[Blue]

We sure can agree there.

To use the cameras vs guns -metaphore some more: The thought of targetpractice, just for the sake of getting better at... well... targetpractice, sounds equally "fun" to me as photographing test charts, just for the sake of getting better at photographing test charts. Why would I want to own and use a camera if I could only use it on paper charts? But you're correct, each to his own, as they say.

This is where you are naive. There are various kinds of shooting ranges including silhouettes and plates etc. Long range shooting, 500 to 1000 yards is a whole different thing in itself. Then there is hunting. However, defensive shooting is a major aspect that gets left out.

[ihasa]

There is the rub. Who gets to choose what is excessive. We can't sue the police nor the government for failing to protect us at home or on the street. In our system, the ultimate power and granting of rights is not vested with the Government.

You cannot sue the police for failing to protect you, but nevertheless that remains one of their primary duties. You just can't sue them if they fail to do so! In terms of deciding what is excessive, that's a difficult one. It will have to weigh up potential harm vs right to self protect, and of course sporting or agricultural purposes. There's bound to be a degree of arbitrariness but a line should be drawn somewhere, and I hope that the sorts of weapons designed primarily for warfare will fall outside that line. I think most people would actually agree with that in the US. Outside the US it appears so obvious a child could tell you.

[Blue]

You cannot sue the police for failing to protect you, but nevertheless that remains one of their primary duties. You just can't sue them if they fail to do so! In terms of deciding what is excessive, that's a difficult one. It will have to weigh up potential harm vs right to self protect, and of course sporting or agricultural purposes. There's bound to be a degree of arbitrariness but a line should be drawn somewhere, and I hope that the sorts of weapons designed primarily for warfare will fall outside that line. I think most people would actually agree with that in the US. Outside the US it appears so obvious a child could tell you.

With all due respect, people outside the U.S. don't have a real frame of reference. I dare you to move to Chicago or L.A. or New Orleans and put a sign on your front lawn that says, "This House is a Gun Free Zone." Better yet, get with the neighborhood home owners association and put the sign up under the Neighborhood Watch sign.

[normhead]

Every single one of them was undertaken by a criminal. Murder is illegal, attempting to murder is illegal, planing to murder is illegal. Every one of those was a criminal before they got anywhere near the shooting scene.

I guess you've never heard of "not guilty by reason of insanity".

[Blue]

I guess you've never heard of "not guilty by reason of insanity".

75% of theses guys kill themselves. Most of the other 25% intend to. This guy is sitting in prison because the assistant principal stopped him. The jury rejected the insanity plea.

Pearl High School shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There were separate trials for the murder of Woodham's mother and the school shooting. Woodham's lawyer argued at both trials that Woodham was insane at the time of the killings. Jurors rejected Woodham's insanity defense at his first trial for the murder of his mother, and he was sentenced to life in prison on June 5, 1998. His second trial took place on June 12, and he was found guilty of two counts of murder and seven counts of attempted murder, with the jurors once again rejecting the insanity defense. He was given two life sentences for the murders and seven 20-year sentences for his attempted murder convictions.[6] He is currently serving three life terms plus an additional 140 years in prison. He will be eligible for parole in 2046, when he is 65 years old.

Edit: BTW, he was using a lever action rifle.

[Clavius]

This is where you are naive. There are various kinds of shooting ranges including silhouettes and plates etc. Long range shooting, 500 to 1000 yards is a whole different thing in itself.

It's all just shooting paper charts. To me, it's all just as boring as photographing charts. No matter how far you hang the chart from the camera.

Then there is hunting. However, defensive shooting is a major aspect that gets left out.

Weren't we discussing the intended purpose of guns? Aren't the two you mentioned here killing the? Or do you shoot the deer in the knees only?

[Blue]

It's all just shooting paper charts. To me, it's all just as boring as photographing charts. No matter how far you hang the chart from the camera.

The silhouettes and plates are metal. I doubt you ever have seen a 500 yard or meter range.

Weren't we discussing the intended purpose of guns? Aren't the two you mentioned here killing the? Or do you shoot the deer in the knees only?

Are you a vegetarian? However, I haven't killed for meat since 1990. I do pack for self defense. I assure you that if someone kicks down my door down or drag me out of my jeep and I won't shoot them in the knees.

[JinDesu]

The silhouettes and plates are metal. I doubt you ever have seen a 500 yard or meter range.




Are you a vegetarian? However, I haven't killed for meat since 1990. I do pack for self defense. I assure you that if someone kicks down my door down or drag me out of my jeep and I won't shoot them in the knees.

He's comparing it to shooting (photographing) paper charts. As in - it's a pointless exercise that people do, in his opinion.

[normhead]

Every single one of them was undertaken by a criminal. Murder is illegal, attempting to murder is illegal, planing to murder is illegal. Every one of those was a criminal before they got anywhere near the shooting scene.

75% of theses guys kill themselves. Most of the other 25% intend to. This guy is sitting in prison because the assistant principal stopped him. The jury rejected the insanity plea.

Pearl High School shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Edit: BTW, he was using a lever action rifle.

I'm not sure you can argue that anyone who commits this kind of killing is of sound mind. Jury verdicts aside. Usually in a crime, you have motive. That's the standard for 1st degree murder. What possible motive could a sane person have for committing such a crime? Juries convict because of the heinous nature of the crime, it doesn't mean they are right.

[Nesster]

When I was born, my grandfather, who was in the middle of some of the worst fighting - Finnish Winter War and Continuation War - bought me a Diana air rifle. And when I was a tot he would teach me proper gun use etc. I would only shoot at paper targets or cans or such... and the gun had barely enough power to pierce the paper target.

