Shoot a camera, not a gun

Status
Not open for further replies.
E__WOK said:
What exactly are you saying?
Click to expand...
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.
 
cosmonaut said:
Maybe you didn't read my previous post. In the US there is a very high chance your house will be robbed in your lifetime. I am 53 and have been broken into twice. A growing trend in my area is home invasions while you at home. It has happened several times in the last few years. One couple was shot execution style after being held for hours. The perps were wanting money CCs and pin numbers.
A friend and co- work of mine awoke in the middle of the night to find a man in his house.
My wife has been physically attacked twice, years apart and different men. Also years ago when I was a teen we had an intruder come into our house in the middle of the night and it was a man that had been stalking my younger sister and was wanting to get her to go off with him. He was caught and nothing ever done about it. But this was the 70s.
It is what I have seen and grew up in that makes me be protective. I have an a99 and CZ 28-70mm lens when I am out shooting. Someone would bust my head and take it from me in an instant if I were to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Click to expand...
Highlight: In which case, what's wrong with the US? And why is no-one trying to fix it except with firearms?

Cheers,

R.
 
This discussion isn't really going anywhere, is it.

SO, I shall call a vote:

1. Increased security for campuses, to include armed security (properly trained of course.)

2. Ban assault weapons, to be defined as any weapon that can fire a bullet. All existing weapons remain with their owners, else they become instant felons by the passage of the new laws.

What say all?
 
digitalintrigue said:
This discussion isn't really going anywhere, is it.

SO, I shall call a vote:

1. Increased security for campuses, to include armed security (properly trained of course.)

2. Ban assault weapons, to be defined as any weapon that can fire a bullet. All existing weapons remain with their owners, else they become instant felons by the passage of the new laws.

What say all?
Click to expand...
Well, any rational person is going to say that you're using false dichotomies and straw men, so let's try a vote on the following:

1 Any attempt at rational discussion is always going to be better than hysterical extremism, despite the occasional intrusion of hysterical extremists OR

2 No, let's go for hysterical extremism every time, whether it's pro-gun or anti-gun.

Cheers,

R.
 
Sparrow said:
One would not have learned that even after the Twin Towers attack more than 40% of the US population approved of gun controls from his posts.
Click to expand...

E__WOK said:
The hijackers used razor blades, not guns.
Click to expand...

The only time I ever heard guns being discussed about Sept 11 was about arming crew and providing armed Air Marshals. Gun control was never part of any conversation I heard.
 
cosmonaut said:
Maybe you didn't read my previous post. In the US there is a very high chance your house will be robbed in your lifetime. I am 53 and have been broken into twice.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it is so high. Never had my house broken into. Niether did my parents. When I had a room mate years ago their car was stolen from the detached garage on the house one night - but never did anybody try to come into the house itself. I had a friend whose apartment was broken into - while he was away for over a month. Break ins usually occur while the owners are out, and burglary rates have more or less fallen continuously since the early 1990s. I've never felt the need to own a gun for defence reasons.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Well, any rational person is going to say that you're using false dichotomies and straw men, so let's try a vote on the following:

1 Any attempt at rational discussion is always going to be better than hysterical extremism, despite the occasional intrusion of hysterical extremists OR

2 No, let's go for hysterical extremism every time, whether it's pro-gun or anti-gun.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

How would you know "where I want this to go?"

Actually, truth is I just want it to END.
 
digitalintrigue said:
This discussion isn't really going anywhere, is it.

SO, I shall call a vote:

1. Increased security for campuses, to include armed security (properly trained of course.)

2. Ban assault weapons, to be defined as any weapon that can fire a bullet. All existing weapons remain with their owners, else they become instant felons by the passage of the new laws.

What say all?
Click to expand...

Yes and yes. I agree. I wouldn't mind giving up my guns if I lived in a safer environment and were compensated for their value.
 
cosmonaut said:
Maybe you didn't read my previous post....
Click to expand...
Actually I did. I read ALL of the posts. However, you have answered my question, yes it really is that unsafe then. Again, the connection between ready availability of guns and their use in crime passes you by. If the "perps" (I assume that's "perpetrators") didn't have guns...no? Yes, I do realise it's simplistic to think all guns can be removed but making firearms illegal for the general population cannot be more dangerous than making them (relatively) freely available.

I've never visited the USA and I get more convinced all the time that I never will. It has much to attract and I'm sure most of the population are fine, upstanding citizens. Nevertheless, I'll pass on a place where gun-toting is considered acceptable.
 
Well I actually work for the local school system and also work on security systems and security cameras. I think access control and security guards are a start. We have armed resource officers at our high schools but none in the middle schools or elementary schools. The first 15 years I worked for the schools we had maybe one break in. Now it's all the time. As far as the cameras the last few that broke in wore mask. Most often the robber is wanting something to sell for drug money.
 
