Shoot a camera, not a gun

Status
Not open for further replies.
tunalegs said:
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.
Click to expand...

If the shooter used a double barrel shotgun to kill the 20 kids?
 
Jubb Jubb said:
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
Click to expand...

Just like, if there were no guns on the street, nobody will be killed with a gun.
 
Jubb Jubb said:
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.
Click to expand...


What if the police or the military suddenly have something click in their heads and they completely lose it? Or are those professions immune to such things? [Fort Hood, <cough> <cough>]
 
Paul T. said:
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.
Click to expand...

Training is not needed to drive a car but it would help.
Many people drive without licenses and insurance.

You do not go through a background check before you can buy a car.
You do not get fingerprinted before buying a car.
There is no waiting period from purchase to being able to drive.
You can buy as many cars as you can afford.
You can buy any car no matter how fast it can go.
 
isoterica said:
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.
. . .
Click to expand...
Even more shameful to bury your head in the sand. Quite a lot of the posts here have not been either mindlessly pro-gun nor mindlessly anti-gun. To borrow your own phrase, show some respect.

Cheers,

R.
 
E__WOK said:
Just like, if there were no guns on the street, nobody will be killed with a gun.
Click to expand...

well there aren't any guns on the streets in Aus (apart from the police) and I can tell you that the amount of people killed by a gun each year here is very minimal.

thats ok. you can live in your imaginative thoughts of being safe, but the longer you keep weapons to yourself, the more you contribute to the problem of not being safe.
 
isoterica said:
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.
Click to expand...

I couldn't have said it any better.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Quite a lot of the posts here have not been either mindlessly pro-gun nor mindlessly anti-gun. To borrow your own phrase, show some respect.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Well said Roger.

America needs to change. And the thoughts that have been expressed in this thread show that the problem is buried deep within the mindset of majority of US citizens.

The arguement of the person behind these shootings being mentally unstable is just half of the problem. If they didn't have access to weapons and ammunition, you have to ask if events with these body counts would even happen.

Yet most of you think and feel that guns are not bad. They are. And because you don't see this, tragedies like ones recently will continue to happen.
 
Jubb Jubb said:
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.
Click to expand...

Like I have said, I am former military and have been trained on the M-16/AR-15. This should automatically allow me to own/use/purchase the same said weapon.

What will prevent LE/military personnel from going crazy? Another what if?

What will prevent you from breaking into the house next door, stealing a gun, and shooting and killing people? What if?

The military cannot be used for enforcing civilian law. Look up the Posse Comitatus Act.

LE again is there to enforce the laws. They cannot guarantee anyone's safety.
 
Jubb Jubb said:
America needs to change. And the thoughts that have been expressed in this thread show that the problem is buried deep within the mindset of majority of US citizens.
Click to expand...

Actually, something is buried deep within the mindset of a handful of deranged.
 
E__WOK said:
Like I have said, I am former military and have been trained on the M-16/AR-15. This should automatically allow me to own/use/purchase the same said weapon.
Click to expand...
My highlight - former - that, presumably, means no longer. It follows that you no longer have the requirement for an M-16 (which I confess I have no clue what that is, I assume a gun). Why should that entitle you to own such a weapon? Amongst other training, I have training to use liquid nitrogen safely, does that mean I should be entitled to purchase it? (Actually, I have no idea whether I can or not, so it may not be the best example).
 
Roger Hicks said:
Which bit of "There are some people I don't trust with a gun" are you failing to understand?"

Some people are not safe to be let loose with guns. Often, these are people lacking in intelligence, empathy, education, a sense of humour, common sense, the ability to construct a logical argument... None of which is the remotest barrier to owning a gun in many jurisdictions.

Do you really think it's a bad idea to look into why someone wants a gun, what they might use it for, or whether they are delusional Rambo wannabees?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you didn't say bad photographer.
 
wolves3012 said:
My highlight - former - that, presumably, means no longer. It follows that you no longer have the requirement for an M-16 (which I confess I have no clue what that is, I assume a gun). Why should that entitle you to own such a weapon? Amongst other training, I have training to use liquid nitrogen safely, does that mean I should be entitled to purchase it? (Actually, I have no idea whether I can or not, so it may not be the best example).
Click to expand...

Liquid nitrogen can be purchased like candy over here.
 
E__WOK said:
Like I have said, I am former military and have been trained on the M-16/AR-15. This should automatically allow me to own/use/purchase the same said weapon.

What will prevent LE/military personnel from going crazy? Another what if?

What will prevent you from breaking into the house next door, stealing a gun, and shooting and killing people? What if?

The military cannot be used for enforcing civilian law. Look up the Posse Comitatus Act.

LE again is there to enforce the laws. They cannot guarantee anyone's safety.
Click to expand...
Why? This is a complete non sequitur. By the same argument, I should be allowed to own a Bren gun. I cheerfully admit that .303 light machine guns are fun, but I don't feel hard done by that I can't have one.

Cheers,

R.
 
isoterica said:
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?
Click to expand...

This is always brought up: "Now is not the time." Turns out, though, that it's never the time. With the number of mass shootings in the US (13 in 2012 alone), we're almost always in a state where advocates can accuse people of trying to solve the problem as being politically-motivated ghouls who are shamelessly exploiting tragedy.

isoterica said:
It's shameful that's what it is. Guns don't lose control, people do.
Click to expand...

When we get better people, then let's have unrestricted guns. While we're stuck with the humans we have, let's find a way to have fewer guns. Not zero, but fewer.

But when you can read, all too often, tragic stories like a father accidentally killing his 7-year-old son outside a gun store, (a week and a half ago, folks) you realize that not all well-intentioned gun owners should own guns, and it's not only maniacs that make for tragedy.

Children in the US are 13 times more likely to be shot than any other kid in the industrialized world. There are multiple ways to attack that problem. Advocating regulation of guns as one prong of the attack is not an insult to any gun owner, it's an acknowledgment that as a people, we have a problem.[/QUOTE]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom