Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Street Shots  (Read 11111 times)

JohnKoerner

  • Guest
Re: Street Shots
« Reply #60 on: August 03, 2011, 03:13:25 PM »

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.

.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 13973
Re: Street Shots
« Reply #61 on: August 04, 2011, 03:34:47 AM »

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

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 905
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Street Shots
« Reply #63 on: August 04, 2011, 07:16:33 AM »

Forget the guns, let's get this thread back where it belongs: voyeuristic intimacy  :P

Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10701
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: Street Shots
« Reply #64 on: August 04, 2011, 10:09:15 AM »

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.
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my photo website. New images each season. Also visit my new website: http://ericneedsakidney.org

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10701
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: Street Shots
« Reply #65 on: August 04, 2011, 10:09:35 AM »

Forget the guns, let's get this thread back where it belongs: voyeuristic intimacy  :P


+2.
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my photo website. New images each season. Also visit my new website: http://ericneedsakidney.org

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7877
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Street Shots
« Reply #66 on: August 16, 2011, 11:09:49 AM »

In the United Kingdom, the majority of police officers do not carry firearms, except in special circumstances.


Right, Tom. How's that working out in London?

JohnKoerner

  • Guest
Re: Street Shots
« Reply #67 on: August 16, 2011, 03:39:49 PM »





.
Logged

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1183
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Re: Street Shots
« Reply #68 on: August 16, 2011, 05:06:42 PM »

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,

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7877
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Street Shots
« Reply #69 on: August 16, 2011, 05:50:23 PM »

That's not my point. How are the cops doing without guns?

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1183
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Re: Street Shots
« Reply #70 on: August 16, 2011, 06:31:07 PM »

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,

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7877
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Street Shots
« Reply #71 on: August 16, 2011, 08:04:24 PM »

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.

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1183
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Re: Street Shots
« Reply #72 on: August 16, 2011, 09:56:13 PM »

The riots started as a result of the fatal shooting 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,

michswiss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 270
Re: Street Shots
« Reply #73 on: August 16, 2011, 10:10:28 PM »

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.

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10701
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: Street Shots
« Reply #74 on: August 16, 2011, 11:54:37 PM »

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.
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my photo website. New images each season. Also visit my new website: http://ericneedsakidney.org

JohnKoerner

  • Guest
Re: Street Shots
« Reply #75 on: August 17, 2011, 05:49:07 AM »

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



.
Logged

Chairman Bill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2228
    • flickr page
Re: Street Shots
« Reply #76 on: August 17, 2011, 06:22:00 AM »

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.

JohnKoerner

  • Guest
Re: Street Shots
« Reply #77 on: August 17, 2011, 06:44:24 AM »

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.)

Jack

PS: I promise not to say anything more after this


.
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 905
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Street Shots
« Reply #79 on: August 17, 2011, 08:33:47 AM »

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
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up