Eliminating Gun Terminlogy From Photography
- Thread starter AusDLK
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 231
- Views 17K
- Status
Paul T.
Veteran
BrianShaw said:
I have no problem with people using the word 'shoot' in photography. I have no problem with people expressing their enthusiasm for firearms, although it's not an enthusiasm I share.
What I think's intruguiing is that a teacher should posit what is a vaild philisophical issue, and that he's seen as such a threat! I mean, are college teachers really threatening our liberty?
Who's more powerful in the US, teachers, or the arms industry? Certainly in the UK whoever's in charge loves to go and confront the teachers' organisations. But threaten the few thousand over-subsidised jobs that rely on armaments, or address corruption in the arms industry, which is endemic, and you'll have a real crisis on your hands.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
NB23 said:
Over here? Where? I won't even begin to comment on this post. People should learn to be sensitive and respectful of other people, period.
eli griggs
Well-known
Jenni, if I include the 1500 accidental to the 20,000 firearm murders, I still come up with a figure 10% less than those 225,000 cause by medical negligence, of all types. I seriously dispute that justifying those deaths as inevitable and therefore excusable because the patient might have died anyway is much of an excuse or meaningless to the families of the newly dead. My step-father passed this last year because the nurses and doctor responsible for the well-being in the home he was in, neglected to treat an ulcer on his leg, caused by the staffs' failure to properly care for him and taking the time to help him exercise by walking and spend time away from his bed. Left to rot by the 'professionals', in the absence of my mother, herself ill at home that week, he rotted . The fact that he was old and was nearing the end of his life should not be used as an excuse for his death. He passed because of neglect and blood poisoning from a minor wound, not because he was aged. Incredibly, the doctor tried to block his transfer to the Wound Clinic at the nearby hospital in those last critical hours, claiming there was no real need to do so.
As far as iatrogenic death is concerned, please keep in mind that mis-medication and incorrect medical treatment of critical patients is still negligence and almost a certainty that the patient will not survive. What is meaningless is the assumption that all those people were doomed regardless of the quality of medical attention given.
I must take a moment to wonder, which is the greater injustice, the misanthropes, gang-bangers and drug dealers shooting up each other the streets, or the extensively trained and supported physicians who repeatedly commit such errors and are still allowed to practice with the blessings of their peers.
As far as the 'ape like' you'll find no denial from me that they are a problem that needs to be sorted out. However, to point to them as sufficient reason to deny law-biding people their rights, and I seriously mean Rights, in my opinion and in American High Law, to own firearms, is the worst sort of knee-jerk reaction and not likely to be tolerated by a public that occasionally remembers that government is there to serve them, not they to serve government. Not too long ago Americans across the nation let politicians who tried to saddle us with more of their anti-gun laws know by way of the poll, that they were fed up with their monkey-shines and kicked-out/denied many of them public office.
Those people in nations in which are in turmoil will continue to suffer and die. You are right when you say that "The slaughter around the world is distressing", however banning guns will only ensure the weak and poor struggling for a better life will be disarmed and those who prey upon them will do so forever, unopposed and able to circumvent international decrees that they divest themselves of firearms. A firearm such as the AK47 is a simple thing to make and even if you could cut off a nations source of weapons, you can be assured that that nation will manufacture their own. Politicians who claim they can rid the world of such things should be viewed as possessing a dangerously naive sense of the world, at best, or more likely, pandering to honest people who want an end to the mayhem and are taught to believe that this one solution will cure the worlds ills..
Here is a link to an article about U.K. Doctors against pointed knives.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
I'm sure you could find other reports about this effort.
As far as intruders coming armed, that is already de rigor so having the ability to put up a fight on your own turf is much preferred to simply letting then have their way. Yes the is a good chance you might not gain an advantage, but at least the odds are not so one-sided.
Less than lethal results are always preferred, but the reality is that many people have been seriously wounded and killed thinking they have dealt with an intruder threat and lessened their guard. Being killed by a wounded assailant or is no better option than being killed by one who is unopposed. It is also good to remember that most people are not blessed with ESP and therefore can not tell when an attacker is only going to rob or beat them a little, as opposed to rape or kill. Taking a strong, no compromise position and dealing with threats from strength is in your best interest and the benefit of your family.
It wold be great to live in an America which was free of violent crime, but that's not happening anytime soon, firearms or not.
Cheers
As far as iatrogenic death is concerned, please keep in mind that mis-medication and incorrect medical treatment of critical patients is still negligence and almost a certainty that the patient will not survive. What is meaningless is the assumption that all those people were doomed regardless of the quality of medical attention given.
I must take a moment to wonder, which is the greater injustice, the misanthropes, gang-bangers and drug dealers shooting up each other the streets, or the extensively trained and supported physicians who repeatedly commit such errors and are still allowed to practice with the blessings of their peers.
As far as the 'ape like' you'll find no denial from me that they are a problem that needs to be sorted out. However, to point to them as sufficient reason to deny law-biding people their rights, and I seriously mean Rights, in my opinion and in American High Law, to own firearms, is the worst sort of knee-jerk reaction and not likely to be tolerated by a public that occasionally remembers that government is there to serve them, not they to serve government. Not too long ago Americans across the nation let politicians who tried to saddle us with more of their anti-gun laws know by way of the poll, that they were fed up with their monkey-shines and kicked-out/denied many of them public office.
Those people in nations in which are in turmoil will continue to suffer and die. You are right when you say that "The slaughter around the world is distressing", however banning guns will only ensure the weak and poor struggling for a better life will be disarmed and those who prey upon them will do so forever, unopposed and able to circumvent international decrees that they divest themselves of firearms. A firearm such as the AK47 is a simple thing to make and even if you could cut off a nations source of weapons, you can be assured that that nation will manufacture their own. Politicians who claim they can rid the world of such things should be viewed as possessing a dangerously naive sense of the world, at best, or more likely, pandering to honest people who want an end to the mayhem and are taught to believe that this one solution will cure the worlds ills..
Here is a link to an article about U.K. Doctors against pointed knives.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
I'm sure you could find other reports about this effort.
As far as intruders coming armed, that is already de rigor so having the ability to put up a fight on your own turf is much preferred to simply letting then have their way. Yes the is a good chance you might not gain an advantage, but at least the odds are not so one-sided.
Less than lethal results are always preferred, but the reality is that many people have been seriously wounded and killed thinking they have dealt with an intruder threat and lessened their guard. Being killed by a wounded assailant or is no better option than being killed by one who is unopposed. It is also good to remember that most people are not blessed with ESP and therefore can not tell when an attacker is only going to rob or beat them a little, as opposed to rape or kill. Taking a strong, no compromise position and dealing with threats from strength is in your best interest and the benefit of your family.
It wold be great to live in an America which was free of violent crime, but that's not happening anytime soon, firearms or not.
Cheers
Last edited:
BrianShaw
Well-known
Paul T. said:
Of course not, but are you suggesting that this topic is a valid philosophical issue for discussion in a photo class... or a photography forum? 🙄
eli griggs
Well-known
Originally Posted by Paul T.
"What I think's intruguiing is that a teacher should posit what is a vaild philisophical issue, and that he's seen as such a threat! I mean, are college teachers really threatening our liberty?"
If the teacher is expressing that viewpoint along with other viewpoints he is teaching or allowing others to make their viewpoints known in discussion, then he is teaching.
If however he is insisting that students espouse his viewpoint, regardless of what they may think, than he is a petty dictator, and his pc lexicon becomes 'power words', design to control.
Take that teacher and allow him to get away with that kind of behavior in what is suppose to be an welcoming and open academic setting for students and yes, you are going to suppress someone's liberty. Just because others do not feel the loss, does not mean that nothing has been lost.
Cheers
"What I think's intruguiing is that a teacher should posit what is a vaild philisophical issue, and that he's seen as such a threat! I mean, are college teachers really threatening our liberty?"
If the teacher is expressing that viewpoint along with other viewpoints he is teaching or allowing others to make their viewpoints known in discussion, then he is teaching.
If however he is insisting that students espouse his viewpoint, regardless of what they may think, than he is a petty dictator, and his pc lexicon becomes 'power words', design to control.
Take that teacher and allow him to get away with that kind of behavior in what is suppose to be an welcoming and open academic setting for students and yes, you are going to suppress someone's liberty. Just because others do not feel the loss, does not mean that nothing has been lost.
Cheers
remrf
AZRF
I was a photographer in Viet Nam and carried a weapon and a camera and used whichever was appropriate for the circumstance. When I left the military I had no desire to own a gun and did not for the next 20 years of my life mistakenly buying into the belief that if you own a gun you draw to you situations which require them. This was complete BULL****!