Nevertheless, I had fantasies of When the Russians Invaded, I'd climb on our roof and shoot them with my puny little Diana.

[Blue]

I'm not sure you can argue that anyone who commits this kind of killing is of sound mind. Jury verdicts aside. Usually in a crime, you have motive. That's the standard for 1st degree murder. What possible motive could a sane person have for committing such a crime? Juries convict because of the heinous nature of the crime, it doesn't mean they are right.

The assistant principal used a .45 pistol to stop him. He asked the punk "Why did you shoot my kids?" The punk's response: "Life has wronged me, sir." I have no doubt he is deranged. I also have no problem with him sitting in jail for 300 years. It could be argued the Charles Manson is deranged as well. The term "criminally insane" comes to mind.

[mikemike]

OMG, this is the most disrespectful thread I've ever seen on PF. This is way too soon after the horrible incident at that school to be joking about such things. It's making me nauseous. We can only whish that the shooter only had a mere camera to his disposal, instead of his mothers guns. This thread only proves that people should have no access to guns at all. And that some people should have access to even much less.

Failing to defend civil rights from populists that would seek to strip the public of them at a time like this is the most dangerous thing that can be done. Look at the PATRIOT act after 9/11 and where that has taken us with warrantless wiretaps, torture, and drone strike killings of even US Citizens without due process. Freedom from tyranny and innocent until proven guilty are this nation's guiding principles in terms of our relationship with the government and justice system. Now is a time when both sides need to be heard instead of one side being silenced so the other can exploit a tragedy to their own ends.

People who engage in a photography hobby should be able to empathize with people who engage in a gun hobby because they are in many ways very similar. There are many legitimate reasons for using both. Some kind of admiration and collection hobby of mechanical beauty of the camera, lens, or gun itself. Interaction with wildlife through nature photography or hunting. Professional occupations as photographers, law enforcement, security, or military. Personal protection and security such as security cameras at a store or the gun behind the counter to protect the clerk from robbers. There are also elicit uses for them such as to commit crimes and murder people with guns or to plan for crimes, blackmail people, and produce child pornography.

Theoretically, the legal uses of cameras and guns could be restricted to only being done by certified and licensed professionals and we could outlaw the general public from using these items in an attempt to reduce crime. Hopefully, you can understand that we should not let a few hundred bad apples ruin the healthy fun that hundreds of millions derive from gun ownership and photography.

[Blue]

When I was born, my grandfather, who was in the middle of some of the worst fighting - Finnish Winter War and Continuation War - bought me a Diana air rifle. And when I was a tot he would teach me proper gun use etc. I would only shoot at paper targets or cans or such... and the gun had barely enough power to pierce the paper target.

Nevertheless, I had fantasies of When the Russians Invaded, I'd climb on our roof and shoot them with my puny little Diana.

There is a monumental difference in fantasizing about shooting at soldiers in Stalin's Red Army and a group of 6 year old kids.

[ihasa]

With all due respect, people outside the U.S. don't have a real frame of reference. I dare you to move to Chicago or L.A. or New Orleans and put a sign on your front lawn that says, "This House is a Gun Free Zone." Better yet, get with the neighborhood home owners association and put the sign up under the Neighborhood Watch sign.

Yes, because we don't have widespread access to the guns!

I know what you mean in a way. It's hard putting Pandora back in a box.

I dare you to move to Chicago or L.A. or New Orleans and put a sign on your front lawn that says, "This House is a Gun Free Zone."

Just for the record, I have never said I would do any such thing, nor at any point have I said that guns should be banned. Part of the frustration of these discussions is that anyone who thinks that some common sense regulation of gun ownership would be a good thing, is instantly painted as some sort of naive idealist wanting to ban ALL GUNS and melt them down and turn them into some sort of 'Bridge of Peace and Love' or something.

[Blue]

Yes, because we don't have widespread access to the guns!

I know what you mean in a way. It's hard putting Pandora back in a box.



Just for the record, I have never said I would do any such thing, nor at any point have I said that guns should be banned. Part of the frustration of these discussions is that anyone who thinks that some common sense regulation of gun ownership would be a good thing, is instantly painted as some sort of naive idealist wanting to ban ALL GUNS and melt them down and turn them into some sort of 'Bridge of Peace and Love' or something.

The point is that we do have an incredible amount of regulation. Also, the gun ban lobby is out to ban all handguns and semi-out rifles. Lax laws to them (Feinstein, Bloomberg etc.) is a euphemism for weapons not being banned. The school shooting above btw was with a lever action rifle. It is also more powerful than the rifle the Ct shooter had.

Edit: London isn't exactly murder free. It is down since 1978

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/murder-rate-in-london-is-lowest-since-1978-bu...e-6555737.html

Fewer people were murdered in London last year than at any time since 1978, new figures reveal today.
The Metropolitan Police said 125 victims died violently, down from 132 the previous year.
But gun murders were up 11 to 29, blamed partly on a rise in gang killings and a worrying trend for more teen- agers to use guns.
Senior police officers say the fall in murder figures reflects an overall down- ward trend over the last decade.
But there is still concern over the number of teenage murders, which rose by three to 18 last year - although the 2009 figure was significantly lower than 2008. The Met figures for homicides in 2010 also reveal:
Gun gang murders in the black community up from eight to 15.
Nine fewer knife murders, at 49, and killings with other weapons, such as blunt instruments, down from 24 to 15.
The number of victims killed by strangulation or punches down from 28 to 24.
Police say the rise in gun crime murders in the black community, being investigated by Operation Trident, was marked because it followed the lowest ever total in 2009.

That is still better than NYC or Chicago by 5x

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-28/new-york-city-has-the-third-fewest-...ayor-says.html