# Tips on deterring forcible equipment theft while carrying camera?



## Kit Lens Jockey (Jan 17, 2017)

I searched around and had already read some topics on this, and read lensrentals' guide to camera theft, but so much of the advice I found relating to preventing camera theft was more related to what to do to help to recover it after the fact, or making sure to have insurance so that you're covered after it happens.

Maybe it's not discussed because it's expected that it's just common sense, I dunno. But no one seems to have any tips on making a camera less noticeable or less desirable to steal to begin with.

Long story short, I got mugged a couple of weeks ago. I did not have any camera gear on me, so I was good there. But honestly, after having that happen, frankly my focus is not so much on what I can do to recover my stuff after it's stolen or insure it, but prevent the whole thing in the first place. It's not that all of that isn't important, it's just that I now realize that in the grand scheme of things it matters much less than avoiding the possible injury and death that comes along with a violent theft.

I'm a little bummed out because so many of the photos I've been taking recently were in large cities, and I love taking photos at night, but my appetite for it has been a little dulled since I've had to really consider how much of a target having a camera hanging off my side makes me.

I know I'm not the only one who takes photos in cities. What tips do people have on this? Stowing the camera in a backpack is not really ideal because obviously it can result in a lot of missed photos. It would be nice to have a way of hiding my camera while still allowing it to be easily accessible. I'm also planning to tape over as much of my camera as possible to make it look older, less desirable, and to hide the logos. My 70-200L will probably also get some tape on it at this point. I doubt that a lot of thieves know what a 5D is, but I think that anyone who has seen any nice cameras in the past knows that white lens = expensive camera, so I can at least try to hide that.

People have also recommended getting a smaller, more concealable mirrorless camera, but ultimately I'm not very keen in dumping a bunch of money into a whole other system of camera bodies and lenses that will ultimately not even be as good in low light as a nice DSLR.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 17, 2017)

You could consider LensCoat products to cover things up (black neoprene covers for bodies and lenses). But honestly, a dSLR with a lens is going to look like what it is, pretty much no matter what you do. Plus, at least when I'm walking around a city for evening/night shooting, I always have a tripod, and few things scream, "I have a camera," louder than that. 

IMO: have insurance, and if confronted, just hand over your gear. 

OTOH, you could try too look more badass and sling one of these...







Or better yet, hit the gym then go on a jungle run and maybe looking like this guy would be a deterrent...


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Jan 17, 2017)

Sorry to hear you got mugged. :'(

I like to do urban photography myself and have had the same concerns. Here in Portland, Oregon, our mayor stopped enforcement of laws that discouraged "homeless" people from camping in the city. Many of the spots that I once used to take cityscapes at night or do outdoor photoshoots with models are no longer safe or are visually marred by ugly hobo encampments. The homeless/street people are mostly harmless, but unpredictable. Many of them seem lonely and want to chat or ogle an attractive model, which is annoying at best.

It seems to me that disguising your gear isn't going to help much. Before things got too bad, I started taking friends along and I took advantage of my concealed carry license. I realize that in some cities you can't get one unless you are rich or connected, but it might be worth checking into. You can't count on the bad guys taking your gear and leaving peacefully. And if you are working with a model, you are also morally responsible for protecting her, in my opinion.

Anyway, I've just stopped going to my favorite spots along the rivers and freeways. If I want to work outdoors with a model, I do it in daylight in the busy downtown area. I like doing that early on weekend mornings or on nice weekday evenings when the office workers aren't around, but before the street people come out in force.

Obviously, your mileage will vary.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 17, 2017)

Sorry for the unfortunate event. 

If I had to guess, I would suspect that the chances of having equipment lifted are much greater than having equipment forcibly stolen. Insurance and being aware of surroundings is probably the best advice. 

The obvious might be the best advice: keep the camera slung across your neck and shoulders and not simply over a shoulder or around your neck. When walking down the street, hold the camera in your hand (with strap across your torso) and don't rely simply on the strap.

Keep spare lenses in a backpack, rather than a shoulder bag (easier to carry, as well as more secure). If you sit down to eat and take off the backpack, put the leg of the chair you are sitting on through the straps. 

As far as disguising equipment, I don't know how effective that is. I suspect most criminals aren't that discerning, they are looking more at opportunity rather than value. As long as they can sell it for $50-$100, they probably don't care how much it is really worth. 

Act like a professional and be assertive, not surreptitious when taking pictures. The thief is more likely to be sizing you up, not your equipment. If you look and act like you might be a photographer from the local paper they may be less inclined to mug you, than if you look like a tourist awed by the big city.


----------



## SteveM (Jan 17, 2017)

Stay out of the dodgy areas, the risks aren't worth it, there must be plenty of good photos to be had without frequenting the dodgy bits. Stick with the crowds.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 18, 2017)

Hi Kit Lens Jockey. 
Sorry to hear that you got mugged. 
As it stands I don't have anything I carry on my person that is more valuable than my person, if someone threatening wants it they get it, hopefully I never have to find out if the moment changes that feeling and turns me stupid enough to argue! 
There have been threads here about this previously and the merit of camouflage etc, I seem to recall there was no definitive answer to this as it is probably one of those that no body really has an answer for, how do you research whether disguising your camera makes it less of a target without skewing the research?
There are straps out there with steel cords made in to them to stop them being cut to snatch the camera, but I wonder if that might lead to a confrontation which could work out worse than loosing a camera? 
I hope you manage to overcome the effects of being mugged and get back to shooting how you want. 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## IglooEater (Jan 18, 2017)

Stay out of seedy areas
Don't go alone, have a buddy or two
Take Mixed Martial Arts-especially one aimed at self defence. You'd be amazed how much of some self-defence oriented martial arts is awareness to one's surroundings to avoid a problem rather than actual fighting techniques. If the teacher's any good that is.


----------



## ethanz (Jan 18, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> IMO: have insurance, and if confronted, just hand over your gear.



Then the question is, do you ask to take the memory card out first? I've thought about that many times. 

I've also thought about how good camera gear could be used as a weapon against someone. But I'd probably be too nerdy to try anything.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 18, 2017)

I use a black rapid strap and always walk with my hand on the camera body. Maybe that helps prevent someone from snatching and garbing. If someone wants to rob you it doesn't matter where you carry the camera.

Really just get the insurance. 

I have a concealed carry and live in an open carry state. I would never carry to stop someone from stealing my camera, I would pay for their life by giving them the camera in a robbery. However if someone is attempting to rob you when you obviously are carrying then likely your life is in danger.

Insurance is the answer.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 18, 2017)

Once you develop the mindset that your camera is disposable, many problems disappear. If you don't get mugged - great. If you do get mugged - annoying, but its cool. It's the cost of getting great photos.

My initial thought was the same as SteveM and avoid known areas. But problems can arise anywhere, and even though it might take months or years to get over your recent experience, you can't live your life in fear's shadow.


----------



## AJ (Jan 18, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Don't be alone. Have a buddy (or two) with you....


+1

Having a wingman really helps. When you're looking through the viewfinder you only see your subject.


----------



## dcren123 (Jan 18, 2017)

It is very surprising how much difference there is regarding theft and security between countries. I was traveling in Hokkaido Japan taking pictures of Cranes last year, and this japanese photographer (maybe two of them) a few feet away from me went to the restroom for like ten minutes leaving two tripods with a Nikon+supertele and Canon+Sigma 150-600 attached with another Canon plus 70-200 2.8 hanging on the tripod out in the field. No one even glanced at those gears.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 18, 2017)

dcren123 said:


> It is very surprising how much difference there is regarding theft and security between countries. I was traveling in Hokkaido Japan taking pictures of Cranes last year, and this japanese photographer (maybe two of them) a few feet away from me went to the restroom for like ten minutes leaving two tripods with a Nikon+supertele and Canon+Sigma 150-600 attached with another Canon plus 70-200 2.8 hanging on the tripod out in the field. *No one even glanced at those gears.*



Maybe they were to busy trying to figure out why the world is upside down in your picture.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 18, 2017)

Hi Ethanz. 
I too have confronted this mental dilemma, my thoughts are the second you ask it becomes confrontational which may well have a poor outcome. Get good at ejecting the card as you handle the camera and if you are ever in this situation just take it out as you are handing over the camera, if asked what you are doing then say "you don't need my holiday photos!" 
If you are lucky you might have their mugshot to help get your gear back, (or them arrested) of course they may be worried that is the case and demand the card too, give it to them and leave in a hurry! 
A friend used to still have a Nokia 6310 when most everyone else had gone smartphone, his logic was 'no one will mug me for it and if they do I'll beat them to death with it!'  
I'm not sure a camera would make a good weapon, a bit too unwieldy? 

Cheers, Graham. 



ethanz said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > IMO: have insurance, and if confronted, just hand over your gear.
> ...


----------



## SteveM (Jan 18, 2017)

I doubt any camouflage would work, a thief will take _any_ bag under the assumption it contains something. Any camera/thing you carry probably has a value which can be sold to support a 'habit.'
I doubt the Police would recommend fighting back (unless your life were in immediate danger), any fight on your part would probably result in your being shot or stabbed. Using a weapon of your own has the possibility of you being charged with murder should the worst case scenario arise....carrying a weapon is premeditation.
I'll reiterate what I said above, stay out of obviously dangerous places and stick with the crowds in a city you don't know very well. I carry a small camera bag (one camera with 24-105 usually) across my chest so it can't be grabbed and run off with. I'd hazard a guess sunrise is much safer than night photography as the s... will probably be asleep.
Yup, I know, I probably watch too much CSI


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 18, 2017)

The title of your post is 'Tips on deterring forcible equipment theft while carrying camera". I would suggest there aren't any. You can't deter it, you can only avoid situations where it may happen. It sounds to me when you were mugged you were doing nothing to raise your profile anyway and you didn't have your gear with you which really indicates what most muggings are about - bad luck on your part and sheer opportunism on theirs. 

The only thing you can do is avoid the situations as drmikeinpdx describes - if you don't feel comfortable don't take your gear there and that is pretty much a rule in big cities anyway with or without gear. I bought my micro-4/3 gear as an option when photographing in cities and found people pay far less attention to me and I get more quality candid shots than I do when pointing a big telephoto at people. I guess this also makes me less conspicuous to thieves. 

I went backpacking in Asia for 2 years and I started out fairly paranoid. After a few days I realised it was limiting where I went and what I did so I sat down one day and asked myself 'what would I do if I had everything stolen'. I reckoned that I was insured so their loss was not a problem in the short to medium term. They are only possessions. OK, if my passport was stolen that would be a pain in the butt but could be resolved. So I reasoned that if my wallet was stolen, would I worry? Not really, so why would the loss of a bag of clothes be any different? 
After that, I applied due caution, kept my eyes and ears open and enjoyed myself. In this respect IglooEater brings up a good point - good self defence is as much about avoiding a problem situation as it is about fighting your way out of it. 

So I would say:
Insure your gear - if it is stolen, so what?
Be aware of where it is - stop the snatch-and-grab
If you are mugged, don't fight back. Give it up and claim on the insurance
Keep your eyes and ears open and stay aware

I am not saying having gear with you _won't_ raise your profile for a mugger but just trying to counter any excessive caution that will stop you enjoying your hobby.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jan 18, 2017)

Have a friend carrying lots of bling walk about 50 meters in front of you. ;D

Seriously, there is some great advice here. Situational awareness is the key. 

The risk can never be zero, but you can improve the odds that the mugger may choose someone else. Muggers don't like people with situational awareness. They prefer victims with their heads buried in a cell phone.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 18, 2017)

SteveM said:


> I doubt any camouflage would work, a thief will take _any_ bag under the assumption it contains something. Any camera/thing you carry probably has a value which can be sold to support a 'habit.'
> I doubt the Police would recommend fighting back (unless your life were in immediate danger), any fight on your part would probably result in your being shot or stabbed. Using a weapon of your own has the possibility of you being charged with murder should the worst case scenario arise....carrying a weapon is premeditation.
> I'll reiterate what I said above, stay out of obviously dangerous places and stick with the crowds in a city you don't know very well. I carry a small camera bag (one camera with 24-105 usually) across my chest so it can't be grabbed and run off with. I'd hazard a guess sunrise is much safer than night photography as the s... will probably be asleep.
> Yup, I know, I probably watch too much CSI



Carrying a weapon IS NOT premeditation. Doing so is perfectly legal in most every single U.S. state.

While camera equipment can be insured and considered disposable, the mugger may decide the photographer is disposable too.

Yup, if you kill a perp. you will be arrested until things are sorted out, but you will not be dead. handguns are used nearly a million times each year (by civilians) in the United States to thwart attacks and robberies.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 18, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yup, if you kill a perp. you will be arrested until things are sorted out, but you will not be dead. handguns are used nearly a million times each year (by civilians) in the United States to thwart attacks and robberies.



And from what statistics I have seen, where someone is shot, it is more often that the person being robbed is shot often with their own handgun when the perp takes it off them. But I guess that is a discussion for a different time.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 18, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> Maybe they were to busy trying to figure out why the world is upside down in your picture.


Japan is on the other side of the world, which explains this.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 18, 2017)

dcren123 said:


> It is very surprising how much difference there is regarding theft and security between countries.


Reports like this give a clue - https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Crime-statistics/International_Statistics_on_Crime_and_Justice.pdf

The robbery rates on page 27 might be of interest.

But the problem with these types of reports is that they rely on reported crimes. And crimes tend to only get reported where you have effective police forces. The stats from developed countries might be more accurate than less developed countries. There are also some crimes in some places that you just don't report (eg where it is illegal to be victims of such crimes.)


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 18, 2017)

SteveM said:


> *carrying a weapon is premeditation*.



That is ridiculous.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 18, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> SteveM said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt any camouflage would work, a thief will take _any_ bag under the assumption it contains something. Any camera/thing you carry probably has a value which can be sold to support a 'habit.'
> ...



FanBoy, his statement about premeditation was ill-informed. 

But a "million times"? Where did you come up with that number?


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 18, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> You "muricans" and your guns.....
> 
> This is an international forum. In civilized countries, you are not allowed to go wandering around pretending that you are Rambo and armed like it is some old clint eastwood movie...



In most US states you have to have a permit if you want to do this. Legally that is. Our uncivilized behaviour is regulated.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 18, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> You "muricans" and your guns.....
> 
> This is an international forum. In civilized countries, you are not allowed to go wandering around pretending that you are Rambo and armed like it is some old clint eastwood movie...



I don't believe a country that foisted Celine Dion on the world can be considered truly civilized.


----------



## ethanz (Jan 18, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > You "muricans" and your guns.....
> ...



Don't forget Justin Bieber came from there too.


----------



## kirispupis (Jan 18, 2017)

This basically reiterates what everyone else said.

- When you have your best gear, keep to places that are safe
- When you're in seedier places, carry more concealable, less expensive gear

When I was in Rio de Janeiro and Salvador de Bahia, I checked with the hotels and only took my DSLR + tripod to places they stated were safe. Otherwise I had my Rx100. I follow the same procedure in most US cities.

A gun really isn't a solution. Besides the legal issues, you're making a huge assumption about your attacker. In Brazil many of the muggers are armed and will kill you for even making eye contact.


----------



## mnclayshooter (Jan 18, 2017)

dcren123 said:


> It is very surprising how much difference there is regarding theft and security between countries. I was traveling in Hokkaido Japan taking pictures of Cranes last year, and this japanese photographer (maybe two of them) a few feet away from me went to the restroom for like ten minutes leaving two tripods with a Nikon+supertele and Canon+Sigma 150-600 attached with another Canon plus 70-200 2.8 hanging on the tripod out in the field. No one even glanced at those gears.



You do see that "other" camera just a few feet beyond in the bokeh, right? Security cameras do wonders for deterrence. 

I do agree with you though that culturally, different parts of the world respect other's and their property in different ways, some good, and some very bad.


----------



## mnclayshooter (Jan 18, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> SteveM said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt any camouflage would work, a thief will take _any_ bag under the assumption it contains something. Any camera/thing you carry probably has a value which can be sold to support a 'habit.'
> ...



Heh... which news story is likely to be aired?? the one about the robbery that didn't happen because the potential victim had a gun, or the one that did because the actual victim didn't have a gun?


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 18, 2017)

This is a method I used 30 years ago in the construction business to stop thieves from taking saws and generators.
This actually works, and it works better than painting your name on your gear.
Paint your gear hot pink, or other ugly color of your choice.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 18, 2017)

mnclayshooter said:


> Heh... which news story is likely to be aired?? the one about the robbery that didn't happen because the potential victim had a gun, or the one that did because the actual victim didn't have a gun?



Of course, the issue is how you can prove a robbery that didn't occur, didn't occur because the potential victim had a gun. I believe that most gun owners in US carry a concealed gun, not on open show in the holster. 

If you can show me that the mugging rate in US is lower in the US and can correlate this to gun ownership then you may have a case. If the mugging rate in US is higher then who knows...


----------



## pdirestajr (Jan 18, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> You "muricans" and your guns.....
> 
> This is an international forum. In civilized countries, you are not allowed to go wandering around pretending that you are Rambo and armed like it is some old clint eastwood movie...



I've lived in NY my whole life. Lived in various parts of NYC and Brooklyn and have never even see a mugging, act of violence or a gun being used for any reason... My point being, these cases are rare. I know robberies and muggings happen, and it's unfortunate, but it's not the norm. Just use common sense and be aware of your property and surroundings.

Oh, and let's not lump all Americans together. And I for one cringe at the saying "Muricans".


----------



## Fatalv (Jan 19, 2017)

Personally, I feel the best determent consists of having yourself covered from multiple angles. That means insurance, knowning areas of confrontation/theft and avoiding them, actively being aware of your surroundings, and concealed carrying a firearm. 

The best part of concealed carrying is you can still choose whether to use it or surrender your gear. It's situational and judgement can be used depending on the confrontation.


----------



## Fatalv (Jan 19, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> mnclayshooter said:
> 
> 
> > Heh... which news story is likely to be aired?? the one about the robbery that didn't happen because the potential victim had a gun, or the one that did because the actual victim didn't have a gun?
> ...



All you need to do is look at places like Texas. They have the largest percentage of gun carriers and the lowest crime rates. Then compare to places like Chicago, etc. with the strictest gun laws hindering law abiding citizens from carrying...


----------



## Pookie (Jan 19, 2017)

pdirestajr said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > You "muricans" and your guns.....
> ...



Ahh... don't take it personally when a Gord calls you a "murican", he knows no better... he's just a simple cat loving 51st Stater.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 19, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, if you kill a perp. you will be arrested until things are sorted out, but you will not be dead. handguns are used nearly a million times each year (by civilians) in the United States to thwart attacks and robberies.
> ...



And your stats are sorely mistaken, and intentionally so by groups like guncontrol inc. You list such stories and I can list you many more stories that say the opposite.

Here's a list of covered news stories. Let's see your list of perps. killing gun owners with their own guns. https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx?page=0&state=0&startDate=20170111&endDate=20170118&search=&contentBuckets=#latest-news


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 19, 2017)

Pookie said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Which civilized country is that Mr. Haines? The one that brought the slave trade to the Americas?


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 19, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



"Gun crazy" Nice. Bigoted much?

I'm for personal choice. If you don't want one, don't get one. However, leave my choice to me. I'll not call you names for your choice. Stop being a cad about the choices of others.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fatalv said:


> Personally, I feel the best determent consists of having yourself covered from multiple angles. That means insurance, avoiding known areas of confrontation/theft and avoiding them, actively being aware of your surroundings, and concealed carrying a firearm.
> 
> The best part of concealed carrying is you can still choose whether to use it or surrender your gear. It's situational and judgement can be used depending on the confrontation.



The firearm is for* personal protection and self defense*, not to protect your gear.

For instance someone who snatches your camera from your neck and starts running away, in most states you would be charged for murder if you shoot him. He is running away and you are not in danger.

You are allowed to meet force with force. If you are a man and another man your size comes up and says give me your gear or I will punch you. Shooting him would be questionable because you can meet him with the same force he brings. If he has a club it would be considered deadly and you can bring the gun. 

You have to be in danger to use the gun. It is best to not even take into consideration the loss of your gear when considering to use deadly force. In the heat of the moment it might bias your actions.

Carrying a firearm is a somber responsibility, knowing that the gun has one function which is to take someone's life. Unlike Mr, Haines Rambo perception of Americans, the majority that have a CC permit take it very seriously.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 19, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > pdirestajr said:
> ...



Gun Crazy goes back many centuries, it is why some countries still have a Queen and well...we have the Donald.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 19, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> Fatalv said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I feel the best determent consists of having yourself covered from multiple angles. That means insurance, avoiding known areas of confrontation/theft and avoiding them, actively being aware of your surroundings, and concealed carrying a firearm.
> ...



Yup, can't shoot if they're running away. In some states it can be used to protect property, not just the gun owner.


----------



## kirispupis (Jan 19, 2017)

While I am extremely tempted to get into the various facts that clearly demonstrate that there is a direct relationship between the number of guns and the number of people who unnecessarily die from guns (including the fact that a guns are more likely to be used on a family member than an intruder), we are really digressing from the original question.

The poster wants to know how to protect CAMERA GEAR from being stolen forcibly. Disregarding the insanity of gun ownership, recommending a gun for this situation is impractical for the following reasons.
1) As previously stated, in many states it is illegal to shoot someone for trying to steal camera equipment.
2) For those of us who travel internationally, bringing a gun is not an option.
3) For those who live in countries with fewer than 10 gun deaths per 100k population (basically any 1st/2nd world country other than the US), you aren't allowed to conceal carry anyway.
4) For those who travel domestically in the US, different states have different laws about concealed carry. You also have yet another thing to pack on tops of lenses and cameras.

So if you're American, own a gun, have a concealed carry permit, and have no desire to travel domestically or internationally, go for it and hope when you brazenly walk into that crime infested area with a 10k camera held high that you have the quicker draw. 

However, I have photographed at night in many cities and I have never owned a gun, nor ever felt the need to have one - especially to protect my gear. Instead, I have relied on the following advice.

- When in a new city, consult your hotel and/or locals to learn where it is safe to go
- Travel in a group when possible
- Consider bringing a cheaper camera if you must travel in an unsafe area
- Insure your equipment
- Keep an eye on your surroundings
- Never let your gear leave your hands/body
- Don't look for trouble. Have some common sense.


----------



## Fatalv (Jan 19, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> Fatalv said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I feel the best determent consists of having yourself covered from multiple angles. That means insurance, avoiding known areas of confrontation/theft and avoiding them, actively being aware of your surroundings, and concealed carrying a firearm.
> ...



Sure, shooting a fleeing criminal is a lawyers wet dream and only an idiot would do so (unless you live in Texas ).

But laws very state by state. For instance many states passed 'Castle Doctrine', i.e. Right to stand your ground. You are under no obligation to withdraw/submit to a criminal. That includes handing over you gear.

Additionally, more often than not one need not even discharge his weapon to prevent the crime. Unarmed criminals will likely back away rather slowly when confronted with and armed citizen warning then to back away


----------



## Fatalv (Jan 19, 2017)

kirispupis said:


> While I am extremely tempted to get into the various facts that clearly demonstrate that there is a direct relationship between the number of guns and the number of people who unnecessarily die from guns (including the fact that a guns are more likely to be used on a family member than an intruder), we are really digressing from the original question.
> 
> The poster wants to know how to protect CAMERA GEAR from being stolen forcibly. Disregarding the insanity of gun ownership, recommending a gun for this situation is impractical for the following reasons.
> 1) As previously stated, in many states it is illegal to shoot someone for trying to steal camera equipment.
> ...



Disregarding your 'insanity' concerning your need to call all gun owners insane...

1. It's not illegal to defend your property. As previously stated you are well within your right to NOT peacefully hand over your belongings to a criminal.
2. & 3. Obviously you have to abide by international laws as a guest or the laws of your own country.
4. Owning a concealed carry permit for 3 states covers you for conceal carry for all 48 states. The other two I'll gladly either not visit, not carry in, or have insurance on the gear I bring.

All other points I agree with. Common sense, knowing your surroundings, and having insurance goes a long way.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fatalv said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Fatalv said:
> ...



Castle Doctrine and Stand your Ground are not the same.

Castle Doctrine gives you the right to protect yourself in your house, in some states your car, your work place even a tent. If someone enters unlawfully you have the right to assume that they intend harm.

Stand Your Ground means that you do not have to retreat if you are in a place you can lawfully be. Some states require that if you can find a way to remove yourself from a danger that you must do so. 

In your senario would the criminal be armed? If so it may escalate and if you bring out the weapon it should be with the intent to use it otherwise you may die while you are giving your warning. Then the other thing to consider, in some states it is a felony to brandish your concealed weapon. The police arrive and talk to the criminal and he denies trying to rob you, it is his word against yours. Other bystanders see you pull your weapon, guess who goes to jail. 

So many possibilities, maybe you die, someone else dies or you go to prison. Like I said in earlier posts, buy insurance, keep your camera equipment out of the thought process. Make the decision based on your safety only.


----------



## Fatalv (Jan 19, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> Fatalv said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



Correct they are different but similar in many ways. The states that come to my mind all have passed both, but again it's state by state, so you have to know the laws of where you are.

I agree about escalation. IMHO a firearm should never be removed from it's holster unless you are prepared to use it. I would give a verbal warning without removing the firearm while readying my hand to draw if necessary.

Again, I'm advocating for multiple avenues of protection, so I agree. Common sense, insurance, etc. Having a firearm is just another form or protection if needed. I'm not advocating using it in every situation, but I'd rather have one and not need it than be without it.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 19, 2017)

kirispupis said:


> While I am extremely tempted to get into the various facts that clearly demonstrate that there is a direct relationship between the number of guns and the number of people who unnecessarily die from guns...


I'd be interested in the facts. I've always thought that the chances of being involved in an intentional gun-related incident were more closely tied to how left-wing your government is (with at least 260 million people being killed by their own government in the last one hundred years.) 

I wonder how many Venezuelans are now regretting handing over their guns in the recent gun bans?


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jan 19, 2017)

I think we have all learned an important lesson here.

Don't introduce gun topics into a non-gun thread unless you want the thread derailed.


----------



## docsmith (Jan 19, 2017)

This is one of the reasons I own an EOS-M series body. And a gorilla pod.

Stand your ground, run like he__, the bottom line is that we can take great photos while not looking like we are carrying $15,000 of gear. Bad situations exist in the world. I got lost heading into downtown Brussels 1 week before the Paris shootings. Turns out I was in Molenbeek. In Bogotá, my local representatives would not even let me in a cab by myself. It had nothing to do with camera gear (I had the M) just being an American was enough of a target. I had a very similar experience in Sao Paulo although that was more neighborhood driven.

Rough places exist. It doesn't hurt to have less expensive but very capable gear.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 19, 2017)

AcutancePhotography said:


> I think we have all learned an important lesson here.
> 
> Don't introduce gun topics into a non-gun thread unless you want the thread derailed.



I would argue that the thread is partially a gun topic. The question was for tips on deterring forcible theft, and there are those among us that carry firearms for that reason.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 19, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> And your stats are sorely mistaken, and intentionally so by groups like guncontrol inc. You list such stories and I can list you many more stories that say the opposite.
> 
> Here's a list of covered news stories. Let's see your list of perps. killing gun owners with their own guns. https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx?page=0&state=0&startDate=20170111&endDate=20170118&search=&contentBuckets=#latest-news



Hmm. Relying on a NRA website to get best advice on the pros and cons of carrying guns.
There's a message in there somewhere.


https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/



> Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 19, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > And your stats are sorely mistaken, and intentionally so by groups like guncontrol inc. You list such stories and I can list you many more stories that say the opposite.
> ...



Mike, every single article there is linked to a legitimate news story. The fact that the stories are listed on an NRA website means absolutely nothing as far as the veracity of the story. If you want to see that as an NRA conspiracy, be my guest. The stories are true no matter who has compiled them.

The study you quote is funded by the Joyce Foundation. So here you go: https://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/10/26/anti-gun-study-filled-with-flaws-and-bias/

The fact is this: The more guns there are in the hands of law abiding citizens, the less crime there is.


----------



## AJ (Jan 19, 2017)

How about pepper spray
(Canadian talking here)


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 19, 2017)

AJ said:


> How about pepper spray
> (Canadian talking here)



In the US just like a firearm you would need to know the laws where you are at. 
A concealed pepper spray or concealed firearm will not deter a would be thief. He wouldn't know you had either until he actually confronts you.
While using pepper spray or the Kung Fu you learned from your local master, both run the risk of escalating the situation. The thief just wanted your camera and nothing else, you karate chop him in the head and now he wants to punch you back.

Like the saying, you brought a knife to a gunfight? You can change the word knife to , karate chop or pepper spray.


----------



## kirispupis (Jan 19, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



Absolutely not true - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Of first world countries, the US has by far the highest number of guns per person - 112.6 per 100 people vs the next highest of Switzerland with 45.7. Switzerland is a special case since military service is compulsory and soldiers are allowed to keep their guns. However, they severely limit ammunition. The US as 10.4 gun related deaths per 100k population vs. Finland at 3.25. Americans are 3x more likely to be killed by a gun than a Finn, 10x more likely than a German, and 175x more likely than a Japanese. This is why the majority of the world limits guns.

Even within the US, there is a direct relationship between weaker gun laws and increased gun deaths - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/29/weak-gun-laws-and-high-gu_n_6572384.html

Of course, we'd have even stronger statistics if the NRA didn't block gun research - http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.html

You're free to have your Trump-esque ignorance, but the majority of the free world and anyone sensible already knows that the majority of guns are completely unnecessary in private hands. Americans love guns because they like guns. It has nothing to do with protection (the gun is more likely to be used against your or a loved one), nor defense against the government (they have a lot more guns).

This Australian makes it even clearer - http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=89d_1411198955


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 19, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The fact is this: The more guns there are in the hands of law abiding citizens, the less crime there is.



Sorry, but the fact is that you don't know what the heck you're talking about. Is Kellyanne checking your facts for you?


----------



## Boyer U. Klum-Cey (Jan 19, 2017)

An actual Think Tank(a Canon Urban Fotography Vehicle(CUFV) may be in my future, eh?


----------



## Eldar (Jan 19, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > The fact is this: The more guns there are in the hands of law abiding citizens, the less crime there is.
> ...


An example; We have much (as in MUCH) stricter weapon control here in Norway, than you in the US. However, since we are a nation of hunters, we have lots of hunting rifles (we are actually in 11th place globally on weapon density), but you have to go through special training and screening to get one. Hand guns, assault rifles etc. are banned and the control with ammunition and use is significant. 

The rate of people getting killed in the US is 50, FIFTY, times higher in the US, compared to what we have. But, of course, that has absolutely nothing to do with your liberal weapon legislation :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 19, 2017)

Boyer U. Klum-Cey said:


> An actual Think Tank may be in my future, eh?



Found one!


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 19, 2017)

Eldar said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



But how would you explain Mexico, Brazil and South Africa which are near the top of the list of murders per capita. All of which have strict gun laws that do not permit or severely limit ownership and carry.

I think all you can derive from the "my country has fewer" discussion is some countries have a higher murder rate than others.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 19, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Mexico, Brazil and South Africa have one thing in common; A massive market for illegal weapons. If you want a weapon, it takes you less than a day to get one. The comparison is totally irrelevant. 

Are you saying that Americans (in general) are more murderous than Norwegians?? I don´t believe so. However, you elected Donald Trump for president, so you might be suicidal though


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 19, 2017)

Eldar said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



The comparison is not irrelevant.

It is easy to blame the guns, in reality it is the political, social, ethnic or economic conditions in those countries that drive the violence.


----------



## Boyer U. Klum-Cey (Jan 19, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Boyer U. Klum-Cey said:
> 
> 
> > An actual Think Tank may be in my future, eh?
> ...


That has got to be worth a ton or two of CPS points.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 19, 2017)

Eldar said:


> Are you saying that Americans (in general) are more murderous than Norwegians?? I don´t believe so. However, you elected Donald Trump for president, so you might be suicidal though



How dare you criticize our president elect?!? 

Just out of curiousity, and totally unrelated to the topic at hand, what's the biopharma job sector in Norway like? And is it easy to immigrate there? What are the chances I could land a job and move there by tomorrow? Not that tomorrow has any special political significance, or anything...I'm just asking.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 19, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...


I agree. Norway is quite different, even though we have a much more varied political, social and ethnic population than many believe. We do however have very little poverty.

A more relevant comparison would be US vs. UK. If you remove the upper percent of the filthy rich in each country, the average UK person is poorer than the average US person. Because of the British Empire (and all that), plus the EU (which they are now leaving), they have a very complex population, coming from all over the globe and with all the problems that follows. They have much stricter weapon laws (pretty similar to the Norwegians) and the statistics says that the chances of being shot to death in the UK is 0.236/million, whereas the US number is 32.57/million. 

But of course, it has nothing to do with the availability of weapons ...


----------



## Eldar (Jan 19, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Are you saying that Americans (in general) are more murderous than Norwegians?? I don´t believe so. However, you elected Donald Trump for president, so you might be suicidal though
> ...


He he, I think you´d find the market for biopharma qualifications to be quite good and your work permit should be a mere formality


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 19, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > How about pepper spray
> ...



Hehehe... forgetting the fact that the thief has already escalated the situation and we are not mind readers who can ascertain his ultimate intent. You don't know he only wants the camera... especially in the case of females being attacked. Should women in danger of being attacked or raped be told to just lay there and take it? Give the attacker what he wants? Nice. Is that what you would tell your wife or daughter? Or would you rather they be trained to defend themselves with a handgun? That is the choice. Just take whatever the attacker wants to do with you, or fight back.

The law requires only that the gun owner believe his or her life to be in danger or under threat of grave physical harm. 

The fact that the thief cannot know, either, whether or not his victim is armed deters crime. He's playing a guessing game.


----------



## ethanz (Jan 19, 2017)

Eldar said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



Eldar might even let you stay at his place for a few days while you look for a house.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 19, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The fact that the thief cannot know, either, whether or not his victim is armed deters crime. He's playing a guessing game.



There is commonly quoted 'fact' by proponents of the death penalty that the death penalty deters murderers. 
But a few years ago a detailed study interviewing people on death row found that not one of the people awaiting execution at any point thought 'I will not do this because I may be put to death'. I suspect other crimes are very much the same - they commit the robbery without really thinking 'that person may ave a gun and may shoot me'. It is not part of their equation. If anything it just entices the person planning the crime to carry a gun themselves.

Guns are most often carried by people untrained in their use - and by 'trained' I don't just mean how to point it a pull the trigger, but trained also in assessing and reacting to the situation and maintaining calm. And as pointed out in that article I posted the link for, a big problem is that it gives the holder a feeling of invulnerability and it causes a massive and rapid escalation in tension. That is the danger with guns and why I would advocate a photographer no NOT carry one. 
It is camera gear we are talking about here. Not the rape and murder of family members. Even experienced police officers are severely traumatised after shooting someone and they are people for whom this is a real risk


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 19, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Hehehe... forgetting the fact that the thief has already escalated the situation and we are not mind readers who can ascertain his ultimate intent. You don't know he only wants the camera... especially in the case of females being attacked. Should women in danger of being attacked or raped be told to just lay there and take it? Give the attacker what he wants? Nice. Is that what you would tell your wife or daughter? Or would you rather they be trained to defend themselves with a handgun? That is the choice. Just take whatever the attacker wants to do with you, or fight back.
> 
> The law requires only that the gun owner believe his or her life to be in danger or under threat of grave physical harm.
> 
> The fact that the thief cannot know, either, whether or not his victim is armed deters crime. He's playing a guessing game.



