how is she SUPPOSED to defend herself?
-Kitty Genovese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Genovese)
-If she screams and people respond, how is anyone who hears her scream supposed to defend her if they don't have a gun?

"Considering that neither pepper spray nor tasers are adequate for self-defense" this is just a lie, Any qualified city police officer would laugh at you.

Then why do Police carry guns? I suppose you could argue that pepper spray or tasers could be considered "adequate", but why should a woman be forced to choose "adequate" over "the best"?

Also -- communities that outlaw carrying handguns usually also outlaw the use of pepper spray and tasers.

Im going to rap this up by saying, Unless you own a gun shop and are secretly trying to scare people into buying guns from you, Then your wasting your time...

Mr. Volk is certainly NOT wasting his time. He is helping in the worldwide fight for human dignity and human rights.

Thanks for your time, you should be shot

Lee Launay

Maybe when you grow up, have some real experience in this world and actually put some thought into your beliefs, you will realize how immature, illogical and truly disgusting the last line of your post is.

the pistolero
April 26, 2006, 11:31 AM
"This site could/would make any women without a hand gun feel insecure about being raped"

Odd. I never once thought a woman could ever actually "feel secure" about being raped, under any circumstances. What the hell does that mean?

"However the chances of a woman walking alone with no way of running OR defending herself some where the is NO ONE within screaming distance is a rare case."

Well, you could ask Kitty Genovese how well screaming worked for her, or Joe Van Holsbeeck (teen from Brussels, Belgium who was killed in a train station a couple of weeks ago for his mp3 player)...wait, no, you can't, because they were both brutally murdered, Van Holsbeeck in front of HUNDREDS of people, so, well, there goes that...

"Thanks for your time, you should be shot"

Irony, thy name is Lee Launay, but thou are most likely too dense to see that...

1911JMB
April 26, 2006, 11:31 AM
I find it funny that this individual is an advocate of dissarmament, yet he said "you should be shot." But thats not the point. A Jeff Cooper quote is the point:

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it."

cambeul41
April 26, 2006, 11:34 AM
Is this Aussie the same one?

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=29995480

grimlock
April 26, 2006, 11:37 AM
Most rapes occur at distances of less than two feet.

I'd just like to take a quick timeout here and thank XavierBreath for the laugh.

ReadyontheRight
April 26, 2006, 11:47 AM
This site could/would make any women without a hand gun feel insecure about being raped

I believe you mean "This site could/would make any woman feel that she will be raped unless she has a hand gun."

Of course, there is a lot more to protecting yourself that just carrying a handgun:
-Always be aware of your situation and people around you
-Avoid walking in dark areas, walking alone after dark, walking through known crime areas, etc...
-If you must walk alone, walk with a sense of purpose
-Always look in the back seat of your car before entering
-Escape is the best defense - If confronted, run away

There are many more ways to maintain your situational awareness and keep yourself safe before you might have to draw a gun.

Any worthwhile gun training course -- usually required to legally carry a concealed firearm -- will cover ways to stay safe before you ever need to draw a gun.

Thefabulousfink
April 26, 2006, 11:51 AM
I have a couple points to make.

First, the overly liberal "Womens Studies Center" at my old College published literature that advised women not to struggle against a rapist because you could make them angry. Now I am not a woman, and I have never been raped, but I was lead to believe that rape is very physically and mentally traumatic to the victim. To argue that a women should submit to this trauma because to do otherwise might anger her aggressor is both ignorant, and chauvinistic.

Second, there are many (non-liberal) anti-rape groups that advocate arming and training women in self-defense to stop rape attempts.
http://www.rad-systems.com/
http://www.aware.org/
http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~tellner/sd/Review.html
Infact these days, all but the most liberal groups argue that self-defense is the best way to stop attempted rape.

"God made man, Sam Colt made them equal"
To this day, the gun is the only tool that will reliably allow a 95 lb women to stop a 300 lb man. If you think Pepper Spray and Tazers will protect from everyone, just watch a few episodes of COPS until you see the police try and subdue some one who is high on drugs. Tazers and sprays have little to no effect on people who have used some of the more powerful drugs like Meth and PCP.

If you are the type of sheep that would be too paralized with fear to defend your own life, then you should definitely NOT own a gun. Guns are a great responsibility and require mental fortitude and restraint, that is why we don't give them to children without adult supervision.

If you are raped, please submit to you rapist (you wouldn't want to make him angry). If you are lucky, one of us sheepdogs will be nearby to save you from the wolves.

-Thefabulousfink

molonlabe
April 26, 2006, 11:56 AM
Thanks for your time, you should be shot


Says it all, This persons far more evil than any gun owner I know. there is a lot of things I hate in the US but pumping bullets into someone who does not agree with me is not one of them.

Baba Louie
April 26, 2006, 11:58 AM
Dear Mr. Launay,
What do YOU recommend to a female who stands 5'-2" and weighs 105 lbs when faced with immediate trauma at the hands of a male, 6' tall weighing 200 lbs who means to do her harm in a most horrible manner?

Relent and face the inevitable? I hope not.

Blow a loud whistle and scream or use her cell phone to dial 911 (our nationwide police emergency number)?

Run?

Use her purse to ward off evil intent & action?

A knife? (That'd be my second choice)

You did infer something about OC spray and tasers effectiveness, and while I guess they are better than praying for divine intervention, every woman I know here in my country who has dealt with rape (and unfortunately I know a couple) feel better equipped to deal with this type of crime, now that they carry a handgun and have some training.

Do you know any women who have suffered from/through this crime? If so, please ask them for their opinion.

Your culture is a little different than ours here relative to firearms ownership. At my workplace there are only two people who do not own a firearm of some type and both will soon purchase a handgun to be used primarily for the pleasure of target shooting, but we all know and care about our personal safety and they too, will be prepared to repel any boarders.

Perhaps Mr. Volk's use of the words "Strong Women" vs "Bimbo" caused your ire. It DID get your attention, neh? Mission partially accomplished then, I'd say.

Then again, it may be that the image of a strong, determined woman who'll brook no (expletive deleted) at the hands of a ner-do-well got your knickers in a twist... :D (I really doubt that tho')

Do keep an open mind about some things. Cultural differences being one of them... tho' Lord knows that is a difficult enough concept to master (after 52 years I still struggle).

Should you ever find yourself in Las Vegas, look me up. We'll go shooting. You can talk to a couple of these "strong" female friends of mine and be amazed at their shooting ability. I dare say, at the risk of being labeled a chauvanistic swine, that one or two of these women could be classified in the "bimbo" department... but only when they want to be... and NEVER, when we're out shooting. ;)

PvtPyle
April 26, 2006, 12:10 PM
What a sad and out of touch little person. Maybe she really belives the things she says. And maybe in her world, with the unicorns and fairies they are true. But in the real world, cops still carry guns (in addition to tasers and sprays), dead rapists don't go on to rape again, and a responsible person with a gun is one less victim for the criminals.

Something tells me that this is the tyoe of person that still thinks it is better to not resist for fear of being hurt further, or hurting the rapist's feelings. Very sad.

ebd10
April 26, 2006, 12:13 PM
Oleg's images bring to light something that polite society doesn't acknowledge, or even like to think about, and are aware only in the deep, dark recesses of their hearts: There are evil people in this world that want to harm others for financial gain, the thrill of exercising power over another, or because their thought processes are so completely alien from the norm that they don't even know that what they are doing is wrong. Oleg's posters eloquently make the point that the only person that you can depend on to defend your life with 100% commitment is yourself. Often, this defense requires an individual to tap into the baser instincts that brought humans to dominance of the planet, namely; the willingness to act violently and decisively to preserve their own life and the life of their loved ones. Those of us that take self-defense seriously hope that we never have to use the skills that we've honed, or face the consequences of using those skills. But, we know the world for what it is, not the facade with which "civilization" has covered it. It takes only a split second to go from "average citizen" stumbling around, blissfully unaware of his surroundings, to "crime victim" sitting in an ER or on a slab in the morgue. The chances of avoiding that transition are maximized when one acknowledges reality, remains aware of their surroundings, and has taken steps to prepare for the worst case scenario.

For the writer of the email that inspired this thread: your statement that Oleg "...should be shot" supplies one and all with the perfect example of who it is that we prepare for.

Vern Humphrey
April 26, 2006, 12:16 PM
You openly mock anti-rape protection, stating in short that simply killing the person/seriously wounding the person is the only way to be truly safe.

Fire protection is protection against fire.

Flood protection is protection against flood.

Anti-rape protection is protection against not being raped?:what:

DKSuddeth
April 26, 2006, 12:19 PM
for any lurker, or the original emailer, ponder this question when considering civilians being armed.

If handguns are good enough for cops to have for self defense, why aren't they good enough for anyone else to use for self defense?

Thefabulousfink
April 26, 2006, 12:20 PM
One more point that I forgot to adress.
The irony is that the countries where Handguns are illegal are also the ones with the lowest crime and rape numbers through out the world.

Lets look at a case study then.

Iceland has near complete gun control. This tiny island also appears to have low figures for violent crime and rape, however, lets look at this report from the US State Dept.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/eur/8267.htm
Violence against women continued to be a matter of concern. Police statistics show that the incidence of violence against women--including rape and sexual assault--is low; however, the number of women seeking assistance at the public women's shelter, the counseling center, and the emergency ward of the National Hospital indicates that many incidents go unreported. Each year approximately 100 women ask for temporary lodging at the women's shelter, while 300 to 400 women and children seek assistance at the counseling center. The hospital emergency ward, which has a special staff to care for rape victims, reports that during the year, 134 women sought care associated with sexual assault or abuse. The law prohibits domestic violence and rape, including spousal rape.

Not quite the utopia of peace and tranquiltiy is it?

My other point is that lots of research has been done on the relationship between guns and crime and the only concrete answer that can be drawn is that more data is needed to confirm ANY correlation between gun ownership (or the lack of) and violent crime.

Regardless of what any statistics say, when I am alone and faced by men who wish to do me harm I will be more comforted by my gun on my hip than the fact that crime levels are down and this is just a rare occurance.

clipse
April 26, 2006, 12:22 PM
I would only add that, if you use pepper spray or a stun gun of some sort and run away, what happens? The bad guy heals in no time and is ready to prowl again. If the badguy is faced with an armed victim and gets a bullet wound because of it, then the victim most likely just saved many others from the same crime by the same person. Just a thought.

clipse

XavierBreath
April 26, 2006, 12:23 PM
Is this Aussie the same one?

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm...endid=29995480
Crimmy! You mean I responded to a boy who isn't even shaving yet? :banghead:

All countries are not like yours Lee.

I've been to Perth and Sydney as well as the northern territory. I respected your laws and customs. All the women smoked and the Aussie men wanted very little to do with them anyway. A rape would likely never be prosecuted in Australia because of the perceptions of the people who live there. The United States is not the same. Kindly respect our laws and Constitution.

Thanks to the old vets in Perth who wouldn't let a yank buy a beer. You gents are the best!

The Crazy Gobbo
April 26, 2006, 12:28 PM
If you had not been threatened, I like ReadyontheRight's response.

Try to reply as if it had been a polite disagreement, imagining as if each question had been posed in the most civil, agreeable terms. As you posted this in the open for people to see, those that have not made up their minds, and are decent themselves, will tend to look favorably on the thoughtful reply. They might have wondered about some of the issues raised, while they probably wouldn't have spoken in the same manner, it would interest them to know what you think.

Eh?

sfhogman
April 26, 2006, 12:32 PM
I might refer the writer to Paxton Qugley's "Not an Easy Target", available on Amazon, and to this portion of her website:
http://www.paxtonquigley.com/compelling_power_stories.html

ctdonath
April 26, 2006, 12:33 PM
You openly mock anti-rape protection, stating in short that simply killing the person/seriously wounding the person is the only way to be truly safe.The rapist may very well kill or severely injure you if you don't comply, and has a high chance of having a dangerous or deadly disease to share in the process. You'll likely also suffer severe lifetime emotional distress. Don't underestimate the severity of rape; that you lightly dismiss the consequences thereof indicates you do.
This site could/would make any women without a hand gun feel insecure about being raped, Just getting someone to think about rape seriously & comprehensively should make them feel insecure about being raped. The statistics are high, and the consequences horrible.
The irony is that the countries where Handguns are illegal are also the ones with the lowest crime and rape numbers through out the world.Statistics, please. You'll find that women with handguns tend to have extremely low rates of being raped.
"Police cant be everywhere at once". This is true, its an obvious fact,Then why don't you take it seriously? Why do you place your safety in the hands of someone who is not with you, when you could make yourself safe by simply slipping a small tool in your pocket?
However the chances of a woman walking alone with no way of running OR defending herself some where the is NO ONE within screaming distance is a rare case.Then rape should be rare unto nonexistent then, right? Well, it's disturbingly common, demonstrating a fundamental flaw in your argument.
"Considering that neither pepper spray nor tasers are adequate for self-defense" this is just a lie, Any qualified city police officer would laugh at you.Pepper spray is a condiment. I intend to use it to make hot "buffalo" chicken wings some time.
Tasers are a one-shot tool. You miss, you're done. They're not easy to use and not reliable. BTW: they are the size, shape, and used like a gun - so use the real far more effective tool.
By "taser" you probably (and incorrectly - your ignorance is showing) mean "stun gun", a zapping thing you have to press onto your target. Trust me, they don't work: I've been on the receiving end of one ... it hurt, but was completely ineffective (I twitched away and then shot 17 bullets into a target when hit with a stungun).
If you were raped and made this site of ignorance and lies to make yourself and others feel better or more uncontrolled of the situation of rape, you have gone about it wrong...What better solution do you have? Shooting rapists works - begging them to stop, or hoping they don't hurt you when they threaten to if you resist, doesn't work.
Thanks for your time, you should be shotFunny thing ... the most violent people I've known are anti-gun. It's the armed ones who are kind, gentle, and pacifist - precisely because if violence arises, they can stop it immediately with minimal harm.
You threaten violence - you're part of the problem.

Correia
April 26, 2006, 12:40 PM
Lee,

Guess what police officers do when the person they are tasering or pepper spraying doesn't desist in their actions...

They SHOOT them. With GUNS.

That is why these are considered COMPLIANCE devices. When the assaliant doesn't comply. They get shot.

Police have a thing called the use of force pyramid. Look it up.

Regular folks don't have that. Nor do they have the luxury of a Bat belt with a taser, baton, OC, gun, and spare mags, that rides on the hip of a guy with a radio, and a bunch of friends with radios, who all wear body armor, and who will come and help when the first person gets on the radio.

Lee doesn't know anything about guns, but he also doesn't know anything about less than lethal devices, or anything about predatory human beings.

engineer151515
April 26, 2006, 12:53 PM
AndyC said my thought.

Kitty Genovese

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/kitty_genovese/


Enough said.

hillbilly
April 26, 2006, 01:01 PM
Considering she says that you "should be shot" here are my top two responses to give her.

1) Don't respond at all, or tell her that you don't respond to people who say you should be shot.

2) Tell her this, "Hey stupid....BITE ME!"

Just my two cents.

hillbilly

Waitone
April 26, 2006, 01:04 PM
Great thread!!!

I'll sit this out. We have law enforcements offices and judges and victimized women and women's advocates who can all answer the email far better than I.

It would be helpful for those responding to identify why they have a dog in this particular fight.

Oleg, you should be honored by the author pitching you a high and inside softball.

Grey54956
April 26, 2006, 01:10 PM
What exactly is "anti-rape protection"? I guess I don't follow. Does Lee mean tasers and pepper spray? These devices are fine less-lethal devices that do work fairly well, but are not as effective as a handgun. If you have only one chance at defending yourself, why wouldn't you want to use the most effective means of protection available. Likewise, why would you want to try to flee if the chances of preventing the attack are less than using a tried and true, effective means of protection, i.e. a firearm.

If someone attacks you, you shouldn't be required to pull any punches; they certainly aren't going to do the same for you. Hit them with the best tool in your possession. If you can, make certain that you keep effective the most effective tools close at hand in the event that the situation should arise. In other words, be ready to meet any situation with actions appropriate to the situation.

flatdog
April 26, 2006, 01:15 PM
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=29995480

If this is his blog he delights in stirring people up. A quick lookaround over there speaks volumes... he likes himself a whole lot.

K-Romulus
April 26, 2006, 01:43 PM
The same MySpace guy wrote this on his blog(?):



Sunday, April 02, 2006

V for Vendetta 8/10
. . .
I am Australian and there for like most assise have a unique view of the Politics of War, being affiliated with both England and the US but not being a citizen of either one, Having this I enjoyed and bought what this movie was selling, to a point anyway. That is another thing I love about this movie. It doesn't really say, "Hey, terrorists are great! It sort of leaves that one up to the audience. But the main ideas of the film, about governments being afraid of their people, and about not submitting to obvious tyranny for safety were there, and I agreed with them.

:confused:

cambeul41
April 26, 2006, 01:49 PM
Australians top the world when it comes to crime
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/03/28/1143441155861.html?from=top5

But how cam this be? Americans must be the worst!

XDKingslayer
April 26, 2006, 01:55 PM
An email like this could be a splendid springboard for showcasing our own take on the issue.

No, no it's not.

This email is simply status-quo for antis. It's a non-intelligent responce generated out of emotion. It's your carbon copy "ignorance is bliss" responce.

That type of responce shouldn't be a springboard for showcasing our own take simply because you won't get through to this type of individual. They have let the wool be pulled over their eyes for so long that they no longer fear that darkness and think it's the way it SHOULD be.

No matter what statistics you put up, or hard evidence you throw at them, or how many raped women you can have talk to these people, you will not sway them. You will not change their minds. You will not get them to see any light from our side.

Expending ANY energy on these types is simply wasteful.

"Talk to those that will listen, not those who can't."

Twycross
April 26, 2006, 03:39 PM
Can we leave off the attacks against his age/person? This is rather un-high-roadish. We have plenty of teens here on THR.

sterling180
April 26, 2006, 04:52 PM
Quote from nice-guy Lee Launay:

This site could/would make any women without a hand gun feel insecure about being raped

If you had read my thread about that evil s.o.b. Mark Dyche,you would understand that a CS gas canister,a handgun or even a nice K-bar or Fairban and Sykes dagger,would have deterred him completely. Psychos can kill,but you-the victim-can't kill the psycho-what an upside-down world.Before the handgun ban,that s.o.b. would have been shot at point-blank range by several 9mm hollow-point rounds,that were to of found themselves in his head and chest-if I was his victim then.:) :) How the hell can you talk the talk about dangerous situations,when 99% of the time one cannot resolve it without extreme violence? Put yourself in the victims place and pray that you never have a dangerous encounter with a nutcase or other type of low-life sicko.

If you are ever in a position to the one that you described-PLEASE act like A PEACE-LOVING PERSON,because if you act the nice-guy,you get absolutely nowhere and the the attacker will laugh at you and continue to carry out their intended assault on you. :neener:

Another wonderful quote:"Considering that neither pepper spray nor tasers are adequate for self-defense" this is just a lie, Any qualified city police officer would laugh at you.

Do you know what? I would laugh at them and tell them to F??k off because they don't know what it is or what it could be like for an intended victim and I would tell them to come out of the coffee shops and burger bars and do some bloody work, instead of pigging out on doughnuts,burgers,pretzels and hotdogs.No offence here to cops that frequent these establishments-but this is aimed at lazy,obnoxious cops,who are incapable of maintaining law and order.A cop in Australia has-kindly issued by the state-their defensive sprays,batons and service revolvers or pistols-so they have enough protection against a small to medium threat-rated criminal-but a citizen can't have this for self-protection apparently in your country,because your PM is a retarded doofus WHO HATES GUNS.

If you saw a gun that was about to be fired at you-in the hands of your attacker-,you would be grateful for a mace/pepper/chilli spray and taser,if you lacked a firearm.

What happens if you were attacked by a junkie or a mentally-ill person? would you TALK THEM OUT OF IT?

So some thinking to do and THINK BEFORE YOU POST.No-one here wants to kill or seriously assault a person for the fun of it,but they would if their lives or the lives of their families and friends were in immediate danger-by such unsavoury characters.

odysseus
April 26, 2006, 08:30 PM
Great comments and research thus far.

The irony is that the countries where Handguns are illegal are also the ones with the lowest crime and rape numbers through out the world.

I can't add but only repeat to review the empirical evidence others here have mentioned that show that this claim is FALSE. I will comment that in Africa's poverty and political unrest (lawlessness), rape and murder continue in a genocidal way against the common person simply because they cannot defend themselves from armed bands. Pepper spray will not solve this issue.

Let me try to explain this in another way. A rapist that is out to attack you is doing so as an act of violence. Rape is an act of violence, plain and simply. Rapists often MURDER their victims too. Any self defense instructor, victim of this, and law enforcement officer will tell you that you are not just fighting against a rape, you are fighting for your life. That is the cold stark truth to the matter.

Do you still feel that hoping for a correct shot of pepper spray should be the only way people can defend from such unmitigated violence? Do you know pepper spray does not work often? Are you willing to gamble yourself and maybe your children's lives with that fact? Are you saying you want to force honest people to be victims and inhibit them from their right to life and defend it because you believe they should not be able to properly out of your own personal opinion on guns? It's your free will not to have one or use it. It is another's free will to legally own one and use it.

Fear of deadly force (consequence) up to defending your life to stop such force with fatal force is the only way one can defend oneself from such violence. It is a cold hard fact. Life is full of these, we cannot dance around the issue, because rapists\murderers won't.

loud-mouth shnook
April 26, 2006, 09:43 PM
double post

loud-mouth shnook
April 26, 2006, 09:45 PM
Frankly, after nosing about on his MySpace (if it's actually this person that emailed Oleg), it appears as if our young Fauntleroy has enough of a taste for the drink to preclude an inordinate amount of thought to that which -as misguided as I personally find hoplophobes to be- is at least given a serious amount of thought by them. :scrutiny:

Methinks 'tis merely the empty antics of an impish youth who stumbled upon an opportunity to stir a pot that's monitored by us pesky grownups.

