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

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Does anyone carry a gun?
Pages:  
Showing posts 126 - 150 of 238, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/18/2011 06:40:42 PM · #126
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Originally posted by ray_mefarso:



The law wouldn't disarm criminals but less weapons in circulation generally would make the country safer, no?


No, because, by definition, the first 90% of the guns that will be removed from circulation will be the legal guns that we actually WANT people to own..

Why do you keep repeating this obviously baseless claim?

Virtually everyone who has commented here in favor of gun control has repeatedly said that the goal is not to disarm law-abiding citizens, but to make sure, in a way done only ineffectually today, that those who obtain guns are law-abiding, competent adults. Surely even members of the NRA don't want guns sold to people who are mentally unstable or to criminals, or proxy-buyers for criminals.


The specific number may be baseless, but look at the areas with tight gun control. You'd expect places like NYC, DC and Chicago to have very low crime rates if gun control laws did what they were supposed to do. The fact is that gun control laws don't reduce crime.
01/18/2011 06:40:58 PM · #127
Originally posted by JulietNN:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Originally posted by ray_mefarso:

....If you think you might need a gun then you maybe shouldn't be going to that place. ....


So, let's say I'm committed to going two places, one is an area where large predators are, and are aggressive, the other is an inner city area that has huge crime rates, and I'm intending on doing stealth photography, but fear being caught.

Now, let's assume I cannot be dissuaded from my foolish task,


Urhuh, I would so tell on you to your fiancée! That would stop you in your tracks!


Meh, she's seen me go a bunch of places I shouldn't, hell, she's even seen me run down car thieves and a few dozen other stupid stunts, I think the shock factor has worn off by now... :)
01/18/2011 06:43:26 PM · #128
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by chazoe:

Wow! Pretty funny how many people in this thread think it is their right to take away the rights of others.

You know what gun control accomplishes? It takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, nothing more nothing less. Criminals do not care if it is illegal to own a gun and criminals do not buy their guns at local sporting goods stores. They steal them or buy them from guys on the street and that will never end, but gun control would sure put an end to hunters and sportsmen owning them.

The lack of common sense among the gun grabbing sect is hilarious to me.


Where are you people getting this idea? WHERE?

Nobody in this thread has proposed banning guns outright. Some of us would like to see improved enforcement of existing regulations governing gun ownership, and some of us would like to see those regulation strengthened in certain areas. That's IT!

Sheesh...

R.


Exactly, Bear_music! I don't think there's any country where guns are completely banned. And, Cory, sports shooters are, of course, entitled to practice their sport. But, and again it has been said before, there are people who should not ever own guns. There are guns that have no place in an non-war zone environment.

It's just because it's guns I think. You wouldn't have an argument about controlling access to poisons. Who would argue that it's my 'right' to have a collection of arsenic and strychnine or some biological weapon? No, you would have to be licensed and inspectors would ensure that you stored the chemicals safely and checked regularly that you conformed with laws and statutes and,importantly, that you had a good reason for wanting to have them in the first place. But people will say it's my right to own a high powered assault rifle, unsuitable for any purpose apart from killing and maiming. Is that reasonable?

Message edited by author 2011-01-18 18:48:27.
01/18/2011 06:48:56 PM · #129
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by chazoe:

Wow! Pretty funny how many people in this thread think it is their right to take away the rights of others.

You know what gun control accomplishes? It takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, nothing more nothing less. Criminals do not care if it is illegal to own a gun and criminals do not buy their guns at local sporting goods stores. They steal them or buy them from guys on the street and that will never end, but gun control would sure put an end to hunters and sportsmen owning them.

The lack of common sense among the gun grabbing sect is hilarious to me.


Where are you people getting this idea? WHERE?

Nobody in this thread has proposed banning guns outright. Some of us would like to see improved enforcement of existing regulations governing gun ownership, and some of us would like to see those regulation strengthened in certain areas. That's IT!

Sheesh...

R.


That's the problem. Making it harder or more complicated than it already is for the law abiding citizen to arm and defend themselves is the wrong approach. Making it harder for criminals, the mentally ill, etc. to get guns is great as long as you don't make gun ownership and self defense MORE complicated for those of us who choose to own and carry guns for our defense.

01/18/2011 06:49:55 PM · #130
Yes Ray, sometimes the bad guy needs to be killed, on the spot.

Message edited by author 2011-01-18 18:50:28.
01/18/2011 06:55:05 PM · #131
Originally posted by David Ey:

Yes Ray, sometimes the bad guy needs to be killed, on the spot.


hmm David, that guy who shot up the people in Arizona - what would be better, after he's shot a dozen rounds in 5 seconds or less, then shoot him? Great, we got the bad guy. Or make it difficult or impossible for an unstable person to get hold of a gun?
01/18/2011 06:58:03 PM · #132
WE will spend Millions defending that idiot.
01/18/2011 07:14:08 PM · #133
sometimes guns DO shoot people. 15 year old kid at Gardenia High School slammed his backpack down on the desk and the loaded gun he had in it shot two other students.
01/18/2011 07:28:00 PM · #134
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by chazoe:

Wow! Pretty funny how many people in this thread think it is their right to take away the rights of others.

You know what gun control accomplishes? It takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, nothing more nothing less. Criminals do not care if it is illegal to own a gun and criminals do not buy their guns at local sporting goods stores. They steal them or buy them from guys on the street and that will never end, but gun control would sure put an end to hunters and sportsmen owning them.

The lack of common sense among the gun grabbing sect is hilarious to me.


Where are you people getting this idea? WHERE?

Nobody in this thread has proposed banning guns outright. Some of us would like to see improved enforcement of existing regulations governing gun ownership, and some of us would like to see those regulation strengthened in certain areas. That's IT!

Sheesh...

R.


Exactly, Bear_music! I don't think there's any country where guns are completely banned. And, Cory, sports shooters are, of course, entitled to practice their sport. But, and again it has been said before, there are people who should not ever own guns. There are guns that have no place in an non-war zone environment.

It's just because it's guns I think. You wouldn't have an argument about controlling access to poisons. Who would argue that it's my 'right' to have a collection of arsenic and strychnine or some biological weapon? No, you would have to be licensed and inspectors would ensure that you stored the chemicals safely and checked regularly that you conformed with laws and statutes and,importantly, that you had a good reason for wanting to have them in the first place. But people will say it's my right to own a high powered assault rifle, unsuitable for any purpose apart from killing and maiming. Is that reasonable?


I have a 5 gal pail of rat poison in my garage. I bought it locally, without presenting ID, having a background check or any other means of determining my "eligibility", and I paid cash. I bet there's enough poison there to kill dozens, maybe hundreds of people. I bet I could buy a pallet stacked high of similar 5 gal pails without much trouble.

While the argument that "guns are only good for killing" (especially handguns or other "non-sporting" weapons) is popular and it's true that they do make killing easier to say that killing is all they are good for is untrue. They also make self defense easier, especially in instances where there may be multiple aggressors or the victim is physically outmatched by the assailant. The police do play an important role in deterring crime, however, they usually show up AFTER the crime has been committed and not in time to prevent it from happening. Telling people to behave passively and just "give them what they want" in the hopes that the assailant will go away is really bad advice. It just doesn't work that way. What do you do when they demand something that you don't have? There was recently a case where after handing over their cash jewelry etc. a family watched as a burglar brutally beat their 14 year old son while holding them at gunpoint in an effort to coerce them into opening their safe...a safe which didn't exist.

Additionally, I use an AR style rifle for hunting coyotes. They're very popular for varmints and predators. Most uninformed people would call them assault rifles as they are similar in appearance and operation to the US military issue M4. It even uses the same cartridge; 5.56mm NATO.
01/18/2011 07:33:26 PM · #135
Originally posted by Melethia:

sometimes guns DO shoot people. 15 year old kid at Gardenia High School slammed his backpack down on the desk and the loaded gun he had in it shot two other students.

Get real. In that case a 15-year old kid accidentally shot two other students. The gun did not walk itself to school and slam itself down on a desk.

01/18/2011 07:36:57 PM · #136
Originally posted by coryboehne:

... criminals don't need to pass the tests and standards, they'll get the guns from someone who doesn't care if they intend to shoot children in the face with it, all they want to do is sell the gun ...

That "someone" would be some "law-abiding citizen" that they're acquiring the gun from?
01/18/2011 07:48:26 PM · #137
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

... criminals don't need to pass the tests and standards, they'll get the guns from someone who doesn't care if they intend to shoot children in the face with it, all they want to do is sell the gun ...

That "someone" would be some "law-abiding citizen" that they're acquiring the gun from?

Not necessarily. It could easily be someone that made the gun in their garage. Making a gun is not rocket science. Anyone with a half ounce of brains and some tools could make one. Kids used to make them all the time. Even a modern assault rifle is only a small number of easily machined parts.

<eta>
And I'm sure you know how easy it is to make an explosive device. Two simple chemicals and some ball bearings could have killed more people at that Safeway than the crazy guy with the handgun.


Message edited by author 2011-01-18 19:56:05.
01/18/2011 07:50:26 PM · #138
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

... criminals don't need to pass the tests and standards, they'll get the guns from someone who doesn't care if they intend to shoot children in the face with it, all they want to do is sell the gun ...

That "someone" would be some "law-abiding citizen" that they're acquiring the gun from?


Or, more likely, that "someone" is criminal who stole the gun.
01/18/2011 07:51:19 PM · #139
Originally posted by Mick:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

... criminals don't need to pass the tests and standards, they'll get the guns from someone who doesn't care if they intend to shoot children in the face with it, all they want to do is sell the gun ...

That "someone" would be some "law-abiding citizen" that they're acquiring the gun from?

Not necessarily. It could easily be someone that made the gun in their garage. Making a gun is not rocket science. Anyone with a half ounce of brains and some tools could make one. Kids used to make them all the time. Even a modern assault rifle is only a small number of easily machined parts.


Well then we better ban lathes and such. Hell, we better ban ingenuity and free thought as well. Just think of the damage that can be caused with nails, pipes, and gasoline. We better ban that stuff as well.
01/18/2011 07:53:03 PM · #140
Originally posted by Mick:

Originally posted by Melethia:

sometimes guns DO shoot people. 15 year old kid at Gardenia High School slammed his backpack down on the desk and the loaded gun he had in it shot two other students.

Get real. In that case a 15-year old kid accidentally shot two other students. The gun did not walk itself to school and slam itself down on a desk.

Just reporting what I read. Not being real or unreal. But do wonder why a 15 year old kid has a gun at school. Loaded and apparently with the safety off.
01/18/2011 08:29:37 PM · #141
My other question - why make the distinction between "shooting" and "accidental shooting"? I can see where it may make a difference to the gun owner/operator, but most likely is felt the same by the recipient.

But the gun apparently did fire itself. I'd also wager that we don't have the true story either. Media is so quick to report anything that ten kids with smart phones could make the whole thing up and it'd get aired.

The gun owner is 17, not 15 as previously reported, and did not, as previously reported "take hostages" (gotta love responsible reporting!) but did hide after the gun went off. Wimp. :-)

Message edited by author 2011-01-18 20:33:09.
01/18/2011 08:32:52 PM · #142
Fair point, well made, Sprock99, I should have maybe said chemical warfare agents.

Your example of the kid who got beat? It's possible to cite examples when an armed citizen could have prevented a crime or delivered swift justice but I would suggest that these are a minority of cases. Much more frequent outcomes of large-scale gun ownership are instances of accidental shootings, guns falling into the hands of criminals, people of previously good character going crazy and shooting others and domestic shootings.

I checked both FBI and NRA-sourced figures and compared US and UK (where I'm living) In the US you are 30 times more likely to die in a gun homicide than in the UK. In the US gun ownership is about 10 times higher than the UK. If these two figures are not related then people in US are much more murderous than elsewhere. Is that likely?

Vermont had no gun murders in 2009, the year for which figures are published, so maybe moving to Vermont could be an option for those who don't want to arm themselves. And I believe the scenery and photo opportunities there are spectacular
01/18/2011 09:01:23 PM · #143
Originally posted by Melethia:

My other question - why make the distinction between "shooting" and "accidental shooting"? I can see where it may make a difference to the gun owner/operator, but most likely is felt the same by the recipient.

Then by your logic there should be no distinction between a mother killing her daughter by deliberately feeding her an overdose of prescription drugs and a mother accidentally killing her daughter because she misread the prescription label. I can see where it may make a difference to the mothers, but most likely is felt the same by the recipient.

Originally posted by Melethia:

But the gun apparently did fire itself.

What was the gun's motivation I wonder. What could make a gun want to shoot two innocent boys? I don't suppose we'll ever know, will we? :(

Originally posted by Melethia:

I'd also wager that we don't have the true story either. Media is so quick to report anything that ten kids with smart phones could make the whole thing up and it'd get aired.

Oh, I would be willing to bet you don't know the true story. I'm also pretty sure you and a lot of other anti-gun people watch way too much FUD TV.

Originally posted by Melethia:

The gun owner is 17, not 15 as previously reported, and did not, as previously reported "take hostages" (gotta love responsible reporting!) but did hide after the gun went off. Wimp. :-)

I doubt very much that the 17-year old kid is the owner of the weapon. Especially since it was in California.

01/18/2011 09:07:54 PM · #144
Yes, indeed, the outcome of the mother intentionally poisoning her daughter or accidentally doing so is EXACTLY THE SAME to the daughter.

The student at Gardenia undergoing surgery to her head probably isn't concerned as to whether it was an accident or not at this point.

And as Robert has said MANY times, advocating the ban of guns in the US of A is totally pointless. Never gonna happen. Gun control laws are not even a possibility.

Advocating responsible use of said weaponry is also pointless.

The young man who killed his father, great-aunt, and critically wounded his grandmother (it was yesterday, I think) did so with a weapon he was given as a birthday present this past September. He was the legal owner of that weapon.

Message edited by author 2011-01-18 21:09:17.
01/18/2011 09:12:31 PM · #145
Sigh, sorry I brought this up. I really didn't want this to become a gun control topic. I really was just curious if other photogs carried guns and/or if anyone had been in frightening situations.
01/18/2011 09:15:07 PM · #146
good point. Sorry!
01/18/2011 09:20:57 PM · #147
Originally posted by Melethia:


The young man who killed his father, great-aunt, and critically wounded his grandmother (it was yesterday, I think) did so with a weapon he was given as a birthday present this past September. He was the legal owner of that weapon.


OT -- Local reports (this happened about an hour/hour andahalf from here) are speculating that the father (or someone in the family) may have been abusing the boy. "Experts" speculated that in many cases like this, where a young person shoots those he lives with, abuse is almost always the instigating factor.
01/18/2011 09:22:25 PM · #148
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:


..

It's just because it's guns I think. You wouldn't have an argument about controlling access to poisons. Who would argue that it's my 'right' to have a collection of arsenic and strychnine or some biological weapon? No, you would have to be licensed and inspectors would ensure that you stored the chemicals safely and checked regularly that you conformed with laws and statutes and,importantly, that you had a good reason for wanting to have them in the first place. But people will say it's my right to own a high powered assault rifle, unsuitable for any purpose apart from killing and maiming. Is that reasonable?


I think I should be able to own cyanide if I want (it gets gold out of rocks really nicely, and I am, after all is said and done, still a geologist to some degree or another)

I do own a ton of arsenic, but that happens to be mineral specimens, mostly arsenic sulfide, but some native... I also have a bunch of asbestos, and a surprising amount of really hot uranium ore too, I own mercury and formaldehyde, and sulfuric acid, and hydrochloric acid, I have sodium hydroxide, ammonia, all kinds of stuff.. I'm sure I could do a ton of really bad things with all of those, but in the end, they are either tools or collectibles, and sometimes both. Why should the potential for danger preclude me from owning it? I'd love to have a specimen of ricin poison, of course I'm not allowed to in that case (or at least that's my understanding), as it's a crime.

So, heck yes I'll argue to death about "controlling" chemicals, I hate that I can't get nitric acid without great effort (I can make it, but what a pain in the ass...), just because this stuff can be used to make explosives, or drugs, or chemical weapons, or whatever, they say I can't have it... And since I'm a hobbyist they don't consider my wanting to do these things as being legitimate, or even if the chemicals are legal, often it's simply more hassle than it's worth.. And I just want to use it to play with rocks, or maybe perform a bit of fun chemistry at home, or, etc... If you're interested in seeing a bit of what I'm talking about visit this really cool guy's YouTube page ..
01/18/2011 09:24:14 PM · #149
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:

Fair point, well made, Sprock99, I should have maybe said chemical warfare agents.

Your example of the kid who got beat? It's possible to cite examples when an armed citizen could have prevented a crime or delivered swift justice but I would suggest that these are a minority of cases. Much more frequent outcomes of large-scale gun ownership are instances of accidental shootings, guns falling into the hands of criminals, people of previously good character going crazy and shooting others and domestic shootings.

I checked both FBI and NRA-sourced figures and compared US and UK (where I'm living) In the US you are 30 times more likely to die in a gun homicide than in the UK. In the US gun ownership is about 10 times higher than the UK. If these two figures are not related then people in US are much more murderous than elsewhere. Is that likely?

Vermont had no gun murders in 2009, the year for which figures are published, so maybe moving to Vermont could be an option for those who don't want to arm themselves. And I believe the scenery and photo opportunities there are spectacular


I have bleach, ammonia and drain cleaner too. I can buy plenty of those too and make some wicked gas.

As for your assertion...prove it.

It's really funny that you should cite Vermont since they have some of the most relaxed gun laws in the country. No permit required to purchase or own. No registration. No permit to carry openly OR concealed. No "Assault Weapon" ban. and no NFA Weapon restrictions. They're pretty much the antithesis of everything you've proposed. You're right that it might be the ideal place for those who don't want to arm themselves since everyone else is probably carrying.

01/18/2011 09:25:53 PM · #150
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:

Fair point, well made, Sprock99, I should have maybe said chemical warfare agents.



:)

Fiancee's mace has CN tear gas as a component.... :) Would that count?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/02/2020 02:16:06 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 06/02/2020 02:16:06 PM EDT.