And so it continues....

[pegelli]

Use whatever descriptions you are comfortable with.  The effect is the same. 

I don't think so. My enemies are for instance ISIS, people who drive a truck down the boulevard in Nice, people who fire guns in schools and shopping centers, people who detonate bombs at airports and underground stations.  We want to stop those at all cost, incl. killing them if that's needed. In debating teams, politics and sports I think of them as opponents, obviously I want my side/team to win but if I don't there is something like good sportsmanship and having a chat with the others after the game (irrespective if you lost or won). Here on the forum I see it as people with different opinions who try to convince others of their point, among photographer friends. I try not to confuse the latter two with the first, since that would take a lot of fun out of my life.

[pegelli]

They may be huge but self-defense doesn't seem to be a high priority, which is why the UK and the US have to keep going over there and saving their asses.

The last time the UK came to bail out the mainland was 70 years ago I think. And both the Taliban and ISIS were partly formed based on failed US foreign policy, so while we should indeed grateful for the support the US is given the Western World in the war on terror (I mean this, it's not a cynical remark) I think there is also a part for which the US is responsible.

[Rob C]

Mostly the same members arguing over very similar subjects and none of the previous threads had a satisfactory conclusion? How many pages before the thread gets locked? 

Good point, and pretty much inevitable when folks refuse to play it straight. Cricket did have some spiritual value after all, I now realise!

But wait: Pakistan plays lots of it too... oops!

[jfirneno]

I don't think so. My enemies are for instance ISIS, people who drive a truck down the boulevard in Nice, people who fire guns in schools and shopping centers, people who detonate bombs at airports and underground stations.  We want to stop those at all cost, incl. killing them if that's needed. In debating teams, politics and sports I think of them as opponents, obviously I want my side/team to win but if I don't there is something like good sportsmanship and having a chat with the others after the game (irrespective if you lost or won). Here on the forum I see it as people with different opinions who try to convince others of their point, among photographer friends. I try not to confuse the latter two with the first, since that would take a lot of fun out of my life.

enemy/opponent/friends to be convinced

Sure why not?  ally/team mate/friends in agreement

I remember the old line, "with friends like these who needs enemies?"  What I notice is the start of these threads being such friendly neutral themes such as:

"What does it take for Americans to see that their gun laws are f**ked up?"
"Fifty plus dead, what does it take for Americans to take gun control seriously."
"What would it take for Trump to win?"

Now if these were by Americans then I'd say they were legitimate.  Or if the other non-Americans chastised the author for rudeness then I'd say that was friendly.  But actually what you get is a dog-pile of leftist talking points.  So it's really hard to see how friendliness is part of the equation.  Of course maybe politeness is no longer considered a virtue in other parts of the world.  But when exactly the same occurrence (a mass shooting) in two different locations predictably elicits completely opposite reactions from the same people I tend to believe honest good feelings are not present.

[Robert Roaldi]

The latest reports are that the gunman had no ties to any "terrorist" organization, but seems to be a nutter who was fascinated with mass shootings. More info may well yet emerge.

The hyperbolic statements above about how motivations don't matter when someone is shooting at you might, on the surface, justify some citizens shooting cops first, jic the officer might overreact to dangerous movements like raising one's hands and shoot the citizen instead.

You see how silly hyperbole is?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The latest reports are that the gunman had no ties to any "terrorist" organization...

So, in order to be an Islamist terrorist, one needs to be a card-carrying member?

[jfirneno]

The latest reports are that the gunman had no ties to any "terrorist" organization, but seems to be a nutter who was fascinated with mass shootings. More info may well yet emerge.

The hyperbolic statements above about how motivations don't matter when someone is shooting at you might, on the surface, justify some citizens shooting cops first, jic the officer might overreact to dangerous movements like raising one's hands and shoot the citizen instead.

You see how silly hyperbole is?

Sure.  When someone shouts allahu akbar and starts shooting little kids he's probably just a frustrated Cannon or Nikon shooter registering his disapproval of all those stupid mirrorless camera enthusiasts.  No islamic extremists here.  Just move along.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...but seems to be a nutter...

I thought that enlightened European countries do not allow nutters to have access to guns?

[Rob C]

I thought that enlightened European countries do not allow nutters to have access to guns?

I think they try to avoid allowing access to guns to everyone.

If you like target shooting, buy an air rifle. Or even a Walther air pistol: it was good enough for 007 to model with for his famous poster!

Because the same person can certainly learn to drive and use that licence to drive as licence to kill does not, in any way, mean that making the access of firearms simple a good idea. The net result/intention is to make the possibilities open to the would-be killer as few as possible. As I've remarked before, I would love a legal gun for my own self-protection, but realise that having that, legally, would simply make it all the more easy for the guy in the black hat to do the same, and if not get his legally, get it by stealing somebody else's. Seems they are good at that.

Thing is, this ain't mathematics: two negatives do not make a positive.

I think people bringing in the concept of anti-Americanism are flirting with red herrings; I don't think I've seen anyone here being anti-American, simply venting frustration at laws which aid these terrible slayings, a political system financed and distorted by the very people making the weapons, and their blatant, open buying of politicians. It's incredible to anybody outside the system that it's legal to do that. But there you go; it's how it is.

Non-Americans find it hard to tell if that means Americans approve or do not approve of the system; seems many of them hold very different views on that subject.

Rob

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I don't seen anyone here being anti-American, simply venting frustration...

Oh, no, Rob! That means, according to Bart, that someone will soon start shooting us. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... blatant, open buying of politicians. It's incredible to anybody outside the system that it's legal to do that...

It is an often used misconception by non-Americans. If anyone thinks that campaign contributions equal campaign success, you better see this (millions of dollars):

[pegelli]

I thought that enlightened European countries do not allow nutters to have access to guns?

I'm surprised you're surprised Slobodan.
I thought you've been advocating that gun control doesn't mean the bad guys and nutters don't have access to guns anymore.
Or was it a cynical remark? 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I'm surprised you're surprised Slobodan.
I thought you've been advocating that gun control doesn't mean the bad guys and nutters don't have access to guns anymore.
Or was it a cynical remark? 

I sometimes deliberately omit a winking smiley at the end. Keeps people guessing. And I wouldn't say "cynical," just a friendly teasing 

[pegelli]

I sometimes deliberately omit a winking smiley at the end. Keeps people guessing. And I wouldn't say "cynical," just a friendly teasing 

I think I got that. Btw, the title of your png made me smile, "money doesn't buy happiness". I think we already know that for a long time.
Out of interest, in those figures does Trump's number include his own money he poored into his campaign, or is it just the contributions from other sources?

[pegelli]

enemy/opponent/friends to be convinced

Sure why not?  ally/team mate/friends in agreement

I remember the old line, "with friends like these who needs enemies?"  What I notice is the start of these threads being such friendly neutral themes such as:

"What does it take for Americans to see that their gun laws are f**ked up?"
"Fifty plus dead, what does it take for Americans to take gun control seriously."
"What would it take for Trump to win?"

Now if these were by Americans then I'd say they were legitimate.  Or if the other non-Americans chastised the author for rudeness then I'd say that was friendly.  But actually what you get is a dog-pile of leftist talking points.  So it's really hard to see how friendliness is part of the equation.  Of course maybe politeness is no longer considered a virtue in other parts of the world.  But when exactly the same occurrence (a mass shooting) in two different locations predictably elicits completely opposite reactions from the same people I tend to believe honest good feelings are not present.

To my defense I would say I never started those threads and never spoke words like that. I know I rubbed you the wrong way with some critical remarks about the republican party (which I still stand behind) and as a reward you immediately painted me in the left wing, Hillary supporting, gun control supporting anti-American crowd. That's what I mean that there are no teams. If you read my posts in this and other similar threads you will see I never made any remark that supported Hillary or the democrats, that I'm right of center European, that there are some aspects of Trumps policy I support, that I don't think gun control will solve the issue of mass shootings and that I have worked and lived in America too long to not appreciate the American society. I'm only not going to apologize for someone else's rude behaviour on the forum but I think I have kept my comments non-personal, reasonably polite and well motivated. You're free to disagree with me, but please don't blame me for things I never said.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Out of interest, in those figures does Trump's number include his own money he poored into his campaign, or is it just the contributions from other sources?

Here is a link to the whole table:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html?_r=0

It doesn't, however, provide an answer to your question. This article does (and yes, he self-financed $50 millions so far):

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/forgiving-campaign-loans-trump-fulfills-his-pledge-self-fund-primary-n613536

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...I'm only not going to apologize for someone else's rude behaviour on the forum but I think I have kept my comments non-personal, reasonably polite and well motivated...

So it wasn't you who sent me this PM (in the middle of the gun-control debate)?:

"You little prick...how many women and children you murdered"

 

[pegelli]

So it wasn't you who sent me this PM (in the middle of the gun-control debate)?:

"You little prick...how many women and children you murdered"

 

No, I was the one who sent the one saying "do your parents have more nutty children like you"   

Btw, thanks for the links. Interesting to see both democrats Trump any of the republican candidates [pun intended]

[Rob C]

It is an often used misconception by non-Americans. If anyone thinks that campaign contributions equal campaign success, you better see this (millions of dollars):

I refer to the already elected lot that blocks every attempt at introducing gun control law Obama has attempted: are you suggesting the gun lobby doesn't lobby, and doesn't pay for candidates to stand?

Rob

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Oh, no, Rob! That means, according to Bart, that someone will soon start shooting us. 

It will probably be an American doing the shooting then, because we have very few guns ourselves.

Besides that, it would more likely be due to a frustration about suffering decades of ethnic profiling and bigotry, than a frustration about a speed limit on a practically deserted highway in the middle of the night. There are levels of frustration, you know.

Cheers,
Bart