"Croiky! Knackered again!!!" I suspect that before his evening is over: :barf:

Kaylee
April 26, 2006, 09:59 PM
Comments? How about an oldie but a goodie...

I am sitting in the smallest room in my house. I have your letter in front of me. Soon it will be behind me.

:)

bogie
April 26, 2006, 09:59 PM
Youngsters seem to think that self-defense is a matter of fisticuffs and kung-fu...

Okay, youngster. Let me get yoda-like for a moment or three. Old fat crippled men with guns harder to rob, are, than old fat crippled men with cell phones.

American By Blood
April 26, 2006, 10:21 PM
If anyone missed it, go back and read hso's post. He handily dismissed the notion that the West's gun control utopias are rape-free zones.

An off the cuff hypothesis related to this subject: one of the ways America is kept relatively safe from political extremism is the RKBA. Not because would-be tyrants fear violence, but because the people who would otherwise support them are too accustomed to keeping themselves secure. Europe is currently experiencing a rape/gang rape epidemic. Muslims are vastly overrepresented among the attackers. This is one of the biggest recruiting points shared by the Front National, British National Party, Vlaams Belang, etc. People are voting in ever-increasing numbers for these parties because they want a government that will keep them safe from a very real threat that the old parties refuse to even acknowledge exists. Here in America, however, our equivalent issues fail to create success for racial nationalist groups because Americans are able to safeguard themselves and therefore are less likely to vote for safety in the form of boots, armbands, and truncheons. Food for thought.

Standing Wolf
April 26, 2006, 11:25 PM
Thanks for your time, you should be shot

Some people appear to lead awfully rich fantasy lives. The gods be thanked I'm not one of them.

roscoe
April 27, 2006, 12:07 AM
The irony is that the countries where Handguns are illegal are also the ones with the lowest crime and rape numbers through out the world.

Ummm - prove it. You might want to check out the actual statistics and laws before you say something like that.

Fred Fuller
April 27, 2006, 07:54 AM
Oleg,

Some people just don't get it. You've been discovered by one of them. No responsibility for this person's terminal cluelessness resides with you, fortunately.

"Thanks for your time, you should be shot"

Also, you bear no responsibility for their lack of basic humanity and decency.

Attempting communication with this troll is likely a waste of electrons, IMO.

lpl/nc

grimlock
April 27, 2006, 08:15 AM
In the same vein as American By Blood's post, I'd like to quote an excerpt from a letter written to Kim du Toit (not by me). I don't have a link to the original, but I feel that it needs to be shared.

I thought, all my life, that I couldn't own a gun safely, that no one could, really. Guns were dangerous and icky. Even after I realized that the Second Amendment was not quite the shriveled, antiquated appendix I'd been taught, for a couple of years or so I still wobbled around with the training-wheel comfort of believing that while not all gun owners were necessarily gap-toothed red-necked fascist militia whackos, I myself ought not to own firearms. I was too clumsy and careless, and guns were still dangerous and icky.

Just before 9/11 I woke up to how quickly my liberty was eroding, and in a fit of anger and defiance started saving for a handgun while training with rentals. (Thanks to Harry at Texas Shooters Range here in Houston.) When I actually bought one (to the horror and confusion of my friends and family), having it around the house, carrying it in my car, talking about it, showing it off, and of course shooting and maintaining it, taught me what I could not learn from books, magazines, classes, or even Usenet:

It taught me that freedom takes practice.

I thought I'd practiced. I'm as full of opinions as the next guy, and not shy about passing 'em out to anyone who'll listen. I read banned books and underground comics. I've walked the picket lines and hung out with undesirables. A preacher's kid, I pointedly don't practice a religion. I've done stuff that Wasn't Allowed.

But when I got a gun, I discovered it had all been safe, padded, wading-pool-with-floaties dabbling. After near on to fifty years, I finally started to grow up. If my Grands are any clue, I've still got twenty or thirty years to work on it, and get to be something like mature by the time I go senile.

It's not just that rights are useless if they are not exercised, not even that rights must be used or be lost. It's that exercising your rights, constantly, is what instructs you in how to be worthy of them.

Being armed goes far beyond simple self-protection against thugs or even tyrants -- it's an unequivocal and unmatched lesson that you are politically and morally sovereign; that you, and not the state, are responsible for your life and your fate. This absolute personal sovereignty is the founding stone of the Republic. "A well-regulated militia" (where the militia is "the whole people") isn't just "necessary to the security of a free state" because it provides a backup to (and defense against) the police and the army. More importantly, keeping and bearing arms trains sovereign citizens in the art of freedom, and accustoms us to our authority and duty.

spacemanspiff
April 27, 2006, 06:13 PM
This site could/would make any women without a hand gun feel insecure about being raped,
:scrutiny:
i was working the front door at a concert a few weeks back, wanding people, looking for weapons. unfortunately, it was a youthful crowd, no one seemed to have any contraband of any sort. except for the one pothead who produced his pipe from his pockets when we asked that all metal objects be put in a little basket. but i digress...

i take such opportunities to gauge who is ready and willing to do what it takes to defend themselves. none of these teenage girls were prepared. i asked a few why young females dont carry things like pocket knives, if not for protection, but as a utility. they couldnt formulate an answer.

one girl had this perplexed look on her face when i asked "where is your defensive weapon?"
"how do you plan to protect yourself? do you think that by hoping and praying nothing bad will happen to you that is enough?"
i finished with her by asking to see her 'War Face'. it wasnt very convincing.

god forbid people should ever wish to defend themselves. or better yet, be the slightest bit independant enough to try to take care of themselves.

the crowd who attends boxing or Alaska Fighting Championships is more fun, mid-20's, and the women that attend usually have better answers about where their weapons are.

shermacman
April 27, 2006, 08:08 PM
This site could/would make any women without a hand gun feel insecure about being raped

And that, my friends, is the money quote. Nothing much more needs to be said. Do people like Lee Launay actually read what they write? Or is it all just InstantMessage, emotional outbursts?

Graystar
April 27, 2006, 08:23 PM
Thanks for your time, you should be shot
Typical liberal democrat...they pull “solutions” out of their heads (or other places) and believe in them so much that they quickly accept their own mental masturbations as fact. There’s just no point in answering a person like that.

However, do you really say, "Strong Women Own Guns...Bimbos Don't"??

To suggest that a woman is a bimbo (which itself a derogatory term that really shouldn’t be used) just because she doesn’t own a gun is simply an untenable position. I request that you edit that immediately.

Matt King
April 27, 2006, 09:37 PM
Normally i could respect someone's opinion, even if i don't agree with it, however, when you wish some one to be shot(like he did) you have turned the debate into a death threat,proving you are nothing but a teenager with a mis-guided opinion trying despretly to get attention.

You also argue that women don't need guns to protect themselves, so I suspect you don't hold women in high regard, unlike some of us who wish to protect women form harm the most effecient way, With a gun.

PS: If people don't need guns why do cop's carry them?

Everyone regardless of race, or religion is entitled the right to the saftey and security of their loved ones.

Matt King
April 27, 2006, 09:40 PM
Normally i could respect someone's opinion, even if i don't agree with it, however, when you wish some one to be shot(like he did) you have turned the debate into a death threat,proving you are nothing but a teenager with a mis-guided opinion trying despretly to get attention.

You also argue that women don't need guns to protect themselves, so I suspect you don't hold women in high regard, unlike some of us who wish to protect women form harm the most effecient way, With a gun.

PS: If people don't need guns why do cop's carry them?

Everyone regardless of race, or religion is entitled the right to the saftey and security of their loved ones.

Matt King
April 27, 2006, 09:41 PM
Normally i could respect someone's opinion, even if i don't agree with it, however, when you wish some one to be shot(like he did) you have turned the debate into a death threat,proving you are nothing but a teenager with a mis-guided opinion trying despretly to get attention.

You also argue that women don't need guns to protect themselves, so I suspect you don't hold women in high regard, unlike some of us who wish to protect women form harm the most effecient way, With a gun.

PS: If people don't need guns why do cop's carry them?

Everyone regardless of race, or religion is entitled the right to the saftey and security of their loved ones.

Matt King
April 27, 2006, 09:41 PM
Normally i could respect someone's opinion, even if i don't agree with it, however, when you wish some one to be shot(like he did) you have turned the debate into a death threat,proving you are nothing but a teenager with a mis-guided opinion trying despretly to get attention.:barf:

You also argue that women don't need guns to protect themselves, so I suspect you don't hold women in high regard, unlike some of us who wish to protect women form harm the most effecient way, With a gun.

PS: If people don't need guns why do cop's carry them?

Everyone regardless of race, or religion is entitled the right to the saftey and security of their loved ones.

Matt King
April 27, 2006, 09:47 PM
sorry for the excessive posting, my pc messed up.

grimjaw
April 27, 2006, 10:20 PM
Thanks for your time, you should be shot

Argues for the ineffectiveness of firearms as a crime deterrent, but is all for it when it comes to debate?

jmm

rayra
April 28, 2006, 03:13 AM
Nevermind.

mrmeval
April 28, 2006, 10:14 AM
Hi,
Hello
I stumbled upon your website, just wondering why you would post such things on your "Stay Safe" page?
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You openly mock anti-rape protection, stating in short that simply killing the person/seriously wounding the person is the only way to be truly safe.
I have friends who have been raped and it damaged them in ways hard to explain to those who do not know a rape victim. I'd rather that not happen to anyone else. Most of the non-lethal methods available do not work well. Criminals fear firearms in the hands of the law abiding.
Now this not only is in-correct, but it also breeds inaccurate rumour.

You will need to backup this statement. People in the US use firearms approximately 2 million (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226493636/ref=ase_reasonmagazineA/104-5098480-4234334?s=books&v=glance&n=283155&tagActionCode=reasonmagazineA)times a year to stop brutality.
This site could/would make any women without a hand gun feel insecure about being raped, The irony is that the countries where Handguns are illegal are also the ones with the lowest crime and rape numbers through out the world.
You will need to back this up with numbers. Currently police in Britain are giving stern warnings for what would be arrest and a stiff jail sentence in the US.

Why would a woman ever want to feel secure about being raped?

This site uses buss phrases in its small images such as "Police cant be everywhere at once". This is true, its an obvious fact, However the chances of a woman walking alone with no way of running OR defending herself some where the is NO ONE within screaming distance is a rare case.
Depending on others for your protection is unwise. There are several documented cases of assaults happening in public and no one called police. The police do not have a legal obligation to protect you.
Spewing forth bogus phrases such as "Strong Women Own Guns...Bimbos Don't" it gives your site not only NO credibility but shows that the author is probably a man and if not a man a woman whose obviously a fool.
A woman with a gun is EQUAL to a man in the ability to defend her life. Something the size of a pack of playing cards gives her the equality denied her by nature.
"Considering that neither pepper spray nor tasers are adequate for self-defense" this is just a lie, Any qualified city police officer would laugh at you.
Cops carry guns for a reason.
Im going to rap this up by saying, Unless you own a gun shop and are secretly trying to scare people into buying guns from you, Then your wasting your time...
I'm not a gun shop. I have given guns to people in need and will continue to do so as I see fit.
OR
If you were raped and made this site of ignorance and lies to make yourself and others feel better or more uncontrolled of the situation of rape, you have gone about it wrong...
I'd prefer women have control of their bodies and to do this they need equality of force. Guns allow this. Without guns we are at the mercy of the most brutal elements of society. In the society you envision, which is a police state, those brutal elements will become the police.
Thanks for your time, you should be shot
Lee Launay
Murder is the province of criminals. Summary execution is the province of dictators. Performing either for excercizing the rights of free speech and free press is an abomination and they are protected by the right to keep and bear arms.

Molon Labe.

John-Melb
April 28, 2006, 10:26 AM
Why should we be surprised at the rantings of this anti-gun idiot.

Only the other day on AussieSeek, one of the anti's put forward the arguement that licenced firearm owners and their families should be dragged from their homes and shot.

So Lee, it's not alright to use a gun to defend your life, but acceptable to use a gun to win a debate or prove a point.

You disgust me.

sterling180
April 28, 2006, 02:10 PM
Lee Launay-you are a total moron for posting those comments AGAIN, in which you wrote in your post after your initial statement-where you made the following comment:"Thanks for your time, you should be shot".
No punk you should be,because only a complete and utter immature wanker would have wrote what you had written in your post,which was kindly addressed-to all of us shooters.:cuss: :cuss: :banghead: :fire: :fire:You can argue with us,but argue in a civillised fashion-okay.Do what Aussieseek does and argue your points rationally,with evidence if possible.

ANTI-GUN NAZI ALERT,ANTI-GUN NAZI ALERT.Yes thats right,you do sound like a Nazi and don't believe in the freedom of speech-for us shooters,because you believe you view is right and ours is wrong.

Or was your little insult intended for anybody specifically in this forum.You are on our turf matey and you best remember that-meaning you are a viewed as a guest because Oleg directed you to this site.Isn't it ironic that we should be shot-on recommendation by you of course-by the very things you and your deranged-fanatics hate more than anything in your little-world-GUNS.YEEEES GUUUNNS,we own them you hate them-FINE-no problem there, by any means- BUT DON'T IMPOSE YOUR RETARDED VIEWS ON US-BY MAKING IMMATURE VIOLENT SUGGESTIONS THAT WE SHOULD BE SHOT,because we like and own them personally.NO YOU SHOULD BE TWAT-BOY.HAHAHAH, NOW GO AWAY AND GROW UP.I am justified in making those comments about you,because you have recommended extreme violence towards the shooting community,JUST because you don't agree with us.Only a fool would make comments without any evidence.


To all of you guys reading this post-who were wondering what those colourful phrases that I have just used,actually meant.Well lets just say that Lee would understand them and they are a "get-around the rules of this forum",otherwise I would be visited by a moderator.:) :) :) ;) ;)
Thanks.

Malone LaVeigh
April 28, 2006, 02:51 PM
"Strong Women Own Guns...Bimbos Don't"
Well, this could have been put better. Remember, folks, we only need make one slip into indiscreet language to be tarred by the other side. Let's don't give them any more ammunition than necessary. (I know, I'm one to talk...)

Oleg Volk
April 28, 2006, 03:34 PM
However, do you really say, "Strong Women Own Guns...Bimbos Don't"??

To suggest that a woman is a bimbo (which itself a derogatory term that really shouldn’t be used) just because she doesn’t own a gun is simply an untenable position. I request that you edit that immediately.