In February of 92' a man crashed his car into my yard narrowly missing killing me and then took two shots ( from a GUN) at me when I went to try and assist him. As he staggered out of his truck (he was very drunk) I took the opportunity to get my wife and son out the back door of our house and away from the danger in the front. I did not know at the time what the circumstances were and as I was attempting to keep my family safe from obvious danger I vowed to myself to NEVER EVER allow myself to be in this type of situation again....unarmed.
Since that time I have aquired a number of weapons and have educated myself in their use. Arizona is what is known as an "open carry state" which means that any adult who is not a convicted felon can openly carry ANY legal firearm (including a machine gun providing you have paid the tax on it) anywhere with few restrictions. I was once asked when I did carry a weapon with me if I was expecting trouble? "No" I said. "Not even a little bit".
In every state in the US where concealed carry is permitted there is a definite decline in the number of violent crimes after the law went into effect.
The above is stated to counter the absurd notion that fewer guns would mean less crime.
And as to the original premise of this thread opined by the "teacher'....
I'm with the,"what a twit!" group.
The lead character in the novel "1984" Winston Smith worked in the office that scoured the dictionary for words that the leaders thought dangerous. They erased them from the dictionary in the belief that if one does not have a word for an action then one cannot think about performing said action.
Remember this the next time the pc crowd gets up in arms (so to speak) about a word or phrase.
In February of 92' a man crashed his car into my yard narrowly missing killing me and then took two shots ( from a GUN) at me when I went to try and assist him. As he staggered out of his truck (he was very drunk) I took the opportunity to get my wife and son out the back door of our house and away from the danger in the front. I did not know at the time what the circumstances were and as I was attempting to keep my family safe from obvious danger I vowed to myself to NEVER EVER allow myself to be in this type of situation again....unarmed.
Since that time I have aquired a number of weapons and have educated myself in their use. Arizona is what is known as an "open carry state" which means that any adult who is not a convicted felon can openly carry ANY legal firearm (including a machine gun providing you have paid the tax on it) anywhere with few restrictions. I was once asked when I did carry a weapon with me if I was expecting trouble? "No" I said. "Not even a little bit".
In every state in the US where concealed carry is permitted there is a definite decline in the number of violent crimes after the law went into effect.
The above is stated to counter the absurd notion that fewer guns would mean less crime.
And as to the original premise of this thread opined by the "teacher'....
I'm with the,"what a twit!" group.
The lead character in the novel "1984" Winston Smith worked in the office that scoured the dictionary for words that the leaders thought dangerous. They erased them from the dictionary in the belief that if one does not have a word for an action then one cannot think about performing said action.
Remember this the next time the pc crowd gets up in arms (so to speak) about a word or phrase.
anselwannab
Well-known
John Camp said:
Actually, speed doesn't cause accidents, it just makes the pieces smaller. Drinking is one of the major causes, and they always seem to take a few people with them. The Highways in America, are from the numbers I've seen, the safest way to drive per mile.
It isn't so much speed that kills, it is the stupidity that can go with it. Talking on a cell phone, shaving, reading the paper, eating lunch, fishing around in the back seat for who-knows-what are all things I have seen people do at 65mph plus. Like 90% of the population, I think I am an above average driver. What scares me the most is that I know what people are going to do before they even do it (maybe honed from years of shooting pictures). I see what is ahead, know how it is going to effect me and affect those driving around me and change lanes or speed to compensate for others belated reactions.
We don't need slower speeds, we need faster thinking drivers.
remrf
AZRF
We don't need slower speeds, we need faster thinking drivers.[/QUOTE]
Or drivers that think at all. After using a motorcycle as my main work transportation for the last five years I am not at all sure that most drivers do much thinking at all about what they are doing. Everyday it is the same thing. People in a hurry on crowded freeways. They did not plan their morning well so they MUST speed to make up time rather than leaving at a time which will allow a SAFE ride to their destination. They ride the bumper of my car or bike trying to pass so they can ride the bumper of the car in front of me. The roads are always crowded enough so that they are gainng little or nothing by this. I maintain a safe space between myself and the car in front which these idiots believe is there so they can cut in front of me and half the safety space I have alloted. At around 5:00 pm at most of the busy intersections in Tucson you can watch 3 or 4 cars rush through the intersection AFTER the light has turned red. And I've noticed that they don't do any of the above when a cop is around so I know that it's not that they don't know what they are doing is wrong. They just believe they can get away with it. Until they hit and kill someone.
Or drivers that think at all. After using a motorcycle as my main work transportation for the last five years I am not at all sure that most drivers do much thinking at all about what they are doing. Everyday it is the same thing. People in a hurry on crowded freeways. They did not plan their morning well so they MUST speed to make up time rather than leaving at a time which will allow a SAFE ride to their destination. They ride the bumper of my car or bike trying to pass so they can ride the bumper of the car in front of me. The roads are always crowded enough so that they are gainng little or nothing by this. I maintain a safe space between myself and the car in front which these idiots believe is there so they can cut in front of me and half the safety space I have alloted. At around 5:00 pm at most of the busy intersections in Tucson you can watch 3 or 4 cars rush through the intersection AFTER the light has turned red. And I've noticed that they don't do any of the above when a cop is around so I know that it's not that they don't know what they are doing is wrong. They just believe they can get away with it. Until they hit and kill someone.
Sparrow
Veteran
remrf said:
Sorry I have to ask, how would a gunfight with a drunk in your front garden have improved the outcome?
gareth
Established
Exactly. It's makes no sense.
I don't have a problem with guns, but I do have a problem with hand guns. The hand gun serves two purposes. As you point out it can be concealed. This is the first problem with it. The second is that the hand gun has only one use, and that is to kill other people. So as such, while the hand gun does not decide to kill another human being, it's sole purpose is to do just that. Thankfully hang guns are outlawed in Scotland.
Also if you keep a hand gun in your house, there is every risk that anybody breaking into your house will use that gun against you. Bare in mind that owning a gun will probably greatly increase your chances of being shot.
Nor will crime be solved by arming everybody to the teeth, and asking them to watch their backs at all times. That's a society ruled by collective fear.
The question is, why does the USA have such massive gun crime? And no it's not simply a case of their are loads of guns out there, that's part of it sure, but there are cultural reasons why Americans are killing each other. Address those and you may be able to tackle gun crime.
Auto-deaths. Again not a valid comparison. Generally people don't set out in their cars to kill somebody. When you point a gun at somebody and pull the trigger, it's not an accident. That's not to say that we don't have massive world wide problems with personal transport, but it's a separate issue from guns.
Yes yes yes. And western countries will continue to dispute their political and democratic systems, screw their economies and pump them full of cheap arms, it's called looking after American/UK/French etc etc (stick in your western country of choice) interests.
That's interesting. Drunk people with guns. Hmmm Now the hand gun will never become legal in Scotland, I'm sure of that. And thank god. While perhaps USA's big cultural problem is gun crime, Scotland's perhaps is alcohol. We tend to drink to much, and sometimes when we drink to much people hit each other and stuff. Mix in some guns, and where do you end up?
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
back alley
IMAGES
maybe tomorrow, someone can start a thread about religion...
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
joe, isn't this thread about religion?
Sure as shootin' the original point has long disappeared.
Rob
Sure as shootin' the original point has long disappeared.
Rob
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
thawkins
Well-known
I agree with John K. I am also a gun owner, shooter and hunter. In fact a piece of my hunting gear is one of several RF cameras I use. Do I equate shooting picures with shooting a ducks, deer or quail? Of couse not. Based on this latest and absurd PC we need to get rid of the word shoot and all it's dirivitaves. A running back can no longer "shoot" through the line. A billiards expert can no longer "shoot" pool and basketballers can no longer "shoot" hoops. I think some people strive for the ridiculous!!!
BrianShaw
Well-known
thawkins said:
And all this time, I thought one "fired/discharged" a "rifle/pistol/cannon" not 'shot' a 'gun'.
Last edited:
climbing_vine
Well-known
anselwannab said:
Not really true. The large majority of studies consistently show that small decreases in speed greatly reduce accidents. This is particularly true of urban and suburban roads, somewhat less (but still a valid correlation) in the exurbs and rural areas. The latter is likely due to people being much less likely to follow posted speed limits in those areas.
It's pretty simple. Most accidents are caused not by someone going off the rails and smashing a bunch of people in oncoming traffic, but by situations where having an extra quarter second to react can avert the impact--such as people trying to follow others through a red light after its changed, or someone making a right turn on red when the lane is not clear.
- Status