Rhythm Conundrum, Please Help...

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

02/24/2003 10:28:29 PM · #1

The Rhythm challenge was really fun, and there were many great shots... My shot in particular was a real struggle for me, in that I had a lot of trouble trying to decide which take to submit.. I had narrowed it down to two shots, the one I submitted and another with a different angle and slight color adjustment... then I tried looking at each in black and white... in the end I still was never sure which one would be thought of as best, so I went with my first choice... if anyone has a moment to look at what was trying to chose from, I would love to hear your opinions, good or bad... thank you for helping...
rhythm outtakes

thanks
~jeff

PS: if you happen to like the shot, try it as desktop wallpaper.. looks pretty cool covering the screen...

Message edited by author 2003-02-24 22:36:12.

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

02/24/2003 10:32:38 PM · #2

I like the color tone on alternate 2 better... it more closely resembles the actual color...

Natasha

Nikon D50

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

02/24/2003 10:35:31 PM · #3

I prefer alternate 2 as well, I like the warmer more natural tone.

sher

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

02/24/2003 10:39:53 PM · #4

i agree...i like the color on alternate 2 better...but, i like the angle better on the one you submitted. all are excellent shots, though! (pun intended...ya know...shots...bullets....ohhhh, i crack myself up) :P

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

02/24/2003 10:40:16 PM · #5

I liked the color better also.. that's one reason I struggled... I think the submitted one was acctually the real color... it looked the way it did probably because of the red reflective background I used... alternate 2 has the red and green channels adjusted... one reason I chose the other was I liked the angle better.. however, I came very close to posting alternate 2 in BnW (A3) as well... hehe I still can't decide. lol but with your help I am getting closer :o) thanks! anyone else?

W.R.Miller

Canon EOS-50D

02/24/2003 10:43:00 PM · #6

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

I like the color tone on alternate 2 better... it more closely resembles the actual color...

Ditto

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/24/2003 11:18:06 PM · #7

The left-right balance is better on the submission or alternate 1, and I like its color better than alternate 2. If you like the vertical angle better on alt. 3, then I'd suggest cropping a bit from the left so the rows balance.
I didn't think hollow-point bullets were legal (in the US) except for military and law-enforcement personnel. Since their construction is specifically designed to inflict maximum internal damage from any hit, they have no role that I know of in hunting or target shooting; their only intended use is homocide.

02/25/2003 12:37:51 AM · #8

Ya know Paul, I had no intention of discussing this here in this forum, but as long as you started the discussion, I suppose it's my american duty to indulge you :oP anyway... (Note to admins: feel free to move this to rant) :o)

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I didn't think hollow-point bullets were legal (in the US) except for military and law-enforcement personnel. Since their construction is specifically designed to inflict maximum internal damage from any hit, they have no role that I know of in hunting or target shooting; their only intended use is homocide.

of course hollow points are legal silly goose.. why would they not be? The fact that they are designed for maximum damaged has little or no bearing on that... All bullets are designed to cause damage, hollow points are just more efficent at that than ball ammunition. As for their role in hunting, well I use them for hunting coyotes... Their efficiency is great for dispatching the animal quickly so they don't suffer. Any good hunter's goal is to one shot one kill their game... no one wants the animal to suffer... aside from that, I would completely disagree about the hollow points only being used for homicide... most people concider homicide an illegal act... these bullets have many legal uses... including home and national defense... as for when you said "they have no role that I know of in hunting or target shooting".. all I can say is, so what? that is not the primary reason we have guns... lol... please, do you really think tom jefferson and george washington were sitting around saying, "ya know george ol chap, I think we need to own guns, I just love to go target shooting!".. nope, they were revolutionaries that came from a country where a tyrant ruled them with an iron fist and they knew that the only way to preserve freedom was to give the people the power to defend themselves.. after all history has a tendancy to repeat itself, and history says, "absolute power corrupts absolutely"...

PS: thanks for the tip on the shot everyone... :o) much thanks!

