Photographers and Marksmen

Photographers and Marksmen

  • Yes

    Votes: 181 51.1%

  • No

    Votes: 173 48.9%
  • Total voters
    354
  • Poll closed .
stricter laws against guns mean the government and criminals have all or most of the guns. that is not a situation in which i'd want to live. look at washington, d.c., with the strictest gun laws in the usa. rate of murder by gun is tops in the nation.
 
paulfish4570 said:
stricter laws against guns mean the government and criminals have all or most of the guns. that is not a situation in which i'd want to live. look at washington, d.c., with the strictest gun laws in the usa. rate of murder by gun is tops in the nation.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%

Joe
 
Joe AC said:
I agree 100%

Joe
Click to expand...

I agree as well. Without divulging too much personal information I see criminals on a day-to-day basis. They will be armed regardless of the law. Only way to protect yourself and your family is to be equally, if not more, prepared. Some may not understand this, but some have not lived in areas to see the actual issue.
 
Well,well,well, no surprises with this poll.
I actually used to be an ISSF shooter.50 free pistol and 25 mtr.Thats right only one hand..REAL shooting.
Problem was i found myself surrounded by absolute tools at the club. You know the real gung ho i gotta big gun types.Can`t stand these people so they kinda ruined the sport for me. Guys with 25 round mags shooting a barrel 10 feet away..tossers.
 
Jobin said:
I agree as well. Without divulging too much personal information I see criminals on a day-to-day basis. They will be armed regardless of the law. Only way to protect yourself and your family is to be equally, if not more, prepared. Some may not understand this, but some have not lived in areas to see the actual issue.
Click to expand...

Actually the best protection is to remove incentive. Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence and look at gun violence in relation to the countries and notice the countries that are the least stable have the most gun violence. The countries with better care of people down on their luck have less, than say the U.S.

That being said I still think it is wise to own, and that it be known that people do own firearms. I do believe the government and criminals being the only armed people is a very bad situation. However I have to be realistic, if people have opportunity in their life that doesn't threaten their freedom, over 99% of them will take it. Rare excepts exist but we can't write the rule book on them since they never follow it to begin with.
 
Sorry, not to be rude, but I don't refer to anything "wiki". As far as your second paragraph, I am not quite sure what you're saying.

Iv been shooting a lot of rimfire since the price of centerfire has increased and I have no time for self loading.

Field said:
Actually the best protection is to remove incentive. Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence and look at gun violence in relation to the countries and notice the countries that are the least stable have the most gun violence. The countries with better care of people down on their luck have less, than say the U.S.

That being said I still think it is wise to own, and that it be known that people do own firearms. I do believe the government and criminals being the only armed people is a very bad situation. However I have to be realistic, if people have opportunity in their life that doesn't threaten their freedom, over 99% of them will take it. Rare excepts exist but we can't write the rule book on them since they never follow it to begin with.
Click to expand...
 
TPPhotog said:
There are always exceptions but here in the UK before the effective ban, the firearms laws were always very strict. Anyone applying for a Section 1 license which was any firearm other than a shotgun or air weapon under a certain power had to be a club member and be positively vetted by the Police to get a license.

In order to stay in the County Squad and the Police Team I would be either practicing or taking part in competitions 4 or 5 days a week, very much like any other sport at a higher level.

Since the ban on firearms in the UK, the incidence of gun related crime has increased dramatically. So now the villains have firearms and the peace loving sportsmen do not.

As Roger said it was "anti-gun hysteria" 🙁
Click to expand...
I like to use Britain as an example. In the US, states with stricter laws blame gun violence on neighboring states supposedly supplying guns.

So Britain, with extremely strict gun laws since WWI, and a total ban since about 1980 or so, is an island and still can't control gun violence.

My point is, guns don't kill, people do. Guns will never be eliminated from the world, neither will evil people. If all the guns in the world disappeared tomorrow evil people would still kill. The US has an estimated 40 million privately owned guns. I'm more afraid of the people on the highway. Most evil people are cowards deep down. They do not attack big, young strong men. They pick on elderly people and women. I know some people believe in submitting to evil but some of us do not.

I like to collect, I love reloading, and I shoot targets (when I can hit them).
 
The world is a funny place, when I was shooting firearms I understood SLR meant self loading rifle. I take up photography and find it is a type of camera. Oddly enough both are considered evil in some circles. Ya just can't win.

Bob
 
Jobin said:
Sorry, not to be rude, but I don't refer to anything "wiki". As far as your second paragraph, I am not quite sure what you're saying.

Iv been shooting a lot of rimfire since the price of centerfire has increased and I have no time for self loading.
Click to expand...

What I am saying is you can fundamentally argue that having a firearm means you are better protected and there for less likely to experience gun violence. However you are making an ethical point, not a quantifiable one.

My point is the best protection that can possibly be offered to lower gun violence is to reduce incentive. There is a direct empirical relation, a fact, that overall (not anecdotal) regardless of gun law and ownership, gun violence is decreased as stability and prosperity of living is increased.