Semantic analysis: "bimbos do not own guns" is not equal to "women who don't own guns are bimbos".

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_strongwomen.jpg

Zundfolge
April 28, 2006, 03:37 PM
Oleg,
Many many moons ago I was doing battle with antis on another forum and I was linking to images on your site as visual aids in that battle.

You noticed the links on your server logs and emailed me. You said something to the effect of "Don't try to wrestle with a pig, you just get dirty and the pig enjoys it." and then you invited me to TFL (so for those of you paying attention, my presence here is Oleg's fault :p ).


Anyway, All I can say in response to your quandary is; Don't try to wrestle with a pig, you just get dirty and the pig enjoys it.



:D

Graystar
April 28, 2006, 03:49 PM
Semantic analysis: "bimbos do not own guns" is not equal to "women who don't own guns are bimbos".
Yes, it does. The reason it does is because the term “bimbo” is not an actual classification of a person, such as tall, short, single, married, man or woman. The term “bimbo” is an insult. Some kind of action or behavior is usually required to earn such an insult. In your text, the suggested action is not owning a gun. Therefore, women who do not own guns (action) are bimbos (insult.)

armoredman
April 28, 2006, 03:58 PM
Wonder if the poor deluded fool ever followed Oleg's supplied link, and looked here? Probably not - can't handle the truth. Enjoy your fantasy world, until reality kicks it to pieces. Hope you survive it.

chopinbloc
April 28, 2006, 04:30 PM
The irony is that the countries where Handguns are illegal are also the ones with the lowest crime and rape numbers through out the world.


uh, yeah.

handguns are illegal in basically all of central america which is why it is such a peaceful and enlighted place, right?

even if the quoted statement were true it still wouldn't be relevant because of demographic and cultural differences. what is more germane to the issue at hand is what happens before and after firearm legislation in a given locale. australia, for instance, experienced a dramatic rise in all types of crime after enacting particularly draconian gun laws.

DRZinn
April 28, 2006, 04:34 PM
All apples are fruit. This does not mean that all fruits are apples.

sterling180
April 28, 2006, 04:39 PM
Should he stay or should he go.Please decide,if he is worth writing to, in the future.

Mannlicher
April 28, 2006, 04:41 PM
This unsolicited critique of the site is an obvious attemtp to engage you. Since the person that sent it has their mind made up, and has created their own world of values and beliefs, why respond at all?
Use the 'ignore' button Oleg.

Graystar
April 28, 2006, 04:42 PM
All apples are fruit. This does not mean that all fruits are apples.
"Fruit," in your context, is not an insult. Also, your action of simply existing is far removed from the action at issue, making your example quite dissimilar to the questioned text.

Malone LaVeigh
April 28, 2006, 04:54 PM
Semantic analysis: "bimbos do not own guns" is not equal to "women who don't own guns are bimbos".
Most readers probably don't perform a semantic analysis. That probably escapes a big portion of the people reading it, and even if it didn't, you would have the visceral reaction to what was apparently intended as a slur.

Again, I'm one to talk...

AndyC
April 28, 2006, 05:00 PM
Hope you survive it.
Quite different from what he hoped for us. Gunowners are such nice people :D

DRZinn
April 28, 2006, 05:07 PM
"Fruit," in your context, is not an insult.Irrelevant.

We have a set: Fruit/Women who don't own guns.

Then a subset: Apples/Bimbos.

Saying that bimbos are women who don't own guns is semantically the same thing as saying that apples are fruit. It does not mean that all fruits are apples, nor that all women who don't own guns are bimbos.

chopinbloc
April 28, 2006, 05:12 PM
graystar,

doczinn is aluding to a concept called the oehler diagram, if my memory (and spelling) serves. the idea is that two groups - represented by circles - can overlap or one can be completely contained within the other but by being one it doesn't necessarily follow that you are the other. in this case the assertion is that no bimbo has a gun but there are other groups that also do not have guns. just for fun we could say that priests never have guns either (yes, of course that's innacurate). this does not mean that priests are bimbos or vice versa. it can also be said that parts of other groups do not have guns. in this way you can have multiple circles in your diagram with varying relationships to eachother.

depicts
April 28, 2006, 05:16 PM
http://llaunaynsw.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/leebop.jpg.w180h238.jpg

This is who all of you are getting upset about. Give me a break. Go to the website Oleg posted around post 15 or so and check out who you're dealing with. Then ask yourself, do you care.

atk
April 28, 2006, 05:17 PM
Graystar,

Whether a term is or is not an insult, that doesn't change the way that the comment should be interpreted.


To break it down: "Apples are fruit." States that Apples are in the group Fruit. "Bimbos don't own guns" states that Bimbos are out of the group that own guns. "Dead people don't own guns" places Dead People outside the group that own guns. "Infants don't own guns" places infants outside the group of people that own guns. "Muffin Heads don't own guns" places Muffin Heads outside the group of people who own guns.

This has nothing to do with whether "Bimbos", "Dead people", "Infants" or "Muffin Heads" are insulting terms or not. They're simply categorization of groups.

Each of those groups overlaps the group "Women". There are "women" who are "bimbos". There are "women" who are "dead people". There are women who are "infants" (okay, so that's using the term women a little loosely, considering the age generally required to be a woman), and there are "women" who are "muffin heads".

Of the group "Women", Oleg has identified a sub-group: "Strong Women". This means that "Strong Women" are within the group "Women." Oleg has also identified a sub-group, "Bimbos". He has further indicated that the sub-group "Strong Women" does not overlap the sub-group "Bimbos".

Nothing has been stated about other sub-groups of "Women", and it is inappropriate to infer that those are the only two groups of "Women" in existence. They are simply the only two groups identified in this poster.


As an example, with an insult, "Patriotic People fly the national flag. Scum-Sucking-Criminals do not." See, there's the insult (Scum-Sucking-Criminals), but there's nothing that dictates that you're either a patriot or a Scum-Sucking-Criminal, with no possibility of anything else.

There *is* the implication that, if you don't fly a flag, you might be a Scum-Sucking-Criminal, but there's nothing that requires it. Again, there are three groups, here: People, Patriotic People, and Scum-Sucking-Criminals. People encompasses both Patriotic People and Scum-Sucking-Criminals, but it doesn't prevent other groups, such as Apathetic-People-Who-Don't-Fly-Flags And-Aren't-Criminals.

Or, same construct without the insult: "8 is a positive number. Negative numbers are not." This doesn't mean that there are no positive numbers other than 8.

depicts
April 28, 2006, 05:25 PM
Sorry to repeat myself, but go to this guys (?) website and see if you want to waste more of your life thinking about this.

His pictures are funny though...maybe the one showing ..."random girl on girl action" gives a clue to his mindset

http://llaunaynsw.tripod.com/id3.html

imas
April 28, 2006, 07:47 PM
it gives your site not only NO credibility but shows that the author is probably a man and if not a man a woman whose obviously a fool.
you should be shot.

Okee dokee. :rolleyes:

XLMiguel
April 28, 2006, 08:25 PM
I guess it all boils down to what your definiton of "bimbo" is (with apologies to Slick Willie, sorta). To me, a bimbo is a less than bright, usually young, woman who is sexually indiscriminate, generally irresponsible, and exercises little thought or control over her life. In that context, I have observed bimbos with guns, so saying "bimbos don't own guns" is not logically valid in my experience. They are scary, just as any other thoughtless, irresponsible person with a gun is scary.

In the context of Oleg's poster though, I can't readily come up with a better term than 'bimbo' without becoming verbose or obtuse, so I do think the general sentiment is effective and appropriate. FWIW:neener:

Eschew decease equine flagellation!

imas
April 28, 2006, 11:52 PM
This site could/would make any women without a hand gun feel insecure about being raped

They should! According to some sources 1 in 4 women will be raped within their lifetime.

Zen21Tao
April 29, 2006, 02:06 AM
Yes, it does. The reason it does is because the term “bimbo” is not an actual classification of a person, such as tall, short, single, married, man or woman. The term “bimbo” is an insult. Some kind of action or behavior is usually required to earn such an insult. In your text, the suggested action is not owning a gun. Therefore, women who do not own guns (action) are bimbos (insult.)

No my friend you are in fact wrong. What law of nature, English, logic, etc. says to you that being an insult precludes membership status in a category? The word “fag” is an insult yet is still is a subcategory of a greater population. The greater population being men and the subcategory being men that have sex with other men. What is equally absurd is the statement that a “classification” cannot be include something that requires an action. Humm, what makes a “criminal” a criminal is the act of breaking the law. Of course a criminal is a subpopulation of a bigger population size.

As for your statement that a bimbo is defined by the act of not owning a gun so a woman that doesn’t own a gun is a bimbo. This assumption is not only utterly ridiculous but it is in fact a logical fallacy in two regards. First because it really is the case that bimbos are a subcategory of women, extending a defining feature of bimbos to all women is a “hasty generalization” fallacy – go ahead look it up. Second is that you are implying that because A=B then something else that is B must = A. This is completely incorrect. Consider the phrase “A dog is an animal with fir.” A bear is also an animal with fir. That doesn’t mean a bear is a dog.

Doc Lukens
April 29, 2006, 02:35 AM
This site uses buss phrases in its small images such as "Police cant be everywhere at once". This is true, its an obvious fact, However the chances of a woman walking alone with no way of running OR defending herself some where the is NO ONE within screaming distance is a rare case.
Ask Kitty Genovese about the kindness of strangers.

In my history classes, I devote about 20 minutes to 1960s crime. My students are startled by the Kitty Genovese killing, but it leaves the women thinking about self protection. For anyone unfamiliar with Kitty (is there such a person?) she cried for help for nearly 45 minutes. Over 30 people heard her screams. NONE called the police. ZERO.

"Considering that neither pepper spray nor tasers are adequate for self-defense" this is just a lie, Any qualified city police officer would laugh at you.

Several years back, as a student employee with a campus police department, I stood and watched two police officers take a few punches AFTER using pepper spray on a subject. It wasn't pretty. Further, it is a police officer who teaches CCW courses at the college where I teach. I've never met a police officer that opposed citizens carrying firearms. I'm not saying they aren't out there, but it certainly refutes the quote above.

Zen21Tao
April 29, 2006, 05:04 AM
In my history classes, I devote about 20 minutes to 1960s crime. My students are startled by the Kitty Genovese killing, but it leaves the women thinking about self protection. For anyone unfamiliar with Kitty (is there such a person?) she cried for help for nearly 45 minutes. Over 30 people heard her screams. NONE called the police. ZERO.

We studied her situation a few semesters back in a Social Psychology class I had. Their is a phenomenon in Social Psychology where the number of people that directly observe a crime is inversely proportionate to the liklihood an onlooker will intercede to stop or even report the crime. The more people that look witness an event the more each person thinks someone else there will help.

Graystar
April 29, 2006, 08:51 AM
doczinn is aluding to a concept called the oehler diagram, if my memory (and spelling) serves. the idea is that two groups - represented by circles - can overlap or one can be completely contained within the other but by being one it doesn't necessarily follow that you are the other.
Yes, but you're missing the point that "bimbo" is not a group. It is an insult.

Whether a term is or is not an insult, that doesn't change the way that the comment should be interpreted.
Of course it does.
You are a man.
You are a gun owner.
You are a dumbass.

The first two are purely descriptive, while the third is purely insulting. You cannot possibly interpret them all the same way.

What law of nature, English, logic, etc. says to you that being an insult precludes membership status in a category?
"BIMBO" IS NOT A CATEGORY!! That's what's wrong with your entire analysis. It is a durogatory insult. To say "bimbo" is a category is like saying "dumbass", "****head" are categories. To me those three terms are of the same type, and on the same level. They are hardly HighRoad material and shouldn't be used.

tegemu
April 29, 2006, 09:18 AM
Quoted from an amusing piece entitled "Real Chiefs....", the following:-

"Real Chiefs know that you never wrestle with a pig because you both get dirty, and the pig likes it."

"Real Chiefs never argue with an idiot because people watching may not be able to tell the difference."

Barbara
April 29, 2006, 10:44 AM
Well, this is where my gun rights advocacy and my anti-rape advocacy sometimes part ways.

When I see men use the anti-rape rhetoric, it annoys me because frankly, I don't think the vast majority of them really care, its just a convenient buzz word for them. Owning a gun can also, I'm afraid, lure women into a false sense of security, because the vast majority of sexual assaults are not situations where a gun would have been or could have been used. So, that's why I don't mix the two very often, and why I sometimes get prickly about people using the abuse of women as a selling point for gun rights. It's an option, and saying that is fine. It's not a cure-all and pretending it is will get you yelled at.

BUT.

Dear Mr. Launey:

What in the world makes you think you have the right to decide what options I will use to defend myself against any attack, either against my person or against my country?

Let me tell you the answer to that question: Not one damned thing.

If you're so concerned about women and our bodies and feelings, I'll be glad to suggest a list of ways you can help protect them, but I suspect you care not at all about that, but rather, would prefer to spend your time fawning over yourself on internet pages.

At the very least, you should consider a hobby that will fill your time, so as to avoid wasting it annoying people with a much better ability to reason than you possess.

Have a nice day. You should get yourself an education.

Yers Truly,

1wildbill
April 29, 2006, 11:14 AM
Lee, If you read this far I would be surprised. Your mind is closed. Your information is incorrect. I am sure you don't want to be confused by facts.

Barbara, Real men do care! I rate rape the same as murder, in some cases maybe worse.

Barbara
April 29, 2006, 11:17 AM
Maybe we should have included shiny graphics to keep his attention? :)

1wildbill
April 29, 2006, 11:28 AM
Maybe we should have included shiny graphics to keep his attention?

Good one.

But, naw, he lost interest as soon as some facts were given by hso and others on page one.

Zen21Tao
April 29, 2006, 01:30 PM
"BIMBO" IS NOT A CATEGORY!! That's what's wrong with your entire analysis. It is a durogatory insult. To say "bimbo" is a category is like saying "dumbass", "****head" are categories. To me those three terms are of the same type, and on the same level. They are hardly HighRoad material and shouldn't be used.

Bimbo is the parameter that defines a specific subcategory. Race, sex, height and weight are collections of paremeters. For example, African-American is a paremeter of race. A group labeled as African-Americans would all fit a specific subcategory with the larger category of Race. The same goes for insults. Bimbo is a perameter within the larger category of insults. Those that fit the peremeter are bimbos. Take a group of ten people and the word "dumbass." Now (rightfully or wrongfully) label 4 of those people "dumbasses." Those four now fit a subcategory within the bigger population. Just because you don't like an insult doesn't keeping it from being used to establis subcategories.

Graystar
April 29, 2006, 05:43 PM
Bimbo is the parameter that defines a specific subcategory. Race, sex, height and weight are collections of paremeters. For example, African-American is a paremeter of race.
Are you serious??? The term “bimbo” is nothing but insult. It is not a parameter or category of any kind whatsoever. To say it is the same as height, weight, or race demonstrates incredible insensitivity and belligerence toward women.

Now (rightfully or wrongfully) label 4 of those people "dumbasses."
And therein lies the problem with your erroneous comparison. Race, sex, height, and weight are qualities of a person. A person always has a race, is always a particular sex (usually for life...,) is always at some height or weight. But a person is never a dumbass (or a bimbo) unless *someone else* says they are. THAT is the big difference. And to call someone a dumbass (or a bimbo) requires some reason to do so. And THAT is what’s wrong with Oleg’s poster. It suggest’s that not having a gun makes a woman a bimbo.

If I said “Strong men own guns; wimps don’t.” Are you going to say that “wimp” is merely a classification of men? “Tall”, “short”, “skinny”, “hairy”, “wimp”? It most certainly is NOT a class or parameter of men. The statement is crystal clear in its meaning...you’re a wimp if you don’t own a gun. And that statement is no different than the one on Oleg’s poster.

I swear...I can't believe we're even discussing this!!! For a bunch of smart guys you're so much like lemmings sometimes...

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

308win
April 29, 2006, 05:50 PM
Given the language quality, spelling accuracy, syntax, tone, etc. I would simply pray that the author is sterile. A response isn't worth your time.

Zen21Tao
April 30, 2006, 03:33 AM
Are you serious??? The term “bimbo” is nothing but insult. It is not a parameter or category of any kind whatsoever. To say it is the same as height, weight, or race demonstrates incredible insensitivity and belligerence toward women.


And therein lies the problem with your erroneous comparison. Race, sex, height, and weight are qualities of a person. A person always has a race, is always a particular sex (usually for life...,) is always at some height or weight. But a person is never a dumbass (or a bimbo) unless *someone else* says they are. THAT is the big difference. And to call someone a dumbass (or a bimbo) requires some reason to do so. And THAT is what’s wrong with Oleg’s poster. It suggest’s that not having a gun makes a woman a bimbo.

If I said “Strong men own guns; wimps don’t.” Are you going to say that “wimp” is merely a classification of men? “Tall”, “short”, “skinny”, “hairy”, “wimp”? It most certainly is NOT a class or parameter of men. The statement is crystal clear in its meaning...you’re a wimp if you don’t own a gun. And that statement is no different than the one on Oleg’s poster.

I swear...I can't believe we're even discussing this!!! For a bunch of smart guys you're so much like lemmings sometimes...

I am not saying that an insult is the same thing as race, weight, height, etc. To claim that I am and proceed under that assumption constitutes a “straw man” argument. My point is that insults can also be used as categories.

A category is defined as “a collection of things sharing a common attribute” (WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University) , “[a] specifically defined division in a system of classification”( The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition ), and “[a] general class of ideas, terms, or things that mark divisions or coordinations within a conceptual scheme”( The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

Nothing in these definitions say that the common attribute can not be an insult, that the attribute has to be a “qualities of a person” like race, height, weight, etc. or that the attribute has to be a title or label bestowed on someone. In fact you can see that “ideas that “mark divisions” qualify as a category. Are you now going to retort saying that an insult isn’t an idea?

I get the point, you don’t like the term “bimbo” because you find it hurtful and cruel but your opinion of an attribute doesn’t negate its ability to serve (granted inappropriately) as an attribute common to more than one entity. You ask “[i]f I said ‘Strong men own guns; wimps don’t.’ Are you going to say that “wimp” is merely a classification of men?” Actually the term or idea “wimps” as you use it IS a category of “things” that shares the common attribute of not owning guns. In the greater population are things that own guns and things that don’t own guns. Within the subgroup of “don’t own guns” is a group that holds the attribute you labeled as “wimp.”

What is being argued here is the logical and structural nature of categorizing populations. Not whether such categories are morally hurtful or appropriate.

Graystar
April 30, 2006, 08:56 AM
Again, not only are you missing the point, but you have strayed so far from the original issue at hand that you’ve come full circle and now agree with my point.

Attributes exist. Insults and labels are opinions of the insulters or labelers. Insults and labels cannot be attributes.

You ask “[i]f I said ‘Strong men own guns; wimps don’t.’ Are you going to say that “wimp” is merely a classification of men?” Actually the term or idea “wimps” as you use it IS a category of “things” that shares the common attribute of not owning guns. In the greater population are things that own guns and things that don’t own guns. Within the subgroup of “don’t own guns” is a group that holds the attribute you labeled as “wimp.”
And that is exactly the point I was making about Oleg’s poster.

This is ridiculous. The poster was meant to imply that a woman is a bimbo if she doesn’t own a gun. That’s the message it gives, that’s what Oleg intended, I know it, and everyone single one of you know it. This pathetic attempt to back-pedal just because some anti-gun idiot called us on it is sickening. Even a broken clock is right twice a day; just admit that the anti was right on this one point, fix it, and move on.

And just how Oleg knows that all “bimbos” don’t own guns is beyond me.

DRZinn
April 30, 2006, 02:15 PM
The poster was meant to imply that a woman is a bimbo if she doesn’t own a gun. That’s the message it gives, that’s what Oleg intended, I know it, and everyone single one of you know it.You don't know it, and I don't know it, and not a single one of us knows it. It certainly doesn't look that way to me; it only looks like what it means exactly what it says, semantically speaking. Why don't we ask Oleg?

QuickDraw
April 30, 2006, 02:53 PM
Don't know if anyone else noticed/posted this,
in the profile his/her favorite movie is Art of the saber!
Kind of ironic.

QuickDraw

Graystar
April 30, 2006, 05:21 PM
You don't know it, and I don't know it, and not a single one of us knows it. It certainly doesn't look that way to me
You DO know it, and it DOES look that way to you. But if you have convince yourself otherwise so you can feel superior to some idiot anti then there’s really nothing more to say because to continue would be like...well...arguing with an anti.

AndyC
April 30, 2006, 05:32 PM
When I see men use the anti-rape rhetoric, it annoys me because frankly, I don't think the vast majority of them really care, its just a convenient buzz word for them.
Some men are rape-survivors too, you know - me, for one. I think I'm more qualified than most to speak on this topic, so be careful of falling into the gender-trap yourself.

grimjaw
April 30, 2006, 05:56 PM
We have a set: Fruit/Women who don't own guns.
Then a subset: Apples/Bimbos.

ARGH! Discrete Structures and Logic class flashbacks, head hurts . . .

:p

I've looked alot many if not all of Oleg's images from his website. I don't know that I'd state things exactly as he does and I might take a different message than was intended in some cases. None of the images makes me think he deserves to be shot. Masked men kidnapping people and then beheading them on video, that kind of thing makes me want to shoot somebody.

jmm

DRZinn
April 30, 2006, 07:08 PM
You DO know it, and it DOES look that way to you.I'm so glad you know what's in my head better than I do. :rolleyes:

gezzer
April 30, 2006, 09:31 PM
Simple answer use your delete option.

Guy B. Meredith
May 1, 2006, 03:50 AM
Toll.

If you enjoyed reading about "Email from a critic. Comments?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!