Message edited by author 2003-02-25 00:55:55.

DennisF

Nikon D100

02/25/2003 12:53:56 AM · #9

I like alterative 2. The lower angle and shallower dof enhance the felling of going on and on to infinity. The gold color invokes gold and money to be made.

02/25/2003 01:14:14 AM · #10

Some highlights from Paul Fussell's essay, "A Well-Regulated Militia":

"We should 'close read' [the Second Amendment] and thus focus lots of attention on the grammatical reasoning of its two clauses.
1) that the Militia shall now, after these many years, be "well regulated," as the Constitution requires.
2)that any person who has chosen to possess at home a gun of any kind, and who is not a member of the police or the military or an appropriate government agency, shall be deemed to have enrolled automatically in the Militia of the United States. Members of the Militia, who will be issued identifying badges, will be organized in units of batallion, company, or platoon size representing countries, towns, or boroughs. If they bear arms while not proceeding to or from scheduled exercises of the Militia, that they will be punished "as a court martial may direct"
3)that any gun owner who declines to join the regulated Militia may opt out by selling his firearms for $1,000 each. He will sign an undertaking that if he ever owns firearms he will be considered to have enlisted in the Militia.
4)...
5)that since the purpose of the Militia is, as the Constitution says, to safeguard "the security of a free state," at times when invasion threatens...all units of the Militia will be trucked to the borders for the duration of the emergency, there to remain in field conditions...until Congress declares that the emergency has passed.
6)that failure to appear...shall result in the Militiaperson's dismissal from the service and forfeiture of badge, pay, and firearm.

Why did the Framers of the Constitution add the word bear to the phrase "keep and bear arms"? Because they conceived that keeping arms at home implied the public obligation to bear them in a regulated way for "the security of" not a private household but "a free state." If interstate bus fares can be regulated, it's hard to see why the Militia can't be, especially since the Constitution says it must be..."

Just trying to put Jefferson's and Washington's intentions into perspective, as I'm sure these aren't the intentions you were implying.

Message edited by author 2003-02-25 01:15:49.

02/25/2003 02:06:49 AM · #11

Originally posted by Malokata:

well Malokata, it sounds like what you have said is nothing more than Paul Fussell's opinion, which may or may not be an expert opinion... the fact is most courts, including the supreme court disagree with him... as does one of the foremost grammatical experts (lord knows I am not) in our fine nation, Roy Copperud.

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwartzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of theSecond Amendment to the United States Constitution?

Mr. Copperud, is a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus. Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.
This sounds like a person who is an expert to me.

First let us read the text of our most important amendment: '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.

When making a completely unbiased assessment of the second amendment, Professor Copperud responded as follows: (Included is a series of questions asked of the professor in the interest of disecting the amendments grammer)

The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Copperud was asked to make analysis of this sentence and not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. And, he was also asked that whatever analysis he made that it would be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind his reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary.

[Copperud:] The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.
In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?;]

[Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.

[Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?;] [Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.

[Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?;]

[Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.

[Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?;]

[Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.

[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?]

[Copperud:] (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.

[Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.]

[Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."

[Schulman: As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and
Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]
[Copperud:]
Your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.
Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all government formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

Here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the ACLU, staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?

The great thing about the states is you have the right to your opinion, and many american's, including those that disagree with you are willing to die defending the fundemental rights our founding fathers saw fit to give us.... But without the 2nd amendment, it would be really really be difficult to defend your rights should it ever, God forbid and thank God it has not yet, become necessary to do so...

02/25/2003 02:37:20 AM · #12

The fact that you copied this article, without citation, from The Free Republic, a website that is billed as "A Conservative News Forum" and which cannot be realistically expected to portray sides of an issue that are not favorable to the conservative ticket, does not strengthen your argument.

Article can be found, originally published by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation, at:

//www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/705263/posts

Interestingly enough, in 1981, The New Republic stated that "the Second Amendment to the Constitution clearly connects the right to bear arms to the 18th-century need to raise a militia."

I'll come back to this tomorrow, as I'm tired.

Martin

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

02/25/2003 02:58:37 AM · #13

well I cited the expert who said the important part of the text... and that was my point... he's a true expert on the subject of usage that you brought up... and reguardless of who published his opinion, it is a completely valid argument that carries much more weight than any personal opinion of Mr. Fussell... coupled with the supreme courts opinion, and the fact that firearms regulation is not one of the powers of the federal government laid out in the constitution, our right to keep and bear arms will remain intact as the founding fathers intended... anyway I too am tired... sleep well...

sher

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

02/25/2003 03:16:45 AM · #14

i agree with you, Anachronite. i live alone and feel much safer here with s little persuasive protection. even if i didn't have that, i have an aluminum baseball bat sitting close by, just waiting for someone to stick his head inside my window...WHACK!!

so, do we now outlaw aluminum baseball bats???

lisae

Olympus C-720UZ

02/25/2003 03:27:45 AM · #15

I have so much respect for people who argued against creating a Bill of Rights as part of Australia's constitution, both at Australia's federation and at the consitutional convention we had a few years back. The words a bunch of guys wrote 200 years ago should not have so much power over the political decisions a community makes in the present, or the future. Values change, lifestyles change, world politics changes, and yet your rights are still being tied to anachronistic ideas. Internationally, we have such a different concept of "human rights" now than the people who drafted the US constitution.

I believe that every community should have the right to determine, democratically, what level of arms it wants to have. Scotland has the right to ban handguns, my country has the right to ban semi-automatic weapons, and the US has the right to be armed to the teeth, if that's what the citizens of those countries decide. You then have to live with 10,000 gun homicides a year while we live with 50 or so. That's our choice.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/25/2003 11:47:16 AM · #16

Originally posted by sher9204:

1) I'm pretty sure more kids are killed each year in accidental shootings and suicides than are criminals by people protecting their lives. Incidentally, all you gun owners should note that justifiable homocide covers protecting yourself from imminent personal harm, not protecting your property.
2) If you take an aluminum baseball bat and hit me over the head with it and steal my wallet, you will be charged with (attempted) murder; if you merely wave it at me in a threatening manner it constitutes assault with a deadly weapon. The last time I flew out of L.A. security personnel tried to confiscate my son's PLASTIC baseball bat, as they said it consituted a potential weapon.
3) Thanks for the clarification about hollow-points. I know the police don't like them available to the public. Homocide merely means killing a human.

02/25/2003 11:55:37 AM · #17

Originally posted by lisae:

I have no problem with the Bill of Rights as a foundation for our U.S. law; I just think the second one should be read a bit differently.

And actually, we have a lot more homicides a year. That's just the firearm homicides.

Also, statistically, you're about twice as likely to be killed by a firearm if you're armed with one. I'm not sure what the statistics are on being able to protect your property, but that's a pretty dissuasive one to me.

JEM

Sony DSC-F707

02/25/2003 01:30:19 PM · #18

Malo, can you give us the source of the statistic about being twice as likely to be killed with a gun if you are armed.

02/25/2003 01:56:05 PM · #19

"Members of handgun-owning families were twice as likely to die in a suicide or homicide as members of the same age, sex, and neighborhood who had no history of handgun purchase. "

Interestingly enough, found at VPC

Martin

edit - That's not exactly the same wording as my statement earlier, probably got muddled in my head. But it's certainly has the same basic implication and impact. And this does, too:

The presence of a gun in the home makes it nearly three times more likely that someone will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner.

Message edited by author 2003-02-25 14:04:42.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

02/25/2003 02:02:33 PM · #20

More from the same source:

Since 1960, more than a million Americans have died in firearm-related homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings. In 1996 alone, 34,040 Americans died by gunfire: 18,166 in firearm suicides, 14,327 in firearm homicides, 1,134 in unintentional shootings, and 413 in firearm deaths of unknown intent.

Most gun deaths in America are not the result of murder (14,327 in 1996), but suicide (18,166 in 1996).

A gun is far more likely to be used in suicide, murder, or unintentional shooting than to kill a criminal. According to federal government figures, for every time a citizen used a firearm in 1996 in a justifiable homicide, 160 lives were ended in firearm suicides, murders, and unintentional shootings.

The United States leads the industrialized world in rates of firearm death among children. In 1997 the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that of firearm deaths among children less than 15 years old, 86 percent occurred in the U.S.

Guns are virtually the only manufactured consumer product exempt from health and safety regulation in the United States.

The 1997 CDC study â��Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Childrenâ��26 Industrialized Countriesâ�� revealed that for unintentionald firearm-related deaths for children under age 15, the rate in the United States was nine times higher than in the other 25 industrialized countries combined.

sher

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

02/25/2003 04:42:36 PM · #21

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by sher9204:
i agree with you, Anachronite. i live alone and feel much safer here with s little persuasive protection. even if i didn't have that, i have an aluminum baseball bat sitting close by, just waiting for someone to stick his head inside my window...WHACK!!

so, do we now outlaw aluminum baseball bats???

1) I'm pretty sure more kids are killed each year in accidental shootings and suicides than are criminals by people protecting their lives. Incidentally, all you gun owners should note that justifiable homocide covers protecting yourself from imminent personal harm, not protecting your property.
2) If you take an aluminum baseball bat and hit me over the head with it and steal my wallet, you will be charged with (attempted) murder; if you merely wave it at me in a threatening manner it constitutes assault with a deadly weapon. The last time I flew out of L.A. security personnel tried to confiscate my son's PLASTIC baseball bat, as they said it consituted a potential weapon.
3) Thanks for the clarification about hollow-points. I know the police don't like them available to the public. Homocide merely means killing a human.

here we go again! lol...all our photographic discussions eventually evolve into political discussions. that's fine with me...although, i do think they should be confined to the "Rant" forum. nevertheless, i'll make a final comment here

1. i do not have any children, so there is no danger to them here (unless you want to consider baseball bats, kitchen knives, any cleansers or chemicals and prescription medicines).
2. i was raised with guns in the home (handguns, shotguns and rifles) and never felt the urge to play with them because i knew that if i did, i would be in for a serious butt whipping.
3. when i became of an age and showed an interest in target shooting, i was taught how to safely handle a gun.
4. i would never hit anyone on the head with my baseball bat and steal their wallet because i am not criminally inclined...BUT...if someone is breaking into my home while i'm here, i would definitely fear bodily harm...i don't know anyone who wouldn't.
5. (in response to Malokata's forum post) a friend of a friend committed suicide on Sunday. he overdosed. not having a gun didn't deter him.

as you all can probably tell, my political views tend toward the conservative side. i am a born again Christian, i honor and respect my parents and my elders, and i try to treat others as i would have them treat me. i'm very patriotic, i love my flag and i believe in Mom, baseball (and football) and apple pie. i am a (dare i say it?) registered Republican (oooh...i can hear the groans from here) and i vote in every election because i feel that is the way we Americans can change our country. i trust in my government, in general, but i have my own mind and i don't blindly believe every spin doctor i hear. i believe there are things the government can't tell us because of national security.

anyway, that's all i'm gonna say. if you feel the need to respond to me, please send a private message or an e-mail...either is more than welcome.

take care...
sher :)

edhendricks

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

02/25/2003 04:49:24 PM · #22

I got the following text from the Australian Institute of Criminalology website at the following link:

//www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi210.html

"This paper examines the similarities and differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous homicides in Australia during an 11-year period. The findings suggest that the "typical" Indigenous homicide in Australia differed from other homicides in important ways.

Indigenous homicides were more likely to occur within the family environment, with a high proportion of female involvement (both as victims and offenders). Many of the incidents resulted from some form of domestic altercation. Alcohol was found to play a major role-just over four out of five Indigenous homicides involved either the victim or the offender, or both, drinking at the time of the incident. Knives were the most common weapon of choice, with firearms used in less than six per cent of homicides. Indigenous homicides involving strangers were found to be exceptionally rare.

These findings can be used to achieve more informed and sound policy directions in the reduction and prevention of lethal violence for Indigenous Australians."

Using the logic applied by many anti-firearm groups, we would need to outlaw not only knives and alcohol, but also families, if we accepted the information on this site as fact. The fact remains, as the tired expression goes, gun don't kill people, people kill people. Of course owners of firearms should use all protective measures to guard against any possible accident involving their guns. Accidents will continue to take the lives of humans, however, whether it be caused by guns, or automobiles, or simply falling off the couch.

People will also remain passionate about the subjects that inspire them, as evidenced by this 2nd amendment rights debate that started in, of all places, a photography challenge forum.

I intend to keep shooting, however amatuerishly, the device that gives me the most pleasure: my camera.

Signed:
Not a Gun Owner, But a Believer in the Right To.

02/25/2003 05:15:40 PM · #23

Originally posted by edhendricks:

Using the logic applied by many anti-firearm groups, we would need to outlaw not only knives and alcohol, but also families, if we accepted the information on this site as fact. The fact remains, as the tired expression goes, gun don't kill people, people kill people. Of course owners of firearms should use all protective measures to guard against any possible accident involving their guns. Accidents will continue to take the lives of humans, however, whether it be caused by guns, or automobiles, or simply falling off the couch.

Signed:
Not a Gun Owner, But a Believer in the Right To.

Putting aside the outlawing families bit as unrelated and an attempt to render my counterarguments ridiculous, we're left with "using the logic applied by many anti-firearm groups, we would need to outlaw...knives and alcohol..."

Facts:

Family and intimate assaults involving a firearm were 12 times more likely to result in death than non-firearm associated assaults between family and intimates.

More female homicides were committed with firearms (52%) than with all other weapons combined. Of these, three quarters were committed with handguns.

So, no, I don't see the relevence of the existance of other weapons and their use in domestic violence as evidence supporting the pro-gun argument.

Regarding: "Accidents will continue to take the lives of humans, however, whether it be caused by guns, or automobiles, or simply falling of the couch."

Facts:

From 1968 to 1991, motor vehicle-related deaths declined by 21%, while firearm-related deaths increased by 60%.

It is estimated that by the year 2003, firearm-related deaths will surpass deaths from motor vehicle-related injuries. In 1991 this was already the case in seven states (California, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, New York, Texas, Virginia) and in the District of Columbia.

Also, although I have no statistics to support it, I'm fairly sure you'll agree fatal accidents are far more likely when a loaded gun is involved than a couch.

Sher, since you expressed the desire not to continue any discussion here, my only response to your arguments (on your personal involvement with firearms) will be to accept them as an exception to what, statistically, has proven to be a very scary nationwide dilemma.

Finally, I don't mean all of this to imply that guns should be outlawed altogether. I just think that, in seeing much ubiquitously evident tragedy as a result of the blind drive to keep guns almost completely unregulated because of some contagious gunbarrel pride, people should be willing to allow for some compromise on the issue. Or, failing that, at least admit that something ought to be done (whether it is more stringent regulation, a nationwide campaign on firearm education, or a background check that doesn't just cover having no felonies on record) to improve the state of affairs, at least in America.

Martin

JEM

Sony DSC-F707

02/25/2003 08:12:32 PM · #24

Police records show that an immense percentage of handgun homicides in the USA are drug and urban turf war related. Now we are confronted with the nasty element of race and age in this equation. Political correctness does not permit an honest public evaluation of the problem, and this is not the forum for that discussion.
Criminals have always had guns. They have guns now and they will have guns in the future.
For home defense I advocate a short barrel, pump, 12 gauge shotgun loaded with #4 shot. It was an effective weapon in the Pacific jungle war, and is an excellent deterrent against home breakins.