Speaking from a psychological point, the more dire someone is the more they are willing to risk actual confrontation with firearm wielding individuals. The incentive to surpass the decision, to take the risk, is a reality that has been proven many, many times. Put it to you this way, you can't own enough firearms to prevent the ultimate decision of someone willing to confront you. There isn't enough guns in the world to prevent someone that is headed towards death or living for nothing from risking themselves, and putting you or your family at risk. The one thing we can understand is that actions taken or not taken are based on incentive from their point of view of how badly they need whatever it happens to be they want, not how many firearms you posses; your possession only tips the scale a certain amount. If they don't want what you have, then it doesn't matter if you try to give them what they could of otherwise been willing to engage in a mortal situation over, they don't want it.

Please don't confuse this with the idea of me saying you shouldn't own firearms since I have stated I prefer all regular non-authority citizens own them. But what I am saying is, it isn't the best way to combat potential harm; it isn't a good argument on a macro level. It only works when you are in that situation and the odds of that situation increasing or decreasing are basically entirely independent.
 
And, sir, who reduces the incentive?? Under what conditions? Over what time line?? In the moment when I'm in a bank undergoing a hard take down, what do I do?? "Excuse me, kind sir, please refrain from engaging in this armed robbery; other, more positive incentives will surely come your way, a hey, hey." What Ivory Tower of academia do you live in?? Get on the streets, sir. Perhaps you could have a T-shirt that says: "Incentives will shortly arrive!! You need not attack me."
 
Yeah, theoretically, it's taking away the incentive to commit crime by educating/feeding/clothing/sheltering the populace but that's just academic. If it were practicable then the person to put it into being would win the Nobel prize and be crowned ruler of something. We all know that if you provide for the comfortable living and education of a family then there is far less incentive for anyone in that family to commit crime but we can't do that. Not in this country at least. And in the nations that attempt it, capitalism is strong but in the black market so crime still exists.

There has always been and will always be envy of another being's possessions. It's not a human trait, it's an animal one. So as long as people want to take what is ours, we should be willing, ready and able to defend it. Otherwise, placate the envy of others by giving away the stuff that other people want. It's all academic still. If you're not willing to defend it, you don't really want it.

Phil Forrest
 
By saying we can't change anything is making it true. It is that ideology that keeps us in some archaic-never-gone-anywhere state despite being "civilized" for supposedly centuries. I didn't think the relationship between bickering over gun ownership which has no statistical rating high enough to matter, and working towards things that statistical do matter, was all that difficult to see. That makes gun ownership to me is a non-issue, allow people to have them, and it is that simple, since it doesn't matter in a functioning state. Fundamentally in a broken state, you want to have them since it is one of the few playing cards you could have (like having a nuclear weapon if you want to be taken seriously at international talks for countries).

"In a bank during a hard take down" get real, almost no one ever has been in a bank robbery. (Who uses words like "hard take down"? Do you have to watch safety videos at work for this or something?) They have happened, but to an insignificant amount of the population. Further more they are FDIC insured so just let them take the money that is not worth a human life. The police will engage them anyhow.

Phil I don't think academic is the word you want to be using. I get what you are saying but it just doesn't appear to be true. You are using ultimatums that represent an insignificant amount of function within most societies. If it was all "academic" then all the major countries with higher standards of living would be in truth total war zones. Your ultimatums are simply anecdotal. It isn't that they aren't true, it is just that they are only true for enough people that it doesn't matter. Think about the amount of people not committing any kind of crime, and then think how many people are not committing violent crimes, in the major countries. It is actually truly astounding if we are all just animals willing to take from each other given that most people don't carry firearms. Society functions at large and is proof that anecdotes like you are wanting to state, are not the reality that we know.

I'm not disagreeing that we should be able to defend ourselves, in fact I wish pistols, open carry, and concealed carry at large was much more accepted. It is just that we spend our time bickering about that when the truth is every known bit of information we have doesn't amount to any kind of quantifiable reasoning for that to be a debate for gun violence. Our energy should be somewhere else. Our investments in our communities means a lot more.
 
Yes, they are anecdotal but I live in one of the cities with the highest rates if not the highest rate of violent crime in the nation. We go around in circles with DC, Detroit and New Orleans when it comes to violent crime.
Anyway, what I was saying is that while we can move somehow towards the goal of removing incentive for committing criminal acts, we still should be able and willing to defend ourselves, families and property. Go one step further and I believe that every voting citizen should be willing to do the same for the fundamentals that the country was founded upon, but that's a different topic altogether.
We agree on the same things but our approaches are different. I use hyperbole far too much but only do so to demonstrate a point.
At the same time, I've been right in the very heart of a crumbling, society and I know just how bad people can get towards their fellow man when the consequences of crime are removed. Inject any sort of ideology and then it can be worse than anything Hollywood can dream up. There the weapons of choice were sometimes heavy framing hammers and very large knives.
I digress.
Yes, we should look towards the betterment of all civilization but unfortunately work in that direction is painfully slow, like the movement of tectonic plates.

Phil Forrest
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom