Yes, at the Spokane Airway Heights Walmart, I was arrested, because of a complaint from Walmart that I was taking pictures in their parking lot.

On the day of October 13th, I drove my mother into Spokane for a Dr. appt. After her visit, we stopped at the Airway Heights Walmart for some grocery items.

I stayed outside, with the car, while mom went inside for her shopping. I snapped a picture of this woman, outside.





She noticed that I had taken her picture and demanded that I delete that photo. I declined.

She then went inside the store and complained to the store management, who then called the police.

As I was loading the groceries into the car, the police showed up. They disarmed me, took my camera, and looked at the pictures I had taken.







The police officer explained to me that it was legal for me to take pictures of people in public, however it would not be legal for me to take upskirt pictures. As I had no upskirt pictures on my camera, they returned my camera, my pistol, and allowed me to leave.

Some may disclaim that I was arrested, however the legal definition of an arrest is an official that interrupts a citizen under color of authority.
The truth is that if a police officer interrupts a citizen from going about legal activities, for the purpose of ascertaining criminal culpability, that citizen has been arrested.

I doubt that either the Walmart store employees, management, or the police officers involved were aware of the utter irony of the situation, perhaps this view will clarify the absurdity of the entire matter.

[MadMathMind]

The US could slash its military budget in HALF, and still be spending more than most other major countries combined..

Tangent here (not that this thread wasn't derailed 2 pages ago), but I hope we don't. It has nothing to do with military force but everything to do with jobs.

Most of the military budget goes to R&D, virtually all of which is performed by private companies. The defense contractors are big employers of engineers and scientists: Boeing has 60k+ in defense (another 60k+ in commercial), Raytheon has 63k, Northrop has 68k, General Dynamics has 92k, Lockheed has 116k---and these don't count the "smaller" contractors like Booze Allen Hamilton, SAIC, Leidos, etc. The jobs these companies provide can only be filled by citizens (and even then, only select citizens who can qualify for clearance) and they offer very lucrative benefits. As a result, if other companies want to attract talent and prevent everyone from going to these contracting companies, they need to match salaries and benefits. That keeps engineering a good major and its graduates highly sought out and employable. For anyone who can do it, it's a great field.

Look at computer programming. That's an area where the government offers little competition because there are few software products made specifically for the government. While salaries for CS majors are high. the field is quickly becoming a race to see which giant company can fire the most people while shouting at the top of their lungs for more H1B visas they can offer 70% or less the salary of domestic workers. It would be a pity if the same happened to other STEM fields.

[DeadJohn]

Maybe I can help here. A gun is a tool. A camera is a tool. Those who know how to use a tool properly can do great things with that tool, or devastating things with it as well. Many who are against carrying guns are of a mindset that people who carry guns live in fear and the gun is a coping mechanism. This is false, just as I carry a tire jack and spare tire in my car, I am prepared. Someone who carries a gun is prepared. I don't drive in fear of a flat tire. A gun is a tool, a tire iron is a tool. I don't give people a hard time because they keep a tire iron in their car.

It's impossible to carry every tool for every contingency. A spare tire is likely to be needed while driving. I'm glad that I live and travel places where my need for a gun is so statistically remote that it's a tool I don't need to carry for photography.

[Transit]

Transit... please keep in mind that ......

I’m sorry this got so long. I’d be pretty amazed if anyone actually read all of it.

Thanks kyricom , I read it all. I was aware of a lot of it.
I'm greatful I live in a country where handguns are illegal, cops aren't armed
and I'm quite prepared to wrap the poker around the head of anyone who breaks in
cheers
Pete

[builttospill]

It's impossible to carry every tool for every contingency. A spare tire is likely to be needed while driving. I'm glad that I live and travel places where my need for a gun is so statistically remote that it's a tool I don't need to carry for photography.

You're right in that it's impossible to carry every tool needed for any situation, but that's not what I meant to express. What I meant is I try to be prepared for situations I might encounter. Meaning I almost always have a camera with me, whether it's a film, DSLR, or PnS. I'd hate to not have that tool when desired. I don't live in fear of missing a photo opportunity (I was going to say missing a shot, but thought the timing is off for a pun like that), and I don't live in fear with or without a gun.

I hope I'm never in a situation where I'd need a tool like a gun, but I'd rather be prepared than not. This isn't any different from hoping none of us will ever get a flat tire, but if I happen to get one, I know I'm prepared for it.

[micromacro]

Here we are, gun discussion.
I believe that physiological evaluation must be for everyone who wants to have a gun, and mandatory training class. I don't want some crazy people to have access to firearms.

[45 Mike]

Here we are, gun discussion.
I believe that physiological evaluation must be for everyone who wants to have a gun, and mandatory training class. I don't want some crazy people to have access to firearms.

I am very close to agreeing with you! Surprising as that may seem. I support a mandatory background check on gun show sales, and sales between strangers.
I also support a national carry permit system, that essentially asks for volunteers to step up, and be evaluated, physically, emotionally and intellectually. If passed, then training, in communications, strategy and tactics. If passed all that they shall be permitted to carry any weapon they deem appropriate at any time and place they wish.
The permit would not allow them any other legal privilege than any other citizen enjoys, and they are fully responsible for the use of their weapons. Permits must be renewed every two years and all training and evaluations must be updated as required by the agency that issues the permit. If training and evaluation are not completed as required, then the permit is revoked.
All costs of the program are to be paid exclusively by the volunteers. No taxpayer money involved.

The system we have of each state, county and locality having insane differences in the way gun rights are protected, or oppressed is shameful.

The public has a right of confidence that the firearms that are being carried in defense are being employed by sane people, with good intentions.

I know people who have a firearm, that I would not trust with a plastic spoon, much less an automobile, or a gun.
I get it, I really really do.

---------- Post added 10-23-14 at 22:10 ----------

Transit... please keep in mind that what was provided was ONE perspective. Genghis Khan is not going to come rampaging through the US (or most other places). That scenario has nothing to do with private gun ownership in the US. The US could slash its military budget in HALF, and still be spending more than most other major countries combined. That, and the recent militarization of local police forces in this country, makes most people pretty confident that rampaging barbarians are not going to come tearing through our town.

However, it does demonstrate fairly well what is called "the Culture of Fear" that is (unfortunately) very prevalent in our country. All major media in our country are owned by one of 5 corporations, from the local level to the national level. Many (especially at the national level) news stories are crafted with certain goals in mind. Many national stories consist of what is going to try and kill us (with one or two short human interest stories at the end of the show). For the last decade and a half, it's been terrorists. There's also a healthy dose of diseases that are going to kill us. Sprinkle in a healthy dose of the government sucking (either the Republicans or the Democrats, depending on which corp owns them). Combine this with the entertainment industry (most of which are owned by the same conglomerates as the news) and we're up to our eyeballs in violence. Most movies are violent, most video games are violent, most television, including cartoons for kids are violent, a lot of music is violence based, and even toys for boys are almost all violent. The theory goes, that if they keep us afraid, we don't question many of the "plans" for solving the cause of the fear. For example, the US has one of the cleanest water supplies on the planet, but we've been convinced that we need to buy bottled water or have filters on our faucets (take that water bottle and fill it about of a third of the way with crude oil, and that's how much oil it takes to make that one bottle). The pharmaceutical companies constantly play commercials for various drugs, to cure diseases most of us don't have. And of course, there's the issue of what "cure" there is for our nation's violence. Special interests pour gigantic amounts of money into pro-gun candidate’s campaigns (and other interests pour in gigantic amounts for other issues as well – a major fault with our system that needs to be addressed). Of course, we're all supposed to own a gun to protect ourselves and our families (and, I guess, from Genghis Khan).

The result, is that approx. 30,000 Americans have died every year for over the last 20 years. This stat includes murders, suicides, accidents etc. A study recently published in the medical journal Pediatrics showed that every year, 10,000 kids are killed or injured by guns, with 3,000 of them dying before making it to the hospitals. The Harvard School of Public Health showed a very direct link between suicide success and access to firearms. In 2010 19,000 people committed suicide with guns. Do guns provide protection? Certainly not for women. The Atlantic pointed out that not a single study has shown that the risk of any crime including burglary, robbery, home invasion, or spousal abuse against a female is decreased through gun ownership. And only 7% successfully defended themselves against spousal abuse with a gun. But, the presence of a gun in the home makes it 5 times more likely that abuse will turn into murder. David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center pointed out that there are NO credible studies that higher levels of gun ownership actually provide protection. People don’t (typically) break into houses when the owners are home. If that does happen, it’s almost always someone the homeowner already knows.

It’s the Culture of Fear – many people are afraid to face our society without being armed. Whether it’s for their own protection, or whether they’ve convinced themselves they’re a “good guy” who’s going to stop the next school massacre – YES – our country would be infinitely better off without all the guns. Part of the problem is that most people wouldn’t buy that word “fear” as they don’t feel afraid. And they don’t. But this is a subconscious process that we are hardly even aware of – which is why it’s so hard to convince people of it. People would MUCH rather go with their gut feelings that make them feel better than with those nasty facts and figures and studies.

People like to throw out the hackneyed responses like “Guns don’t kill, people kill,” and the like. But of course that’s silly. Of course guns kill. It’s the one and only thing they are designed for. We’re pretty much the only country that even has to put up with small children constantly being attacked and slaughtered, and we don’t do anything about it. In New Town an idiot used a gun to kill 26 people, 20 of them very young kids. In 2013 at Lone Star College an idiot used a knife to attack 14 people – and none of them died. If guns don’t kill, why do we give them to soldiers?

Guns have killed more Americans just since 1968 than in all the wars we’ve ever been in. Starting with the Revolutionary War, 1,171,177 Americans have given their lives in battle. Just since 1968. 1,384,171 (and that’s just until 2011, there’d be about 60,000 more by now) have died from guns in our society. This madness needs to stop.

We’re asked to imagine a world without guns, like that’d be some type of fantasy. But it isn’t a fantasy. We can easily compare ourselves to other countries, which don’t have to put up with their own citizens slaughtering each other. Just go to – Visualizing gun deaths - Comparing the U.S. to rest of the world

I’m sorry this got so long. I’d be pretty amazed if anyone actually read all of it.

I also read all of your comment. I read it a couple times in fact.
Much of what you say is true. The media likes to jerk the public and incite fear and increase profits by becoming the source of information that feeds that fear. Vicious cycle, and scary as hell.

I agree, that Genghis Khan is not going to ravage America. I also agree that many gun deaths and injuries would be prevented if we had some sensible regulation enforced.
The sentiments expressed are somewhat well founded. I recently visited a "gun nut" forum, and asked how people might respond to a scenario. I do not recall exactly, but the scenario was similar to this:

You are driving past a school, and you see a person, running toward the school building with a rifle.

About 85% of the responses i got were very similar to this:

I would draw my Glock 97 with 875mWatt laser/taser sights and order him to stop, and then unload all 50 rounds of my special hand loaded 'death reaper' explosive bullets into him, and then proudly pose for the news cameras and accept a medal of honor.

LOL, yep. I get it. These idiots are packing guns. That is scary.

I somewhat disagree with including suicides by gun in the numbers. Not that i think that inclusion significantly alters the reasoning, but merely because a suicide is a choice made by an individual, and I respect that people have the right to make choices that i might not make for myself, and do not agree with. As long as their choices cause me no injury, then oh well.

In any case, I do want to reiterate that much of what you say is true.
That being said, being true does not mean the same as being the complete truth.

If we agree that many incidents of gun violence would be prevented by sensible and enforced regulation of ownership and sale, then I would ask that you also consider to agree that NONE of what you said in any iota, changes the reality of the existence of people like Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, Gracy, and Gary Ridgeway. I invite you to gander at this link:
List of serial killers by number of victims - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those people did, or do exist and similar people will continue to exist for as long as humanity survives. That is a list of serial killers, not all killers, and certainly not all rapists, and thieves. That list would be horrendously long.
This is not fear mongering, this is reality. The fantasy is the belief that disarming innocent people will somehow negate the existence of evil people, like Genghis Khan. Or Hitler. Or ISIS.

I understand that many people, when confronted by violence will choose to run and hide. I get it, and I accept their choice as being their vision of pro survival. I do not think of them as cowards, or pathetic, or denigrate them in any way.

Then there is your comment, that contains some sentiment that those people, like myself, who make the choice to step up, and would do so naked and unarmed if I HAD to, to confront violence, to stop those who victimize others, are mere mindless ravening barbaric buffoons with a gun fetish. A stated attitude that denigrates those who would place their own lives between you and danger. Man, I just don't get that. It saddens me.

Your comment, as much as I agree with many of your true portions leaves a lot unsaid, and implies much disrespect and undeserved untruths.

There are bad people walking this earth and disarming the few that stand up to them will not in ANY way make this a better place for you. If you think guns are bad, try taking a sword in the gut instead. Fantasy, yep.

[45 Mike]

It's impossible to carry every tool for every contingency. A spare tire is likely to be needed while driving. I'm glad that I live and travel places where my need for a gun is so statistically remote that it's a tool I don't need to carry for photography.

Yep, me too. That is I am glad that you don't go to places that might require some means of defense.

Myself, well to be honest I do tramp around in places where such tools are statistically likely to be needed.
We have snakes, rattlesnakes. Thus I carry a spear, it is helpful for navigating rough rocky terrain, and makes a handy monopod at times. We have bear, and cougar, and sometimes wild dogs and the wily coyote packs as well.
In rugged back country, there is always the possibility of a nasty fall, broken bones, injured tendons, nasty cuts etc. Having at hand a chopping tool, such as a short sword could allow one to cut a sapling to use as splints, or crutch.

In isolated wilderness, one may at times encounter other people, and though generally the probability of such other people being of criminal intent, the possibility certainly exists. Therefore with the critters and pests that I know of and the unknown but possible other denizens, a pistol seems prudent.
All in all, the extra stuff I pack around weighs about 10 lbs, and then I add another 10 lbs or so of photo gear.
The experience becomes an exercise in stamina, strength and will. I task my mind and body with the trek and adventure.

I do not mind in the slightest that others choose not to experience their lives as I do. Not at all.
Peace.

---------- Post added 10-23-14 at 23:15 ----------

I read all of it. I also read the sources. I see your point of view, and I read it all because it's fascinating. Your post here was written well and positioned objectively. Well done.

Your statement is also just ONE perspective, and even though you appear to not support gun ownership, you write as if you live in fear. The discussion of societal issues and paranoid theories brought up make it sound like we live in a terrible place. I'd regret to describe my homeland like you have to someone who hasn't visited our country. I love my country, rights, and freedom; and that peace was not brought to us through apathy.
....
It also says "Russia’s murder rate is four times higher than the U.S.and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns." ( Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive :: The American Civil Rights Union )

Again, car crashes have killed many more people each year compared to gun-related deaths, but no one is calling for a ban on cars.

I agree, the comment was a perspective, and not a complete view.
And his perspective also smacks of fear mongering, a position of "guns are bad" "guns kill" and the ubiquitous sentiment that anyone who would have a gun is obviously a deranged and dangerous person.
Not a complete view at all.

---

Last edited by 45 Mike; 10-23-2014 at 11:18 PM. Reason: oops, missed a word.

[wullemaha]

After a rough start of this thread I have to congratulate the main contributors on their civilized debate.
This forum keeps surprising me - even on a topic like gun control, which can get quite heated quite fast, this was mostly calm and about opinions, statistics, etc.
Well done, keep it up!

I am in general not "against guns", although I like that fact that I lived and live in countries where the idea of carrying around a gun would seem absurd to 99.9% of the citizens because... well, why would one be needed? But I understand that the United States of America have a certain tradition in this, and I understand that when you grow up with "having a gun" being normal, it might appear to you that it is your "right" to be armed. As weird as that might seem to me, it is none of my business, since I don't live there.
So I will not add much to that debate there.

But, as much as I admire the calm and intelligent way in which Mike debates his point, there is one question I would like to ask:

This is not fear mongering, this is reality. The fantasy is the belief that disarming innocent people will somehow negate the existence of evil people, like Genghis Khan. Or Hitler. Or ISIS.

I understand the point you are making here. But why would a number of armed civilians be in any way a help against any of those "forces of evil"?
Crazy people inside of your country trying to murder people - that's what police is for.
Crazy people outside of your country trying to attack your country - that's what the army is for.
Why would you need armed civilians?

I recently visited a "gun nut" forum, and asked how people might respond to a scenario. I do not recall exactly, but the scenario was similar to this:
You are driving past a school, and you see a person, running toward the school building with a rifle...

Even in that scenario, the trouble starts with "another civilian having a FIREARM"...

Myself, well to be honest I do tramp around in places where such tools are statistically likely to be needed.
We have snakes, rattlesnakes. Thus I carry a spear, it is helpful for navigating rough rocky terrain, and makes a handy monopod at times. We have bear, and cougar, and sometimes wild dogs and the wily coyote packs as well.

I am totally with you on that. I can imagine that many places in the wild, that are beautiful and well worth camping in, are, well, "wild", as in the name, and it would not hurt being armed if a wild animal comes looking at you like you are a nice snack...
But I cannot at all understand why civilians in any urban, suburban,... "lived-in environment" should be allowed to carry guns.

Again, I understand that I am not part of your system, which might well be why I don't understand it - I get that.
I am trying to understand it though. Go easy on me

[bluestringer]

Actually, As of February 2013 approximately 26 states have a stop and identify law on the books. you live in one of the states that has a stop and identify law on the books. The federal statute states that it is not a violation of your constitutional rights during an investigation to check your ID. It's up to each state to dictate how they wish to enforce this statute. Any state can ask for your identification or at least to identify yourself. Lying about your identity, can get you arrested. However you do have the right not to incriminate yourself. By not properly identifying yourself in Itself can be incriminating. what each state allows the officer to do in such cases varies. In pretty much every state during an investigation an officer finds out you are carrying a weapon, and that officer feels threatened, that officer has the right to disarm you. And as I said, if an officer knows you have a weapon they automatically get very nervous. No they cannot stop you just because you are carrying a weapon. Yes during the investigation they can inquire about your identity and ask you to produce proper documentation. I suggest you Google stop and identify. Or go to Wikipedia and look it up there. My point was, during an investigation the officer has a right to know who they are talking to. And to ascertain that the person has a right to carry that weapon. And it is not in violation of his or her constitutional rights. It is highly recommended that you always cooperate with the police officer and have proper ID on your person at all times when outside your home. Failure to do so could be more trouble than it's worth.

You are mistaken my friend. Yes, Georgia has a stop and identify law, the officer can stop and start a conversation with a person, but can only start an investigation if he has RAS and PC that a crime is being committed or about to be committed. The person is not required to identify himself and may leave at any time. The officer does not have to tell the person these things, but all the person has to do is ask "am I free to go", if the officer says no then that person is being detained, and the officer must have RAS and PC to detain the person. Been there, done that. HB60 just passed in Georgia this year has the provision that the mere presence of a firearm does not constitute a crime is being committed and the officer can not ask for the permit unless he has the RAS and PC to detain the person. Many LE agencies in Georgia have been sued and lost because of improperly trained officers carrying their authority too far. As for them being nervous around someone with a firearm, that works both ways, I get nervous around an officer that is carrying a firearm also.

---------- Post added 10-24-14 at 08:47 AM ----------

Transit... please keep in mind that what was provided was ONE perspective. Genghis Khan is not going to come rampaging through the US (or most other places). That scenario has nothing to do with private gun ownership in the US. The US could slash its military budget in HALF, and still be spending more than most other major countries combined. That, and the recent militarization of local police forces in this country, makes most people pretty confident that rampaging barbarians are not going to come tearing through our town.

However, it does demonstrate fairly well what is called "the Culture of Fear" that is (unfortunately) very prevalent in our country. All major media in our country are owned by one of 5 corporations, from the local level to the national level. Many (especially at the national level) news stories are crafted with certain goals in mind. Many national stories consist of what is going to try and kill us (with one or two short human interest stories at the end of the show). For the last decade and a half, it's been terrorists. There's also a healthy dose of diseases that are going to kill us. Sprinkle in a healthy dose of the government sucking (either the Republicans or the Democrats, depending on which corp owns them). Combine this with the entertainment industry (most of which are owned by the same conglomerates as the news) and we're up to our eyeballs in violence. Most movies are violent, most video games are violent, most television, including cartoons for kids are violent, a lot of music is violence based, and even toys for boys are almost all violent. The theory goes, that if they keep us afraid, we don't question many of the "plans" for solving the cause of the fear. For example, the US has one of the cleanest water supplies on the planet, but we've been convinced that we need to buy bottled water or have filters on our faucets (take that water bottle and fill it about of a third of the way with crude oil, and that's how much oil it takes to make that one bottle). The pharmaceutical companies constantly play commercials for various drugs, to cure diseases most of us don't have. And of course, there's the issue of what "cure" there is for our nation's violence. Special interests pour gigantic amounts of money into pro-gun candidate’s campaigns (and other interests pour in gigantic amounts for other issues as well – a major fault with our system that needs to be addressed). Of course, we're all supposed to own a gun to protect ourselves and our families (and, I guess, from Genghis Khan).

The result, is that approx. 30,000 Americans have died every year for over the last 20 years. This stat includes murders, suicides, accidents etc. A study recently published in the medical journal Pediatrics showed that every year, 10,000 kids are killed or injured by guns, with 3,000 of them dying before making it to the hospitals. The Harvard School of Public Health showed a very direct link between suicide success and access to firearms. In 2010 19,000 people committed suicide with guns. Do guns provide protection? Certainly not for women. The Atlantic pointed out that not a single study has shown that the risk of any crime including burglary, robbery, home invasion, or spousal abuse against a female is decreased through gun ownership. And only 7% successfully defended themselves against spousal abuse with a gun. But, the presence of a gun in the home makes it 5 times more likely that abuse will turn into murder. David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center pointed out that there are NO credible studies that higher levels of gun ownership actually provide protection. People don’t (typically) break into houses when the owners are home. If that does happen, it’s almost always someone the homeowner already knows.

It’s the Culture of Fear – many people are afraid to face our society without being armed. Whether it’s for their own protection, or whether they’ve convinced themselves they’re a “good guy” who’s going to stop the next school massacre – YES – our country would be infinitely better off without all the guns. Part of the problem is that most people wouldn’t buy that word “fear” as they don’t feel afraid. And they don’t. But this is a subconscious process that we are hardly even aware of – which is why it’s so hard to convince people of it. People would MUCH rather go with their gut feelings that make them feel better than with those nasty facts and figures and studies.

People like to throw out the hackneyed responses like “Guns don’t kill, people kill,” and the like. But of course that’s silly. Of course guns kill. It’s the one and only thing they are designed for. We’re pretty much the only country that even has to put up with small children constantly being attacked and slaughtered, and we don’t do anything about it. In New Town an idiot used a gun to kill 26 people, 20 of them very young kids. In 2013 at Lone Star College an idiot used a knife to attack 14 people – and none of them died. If guns don’t kill, why do we give them to soldiers?

Guns have killed more Americans just since 1968 than in all the wars we’ve ever been in. Starting with the Revolutionary War, 1,171,177 Americans have given their lives in battle. Just since 1968. 1,384,171 (and that’s just until 2011, there’d be about 60,000 more by now) have died from guns in our society. This madness needs to stop.

We’re asked to imagine a world without guns, like that’d be some type of fantasy. But it isn’t a fantasy. We can easily compare ourselves to other countries, which don’t have to put up with their own citizens slaughtering each other. Just go to – Visualizing gun deaths - Comparing the U.S. to rest of the world

I’m sorry this got so long. I’d be pretty amazed if anyone actually read all of it.

I won't comment much on this, as others have already shown your stats are biased. The mainstream media never reports on the many times that guns saves lives, because their agenda is gun control. Stats from 2008 show guns where used to stop a crime or murder some 2.5 millions times. I myself have used a firearm to save my life and the life of my family 3 times in the last 10 years. Just the presence of a gun had the effect of stopping a crime many times. Even a white house study showed guns save more lives than they take. Legally armed citizens kill more criminals than the Police each year. All of the States with the highest gun-control laws have the highest murder rates in the nation, including California. When all the hoopla about banning so called "assault weapons" which are only semi-auto rifles, it was shown that hammers kill more people each year than rifles. England has banned citizens from owning firearms, now they are having an explosion of murders being carried out with knives, and there is even talk of banning kitchen knives there.

[MRRiley]

Ok... the moderators have stayed out of this because we find the basic subject has merit. Unfortunately though, we took our eyes off of it for a while and the gun discussion came up. As it is totally off topic, is overtly POLITICAL and is not related to photography per see, drop the discussion about the OP's firearm or your support or objections to his "right to keep and bear arms."

One more gun post and the thread will be closed.

Mike
PF Moderation Team

[45 Mike]

Ok... the moderators have stayed out of this because we find the basic subject has merit. Unfortunately though, we took our eyes off of it for a while and the gun discussion came up. As it is totally off topic, is overtly POLITICAL and is not related to photography per see, drop the discussion about the OP's firearm or your support or objections to his "right to keep and bear arms."

One more gun post and the thread will be closed.

Mike
PF Moderation Team

Thank you!

[pete-tarmigan]

People like to throw out the hackneyed responses like “Guns don’t kill, people kill,” and the like. But of course that’s silly. Of course guns kill. It’s the one and only thing they are designed for. We’re pretty much the only country that even has to put up with small children constantly being attacked and slaughtered, and we don’t do anything about it. In New Town an idiot used a gun to kill 26 people, 20 of them very young kids. In 2013 at Lone Star College an idiot used a knife to attack 14 people – and none of them died. If guns don’t kill, why do we give them to soldiers?

People do kill people. That's because people are violent or crazy. There are so many millions of violent people, or people experiencing psychotic episodes (delusions not distinguishable from reality) out there that, in the interest of the safety of the general public, they should not have such easy access to such an efficient killing tool, i.e., handguns or semi-automatic rifles with high-capacity magazines. With the squeeze of a trigger, any person can readily kill another person from a distance with much more ease than with a knife, fists or boots.

Not to mention the fact that the bad/ill guys have a bottomless supply of handguns in the form of millions of legally-owned, but inadequately secured handguns, that can be stolen at will.

There is a clear and present danger to life and security of the general public from the millions of handguns and other restricted weapons readily stolen by or already stolen by, criminals, people with anger management issues, or psychotic people. This danger is many magnitudes greater to each and every individual citizen than the vanishingly small probability of encountering the danger of not being able to defend oneself because one cannot carry a concealed handgun. I like my odds of surviving to old age better if the sea of legally-owned but inadequately secured guns drowning the U.S. is drained away.

[DeadJohn]

One more gun post and the thread will be closed.

guns

Goodbye thread, you were interesting while you lasted

[BerndM]

ARREST

To stop; to seize; to deprive one of his liberty by virtue of legal authority.
Whether a detention was an investigatory stop or a full-blown arrest is a question of law subject to de novo review. See U.S. v. Diaz-Lizaraza, 981 F.2d 1216, 20-22 (11th Cir.'93). Courts have stated that '[i]n determining 'when' a person is arrested, we ask at what point, 'in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed he [she] was not free to leave.' ' U.S. v. Hastamorir, 881 F.2d 1551, 1556 (11th Cir.'89) (quoting U.S. v. Hammock, 860 F.2d 390, 93 (11th Cir.'88)); see also U.S. v. Vargas, 643 F.2d 296, 98 (5th Cir. Unit B'81); 2 John Wesley Hall, Jr., Search and Seizure 22:3 at p.87 (2d ed. '93). Strictly speaking, this particular formulation of the standard for determining whether an arrest has occurred is not a completely accurate statement of the law, for 'an investigatory stop is not an arrest despite the fact that a reasonable person would not believe he is free to leave.' (U.S. v. Hastamorir, 881 F.2d at 1556). This is so because even during an investigative stop, which by definition is not an arrest, it would be clear to a reasonable person so detained that he was not free to leave during the stop. See 2 LaFave, Section(s) 5.1(a) at 393 (1994 Supp. at 135).

[builttospill]

I like my odds of surviving to old age better if the sea of legally-owned but inadequately secured guns drowning the U.S. is drained away.

Bringing this back to photography, it's getting more difficult to find places to develop my film. As I no longer develop film myself, fewer and fewer places are doing this for me. However if there's a demand, that need will always be met by someone else. That someone else will be popular among the film crowd here on the Forums.

If there is a ban on guns, it will make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens, willing to defend their community's freedom and safety, to obtain that tool of defense. While the bad guys will always find a way to possess guns, even when banned. Drugs are banned, yet the bad guys can still get them and distribute them. With so many guns out there, a ban may not be the answer at this time.

With so many film cameras out there, there's still a niche to fill. (Moderators, don't hate me.)