Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: RSL on July 30, 2011, 10:57:02 am
-
Here are a couple from the past week. Had to crop the guy with the gun because I didn't have time to get the camera into a vertical position. The bear in the tree is no good as a serious photograph because it was at the limit of a 28-300 mounted on my old D2x -- in other words, the equivalent of 450mm, and ISO 800, which is too high on the D2x. But I thought it was interesting. According to the clerk in the motel where I stayed in Durango this week, the bear hangs out most days in this tall pine just behind the motel.
-
I should imagine the bear hangs there in order to avoid the guy with the gun.
Tell me that the gun is a toy; I'd hate to think of old men (or women) carrying these things around for real - dementia and all that stuff. Anyway, I thought guns were supposed to be kept at home or in the glove compartment/holster (another semantic joke?) of one's car and that licences had to be obtained in order to carry one elsewhere, or if hidden.
Frankly, too damned many of them exist in this world; I wonder how the ratio of self-defence to aggressive useage works out... guess nobody needs National Geographic in order to have the answer - all you need is a news programme.
Rob C
-
Rob, in all likelihood, it is a real gun. Many states here allow so-called "open carry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States)", with or without a license, for better or worse.
-
Rob, in all likelihood, it is a real gun. Many states here allow so-called "open carry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States)", with or without a license, for better or worse.
I'm stunned.
Rob C
-
I'm stunned.
Rob C
No, Rob, not a stun gun... I said "real gun" ;D
-
Lots of folks carry guns here in Arizona with no problems. Some carry them openly, most carry them concealed. Back when concealed carry permits were necessary there were (if memory serves me) around 90,000 concealed permits issued here.
-
Man carries assault rifle to Obama protest -- and it's legal (http://articles.cnn.com/2009-08-17/politics/obama.protest.rifle_1_protesters-weapons-assault-rifle?_s=PM:POLITICS)
From the CNN article: "...despite the man's proximity to the president, there were no charges or arrests to be made."
-
Rob, The gun's a standard military issue M1911A1, 45 caliber semi-automatic pistol. Nothing toy about it. It's a great weapon, and I always carried one when I was in a combat zone. The Air Force preferred a 38 caliber revolver, but since I was captain of a base pistol team for a while I knew better. The 45 round will knock a man down. The 38 won't necessarily.
Slobodan's right, and Colorado's an open carry state, though municipalities are allowed to prohibit open carry. (Denver is the principal offender.) Colorado also has a "shall issue" law which says that if you apply for a concealed carry permit the burden is on the state or municipality to show why your permit shouldn't be issued. We also have what certain people not well grounded in reality call the "make my day" law, which says, in effect, that if somebody tries to break into your house you can blow him away and you won't be indicted.
There's plenty of research available to show that states and municipalities that allow concealed carry have less crime than states and municipalities that don't. If you're interested I'll give you some references. My maternal grandfather was a prosecuting attorney in northern Michigan. At that time the state had a law that prevented you from carrying a firearm in your car unless it was unloaded and in the trunk. My granddad believed it would be better if every car were required to have a pump shotgun under the front seat with at least six rounds of buckshot in it. He said, "Then, if a guy who'd decided to rob the local bank looked around and saw a dozen cars on the street with people in a couple of them, he might have second thoughts." I'm convinced he was right.
Actually the bear is three mountain ranges away from the guy with the gun.
-
Russ ... There's also plenty of evidence that shows that you and your loved ones (ie children) are FAR more likely to be shot and killed if you own a gun than if you don't.
In fact, one study indicated that you were over 4 times as likely to be shot and almost 5 times as likely to be shot and killed while actually carrying gun as compared to those not packing heat.
-
Jeremy, If you check you'll find that those statistics include gang wars, drug wars, etc., etc. The "children" in those studies include 18-year-old gang bangers in the inner cities. It would help if you'd give me a citation for that evidence. I'll dig up some citations for you if you want them, but at the moment I'm out of business for this evening and probably tomorrow.
-
Charles Branas, University of Pennsylvania, American Journal of Public Health, 2009
Supposedly the study 'controlled' for socio-economic variables.
-
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm
Another interesting study.
-
The bear in the tree is no good as a serious photograph because it was at the limit of a 28-300 mounted on my old D2x -- in other words, the equivalent of 450mm, and ISO 800, which is too high on the D2x. But I thought it was interesting. According to the clerk in the motel where I stayed in Durango this week, the bear hangs out most days in this tall pine just behind the motel.
What a tank the D2X is. Built like a brick craphouse. It wasn't that long ago when it was considered the cat's pajamas. I still have mine and a couple of very good Nikon lenses, but for the last two years it's taken a back seat to my Sony a850 and Zeiss glass. But I always loved shooting with it and I may get the body modified for IR photography and start using it again.
-
We also have what certain people not well grounded in reality call the "make my day" law, which says, in effect, that if somebody tries to break into your house you can blow him away and you won't be indicted.
Now that's something I believe is a fundamental right. An Englishman's home might well be his castle, but don't imagine they feel any less strongly up north!
But that doesn't mean the freedom to carry killing machines outside in public, and let's face it, that's all they are meant to be.
As for a row of passing cars stopping to foil a raid - I think that they would just take out the 'man in the street' as well as the 'innocent bystander', to say nothing of each other. I suspect the guys in the balaclavas or ski gear would probably have sub-machine guns; I'm sure they will have studied all the movies! Heavens, think of the damage to property and cars! Would the insurance companies be happy to pay out for heroes? Where would it end?
;-)
Rob C
-
Hello Russ, I wish I could comment on the photo(s) but for the life of me I just don't get "street photography." I've really tried but I guess it's in the same category as being a red or white wine afficionado or whatever similar scenario one can sketch, where preference rules. If it makes me less of a photographer so be it, one can't pretend.
If you don't mind me adding a word or two about the "carry" discussion as depicted in your photo though. My country has "concealed carry" laws, whereby only the armed forces are allowed to publicly display firearms. Civilians have to conceal and are liable to lose their licences if caught doing otherwise. So, for me, a man on a public bench playing with his dog, pistol hanging on his side is weird to see. He would be called "Rambo" here and would probably have his gun taken from him at some stage.
Owning a firearm and publicly brandishing it does not make you proficient in it's use, as Jeff Cooper once commented- Owning a violin does not make you a musician. But, countries and mindsets differ.
-
... My granddad believed it would be better if every car were required to have a pump shotgun under the front seat with at least six rounds of buckshot in it. He said, "Then, if a guy who'd decided to rob the local bank looked around and saw a dozen cars on the street with people in a couple of them, he might have second thoughts." I'm convinced he was right...
Hmm... if only we could conduct a social experiment, where everyone would be allowed to carry guns (and would exercise that right), and see how that would affect, say, bank robberies.
Wait!... Didn't we already have it? Wild West? Cowboys and sheriffs? Apparently, did not prevent bank robberies and many other crimes at the time.
-
Slobodan, You're thinking of the late twenties and Bonny and Clyde. In the "wild west" cowboys carried guns to put down varmints of various kinds that threatened their cattle. When a gang robbed a bank there usually was no sheriff in the town, but a marshall would come from a two or three day ride away. Once the marshall got there he'd usually round up a posse of cowboys (with their guns) and go after the malefactors, who always were easily identified but often almost impossible to catch.
Riaan, It bothers me to see civilians carrying guns openly too. What really works is the fact that in a jurisdiction with "shall issue" laws, criminals don't know who is and who isn't carrying a gun. About a decade ago we had a neighbor lady who was quite old and quite crippled, but who loved to go to gatherings of her friends of an evening. One night she was hobbling her way back to her car when a young guy came out of an alley toward her. She stopped, zipped open her purse and reached inside. The guy turned on his heel and ran. He was lucky. She had a permit and a gun and knew how to use it. Knowing her I have no doubt she'd have offed him. When I was mayor there was a guy on my council -- also a vet -- who was downtown in Colorado Springs one evening when a guy threatened him with a knife and tried to rob him. Bill whipped out his concealed pistol and blew the guy away. Incidents like these make criminals in our area a lot more cautious and contemplative.
-
Russ, given the old guy's age the most likely thing he will do with his gun is to commit suicide. Find out more here (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923).
Cheers,
-
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm
Another interesting study.
Jeremy, I've read the citation and I find myself underwhelmed. Even if the statistics CDC used are accurate, there are a number of problems with jumping to the conclusion that firearms themselves are the cause of the results. The first problem is that the sample is immense and the number of children involved in firearm deaths is miniscule. Another problem is that in general the study deals with "firearm related deaths," not murders. It lumps together suicides, accidental firearm deaths, and murders. Unless I'm mistaken it's murders we're concerned with. A kid who's set on suicide doesn't need a gun, though a gun's convenient if it happens to be there. Accidental deaths are, well, accidental. That kind of death can be produced with a gun, but it can be produced with a car, a mountain, football, contaminated food, etc., etc. Finally, we get to homicide. The study states: "Of the homicides, 1464 (73%) occurred among U.S. children." First, that's an extremely small number relative to the population sample, and second, it doesn't differentiate between age groups. As I said earlier, it includes 18-year-olds in drug wars, inner-city gang bangers, and drive-by shootings in downtown Detroit where a kid in bed happens to get hit.
The real question is: how many kids are killed by guns in the hands of people who legitimately hold the guns? In other words, in a locale like my own, where many people carry legitimate concealed weapons, is the serious crime rate, including murder, rape, etc., higher or lower than in places like New York City where only criminals are allowed to have guns?
One citation I was going to give you was John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime, but there have been enough attacks on that book that I'm sure you'd immediately come back with one of them. Instead, I'm going to give you a reference to a Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#cite_note-CHE-87. As "Rhossydd" pointed out in another thread, people can use Wikipedia to suggest their personal opinions are facts, but this article includes hard citations for each statement. The best summary of the article I can come up with is a paragraph from the article: "In reporting on Lott's original analysis The Chronicle of Higher Education has said that although his findings are controversial Mr. Lott's research has convinced his peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime." I personally think legalizing concealed weapons causes a noticeable, if not major decrease in crime, but I can't prove it.
Since I live in Colorado I can't help but think about the Columbine massacre and wonder what would have happened if that teacher who held the door while his kids got out and then was killed had been armed. Had he been carrying, that'd have been the end of the massacre. The same thing's true in the other school and college massacres we've had these past few years. I've come to believe that high school teachers and college professors should be required to go through the same kind of handgun training I went through in the Air Force and be required to carry a gun at all times in the classroom. I think that'd bring the school massacres to a screeching halt!
-
What a tank the D2X is. Built like a brick craphouse. It wasn't that long ago when it was considered the cat's pajamas. I still have mine and a couple of very good Nikon lenses, but for the last two years it's taken a back seat to my Sony a850 and Zeiss glass. But I always loved shooting with it and I may get the body modified for IR photography and start using it again.
Pop, Apparently you did the same thing I did when I bought my D3: you hung on to your D2X. At first I thought I'd sell it, but I realized that with the huge jump in capabilities of the D3 I wouldn't get much for the D2X, and it'd make a pretty good backup. Nowadays when I drive cross-country I hang my Nikkor 24-70mm and L bracket on the D3 so I can use it on a tripod, and then put the 28-300 with VR on the D2X. That gives me an overall zoom range from 24mm to 450mm without changing lenses. The D2X image isn't great at full extension, but at least it gets the gist of the subject -- like the bear.
-
... I've come to believe that high school teachers and college professors should be required to go through the same kind of handgun training I went through in the Air Force and be required to carry a gun at all times in the classroom. I think that'd bring the school massacres to a screeching halt!
Or the change in strategy: any self-respecting lunatic with a gun and a grudge would start his massacre by surprising and killing the gun-carrying teacher. Regardless of the technical shooting training, a decent guy would always think for a split second longer than the bad guy whether to shoot and kill another human being. That especially goes for teachers. Some things are best left to professionals.
Or how about not only teachers, but all students being allowed to carry guns (not so far fetched, as someone already proposed that)? So, when the shooting starts, and other students start shooting back, and new students with guns start entering the fray, how would they distinguish who is the original shooter and who is only shooting back? The same question goes for the police, once they enter the scene.
-
Once again if you give kids a gun the thing they are most likely to do is kill themself (http://kidshealth.org/parent/emotions/behavior/suicide.html) with it.
55 Percent of Gun Deaths in America are Suicide. (http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=71736)
Cheers,
-
Or the change in strategy: any self-respecting lunatic with a gun and a grudge would start his massacre by surprising and killing the gun-carrying teacher.
Slobodan, I'm not sure there's such a thing as a self-respecting lunatic, but assuming there is, you might be right. That's why we need more than one teacher with a gun.
Regardless of the technical shooting training, a decent guy would always think for a split second longer than the bad guy whether to shoot and kill another human being. That especially goes for teachers. Some things are best left to professionals.
What kind of professionals did you have in mind? Maybe we could supply each high school and university with a swat team? I think a decent guy, especially a decent teacher whose students are being murdered, would shoot first and think about it later. You're assuming all teachers are wusses. That's simply not true.
Or how about not only teachers, but all students being allowed to carry guns (not so far fetched, as someone already proposed that)? So, when the shooting starts, and other students start shooting back, and new students with guns start entering the fray, how would they distinguish who is the original shooter and who is only shooting back? The same question goes for the police, once they enter the scene.
That's quite a stretch, Slobodan. You've been watching too much TV. I can't think of a single case where a school was attacked by more than two guys, and Columbine is the only one I can think of where more than one was involved. One shot -- end of slaughter.
-
Russ, I'm assuming by all this that a camera isn't all you're packing.
-
Russ, given the old guy's age the most likely thing he will do with his gun is to commit suicide. Find out more here (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923).
Cheers,
Tom, I doubt this guy will off himself. He's always on the street downtown. Usually when I pass him I tell him, "Thanks for helping to keep Manitou weird," which echoes a frequently seen bumper sticker that says: "Keep Manitou Weird."
Your reference is to an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, which pretty much says it all. People in what my wife calls "those punky little states back east" are obsessed with the fear of guns. Not so in the west, except in places like Denver, which has become overpopulated with refugees from California. The idea that the availability of guns makes suicide easier may be right, but if I wanted to commit suicide I'd go downtown to one of Colorado Springs's parks where, without difficulty, I could buy medicinal help that would make suicide much quieter and much less messy than swallowing a gun. Over the past three decades I've had two friends commit suicide -- both because of medical problems they couldn't overcome and couldn't live with. One went into a local mausoleum and blew his brains out. The second got in his car, closed the garage door, and started his engine. There are lots of ways to skin that cat. If guns were to disappear it's very unlikely suicide would disappear with them.
-
Russ, I'm assuming by all this that a camera isn't all you're packing.
Jennifer, When I was young I always had guns around. My grandad gave me my first rifle when I was twelve, and he taught me how to use it and what not to do with it. I lettered on the rifle team in high school (Imagine that -- a high school with a rifle team -- good grief! They had guns in a high school?), and for about a month after my 15th birthday I was the Michigan junior smallbore champion. Later on, I was a pistol team captain, a handloader, etc. But I haven't packed a gun or even had one in the house since I came back from Vietnam in 1965. On the other hand I have a granddaughter who, until she decided to get married next month, was on an Olympic pistol team. She used to wear a T shirt with a green pistol on it above the words: "Green Piece."
-
I'm not necessarily against guns for sport. In fact, one of my favourite winter olympic events is the biathlon. An amazing test of stamina and control. But you seem to be advocating a safer society if more people were armed at all times. In that context and given your training, it seemed logical to me to assume you would still carry a weapon.
-
Slobodan, I'm not sure there's such a thing as a self-respecting lunatic, but assuming there is, you might be right. That's why we need more than one teacher with a gun.
In which case any lunatic worth his salt (a better metaphor than "self-respecting lunatic"? ;)) would start his journey during a break, in teachers' lounge.
What kind of professionals did you have in mind?
Regular police and swat, arriving at the scene (just do not count on Norwegian swat, their preferred mode of transportation seems to be... bicycle ;))
I think a decent guy, especially a decent teacher whose students are being murdered, would shoot first and think about it later. You're assuming all teachers are wusses. That's simply not true.
I never said, nor implied anything remotely similar to teachers being wusses. On the contrary, I highly respect the profession, but they are above all humanitarians by vocation, and shooting to kill simply does not fit that profile. At the same time, I equally highly respect professionals who are trained and capable of shooting to kill. Both professions are necessary, just not easily mixed in one person.
... I can't think of a single case where a school was attacked by more than two guys, and Columbine is the only one I can think of where more than one was involved. One shot -- end of slaughter.
You misread my scenario: just one or two bad guys on one side, and a bunch of armed good guys among attacked students. As more and more good guys trying to be heros arrive to the scene of initial shooting, it will be next to impossible to differentiate who is shooting whom, and who are the bad guys and who are the good ones. That also assumes that all the wannabe-heros are perfectly trained and always hit where they aim, no stray bullets and no collateral damage. "One shot -- end of slaughter" theory is nothing but a wishful thinking, cherry-picking the most desired positive outcome out of dozen possible, mostly negative ones.
-
When I was at school the teachers handed my friends rifles and put them in uniforms. It was called the cadets, only private schools seem to have them now. I was the third smallest boy when I entered high school, so I was the nerd who won a Sydney-wide chess championship with my teammates.
Gun reform in Australia came about after the Port Arthur massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_%28Australia%29). Martin Bryant killed 35 people and injured 21 others in a remote tourist area. The two police officers in the area were attending a fake emergency call. Ironically it was a conservative government who took the gun reform actions.
In the United Kingdom, the majority of police officers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom) do not carry firearms, except in special circumstances. It is amazing who countries can have such different attitudes to each other.
Cheers,
-
In which case any lunatic worth his salt (a better metaphor than "self-respecting lunatic"? ;)) would start his journey during a break, in teachers' lounge.
Regular police and swat, arriving at the scene (just do not count on Norwegian swat, their preferred mode of transportation seems to be... bicycle ;))
I never said, nor implied anything remotely similar to teachers being wusses. On the contrary, I highly respect the profession, but they are above all humanitarians by vocation, and shooting to kill simply does not fit that profile. At the same time, I equally highly respect professionals who are trained and capable of shooting to kill. Both professions are necessary, just not easily mixed in one person.
You misread my scenario: just one or two bad guys on one side, and a bunch of armed good guys among attacked students. As more and more good guys trying to be heros arrive to the scene of initial shooting, it will be next to impossible to differentiate who is shooting whom, and who are the bad guys and who are the good ones. That also assumes that all the wannabe-heros are perfectly trained and always hit where they aim, no stray bullets and no collateral damage. "One shot -- end of slaughter" theory is nothing but a wishful thinking, cherry-picking the most desired positive outcome out of dozen possible, mostly negative ones.
That was my point when I replied to the idea of drivers joining in with shotguns? to stop a bank robbery: mathematical progression. Of death. Neither do I think that rifles or pistols would be any the safer: the basic problem of identification in a totally confused and terrifying situation, on the street as also per your school scenario, maintains.
Rob C
-
In which case any lunatic worth his salt (a better metaphor than "self-respecting lunatic"? ;)) would start his journey during a break, in teachers' lounge.
Exactly why all the teachers in the lounge should be armed. We'd hope the teachers would be worth their salt too.
Regular police and swat, arriving at the scene (just do not count on Norwegian swat, their preferred mode of transportation seems to be... bicycle ;))
Yeah, that's a big help. At Columbine the cops eventually arrived but then refused to go into the building. I'd rather have teachers inside taking care of the problem than cops outside being spectators. It was three hours before the cops entered the building. By then the action was over. Police response didn't help much at Virginia Tech either, but armed professors probably would have.
I never said, nor implied anything remotely similar to teachers being wusses. On the contrary, I highly respect the profession, but they are above all humanitarians by vocation, and shooting to kill simply does not fit that profile. At the same time, I equally highly respect professionals who are trained and capable of shooting to kill. Both professions are necessary, just not easily mixed in one person.
Slobodan, I respect the profession too, probably because the majority of my immediate family were teachers. Both my dad and mother were teachers early on, and my mother went back to teaching high school after I was out of high school. All five of my aunts and uncles were K12 teachers or college professors. Yes, they all were humanitarians, but there wasn't a one who wouldn't have defended the students in his or her charge with deadly force if necessary -- your picture of humanitarian "profile" to the contrary notwithstanding. Being a humanitarian doesn't preclude doing what has to be done.
You misread my scenario: just one or two bad guys on one side, and a bunch of armed good guys among attacked students. As more and more good guys trying to be heros arrive to the scene of initial shooting, it will be next to impossible to differentiate who is shooting whom, and who are the bad guys and who are the good ones. That also assumes that all the wannabe-heros are perfectly trained and always hit where they aim, no stray bullets and no collateral damage. "One shot -- end of slaughter" theory is nothing but a wishful thinking, cherry-picking the most desired positive outcome out of dozen possible, mostly negative ones.
Slobodan, I'll concede the point. I don't like the idea of armed students any better than you do, and I'll admit that this kind of brouhaha might actually take place, though I think it's extremely unlikely.
Okay, what would be your plan to prevent the kind of massacres that occurred at Columbine and Virginia Tech? We haven't yet addressed the fact that in the long run if teachers were armed and known to be armed it's unlikely anybody would have to shoot anybody. Do you really believe Harris, Klebold or Cho would have tried their attacks if they'd known the teachers on campus were armed? I'll admit there's a possibility since all three were "lunatics worth their salt." But 32 dead and 25 wounded at Virginia Tech and 13 dead and 21 wounded at Columbine? That's a total of 45 dead and 46 wounded because there was nobody on site capable of an immediate response to the problem. This simply doesn't need to happen.
-
In the United Kingdom, the majority of police officers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom) do not carry firearms, except in special circumstances.
Right, Tom, and check out "Gun Crime Doubles in a Decade" at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6438601/Gun-crime-doubles-in-a-decade.html.
-
Russ, I'm assuming by all this that a camera isn't all you're packing.
Okay - I give in; bursting and can't hold it in any longer: tell me you weren't thinking along similar lines to Mae West when you penned that line!
Rob C
-
I'm not necessarily against guns for sport. In fact, one of my favourite winter olympic events is the biathlon. An amazing test of stamina and control. But you seem to be advocating a safer society if more people were armed at all times. In that context and given your training, it seemed logical to me to assume you would still carry a weapon.
Jennifer, If I lived in a place like New York City or Detroit I'd certainly want to carry a gun, but since I live in a "shall issue" jurisdiction I know that some of my neighbors are carrying and that local criminals don't know who is and who isn't. If somebody moved on me at night probably all I'd have to do to eliminate the problem is reach into a gadget bag or a glove box.
-
Jennifer, If I lived in a place like New York City or Detroit I'd certainly want to carry a gun, but since I live in a "shall issue" jurisdiction I know that some of my neighbors are carrying and that local criminals don't know who is and who isn't. If somebody moved on me at night probably all I'd have to do to eliminate the problem is reach into a gadget bag or a glove box.
Yes, and as you clutch thin air, you'd be shot, stabbed or hit on the head with a stick!
This obviously leads to the supposition that, in the cases you suggest, one would indeed want to be armed - one combat zone being much as any other when the enemy ain't in uniform.
The trouble is, it's the easy supply of guns that's led to the situation in the first place; it also seems to be what's happening in other countries, now, as a direct result of all those guys producing the damned things. At least in Spain the fuzz does carry weapons - those senior enough do, at any rate, and I support that as I would if they did the same in the UK. I feel absolutely no sense of apprehension because a policeman is armed; why should I? I'm not doing anything criminal so I assume he's on my side. In fact, I can't understand why they are not all armed; what's the use of a cop who hasn't the muscle to resolve a situation positively? In my view, the law must always be capable of having the last word in confrontations such as we understand in the sense of crime.
Maybe for the States it's too late; perhaps there are just too many guns already in circulation. But preventing new supply would be a positive step... ah, the jobs, the jobs, and wars aren't going to be enough to feed the monster!
I don't confuse sport and carrying weapons in the street; sport, in terms of target or, if one has to, hunting is another thing altogether. If one idiot in the woods hits another, well, they both know the score and sane people should keep out of them anyway - check out Blair Witch! ;-)
Quite why anyone needs assault weapons, though, sub-machine guns, rocket launchers etc. is one of life's little great mysteries.
Rob C
-
Unfortunately with so many guns out there it seems that the result is a lock-em-all-up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate) approach. The numbers speak for themselves.
Cheers,
-
Rob, Ordinarily I'd be downtown by now, shooting pictures, but it's hotter than blue blazes out there, so I'll stick around and philosophize.
An easy supply of guns isn't the problem. The problem is people who use guns to perpetrate crimes.
Humans have armed themselves since long before the beginning of recorded history, and they're not about to stop now. The arrival of guns -- even ancient wheellocks and flintlocks, made a huge difference in human interactions. The gun revolution was even more striking than the introduction of the English longbow, which revolutionized warfare. Then we progressed through a series of minor revolutions such as breech-loading, rifling, etc., etc., and finally developed the Gatling gun, the water-cooled machine gun, the tommy gun -- so Chicago criminals wouldn't be left out of the march of progress, and Wegee would be able to get his gory pictures -- and eventually learned how to produce the ultimate weapon by disrupting atoms.
There's no way to limit the number of guns. If you make gun manufacture and possession illegal in one country, guns will be manufactured in another country and smuggled in by criminals for criminals. If you make gun manufacture and possession illegal in every country in the world only criminals will manufacture guns, but you can be sure they'll manufacture them just as they manufactured booze during U.S. prohibition.
When a jurisdiction tries to limit the ability of honest people to arm themselves, what they're actually doing is trying to make sure only criminals have guns, though in sane jurisdictions they insist that their enforcers -- the cops -- are armed. But what's the difference between an armed cop on the corner and an honest man who's firearm trained, alert, and carrying a weapon? The only difference I can see is that the cop is "sworn." When I was mayor, during big downtown events we'd sometimes use a group of volunteers called the Colorado Mounted Rangers to help keep the peace. My police chief would grumble about "hobby cops," but the Rangers were well-trained and responsible. One of them was a deacon in my church.
You're right. Only people in combat need assault weapons. But people who don't know anything at all about guns will call any rifle -- semi-automatic or even single-shot -- with a flash suppressor or a pistol grip an "assault" weapon because it looks hairier than the semi-automatic rifle next to it that's mechanically identical. I don't know about other countries, but in the U.S., full automatic weapons of any kind, and rocket launchers, are outlawed.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people -- either deliberately or by "accident" through ignorance. And people kill people with guns, knives, garrottes, baseball bats, crowbars, shovels, automobiles, etc., etc. If you lock up or execute all the people who want to kill, you'll solve the problem, but you won't solve it by futilely trying the rid the world of guns.
-
If I lived in a place like New York City ... I'd certainly want to carry a gun
Russ, that's ridiculous and must be based of all sorts of seriously misplaced ideas about what NYC is like.
Why would you need a gun in NYC???
-
Jeremy, I'd want to carry a concealed weapon in any large city -- Denver if I spent much time there on the streets at night. I know that under Guiuliani NY became one of the safest cities in the U.S., but I'm not sure the situation has continued under his successor, who seems more interested in getting cigarettes and trans fat under control than getting criminals under control. But I'm open to views that may conflict with that one.
-
Russ ... that's silly. There is absolutely no reason for 'civilians' to carry guns in New York City. You don't want to get caught with one, either, the mandatory minimums for simple possession are steep!
It saddens me that you believe you live in a world where you have a need to carry a firearm in the normal course of your life. That's very Eastern of me and very Western of you, I guess.
-
It saddens me that you believe you live in a world where you have a need to carry a firearm in the normal course of your life.
I don't "believe" I live in such a world, I know. If it wasn't for the firearm that I carry in the normal course of my life, I would have been dead in the first hijack attempt. Also the other two incidents would have had a different outcome- if I was not armed.
-
Rob, Ordinarily I'd be downtown by now, shooting pictures, but it's hotter than blue blazes out there, so I'll stick around and philosophize.
An easy supply of guns isn't the problem. The problem is people who use guns to perpetrate crimes.
Humans have armed themselves since long before the beginning of recorded history, and they're not about to stop now. The arrival of guns -- even ancient wheellocks and flintlocks, made a huge difference in human interactions. The gun revolution was even more striking than the introduction of the English longbow, which revolutionized warfare. Then we progressed through a series of minor revolutions such as breech-loading, rifling, etc., etc., and finally developed the Gatling gun, the water-cooled machine gun, the tommy gun -- so Chicago criminals wouldn't be left out of the march of progress, and Wegee would be able to get his gory pictures -- and eventually learned how to produce the ultimate weapon by disrupting atoms.
There's no way to limit the number of guns. If you make gun manufacture and possession illegal in one country, guns will be manufactured in another country and smuggled in by criminals for criminals. If you make gun manufacture and possession illegal in every country in the world only criminals will manufacture guns, but you can be sure they'll manufacture them just as they manufactured booze during U.S. prohibition.
When a jurisdiction tries to limit the ability of honest people to arm themselves, what they're actually doing is trying to make sure only criminals have guns, though in sane jurisdictions they insist that their enforcers -- the cops -- are armed. But what's the difference between an armed cop on the corner and an honest man who's firearm trained, alert, and carrying a weapon? The only difference I can see is that the cop is "sworn." When I was mayor, during big downtown events we'd sometimes use a group of volunteers called the Colorado Mounted Rangers to help keep the peace. My police chief would grumble about "hobby cops," but the Rangers were well-trained and responsible. One of them was a deacon in my church.
You're right. Only people in combat need assault weapons. But people who don't know anything at all about guns will call any rifle -- semi-automatic or even single-shot -- with a flash suppressor or a pistol grip an "assault" weapon because it looks hairier than the semi-automatic rifle next to it that's mechanically identical. I don't know about other countries, but in the U.S., full automatic weapons of any kind, and rocket launchers, are outlawed.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people -- either deliberately or by "accident" through ignorance. And people kill people with guns, knives, garrottes, baseball bats, crowbars, shovels, automobiles, etc., etc. If you lock up or execute all the people who want to kill, you'll solve the problem, but you won't solve it by futilely trying (to) rid the world of guns.
Well said. I've carried a Glock 15-clip .40 cal for years (under my car seat when I am driving, in my back pocket when I am hiking, etc.), and have yet to kill someone, for the simple reason I have no desire to. In the same fashion, I have never tried to rob someone or wrongly deprive them of their possessions, because I know right from wrong and have no desire to do so. I simply carry my pistol for self-defense, not the intent to harm another person (or animal for that matter) without cause.
"The right to keep and bear arms" is every man's right in a free society. In fact, Florida just passed a law legalizing concealed weapons on all of the Florida State Parks, which is as it should be. Lots of things can happen out in the middle of the wild, and IMO only a fool would go miles out into the wilderness without a gun. Same thing in a so-called "civilized" major city.
Sure, a gun is a lethal weapon, this is nothing new. But it takes a human decision to make it so (that, or human stupidity, in the case of accidental shootings/suicides). I have never in my life wanted to kill an innocent person. Never would such a thought or impulse cross my mind, because I do not have an evil heart or an addled mind. However, if I were presented with a very real danger to me or my familiy, I would unhesitatingly pull the trigger defending my own life, property, or loved ones--and wouldn't lose a wink of sleep over it. The way I see it is if my own life, or the lives of my loved ones, or if everything that I have worked hard for, were being put into jeopardy by a social deviant intent on taking what is not rightfully his to take ... that it's the aggressive deviant who needs to be culled, not the person minding his/her own business and lifestyle.
As much as we like to think otherwise, this world is as potentially brutal as it is beautiful. A person of sound mind and strong heart appreciates and strives for the beauty, but is aware of and prepared for the brutal. By contrast, only a person of addled mind or weak heart cannot see/appreciate that the need for preparedness is as real as the capacity to appreciate the beautiful. Therefore, this "Oh my gosh!" reaction to the sight of a man with a gun is nothing but the de-masculinization of men in our society. This is, after all, the end aim of "big society" is to create sheeple out of men, not to give them a sense of empowerment. Depending on the authorities of society to protect onself is a fool's form of protection, for unless you have a cop posted to every man, in every place, there is no real protection. And it's not about "living scared" either; again it's simply about preparedness. And as far as being "caught" with a gun, I would rather explain to any officer "why" I have my gun ... than for him to have to explain "what happened" to my next-of-kin because a situation arose where I really needed to have it onhand but did not.
And as for guns being "responsible" for accidents and suicides, this is patently false. Guns do not move and they don't make decisions, only people do, therefore all such tragedies involve follies in human decision-making, not because "guns exist." IMO such foolish people who "accidentally" kill themselves or others are nothing but the culls of life, eliminated by the unsoundness of their own minds (or the unsoundness of their parents' minds, in the unfortunate cases where stupid parents leave their guns accessible for their under-aged/untrained children). Thoughtlessness is a defect in an adult, that often comes with serious consequences. So why get rid of the "guns," and disarm the intelligent and vigilant in the process, as a "cure" for either evil or thoughtless stupidity in defective people? Further, and as has been pointed out many times before, when any person is hell-bent on either murder or suicide there are plenty of other ways to achieve these ends besides using a gun. (And I say that as a person whose best friend shot himself 16 years ago. I sure do miss my friend, but it was his bipolar disorder that prompted him to commit suicide , not "his gun." For another fact is I know of a different man ... with the same bipolar disorder ... who killed himself by jumping off a bridge.) Therefore, here again, we see that the disordered mind was the problem, not any gun.
Because these same kinds of undeniable facts will always add-up in the same way, if analyzed properly, I will never agree with the belief that intelligent, vigilant people of sound mind and character should be "disarmed" by society ... as some kind of alleged "prevention" for evil (or disturbed) people from harming others or themselves. Such evil/disturbed people will always find another way, while the innocent person will be robbed of his best defenses. And the great irony is, this kind of "reasoning" (of limiting the freedom of the sane and the good, to achieve a false reprieve for the evil/defective) is its own form of addled thinking ...
Jack
PS: Sorry for the rant ... oh, and nice photo of the old-timer & his dog Russ ;D
.
-
Russ ... that's silly. There is absolutely no reason for 'civilians' to carry guns in New York City. You don't want to get caught with one, either, the mandatory minimums for simple possession are steep!
It saddens me that you believe you live in a world where you have a need to carry a firearm in the normal course of your life. That's very Eastern of me and very Western of you, I guess.
Jeremy, I saddens me too, but that's the way the world works. You're about ten years younger than my youngest son and I have no idea where you've been and what you've been exposed to but if my arithmetic is right you were about 24 when Guiliani came on board in NYC and began to terminate the catastrophe started by Lindsay, carried on by Beame and Koch and intensified by Dinkins. I'd guess you must have been aware that walking in NYC at night in those days was almost a guarantee of being mugged -- at least it sounded that way from what was published in national newspapers and magazines during the Dinkins days. Frankly, I'm surprised you're surprised people would want to carry weapons for self-defense. But even under the worst conditions you're reasonably safe in US cities compared with most non-Western cities and even a lot of European cities.
As far as penalties for possession in NYC are concerned, yes, I know that NYC wants to make sure that only criminals can be armed. I can't imagine a drug dealer or serial rapist being too concerned about mandatory minimum penalties for gun possession, but I'm sure honest citizens who'd like to be able to protect themselves must be very concerned. I'm also quite sure that eventually NYC's gun laws will be brought before the Supreme Court and found unconstitutional.
But, to each his own. As I said, I haven't carried or even owned a weapon since late in 1965. If I were to start walking at night or traveling cross-country by myself a lot I'd get a concealed weapon permit and arm myself again -- reluctantly.
-
... As I said, I haven't carried or even owned a weapon since late in 1965. If I were to start walking at night or traveling cross-country by myself a lot I'd get a concealed weapon permit and arm myself again -- reluctantly.
Russ, I understand your pro-gun reasoning, as I understand the reasoning of many gun-carrying proponents (though not necessarily agreeing with all of it). The part I am most interested in, however, is the word "reluctantly". Why?
-
Russ, I understand your pro-gun reasoning, as I understand the reasoning of many gun-carrying proponents (though not necessarily agreeing with all of it). The part I am most interested in, however, is the word "reluctantly". Why?
Because it's a responsibility I'd rather not have at this point in my life, Slobodan. A gun gives you a kind of authority, but responsibility always goes along with authority. When I was younger I often needed the authority and was willing to accept the responsibility that went with it. I'm not willing any longer.
-
I don't "believe" I live in such a world, I know. If it wasn't for the firearm that I carry in the normal course of my life, I would have been dead in the first hijack attempt. Also the other two incidents would have had a different outcome- if I was not armed.
I was talking directly to Russ about the US, not South Africa which ain't the same thing at all ...
-
In the end, it all comes back full circle. On the one hand there's the camp (my own) that believes that getting rid of all of the guns in civvy street is the only hope for citizens, facing the opposite one that insists that carrying a gun is some blessed right that's a proof of masculinity at the very least (really? how neatly that fits in with car-as-penis-extension thinking!).
Claiming that a gun kills no-one is silly, too; of course that's a given - it has to be the user, but what if he can't find one to use? Self-defense is indeed a great reason to own one, and I think it should be allowed within every home where it's desired. But outside, I think not. Okay, you have a gun in your pocket or in a holster under your armpit, inside your jacket. But the thug already has his out. You think he's about to give you the opportunity to try to pull yours out in a moment when you are already in great fear? I think you might as well not have it, because if you go for it, you push him to kill you and time's on his side.
As for finding yourself in the wrong part of town: why be there in the first place?
(Riaan. I understand your situation very clearly. But your culture is not exactly what's the norm in Europe nor, I imagine, the USA. I also believe that anyone moving around in a wilderness where there are killer animals/snakes should have the necessary protection, but that must surely preclude western city life? I can tell you of an experience in Kenya. We had flown around to a couple of safari camps for a shoot and the last leg was a drive back from Buffalo Lodge to Mombassa. Apart from the fact that Kilimanjaro, across the border, seemed to remain the same size for hours on end, another remarkable thing was that the road was sometimes magically strewn across with large stones that caused the driver to abandon it and detour off onto the rough. When we eventually hit the highway, he stopped at a stall on the side of the road and bought a large knife which he then put underneath him on the driving seat. Nobody spoke for a while, and then when we did, he explained that the trouble was that he belonged to a different tribe to the one he was about to find in Mombassa. Hey soos! And it's not even football.)
I'm not sure that cities are that much less dangerous in daylight; if you are high on something, do you know the difference, or care? As for gang warfare - apart from 'collateral damage' I suspect their guns are reserved for higher business purposes and not for molesting the man in the street... I expect their business is somewhat more important/profitable than stealing one's watch or wallet.
Rob C
-
...there's the camp (my own) that believes that getting rid of all of the guns in civvy street is the only hope for citizens...
Rob, If you believe that then you must also believe it's possible to do that. Do you? Do you actually believe it's possible, with laws, to keep criminals from having guns? Seems to me the question answers itself.
-
Russ ... that's silly. There is absolutely no reason for 'civilians' to carry guns in New York City. You don't want to get caught with one, either, the mandatory minimums for simple possession are steep!
It saddens me that you believe you live in a world where you have a need to carry a firearm in the normal course of your life. That's very Eastern of me and very Western of you, I guess.
That got me thinking, is it a East/West, North/South, Republican/Democrat, Death Penalty/No Death Penalty, Lock-em-all-up/Don't-lock-em-all-up or Gun-tote/no-gun-tote situation that has a solution. I grabbed some maps (http://justastoragespot.blogspot.com/2011/08/stats.html) showing relevant stats for each of the states.
I'll let you draw your own conclusion, no amount of writing is going to change anyone in the States mind. As a casual observer I have my own opinion.
Cheers,
-
Thanks, Tom. That first map's going to blush a lot more late next year, but my conclusion is that the term "firearm deaths" is pretty amorphous, and pretty meaningless unless it's attached to some more data. What would be more meaningful would be a map showing firearm murders by legal firearm carriers, followed by another map showing firearm murders by illegal firearm carriers, and a third map showing rapes, a fourth showing burglaries, a fifth showing home invasions, etc., etc. We might actually be able to conclude something from maps like those.
My DA grandfather used to tell a story about a guy in Saginaw, Michigan a little after the turn of the century who was asleep in bed when he woke up and saw a guy on a ladder trying to get in through his bedroom window. He reached over to the nightstand next to his bed, pulled out his pistol, shot the guy between the eyes, put the gun back in the drawer, closed the drawer and went back to sleep. In the morning he got hold of the cops. My granddad said the guy was never indicted. Believe it or not, it's a true story.
-
... I grabbed some maps (http://justastoragespot.blogspot.com/2011/08/stats.html) showing relevant stats for each of the states...
Very interesting. One does not need sophisticated statistical techniques to see the very visual high correlations between Republicans, gun ownership and firearm deaths. No matter how you might spin it, more guns = more deaths.
-
Like I wrote this was not meant to change anyone in the States mind, that ain't going to happen. More for us folks elsewhere to get a snapshot of what is going on.
Cheers,
-
Very interesting. One does not need sophisticated statistical techniques to see the very visual high correlations between Republicans, gun ownership and firearm deaths. No matter how you might spin it, more guns = more deaths.
No, Slobodan, that's not what it says and I'm sure you're familiar enough with statistical method to know that's not what it says. Here's a different way to look at it: What the maps show is that in states with guns, more criminals are killed in the act by citizens defending themselves. In the other states the criminals get away with their crimes, and as a result we can conclude that there's more crime -- rapes, robberies, burglaries, home invasions, etc., -- in states with gun restrictions. Try to disprove that on the basis of the maps. And I haven't even mentioned the fact that the maps come without any indication of where the data come from, or what outfit developed them.
I say again, "firearm deaths" is as meaningless a statistic as, say, "disease deaths," and when a statistic that meaningless is used it's always used as part of somebody's agenda. I wouldn't even venture a guess as to who's agenda that might be. But as I said, liars figure.
-
... Here's a different way to look at it: What the maps show is that in states with guns, more criminals are killed in the act by citizens defending themselves...
Ha! You wish! If that were true, then the next map (incarceration rates) would show inverse correlation with Republicans/guns/deaths. That is, where more criminals are killed, less would be in jails, right?
-
Ha! You wish! If that were true, then the next map (incarceration rates) would show inverse correlation with Republicans/guns/deaths. That is, where more criminals are killed, less would be in jails, right?
Not at all. (As you damned well know, Slobodan.) In order to show that, you'd have to produce a map showing the number of criminals in each state. I'd suggest that what that correlation shows is that Texas, for instance, puts a larger proportion of its criminals underground and in prison than, say, California. There's a fair amount of anecdotal evidence that supports that conclusion -- at least with respect to California.
-
Thanks, Tom. That first map's going to blush a lot more late next year, but my conclusion is that the term "firearm deaths" is pretty amorphous, and pretty meaningless unless it's attached to some more data. What would be more meaningful would be a map showing firearm murders by legal firearm carriers, followed by another map showing firearm murders by illegal firearm carriers, and a third map showing rapes, a fourth showing burglaries, a fifth showing home invasions, etc., etc. We might actually be able to conclude something from maps like those.
My DA grandfather used to tell a story about a guy in Saginaw, Michigan a little after the turn of the century who was asleep in bed when he woke up and saw a guy on a ladder trying to get in through his bedroom window. He reached over to the nightstand next to his bed, pulled out his pistol, shot the guy between the eyes, put the gun back in the drawer, closed the drawer and went back to sleep. In the morning he got hold of the cops. My granddad said the guy was never indicted. Believe it or not, it's a true story.
Eight years of the last Republican government got us the GFC, our treasurer predicted (http://www.smartcompany.com.au/politics/henny-penny-peter-costello-warns-of-huge-tsunami.html) it a year before it happened. As a result there was more belt tightening here in NSW and I was forced into early retirement. I lost about $150 000 on the deal. I see that $30 billion has just been wiped off our share market as a result of US infighting. As most superannuation funds invest in stocks, failure by European and US governments means that my friends have to work longer before they retire on less money.
Successive Australian governments have brought in major financial regulations. One was Australians could not buy into the toxic home loan schemes. As a result and due to government spending we did not go into recession though government revenue is down. The USA's failure to introduce legislation to prevent this recurring leaves me very uneasy. More of the same Republic Party policy leaves me speechless. Dr Phil, "Remember, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior". Really I don't give a toss about America's politics except when they hit me and my friends in the hip pocket.
The anecdote just makes me glad to be here in Sydney.
Cheers,
-
Rob, If you believe that then you must also believe it's possible to do that. Do you? Do you actually believe it's possible, with laws, to keep criminals from having guns? Seems to me the question answers itself.
Believing one part doesn't imply the second at all.
However, to follow it up, yes it probably could be done but as with drugs it requires the will to win. As long as the Misters Big go free and only the smaller criminals get put away, what's going to change? Nothing. The west pretends(?) to be in Afghanistan partly as a fight against drugs? Really? Why fight the fight there? Come down on the idiots who use them, sell them, import and distribute them, first. Kill the domestic market and, as with photo stock, trying to sell them becomes pointless and the problem goes away of itself.
One needs more prisons and a clean pair of hands in head office, and then a whole set of dependable subordinates to carry out what's required of them. And there's the rub: back to people. But yes, on the whole, I think it's possible.
Rob C
-
In the end, it all comes back full circle. On the one hand there's the camp (my own) that believes that getting rid of all of the guns in civvy street is the only hope for citizens, facing the opposite one that insists that carrying a gun is some blessed right that's a proof of masculinity at the very least (really? how neatly that fits in with car-as-penis-extension thinking!).
The hope of getting rid of all guns is a pipe dream, because there will always be a black market for them. Therefore (and once again) to "make it illegal" to own a gun is essentially to disarm the good man not the criminals.
Also, a gun isn't proof of one's masculinity, but rather the ability to remain cool in general ... which means seeing/handling a gun with a cool head ... is proof of masculinity. To quote Marlon Brando in "The Godfather," "Women and children can be careless, but a man can never be careless."
Claiming that a gun kills no-one is silly, too; of course that's a given - it has to be the user, but what if he can't find one to use? Self-defense is indeed a great reason to own one, and I think it should be allowed within every home where it's desired. But outside, I think not. Okay, you have a gun in your pocket or in a holster under your armpit, inside your jacket. But the thug already has his out. You think he's about to give you the opportunity to try to pull yours out in a moment when you are already in great fear? I think you might as well not have it, because if you go for it, you push him to kill you and time's on his side.
How can something be "silly," if it's a given? That guns don't kill people, but rather people kill people, is a given simply means it is an inescapable fact. Therefore, what actually kills other people is either human evil or human stupidity, which means that the accurate thinker realizes that these two things are what need to be weeded out in society: evil and supidity. These are the appropriate targets for elimination, not guns.
As for the "a gun is okay for self-defense, but only in the home" mentality, this is absurd. What good is my Glock going to do me sitting in my dresser ... if I need it out in the middle of the Florida wilderness? Also, just because there may be possible circumstances where a criminal may assault me before I have a chance to get my gun, doesn't mean there aren't plenty of other circumstances that I can see coming, and prepare for, before they are actually upon me.
As for finding yourself in the wrong part of town: why be there in the first place?
When I was a claims investigator years ago, often my job required me to park and interview people in the worst parts of Los Angeles ... and now that I live on a rural spot in 50 acres of Florida wilderness, I sure am not going to "wait for the police to come" if I see an intruder upon my land. I will damned sure make it my business to have the necessary equipment handy to deal with the problem myself. Again, this is the difference between the mentality of a man versus the mentality of a damsel in distress. In fact, maybe 20 miles away from where I live, some poor old woman got beaten to death inside her own home for answering a knock at her door. The knocker said they needed to use the phone because their car broke down. When allowed inside, the perps attacked the woman and repeatedly beat her trying to get the information of "where she had the money" out of her ... and beat her to death. They were a drug-crazed punk and his girlfriend wanting the funds to smoke more meth ...
It's not such a nice world that we live in, Rob, and while having a gun at home might help a home invasion ... it won't help you in a parking lot or out in the wilderness ... which is where the idea of carrying one where you go comes in ;)
>snip<
...
I'm not sure that cities are that much less dangerous in daylight; if you are high on something, do you know the difference, or care? As for gang warfare - apart from 'collateral damage' I suspect their guns are reserved for higher business purposes and not for molesting the man in the street... I expect their business is somewhat more important/profitable than stealing one's watch or wallet.
Rob C
I don't go to the city much, but when I do it is only Gainesville--and, no, I don't bother packing a weapon to go to the pet store or to buy some milk either, LOL
However, I do still have my weapon under my car seat, because it's a 40 mile drive back to home, and if upon my return to home I find my belongings or my woman subject to a burglary, or worse, it would be far better to have my gun immediately accessable under my car seat to deal with the problem ... than it would be to knock on the door and "excuse myself" ... and ask for the invaders' permission to amble passed them to my dresser, so that I could "access my gun" ;)
Jack
.
-
But yes, on the whole, I think it's possible.
All I can say is: wow! Rob, with a reasonably well equipped machine shop I can make a gun, even a repeater. The gun might not be up to Smith and Wesson standards but it'd be quite effective at short range. To make a single-shot pipe gun I don't even need a machine shop. A workbench would be a help, but even that's not necessary if I have the right, easily purchasable, tools lying around.
-
John,
I agree with you 100% on this topic. It sure would be "nice" if there weren't all those bad guys out there breaking the hundreds of well-intentioned gun laws. And it would be "nice" if there weren't such things as home invasions and armed assaults both day and night. Call me a realist but I'd rather grab my Glock than my cell phone when faced with imminent danger to me or my family.
-
John,
I agree with you 100% on this topic. It sure would be "nice" if there weren't all those bad guys out there breaking the hundreds of well-intentioned gun laws. And it would be "nice" if there weren't such things as home invasions and armed assaults both day and night. Call me a realist but I'd rather grab my Glock than my cell phone when faced with imminent danger to me or my family.
That is about as succinctly as one can put it.
.
-
That is about as succinctly as one can put it.
.
To which you might have added the impossibility of mixing oil and water. On which note, I leave you to your guns and dreams of butt-bustin' Alpha Males.
Adios!
Rob C
-
Blimey! I thought 'street shots' was all about street photography. Turns out it's about good ole Merkin gunslinging. Frankly, if I felt so unsafe walking the streets where I live that I felt I had to carry a handgun, I'd move. My advice folks, get outta Dodge, now.
-
Forget the guns, let's get this thread back where it belongs: voyeuristic intimacy :P
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/Events/Dyxum-meeting-June-4-2011/i-jwMLxc4/0/O/PEGA7001432020110604-L.jpg) (http://pegelli.smugmug.com/Events/Dyxum-meeting-June-4-2011/17398644_GgM3Bb#1415463549_jwMLxc4-A-LB)
-
Blimey! I thought 'street shots' was all about street photography. Turns out it's about good ole Merkin gunslinging. Frankly, if I felt so unsafe walking the streets where I live that I felt I had to carry a handgun, I'd move. My advice folks, get outta Dodge, now.
+1.
-
Forget the guns, let's get this thread back where it belongs: voyeuristic intimacy :P
(http://pegelli.smugmug.com/Events/Dyxum-meeting-June-4-2011/i-jwMLxc4/0/O/PEGA7001432020110604-L.jpg) (http://pegelli.smugmug.com/Events/Dyxum-meeting-June-4-2011/17398644_GgM3Bb#1415463549_jwMLxc4-A-LB)
+2.
-
In the United Kingdom, the majority of police officers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom) do not carry firearms, except in special circumstances.
Right, Tom. How's that working out in London?
-
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
.
-
One idiot with a gun in Copely, how's that working for you?
As I wrote, nothing that I say, think or do will have any influence on your opinion.
Cheers,
-
That's not my point. How are the cops doing without guns?
-
How are cops doing with guns? Did it stop riots in the US happening?
"The United States has the largest number of guns in private hands of any country in the world with 60 million people owning a combined arsenal of over 200 million firearms." Of course you need an armed police force and taking that amount of weapons off the streets isn't going to happen.
Possibly the best way to prevent riots happening is not letting things like the subprime crisis happen in the first place.
We need better politicians not more guns.
As I wrote…
Cheers,
-
Okay, but that doesn't really answer the question, does it Tom? According to an article in the Wall Street Journal this morning by Joyce Lee Malcolm, professor of law at the George Mason University School of Law, the English disaster has resulted in "...a 5,000% increase in purchases of baseball bats from Amazon." Now, as I've said before, figures don't lie, but liars figure, and it may be that before the disaster Amazon sold a total of two baseball bats, so the humongous percentage increase may not be as bad as it sounds. But, let's face it, even ten thousand baseball bats is a lot of bats. What this tells us is that, unlike in the days of Sherlock Holmes, or even of Winston Churchill, Britons now are reduced to defending themselved with clubs.
Ms. Malcolm also pointed out that if this were happening in the U.S., with our "largest number of guns in private hands of any country in the world," there'd be armed groups out making sure this kind of crap comes to a screeching halt. There wouldn't be pictures of unarmed cops standing in an unmoving line while the rioters throw rocks at them. The point is that rioters who do this kind of thing are cowards at heart. Blow away one or two and the rest will desist at once. But doing that with baseball bats is a really messy job.
-
The riots started as a result of the fatal shooting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots) of Mark Duggan by police. Just because the average bobby doesn't carry a gun doesn't mean that all British police are unarmed. Killing a couple of rioters would probably inflame the situation more I think.
Similarly in Sydney two of the last three riots were as a result of people dying whist being pursued by police. The third was over who owned Cronulla Beach.
Cheers,
-
Can you guys take this to private email or at least the Coffee Corner. This isn't the sort of subject I come here to read about.
-
Can you guys take this to private email or at least the Coffee Corner. This isn't the sort of subject I come here to read about.
+10.
-
Can you guys take this to private email or at least the Coffee Corner. This isn't the sort of subject I come here to read about.
And yet you come here and read it (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
.
-
I didn't come here to read misinformed nonsense about how terrible it is in the UK. I thought maybe we'd got back on track with discussion about street photography. BTW, I don't own a baseball bat, but then rioting & looting here amounts to some seven year old kids scrumping apples from the local orchard. A farmer shouting, "Oi! Get orf moi land!" is about as violent a reponse as it gets.
-
IMO, the absolute folly (the absurdity!) of the idea that disarming all citizens will "protect the people" from harm can best be seen in microcosm:
Suppose you were living in a "roommate" situation with 6 people in a very large home. Suppose further that 3 of the people in this situation "had guns" (one fellow was a good man and an avid hunter; another fellow likewise was also a good responsible chap--who happened to be an excellent target marksman--and yet the 3rd gun owner was an angry, withdrawn social misfit who had an evil heart and a propensity towards violence). The other 3 roommates (one of whom was you) were also good folks who, of their own volition, chose not to have guns.
Suppose one day, in a fit of rage, the violent roommate put his pistol to your head and threatens your life. After this scenario came to pass, you and the remaining 4 good roommates got together to decide what you all needed to "do" about this situation. What do you think would be the most effective, intelligent decision?:
1) To get rid of "the guns," disarming even the good gun owners, while leaving the violent roommate still among you?; or
2) To get rid of the violent roommate immediately?
Anyone can easily see that if the group chose 1, the next time the angry, violent roommate "got angry," he could pull a steak knife out of the drawer and stab a fellow roommate. What should the group do after that, "vote" to remove all knives, sharp objects, scissors, forks and any other cutting tools from the premises? Should "the group" be totally inconvenienced as a "smart strategy" to protect themselves from the one nut? Hell, the next time the angry roommate had another fit, he could reach for a blunt object, a fire poker (strangle someone with a piece of clothing or whatever), or beat one of his fellows with a bat over a disagreement.
Again, when looked at in microcosm, the idea that disarming the innocent 5 as an effective means to "be safe" from the evil aberrant can be seen as absolutely asinine (stupid beyond belief!). And yet people still can't see that it is precisely the same absurdity to try to pass legislation to "disarm all citizens" as an effective means of protection from those who have a propensity towards evil.
The intelligent person can clearly see that it is those who have a propensity towards evil who need to be eliminated, not all the guns (knives, forks, baseball bats, scissors, etc., etc., etc.) (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
Jack
PS: I promise not to say anything more after this (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
.
-
You're obviously right, John. I'm going to buy a smallish thermo-nuclear device, just in case.
-
Great this is now in the coffee corner, so I can react "on topic"
1) To get rid of "the guns," disarming even the good gun owners, while leaving the violent roommate still among you?; or
2) To get rid of the violent roommate immediately?
I think the intelligent person can clearly see one mistake and one oxymoron in this logic
The mistake is that the word "or" needs to be "and"
The oxymoron is too obvious to point out :D
-
Great this is now in the coffee corner, so I can react "on topic"
I think the intelligent person can clearly see one mistake and one oxymoron in this logic
The mistake is that the word "or" needs to be "and"
The oxymoron is too obvious to point out :D
Well, since this got relegated to the "open" forum, I will comment further :)
It is not a "mistake" at all to use the word "or" in that sentence, and IMO only a moron (oxy or not) would find it "just" to disarm the responsible hunter and decorated target shooter over the violent actions of someone else.
Cheers!
Jack
.
-
Please keep things civil guys.
Michael
-
Michael, I'll try.
John, is it possible to have a discussion with you where you disagree with someone and you will not resort to name calling and personal attacks? See here if you don't know what I'm talking about (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=50351.msg427576#msg427576). To me it weakens your case.
-
This morning's Wall Street Journal has another eye-opening article, this time by Dorothy Rabinowitz. The article includes a quote from former Scotland Yard official John O'Connor who told the BBC that what Americans did to control crime is "they locked people up... We haven't got the heart for that over here." The article adds that a former (British) police union head argued, "Americans police by force. We don't want to do that here."
Give you a glimmer of insight into what's wrong? What are police if not force? Force is exactly why you have police: to force people who are a danger to their society out of the society, by incarceration or, if that doesn't work, by termination. Effective police not only clean up the society, they give birth to second thoughts in malefactors who otherwise would damage the society. But an unarmed police force that doesn't have "the heart for that" is an invitation to the kind of thing that's happening now in various English cities and here in the U.S. in Philadelphia. The alternative to an effective police force is an armed citizenry. In the absence of both, society becomes a jungle.
-
Michael, I'll try.
John, is it possible to have a discussion with you where you disagree with someone and you will not resort to name calling and personal attacks? See here if you don't know what I'm talking about (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=50351.msg427576#msg427576). To me it weakens your case.
Pegelli, it sure seems to me that you have everything backwards, even beyond the point of this debate. I could swear that you originally came to this post and addressed me in a manner that was guilty of the very kind of conduct you purport to despise ... which to me is the weakest position to be in of all.
But to answer your original question, sure, I can disagee with anyone civilly ... without any implied name-calling or insults at all ... provided that said person likewise conducts himself under the same set of rules ;D
So, with that in mind, if you'd like to get back to the subject at hand ... and stick to facts (or to at least give opinions while leaving the personal digs aside) ... I would be more than happy to engage in a pleasant debate with you ;D
Cheers!
Jack
PS: In keeping with this, if you honestly think that the hunter and target shooter in my scenario should have their freedoms taken from them, all because of the transgressions of the 3rd guilty party, then we are so far apart in ideology on the proper assessment of blame as to make any agreement between us impossible. We will just have to agree to disagree.
.
-
But to answer your original question, sure, I can disagee with anyone civilly ... without any implied name-calling or insults at all ... provided that said person likewise conducts himself under the same set of rules ;D
Don't think so. I adressed you with exactly the same words as you used in the post above. So if you didn't like what I wrote then my only advice can be "don't do to others what you don't want others to do to you".
Secondly I have never been banned from any internet forum, I think that's an honour you can't claim ;)
I won't go into firearms, because that's an area where I am afraid we'll indeed have to agree to disagree.
-
Don't think so. I adressed you with exactly the same words as you used in the post above. So if you didn't like what I wrote then my only advice can be "don't do to others what you don't want others to do to you".
Once again Pegelli, you certainly have a strange way of re-arranging the facts. A quick review of this thread will show I originally never addressed you at all ... it was you who originally addressed me with some lip. I guess, it was by your same "logic" that you concluded disarming two responsible, innocent men of their weapons was "proper action" for the transgrssions of the 3rd (and guilty) party.
Secondly I have never been banned from any internet forum, I think that's an honour you can't claim ;)
Sounds like, instead of sticking to the topic and playing fair Pegelli, you are deliberately baiting me to have it happen again ;D
Hell, for that matter, I've been thrown out of plenty of pubs too, for brawling back in the day, which (looking at your photo) is another honor I am sure you can't claim either (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/embarrassed.gif)
Yet, as with here, I have also shaken hands afterward with fellas I originally bumped heads with, cleaned up, and been invited back in too--and had an even better time than before with a new pal--because sometimes mutual respect can be gained from a clash.
But you know what Pegelli ... despite my "indelicate" (ok, sometimes confrontational) personality, I still never shot anyone (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
I won't go into firearms, because that's an area where I am afraid we'll indeed have to agree to disagree.
Let's just leave it at that then Pegelli: we disagree ;D
Jack
.
-
Once again Pegelli, you certainly have a strange way of re-arranging the facts. A quick review of this thread will show I originally never addressed you at all ... it was you who originally addressed me with some lip. I guess, it was by your same "logic" that you concluded disarming two responsible, innocent men of their weapons was "proper action" for the transgrssions of the 3rd (and guilty) party.
Talk about a strange way to distort facts: First of all I never addressed you personally in my post, I only quoted your words to address the people who supported your position in this debate. Obviously that includes yourself.
Secondly I did it by using exactly the same words (= The intelligent person can clearly see......) as you used to address people who did not agree with your position, which obviously includes me.
What's sauce for the goose......
For the rest I did not call you names or ridicule you or people who agree with your opinion in this matter. Reading your next post that is not something that can be said of you :o
But you know what Pegelli ... despite my "indelicate" (ok, sometimes confrontational) personality, I still never shot anyone (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
Wow, that's reassuring. ;)
-
Well, then let me extend an olive branch to you and say I am sorry if my leading comment hurt your feelings in some way.
I felt the obviousness of what should be done in the mock scenario was prima facie.
I suppose it is worth my remembering that different people/cultures place different levels of value on human freedom and choice; some people/cultures value "human freedom and choice" above all else, while other people/cultures want to enforce and pigeon-hole "all humanity" in the exact same way, based on the potential for transgressions of a minority of deviants.
And if yours is the later ideology, you are right, we will never come to an agreement on this issue.
I believe all people should be free to do whatever they want to do, so long as "what they do" does not interfere with the rights/life/liberty of other people. And if that kind of freedom means bearing arms and enjoying hunting, so be it. If it means enjoying target practice with a gun, so be it. If it means carrying a weapon for self-defense, so be it. It is only when any person uses a weapon (or any other freedom) in such a way as to deprive or endanger another person's rights/life/freedom unjustly that gives "the authorities" any right to deprive that person of his freedoms/arms, etc., because it is only at that point where said person has now proven himself irresponsible/dangerous in his use of that freedom.
But without such a proven infraction, IMO to deprive any man or woman of any of their freedoms, when they have never shown a propensity to misuse their freedoms, is the very definition of the word "unjust" ... and IMO this kind of government suppression over the people becomes a greater crime against "humanity" than any individual crime it intends to prevent. To punish/restrict all over the potential misdeeds of a few can never truly be called "justice"; it can only be called "suppression" (if not outright "injustice").
Jack
.
-
Well, then let me extend an olive branch to you and say I am sorry if my leading comment hurt your feelings in some way.
Accepted and I also extend one. In the end I know you're a nature lover who takes good shots (with a camera I mean) and that's what this site is about, not about political discussions on guns and gun control.
I'm sure if we would have a beer (or a few) on this in a bar we could even have a fun conversation on the topic allthough I doubt we'll ever fully agree ;)
-
... I'm sure if we would have a beer (or a few) on this in a bar...
A few beers in a bar with a guy with a confrontational personality and proud history of bar brawls!? I wish I could take a shot of that!!! Photographic shot, that is.
;) :D ;D ;D ;D
-
Slobodan, he also has never shot anybody, so it's probably safe enough for me ;) ;D
-
Accepted and I also extend one. In the end I know you're a nature lover who takes good shots (with a camera I mean) and that's what this site is about, not about political discussions on guns and gun control.
Cool then. Hatchet buried and compliments returned: I still remember a flower shot that you posted a couple years back that was exceptional and have always watched your posted photos since.
I'm sure if we would have a beer (or a few) on this in a bar we could even have a fun conversation on the topic allthough I doubt we'll ever fully agree ;)
That would work. I find it's easier to discuss things like this in person anyway; especially blowing the suds off a few ;D
Cheers!
Jack
-
A few beers in a bar with a guy with a confrontational personality and proud history of bar brawls!? I wish I could take a shot of that!!! Photographic shot, that is.
;) :D ;D ;D ;D
Well, geeze, since I am surrounded by 2 now-friendly former antagonists ((http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)), let me relay a relevant story that yall might find funny:
Back in the day, I was at a sports bar in Los Angeles watching a fight and the fellas were all pretty into it (I think it was Chavez vs. Rosario). One of the guys there took exception to something I said regarding Rosario's boxing technique (imagine that (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)) and so we decided to "take it outside" to prove our points ... well, he bounced a few points off of me, and I bounced a few points off of him, and after awhile we both realized that we each knew what we were talking about, but just "did things different." (I felt I was pretty far ahead, but I am sure Kenny would tell a different version (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif))
Anyway, to make a long story short, we both shook hands and (though a little chopped-up and winded) decided to go back in and see if there was anything left of the fight we were watching. The bouncer shook his head and let us back in and I think we caught the last two rounds.
Anyway, that was back in 1988, in my last year of college, and this fella and I have been friends ever since (he's a German Jew and I am German-Irish). We still get into "interesting" disagreements, twenty-something years later, but to me it just adds "spice" to the friendship--and so it just goes to show that good things can come from butting heads originally ;D
Slobodan, he also has never shot anybody, so it's probably safe enough for me ;) ;D
Well, Pegelli, if you and I ever do go to a pub together, and we happen to get into it, I am still gentleman enough to make sure you get home safe after it's over. Of course, if it turns out that you whip me, then I may just have to shoot you (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
(LOL, that's a joke!)
Jack
.
-
I live in Philadelphia and unfortunately I'm better armed than the police when i go out at night. I wish it didn't have to be that way. I feel safer walking the streets of Manhattan at 3 am than I do the city which I spent the majority of my life in.