E__WOK said:
Let me compare the danger of owning a gun and a penis. Hear me out.

With all the so call gun rampages, many people are calling for banning guns and taking them away from law abiding citizens.

There is so much raping in the world that we should take penises away in order to prevent them from being used for unlawful purposes.

In order to pay for hospital bills and psychological care for rape victims, we should make all males pay whether they raped a woman or not.

All penises shall be registered as an dangerous weapon.
You must go through a background check and have a 10 day waiting period every time before having sex.
You need to pay before you can have sex.
You will be fingerprinted before making entry.
If you don't have sex within 30 days, you must start registration over again.
You are limited to sex once a month.
You can only climax once. Multiple climaxes within a short time period is not allowed.
You can only have sex with someone in your state.

I can go on and on an on...
Click to expand...

I told myself that i would not participate in political threads but I cant resist here. haha I dont know if this has been mentioned before, I havent read the whole thread but what Im about to post is at least photography related and is in my view the perfect tie in to this topic that we photographers all can relate to.

I cant take credit (or blame) for this because I heard this from someone else but. Have you ever considered Gun Law logic comparable to Camera Law logic.

Ban Cameras because some people use them for child porn. If you ban cameras there certainly wouldnt be anymore child porn would there? or terrorism. or for break ins, robberys, stalking, etc etc.

Is that too strict? and unreasonable? Ok How about requirement to register all cameras new and used. Just your name and address. No?

What about a 30 day waiting period and fbi background check, dna registration, fingerprints etc, before being allowed to register a camera and buy it?

How about, Cameras ok, single shot but no motor drives or film winders.

How about resolutions greater than 2Mp are illegal. Film cameras banned outright for their superior resolution. (*ducks*)

Telephoto lenses are limited to 100mm. Nothing longer or jail time.

Remember we are trying to end child porn, domestic terrorism, crimes against women, stalking etc with these new camera laws. and on and on and on it goes.

Whats that you say? You dont think criminals use photography to help them commit violent crimes and murder?

You laugh but we are not far away from camera laws. Have you ever known anyone taking pictures accused or suspected of being a terrorist or child predator or a stalker or voyer?

Because some think its wierd to go around taking pictures of strangers and public infrastructure, these laws may be closer than you think.

Would laws like that stop terrorism or child crime? No. They would still find a way.

As horrible as these acts are, in my view you cannot change all human behavior with laws. Laws are only for people who obey laws.

People who obey laws are the same people who dont need laws because they know right from wrong and choose to do the right thing because its the right thing to do.

People that do these heinous acts are completely broken and damaged beyond repair. Laws will not stop them from doing the things they do.

We all start out as little babies and along the way some people become so damaged that they end up desiring and choosing to do these heinous things.

Unless it is completely genetic, we need to figure out what is creating these malfunctioning people and change whatever dynamics in society that is causing it. Simply saying "they just choose to do it" is not enough. Ultimately they choose to do it but why? and can we do anything as a society to eliminate the cause.

Ok everybody theres my 2 cents go back to your respective rants. haha.
 
wolves3012 said:
Actually I did. I read ALL of the posts. However, you have answered my question, yes it really is that unsafe then. Again, the connection between ready availability of guns and their use in crime passes you by. If the "perps" (I assume that's "perpetrators") didn't have guns...no? Yes, I do realise it's simplistic to think all guns can be removed but making firearms illegal for the general population cannot be more dangerous than making them (relatively) freely available.

I've never visited the USA and I get more convinced all the time that I never will. It has much to attract and I'm sure most of the population are fine, upstanding citizens. Nevertheless, I'll pass on a place where gun-toting is considered acceptable.
Click to expand...

Well that's a good idea but there are estimated at 270 million guns in the US and the biggest part are probably not registered. If they ban guns crooks will still be able to buy them on the black market. Since Obama has been in office the sell of guns are through the roof as the Conservatives are convinced Obama is going to ban guns. Also carry permits are selling in high numbers, which I have and since the school shooting you wouldn't believe gun sales now.
 
68degrees said:
Ban Cameras because some people use them for child porn. If you ban cameras there certainly wouldnt be anymore child porn would there?
Ok everybody theres my 2 cents go back to your respective rants. haha.
Click to expand...
well, that argument was posted about two pages back. As in, if you ban guns, why not ban cars.
THen this argument was posted about one page back. As in, if you ban guns, why not penises.

Both arguments are entirely irrelevant. Both cars and penises are not designed specifically to kill.
 
E__WOK said:
This ain't Utopia. Violence is the way of life since the beginning of time. Should we ban the use of rocks and tree branches?

The guy was crazy and should have been locked up.
Click to expand...

... there! you worked that out yourself ... that's one way, but you're just being silly in the first bit it isn't really a way of life is it? that would surely be intolerable and lead to lots of unstable people
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom