DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Gun Control...is being able to hit your target.
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 130, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 04/19/2007 02:48:25 AM · #26
A gun in the hand is faster than a cop on the phone any day
 04/19/2007 03:03:35 AM · #27
Why is it that every time something like this happens, it's a gun problem? What if he used kitchen knives? Would people be screaming to take away all knives? What if he used a baseball bat? Does the Louisville Slugger become illegal?

Let's take a look at the real issue. There are a lot of whack jobs out there? A people problem, not a gun problem.

Message edited by author 2007-04-19 03:04:00.
 04/19/2007 03:40:13 AM · #28
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by deapee:
Personally, I think we went into Iraq with nothing but the best of intentions to help save helpless, defenseless people that were being shot, hanged, raped, and ravished in the middle of the streets with no protection from any form of government because it was their very own government that was doing it to their people. Sure, things got out of hand while we were there ...

I believe you are seriously misinformed about conditions for Iraqi citizens prior to the invasion. Every poll of the Iraqi people I've heard of lately says they want the US out now by about an 80% to 20% margin ...


The General's definitely right on this one. One of biggest reasons I opposed the war was because I have Iraqi friends and I know they're far from happy... They've lost family, friends[One sister's boyfriend's brother is missing..], they can't study properly [My friend's in med school], no vacations, no parties, no future job prospects, Constant war noise.. Yeah, life's good..

Now back to the regular viewing..
I've been going over gun arguments and I can't seem to find anything that isn't tilting towards one side or the other.. I'm still not convinced by either argument...

locally, people my age believe guns are the lamest thing around... I dunno why.. maybe it's an elitist thing... Even the gangsta wannabes find themselves calling them primitive and uncool.. The opinions are so demographicaly opposite to what I expected.. Strange..
04/19/2007 04:35:45 AM · #29
You are probably right, its not a gun problem. Its an attitude/society problem. But BECAUSE of the attitude towards guns that many have and exhibited by some the 'gems of wisdom' in this forum, I dont think you should be allowed to have them.
 04/19/2007 08:43:54 AM · #30
Originally posted by Marc923:
Why is it that every time something like this happens, it's a gun problem? What if he used kitchen knives? Would people be screaming to take away all knives? What if he used a baseball bat? Does the Louisville Slugger become illegal?

Let's take a look at the real issue. There are a lot of whack jobs out there? A people problem, not a gun problem.


While I may agree with with the basic premise I do have a hard time understanding exactly what it is you are advocating.

If one took a baseball bat or even a knife into a school setting, do you honestly believe that the number of casualties would be the same.

You are absolutely right that the problem is with people, but the fact remains that guns, unlike knifes, baseball bats and other similar items, can be readily concealed and can inflict a lot of damage in a very short time frame.

If indeed guns are to be considered as a solution to the problem, then there are a myriad of checks and balances that ought to be considered.

Just a thought.

Ray
 04/19/2007 09:04:16 AM · #31
Originally posted by RayEthier:

If one took a baseball bat or even a knife into a school setting, do you honestly believe that the number of casualties would be the same.


Yeah, I'd be willing to bet that someone could take out 33 people with a baseball bat in a school. Hell, I'd put money on it being possible.

--

And GeneralE...oh man you're uninformed so badly it's not funny. Like I said, I would expect more from a site council person than to get involved in political arguments and display their lack of knowledge so willingly to make themselves look like fools.

Have you read the second amendment? It states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. And goes on the mention the right of the people to keep and bear arms and goes on further to say that the right shall not be infringed. Hell, look up infringed in the dictionary and you'll see the second amendment in there used as a reference for the word.

And apparently you think it would be ok for the people to own muzzle-loaders? Well I would agree, if the bad guys were using muzzle loaders, then that's all we need. Unfortunately, that's not the case. The bad guys are using semi-automatic (and sometimes automatic) weapons to assault, rob, murder, kidnap, and rape law-abiding citizens every single day. You don't go to a MLB baseball game with a mini-league bat. Just as you don't go into a gun fight out-gunned.

Like I said general, you are clearly uninformed and unintelligent. You take no time to understand the things that you bring to the argument. And you spread your misinformation as if it's fact. Coming from a member of the site council, I would expect more as normally people tend to believe the things that you say. Bow out of the conversation before you make yourself look like a complete goof -- or at least do a little research before you start spouting off at the mouth...for everyone's sake.
 04/19/2007 09:34:49 AM · #32
I thought in the last 200 years (since the US Constitution) that things might have progressed a tad to require a "regulated militia being necessary".

04/19/2007 09:42:24 AM · #33
uhm...why exactly would a regulated militia not be needed for the security of a free state?

A militia can be looked at as meaning several different things from the reserve forces that respond to disasters or to a group of civilians trained as soldiers. I think, personally, I'd like it taken a step further than it is. I think there should be normal, every day citizens that make up the group and are trained just as well as police officers and soldiers but carry on their daily lives just as they always have. These people would get a special pass to carry their firearms anywhere even gun-free school zones. These people would have to pass some background checks and attend specialized training. They wouldn't have to pay for the training nor would the get payed. Maybe they could receive some sort of tax forgiveness or a free gas card for their service.

But anyway, why would a militia not be necessary and what does 200 years have to do with anything? The basic laws and principles of survival still prevail and always will. You need to be able to defend your country, your country needs to be able to defend itself, and your people need to be able to defend themselves.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...as soon as they post a police officer at my side 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, I'll gladly give up every gun I own. Until they offer me protection like that, I'll rely on myself in a life and death situation...and anyone who thinks a phone call to the police is going to save their lives when a determined attacker invades their home is foolish.
 04/19/2007 09:46:16 AM · #34
So basically you need to protect your country from itself?
 04/19/2007 10:29:49 AM · #35
even though this thread is in the rant forum, personal attacks are NOT ALLOWED.

if you have a beef with another user's point, then you should respond to it with something more substantial than something along the lines of "you're wrong, and you're an idiot."



Message edited by author 2007-04-19 10:30:15.
 04/19/2007 10:41:28 AM · #36
Originally posted by "rayethier":
Great idea Deapee has there... and if every single american owns a gun you can get rid of all your police officers, lawyers, judges and the rest of the people involved in the criminal justice system and save yourself a truckload of money.

You don't need them anyways right... they don't offer any protection and actually are only a thorn in the side of law abiding citizens.


Considering how few positive experiences I have had or witnessed with police officers. I honestly, and very sadly, almost wonder if your sarcastic truth is not too far off.

That said, good law officers are some of the most amazing people on the planet. But I've encountered so many bad ones and ones that are jerks.

Literally 50% of my experiences with law enforcement have been sub-par. By that, I mean failure to do their duty or behavior unprofessional and unbecoming of an officer. I've been in the back seat when two female friends of mine from church were pulled over. The reason, their red cover on their tail light fell off. (It was broke and the tape had let loose.) The officer was beyond rude and threatening. Needlessly so. The officer loudly declared that he had pulled them over for two reaons. When my friend politely asked what they were the officer rudely and in a very threatening tone yelled at them "I already told you, I pulled you over for two reasons." This officer's eyes were bugged out. And I'd have wagered $20 he was coked up.

I also had an experience where a police officer pretty much was sleeping on the job or at the minimum failing to do his duty at the time. He was supposed to be manning the light switch to assist in traffic flow on a street nearby a highway accident. Over 15 minutes elapsed. Including a moment when the opposite direction did not have oncoming traffic and he still did not respond or change the light. In my dealings with the officer, he was rude, unprofessional and refused to give me his badge number.

And sadly, my bad memories go even further to a group of young police officers. Who thought it fun to harass an 11 yr old kid who was fishing. I mean, so what if the kid was at that fishing spot first. I had a crab trap and one of the officers actually cut the line on my trap.

That combined with 6 unresponded 9-1-1 calls have left my impressions of police officers greatly in decline in recent years. Mind you, this is from an Eagle Scout/Valedictorian and someone who spent much of his younger life involved in civic service.

Or the fact that my hometown just had a big sting on police officers who were involved in a crack dealing ring taking payoffs.

That said, I've had some great experiences with reasonable officers. While travelling in Illionois my wife got pulled over for doing 45mph. We had apparently gone through a town hence 25mph speed limit. It was one of those one block towns. Gone before you knew it was there. Well, the officers believed us to be sincere and also realized we were lost because the maps and travel directions we had brought us on a highway that well was supposed to merge with another but in fact dead ended into a middle of corn fields. (Apparently the whole hwy structure was being modified in the area.) So the officers declined to give us a ticket and gave us directions instead.

And more recently, last year I was helping move a friend's truck into my driveway after it had died when all of a sudden a police cruiser pulled up with lights flashing. I was like crap, what now...having just had a couple of bad experiences with police. This is my neighborhood. We're trying to move it. And it's my driveway. The two police got out and were like "Need a hand?" And helped us push the truck into the driveway.

It may sound stupid, but this little event restored so much faith in my heart towards police officers. It showed me that there still are good police officers. That some still believe in both "serving" and "protecting". It sweetened bitter waters.

I still try to be civil with police officers, but I decided a while back that if I get a jerk I am going to call 911 and demand a second officer be sent. And if they inquire, I will simply and politely respond that the first officer was acting in such an unprofessional manner that I started to think it was merely some freak impersonating an officer and couldn't believe such unprofessional behavior could actually come from an officer.

The thing that is so sad is that my image of police officers has been so tainted. :( And yet for those good officers who serve and protect I can't say enough about them. But the badge and the uniform no longer act as a distinguishment. So if you are a police officer. And you endeavor to server and protect....please don't take this personally. I so appreciate you. Just realize it's hard to see you from some of the others. I've known and worked with police officers in the community. I've seen the difference. Some are lazy, some a crooked, some are hard-nosed men doing their job - a tough job, many are good men but have given up. Been burned out by a system that doesn't support them and tends to take their hard work (and usually dangerous work) and put it back on the streets. How do we expect a police officer to want to catch the bad guys after he's arrested and jailed the same drug dealer 4 or 5 times only to always see him back on the street dealing. He realizes the court is not behind him and there is no need to risk his life if the man is just to be set loose on the streets again and again.

Originally posted by "GeneralE":
The holy writ -- the Second Amendment -- says "Well regulated" right there at the very beginning.


In order to maintain a militia, the people must have guns. You can not draw forth a militia from the people if the people do not have guns.

Every contextual reference from the era the constitution was written addressed the right as a personal right. Of course, people forget that in most of the United States, except for some cities. Guns were everywhere. Every farmer, trader, etc had guns with the exception of some religious communities. And I'd wager even some of them did - for the need of putting down animals and protecting from wild beasts.

Every reference I have seen to the idea of the right being only for the organized militia seems to have come from later periods mainly the 1900's and some 1800's references. Furthermore, the statement that we have the National Guard and that's our militia is inaccurate.

A militia is a defensive entity. The National Guard surely meets that no longer. Furthermore, the National Guard is always existant where as a militia is only called up as need. The National Guard is just that, national. A part of the federal system. It is not a local regional entity.

Furthermore, the simple context that the Revolutionary War could not have been won if the citizens were unarmed precludes any reasonable interpretation that the Constitution would not guarantee the right of people to own guns and only give that right to a standing organized militia. Sorry...

The Constitution focused on protecting core elements and rights that were important and core to the revolution. Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, Representation, Right to bear arms.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

The reason, so that a well regulated militia can be formed. What do militias do? They defend the people because they are the people. They defend from whatever....be it a foriegn power or domestic power.

To limit gun ownership ONLY to those in a standing well regulated militia would be an infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Thus it would be a contradictory interpretation.

And anyone who would like to force a neo-modern interpretation based on changes of grammar and vernacular and interpreted from a modern day standpoint without addressing the context and the times of that passage. Can pry a gun from my cold dead hands...if they are alive to do so.

Realize, if you are going to mis-interpret that passage. That's one thing. But if you ever try to enforce it. You will have to kill a great many people. Which is rather ironic.

In fact, I recall reading that some at the time wanted to mandate that all able-bodied men be required to keep and maintain an arm in a similar manner as the nation of Switzerland does.

Originally posted by "generalE":
I think the point is that the Founders were not against government regulation, as some people seem to imply."


Goverment regulation, yes. You see a militia needs to be well-regulated or it is merely an armed mob on a rampage without leadership.

Originally posted by "generale":
They were also not speaking of AK-47s or 50-round clips or rocket-propelled grenades either.


Actually, of this you are indeed correct. People have the right to bear arms. We don't have the right to bear artillary ordinance. Though where the distinction exactly falls. Many modern weapons such as RPGs, squad manned machine guns, etc would likely fall under artillary. These are not personal arms (rifles, pistols, swords, knives).

Ironically, in most of the country we are not even allowed to carry a bowie knife or sword. I've actually thought the NRA should organize an armed march on the Washinton D.C. parade. But have everyone with swords instead. To emphasize our right to bear arms. (Police are usually less unnerved by people carrying swords than guns.)

But it'd make a point.

Originally posted by "rayethier":

You are absolutely right that the problem is with people, but the fact remains that guns, unlike knifes, baseball bats and other similar items, can be readily concealed and can inflict a lot of damage in a very short time frame.


If Cho had never been sold a gun. This event would have still happened. Remember, the police found bomb making materials. And numerous books and prints outs of how to cause mass terror and death.

The gun was not the problem. Doing away with them would not have prevented this incident. It would merely have been a back-pack with a bomb and a chemical poison in the heat/air conditioning duct work that would killed dozens and dozens.

Originally posted by "deapee":
Like I said general, you are clearly uninformed and unintelligent.


Hey DP, calm down a bit. We have differences of opinion, and differences of heart & experience. GeneralE comes from those experiences and insights and you from yours and mine from mine.

Let's not let our differences rile us up so that we attack one another. Just the arguments. I know it can be hard with emotional issues. We all do it at times. I also ask everyone else not to jump down Deapee's throught for getting a little over emotional either. That'd be no better. And dishonest because I doubt any of us could claim we haven't gotten emotional at times.

04/19/2007 10:59:49 AM · #37
REPLIES TO THE VT THREAD:

Originally posted by "cheekymunky":
because bad guys (wearing black hats) have guns, good guys (wearing white hats) need guns'.


Yeah, something like that...otherwise the good guys get killed and you are left with nothing but bad guys.

Originally posted by "cheekymunky":
'good guy' gets upsets and becomes a 'bad guy'


Other good guys subdue him....

***

You are free to choose to let a criminal take your life without challenge and without defense. But please, don't make that decision for me.

Originally posted by "generale":

Not to mention the 68 or so people killed every day in the US in auto accidents -- typically half of those are due to alcohol consumption, and thus could be considered criminal homicide.


Very true...tools misused - kill people. We've had a number of incidents of people using vehicles trying run through groups in attempts to kill people.

It is the wickedness of man's heart that calls out for his brother's death that is the true problem.

04/19/2007 11:02:21 AM · #38
I think this whole gun debate should be dropped. 32 people were murdered. Weapon of choice has nothing to do with the motive The motive has allot to do with the killings. This guy could have used a bomb and took them all at once and got more than 32. He could have brought his hammer. He would not have gotten as many people but what is the difference if he kills 1 or 100 It is not how many he killed, Not how he killed them. The question is why, Find the answer to that question and you will have the answer to the problem and you will find that the gun is just tool of choice in this guys crazed plan to destroy lives.
04/19/2007 11:12:03 AM · #39
"If Cho had never been sold a gun. This event would have still happened"

This keeps coming up as a excuse to not look at US guns laws. In 2002 the US Secret Service conducted a major study of 37 school shootings to learn the patterns of the school-aged assassins. So, if guns were banned would there have 37 bombs? 37 baseball bat massacres? Guns are freely available and the laws ridiculously slack. It has come out today that this chap history of mental illness yet was still allowed to walk into a shop and get a glock and a box of ammo for $571 over the counter. An STILL you think your gun laws are ok?

You say need guns to protect yourself, so if gun laws were more stringent, and less lunatics could get hold of guns wouldn’t there be less need for you to hold a gun?

People are acting like the gun is simply a tool, I propose that Americans have a love-affairs with guns instead.
04/19/2007 11:18:52 AM · #40
Deapee,

All this stuff about protecting yourself and relying only on you in a life/death situation is getting a bit old. that is not why you carry a gun or advocate them at all. It is more than evident that you are a gun enthusiast/collector/avid shooter. You like guns. You have photos of your guns in your profile, you have photos of you holding your guns in your profile. You think guns are for lack of a better term, "cool." I even remember a photo you took looking into the barrell of your gun w/ the bullet in the chamber.

If you were an advocate for guns as protection, you wouldn't even be commenting in this thread. You would quietly carry your firearm, you wouldn't display it for the world to see. Although you advocate the safety and training of an armed population, you play w/ your guns. How many others that carry a gun on a regular basis take photos of themselves pointing a gun or how many take a photo looking into the barrell? I know youre a photographer so your hobbies kind of blend together, but no one else commenting in this thread has these kind of photos.

Also, you promote training and safety so I can assume that when you play w/ your guns, they are not loaded. Im sure you are safe, but what about others who see this. Is it really a responsible gun owners actions to publicly display this material. I personally think its promoting very dangerous activities and promoting the fact that "guns make you look like a badass."

Practice what you preach.
 04/19/2007 11:21:38 AM · #41
Eloquently put Jmnuggy.
 04/19/2007 11:29:24 AM · #42
Originally posted by "cheekymunky":
So, if guns were banned would there have 37 bombs? 37 baseball bat massacres?


Had guns been banned there would still have been 37 gun based killings. Because banning guns does not prevent criminals from getting them.

Criminals do not obey laws, that is what makes them criminals.

Even if the U.S. went further than banning guns and forced the closure of every gun manufacturer in the U.S. There would still be guns, they would come across from China unmarked and be in the hands of criminals.

Were guns not to exist. Then there would likely still have been 37 massacres. Be it by bomb. By poison. Or by some other means. Remember this is really an issue of heart - situations where one person seeks the life of another. The gun may provide a convenient form to do so. But such actions occurred long before the gun was invented.

Originally posted by "cheekymunky":

You say need guns to protect yourself, so if gun laws were more stringent, and less lunatics could get hold of guns wouldn’t there be less need for you to hold a gun?


No, not necessarily. I mean there would be less need but still significant need.

Furthermore, that may reduce the lunatics. But not the criminals. It would not dissuade the premeditated acts in the least.

Originally posted by "jmnuggy":
All this stuff about protecting yourself and relying only on you in a life/death situation is getting a bit old.


Okay, that may or may not be the case for Deapee. But it is the primary reason why I will be getting a gun this year.

Originally posted by "jmnuggy":
If you were an advocate for guns as protection, you wouldn't even be commenting in this thread. You would quietly carry your firearm, you wouldn't display it for the world to see.


This is not a valid argument and is an unsupported statement. The fact that I am an advocate for guns as protection and not a gun nut nor collector and am posting shows this statement to not be universally valid.

*****

As for the art of gun photography. Well, I'd rather someone who knew very well how guns work photograph such than merely a photographer like me who is less familiar. *lol*

But I am not sure if this is really a fair attack. I mean, plenty of photographers have done really stupid things to get a shot. Heck, that's what the entire papparazi business is all about is it not?

And whether the art appeals to us or not, there are numerous examples of "shock art" be it photography or music.

Though I might endear Deapee to put a DISCLAIMER in his gun photos that guns are not toys. And should be handled with care and knowledge. Or such.

"People are acting like the gun is simply a tool, I propose that Americans have a love-affairs with guns instead."

Well, some probably due. But that does not invalidate their other reasons. Many Americans have love for cars or specific cars. Such does not invalidate the usefulness of a car as a vehicle of transportation.

Nor does it mean that just because some dote on their Mustang and keep it cleaned and constantly polised and modify it to extreme that others do not merely own their Hondas and Chevies to get them from point A to point B.

An object can gain artistic elements of fondness and retain it's practical uses as well.

And yes, some Americans are romantically involved with the concept of freedom and long for it. We idealize the ideals of Americana at the same time mourning America because although freer than many nations, we find ourselves without freedom on so many levels. Everything is licensed, taxed and controlled.

You can't even get married without a government license.

Message edited by author 2007-04-19 11:33:37.
 04/19/2007 11:54:47 AM · #43
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
I think this whole gun debate should be dropped. 32 people were murdered. Weapon of choice has nothing to do with the motive...


But he could never have shot all those people with a knife or his bare hand. Having a gun made the action possible.

I look at it this way. The concept of having a "long distance relationship" wouldn't exist if it weren't for Airplanes.

I'm not sure if that makes sense but an end product/goal can't be attained without the proper tools. In other words would someone dream or think about blowing away 32 people, IF guns didn't exist? A knife, a bat, a sling shot etc wouldn't cut it...

Carnage on such a mass scale, probably shouldn't be that easy to accomplish.

Message edited by author 2007-04-19 12:06:37.
 04/19/2007 12:02:20 PM · #44
I dont' think he needs a disclaimer on his photos, and its his call to do photo shoots like this. My point is that as a gun owner and advocate, he should/needs to excercise even more safety than anyone else. As someone who knows the dangers and capabilities of the weapon, he should be more responsible than anyone else.

I would agree that Deapee is more qualified to take these photos, but posting them on a website open to anyone is slightly irresponsible. This isn't how I would want the world to view me as a gun owner and advocate. Keep these photos for yourself, sell them to a niche market of gun shops, post them on gun websites, sell them to manufacturers etc...

04/19/2007 12:30:50 PM · #45
Originally posted by "jmnuggy":
As someone who knows the dangers and capabilities of the weapon, he should be more responsible than anyone else.


But I am not sure if his photos constitute irresponsibility. The only aspect of which I see is perhaps in education of others and that others less knowledgful may do something foolish not understanding all that is entailed. Hence my mention of a possible DISCLAIMER.

Originally posted by "jmnuggy":

I would agree that Deapee is more qualified to take these photos, but posting them on a website open to anyone is slightly irresponsible.


Is it, I've heard the rebuttle to that numerous times in regard to nude and sexy photos. Some might say that posting those are slightly irresponsible because sexual predators, rapists, or even those merely off balance might see those and be motivated and aroused to do things they might not if otherwise not stimulated.

But this has been repeatedly dismissed. And I think fairly so within reason. So I don't see that applying.

Originally posted by "jmnuggy":
Keep these photos for yourself, sell them to a niche market of gun shops, post them on gun websites, sell them to manufacturers etc...


This makes no sense. Your deriding the photos as irresponsible then advocating merely a different market. Heck, we can't even get an .xxx domain established for pornography on such grounds.

No I think what you are talking about is propaganda. Those images do not appeal to anti-gun foes. So the idea is that posting them causes offense to anti-gun advocates and stirs up the hornets nest perhaps. So don't show them...

That's like saying pro-lifers shouldn't show their imagery except to other pro-lifers. Well gee, car dealers shouldn't post advertisements of their cars except to other car dealers. I mean why should they cater and try to get that 16 yr old to buy a car. They should only market explicity to other car dealers. And never to those under 25 yrs of age. As it is well documented that cars kill people. Especially cars driven by those under the age of 25. Therefore marketing to such people is clearly irresponsible.

Hmm...these precepts don't seem to apply universally, therefore I find it hard to accept the validity of these arguments.

I think the real issue is whether you fear or respect guns. I myself have a mixture of both. Some merely fear. Others have no fear and only respect. Some have neither. This equates to the differences.

If you respect a gun you do not see it as dangerous, merely a tool. Akin to a hammer.

If you fear guns, you inherently view them as dangerous and deadly.

Me, I am mixed I have respect for guns but also a bit of fear not having a lot of experience handling them. I know once I got used to using one and comfortable I would have more respect than fear.

There are a few fools who have neither fear nor respect.

Originally posted by "pawdix":

But he could never have shot all those people with a knife or his bare hand. Having a gun made the action possible.


Having a gun was just one way to make it possible. There are many tools that could have been used. Heck, he could have come in with a back pack full of explosives or poisonous chemicals. A simple gas mask would have protected him from the latter leaving everyone outside of those in the chem lab with masks - dead!

Originally posted by "pawdix":
The concept of having a "long distance relationship" wouldn't exist if it weren't for Airplanes.


Except one can use automobiles, letters, internet, etc. for long distance relationships. In fact, many people had relationships via letter correspondance across the Atlantic ocean even travelling to court and marry from such relationships. All before the invention of planes.

And yes, I absolutely believe people would dream of blowing away 32 people if guns didn't exist.

"Sadly, with great power comes great responsibility and we live in an irresponsible society with great power."

04/19/2007 12:54:17 PM · #46
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by RayEthier:

If one took a baseball bat or even a knife into a school setting, do you honestly believe that the number of casualties would be the same.


Yeah, I'd be willing to bet that someone could take out 33 people with a baseball bat in a school. Hell, I'd put money on it being possible.


Possible yes... probable, not likely.

Don't know about your life's experiences, but I have had people come at me with bats, crowbars, tire irons, 2X4's, and an assortment of other items, and as you can see, I am still here.

Did I sustain injuries... you bet, and some beauties too, but I can honestly say that I never feared for my life. Have I ever had someone point a gun at me in a threatening manner... yes I have, and to be honest it was sheer dumb luck that got me out of it.

Keep your guns and enjoy them as I do mine, but don't try to convince me that it is the panacea you seem to suggest it is, because it's not.

Just another man's point of view.

Ray
 04/19/2007 01:32:14 PM · #47
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
...... Keep these photos for yourself, sell them to a niche market of gun shops, post them on gun websites, sell them to manufacturers etc...


Do you feel this same way about nude photography?
 04/19/2007 01:45:39 PM · #48
Today is April 19, also known as Patriots' Day in New
England. On this day in 1775, the "shot heard 'round the
world" took place at Lexington, as colonists defended their
firearms from British confiscation.

PBS story

04/19/2007 01:53:12 PM · #49
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "pawdix":

But he could never have shot all those people with a knife or his bare hand. Having a gun made the action possible.


Having a gun was just one way to make it possible. There are many tools that could have been used. Heck, he could have come in with a back pack full of explosives or poisonous chemicals. A simple gas mask would have protected him from the latter leaving everyone outside of those in the chem lab with masks - dead!

Originally posted by "pawdix":
The concept of having a "long distance relationship" wouldn't exist if it weren't for Airplanes.


Except one can use automobiles, letters, internet, etc. for long distance relationships. In fact, many people had relationships via letter correspondance across the Atlantic ocean even travelling to court and marry from such relationships. All before the invention of planes.

And yes, I absolutely believe people would dream of blowing away 32 people if guns didn't exist.


Guns are an easy method compared to chemicals or explosives. Sure...possible but much more complicated and far less likely an option. For the record...when was the last time someone walked into a classroom and blew themselves or launched a chemical attack up here in the US? Let's leave The Middle East out of this...

"Long distance relationship"?

I wasn't talking John and Abigail Adams. More like...ummmm....say Chicago-New York. You know, where people actually have sex on occassion. Driving NOT in the mix.

Message edited by author 2007-04-19 13:56:41.
 04/19/2007 01:54:18 PM · #50
Originally posted by theSaj:
Furthermore, the statement that we have the National Guard and that's our militia is inaccurate.

A militia is a defensive entity. The National Guard surely meets that no longer. Furthermore, the National Guard is always existant where as a militia is only called up as need. The National Guard is just that, national. A part of the federal system. It is not a local regional entity.

The "National Guard" is organized state-by-state -- they are essentially state militias -- and are under the control of state governors unless the President "Federalizes" thems and takes over control, as with the thousands of Guard members currently deployed in Iraq (hardly a "defensive enterprise, at this point anyway).

One of the reasons for the pathetic government response to Hurricane Katrina was that most of the Louisiana Guard (and its equipment/vehicles) were in Iraq instead of on-call at home.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/20/2025 06:17:43 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/20/2025 06:17:43 PM EDT.