tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Some questions: Do 11,000 people commit suicide by camera a year in the U.S.? Are 8,000 people murdered with a camera? 800 or so killed by cameras on accident?
It's amusing to draw some funny comparisons between guns and cameras, but people usually do not use cameras to kill themselves or others, so it's also completely absurd to draw such a comparison. But I guess that is why it is amusing.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Highlight: And why would this be, except that you do not feel it is going your way? After all, you are under no obligation to continue to participate. Stop participating, and for you, it will have ended.
What is your objection to others continuing to discuss things you don't want to discuss? I mean, I am not interested in Mozart, so I do not participate in discussions about Mozart. But I do not attempt to stop others discussing Mozart. Why do you want others to stop discussing this topic?
This is on a par with those who whinge, "This is a photo forum..." Well, yes, it is. And that (as I said earlier) is precisely why it is so valuable as a forum for 'off topic' talk. We are united principally by our love of, and knowledge about, photography. We are not all NRA members, or rabidly anti-gun, or right-wing, or left-wing, or anything else. We therefore bring many different views to the table.
Cheers,
R.
cosmonaut
Well-known
I do wish the US was like other countries that have working gun laws but I am afraid it will never be. Guns are just to much apart of our life style. In my home town hunting is a huge sport. I don't understand what is so fun about killing something but its a away of life.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Where I live in la France profonde, 'deep' France', it is too. But there's also a French joke:
Q: What is the difference between French hunters and French beer?
A: You can get alcohol-free beer.
Cheers,
R.
Jubb Jubb
Well-known
Haha. Isn't that why people want guns? Compensating for something else...
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
There is a difference between having guns, and being irresponsible with guns. There is also a difference between shooting skeets with a double barrel shotgun and mowing down two dozen people with an assault rifle. I think people could have their guns and enjoy them responsibly, but apparently the NRA thinks it is far too much to ask that people be sane or demonstrate competence in handling a firearm before being handed a weapon suitable for mass murder. That is the problem with gun culture in the U.S. so far as I see. A selfish disregard for the life and property of others - put a weapon in some jerk's hands at any price, even the lives of our children.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, you know what they say about big zooms...
My own view is that it's OK until you start defining yourself by your big zoom or your guns.
Cheers,
R.
Jubb Jubb
Well-known
People here seem to be making their gun purchases based around a whole lot of 'ifs'.
If my house gets broken into
If I'm assaulted/attacked
If there's a shooter in public
Guns are bad mmmmkay
If my house gets broken into
If I'm assaulted/attacked
If there's a shooter in public
Guns are bad mmmmkay
How is it going, Roger?
I mean, can you (or anyone) tell any particular direction here?
Don't get me wrong, anyone of course can continue to discuss the topic. I'm not sure this thread is actually doing that, however...
What makes it 'false?'
Truth be told, my post was mostly a test to see if anyone actually would vote, or if they would continue with the endless attempts at wit (or advocating rationality), the vast majority of which fail miserably.
This could reveal [perhaps
] whether anyone really is attempting to promote a solution or if they have other personal agendas, like participating in arguments just for argument's sake.As far as I can tell, there are two trains of thought here (filtering out the thread lint and detritus), which are represented by 1 and 2. What is improper about ending the discussion and putting things up for a vote?
That is, after all, exactly what legislatures do...
Paul T.
Veteran
I say, sir, that's all too reasonable.
What makes me angry is that a stock argument of NRA-supporters is, "you lefties will want to ban automobiles next, they kill people don't they?"
Yet you need training to drive a car, you need a licence, ID and insurance.
A car can kill by accident. A gun is designed only to kill - yet NRA supporters suggest you can buy one with far fewer restrictions than for an automobile.
Paul T.
Veteran
As far as I can tell, there are two trains of thought here, which are represented by 1 and 2. What is improper about ending the discussion and putting things up for a vote?
That is, after all, exactly what legislatures do...
If you think "2" represent a consensus of those who don't like guns, you haven't read much of this thread, nor have you understood the widespread revulsion at the latest mass killing.
OK so what would you suggest for 2, as opposed to just criticizing my attempt?
It's insulting to be accused of not being revulsed, or understanding the revulsion, to be honest. I'm quite sure everyone here is.
cosmonaut
Well-known
So true. Many years ago mental people were held in a hospital, we have one here that was closed down years ago giving mental patients nowhere to go.
jtm6
Well-known
Don't underestimate the power of a photograph. As I posted earlier in response to the first time you mentioned this:
isoterica
Established
I have been avoiding posting to this thread because I absolutely detest the use of tragedy to propel personal or political agendas. I don't care if you are a politician, a journalist or a blogger.. show some respect.
These people are not yet buried and their murder is being sensationalized in the news via body count/victims ages and the dead used as a platform for stricter gun control discussions. Well now, how conveniently advantageous is that for the activists?
It's shameful that's what it is. Guns don't lose control, people do. On that day millions of people with guns did not shoot anyone. In fact many would have helped if they had any idea of what was going on. They would have risked their lives. These people are representative of a conscientious, law abiding America, not one mentally ill Adam Lanza.
There is nothing altruistic about using the death of innocent teachers and students as a political platform.. absolutely nothing and while I don't devalue discussion in the aftermath of tragedy, in fact it can be a healing tool, this thread has zero to do with photography or photographic equipment. It wasn't even a memorial. It was just an 'opportunity' to voice a gun control opinion. Dive in before the bodies get cold now.. I repeat, shameful.
Honestly I haven't read every post, it's upsetting and infuriating [I have kids too], but I have read enough that I am glad that many of you are level headed enough not to jump on this bandwagon. Those that brought up prohibition, riots, 911 and lastly, rocks as weapons. How the hell do we ban rocks? Let's turn a blind eye on what's really happening and perform yet another feel-good act and ban guns. *Remember rocks?
When you remove the instruments of protection from the hands of law abiding citizens you leave them open to the unsavory, mentally ill and just plain mean people that have no problem obtaining their arms illegally. This is fact. This has been substantiated time and time again and violence is not only prevalent in America no matter how necessary non-american's feel it is to bash this country.
- We need to work on health care for the mentally ill before they reach the tipping point..
and..
- Proper punishment for criminals that doesn't include three square meals, free health and dental and a gym to work out in while in prison.
Seriously there are homeless people that would love to have that kind of care.. that kind of humanity and are committing small crimes just to get into jail for those three square meals. Talk about misappropriated compassion..
Non-gun Mass Murders - Alert: Not for those of you with blinders on.
Worst School Massacre in US history: Bath, Michigan School Massacre. 1927. Murder accomplished with explosives. 44 victims (equal to the Columbine and Virginia Tech massacres combined).
Worst Domestic Terrorist Attack in US History: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing. 4/19/95. Murder accomplished with a rental truck full of fertilizer based explosives. 168 dead (including many children in an onsite day care).
Worst Foreign based Terrorist Attack in US History: September 11, 2001 attacks on NYC, PA, Pentagon. Murder accomplished with box cutters and commerical airliners. ~3,000 people dead.
MORE.
These people are not yet buried and their murder is being sensationalized in the news via body count/victims ages and the dead used as a platform for stricter gun control discussions. Well now, how conveniently advantageous is that for the activists?
It's shameful that's what it is. Guns don't lose control, people do. On that day millions of people with guns did not shoot anyone. In fact many would have helped if they had any idea of what was going on. They would have risked their lives. These people are representative of a conscientious, law abiding America, not one mentally ill Adam Lanza.
There is nothing altruistic about using the death of innocent teachers and students as a political platform.. absolutely nothing and while I don't devalue discussion in the aftermath of tragedy, in fact it can be a healing tool, this thread has zero to do with photography or photographic equipment. It wasn't even a memorial. It was just an 'opportunity' to voice a gun control opinion. Dive in before the bodies get cold now.. I repeat, shameful.
Honestly I haven't read every post, it's upsetting and infuriating [I have kids too], but I have read enough that I am glad that many of you are level headed enough not to jump on this bandwagon. Those that brought up prohibition, riots, 911 and lastly, rocks as weapons. How the hell do we ban rocks? Let's turn a blind eye on what's really happening and perform yet another feel-good act and ban guns. *Remember rocks?
When you remove the instruments of protection from the hands of law abiding citizens you leave them open to the unsavory, mentally ill and just plain mean people that have no problem obtaining their arms illegally. This is fact. This has been substantiated time and time again and violence is not only prevalent in America no matter how necessary non-american's feel it is to bash this country.
- We need to work on health care for the mentally ill before they reach the tipping point..
and..
- Proper punishment for criminals that doesn't include three square meals, free health and dental and a gym to work out in while in prison.
Seriously there are homeless people that would love to have that kind of care.. that kind of humanity and are committing small crimes just to get into jail for those three square meals. Talk about misappropriated compassion..
Non-gun Mass Murders - Alert: Not for those of you with blinders on.
Worst School Massacre in US history: Bath, Michigan School Massacre. 1927. Murder accomplished with explosives. 44 victims (equal to the Columbine and Virginia Tech massacres combined).
Worst Domestic Terrorist Attack in US History: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing. 4/19/95. Murder accomplished with a rental truck full of fertilizer based explosives. 168 dead (including many children in an onsite day care).
Worst Foreign based Terrorist Attack in US History: September 11, 2001 attacks on NYC, PA, Pentagon. Murder accomplished with box cutters and commerical airliners. ~3,000 people dead.
MORE.
wolves3012
Veteran
I did say, further back, that you can't legislate these people out of existence, we agree there. However, your argument suggests that we should simply abandon all laws. The "good" people will always do the right thing, the "bad" people would not follow the laws anyway. Reality is that a law does not prevent anything but it does mean there's a penalty attached to breaking one. If the potential law-breaker knows there is a high probability of punishment, it acts as a deterrent. How many drivers flout speed limits? How many flout speed-enforcement cameras?
Paul T.
Veteran
Sorry if I insulted you. It's an emotional subject for many.
For restrictions, or solutions, I would suggest a look at what happened in Australia after the Port Arthur killings. AR-15-style weapons were banned, as were high capacity mag clips. All AR-15 style weapons were confiscated, with compensation. Handguns could only be sold with ID etc.
THey were all sensible ideas, that didn't restrict, eg, hunters. THey were imposed by a right wing administration.
Since they were enacted, there were no mass killings. It's a very good case to study.
Jubb Jubb
Well-known
The policeforce and military are responsible for our protection.
So you all have access to guns, what would happen if suddenly some day something clicked in your head and you completely lost it. You took those guns you bought for "protection" and you went into your place of work and started shooting people.
There is no one else that needs a gun apart from the police or military.
E__WOK
Well-known
You think the argument is irrelevant but it is not. Some methods of death are ok dependent upon the original design purposes?
OK fair enough, and apology accepted.
My question is this:
The shooter had two handguns in his possession. He acquired the Bushmaster from someone who obtained it legally. AR-15s were already banned in Connecticut.
So this change in law, however sensible, would still not have prevented the shooter from shooting.
This is why I proposed option #2 to ban *all* guns.
Frankly speaking, even banning ALL guns and grandfathering the existing owners doesn't guarantee prevention, either.
Still, it would be an interesting exercise to see how many people are in favor of
1
Or
2
- Status
- Not open for further replies.