TPPhotog
Well-known
Walker I completely agree with you. I used to visit several clubs and I don't think I ever met a person in one of those clubs I didn't like. There were some that I disagreed with of course, but everyone was responsible and law-abiding.doubs43 said:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I'm right with BAPIEMAI on this one -- NO-ONE should be allowed to handle firearms without firearms training: Floridian geriatrics and Rambos of any age are unlikely to be able to defend themselves effectively without training, which almost no-one ever takes. Guns for self defence, for most people, are a worthless fantasy. Statistically, having a gun in the house makes it MUCH likelier you will be shot, at least in the USA.
This is because a staggering percentage of US gun-owners have absolutely no idea what they are doing with the guns they buy. More than once I have walked out of gun shops because I have been frightened by the cretins in them -- like the guy who walked into an Alabama gunshop I patronize; laid a pistol on the counter, barrel pointing at the shop assistant's gut; and said, "I had a hang fire and it's jammed. What should I do?" The man behind the counter hastily pointed it in a safe direction...
The phrase 'well regulated' in 'well regulated militia' is completely ignored by the NRA, and indeed the constitution is regularly flouted: if a militia is indeed the constitutional excuse for owning firearms, the one gun you cannot ban is the auto/semi auto switchable 'assault rifle'. Pistols, shotguns and everything else are arguably NOT covered by this amendment.
I am not anti-gun: I am pro-gun. I have experience of firearms ownership; I lived in California for 5 years; I own guns (which are stored in California); and my wife is a US citizen who has been shooting since she was big enough to hold a gun. But I do believe in gun control, and I am not very sure that I believe in guns for 'personal defense'.
I have never pointed a gun at anyone, because I was always told that you never point a gun at anyone unless you entertain the possibility of firing it. I have only looked down the muzzle of a gun that was pointed at me once: he was a Vietnam vet, at the time (this was many years ago) still in the Marines: I was 16 or 17 years old. The muzzle did, indeed, look like the mouth of the Blackwall Tunnel. I believe (with BAPIEMAI) that a frightening number of gun owners suffer from SWS (Small Willy Syndrome) but I am still enough of a libertarian to believe that this is not a convincing argument for banning guns completely.
Cheers,
Roger
This is because a staggering percentage of US gun-owners have absolutely no idea what they are doing with the guns they buy. More than once I have walked out of gun shops because I have been frightened by the cretins in them -- like the guy who walked into an Alabama gunshop I patronize; laid a pistol on the counter, barrel pointing at the shop assistant's gut; and said, "I had a hang fire and it's jammed. What should I do?" The man behind the counter hastily pointed it in a safe direction...
The phrase 'well regulated' in 'well regulated militia' is completely ignored by the NRA, and indeed the constitution is regularly flouted: if a militia is indeed the constitutional excuse for owning firearms, the one gun you cannot ban is the auto/semi auto switchable 'assault rifle'. Pistols, shotguns and everything else are arguably NOT covered by this amendment.
I am not anti-gun: I am pro-gun. I have experience of firearms ownership; I lived in California for 5 years; I own guns (which are stored in California); and my wife is a US citizen who has been shooting since she was big enough to hold a gun. But I do believe in gun control, and I am not very sure that I believe in guns for 'personal defense'.
I have never pointed a gun at anyone, because I was always told that you never point a gun at anyone unless you entertain the possibility of firing it. I have only looked down the muzzle of a gun that was pointed at me once: he was a Vietnam vet, at the time (this was many years ago) still in the Marines: I was 16 or 17 years old. The muzzle did, indeed, look like the mouth of the Blackwall Tunnel. I believe (with BAPIEMAI) that a frightening number of gun owners suffer from SWS (Small Willy Syndrome) but I am still enough of a libertarian to believe that this is not a convincing argument for banning guns completely.
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Well said Roger.
Bob
Bob
phototone
Well-known
I am not a gun owner, but my ex-brother in law was really into target shooting, and at one time I participated with him in shooting metal targets with one of his pistols, and turns out I was a really good shot. I think the training of holding a camera steady for a long exposure helped that out quite a bit. So the same skill sets may be applicable.
TPPhotog
Well-known
I 100% agreephototone said:
JimL
Member
Used to be a enthusiastic handgunner.
All handguns were outlawed in the UK a few years ago.
Bummer.
All handguns were outlawed in the UK a few years ago.
Bummer.
tenebrae
Leicaddict
A friend of mine once remarked that I, obviously, was "into" black artifacts. Bakelite telephones, vintage typewriters, camera's. And firearms. I no longer have the telephones and typewriters (lack of storage space), but I am both a photography and shooting enthusiast. Luckily, I have a wife who also enjoys both hobbies...
The cameras and guns we own are based on technology that has virtually remained unchanged for many decades. With a 40-year old camera or rifle, it is possible to still get better (or aesthetically more pleasing) results than with any "modern" (brand new) one. It all depends on the shooter. Quite unlike, say, computers, which are hopelessly outdated and useless within a few years, no matter how proficient the man or woman behind it.
As for shooting, we both very much enjoy Dynamic Service Rifle and static target shooting with military rifles. We own two SIG rifles (a 550 and a 510-4), and two Heckler & Koch rifles (a G3 and a HK51). One of these days, I will shoot some nice wide aperture "portraits" of them on 25 ASA B&W film...
The cameras and guns we own are based on technology that has virtually remained unchanged for many decades. With a 40-year old camera or rifle, it is possible to still get better (or aesthetically more pleasing) results than with any "modern" (brand new) one. It all depends on the shooter. Quite unlike, say, computers, which are hopelessly outdated and useless within a few years, no matter how proficient the man or woman behind it.
As for shooting, we both very much enjoy Dynamic Service Rifle and static target shooting with military rifles. We own two SIG rifles (a 550 and a 510-4), and two Heckler & Koch rifles (a G3 and a HK51). One of these days, I will shoot some nice wide aperture "portraits" of them on 25 ASA B&W film...
TPPhotog
Well-known
Yep one of the few things in the UK we can win Olympic medals at and they ban it. Still I suppose we have dominoes until they discover it can cause RSIJimL said:
p.ath.
Member
the differences may be cultural (im a brit living currently in germany), but i have to admit im having my problems with this discussion.
im an ex soldier and have handled firearms proffesionaly, but i fail to see why anybody would want to keep assault weapons at home.
anybody who eats meat really shouldnt have a problem with hunting for food and
ok, i can see the mechanical analogy, but i have to wonder at the motivation of somebody who needs to keep these things at home - particularly if theyre not used for gathering meat.
just my opinion, and i dont want to offend knowing how the passion for this subject sometimes flares on the other side of the pond, but isnt it obvious that if every person has a hand gun, the potential for shootings is somewhat higher than if theyre banned?
perhaps its just that those who have grown up in such a culture cant believe that there is any other way, and at this point the comments about limp wristed liberal politicians come in.
im not saying that in societies without ready access to guns that there is no gun crime, that would be inherrently silly, what i am saying is that it is possible to live and look after yourself in a gun free country.
im happy to shoot and be able to reproduce my victim from a negative
paul
im an ex soldier and have handled firearms proffesionaly, but i fail to see why anybody would want to keep assault weapons at home.
anybody who eats meat really shouldnt have a problem with hunting for food and
ok, i can see the mechanical analogy, but i have to wonder at the motivation of somebody who needs to keep these things at home - particularly if theyre not used for gathering meat.
just my opinion, and i dont want to offend knowing how the passion for this subject sometimes flares on the other side of the pond, but isnt it obvious that if every person has a hand gun, the potential for shootings is somewhat higher than if theyre banned?
perhaps its just that those who have grown up in such a culture cant believe that there is any other way, and at this point the comments about limp wristed liberal politicians come in.
im not saying that in societies without ready access to guns that there is no gun crime, that would be inherrently silly, what i am saying is that it is possible to live and look after yourself in a gun free country.
im happy to shoot and be able to reproduce my victim from a negative
paul
R
Roman
Guest
Paul,
I'm 100% with you on this - but I guess that's one of those cultural US vs. Europe things - here everybody owning a firearm is considered a wacko, if not a criminal, there it is quite normal (and the crime rates there - the US prove you right...). Better not even to touch that subject with a long stick...
Roman
I'm 100% with you on this - but I guess that's one of those cultural US vs. Europe things - here everybody owning a firearm is considered a wacko, if not a criminal, there it is quite normal (and the crime rates there - the US prove you right...). Better not even to touch that subject with a long stick...
Roman
d30gaijin
Noctilusting
Paul,
Define "assault weapon" for us.
Contrary to what some folks think, assault weapons are not readily available here in the USA. We are allowed to own the semi-auto version of the AK-47, M16, G3, etc. but not full the auto versions. And, contrary to what many may think, they function no differently than the old Remington Model 8 semi-auto hunting rifle that's been around since shortly after the turn of the last century. They look a little different but their function is the same, magazine fed and one shot with each pull of the trigger.
Some would classify the M14 and M16 semi-auto version as an assault weapon, but they are not. So what use would anyone have for either? Well they happen to be the two consistent winners in the very popular target rifle shooting sport here known as NRA High-Power Competition. In fact our USA National High-power Target Championships are just finishing up at Camp Perry Ohio. And if you were there, you'd see hundreds of them in use in three position paper target shooting, targets no different than those used in the UK Full-Bore matches.
Also, the states here in the USA with the highest crime rates are those with the strictest firearms laws, so Roman's analogy isn't quite correct. And I notice that violent and firearms crime in the UK and Australia have heavily increased since their (near outright) firearms bans have been in place in both countries.
I live in the state of Idaho, a state with very few firearms laws, and lots of firearm owners. We also have the right to carry firearms concealed (after applying for a permit), yet we have one of the lowest crime rates in the USA.
As has been said, "An armed society is a polite society."
My 2 cents worth from this side of the pond.
Regards,
Don
Define "assault weapon" for us.
Contrary to what some folks think, assault weapons are not readily available here in the USA. We are allowed to own the semi-auto version of the AK-47, M16, G3, etc. but not full the auto versions. And, contrary to what many may think, they function no differently than the old Remington Model 8 semi-auto hunting rifle that's been around since shortly after the turn of the last century. They look a little different but their function is the same, magazine fed and one shot with each pull of the trigger.
Some would classify the M14 and M16 semi-auto version as an assault weapon, but they are not. So what use would anyone have for either? Well they happen to be the two consistent winners in the very popular target rifle shooting sport here known as NRA High-Power Competition. In fact our USA National High-power Target Championships are just finishing up at Camp Perry Ohio. And if you were there, you'd see hundreds of them in use in three position paper target shooting, targets no different than those used in the UK Full-Bore matches.
Also, the states here in the USA with the highest crime rates are those with the strictest firearms laws, so Roman's analogy isn't quite correct. And I notice that violent and firearms crime in the UK and Australia have heavily increased since their (near outright) firearms bans have been in place in both countries.
I live in the state of Idaho, a state with very few firearms laws, and lots of firearm owners. We also have the right to carry firearms concealed (after applying for a permit), yet we have one of the lowest crime rates in the USA.
As has been said, "An armed society is a polite society."
My 2 cents worth from this side of the pond.
Regards,
Don
N
nwcanonman
Guest
Don,
You are 100% correct. Great job!
Those who own single shot black-powder guns, but think it's OK to ban semi-auto firearms should think about what's next on the list of gun-grabbers. It's not about public safety, it's about keeping all firearms out of the publics hands.
I, too, have studied this subject for over 40 years.
You are 100% correct. Great job!
Those who own single shot black-powder guns, but think it's OK to ban semi-auto firearms should think about what's next on the list of gun-grabbers. It's not about public safety, it's about keeping all firearms out of the publics hands.
I, too, have studied this subject for over 40 years.
P
Peter
Guest
I would have to agree with Don on this. I am an army reservist and target shooter here in Singapore and I feel that the local gun law is really too strict for shooting enthusiast. With proper precautions like trigger lock, gun safe and background check it should be not a problem to keep firearms at home. Semi-auto rifles are not assault weapon by conventional weapon classification. Shooting at full auto in fact is more harmless than a trained markman with a semi-auto AR 15 as the recoil from the automatic weapon will result in excessive muzzle climb. The very fact that the person sitting beside you could be armed automatically will increase your awareness to your surroundings and also your manners! It is illogical and naive to rely your personal and family's safety the overworked law enforcement officers.
d30gaijin
Noctilusting
Roger Hicks said:
Roger,
While I agree with much of what you say with regards to people taking firearms training, I have to disagree with your statement above. It is pure and simple anti-gun Brady Campaign nonsense with no basis in fact. I doubt you can find any impartial statistics to support that claim. What has been statistically proven is that firearms are used in the USA hundreds of thousands of times each year to prevent crime (most without ever firing a shot).
I recommend a visit to Professor John Lott's web page: http://www.johnrlott.com/
Professor Lott started out as an anti-gun type who began a study to support your above statement with a statistical basis in fact. What he found was just the opposite, and he was gentleman enough to publish his findings even though they were contrary to his original perception.
Regards,
Don
N
nwcanonman
Guest
Paul,
Just where is this "gun free country"?
Yes, you can pass laws keeping law abiding citizens from owning firearms, but you'll never keep criminals from stealing/making/importing them. No country on this planet is "gun-free", so when you make that decision to not let honest citizens own firearms you put them all at the mercy of the dishonest ones.
It's also against the law to make bombs and blow up innocent people, but we see how well that protects everyone. I'm not saying that bombs should be legal, I'm saying passing laws doesn't make this a safer world, only eternal vigilance by ALL citizens can do that.
Maybe taking pictures of suspicious characters will make them more nervous of being caught - just bring us back to photography ~; - )
Just where is this "gun free country"?
Yes, you can pass laws keeping law abiding citizens from owning firearms, but you'll never keep criminals from stealing/making/importing them. No country on this planet is "gun-free", so when you make that decision to not let honest citizens own firearms you put them all at the mercy of the dishonest ones.
It's also against the law to make bombs and blow up innocent people, but we see how well that protects everyone. I'm not saying that bombs should be legal, I'm saying passing laws doesn't make this a safer world, only eternal vigilance by ALL citizens can do that.
Maybe taking pictures of suspicious characters will make them more nervous of being caught - just bring us back to photography ~; - )
p.ath.
Member
like i hinted, i suspect its cultural and the right to own a firearm is more important to some than actually owning one.
on the point of my reference to assault weapons, id think that any automatic or semi-automatic rifle which has been designed and for military use would fall into that category, or would there be any reason to attach a bayonet for target shooting or hunting.
it looks like a seemingly harmless post has disturbed the proverbial hornets nest and i certainly dont want to cause any offence with my comments as i am aware that the critisism some of you may have had to weather probably makes it a bit of a sore subject.
i would ask though that you try to understand that not believing in guns in every house, doesnt equate immediately to weakness or fear.
its more than likely that if id grown up where some of you did, id think differently. of course there is no such thing as a gun free country and i perhaps misused the phrase, but if armed crime isnt a widespread problem, you dont think you have to arm yourself against the next psycho who rings your doorbell.
not an easy one this, and i suspect theres going to no ultimate consensus of opinion.
cant we just get back to photography?
paul
on the point of my reference to assault weapons, id think that any automatic or semi-automatic rifle which has been designed and for military use would fall into that category, or would there be any reason to attach a bayonet for target shooting or hunting.
it looks like a seemingly harmless post has disturbed the proverbial hornets nest and i certainly dont want to cause any offence with my comments as i am aware that the critisism some of you may have had to weather probably makes it a bit of a sore subject.
i would ask though that you try to understand that not believing in guns in every house, doesnt equate immediately to weakness or fear.
its more than likely that if id grown up where some of you did, id think differently. of course there is no such thing as a gun free country and i perhaps misused the phrase, but if armed crime isnt a widespread problem, you dont think you have to arm yourself against the next psycho who rings your doorbell.
not an easy one this, and i suspect theres going to no ultimate consensus of opinion.
cant we just get back to photography?
paul
d30gaijin
Noctilusting
Paul,
I don't think anyone is going to flame you. This is one of the most polite and civil forums on the net. I certainly respect your thoughts and opinions, and especially your right to express them. It would be a boring world if everyone thought the same way I do.
As for getting back to photography, I agree. But the title of this thread is photography and shooting enthusiasts.
I'm a long range target rifle shooter, love Leica and rangefinder cameras (but have been dabbling in digital recently with a Pentax *ist DS), have been deep into the rebuild of my Porsche 914, and enjoy riding my Harley Davidson motorcycle. I also have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, but I very rarely do. I also have 20 years of US Army service behind me. Not that any of that means anything here, just thought I'd throw it out.
Best regards,
Don
I don't think anyone is going to flame you. This is one of the most polite and civil forums on the net. I certainly respect your thoughts and opinions, and especially your right to express them. It would be a boring world if everyone thought the same way I do.
As for getting back to photography, I agree. But the title of this thread is photography and shooting enthusiasts.
I'm a long range target rifle shooter, love Leica and rangefinder cameras (but have been dabbling in digital recently with a Pentax *ist DS), have been deep into the rebuild of my Porsche 914, and enjoy riding my Harley Davidson motorcycle. I also have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, but I very rarely do. I also have 20 years of US Army service behind me. Not that any of that means anything here, just thought I'd throw it out.
Best regards,
Don
d30gaijin
Noctilusting
nwcanonman said:
NW Canonman,
Very well put! I just wish more folks would understand that simply passing laws only works with the already law abiding citizens.
Best regards,
Don
N
nwcanonman
Guest
Paul,
To my knowledge, there's never been a crime committed by a bayonet-mounted rifle. So, WHY would we waste time, money and pass laws against it?
If someone enjoys collecting true military rifles, why infringe on that colllector? Our country's traffic speed laws are mostly 60 miles per hour, yet we import 10,000's of vehicles that can go 2 or 3 times that speed. Why? Far more people are killed by speeding vehicles than all firearms, yet no one suggests banning fast cars, we ask the DRIVERS to be more cautious. There is nothing inherently dangerous about that lump of steel, the gun; it's the human holding it that needs to exercise control.
To my knowledge, there's never been a crime committed by a bayonet-mounted rifle. So, WHY would we waste time, money and pass laws against it?
If someone enjoys collecting true military rifles, why infringe on that colllector? Our country's traffic speed laws are mostly 60 miles per hour, yet we import 10,000's of vehicles that can go 2 or 3 times that speed. Why? Far more people are killed by speeding vehicles than all firearms, yet no one suggests banning fast cars, we ask the DRIVERS to be more cautious. There is nothing inherently dangerous about that lump of steel, the gun; it's the human holding it that needs to exercise control.
p.ath.
Member
youre absolutely right of course, i supose the difference is whether the power of control is in the hands of the people or the government. and that really is a tough one to answer from within any individual society.
moving swiftly back to some earlier points, ive also found that the principles of shooting helps with those slow shutter shots. i think it is easy to compare the process / sequence of shooting and er shooting.
paul
moving swiftly back to some earlier points, ive also found that the principles of shooting helps with those slow shutter shots. i think it is easy to compare the process / sequence of shooting and er shooting.
paul