AusDLK
Famous Photographer
>this is an insane line of thought, if you buy into it, your photography will suffer...
It may be insane or you may simply disagree but to suggest that one's photography will suffer because one chooses to avoid certain terminology is, well, insane.
It may be insane or you may simply disagree but to suggest that one's photography will suffer because one chooses to avoid certain terminology is, well, insane.
Athena
Well-known
This thread is shot (as in "played out")
CraigK
Established
Ah yes, Oh Canada. My home and native land as well. And thank God for our wonderful gun registry that has prevented so many sensless gun killings...well except for that guy in Montreal recently....oh and those drive-by's in Toronto...and those cops in Alberta and just last week three cops in Winnipeg about a mile from my home.
Yup, all you need to do is throw 2 billion (yes , billion with a "b") dollars into a program that is not even near finished yet and then we all can walk the streets safe from guns...yet somehow still a bit worried about sharpened sticks.
Now, how can I get Big Brother to change my diapers...and how much will that cost?
climbing_vine
Well-known
CraigK said:
Another anti-gun-control argument that strikes this gun owner as distinctly uncompelling. If the US could attain Canada's gun death rates by spending $2billion *every year*, that's about $45k per life saved. Another 50 cents of federal tax for the average middle-class person to save over 20,000 lives every year, and that doesn't strike you as worth it? Just bizarre.
If you're about to say, "who says spending that money would accomplish anything!" you have a point, and that's also part of why this line of argument is just silly. Stick to the real world. Just face up to the fact that more availability of weapons = more unnecessary carnage, and talk about where the lines should be drawn to balance that with people's rights to hunt or defend themselves. Have an adult conversation, in short.
Nobody wants Lady Macbeth to have surface-to-air missiles (because she's a
tw[ai]t); let's work from that common point.
mpt600
Established
Can we rewind a bit? What, exactly, is an "adult workshop" anyway?
Maybe it'd be easier to try to prevent gun owners using the word "shoot". They could use "fire" and photog's could keep "shoot" all to their own.
I've broken one of my cardinal rules by replying to this thread...
Mike.
Minolta Dynax 7
Minolta Dynax 4
Zorki 4K
Olympus XA
Petri 7S
Enfield Rifle No.4 Mk 1 .303
Lee-Enfield SMLE No.1 MK. III .303
Zoli o/u 12 bore
Erma .22 underlever
And I like shooting them all! Never done any harm.
Maybe it'd be easier to try to prevent gun owners using the word "shoot". They could use "fire" and photog's could keep "shoot" all to their own.
I've broken one of my cardinal rules by replying to this thread...
Mike.
Minolta Dynax 7
Minolta Dynax 4
Zorki 4K
Olympus XA
Petri 7S
Enfield Rifle No.4 Mk 1 .303
Lee-Enfield SMLE No.1 MK. III .303
Zoli o/u 12 bore
Erma .22 underlever
And I like shooting them all! Never done any harm.
gareth
Established
Ach if only mankind would/had put as much effort into freedom and equality, as it has to greed and developing mechanised, or otherwise, methods of killing each other.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
AusDLK said:
I think, perhaps, the point is that when you constrain your language in silly sorts of ways that you also contstrain your mind and therefore your creativity.
The other point might be that if you/your instructor is distracted by silly off topic concerns, you're likely not getting the help/instruction that might actually be valuable.
AusDLK
Famous Photographer
>What, exactly, is an "adult workshop" anyway?
By that I meant the photographic workshop was for adults, not college kids, and not a college class. Therefore my teacher was not in a position to influence young, impressionable minds as some of the early posters feared.
That said, I agree with some other posters that perhaps this thread should die. It has descended in the political realm of gun control and some raw feelings are being exposed. This is not the right forum for such debates.
By that I meant the photographic workshop was for adults, not college kids, and not a college class. Therefore my teacher was not in a position to influence young, impressionable minds as some of the early posters feared.
That said, I agree with some other posters that perhaps this thread should die. It has descended in the political realm of gun control and some raw feelings are being exposed. This is not the right forum for such debates.
RdEoSg
Well-known
I just want to know how many of you force your slaves to fire your flash....
mdelevie
Established
Firearm terminology became a part of the American language, because firearms were present as society evolved. Phrases like "don't go off half-cocked" are part of our language without widespread understanding of the original (firearm) meaning.
Personally, I think weapons do not have an inherent morality; I feel that the person bearing the weapon has the responsibility of moral judgement and boundaries on his/her conduct. I don't think "guns are bad" anymore than I think cars, swimming pools, or televisions are bad. They're inanimate objects.
The vilification of guns seems silly to me. They're just tools. So I don't agree that we should eradicate 'gun language' from our culture. Are cameras inherently 'bad' if they're used to make pornography?
Regards,
Mark
Personally, I think weapons do not have an inherent morality; I feel that the person bearing the weapon has the responsibility of moral judgement and boundaries on his/her conduct. I don't think "guns are bad" anymore than I think cars, swimming pools, or televisions are bad. They're inanimate objects.
The vilification of guns seems silly to me. They're just tools. So I don't agree that we should eradicate 'gun language' from our culture. Are cameras inherently 'bad' if they're used to make pornography?
Regards,
Mark
eli griggs
Well-known
If I were to say something about this (gun) topic to those who would end gun ownership, it might go something like this:
If saving lives is really important to you, then start with the doctors and hospitals. According to an article that compared accidental deaths (about 1500) from legally owned firearms and accidental deaths from doctors, doctors are about 7000 to 9000 times more likely to kill that legally owned firearms. The numbers used are from the F.B.I. and the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services.
Additionally, other public information seems to support the ongoing epidemic of medical misadventures.
Taken, in part, from a posting on student doctor network forums, discussing these studies.
"The JOURNAL of the AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (JAMA) Vol 284, No 4, July 26th 2000 article written by Dr Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH, of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, shows that medical errors may be the third leading cause of death in the United States.
The report apparently shows there are 2,000 deaths/year from unnecessary surgery; 7000 deaths/year from medication errors in hospitals; 20,000 deaths/year from other errors in hospitals; 80,000 deaths/year from infections in hospitals; 106,000 deaths/year from non-error, adverse effects of medications - these total up to 225,000 deaths per year in the US from iatrogenic causes which ranks these deaths as the # 3 killer. Iatrogenic is a term used when a patient dies as a direct result of treatments by a physician, whether it is from misdiagnosis of the ailment or from adverse drug reactions used to treat the illness. (drug reactions are the most common cause)."
I would also point out that even if the deaths from doctors/hospitials were 1/10 of those claimed in the JAMA article, that's still a much greater figure than those from gun accidents and, IMO, represent a true tragedy of epic proportions.
Of course, if your true agenda is the end of legal ownership of firearms, then those tens of thousands of deaths caused by the medical profession should be ignored and dismissed as unimportant and you should carry own with your Stalinistic campaign to infringe upon the rights of law biding citizens/neighbors and strangle an American Freedom.
Perhaps the next thing they'll try to kill is who, what, when, where and how we photograph in public, after all, when you start micro-managing the lives of others it's kind of hard to stop.
Cheers
If saving lives is really important to you, then start with the doctors and hospitals. According to an article that compared accidental deaths (about 1500) from legally owned firearms and accidental deaths from doctors, doctors are about 7000 to 9000 times more likely to kill that legally owned firearms. The numbers used are from the F.B.I. and the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services.
Additionally, other public information seems to support the ongoing epidemic of medical misadventures.
Taken, in part, from a posting on student doctor network forums, discussing these studies.
"The JOURNAL of the AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (JAMA) Vol 284, No 4, July 26th 2000 article written by Dr Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH, of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, shows that medical errors may be the third leading cause of death in the United States.
The report apparently shows there are 2,000 deaths/year from unnecessary surgery; 7000 deaths/year from medication errors in hospitals; 20,000 deaths/year from other errors in hospitals; 80,000 deaths/year from infections in hospitals; 106,000 deaths/year from non-error, adverse effects of medications - these total up to 225,000 deaths per year in the US from iatrogenic causes which ranks these deaths as the # 3 killer. Iatrogenic is a term used when a patient dies as a direct result of treatments by a physician, whether it is from misdiagnosis of the ailment or from adverse drug reactions used to treat the illness. (drug reactions are the most common cause)."
I would also point out that even if the deaths from doctors/hospitials were 1/10 of those claimed in the JAMA article, that's still a much greater figure than those from gun accidents and, IMO, represent a true tragedy of epic proportions.
Of course, if your true agenda is the end of legal ownership of firearms, then those tens of thousands of deaths caused by the medical profession should be ignored and dismissed as unimportant and you should carry own with your Stalinistic campaign to infringe upon the rights of law biding citizens/neighbors and strangle an American Freedom.
Perhaps the next thing they'll try to kill is who, what, when, where and how we photograph in public, after all, when you start micro-managing the lives of others it's kind of hard to stop.
Cheers
CraigK
Established
climbing_vine said:
Sigh...I really don't want to go there but...
Do you really think that Canada's gun death rate has anything whatsoever to do with the gun registry program and the billions spent on it? Do you honestly believe that the only thing stopping Canadians from slaying one another with cheap handguns is our registry?
Do you think if you threw a zillion gajillion dollars into a similar program in the US, it would change the gun death rate in there? I don't. I believe that the program would end up exactly the same as ours...bloated, ineffectual, half-assed and a complete waste of money.
Me thinks that kind of money would get better results if it were spent on programs designed to reduce violence at the human level..not at the hardware level.
climbing_vine
Well-known
CraigK said:
I bet you're right, and that's why we would all be better served if we can the butter knife rhetoric and talk about how we can address the problem effectively, since we all know it exists.
BrianShaw
Well-known
dazedgonebye said:
Was Shakespeare's Leica black, or chrome. And, would he mix black and chrome components or keep them separate? Also, which one took better pictures?
DougK
This space left blank
That is the question. Which would be nobler in the mind's eye?BrianShaw said:
eli griggs
Well-known
Jenni, your right, but it is because I believe murder is murder and not having a firearm is no impediment. The great majority of owners of firearms do obey the laws. You are pointing out the criminal element in the third most populated country in the world, so naturally the volume of crime will be great.
Home-made bombs, arson, knives, bats, cars and poison are all good alternative methods to taking lives and I doubt that the lack of firearms would stop anyone who has malice in their heart, or profit as a motive from making an end to another. On the other hand, I do know that an armed, responsible citizenship, in this case concealed carry permit holders, have so far, had a very positive impact on crime in those states that trust their residents to bear arms. Crimes have been reduced in those areas because criminals know there is a chance they may select an armed 'victim' and pay a heavy toll for their trespass.
By-the-by, an article not long ago noted that an U.K. group of doctors were lobbying to ban pointed kitchen knives ( and perhaps other types) as they were seeing a goodly number of stabbing coming into the E.R.s. Is it the cutlery, the cutlery makers or the people wielding the knives at fault? Should everyone loose their chefs and paring knives because of a relatively few bad actors and the doctors who see the damage done?
It's funny, but not four weeks ago, my neighbor appeared at my door, in the cold, about 1:00 am in her nightgown, clutching her infant in terror, with her 5-6 year old clinging to her gown. Her husband was away, and she heard glass breaking in her house and believed her home was being invaded. She ran to my place because she knew she would find people who would be willing and able to, if push came to shove, protect her family. This, by-the-way was not the first time a neighbor has sought and found such assistance from my family and I.
I will also note that last year, three houses up and 'cross the street, a gang of men invaded a home, an old gang house, and beat, robbed and raped a woman and her family/friends. I do not know if that family was armed or not, and I won't pretended to know the potential outcome of any resistance that they might have offered, if the opportunity presented itself. I do know that an unarmed, unprepared victim has virtually no chance to resist at all.
I ask you, if your family or friends were threatened with robbery, beatings and rape, would you submit or resist? If resistance is your answer, would you want that resistance to have a chance at being effective?
I know there are people who like to think that the police will stop the criminals, but most of the time all they can do is make a record of the crime and work from there to track down the bad guys as best they are able. You should also remember when you you call on police to assist you, (at least in most countries) you are calling for guns for protection. Whether or not they arrive in time is a whole 'nother story.
Back to the topic of gun terminology in photography, is it just me or do others find instructors who impose these petty restrictions on the speech of their students to be somewhat unethical? It's one thing be able to correctly define F-stop and EV. Changing the way students use words to discuss their photography, in this pc way, seems to me to be beyond the pale.
Cheers
but it is because I believe murder is murder and not having a firearm is no impediment. The great majority of owners of firearms do obey the laws. You are pointing out the criminal element in the third most populated country in the world, so naturally the volume of crime will be great.Home-made bombs, arson, knives, bats, cars and poison are all good alternative methods to taking lives and I doubt that the lack of firearms would stop anyone who has malice in their heart, or profit as a motive from making an end to another. On the other hand, I do know that an armed, responsible citizenship, in this case concealed carry permit holders, have so far, had a very positive impact on crime in those states that trust their residents to bear arms. Crimes have been reduced in those areas because criminals know there is a chance they may select an armed 'victim' and pay a heavy toll for their trespass.
By-the-by, an article not long ago noted that an U.K. group of doctors were lobbying to ban pointed kitchen knives ( and perhaps other types) as they were seeing a goodly number of stabbing coming into the E.R.s. Is it the cutlery, the cutlery makers or the people wielding the knives at fault? Should everyone loose their chefs and paring knives because of a relatively few bad actors and the doctors who see the damage done?
It's funny, but not four weeks ago, my neighbor appeared at my door, in the cold, about 1:00 am in her nightgown, clutching her infant in terror, with her 5-6 year old clinging to her gown. Her husband was away, and she heard glass breaking in her house and believed her home was being invaded. She ran to my place because she knew she would find people who would be willing and able to, if push came to shove, protect her family. This, by-the-way was not the first time a neighbor has sought and found such assistance from my family and I.
I will also note that last year, three houses up and 'cross the street, a gang of men invaded a home, an old gang house, and beat, robbed and raped a woman and her family/friends. I do not know if that family was armed or not, and I won't pretended to know the potential outcome of any resistance that they might have offered, if the opportunity presented itself. I do know that an unarmed, unprepared victim has virtually no chance to resist at all.
I ask you, if your family or friends were threatened with robbery, beatings and rape, would you submit or resist? If resistance is your answer, would you want that resistance to have a chance at being effective?
I know there are people who like to think that the police will stop the criminals, but most of the time all they can do is make a record of the crime and work from there to track down the bad guys as best they are able. You should also remember when you you call on police to assist you, (at least in most countries) you are calling for guns for protection. Whether or not they arrive in time is a whole 'nother story.
Back to the topic of gun terminology in photography, is it just me or do others find instructors who impose these petty restrictions on the speech of their students to be somewhat unethical? It's one thing be able to correctly define F-stop and EV. Changing the way students use words to discuss their photography, in this pc way, seems to me to be beyond the pale.
Cheers
BrianShaw
Well-known
I'm with you 100%eli griggs said:
Maybe there's a reason why some of these people are teaching rather than "doing". Haven't you heard the expresson "Those that can shoot, shoot; Those that can't, teach".
No offense intended to any of the fine RFF members who are teachers. I'm sure there are some good ones. I had one too many professors who seemed to prefer using the podium as their pulpit for extremist viewpoints rather than teaching the subject of the class. I've been out of the university a long, long time now but it still rubs me the wrong way.
anselwannab
Well-known
I'm in sales and I dream of being a teacher.
People not only forced to listen to you, but they pay you for the opportunity.
Mark
People not only forced to listen to you, but they pay you for the opportunity.
Mark
John Camp
Well-known
Concern about gun deaths (and certain kinds of other deaths, as with abortions) really IMHO derives from particular kinds of political thinking, both left and right. On a neutral subject, such as auto deaths, you don't really hear that much debate. Yet 1.2 million people a year world-wie are killed in auto deaths and 30 times that number injured, according to Wiki, and for the last year that totals are known, 43,000 people in the US were killed. Even if we concede that cars are necessary evils, a good bit of this carnage could eliminated simply by cutting the speed limits and then enforcing them. Not only that, but doing so would cut pollution, oil use, etc. Will we do it? Probably not -- people would rather drive 65 than 50, even if speed is the most common caase of highway death. Which is something of an index of how much people really care about death in the abstract; you hear more about gun deaths, or abortion deaths, because of the political standards that people adopt concerning them...even though the number of deaths is small compared to deaths caused by more "neutal" activities.
JC
JC
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Hey John, I'd be for a ban on automobiles long before a ban on guns..
All automobile owers are murderring terrorists...
All automobile owers are murderring terrorists...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.