On a thread about protecting camera gear, let's justify the carrying a gun by escalating the issue to rape and murder.
If rape and murder are an issue, then the camera gear is irrelevant and I presume you would have a gun with you at all times anyway. In which case reference to carrying a gun is irrelevant to this discussion.


----------



## kirispupis (Jan 19, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > AJ said:
> ...



Your argument is very similar to that of a terrorist. There is no peaceful solution to a problem - only violence. The NRA (which should be considered a terrorist organization) gives a very similar argument - unless you have a gun, you will die. 

The problem is, it's completely untrue. The overwhelming majority of us have never been, nor will ever be, in a situation that remotely called for a weapon because we're intelligent human beings who know how to exercise common sense in avoiding trouble. 

Unfortunately, due to an amendment to the Constitution that (like the electoral college) was designed to uphold slavery, the sane majority has to put up with this dribble that allows random people at any moment to determine who should die. That is why people are murdered here at a far greater rate than in any stable country. That's why aggravated assault, rape, and robbery occur at a higher rate in the US than in any other 1st world country.

I know that this should be a discussion about camera equipment, but it really roils be every time my kids have to go through an active shooter drill because we live in a country held in terror by a small group of people who want to compensate for their shortcomings with guns and more guns.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 19, 2017)

ethanz said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Indeed, you´re most welcome


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 19, 2017)

Eldar said:


> ethanz said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



Is 1,461 days 'a few'? ;D The first 'X' goes on the calendar tomorrow…


----------



## Eldar (Jan 19, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > ethanz said:
> ...


You can always apply for political asylum. You´d get a place to stay, a daily allowance, free language training and a bunch of other benefits. If you behave, they might even throw in a free education in something of your choosing. Just make sure you don´t bring any hand guns or assault rifles


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 19, 2017)

Eldar said:


> Just make sure you don´t bring any hand guns or assault rifles



I suppose I'd have to leave the suitcase full of NRA promotional materials behind, too?


----------



## kphoto99 (Jan 19, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > ethanz said:
> ...



Oh, an optimist, it is more likely to be 2922 days, remember W was re-elected ;-)


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 19, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



How is this possible, it is ileagal for private citizens to buy guns in Venezuela.


----------



## lion rock (Jan 20, 2017)

You can liquidate you assets in the US and move to HK., any buy an apartment with nearly all your money. The apartment is a grand 500 square feet or less!
No thanks!
Visiting is nice; living there, I'll pass.
-r


----------



## Fatalv (Jan 20, 2017)

kirispupis said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



I'm glad your 'intelligence' grants you the clairvoyance to foresee all troubling situations and avoid them. We weren't all gifted with your abilities : Likewise it drives me nuts when a small group of people want to compensate for their lack of understanding of firearms and the second amendment by endlessly complaining about them and calling gun owners insane. 

The vast majority of "assault, rape, and robbery" that you attribute to firearms are perpetrated by individuals who don't obtain them legally to begin with. So restricting firearms does nothing to stop that from happening.

Honestly though, if you feel you are actively 'held in terror' in this country, why are you here? We've heard just in this thread of so many 'better' places with their gun laws. Maybe one of them wouldn't be as terrifying? It's an honest question. I know I would never want to live anywhere where I felt afraid or unsafe.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Jan 20, 2017)

Wow. I just kind of forgot about this thread once it was clear that there weren't any really solid ideas for preventing theft that I wasn't already aware of. Now I come back to this. 

As the person who actually got mugged, let me say this about guns... I am sooooo glad that I _did not_ have a gun on me when this happened. The attackers were so quick and had the jump on me to such an extent that if I did have a gun, I have no doubt that they would have gotten it from me. As it stands, they came up behind me, and the first signal that I knew they were there was them cracking me in the back of the head with their gun. I went down from this, and by the time I got turned around to look at them, all I saw was their gun pointed at my face, and they immediately grabbed my cash, phone, and were gone just as quickly.

And I do own a gun and a permit to carry it. The only time I've done so was about a year ago when I went for a hike by myself in the middle of winter in the wilderness. Otherwise, really, I don't want that hassle and responsibility. And like I said, it would have made this particular situation so much worse. You can argue that I should have been paying better attention. But that's the thing, it was in a place that I felt was generally safe and didn't feel like I _had_ to watch out for that kind of thing. I guess that's why they chose to do it when and where they did. But yeah, long story short, I'm just happy I didn't have a gun with me, because there was no chance to use it, and they would have gotten it, and then they would have had two guns, one of which I would have been sure worked.

Oh, and as long as we're going to go there, Donald Trump is a narcissist and an awful human being.


----------



## kirispupis (Jan 20, 2017)

Fatalv said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



Why should I run from terrorists? Why not stand up and scream - or in this case type - that the way things are is not right? Why not demand that we improve our security by following the examples proven by the rest of the world and severely limiting guns? 

Why can we not have a logical discussion about what guns/ammunition should be allowed and where, instead of following a law designed to sanction slavery patrols?

No, despite the fact that I am a dual citizen of the US and an EU country, I'm staying here at least until Trump starts a needless war and institutes the draft. Sure, the US has a much higher percentage of racists, bigots, and just plain idiots than any other civilized country, but it's still a land of opportunity and, believe it or not, it's actually possible to live here without people raping me all the time because I don't own a gun.

Real estate is affordable, as is camera equipment. It is a good place to invest, the universities are top notch, and it has many wonderful places to photograph. I'd rather fix the things that are wrong - such as stop bowing to terrorist gun fanatics and - somehow - incarcerate Trump.


----------



## MiamiC70 (Jan 20, 2017)

H&K or Glock work for me


----------



## Pookie (Jan 20, 2017)

I just enjoy shooting... of all types ;D

Don't worry CanonFanBoy, I got your back...


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 20, 2017)

kirispupis said:


> Why not demand that we improve our security by following the examples proven by the rest of the world and severely limiting guns?


It would just be easier to limit migration into the US to people from countries with a lower propensity for violence and crime. Gradual demographic changes over time would result in a diminishing crime rate. Perhaps offer free and easy citizenship to people from Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong and Taiwan.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 20, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Must be the cops and government agencies doing all the killing. Everyone knows that gun control laws keep guns out of the hands of those who want to do harm to the disarmed public..


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 20, 2017)

Pookie said:


> I just enjoy shooting... of all types ;D
> 
> Don't worry CanonFanBoy, I got your back...



I've got yours too David. I'd post all of them, but I'd hate to see so many get weak in the knees and faint. Posting pics of the AR-15s might cause strokes.  So just one AR pic. Just a taste here from a certifiably insane gun crazy nut.

Space won't allow me to post the whole collection or the 100 / thirty round magazines I have, or my 10,000 rounds of ammunition.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 20, 2017)

You should send us your address, just in case of zombie apocalypse.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 20, 2017)

Hillsilly said:


> You should send us your address, just in case of zombie apocalypse.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jan 20, 2017)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> The attackers were so quick and had the jump on me ....the first signal that I knew they were there was them cracking me in the back of the head with their gun.



That is an important point that many don't realize. Muggers are not going to walk in front of you and telegraph their intentions. They are going to do exactly what they did to you. Muggers know that people carry weapons and the muggers make sure they get the first move in.

It is only in the movies where the hero, after being cold-cocked from behind manages to un-holster their weapon on the way down and get off two double-taps before they hit the ground. 

I would not be surprised if muggers don't give their victim a quick waistline frisk to see if they can get a free weapon. 

I will take SA and avoidance over a holstered weapon any day. 

And yes, I do carry. I also know the limitations of carrying a weapon.


----------



## lux (Jan 20, 2017)

Chris Rock said it best.

The NRA says guns don't kill people...people kill people. Yeah but don't you think the guns help.



Oh and I got my code to move to the front of the line to emigrate to Canada. I'd find work but my wife wouldn't so I guess for now we are staying in the new USA. I love my home but it doesn't love me anymore and I wonder if it ever did. 

And the thing is the people who are going to be the most hurt are the people that changed their voting patterns and pushed him over the top. White working class voters who already have few jobs are going to have fewer with a dramatically reduced safety net and an environment likely to make them sicker. 

Oh and I can't wait to see the excitement when the "stand your ground" laws run up against the "you can carry a concealed weapon into a bar without a permit" laws. It will be like the Wild West movies...though maybe some interesting photography opportunities.


----------



## IglooEater (Jan 20, 2017)

CanonFanBoy, my goodness that first one's a beauty! Makes me wanna get my license. However as the money goes, I'd rather put it into Canon's not guns. ;P


----------



## hbr (Jan 20, 2017)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Kit Lens Jockey said:
> 
> 
> > The attackers were so quick and had the jump on me ....the first signal that I knew they were there was them cracking me in the back of the head with their gun.
> ...



+1


----------



## SteveM (Jan 20, 2017)

Wow! This has been entertaining....'Rambo roars into abc city, a 'Canon' in one hand and a Magnum 45 in the other'


----------



## kirispupis (Jan 20, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > I just enjoy shooting... of all types ;D
> ...



The photos and text just confirm it - guns are nothing about protection for you. They're about coolness, bravado, and "mine's bigger than yours." You're like a little kid, but one who hides behind the 2nd amendment. If they'd put slavery in the Constitution, you'd probably have some photos of them too.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 20, 2017)

SteveM said:


> Wow! This has been entertaining....'Rambo roars into abc city, a 'Canon' in one hand and a Magnum 45 in the other'



Full circle… 



neuroanatomist said:


>


----------



## Fatalv (Jan 20, 2017)

Pookie said:


> I just enjoy shooting... of all types ;D
> 
> Don't worry CanonFanBoy, I got your back...



+1

P.S. - Maybe we need to start a firearm gallery


----------



## Fatalv (Jan 20, 2017)

kirispupis said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Pookie said:
> ...



Apparently you forgot this was a photography site... And wow, pulling the slavery card?? How mature of you! You know nothing of CanonFanBoy and yet you assume he's pro slavery because he owns and defends gun ownership?

We get it, you hate guns, and think gun owners are terrorists, insane, etc.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 20, 2017)

Fatalv said:


> We get it, you hate guns, and think gun owners are terrorists, insane, etc.



Gun enthusiast Nancy Lanza was apparently neither a terrorist nor insane. That didn't stop her son from using some of her many guns to first kill her, then to kill 20 little school kids, 6 of their teachers, and himself. But I digress...

As for the mine are bigger than yours...


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 20, 2017)

kirispupis said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Pookie said:
> ...



Wow what a load. But since you went there.

The 2nd amendment was put in the constitution more for the protection against tyranny. 

The Nazi's before WW II banned the ownership of firearms by the Jewish community. It is easier to conquer a nation if it is disarmed.

You talk slavery, in the time frame there was slavery the slaves were not allowed to own guns. Today slavery is illegal and all people of all races are protected by the 2nd amendment. It allows the people to have arms and protect themselves from the oppression the Jews suffered in WW II and the slavery African Americans suffered pre civil war. The same people who are fighting for no private gun ownership seem to be the same ones that are always bashing Trump as a racist homophobe. If they are correct about Trump, IMO the 2nd amendment is one of the most important rights we have.

It is easy to look at today's world and say, look at the UK. It looks good today but the world changes, and while we may not need the 2nd amendment today, tomorrow and the tyrants that may come is why it is important to keep.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 20, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Fatalv said:
> 
> 
> > We get it, you hate guns, and think gun owners are terrorists, insane, etc.
> ...



A tragedy. How does it stack up to the number of Jew's that were disarmed by the Nazi's and killed in the Holocaust. Both terrible tragedies that pull at our hearts however people can arrive at different conclusions about the importance of the 2nd amendment.

But to this thread, I don't think in either case the killers were after the person's camera.
And if you are carrying that much gear it is just good to have insurance, (replacement cost you would want the latest new gear).


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 20, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> My response would be "here you go....." and hand over the camera gear..... followed by a call to the insurance company.... followed by a shopping excursion where "replacement cost" gets my 5D2 upgraded to a 5D4, a whole bunch of new lenses, newer and faster memory cards, fresh batteries, and a camera bag that isn't worn..... It isn't worth dying over the gear nor is it worth killing over....



Insurance with replacement cost makes getting robbed sounds very appealing.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 20, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



I believe the objective of this thread is not the pros and cons of gun ownership but whether carrying them is likely to dissuade a mugger from stealing your camera. 
Given that even in places where ownership is permitted, I think the OPs later comment show that a gun is pretty useless against a mugger when that mugger attacks from the blindside.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 20, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> I believe the objective of this thread is not the pros and cons of gun ownership but whether carrying them is likely to dissuade a mugger from stealing your camera.
> Given that even in places where ownership is permitted, I think the OPs later comment show that a gun is pretty useless against a mugger when that mugger attacks from the blindside.



You are correct it is, but the suggestion of carrying a firearm bring out those who go far as to call gun owners "terrorists" among other names.

The OP's comments do show that in his particular situation a weapon wouldn't have helped. Then again the OP's camera wasn't stolen while he was mugged, it wasn't a camera theft. Where would you find the statistics to back this up, but it is possible that the majority of forcible camera thefts are grab and run rather than strong arm.


----------



## kirispupis (Jan 20, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



As a Jew myself I've heard the whole Hitler BS. It's simply not true and is actually extremely offensive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_theory If the government wants to kill you, no amount of guns in your house will prevent that. My relatives died due to a history of anti-semitism that was taken advantage of by a fascist regime. It had nothing to do with guns, and had they resorted to them, probably none of my ancestors would have escaped. Your statements are just examples of the anti-semitism that is unfortunately still present.

The 2nd amendment was primarily passed to sanction slavery patrols. Many white plantation owners in the South were concerned about being so outnumbered, so they wanted the right to form patrols and militias capable of countering any threat. In terms of slaves actually having guns, it should be noted that the few times slaves did revolt, their rebellions were brutally repressed. My point about slavery, though, is that were we having this discussion 150 years ago, many of these same people most ardent for gun ownership today would be similarly espousing slavery. Luckily, we have advanced as a country and a species.


----------



## kirispupis (Jan 20, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > I believe the objective of this thread is not the pros and cons of gun ownership but whether carrying them is likely to dissuade a mugger from stealing your camera.
> ...



And also bring out those who bring out anti-semetic BS to promote their agenda.

It's very possible that, if we met at a photography location with our cameras, we'd be very friendly to each other and have a pleasant conversation about various photography subjects. However, as someone who lost a friend to gun violence (an avid gun enthusiast, who was murdered with his own gun), I'm going to stand up to anyone who advocates for their use.

That being said, I think we can all agree that the original poster's questions have been answered - probably more so than he wished - and it wouldn't be a bad thing for CR to lock this thread to prevent further escalation.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 20, 2017)

kirispupis said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > kirispupis said:
> ...



I fail to see how pointing out that Nazi Germany removed firearms is anti-semitic. What happened there was a tragedy and it is one that my gun owning father and uncles choose to join the military, fight and exterminate in WW II.

I do find it offensive that you would claim that if I am for gun ownership I would somehow be in favor of slavery. My ancestors were poor dirt farmers that migrated west in search of land and opportunity, not slave owning plantation owners.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 20, 2017)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Kit Lens Jockey said:
> 
> 
> > The attackers were so quick and had the jump on me ....the first signal that I knew they were there was them cracking me in the back of the head with their gun.
> ...



Only in the movies. Right. It isn't true. If it is, then why do you carry? Here's a case in point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr0X_gMri8k


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 20, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > kirispupis said:
> ...



If they only attacked from the blindside it would be a perfect world for crooks. They don't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr0X_gMri8k


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 20, 2017)

Eldar said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



Anders Behring Breivik: The strict gun laws did nothing to deter this attack. The strict gun laws did, however, leave more than 50 people completely defenseless.


----------



## Fatalv (Jan 20, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Fatalv said:
> 
> 
> > We get it, you hate guns, and think gun owners are terrorists, insane, etc.
> ...



Maybe you misquoted or I'm not understanding. I was talking about kirispupis's comments. I'm a gun enthusiast and neither insane nor a terrorist 

I am envious of the big white though... one day I may own one. Until then I have to settle for the Sigma


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 20, 2017)

Fatalv said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Fatalv said:
> ...



In fact, it seems you may have totally missed my point...the sanity of the gun owner is irrelevant when an insane relative takes the owner's guns and goes on a killing spree. In the case to which I refered, the gun enthusiast came to understand her folly...a painful, final sort of lesson.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 20, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


True, that was a true tragedy and lots of young people were killed that day. However; Since WWII, we have had one, as in ONE, such shooting here in Norway. How many have you had? Do you want me to start the listing of school and campus shootings you´ve had? But ohhh, I forgot, the NRA blamed that on not enough guns amongst the good guys at school, as in pupils and teachers. "Oh Mrs. Pearson, I really like your new handgun! Nice holster too!". 

How many policemen are killed in the US every year? According to Wikipedia 4.078 officers killed since 1990! Since WWII, a grand total of 10 Norwegian police officers have been killed in service. 

How many people were shot and killed by US police in 2016? According to Washington Post; 963 people. Over here, our police fired their guns twice, as in TWO, against humans last year. Missed both times. 

So, whatever you think about weapons and however eager you are to defend your crazy legislation, you have every statistic in the world against you, when you argue that it deter violence and prevents good people from being killed. More good people are killed in the US than in any comparable country.

FYI I was Nordic (as in Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark) champion in archery in my youth and won the annual shooting contest in the Air Force during my service. I also hunt moose, deer, reindeer and mountain grouse, so I am not against weapons, as long as they have a proper purpose, as in hunting rifle, are properly used and properly secured.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 20, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Fatalv said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I look at your huge arsenal of Canon's you have for personal use, I go look at the huge arsenal I own for my personal use as well.

I know many people who once they find out how much we paid would think we are both insane.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 20, 2017)

Eldar said:


> *I am not against weapons, as long as they have a proper purpose, as in hunting rifle, are properly used and properly secured.*



I do not think you will get many arguments with that.

That is the main jest of the debate in the US. *LAW ABIDING *citizens should be able to own firearms for whatever proper purpose, home and personal defense is one reason as well.

The laws that are enacted to limit gun ownership usually do not stop criminals from owning firearms, it stops the law abiding citizen.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 20, 2017)

Eldar said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



You have a total population of 5 million or so people in Norway and want to directly compare that to a far more diverse and socially complex nation of 316,000,000. I get it.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 20, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...


No, I don´t. You brought Norway in, by using the only mass shooting we have had in 75 years as an example. I just told you how stupid that was. 

If you wish, if you think you have a case, lets compare to Germany, UK, France, Italy, Japan or even all of Europe, with a comparable population, social diversity and similar living standard. You will see exactly the same thing. The only countries you can compare yourselves to statistically, are the likes of South Africa, Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria, Philippines ... etc. Not where you want to be.

Your weapon legislation is totally crazy and responsible for killing thousands of good Americans every year.


----------



## Fatalv (Jan 20, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Fatalv said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



No, the point was well received. I was confused at you quoting me (about kirispupis quotes) then responding to kirispupis' quote about the 'mine are bigger than yours' as well  Anywho... no big deal.

Unfortunately what you point out is far too often the case. The majority of shootings/assaults involve guns illegally obtained, stolen, or "commandeered" from improperly secured sources (parents, family members, friends, etc).

Sadly, it's also often the case that it involves mentally or emotionally unstable individuals. It's unfortunate a lot of these cases end the way they do before the individuals can be helped.


----------



## ethanz (Jan 20, 2017)

Three pages in one day. Maybe its time to stop while everyone's behind.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 21, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> That is the main jest of the debate in the US. *LAW ABIDING *citizens should be able to own firearms for whatever proper purpose, home and personal defense is one reason as well.
> 
> The laws that are enacted to limit gun ownership usually do not stop criminals from owning firearms, it stops the law abiding citizen.



1) How many guns currently in the hands of criminals were originally purchased legally?

2) For what 'proper purpose' would a law abiding citizen need dozens of automatic assult rifles...or even one?


----------



## kirispupis (Jan 21, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> You are wrong concerning the 2nd Amendment. Flat out wrong.
> 
> Suggesting that those who own guns now would have espoused for slavery 150 years ago is highly offensive. The hundreds of thousands of gun owning Union solders who died in the civil war would agree.
> 
> ...



Look at the history of slave rebellions in the south, or anywhere in the world. Not only were they unsuccessful (Haiti being the only recent example), they were very brutally repressed to the point that many who were completely uninvolved in the rebellion were killed.

My wife grew up in a country where her people were suppressed. A few took to arms. Those ones died. Her family only survived because they left. That's the thing that ignorant people like you can't understand - guns buy you NOTHING concerning security. They in fact due the opposite, because they give the other side a reason to kill you even more vigorously. The only Jews who survived WWII (my ancestors among them) were those who hid or fled. The efforts at the Warsaw Ghetto were certainly valiant, but they did absolutely nothing to extend their own lives.

The reason that it is insulting and anti-semetic to suggest that the holocaust had anything to do with gun laws, is because it completely ignores and covers the facts that caused it. Long simmering religious hatred and its manipulation by politicians is what caused it - and if we don't face those facts and try to stamp out religious persecution, we allow those very things to happen again.

Look around the world at countries that have guns and those that don't - there is a direct proportion to gun deaths there! Just like my friend unfortunately found out, your gun is far more likely to be used against you than against anyone else.

Your words just demonstrate why you and the NRA are terrorists: you try to convince people that without guns, everyone will die. Yet the truth is the exact opposite. That is what almost every other country in the world has realized. That is why they laugh at Americans and find them ludicrous. In the absence of logic, you try to find fear. You go back to things like slavery and the holocaust and horribly dishonor the memories of those who perished by stating that a gun in their hands would've fixed everything, while ignoring the actual causes that continue to arise today.

The NRA is indeed a very old organization. At one time I was a member. I used to spend a lot of time target shooting - was pretty good at it too. A good friend of mine was on the US Olympic team as a shooter. However, the NRA has lost its purpose. It was originally intended only for gun education.

"I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses."

The above quote was from the head of the NRA in 1934 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association)

It's unfortunate that an association originally intended to improve the marksmanship of our armed forces has been disfigured into an organization that uses terror tactics to espouse an item that kills tens of thousands of Americans every year.


----------



## hbr (Jan 21, 2017)

Guys, this thread needs to stop before we become enemies with each other. It is not about cameras, camera rumors, Canon or photography. The best advice was given in the first two pages of this thread, after that the discussion went down hill. Carrying a gun will give you no assurance that you will come out of a confrontation alive nor will not carrying one. The availability of guns versus non availability of them will not be solved on this forum, nor will this discussion solve society's problems. 

Both sides of the gun control argument have all sorts of statistics to support whatever side of the argument you are on. Both sides are full of truths, half-truths and downright lies.

Let's please limit this discussion to photography.


----------



## Al Chemist (Jan 21, 2017)

I thought this was a photography forum and have learned much by reading the posts. 

Ok children! THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL FORUM!

Haines, I always thought well of your post until your name calling...you should show a little class. As to others, bashing the USA, what is the point. You don't have to live or even visit here. I happen to love my country a lot.

Please, please let us stick to discussing photography. Thank you.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 21, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > That is the main jest of the debate in the US. *LAW ABIDING *citizens should be able to own firearms for whatever proper purpose, home and personal defense is one reason as well.
> ...


----------



## Pippan (Jan 21, 2017)

Relax kiddies, and have a laugh. Here is one Australian's view on guns in America: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4g8777


----------



## serendipidy (Jan 21, 2017)

Pippan said:


> Relax kiddies, and have a laugh. Here is one Australian's view on guns in America: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4g8777


That was absolutely hilarious ;D ;D ;D


----------



## unfocused (Jan 21, 2017)

Probably going to regret participating in this discussion but there are a few things I cannot abide.

One of these is *Fake History*. To suggest that the second amendment had anything to do with the fear of slave revolts is beyond silly. 

The *Real History* is that at the time of the writing of the constitution, the number one fear of the founding fathers was that the United States would devolve into a monarchy or a military dictatorship. As such, they had an absolute fear of standing armies. Remember that the revolutionary war had been fought against professional British soldiers and professional Hessian mercenaries hired by the king. Having just paid for liberty with their own blood, the last thing they wanted was a military coup that would place a new king in power. So, rather than create a standing army, they were predisposed to support local militias, that could be called up in times of emergency and dissolved once the emergency was over.

Now, many proponents of gun control argue that the constitution was never intended to support individual rights of gun ownership. But, that is irrelevant. The Supreme Court, which is the arbiter of constitutional meaning has repeatedly upheld the interpretation of the second amendment to apply to an individual's right to bear arms (subject to reasonable and narrow limitations which the court has also spelled out in numerous rulings). 

Arguing about this, regardless of which side you may be on, is ridiculous. The law is what the law is and unless and until the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the constitution differently, nothing is going to change, no matter how long you hold your breath and wait until you are blue in the face. 

*Hypocrisy* – It is beyond me how anyone on a forum that is dominated by people who are obsessed with collecting cameras and lenses with wild abandon, can possibly criticize someone else who happens to enjoy collecting firearms. Let each enjoy their own hobbies. Buying and playing with lenses and cameras is no more virtuous than buying and playing with firearms, so long as both are done responsibly.

*Censorship* – While I find this discussion thread more than a little ludicrous, I strongly object to the suggestion that it should be "shut down" because others find it uncomfortable. No one is obligated to read, comment or follow any thread on this site. Why is it that whenever someone veers a bit off the topic of cameras, lenses, etc., there is a demand that the discussions be shut down? Grow up and accept that differences of opinion are inevitable and if you don't wish to discuss a particular topic, then avoid a thread that has veered into that topic. 

To my way of thinking, the only unacceptable comments on this discussion forum are those that devolve into personal attacks on individuals. Some commenters have succeeded in driving away other commenters (who admittedly could be annoying at times). Silencing differing opinions is not the way to build a interesting discussion forum.

As for me personally. The only gun I own is a b-b gun from my youth. But, I also know many gun owners and respect their rights and opinions. They are all responsible and I have absolutely no fear that they would ever use a firearm in an inappropriate manner. At the same time, I live in Illinois and am not blind to the fact that easy access to handguns has contributed to carnage in certain neighborhoods of Chicago. This is a complex and nuanced issue and trying to divide it into simple boxes is a fool's errand.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 21, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> 1) How many guns currently in the hands of criminals were originally purchased legally? *None, it is illegal for a person who is a convicted felon to purchase a hand gun or rifle. *



So in your world view, the only way a criminal can obtain something is by purchasing it? Yeah, that makes sense. 




takesome1 said:


> 2) For what 'proper purpose' would a law abiding citizen need dozens of automatic assault rifles...or even one? *First off, a law abiding citizen can only own an automatic weapon if he has a special permit. Those permits are tightly regulated and difficult to come by. Semantics again, many would debate whether the type of weapons I think you referring to are not "Assault Rifles", An AR 15 = ArmaLite Rifle 15. If you meant semi-automatic many people use those same weapons for hunting, home defense, homeland defense, economic upheaval, terrorist attack or other attack. *



So, it's simply impossible to convert a semi-automatic rifle to fully automatic? Sure, it's not like there are kits on eBay for that sort of thing, no, not at all. 

I hunted many years ago, with rifle, shotgun, and bow (and ate what I killed). I knew and know plenty of hunters. I don't know any who feel like they need a dozen semi-automatic weapons to bring down a buck. Most people have two hands, some have only one...no one has more. You do the math.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 21, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > 1) How many guns currently in the hands of criminals were originally purchased legally? *None, it is illegal for a person who is a convicted felon to purchase a hand gun or rifle. *
> ...


----------



## Pookie (Jan 21, 2017)

This thread is HI-LARIOUS... let's try for 30 pages by Sunday night. I'll start...

You crazy, everyone needs guns...


----------



## hbr (Jan 21, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Probably going to regret participating in this discussion but there are a few things I cannot abide.
> 
> One of these is *Fake History*. To suggest that the second amendment had anything to do with the fear of slave revolts is beyond silly.
> 
> ...



Unfocused, I could not have said it better myself and I agree with you 100%. My point has been to try to stay out of this argument as it is unsolvable, yet, I become very angry when people use fuzzy logic to tell me that the government should take away my right to protect myself and my family from criminals and foreigners trying to tell me how civilized they are and how uncivilized we in the US are.

I live in the American South where nearly everyone is armed. Yet, I nor any of my LAW ABIDING gun owners have ever committed a crime with a weapon. The US has a lot of social problems that do not exist in other countries, but Europe is starting to experience similar problems with the flood of immigrants from the Middle East and time will tell how "Civilized" they continue to be. The US has very strict gun laws, but the laws don't matter too much to criminals.

Gun ownership is a huge responsibility and should not be taken lightly. One must weigh the odds of being a victim of violent crime and being able to protect yourself during a crime versus having the gun stolen and some innocent person being killed with it, accidentally killing yourself or a loved one or having a child gain access to the gun and killing someone. 

If you live in an Ivory Tower where there is no crime and don't need a gun for protection, then good for you. But if you live in an area with high crime, you will think otherwise.

While I was thinking about this post, this came on the news:

CHARLOTTE, NC (WBTV) -
A homeowner fatally shot a man who broke into a home in southwest Charlotte Friday, according to police.

The incident happened before 1:30 p.m. at a home on the 1900 block of Musket Lane, just off of Sandy Porter Road. Officers said a man, later identified as 32-year-old Phuc Hong Doan, broke into the home, then grabbed a knife when confronted by the homeowner.

Police said the homeowner attempted to get the knife away from Doan before firing a weapon.

Doan was pronounced dead at the scene.

Kim Badger tells WBTV she is the homeowner who shot and killed Doan.

She said this all started when she saw Doan trying to get into a neighbor's home.

This caught his attention,and he approached her.

"We wrestled on the front porch, I tried keeping him from going into the house. Evidently I lost, he got in the house," Badger said.

It was at this point when both police and Badger say the situation became dangerous.

"He grabbed a knife, and we wrestled down the hall," Badger said.

Badger said she tried wrestling the knife away from Doan. When she couldn't, she shot him dead.

Despite putting her life in jeopardy, Badger said the only thing going through her mind was her two sons' safety.

"Didn't think anything but keeping the kids safe. I was keeping my sons safe," Badger said.

I still maintain that this thread us useless other than people wanting to voice their opinions. *Nothing will be solved here and there will be no winners in this argument.*


----------



## hbr (Jan 21, 2017)

But on the lighter side, we now have the Trump!


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 21, 2017)

Al Chemist said:


> I thought this was a photography forum and have learned much by reading the posts.
> 
> Ok children! THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL FORUM!
> 
> ...



Al, you are right. I apologise for my participation in this thread. It is totally derailed and now has nothing to do with photography. I have deleted all my other comments on this thread and invite others to do the same. 

And for the record, In my travels in the states, I have yet to meet someone who was not nice to me. I have many friends on the south side of the border and they all seem like reasonable people


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 21, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> No, in my world it now appears you asked a vague baited question so you could play the semantic game. Did I need to include that they could steal it as well? We can discuss it without playing games.



I can see how that makes sense. Some people find it necessary to twist or deliberately misinterpret even simple, logical statements and questions to fit their world view. Those same people tend to answer the questions they want to answer instead of the questions they are asked. That sort of game could enable one to suggest that legally purchased guns never end up in criminals' hands...but that is clearly ridiculous, and I don't play those games. 




takesome1 said:


> And of course you do not need a semi-automatic rifle to take down a buck. Then again banning those type of weapons will not fix the problem, it just eliminates one type of weapon.



A marked reduction in fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions won't fix the environment. But it would certainly help. I trust the analogy is clear to anyone but fools who believe global warming is a hoax perpetrated by China. :

Regardless, there's no point in continuing this discussion, and therefore I will not.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 21, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> It is totally derailed and now has nothing to do with photography.



Yeah, best to keep the discussion here to shooting with gear that doesn't have the ability to easily kill other human beings. Well, short of bludgeoning someone with a supertele, although I wouldn't call that easy. But I digeress...


----------



## hbr (Jan 21, 2017)

BTW Neuro, I love your collection of "cannons," (misspelling intentional). I am jealous.


----------



## Fatalv (Jan 21, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> ...
> 
> A marked reduction in fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions won't fix the environment. But it would certainly help. I trust the analogy is clear to anyone but fools who believe global warming is a hoax perpetrated by China. :
> 
> *Regardless, there's no point in continuing this discussion, and therefore I will not.*





neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, best to keep the discussion here to shooting with gear that doesn't have the ability to easily kill other human beings. Well, short of bludgeoning someone with a supertele, although I wouldn't call that easy. But I digeress...



Well you lasted 7 min... and we'll likely go another 10 pages on the environment. All we need now is a religious comparison to hit 30 

Honestly though, this thread is done. It's just more fuel being thrown on the fire. Mods should lock and OP should start a new thread stating 'determent w/out guns' if there's any real conversation to take place.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 21, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> A marked reduction in fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions won't fix the environment. But it would certainly help. I trust the analogy is clear to anyone but fools who believe global warming is a hoax perpetrated by China. :
> 
> Regardless, there's no point in continuing this discussion, and therefore I will not.



But it is foolish to believe that in the next 4 years an assault rifle ban will happen. It will not.
It is also foolish to believe other laws will not be enacted that can help.


----------



## Old Sarge (Jan 21, 2017)

Pippan said:


> Relax kiddies, and have a laugh. Here is one Australian's view on guns in America: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4g8777



Thank you, Pippan, for the best post on this thread (since it got derailed). He is hilarious. And this is coming from one of the biggest gun nuts on the board.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 22, 2017)

As an Australian, I just want to point out that the video is of a comedian - the views don't reflect the majority. FWIW, we don't have a gun ban in Australia (despite what US mass media might have people believe). We do have a more stringent licencing regime than in most places and guns have to be registered. But a licence for a rim fire bolt action rifle is fairly easy to obtain. There is more stringent criteria to get a licence for a handgun or semi-automatic. 

Just like in the US, guns are essential tools for our primary producers. They're very prevalent in rural areas and not going anywhere soon. 

Even in the cities where gun ownership percentages are very low, there are at least 6 rifle ranges and gun clubs within a few kilometres of my home in Brisbane's eastern suburbs. Shooting is a very popular sport. Supposedly, it is currently the fastest growing sport in the country. Female gun club membership has doubled in the last five years.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jan 22, 2017)

pull out your gun and chase them down and if they have a weapon kill them.


----------



## uri.raz (Jan 22, 2017)

Dye pack, blows off if it's too far from my cell phone.


----------



## hbr (Jan 22, 2017)

Hillsilly said:


> As an Australian, I just want to point out that the video is of a comedian - the views don't reflect the majority. FWIW, we don't have a gun ban in Australia (despite what US mass media might have people believe). We do have a more stringent licencing regime than in most places and guns have to be registered. But a licence for a rim fire bolt action rifle is fairly easy to obtain. There is more stringent criteria to get a licence for a handgun or semi-automatic.
> 
> Just like in the US, guns are essential tools for our primary producers. They're very prevalent in rural areas and not going anywhere soon.
> 
> Even in the cities where gun ownership percentages are very low, there are at least 6 rifle ranges and gun clubs within a few kilometres of my home in Brisbane's eastern suburbs. Shooting is a very popular sport. Supposedly, it is currently the fastest growing sport in the country. Female gun club membership has doubled in the last five years.



Hillsilly, Thank you for your input. This whole issue about "uncivilized" Americans and the rights of gun ownership is essentially about crime. The OP who started this thread was unarmed, yet his attackers were. He was going about his normal activities and unfortunately, some non law abiding individuals decided to interrupt his activities and put his life in danger for a few dollars. If it weren't for the amount of crime in this country, this heated argument would not exist. There would not be a frenzy to purchase guns. Guns or no guns does not matter here. Even without guns the murder rate and other criminal activities would continue.

As stated earlier America has severe social problems that are unique to this country. Is it because of the divide of haves vs have nots? (America is a huge land of opportunity and with that comes the criminal element to illegally prey on those that do well in society). Is it because of the porous border with our southern neighbors. (We don't seem to have much of a criminal element coming from our northern neighbors). Is it because of our immigration policies? (We do have a lot of Asian gang activity here from people that have been unable to adjust to our society). Is it because of American love for illegal drugs and all the gang violence that comes with it? Is the problem ethnic in nature? (Most of the crime comes from a certain race of people. The Black on Black murder rate is staggering and the gun is the weapon of choice). Is it because of ineffectual laws and bleeding heart judges who do not put the criminals away for a long enough time? (How is it that a murderer here was walking the streets with 13 prior convictions of violent crimes)? Also, once America imported huge numbers of African slaves and fought a vicious war to free them, once freed what do you do with them? Had the whites done a better job of bringing them into society would we have all this crime? Do jails even work to rehabilitate criminals? Do the victims of crime ever get compensated by the criminal once he has been apprehended? NO! I could go on and on and on here.

Hillsilly, none of my comments were directed at you. I simply wanted to explain some of the reasons Americans feel the way they do.

For the record, I am a war veteran and sometimes have had to carry a firearm in my jobs. I also have been the victim of crime on several occasions. But, as the day rapidly approaches that I must settle up with my maker, I no longer own any guns and have become much more tolerant of other people's beliefs and opinions.

Good day,
Brian


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 22, 2017)

Hillsilly said:


> As an Australian, I just want to point out that the video is of a comedian - the views don't reflect the majority.



Really? Any evidence of that? 
He is not suggesting banning guns, but denouncing the arguments used by the more vehement NRA supporters - I thought he made that quite clear


----------



## kirispupis (Jan 22, 2017)

Hillsilly said:


> As an Australian, I just want to point out that the video is of a comedian - the views don't reflect the majority. FWIW, we don't have a gun ban in Australia (despite what US mass media might have people believe). We do have a more stringent licencing regime than in most places and guns have to be registered. But a licence for a rim fire bolt action rifle is fairly easy to obtain. There is more stringent criteria to get a licence for a handgun or semi-automatic.
> 
> Just like in the US, guns are essential tools for our primary producers. They're very prevalent in rural areas and not going anywhere soon.
> 
> Even in the cities where gun ownership percentages are very low, there are at least 6 rifle ranges and gun clubs within a few kilometres of my home in Brisbane's eastern suburbs. Shooting is a very popular sport. Supposedly, it is currently the fastest growing sport in the country. Female gun club membership has doubled in the last five years.



Hillsilly, first I wanted to comment that I've spent some time in your country - in particular Brisbane - and I absolutely loved it. My cousin loved it so much that he stayed there, in Melbourne, and married an Australian. 

The big difference in gun laws between the two countries is they aren't guaranteed in the Australian constitution. Because of that, Australians were able to have rational conversations about what guns should be allowed, and who should have them. After, at the time, the worst mass shooting in history, you were able to introduce laws to reduce gun ownership and since that time gun deaths have fallen.

We can't have that conversation here. While, yes, I despise guns, the truth is I do see their use as a tool. In the far country they may be necessary for wildlife and there's nothing wrong with target shooting. Yet how many Australians would condone their fellow citizens walking with automatic rifles on a busy city street? How many would want them in schools and sports stadiums? From the Australians I've talked to, very few are in favor of that.

I realize that I'm in the minority here for advocating getting rid of the 2nd Amendment, which even I realize is not possible in this political climate. However, what I really desire is the rational debate that Australians are allowed to have? With proper regulations we can severely reduce the 33,000 Americans who die from guns every year, while still allowing those who respect guns and care for them properly to own them.

I apologize that my polemic against guns comes on a forum dedicated to cameras, but this is an issue very close to my heart.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 22, 2017)

kirispupis said:


> We can't have that conversation here.



True.

It has been quoted several times in different media recently that the majority of Amercians want tighter gun control, a majority of NRA members want greater gun control. Yet the NRA wants to reduce gun control - so if the figures are to be believed this is against the preference of their own members. 

With any survey so much comes down to how you phase the question. NRA will phrase it along the lines of 'do you believe in upholding the citizen's right to defend themselves or 'do you defend the right to hunt'. Those in favour of more control will phrase it along the lines of 'do you believe the average citizen needs an assault weapon to defend themselves or to hunt a deer'.


The problem is this is not about the second amendment but is about big business. Pure and simple.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 22, 2017)

Sport hunting is not a right protected by the US constitution. Subsistence hunting is different, and there are few places left in the US where subsistence hunting is necessary. So it is irrelevant whether a rifle with 1 or 25 shells is necessar to kill a deer..

The most accurate deer rifle I ever owned was a ruger one, as the name indicates it is a single shot. The best tool I own for deer is a bolt action chambered for five. It is illegal in many states to hunt with a firearm with more than a few shells. 

Owning a firearm for the protection of self and country is a 2nd amendment right. There is a reason why a person would want a 25 round clip during a home invasion. Home invaders with body armor, multiple invaders, and the ability not to need a reload. To protect country I think the need for 25 would be of greater importance.

FWIW for our UK, Austrailian and Canadian friends, the US gun rights trace its history back to the days we parted way with your Queens ancestors. While I have been to all your countries and it is wonderful, we Americans have been taught it was not always that way.


----------



## hbr (Jan 22, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > We can't have that conversation here.
> ...



Dear sirs,
We do have discussions here about guns and gun control and the results of these discussions can be manifest in gun sales and in the outcomes of our votes. 

We have more deaths in this country due to automobile accidents, so should we abolish cars? We have speed limit laws, but how many of you adhere to them? 

We also have many deaths on our highways due to alcohol abuse. Should we abolish alcohol? (I say we should, but we have been there and done that and it didn't work).

We have had wars since mankind arrived on this planet. Should we abolish our military to show the world what great people we are? Would that end warfare?

All humanity is horrified by nuclear weapons, as well they should be, so should we abolish our nuclear arsenal? Even if all the major nuclear countries abolished theirs, there would still be stupid leaders like the leader of North Korea that would manufacture them and use them.

My point here is that Pandora's box has been opened. Even if we abolished all weapons other than single shot rifles for hunting and recreation and went door to door collecting all of them, the criminal element would still find a way to have powerful illegal weapons. Crime would not decrease, just the weapon of choice would change.

The issue here is how do we control and prevent crime so that we no longer need weapons for self defense. I don't profess to have all the answers and maybe there aren't any, (at least until people learn to live together in peace and respect the rights and property of others).


----------



## kirispupis (Jan 22, 2017)

hbr said:


> We have more deaths in this country due to automobile accidents, so should we abolish cars? We have speed limit laws, but how many of you adhere to them?



When you apply for a drivers' license in the US, it is made abundantly clear that driving is a privilege - not a right. Because of that, we have laws that prevent certain people from driving and dictate what they can drive. My car already drives itself most of the time, and I predict that in 20-30 years it will become illegal to drive one's own car. Again, the 2nd amendment prevents us from having the logical conversation about guns that we can have concerning cars.



hbr said:


> We also have many deaths on our highways due to alcohol abuse. Should we abolish alcohol? (I say we should, but we have been there and done that and it didn't work).



Again, alcohol is not a right. There are many laws stating who may purchase alcohol (no minors), when (in many states - not on a Sunday), how much (bars may limit), and where (not in your car). Because there is no amendment for alcohol, we can do this.



hbr said:


> We have had wars since mankind arrived on this planet. Should we abolish our military to show the world what great people we are? Would that end warfare?


This discussion is about weapons in private hands. I agree that we still need a military, though a few countries have abolished theirs.



hbr said:


> All humanity is horrified by nuclear weapons, as well they should be, so should we abolish our nuclear arsenal? Even if all the major nuclear countries abolished theirs, there would still be stupid leaders like the leader of North Korea that would manufacture them and use them.


Again, this is a discussion about private arms. It should be noted though, that there have been serious attempts to get rid of nuclear weapons. Some countries (such as Ukraine) have gotten rid of them, while others (the US) actively attempts to prevent others from obtaining them.



hbr said:


> My point here is that Pandora's box has been opened. Even if we abolished all weapons other than single shot rifles for hunting and recreation and went door to door collecting all of them, the criminal element would still find a way to have powerful illegal weapons. Crime would not decrease, just the weapon of choice would change.


Yes, crime would decrease. That is why countries with tighter gun restrictions have fewer murders. A gun is a far more effective murder weapon than a knife. Your chances of survival are much less from a gun and it is a more difficult weapon to defend yourself against.



hbr said:


> The issue here is how do we control and prevent crime so that we no longer need weapons for self defense. I don't profess to have all the answers and maybe there aren't any, (at least until people learn to live together in peace and respect the rights and property of others).


We should also note that the majority of gun deaths are not due to crime. They are due to domestic disputes and accidents. That's how my friend died. He got into an argument with his son, who grabbed a gun from his father's gun cabinet and killed him. One of my other friends (who lived) was accidentally shot by a sibling.


----------



## hbr (Jan 22, 2017)

kirispupis,

You have very good points and so do I. That is why there is such a disagreement on this subject. There is no "one size fits all" solution to this problem. I have also stated that this argument, at least in this forum, has no winners. It is the same argument as "Which is better, Canon or Nikon","Chevy or Ford" and all the other arguments like it. 

Actually, while the second amendment is used to prevent or restrict the power of the government, our basic laws are based on old English laws that state that a person has the right to defend himself.

And, yes, an awful lot of innocent people die from not respecting the lethal power of guns, it is fear that drives many people to purchase guns. If every citizen would obey the existing laws, gun purchases would fall dramatically and we probably would not be having this discussion. While in a society that is armed, it would appear that the gun is the common denominator, but I still maintain that crime and fear of crime is the real denominator. The gun is just the weapon of choice.

Place a hammer, some nails and some wood on your work table and see how long it will take them to jump up and turn themselves into a table. Take your biggest and baddest weapon, put it on the table and put some bullets beside it and see how long it takes for the gun to kill somebody.

Look at social media and see all the hatred that exists. Look at all the turmoil and strife in the world. It is not the gun, it is society.

Can we at least agree that this thread no longer serves any purpose on this site?


----------



## kirispupis (Jan 22, 2017)

hbr said:


> kirispupis,
> 
> You have very good points and so do I. That is why there is such a disagreement on this subject. There is no "one size fits all" solution to this problem. I have also stated that this argument, at least in this forum, has no winners. It is the same argument as "Which is better, Canon or Nikon","Chevy or Ford" and all the other arguments like it.
> 
> ...



Yes, I can agree to disagree on this subject.  

In this forum it is more appropriate to debate things like
[list type=decimal]
[*]DxoMark is ridiculous and should be ignored. It is ludicrous to think that you can qualify one camera over another with a number.
[*]One must be mad for selling Canon gear to get a Sony. Their lenses suck and the things are practically unusable.
[*]If you have to take a 50 test shots and compare the pixels at 200%, then you've just wasted some time you could've used to take better photos
[/list]

I mentioned before I wouldn't mind for the moderators to lock this thread. It has nothing to do with censorship. We should just move on.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 23, 2017)

kirispupis said:


> Hillsilly said:
> 
> 
> > As an Australian, I just want to point out that the video is of a comedian - the views don't reflect the majority. FWIW, we don't have a gun ban in Australia (despite what US mass media might have people believe). We do have a more stringent licencing regime than in most places and guns have to be registered. But a licence for a rim fire bolt action rifle is fairly easy to obtain. There is more stringent criteria to get a licence for a handgun or semi-automatic.
> ...



I don't mind your views or your choices. I just wish they were better informed.

1. In the United States there are not people walking around the streets with "assault" weapons or automatic rifles. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle that operates in the same way as a semi-automatic hunting rifle. Just because it looks like an M-16 or an M4 doesn't make it one and many people do hunt with AR-15s. The AR-15 is not an assault weapon no matter how many times a media outlet or anti-gun group says it is. It does not keep firing as long s one holds the trigger back as a machine gun does.

2. Half the 33,000 deaths in this country by guns are suicides. Take away the guns and the determined person who would have used a gun would find another way to off himself.

3. The remaining 16,500 gun deaths in this country include shootings by police and the owners of illegal guns, criminals, or people defending themselves. So, you see, the 33,000 number isn't broken down into categories as it should be. Outlawing the private ownership of guns does not remove the guns from the hands of criminals.

4. Approximately 36,000 people a year die in automobile accidents. Yet there are not the calls for outlawing automobiles that we hear for guns. The argument might turn to, "We all need cars." No we don't. The public transportation system could be hugely expanded to get people within a mile or two of their destination and the people could simply walk the rest of the way. Imagine the number of people who would lose weight and not die from heart disease or diabetes.

5. There are approximately 35,000 suicides in the United States each year despite suicide being illegal in most states. Only half of those are done with guns. Again, the person determined to kill himself will always find another way.

6. The number one cause of death in the United States each year is coronary heart disease at 445,000 a year, yet I don't hear nearly the emotional outrage against french fries and fatty or high carb sugary foods as I do about deaths by guns.

7. If somebody wants to kill you there are hundreds of ways to do so without a gun. Using a knife is just as easy.

8. 50 top causes of death in the United States https://nationalsafetyinc.org/2013/07/26/top-50-causes-of-death-in-the-us/

9. First comes guns, then the next thing. In the United Kingdom there is now a movement to ban kitchen knives. Docs say most of the stabbings are fueled by drugs and alcohol. Why not ban the cause and not the symptom? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

10. Machine guns are legal in the United States as long as one can pass a stringent background check, the machine gun was manufactured before 1986, the tax stamp is paid for, and the buyer can afford one (approx $40,000 and up). Any other machine gun is illegally owned. I have not ever heard a news report of somebody who legally owned a machine gun killing anyone (Except before the National Firearms Act of 1934).

I own three AR-15s and have never, ever been in trouble with the law in any way. I am a former U.S. Army Solder and a U.S. Marine. I am better trined now than when I was in the military and better trained than most cops. There is absolutely no reason to suspect that I or any other legal gun owner has or intends to commit a crime with his weapons. Of course it happens. But by and large it does not.

I do know this: My AR-15s are NOT assault rifles. I have 10, 20, and 30 round magazines for them. So what. It isn't the gun that is evil. There are just evil people among us. They don't need guns to do us harm.


----------



## jdramirez (Jan 23, 2017)

Be one generation behind, but heavily insured which will allow you to upgrade to the current generation... Or close to it...


----------



## kirispupis (Jan 23, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Blah blah blah



CanonFanBoy, I already responded to most of these above. In short, every one of the items you mention is not a right. We can and have limited them through laws. I don't think we need to get rid of every gun, but we can't even have a logical discussion about it due to the 2nd amendment.

Now, this thread was about to enter the realm of forgotten debates before you resurrected it.

I will always fight to remove as many guns I can from society. I've made that abundantly clear and will not change that position. You've made it very clear you like guns. Despite my vehement disagreement with everything you say, and your similar polemic, it is highly unlikely either of us will agree with the other on this subject.

So, in the interest of being friendly on a normally very comforting forum, how about we both concern ourselves more with when Rokinon/Samyang is going to ship that darned 14/2.4 and less about this particular debate?


----------



## TeT (Jan 23, 2017)

AMEN


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 23, 2017)

kirispupis said:


> I mentioned before I wouldn't mind for the moderators to lock this thread. It has nothing to do with censorship. We should just move on.



I am not sure if you are just looking for the last word or what. But you respond to posts and make new comments and end your comment with lock the thread and move on. 

Simply if you want the thread to die, stop posting to it. It does take two to continue the debate.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 23, 2017)

hbr said:


> Hillsilly, none of my comments were directed at you. I simply wanted to explain some of the reasons Americans feel the way they do.


Brian, thanks for your comments. I've never served overseas, but I was in the Army for much of the 90's. I don't own any guns either (Hey...I've got young kids and I want to see them become old kids) but I take an active interest in international affairs. For that reason, my Youtube habit includes channels like IV8888, TFB etc (And I've recently stumbled upon Forgotten Weapons - its not political but very entertaining). I find it interesting to hear what people in the US say about gun control and the attempts to control them. (But more from an academic people vs the government perspective than a self-protection perspective.)

I sense a lot of people's frustration in looking for an answer. FWIW, Stefan Molyneux has Youtube video where he outlines some facts about crime and gun control - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hyQDQPEsrs

There are some interesting (but probably not unsurprising) correlations. It all seems to revolve around violence within black communities. It must be a very politically incorrect topic in the US - I think you are the only person game enough to point to real causes of this.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 23, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Really? Any evidence of that?
> He is not suggesting banning guns, but denouncing the arguments used by the more vehement NRA supporters - I thought he made that quite clear


Evidence that Australians are happy with our current licencing system? I don't know how you'd prove that? In the last twenty years, there hasn't been any discussion of toughening laws. There has been the occassional murmuring about loosening laws - eg a lot of people want a higher capacity Adler shotgun to be re-classified to make it easier for everyone to own. Overall, it isn't something that gets discussed. The only time guns are mentioned are when talking about middle eastern, Somalian or bikie gangs. But they're predominantly using illegal weapons. 

Otherwise, what parts do you want me to cover? First he talks about gun bans and how Australians happily went along with one and how this has led to less gun deaths. But there is no gun ban - guns are easy to buy legally. He infers that the less guns you have, the less homicides you have, which has been proven incorrect (in fact, it is the opposite). He says the civil war was all about slavery, which it wasn't. 

He says gun control will stop mass killings and that Australia hasn't had one since 1997. But we have. Googling the topic brings up comprehensive lists.

He then said that banning guns would stop criminals getting guns. That hasn't been the experience here. Criminals have no problems smuggling guns. A very high percentage of guns used to commit crime in Australia are illegally smuggled in by middle eastern crime gangs. An unlicenced handgun can be picked up for about $1,000. 

Did he say anything factual?


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jan 23, 2017)

Just some nits to pick


"The AR-15 is not an assault weapon no matter how many times a media outlet or anti-gun group says it is." 

-- For these types of discussions, it is important to differentiate between the terms "assault weapon" and "assault rifle". An assault rifle is a specific type of selective fire capable rifle. It is a technical term. An assault weapon is a group of weapons that have specific characteristics specified by state and federal law. It is a legal term. 

An AR-15 is an assault weapon but not an assault rifle. The difference between a legal term and a technical term. 

"... despite suicide being illegal in most states."

I believe the last US state decriminalized suicide in 1984. Assisting in a suicide is still illegal in most of the states.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 23, 2017)

Hillsilly said:


> Evidence that Australians are happy with our current licencing system? I don't know how you'd prove that?



Well, it was you who said 


> the views don't reflect the majority.


And I was asking how you knew that. That was all




> He infers that the less guns you have, the less homicides you have, which has been proven incorrect (in fact, it is the opposite).


What I heard him doing was denouncing the arguments used by pro-gun lobby that more guns would make everyone safer. 
I was listenig to what he was saying, not what I thought he might be inferring.



> He then said that banning guns would stop criminals getting guns.


I heard him say that gun control would make it harder because you are cutting off one source - taking guns from legal owners. 

Actually he says quite clearly he has no problem with gun ownership and that he wishes people would simply say 'I love guns' instead of creating fallacious arguments and to me it was those arguments he was making fun of. 
Your comments remind me of the objections when the Monty Python film Life of Brian came out. The religious groups claimed it was blasphemous - others (me included) was saying it was not blasphemous and was making fun of the religious zealots not the religion itself.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 23, 2017)

What are his arguments? He doesn't seem to have any - its mostly just 15 minutes of rambling.

His comments about Australian rules are factually incorrect. I've pointed that out. And I know that people here are happy with the current system (ie - of _allowing_ guns) because no one is actively advocating for change one way or the other. The topic is never recognised as an important election issues. There is just no momentum for any changes. To me, that is a clear sign that people are happy with status quo. And that is very different to the image he is portraying.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 23, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> I was listenig to what he was saying, not what I thought he might be inferring.


Not sure what you're trying to prove, but if you come up with a transcription, we can debate word for word.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 23, 2017)

You mean the very first sentence, 3 seconds in "I believe in your right as Americans to have guns. I'm not trying to stop you having guns..."?
Not that difficult really.

I do not know the full details of Aussie gun control but this seems a good summary. It includes comments by someone at the University of Sydney:


> "Following enactment of gun law reforms in Australia in 1996, there were no mass firearm killings through May 2016," Simon Chapman of the University of Sydney and colleagues wrote


You are right there was not an outright ban but there were greater controls. 
Given that he is a comedian I have taken some of it with a pinch of salt, but that to me does not invalidate his comments about the arguments used by many of the pro-gun lobby in America.


----------



## Pippan (Jan 23, 2017)

Just a technical point on language, guys. The comedian didn't infer anything. Speakers and writers _imply_, listeners and readers _infer_.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 23, 2017)

"*I’m going to say some things that are facts.*
In Australia, we had guns. Right up until 1996. Then in 1996, Australia had the biggest massacre on Earth. Hasn’t been beaten. *Now after that, they banned the guns.*" 

He repeats the same comment about Australia banning guns on several occassions. He then explains how banning guns transformed Australia to a safe country and he's advocating that the US does something similar. (At least, that is my understanding. Is my comprehension that bad?)

Two problems. Australian never banned guns. Instead, the existing licensing rules were made uniform across the country. Stricter rules were put in place for some weapons. There was a buy back system for people who didn't want to get licenced (there is an annual fee, which gets more expensive based upon what firearms you want to be licenced for). But anyone over the age of 11, of good character can get a licence with minimal fuss.

The second problem is that it hasn't made much difference. Gun related crimes has increased noticeably in the last few years. From a recent article - http://www.news.com.au/national/crime/scary-trend-in-australian-gun-crime-with-more-than-200-shooting-deaths-a-year/news-story/374b4e55fdbb1718079c36979245d50c


Incidents involving firearms *rose 83 per cent* in NSW from 2005-6 to 2014-5. 


Charges for possession and trafficking of guns in South Australia saw a *49 per cent rise* over four years.


At the end of 2011, there was a “spate of shootings in Sydney”, including five separate incidents in the space of four hours, the NSW Bureau of Statistics and Crime Research revealed in a report. It found there had been a 41 per cent increase in drive-by shootings[/b] in the previous 24 months.


Since then, there have been an average of *20 drive-by shootings every month* in the state.


Victoria is similarly affected, with a *52 per cent increase in firearms offences* to 3645 between 2009-10 and 2014-15. 


In Tasmania, there was a* 26 per cent increase in firearm-related offences* between December 2012 and 2015.


Since the mid 2000's there has been a steady stream of weapons being smuggled into the country by drug gangs. Added to this, there are also thefts of weapons from registered owners. For anyone to _*imply*_  that a ban or licencing regime is a solution is just using wishful thinking, and not looking at the facts. Most Australians are very concerned about the noticeable increase in crime over the last ten years.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 23, 2017)

He didn't imply it was solution. He said it was what Australia did and how the public (at the time anyway) agreed with the action the government took. 

I'm not doubting your commentary on Aussie gun laws. Nor am I doubting he was not telling the truth. But the main thrust of his stand up routine was pointing out the illogic of the pro-gun lobby in the US - you don't seem to be denying that. And I think he did that quite well.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 23, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> I do not know the full details of Aussie gun control but this seems a good summary. It includes comments by someone at the University of Sydney:
> 
> 
> > "Following enactment of gun law reforms in Australia in 1996, there were no mass firearm killings through May 2016," Simon Chapman of the University of Sydney and colleagues wrote


I don't know much about the NRA and their arguments. But I do know about governments disarming their populations and the consequences that normally follow. So when I start reading or hearing about gun control and how it can keep people safe, I think it is important that people look at the facts.

Gun control doesn't work unless you have a government that is willing to enforce a complete ban. But you don't want such a government - statistically, they're not good for your long-term health and well-being. I'd like to think that the USA is different. But the violence shown by many protestors in the last couple of months makes me think that many of them would enjoy a stint working as an educator in a re-education camp. 

A summary of a research papers from the Univerity of Sydney saying gun laws haven't worked, eg - http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=2240

Re Simon Chapman, I'm just having a problem finding anything that he's researched on this (apart from internet opinions). In any case, he is right. Despite a number of attempts, no Australian has successfully completed a mass killing since 1997. (To be a mass killing you need to kill at least four people.)

When Huan Xiang went on a shooting spree at Monash University in 2002, killing two and injuring five armed with 6 handguns, it's not considered a mass firearm killing because he didn't kill enough people. 

Similarly, Donato Corbo shot six people in 2011, but only three died, so he's excluded too.

Man Monis took ten hostages in 2014. But only three died. Four were injured. So he's excluded too.

One of our young jihadists, 15 year old Farhad Jabar, only killed one police force employee in 2015 before being shot himself.

I could go on, but it is not in good taste. I guess I can sleep easy tonight knowing that our tighter gun laws stop mass killings by guns.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 23, 2017)

Hillsilly said:


> But you don't want such a government - statistically, they're not good for your long-term health and well-being.



As you are keen to talk 'facts', what statistics are those?



Hillsilly said:


> I'd like to think that the USA is different.


In what way? 'I'd like to think....' is hardly a 'fact'




Hillsilly said:


> But the violence shown by many protestors in the last couple of months makes me think that many of them would enjoy a stint working as an educator in a re-education camp.


Surely the very sort of establishment you say people should be free to protect themselves against?



Hillsilly said:


> In any case, he is right. Despite a number of attempts, no Australian has successfully completed a mass killing since 1997. (To be a mass killing you need to kill at least four people.)



But you said today at 05:07:


> He says gun control will stop mass killings and that Australia hasn't had one since 1997. *But we have. Googling the topic brings up comprehensive lists.*



Your point seems to be that that is a semantic distinction and I have sympathy with that comment. But the fact they have gone from 10 mass killings to zero (ie minimum of 50 killed to..what....8 or so suggests that that the changes in gun control legislation have made it less likely that multiple people will be killed. From 10 vs none seems like a pretty good statistic to me.
I think it is also worth pondering that out that in all the massacres in Australia and US how many of them have been stopped by Joe public? As far as I recall not a single one. Are you telling me that in all those cases there was not a single person in the locale with a gun? That seems unlikely to me (especially in US) - so to my mind, using mass killings as an argument that 'we would be safer if more people had guns' seems fallacious. 

In one respect I am very much in Jim Jeffries' camp: I am not disputing the fact people like using guns and like owning them. I am challenging the arguments put forward for them to be made more readily available and I wish people would be more honest for their reasons


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 24, 2017)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Just some nits to pick
> 
> 
> "The AR-15 is not an assault weapon no matter how many times a media outlet or anti-gun group says it is."
> ...



Those labeling an AR-15 and assault weapon do so only based upon its appearance. I has no basis in reality. The rifle functions no differently and is no more dangerous than any other semi-automatic rifle. States like California use the fact that the rifle has a removable magazine (like many other hunting rifles), a pistol grip (which has nothing to do with function, a flash suppressor (again, nothing to do with function), and a few other little things that make the rifle look "evil" to make the definition "assault rifle" and vilify the weapon for political reasons. Not every state defines the rifle as such and I know of no federal law that does.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 24, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Hillsilly said:
> 
> 
> > But you don't want such a government - statistically, they're not good for your long-term health and well-being.
> ...



Here's one. Not widely reported because the stopping of a crime is not nearly so sensational as the commission of a crime.
https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/06/29/concealed-carrier-just-stopped-mass-shooting-night-club-media-remained-silent/


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jan 24, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I know of no federal law that does.



Not since 2004 when the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Pub.L. 103–322) expired.

Currently there are no federal assault weapon laws.

I am in agreement with you. I think the "assault weapon" definition is inappropriate. There are, however seven states that do currently have an assault weapon ban laws and some states have sub-state local laws banning assault weapons.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 24, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Here's one. Not widely reported because the stopping of a crime is not nearly so sensational as the commission of a crime.
> https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/06/29/concealed-carrier-just-stopped-mass-shooting-night-club-media-remained-silent/



Good to see you can support your argument with one case ;D 
[takes tongue out of cheek]

I wonder how it would have panned out if the guy committing the assault had said 'give me your camera'? (which, after all, was the way this thread started).


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Jan 24, 2017)

Sorry to hear what happened. A DSLR can make for one heck of a club to whack someone with.
But IMHO learn to defend yourself. Carry pepper spray or a taser gun if a gun is not an option. Also take note of Lenstag . com and use them to register your gear and if it does get stollen. You can track down that SOB and correct the issue. 
If you guessed I am ex-military and have the ability to go from normal to full on rage in about 0.5 seconds..


----------



## kirispupis (Jan 24, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Here's one. Not widely reported because the stopping of a crime is not nearly so sensational as the commission of a crime.
> ...



Look at the source too...Hmmm...BearingArms.com - well that's a neutral site if I ever saw one. I bet their news is almost as accurate as Breitbart.


----------



## kirispupis (Jan 24, 2017)

For the record, I did try to leave this thread alone, but since you're still going on...



CanonFanBoy said:


> 1. In the United States there are not people walking around the streets with "assault" weapons or automatic rifles. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle that operates in the same way as a semi-automatic hunting rifle. Just because it looks like an M-16 or an M4 doesn't make it one and many people do hunt with AR-15s. The AR-15 is not an assault weapon no matter how many times a media outlet or anti-gun group says it is. It does not keep firing as long s one holds the trigger back as a machine gun does.


I don't recall the debate moving into assault weapons and their definition. Personally, I somewhat agree with you. I do feel that there are some guns completely inappropriate for individuals to own, but other than ones already banned it's difficult to qualify them. In terms of where I'd prefer to see anti-gun efforts aim, they are in gun registration, transfers, and (ideally) limiting ammunition.



CanonFanBoy said:


> 2. Half the 33,000 deaths in this country by guns are suicides. Take away the guns and the determined person who would have used a gun would find another way to off himself.


Not necessarily...suicide is very complicated. Very often the person doesn't truly want to die - but is using it as a last cry for help. On the other side, guns offer a very indirect way to die - all the person needs to do is pull the trigger. It is considerably more difficult to throw oneself off a building or cut oneself due to inate reflexes. In terms of the statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate, the US does have a high suicide rate relative to other countries, though there are nations with higher rates that have tougher gun laws. This would be a good area to have more data on - though unfortunately the NRA actively lobbies against most gun research.



CanonFanBoy said:


> 3. The remaining 16,500 gun deaths in this country include shootings by police and the owners of illegal guns, criminals, or people defending themselves. So, you see, the 33,000 number isn't broken down into categories as it should be. Outlawing the private ownership of guns does not remove the guns from the hands of criminals.


Even when factored for suicides, the US is still far above other 1st world countries. Also, a large percentage of the remaining deaths are not due to organized crime. A sizable number are accidents (500-700). A good percentage of the remainder is domestic disputes. Good numbers are hard to come by due to the above, but at least a third of battered women have been threatened with a gun. Even when you factor in those, there is a direct correspondence between gun related homicides and gun laws among 1st world countries - so gun restrictions have kept guns from criminals. While it is true that gun laws do little in preventing organized crime from obtaining guns, they account for relatively few homicides. National gun laws are effective in keeping them out of the hands of your average street thug.



CanonFanBoy said:


> 4. Approximately 36,000 people a year die in automobile accidents. Yet there are not the calls for outlawing automobiles that we hear for guns. The argument might turn to, "We all need cars." No we don't. The public transportation system could be hugely expanded to get people within a mile or two of their destination and the people could simply walk the rest of the way. Imagine the number of people who would lose weight and not die from heart disease or diabetes.


Driving is a privilege - not a right. My car drives itself most of the time. In 20-30 years I predict it will be illegal to drive your own car. We can do this because there is no "right to drive".



CanonFanBoy said:


> 5. There are approximately 35,000 suicides in the United States each year despite suicide being illegal in most states. Only half of those are done with guns. Again, the person determined to kill himself will always find another way.


Again, not necessarily true. See above. As an aside, I've known several people who have attempted suicide. Every one who used a gun didn't make it, while several of those who used other means survived.



CanonFanBoy said:


> 6. The number one cause of death in the United States each year is coronary heart disease at 445,000 a year, yet I don't hear nearly the emotional outrage against french fries and fatty or high carb sugary foods as I do about deaths by guns.


Fatty foods aren't a right. Several cities already have laws curbing them. We can do this because fatty foods aren't guaranteed in the Constitution.



CanonFanBoy said:


> 7. If somebody wants to kill you there are hundreds of ways to do so without a gun. Using a knife is just as easy.


No, it's not. A knife needs to be used in close range, making it easier to resist. Since it provides a cleaner wound, it is also easier to recover from. There were several knife attacks in recent years in China, and the survival rates were much higher than similar gun rampages. A knife is also more "personal" - it takes a lot more nerve to slice someone up than to shoot them.
8. 50 top causes of death in the United States https://nationalsafetyinc.org/2013/07/26/top-50-causes-of-death-in-the-us/



CanonFanBoy said:


> 9. First comes guns, then the next thing. In the United Kingdom there is now a movement to ban kitchen knives. Docs say most of the stabbings are fueled by drugs and alcohol. Why not ban the cause and not the symptom? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm


While I'm not in favor of banning kitchen knives, one should note that there's nothing wrong with discussing what knives one should logically own. I'm not sure if knives are covered in the 2nd amendment, but there's nothing wrong with a healthy discussion.



CanonFanBoy said:


> 10. Machine guns are legal in the United States as long as one can pass a stringent background check, the machine gun was manufactured before 1986, the tax stamp is paid for, and the buyer can afford one (approx $40,000 and up). Any other machine gun is illegally owned. I have not ever heard a news report of somebody who legally owned a machine gun killing anyone (Except before the National Firearms Act of 1934).


I don't recall debating about machine guns. In terms of one not being used in a mass assault, I would assume that since they're more difficult to obtain, your average psycho resorts to more obtainable means. I should also note that the US military (and most others) do have machine guns - along with tanks, small missile launchers, and drones. Therefore, regardless what guns one owns, the prospects of defending oneself from the government are very dim - even for Rambo.



CanonFanBoy said:


> I own three AR-15s and have never, ever been in trouble with the law in any way. I am a former U.S. Army Solder and a U.S. Marine. I am better trined now than when I was in the military and better trained than most cops. There is absolutely no reason to suspect that I or any other legal gun owner has or intends to commit a crime with his weapons. Of course it happens. But by and large it does not.


I'm sure you are very careful with your weapons, though I was a bit disturbed by your flaunting like toys in images. I'm sure you are well aware that these are not playthings, but your images suggest otherwise. That being said, a lot of people are very careful until there's an accident or someone who's not careful somehow obtains one of your guns. 



CanonFanBoy said:


> I do know this: My AR-15s are NOT assault rifles. I have 10, 20, and 30 round magazines for them. So what. It isn't the gun that is evil. There are just evil people among us. They don't need guns to do us harm.


As I mentioned, I don't care as much about the type of gun. What I'd really like to have is a logical discussion concerning them. What guns should people have? What ammunition should be allowed? Should things like silencers be legal? (as an aside, if your guns are for defense, wouldn't you want them to be very loud?) What training + licenses should be required for gun ownership? Where should they not be allowed? Should weapons be registered and transferring them occur only through approved third parties?

Yes, I have voiced my opinion against guns. But what I'd really like is a logical discussion that isn't framed by the 2nd amendment. It's like having a debate with a two year old kid who keeps running to his mommy. I do believe that there are sensible things we can do that both severely reduce gun deaths and other violent crimes while still allowing those who cherish guns to have them. However, the current framework in this country doesn't allow for it.


----------



## dafrank (Jan 24, 2017)

As a long-time professional photographer who has been sent, over several decades, into many devastated inner cities by national magazines to visually report on issues affecting communities, as well as to do corporate work in some less "safe" neighborhoods, I have a lot of experience with this issue. 

I have not read all the replies, so I apologize in advance if I am repeating what some have already told you.

1) First, and most importantly, always practice vigilant awareness of your environment. Walk and act as though you are constantly scanning all around you at all times. This will alert some would-be bad actors that you will not be caught unawares and will not be the easiest person to steal from. Also, take only what you need, and nothing more, to the shoot, and be prepared to vacate the area in a hurry if your situation becomes a danger to you or to others.

2) Insure your equipment, if at all possible. Inland Marine insurance is expensive, but sometimes it can be the difference between financial disaster and an inconvenience.

3) If at all possible, go to your location with advanced knowledge of the area, or with someone else who has such. And, if your able to do so, it's always best to take another person with you to observe, hopefully someone familiar with the territory, while you're busy shooting.

4) If confronted by an armed robber, just give up your gear and live to do the next shoot. Of course, if you see someone especially suspicious some distance from you, walk away as fast and confidently as possible, frequently staring back at the person as you hopefully go to a safer, more crowded spot.

5) Don't invite a theft if you can help it. For example, don't walk into a group of kids on a corner at midnight in an inner city brandishing $3,000.00 worth of gear on your shoulder. Use common sense.

6) If you choose to do so, go LEGALLY armed. I do. You must, however, be trained to use a weapon, before and after lawfully obtaining a concealed weapon permit, keep up your training, and be ever so mindful of what the laws of the state you are in say about defending yourself. I would strongly advise against open carry in this situation, as it both signals a would-be assailant of your arms and might even act as a magnet, or even a provocation, for someone wanting to steal your weapon, as well as your camera gear. You may never be justified to brandish a weapon to keep an assailant from merely robbing you of your equipment. A weapon is only for your own personal protection or the protection of a third party, and you should only draw it if you have a reasonable expectation of the assailant doing you or another person grievous bodily harm; if the robber makes no overt threat to your personal safety, but only appears to be about to steal your gear, especially if it is not directly on your person, just let him have it. A camera and lens are not worth a human life, no matter how despicable that human may behave. A weapon may never save your life, or gear, but to those thinking that it would somehow be counter-productive to carry, I would strongly disagree, based on both real statistics and my own personal experience. Before you reflexively try to dampen people's desire to protect themselves with legally held weapons, I suggest that you, like I did, first experience being threatened with death by armed assailants a few times. Yes, a legally carried pistol may not always protect you, but it might, and that chance makes it well worth it to be legally armed.

I hope this reply gave you some ideas to consider. 

Regards,
David


----------



## Labdoc (Jan 24, 2017)

Thank you dafrank . I would add, always take a tripod, use it as a weapon, if life is threatened and you don't have a gun. I have been on both sides of the gun issue politically and in real life as I have served in the military. IMO dafrank just gave you the best advice you can get on this issue. The gun arguments are all politics, I was taught a lot of ways to kill people that had nothing to do with guns. People kill people, guns are just tools. Lately trucks kill a lot of people, need to be banned. 


dafrank said:


> As a long-time professional photographer who has been sent, over several decades, into many devastated inner cities by national magazines to visually report on issues affecting communities, as well as to do corporate work in some less "safe" neighborhoods, I have a lot of experience with this issue.
> 
> I have not read all the replies, so I apologize in advance if I am repeating what some have already told you.
> 
> ...


----------



## AJ (Jan 24, 2017)

Two ideas here:

1) If you're going to have a wingman along, wouldn't you have the wingman be armed? The mugger will be focused on the guy with the camera.

2) I wrote earlier about pepper spray, and some people said it's no different than bringing a gun. I beg to differ. Bring any kind of arm is risking having it used against you. In the case of a handgun that means a bullet in your own brain. In the case of pepper spray that means a blast of capsicum in your eyes. While unpleasant, you'll live. Personally I would not want to escalate with firearms, but nailing the guy with capsicum is something I would consider doing. YMMV.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 25, 2017)

kirispupis said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



Here we go again, calling into suspect a real news story just because it ia linked from bearingarms.com. BearingArms.com didn't write the story.

You assume a political biased while all the time supporting and spouting political biased... not honest discussion.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 25, 2017)

kirispupis said:


> For the record, I did try to leave this thread alone, but since you're still going on...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Silencers should be legal because they save the hearing of those who train. Earplugs don't do the job completely. However, you mislabel the accessory. It is a suppressor. It does not silence the weapon like you see on television.

You keep saying the second amendment does not allow for discussion. Wrong. You just are not interested in logical discussion. You continue to put aside facts and depend upon fallacy and personal ideas not grounded in reality.

Here are more stories, nut I am positive they mean nothing to you. The idea that a gun can be a force for good is just not one you are capable of entertaining. Examples are brought to you that completely obliterate your previous arguments, yet you are not phased.
http://crimeresearch.org/2016/09/uber-driver-in-chicago-stops-mass-public-shooting/


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 25, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> You keep saying the second amendment does not allow for discussion. Wrong. You just are not interested in logical discussion. You continue to put aside facts and depend upon fallacy and personal ideas not grounded in reality.



You missed his point. 
The second amendment does not forbid discussion. But so many of the gun enthusiasts, when pressed about why they should own guns, resort to the 'I can because it says so in the Constitution'. They actually don't want to (or some, I am sure are incapable of) rational discussion so quote the Second Amendment as their defence.

To many of us, we realise the genie is out of the bottle, so we are not arguing whether you should be allowed to carry guns but more about why you would want to. And, as the Jim Jeffries clip showed, examining the reasons often quoted. But as soon as anyone even questions the motives, out comes the Second Amendment argument to try and close down any discussion. The second amendment is also quoted as an argument against any tightening of gun control even though most NRA members want tighter control.

I don't have the time to trawl back over the previous pages to know where you stand on gun control but do you believe the control laws at national level could (should) be tightened? 




CanonFanBoy said:


> Here are more stories, nut I am positive they mean nothing to you. The idea that a gun can be a force for good is just not one you are capable of entertaining. Examples are brought to you that completely obliterate your previous arguments, yet you are not phased.
> http://crimeresearch.org/2016/09/uber-driver-in-chicago-stops-mass-public-shooting/


Just because a gun is used to stop evil does not mean it is a force for good. If you think that shooting someone, anyone, under any circumstances is 'good' then maybe that is the mindset at the heart of the matter. It is rather like the characters played so well by Clint Eastwood anti-hero in his early years. Was the 'man with no name' a good man just because he shot bad guys? Was Dirty Harry 'good' or just someone who fought the bad guys on their own terms and just happened to do so on the side of law and order? 

One thing I will say on these stories is that the links posted on recent pages are about 'concealed carriers' pulling their weapons in response to _an ongoing shooting_. They are stopping someone who is already harming others. 
This thread started as ways to protect your camera gear. So if someone came up to you and told you to hand over your expensive SLR kit, would you shoot them in 'self defence'? Would you draw your weapon and immediately escalate the issue (in which case they will probably get you before you even pull your weapon)? Or would you hand over your gear?


----------



## hbr (Jan 25, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > You keep saying the second amendment does not allow for discussion. Wrong. You just are not interested in logical discussion. You continue to put aside facts and depend upon fallacy and personal ideas not grounded in reality.
> ...



This thread continues....

In the United States the Constitution can be amended. The problem is that the majority of the people don't want to amend it. We do have "discussions," they are your vote. The NRA and gun lobby consists of law abiding citizens that do not want the government taking away their guns. Law abiding citizens are not terrorists, neither are the NRA and gun lobbies that represent them.

For the sake of "discussion," how would you propose to eliminate them? Pass another law, (which we have too many already that don't seem to be working), to take away the guns of the law abiding citizens and make the criminals cringe in fear that they are breaking the law?

Make no mistake about it, the goal is to eliminate the handgun which is the choice of most criminals. The "assault type" weapons are just a guise because the public reacts more strongly to these crimes.

Do you really believe that if we eliminated guns, crime would decrease? We haven't been able to solve our drug problems in this country, much less our racial problems, although we have spent billions of dollars over many years trying to solve them.

Why is it that the police are constantly asking for more federal money for more powerful weapons? They keep claiming that they are outgunned by the criminals.

If you can find a way to eliminate private ownership of guns, I promise you the weapons that the criminals smuggle in and use will be far more lethal.

I believe that both sides want the same things, that is to leave in peace and prosperity without fear. The difference between the two sides of this argument is how to accomplish this. Unfortunately, for your side, you have been outvoted.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 25, 2017)

hbr said:


> This thread continues....
> 
> In the United States the Constitution can be amended. The problem is that the majority of the people don't want to amend it.


I didn't mention amending the Second Amendment. You can work within the current amendment in introducing controls. The controls are patchy and designed in each state - as I understand in some states there are no barriers to someone buying a gun even if they have a history of mental instability or violence. 

As I said earlier, there is enough evidence to suggest a majority of the NRA members want to tighten gun controls. Yet the NRA oppose this at every turn. 



hbr said:


> We do have "discussions," they are your vote. The NRA and gun lobby consists of law abiding citizens that do not want the government taking away their guns. Law abiding citizens are not terrorists, neither are the NRA and gun lobbies that represent them.



You are joking, right? there is enough public support for tighter controls. it is the NRA and the powerful arms lobby that block any moves. 




hbr said:


> Do you really believe that if we eliminated guns, crime would decrease?


What a facile comment. 



hbr said:


> If you can find a way to eliminate private ownership of guns, I promise you the weapons that the criminals smuggle in and use will be far more lethal.


Who said i want to eliminate them?
I keep on going back to the fact my comments are about (1) the ease of obtainind them and (2) people's desire to own them. 
Warbling on about eliminating them is mere deflection. 



hbr said:


> I believe that both sides want the same things, that is to leave in peace and prosperity without fear. The difference between the two sides of this argument is how to accomplish this. Unfortunately, for your side, you have been outvoted.


Which side has been 'outvoted'? All I see is that the more powerful lobby (the NRA) has won. 
But from your post it seems your idea of having 'won' is based on the premise of abolition. Not tighter control. So perhaps if you can bring yourself to answer _that _question we may get somewhere.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jan 25, 2017)

I have often wondered why the NRA is perceived to be so powerful. There are about 5 million members in the NRA (including international members) and about 30 million (some sources have this number a lot higher) gun owners in the US. They claim to represent gun owners but the numbers don't seem to support that. They seem to represent only about 5-7 percent of gun owners. I have been a gun owner for over 30 years and I have never, and will never be, an NRA member. I do not feel that the NRA represents my views concerning gun ownership and I don't think I am unique in this. 

The NRA, like any other lobbying organization, is only as powerful as we allow them to be.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 25, 2017)

AcutancePhotography said:


> I have often wondered why the NRA is perceived to be so powerful. There are about 5 million members in the NRA (including international members) and about 30 million (some sources have this number a lot higher) gun owners in the US. They claim to represent gun owners but the numbers don't seem to support that. They seem to represent only about 5-7 percent of gun owners. I have been a gun owner for over 30 years and I have never, and will never be, an NRA member. I do not feel that the NRA represents my views concerning gun ownership and I don't think I am unique in this.
> 
> The NRA, like any other lobbying organization, is only as powerful as we allow them to be.



'We' (I'm British so only quoting you here) can't stop them. Unfortunately. You can only stop it by stopping access of lobby groups and no-one will legislate against that. 
The only way it can be done is to become and NRA member and vote out the people currently in charge of it.


----------



## hbr (Jan 25, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> hbr said:
> 
> 
> > This thread continues....
> ...



I am willing to try anything that would reduce violent crime, but first you must convince me that 1) clearly state what your objectives and proposals are and 2) that they would work.

Nothing personal here, I am just saying, Convince me.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 25, 2017)

AcutancePhotography said:


> I have often wondered why the NRA is perceived to be so powerful. There are about 5 million members in the NRA (including international members) and about 30 million (some sources have this number a lot higher) gun owners in the US. They claim to represent gun owners but the numbers don't seem to support that. They seem to represent only about 5-7 percent of gun owners. I have been a gun owner for over 30 years and I have never, and will never be, an NRA member. I do not feel that the NRA represents my views concerning gun ownership and I don't think I am unique in this.
> 
> The NRA, like any other lobbying organization, is only as powerful as we allow them to be.



I am not an NRA member, although I would say that I believe in what they do. It is true that many gun owners probably do not take the extreme view they do. But it is good to have that extreme view and an organization to voice it.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 25, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> I am not an NRA member, although I would say that I believe in what they do. It is true that many gun owners probably do not take the extreme view they do. But it is good to have that extreme view and an organization to voice it.



I agree. But their 'extreme' view gets a disproportionate access to power which is where I have a problem in this discussion.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 25, 2017)

hbr said:


> I am willing to try anything that would reduce violent crime, but first you must convince me that 1) clearly state what your objectives and proposals are and 2) that they would work.
> 
> Nothing personal here, I am just saying, Convince me.



If I were American my primary objective would be to tighten gun control. Reduce ownership of guns by those reasonably suspected of being excessively violent or with mental incapacity.
Would it work? Well, to paraphrase criticism of the 'war on drugs' - what you are doing so far has failed miserably yet any avenues for trying anything different are blocked by self-interest. As said previously, all efforts on rational discussion are derided and shouted down with calls about 'freedom' and 'second amendment'.

Has the NRA ever actually polled its members? Not that I recall and given that it is such an important issue for them, I wonder why...



https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/most-gun-owners-support-background-checks-and-other-limits-so-why-arent-their-voices-heard/2015/10/07/af9c96b0-6c41-11e5-aa5b-f78a98956699_story.html?utm_term=.8eedd140e991


----------



## cayenne (Jan 25, 2017)

Eldar said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...


The trouble with a LOT of the stats on gun deaths in the US, is that they include suicides.<P>
If you remove that, the numbers go way down....


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 25, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> hbr said:
> 
> 
> > I am willing to try anything that would reduce violent crime, but first you must convince me that 1) clearly state what your objectives and proposals are and 2) that they would work.
> ...



If you were American you would understand how important our freedoms and rights are to us. It isn't like other nations whose governments guarantee no freedoms and rights. Sure I would wrap myself in the 2nd amendment and say you can not take my gun. It is a right that our ancestors forefather's saw fit to include and the courts have tested and confirmed numerous times. When someone joins the military in the USA they take an oath that they "...will support and defend the Constitution of the United States..". All of the amendments are taken very seriously. As Americans we have those rights and they were paid for by our ancestors blood. 

But you say the discussion gets "shouted down". To the contrary, in the US we have the first amendment. The majority of the people "shouting down" would defend your right to say what you have to say. You hear different forms of this saying from Americans "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

It helps to understand this mindset.
Really there are only two options for passing any kind of laws or control.
The first is a change to the 2nd amendment, and given the current political environment it isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future.
Look at other options of regulation, control and education that will limit those individuals who legally shouldn't have firearms and prevent accidents.


----------



## kirispupis (Jan 25, 2017)

hbr said:


> In the United States the Constitution can be amended. The problem is that the majority of the people don't want to amend it. We do have "discussions," they are your vote. The NRA and gun lobby consists of law abiding citizens that do not want the government taking away their guns. Law abiding citizens are not terrorists, neither are the NRA and gun lobbies that represent them.


While I agree that the majority of citizens and even most gun owners are not terrorists, the NRA has become a terrorist organization. How else do you explain their primary argument - that without guns people will die? This is despite the preponderance of evidence stating otherwise. Of course, there would be even more evidence if the NRA didn't stifle gun research. The definition of terrorism is using fear to propagate your goals - which is exactly what the NRA does.



hbr said:


> For the sake of "discussion," how would you propose to eliminate them? Pass another law, (which we have too many already that don't seem to be working), to take away the guns of the law abiding citizens and make the criminals cringe in fear that they are breaking the law?


Actually, and as I have said multiple times, I don't believe it's realistic to get rid of all guns. I also believe there are some valid uses for them - in particular as a last resort against wildlife in some places and for hunting. On a more realistic note, the following is what I would love to see happen.

Gun registration. Every single gun is registered upon leaving the factory floor. When someone buys a gun, it is registered in their name. There are no exceptions. When a gun is then used for a crime, it's ownership can be traced back. The last owner may then be questioned on how it came to be at the scene.
Liability. If your weapon is used in a crime, you are liable and may even be imprisoned. If a weapon of yours is stolen, you may report it so but may still be liable for a crime if you did not adequately secure it.
Transfer. Direct transfers of weapons are forbidden. A weapon may only be transferred at a licensed third party store, which handles the necessary background checks and registration. This removes the gun show loophole
In order to obtain a weapon, one must go through a licensed training program.
Psychological background checks are necessary to obtain a weapon. Ones weapons may be seized by order of a court, if that person is deemed unsuitable for weapons
Weapons are banned in all schools, sports stadiums, airports, and other places of mass gatherings
A property owner has the legal right to ban all weapons (so for instance - malls). No state/local regulations may override this.
Certain types of guns, accessories, and ammunition will be illegal. I think the label of 'assault weapon' is too vague, but in general a gun should fire a limited number of rounds before requiring a 'not-so-quick' reload. Professional target shooting usually requires a reload after each round, and hunted animals do not need to be full of lead. Which specific things banned should be the result of a logical discussion.
Use of a weapon while under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol is a serious offence
Concealed query requires a special license. One must prove that there is a very clear need given one's profession. For instance, a jeweler who regularly transports gems would have a valid need. Specialized training would also be required.



hbr said:


> Make no mistake about it, the goal is to eliminate the handgun which is the choice of most criminals. The "assault type" weapons are just a guise because the public reacts more strongly to these crimes.


For the most part I agree - handguns cause the most problems. I do think though that there should be some limit in terms of how many rounds a weapon may fire before a semi-lengthy reload.



hbr said:


> Do you really believe that if we eliminated guns, crime would decrease? We haven't been able to solve our drug problems in this country, much less our racial problems, although we have spent billions of dollars over many years trying to solve them.


Murders and gun deaths would decrease, as would most violent crime. Things like burglaries and theft from cars would probably stay the same.



hbr said:


> If you can find a way to eliminate private ownership of guns, I promise you the weapons that the criminals smuggle in and use will be far more lethal.


Nope. All of the data already presented shows otherwise. That's why other 1st world countries have lower murders.



hbr said:


> I believe that both sides want the same things, that is to leave in peace and prosperity without fear. The difference between the two sides of this argument is how to accomplish this. Unfortunately, for your side, you have been outvoted.


Again, no. Most Americans want tighter gun control - a very large majority in fact. The 2nd amendment makes this tricky though, because the NRA and a small number of individuals are prepared to litigate. Again, it prevents any logical discussion about guns.

The percentage of people willing to actually repeal the 2nd amendment is a minority, though I expect that it's growing. Unfortunately the effort to do this requires considerably more than a majority. There is a growing awareness, though, that our Constitution was written at a very different time - especially in terms of the electoral college (which was a compromise that allowed southern states to count their slaves toward electoral votes, without actually giving them the vote).


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 25, 2017)

cayenne said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



The discussion usually goes to ban the guns and the suicide rates will go down. Then the conversation doesn't get anywhere because a ban isn't going to happen.

There are things that could be discussed that do not involve banning. For instance education or regulation on keeping firearms and ammunition under lock and key. Education on storage of ammunition. Better, easier to use more secure locks included when you buy a firearm.


----------



## kirispupis (Jan 25, 2017)

AcutancePhotography said:


> I have often wondered why the NRA is perceived to be so powerful. There are about 5 million members in the NRA (including international members) and about 30 million (some sources have this number a lot higher) gun owners in the US. They claim to represent gun owners but the numbers don't seem to support that. They seem to represent only about 5-7 percent of gun owners. I have been a gun owner for over 30 years and I have never, and will never be, an NRA member. I do not feel that the NRA represents my views concerning gun ownership and I don't think I am unique in this.
> 
> The NRA, like any other lobbying organization, is only as powerful as we allow them to be.



This article provides some details - http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-lobbying-money-national-rifle-association-washington-2012-12

I believe it's a factor of two things

Their membership
Gun manufacturers - who earn billions from convincing people that their products are necessary for survival. They also make considerable sums sending guns to other countries (such as Mexico).


----------



## kirispupis (Jan 25, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> If you were American you would understand how important our freedoms and rights are to us. It isn't like other nations whose governments guarantee no freedoms and rights. Sure I would wrap myself in the 2nd amendment and say you can not take my gun. It is a right that our ancestors forefather's saw fit to include and the courts have tested and confirmed numerous times. When someone joins the military in the USA they take an oath that they "...will support and defend the Constitution of the United States..". All of the amendments are taken very seriously. As Americans we have those rights and they were paid for by our ancestors blood.



You need to stop drinking the cool-aid. This country is actually far less free than many others. Most countries in Western Europe - especially Scandinavia - are much freer in terms of what one can actually do. For instance, Americans have among the least privacy in the world. The US government has access to banking information for US citizens that is illegal for most Europeans. Companies may also sell + collect information that would be illegal for a European. At one point I do believe we were among the freest in the world, and the US did have a direct impact in making the world a freer place, but we've fallen considerably.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 25, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> If you were American you would understand how important our freedoms and rights are to us. It isn't like other nations whose governments guarantee no freedoms and rights. Sure I would wrap myself in the 2nd amendment and say you can not take my gun. It is a right that our ancestors forefather's saw fit to include and the courts have tested and confirmed numerous times. When someone joins the military in the USA they take an oath that they "...will support and defend the Constitution of the United States..". All of the amendments are taken very seriously. As Americans we have those rights and they were paid for by our ancestors blood.
> 
> But you say the discussion gets "shouted down". To the contrary, in the US we have the first amendment. The majority of the people "shouting down" would defend your right to say what you have to say. You hear different forms of this saying from Americans "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
> 
> ...



To say we don't understand how important rights and freedoms are just because we do not have written Constitution is patronising. We in Britain were asserting our rights ever since the Magna Carter, later through abolition of the Star Chambers, curtailing regal powers in the English Civil War and the Protectorate and various ups and downs over the centuries. We have freedoms and rights asserted and vigourously guarded through courts and jurisprudence and that is effectively our 'Constiution'. 
Given that Thanksgiving Day celebrates the arrival of the first (largely British) pilgrims who were escaping religious persecution in Europe, I fully appreciate how the American Constitution was underpinned by the desire to avoid over-oppressive Government. 

Just because you have the First Amendment doesn't mean that the arguments are not shouted down - it may not be a censorship but in some areas it is an issue more emotive than abortion rights or gay rights and some discussion can be very intimidating. Bar the (very) rare instances of insults being thown on this thread, it has been probably the most civilised I have participated in.



> Look at *other options of regulation*, control and education that will limit those individuals who legally shouldn't have firearms and prevent accidents.


Which, I believe, is exactly what I suggested.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 25, 2017)

kirispupis said:


> This country is actually far less free than many others.



The state of New Hampshire's motto is, "Live Free or Die." If you go hunting, it's perfectly legal to bring a few dozen assault rifles...but don't bring a ferret, because that's against the law (RSA 207:6). Oh yeah, we're free.


----------



## hbr (Jan 25, 2017)

Interesting that none of the proposed solutions address the crime issue where the problem lies. Nearly every proposal stiffens the regulations of the law abiding citizen. That is where this thread originated. The OP was mugged by armed thugs who were using their weapons in an unlawful manner. They had no regard for the laws. I don't care how many laws and regulations you propose if you can't reduce the crime, you don't solve anything.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 25, 2017)

hbr said:


> I don't care how many laws and regulations you propose if you can't reduce the crime, you don't solve anything.



Do laws requiring vehicle occupants to wear seatbelts reduce the frequency of automobile crashes? No...so I guess those laws don't solve anything. :


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 25, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > If you were American you would understand how important our freedoms and rights are to us. It isn't like other nations whose governments guarantee no freedoms and rights. Sure I would wrap myself in the 2nd amendment and say you can not take my gun. It is a right that our ancestors forefather's saw fit to include and the courts have tested and confirmed numerous times. When someone joins the military in the USA they take an oath that they "...will support and defend the Constitution of the United States..". All of the amendments are taken very seriously. As Americans we have those rights and they were paid for by our ancestors blood.
> ...



The comment was about American's rights and freedoms and how Americans view the second amendment. If you took this as a personal comment or one about British understanding rights and freedoms, I either didn't explain well enough or you miss understood.


----------



## cayenne (Jan 25, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



Err....keeping my guns and ammo locked up make them useless for me for home protection.

I mean, if someone breaks in, they're not going to politely wait while I get up and go to my safe in the dark and fiddle with the combination, find the gun, then load them, etc.

I have several guns all over my house, fully loaded and chambered. If someone breaks in, I'm never more than a few feet from one or more of my firearms.

If you aren't going to keep them loaded and accessible, then they are pretty much useless for home protection.

Hey, those that don't want to bear the responsibility for owning and potentially using them...are free NOT to own them.

I have no problem with folks that feel that way.

C


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 25, 2017)

kirispupis said:


> This country is actually far less free than many others. Most countries in Western Europe - especially Scandinavia - are much freer in terms of what one can actually do. For instance, Americans have among the least privacy in the world. The US government has access to banking information for US citizens that is illegal for most Europeans. Companies may also sell + collect information that would be illegal for a European. At one point I do believe we were among the freest in the world, and the US did have a direct impact in making the world a freer place, but we've fallen considerably.



All the more reason to keep the 2nd amendment intact. You make the argument very well.


----------



## hbr (Jan 25, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> hbr said:
> 
> 
> > I don't care how many laws and regulations you propose if you can't reduce the crime, you don't solve anything.
> ...



Sorry, my bad. I got a phone call that interrupted my train of thought. But in most states is is unlawful, (minor crime), not to be wearing a seat belt inside a moving vehicle.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 25, 2017)

hbr said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > hbr said:
> ...



Seems your train was derailed. How sad.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 25, 2017)

cayenne said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > cayenne said:
> ...



I understand your point.

I keep one and sometimes two loaded and available as well. I do not keep all the firearms I have loaded. When unattended I keep them all under lock and key. 
I have relatives who have been suicidal. I also have small children in the house. So when I am not with a gun I keep it under lock and key. I never leave a loaded gun unattended without it being secured.
There are options to keep a firearm loaded and easy to secure. 
I am sure you can agree there is a responsibility that goes with having a gun available and loaded.


----------



## cayenne (Jan 25, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> hbr said:
> 
> 
> > I don't care how many laws and regulations you propose if you can't reduce the crime, you don't solve anything.
> ...


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 25, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> The comment was about American's rights and freedoms and how Americans view the second amendment. If you took this as a personal comment or one about British understanding rights and freedoms, I either didn't explain well enough or you miss understood.



I was replying to your opening sentence:



> If you were American you would understand how important our freedoms and rights are to us.



I think it is more important to understand how those laws came about and it is an understanding of history that shows precisely why. What you usually find is that laws passed and the national psyche develop together - one enforces the other.

Apparently Canada has more guns per head of population than US but has far fewer murders per head of population. Both countries were born out of the same waves of migration so in theory should be influenced by the same motivations, and for me this makes the comparison really intriguing. This does lend some credence to the rather facile comment "guns don't kill people, people kill people", but at the same time it does beg the question, if people are abusing them more in one country than in another, what is the difference in the national psyche between two such closely related countries? And if you believe there is a problem you don't solve that problem by making guns more readily available. 

I think it is noteworthy that if this was _any other issue but guns_, the US lawmakers would be looking across the border and looking at countries in Europe to see if there was anything they could learn about the problem. Could they introduce more laws, could they introduce restrictions how wold they work? But hey, this is guns we are talking about so no-one can teach us nuthin' .


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 25, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > The comment was about American's rights and freedoms and how Americans view the second amendment. If you took this as a personal comment or one about British understanding rights and freedoms, I either didn't explain well enough or you miss understood.
> ...



I think you are off on your characterizations. The Americans are having the gun discussion and we do pay attention to the rest of the world. If you point at the UK and Europe and look at the statistics in some ways it looks good. But then we also see the terrorist attacks in Europe and how they seemed to have increased in the last few years. Things seem to be getting worse there. Maybe it is just the press over playing all of the news blowing things out of proportion. If anything the instability in that part of the world makes the 2nd amendment seem even more important.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jan 25, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> I also have small children in the house. So when I am not with a gun I keep it under lock and key. I never leave a loaded gun unattended without it being secured.



That's the mature thing to do. When you have small kids in the house, the rules have to change

Few things make me more angry than reading a news story where some kid was involved in an accidental shooting because they found their parents' gun that was oh so well hidden. 

When I was a kid, I knew where everything was in the house no matter how well my parents tried to hide the porn. ;D


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 25, 2017)

AcutancePhotography said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > I also have small children in the house. So when I am not with a gun I keep it under lock and key. I never leave a loaded gun unattended without it being secured.
> ...



Mine kept it hidden in the filing cabinet in their room. I do not remember where the gun was hidden, I never went looking for it. Now days parents can do a better job hiding it, as long as they keep their browser history cleared.

But seriously those kind of accidents are tragic and to some extent preventable. There are many brands of quick release locks that allow you to keep your gun readily available. Protecting your family includes accidents and the bad guys. This is the kind of thing that both sides should be able to push and support.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 25, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> Maybe it is just the press over playing all of the news blowing things out of proportion. If anything the instability in that part of the world makes the 2nd amendment seem even more important.



I am sure that is overplayed pretty much the same was as the level of US gun crime is overplayed in the UK.

Back in the early 2000 I was making regular trips to Israel on business and at one point the nuclear weapons inspectors threatened Sadam with forcible action so Sadam turned his Scuds to Israel. I phoned one of my colleagues in Israel and she just laughed and said 'we say CNN as well and thought it was quite funny'. 
Then she calmly added 'but we are making sure we know where our gas masks are just in case'...

The way the press works it is so easy to get paranoid and for things to spiral out of control - do you look on it as (to pluck numbers out of the air) and 

0.1% chance of being attacked
or
99.9% chance you are totally safe

Then again, I guess that is why we take out health insurance or car insurance.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 25, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe it is just the press over playing all of the news blowing things out of proportion. If anything the instability in that part of the world makes the 2nd amendment seem even more important.
> ...



Keep in mind the gun violence and gun issue is the same way in the US. Whatever perception you get from the media isn't reality.


----------



## rnl (Mar 2, 2017)

dcren123 said:


> It is very surprising how much difference there is regarding theft and security between countries. I was traveling in Hokkaido Japan taking pictures of Cranes last year, and this japanese photographer (maybe two of them) a few feet away from me went to the restroom for like ten minutes leaving two tripods with a Nikon+supertele and Canon+Sigma 150-600 attached with another Canon plus 70-200 2.8 hanging on the tripod out in the field. No one even glanced at those gears.



at Conowingo Dam in Maryland...i've left my 600ii and 1dxmkii to visit the facilities...never a problem.
Are there thieves? sure...but i insure my gear.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 2, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...


It's a lot like bears in the backcountry....... People worry about being attacked by bears in the woods, but your car drive to and from the wilderness is tens of thousands times more dangerous......


----------



## Inaz (Mar 2, 2017)

As a retired security professional, the best advice is to be very aware of you surroundings, and keep alert. Don't give them that element of surprise. 

As others have said, have a wingman or two, or three, although even a group can not defend very well against a gun in your face. 

Just using some common sense will in MOST cases, but certainly not all, keep you out of trouble. Things like, is it really that important that your wife wear her 1 carrot diamond ring out to a concert or sporting event ? Maybe that ring gets spotted while the both of you were walking in from the car. Then you are waited on for the walk back to the car ? That gives them several hours to plan the hit. Same with camera gear.

Weigh out the risks vs the benefits. Is it possible to "downsize" your equipment ? Like will my 60D work instead of my 5D mk III ? OR instead of the 35 f/1.4 L II would the 35 f/2 IS do almost as well ? 

I mean are you a pro going to sell this possible photo, or print it HUGE ?... if it gets printed at all ? Or is going to used to be uploaded on some social media, and/or maybe make a wallpaper on someones computer ? What if does get printed ? It will probably be an 8.5 x 11.5 or smaller in most cases. 

If you have money to pack the latest 1D along with some big white, say a 200 f/2 L, a 300 f/2.8 II L or other very high end equipment into areas that you are concerned about, then think about hiring a couple or three of body guards, that LOOK like body guards, and one that doesn't. They will be paying more attention to "big" body guards than the smaller more frail one which will have a better chance at doing his or her job if they are needed. 

Have good insurance.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 2, 2017)

Inaz said:


> As a retired security professional, the best advice is to be very aware of you surroundings, and keep alert. Don't give them that element of surprise.
> 
> As others have said, have a wingman or two, or three, although even a group can not defend very well against a gun in your face.
> 
> ...



I always hire the same two bodyguards: Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson. They charged me a one time flat fee about 15 years ago and have to show up every time I call them whether they want to or not. Extremely reliable. My gear is the least of my worries if I'm faced with a thug. No amount of insurance replaces one's life. Between myself, Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson at least we have a fighting chance at staying alive.


----------



## streestandtheatres (Mar 3, 2017)

My attitude is pretty simple.

1) Avoid being paranoid.
2) Don't worry too much.
3) Don't be attached to material possessions.
4) Don't escalate anything, ever.
5) Always acquiesce.

So far I've never had to be past step 2.


----------

