Guns v.s Cameras - DPChallenge Forums

11/17/2008 01:46:42 AM · #1

This is not aimed at the membership of DPC.

A friend of mine told me that more gun control would be a good thing.I asked him if camera control should be established and he looked at me as if I had lost my mind. People use cameras to photograph child pornography , is it the camera? People use guns to commit crimes, is it the gun?

I don't have an answer.

11/17/2008 02:01:34 AM · #2

Originally posted by Blind_squirrel:

It's a simple answer - it's the person.

If a gun control included some sort of pshyciatric evaluation and an aptitude test it would, to some extent, filter out possible homicidal candidates.

Guns can hardly be classified with cameras, as guns have no other purpose but to destroy something - whether it's a target, or a life (human or animal).

11/17/2008 02:09:10 AM · #3

Originally posted by BigK:

Originally posted by Blind_squirrel:
This is not aimed at the membership of DPC.

A friend of mine told me that more gun control would be a good thing.I asked him if camera control should be established and he looked at me as if I had lost my mind. People use cameras to photograph child pornography , is it the camera? People use guns to commit crimes, is it the gun?

I don't have an answer.

It's a simple answer - it's the person.

If a gun control included some sort of pshyciatric evaluation and an aptitude test it would, to some extent, filter out possible homicidal candidates.

Guns can hardly be classified with cameras, as guns have no other purpose but to destroy something - whether it's a target, or a life (human or animal).

Cameras never destoyed a life? I would rather meet my maker than live a lifetime of judgement of my peers.
This comes from a person who has been shot at during a robbery.

11/17/2008 02:18:29 AM · #4

Originally posted by Blind_squirrel:

Originally posted by BigK:

Originally posted by Blind_squirrel:
This is not aimed at the membership of DPC.

A friend of mine told me that more gun control would be a good thing.I asked him if camera control should be established and he looked at me as if I had lost my mind. People use cameras to photograph child pornography , is it the camera? People use guns to commit crimes, is it the gun?

I don't have an answer.

It's a simple answer - it's the person.

If a gun control included some sort of pshyciatric evaluation and an aptitude test it would, to some extent, filter out possible homicidal candidates.

Guns can hardly be classified with cameras, as guns have no other purpose but to destroy something - whether it's a target, or a life (human or animal).

Cameras never destoyed a life? I would rather meet my maker than live a lifetime of judgement of my peers.
This comes from a person who has been shot at during a robbery.

What I'm saying is - you cannot put a camera in the same group as a gun - a camera is not designed to "destroy lives" it's a mere byproduct of human nature. A camera is designed to take pictures of life - immortalise moments.

A gun is designed to destroy - any way you look at it.

If you argue that a camera has destroyed a life (which, to me is a stretch) then the argument becomes open to all sort of things that destroy lives like the Sun (skin cancer)... Cough syrup (addiction)... Cars (accidents)... etc.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM II

11/17/2008 02:36:25 AM · #5

I enjoy guns , it's a long range game of darts.I receive so much pleasure from an awesome photograph.I also get a great deal of enjoyment at the gun range.

It's not the equipment that I have problem with, it's the user.

Gnomey

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

11/17/2008 02:45:05 AM · #6

Originally posted by BigK:

Originally posted by Blind_squirrel:

Originally posted by BigK:

Originally posted by Blind_squirrel:
This is not aimed at the membership of DPC.

A friend of mine told me that more gun control would be a good thing.I asked him if camera control should be established and he looked at me as if I had lost my mind. People use cameras to photograph child pornography , is it the camera? People use guns to commit crimes, is it the gun?

I don't have an answer.

It's a simple answer - it's the person.

If a gun control included some sort of pshyciatric evaluation and an aptitude test it would, to some extent, filter out possible homicidal candidates.

Guns can hardly be classified with cameras, as guns have no other purpose but to destroy something - whether it's a target, or a life (human or animal).

Cameras never destoyed a life? I would rather meet my maker than live a lifetime of judgement of my peers.
This comes from a person who has been shot at during a robbery.

What I'm saying is - you cannot put a camera in the same group as a gun - a camera is not designed to "destroy lives" it's a mere byproduct of human nature. A camera is designed to take pictures of life - immortalise moments.

A gun is designed to destroy - any way you look at it.

If you argue that a camera has destroyed a life (which, to me is a stretch) then the argument becomes open to all sort of things that destroy lives like the Sun (skin cancer)... Cough syrup (addiction)... Cars (accidents)... etc.

Define Destroy then. When I use my gun to shoot at a target, with the holes forming a smiley face I've destroyed nothing, but created art.(Guess you didn't look at it that way) The gun does nothing other than pull back a pin and release it, so you could also say it's the bullet that's to blame. Or even further, It could be the powder in the shell or the actual flying lead. It's the person, let's just leave it at that and forget object classification and semantics. In my opinion anyway...... But wait, which person? The gun designer? The assembler? The chemist who figured out the optimal powder? I could go on...but it's OBVIOUS it's the person behind the trigger. (Gun OR camera) This argument has an infinite amount of loopholes and circles and is always futile.

crayon

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH1

11/17/2008 02:48:17 AM · #7

Originally posted by Blind_squirrel:

it's partially the "availability" of the equipment as well. years ago before the digital camera-phone age, there were less upskirt photos posted on the internet. so now they banned anyone from bringing in their camera phones into locker rooms and public baths - eventho they are gender separated!

11/17/2008 02:52:53 AM · #8

Originally posted by Gnomey:

Yes you're right, it will be futile. But i'm trying to make the connection between the gun and the camera - you've exluded the camera in your argument.

Originally posted by crayon:

Okay, but an upskirt shot (granted without consent would be a serious breach of personal space and violation) can hardly compare to losing a loved one to a deranged serial killler.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM II

11/17/2008 02:59:55 AM · #9

Kiddy porn.....Was it the camera?.....What does it matter, nobody died.

I'm going to bed.

p.s. This is a very good forum.

Gnomey

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

11/17/2008 03:06:12 AM · #10

Originally posted by BigK:

Originally posted by Gnomey:

Define Destroy then. When I use my gun to shoot at a target, with the holes forming a smiley face I've destroyed nothing, but created art.(Guess you didn't look at it that way) The gun does nothing other than pull back a pin and release it, so you could also say it's the bullet that's to blame. Or even further, It could be the powder in the shell or the actual flying lead. It's the person, let's just leave it at that and forget object classification and semantics. In my opinion anyway...... But wait, which person? The gun designer? The assembler? The chemist who figured out the optimal powder? I could go on...but it's OBVIOUS it's the person behind the trigger. (Gun OR camera) This argument has an infinite amount of loopholes and circles and is always futile.

Yes you're right, it will be futile. But i'm trying to make the connection between the gun and the camera - you've exluded the camera in your argument.

Originally posted by crayon:
it's partially the "availability" of the equipment as well. years ago before the digital camera-phone age, there were less upskirt photos posted on the internet. so now they banned anyone from bringing in their camera phones into locker rooms and public baths - eventho they are gender separated!

Okay, but an upskirt shot (granted without consent would be a serious breach of personal space and violation) can hardly compare to losing a loved one to a deranged serial killler.

I'm was pointing out flaws in your logic. There IS NO comparison of guns and cameras because it doesn't matter. Both are materials made up of things on a periodic table and not sentient. I don't even know why you are trying to compare guns to camera's or upskirt shots to death. It's not the objects or outcome, but the intentions of how they came about that should matter. Compare your photos to mine and you win.

11/17/2008 03:09:19 AM · #11

Originally posted by Blind_squirrel:

Kiddy porn.....Was it the camera?.....What does it matter, nobody died.

I'm going to bed.

p.s. This is a very good forum.

This whole thread is futile :P

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM II

11/17/2008 03:11:14 AM · #12

Originally posted by Gnomey:

MY logic? Do you see my name next to the Gun's vs Camera's thread title?

Gnomey

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

11/17/2008 03:20:52 AM · #13

MY logic? Do you see my name next to the Gun's vs Camera's thread title? [/quote]

Um no. Your logic of classifying guns and cameras and which one destroys lives more. "Guns can hardly be classified with cameras, as guns have no other purpose but to destroy something - whether it's a target, or a life (human or animal)." (I proved my gun creates art and destroys nothing).

My point was that neither of them do, and there is no reason trying to argue a MORE destructive tool, or a MORE destructive outcome.

ericwoo

Nikon D800

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

11/17/2008 03:21:54 AM · #14

I think GUNS make me look pretty in front of the CAMERA. I'll have two more of both, please.

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

11/17/2008 04:10:25 AM · #15

Originally posted by ericwoo:

I think GUNS make me look pretty in front of the CAMERA. I'll have two more of both, please.

LOL dont shoot!

Originally posted by Gnomey:

Um no. Your logic of classifying guns and cameras and which one destroys lives more.

This was Blind_Squirrels logic (read thread title again). I merely pointed out flaws with the argument saying IF you claim X then Y and Z could also apply.

You didnt prove anything with your "create art" theory. Then I can say, the bomb on Hiroshima created a nice, artistic crater?

A gun has absolutely no other purpose but to fire a projectile from the muzzle - and more often than not, this is directed at living beings. It is destructive ANY way you look at it. a gun's purpose is not to create something - I find your art example an extreme stretch.

You cannot compare guns to cameras in terms of destruction - bottom line.

FireBird

11/17/2008 04:29:58 AM · #16

A gun, like a camera, or any other human construct, is merely a tool. What you must ultimately seek to control, is the human mind. The human mind is the most dangerous weapon to ever appear on this earth. The mind is a terrible thing. One should be licensed to possess and operate a mind.
But the mind, unlike human tools, is not constrained by time and space. So this licensing would be folly. Folly only exceeded by this attempt to start a gun thread and mix it with cameras. :)

Lonni

Nikon D700

11/17/2008 05:53:24 AM · #17

For goodness sake, plural's don't need apostrophe's!

Grammar rant over :)

mgsmith53

Pentax K-R

Pentax DA L 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL

11/17/2008 06:01:54 AM · #18

For goodness sake, it's not the apostrophe, it's the USER! When they're sprayed around without regard to the consequences they can cause all manner of damage.

Message edited by author 2008-11-17 06:02:35.

Azrifel

Nikon Coolpix P340

11/17/2008 06:10:33 AM · #19

I think you can better have some teens shooting with their cameras than with their guns at the mall....

Azrifel

Nikon Coolpix P340

11/17/2008 06:11:41 AM · #20

Also a kid cannot accidentily kill himself with his daddy's camera, unless it is a pro-body with a 4kg lens attached and he drops it on his head...

Thans for pointing out my error sabphoto

Message edited by author 2008-11-17 07:54:06.

sabphoto

Samsung Galaxy S8/S8+

11/17/2008 07:22:42 AM · #21

Originally posted by Azrifel:

Also a kid cannot accidentily kill himself with his daddy's gun, unless it is a pro-body with a 4kg lens attached and he drops it on his head...

did you mean camera instead of gun?

This thread brings up a pretty interesting thought...got to kind of wonder if we are comparing guns that kill to cameras that destroy lives, then can we compare paint guns to sketchs maybe? Paint guns weren't designed to kill but to mimmic the action so...?

Message edited by author 2008-11-17 07:23:13.

Ken