Let's Be Careful Out There

[drisley]

I was reading some news this morning, and I came across this article (http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2004/08/26/602569.html) entitled "Photog A Loner".
At first glance it looked like the usual grim story about a pedophile, but as I finished reading the article it concluded that the photographer may not have been guilty after all.
That's why I'm hyper sensitive about shooting people in public, especially when kids are around. As a result, this guy gets his name in the paper, and is told he is not allowed to take pictures in public anymore. That's pretty scary.
But with all the stuff going on nowadays, I guess people have a right to be extra careful.

[Ikinaa]

How to destroy someone's life...
Isn't someone supposed to be innocent as long as his guilt has not been proven? From what I read, his guilt has not been proven, but everyone has his opinion about him and when newspapers publish the name, it's over... I guess now everyone will point a finger at him and he will be lynched next time he's in public and children are around. (ok that's perhaps a bit exagerrated, but you get my point, don't you?)
Don't misunderstand me. I think that people that harm children should be %ç%"*ç* (if you know what i mean)

[Cadwell]

I have always been wary of photographing people, particularly children, in public for this very reason.

That's why whenever I get a new lens or camera I go and photograph the ducks. They don't complain! :lol:

[drisley]

Yeah, it's tough nowadays.
Once last year I was taking pictures of a private school building for a local website. It's a very nice historical building.
When I went, it was in the middle of the day, but I made sure there were no kids outside. I still felt weird taking pictures. At one point a plain dressed man came out to me. He didnt really say anythiing, so I immediately told him what I was doing, and he could have a look at all the pictures. He asked if I could come inside. Once inside I talked to the schoolmaster, and explained what I was doing. He said no problem at all, but next time just come and ask first. He said that they've had to call the cops a few times because there were in fact perverts who stand outside the gates and take pics.
Once we got all that straightened out, I was given free run of the grounds to take pictures of the heritage buildings.
I was weary about things like that before that situation, and now I'm even more so.
Shooting candids at events is my favourite type of photography though. :cry:

I guess if that guy in the article was completely innocent, he wouldnt have tried to erase his pictures b4 the cops got to him. :?:

[Andy_T]

There's another article on the incident:

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/OttawaSun/News/2004/08/24/599055.html

It states that he had two cameras, one of them disguised with paper and tape. That fact might arise suspicion, I would assume.

Best regards,
Andy

[RinkRat]

Wow, what a shame.

I guess that means if I wanted to shoot some children's sporting events, I would have to ask first? I don't want to sell pictures though. Just for fun.

How would I go about it? Talk to the coaches first? Go to a league meeting? (be kind, I've been a "photographer" for a whole 60 days)

Now I get understand why some parents were looking funny at my wife & I, when we took some pictures at a pee-wee football game.

My cats, & ducks get quite boring to photograph after a while. :)

[Penguin_101_1]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39142&highlight=

[Ikinaa]

Wow, what a shame.

I guess that means if I wanted to shoot some children's sporting events, I would have to ask first? I don't want to sell pictures though. Just for fun.

How would I go about it? Talk to the coaches first? Go to a league meeting? (be kind, I've been a "photographer" for a whole 60 days)

Now I get understand why some parents were looking funny at my wife & I, when we took some pictures at a pee-wee football game.

My cats, & ducks get quite boring to photograph after a while. :)

Just a thought... when Parents are looking funny when you shoot, go to them, tell them you're a photographer and if they want, they can buy prints of their children playing football... That will take suspicion from you, earn you cash and gratefulness of the whole bunch of parents...

[Ikinaa]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39142&highlight=

I thought about that too, but didn't want to bring it up, because that was some heavy discussion last time...

[roanjohn]

I was kicked out of a carnival/fair once for taking long exposure pics of the ferris wheel at night with my Rebel and tripod.

.........and mind you, I saw people taking pics with thier G3's, Elphs and etc.........

When I asked why they don't want me here when I see other people with thier cameras as well, this was thier reply.

"Oh, cuz we don't know you.........and you need a permit."

.........and when I asked where I might obtain that permit.

"Ummm, let me ask my supervisor but you can't take any more pics here tonight."

..........I was embarassed and I left.

I guess its a different world we live in.

Ro1

[ejwebb]

I was recently waiting for my wife in the parking lot of an outlet center - just sitting in the truck with the kids watching a DVD in the back. I got out my camera and was reviewing images from earlier in the day and turned the camera toward the store - shot a few frames of the darkening sky and storefronts, etc. just playing around.

About 10 minutes later the security guard pulled up behind me with his brights on - took down my license and talked on his radio for a minute and then approached the car. He asked if I had a camera and I showed him. He said someone had told him that I was taking pictures outside the children's stores and they were concerned that I had bad intentions. He was ok about it but it might have been a different story if my kids weren't in the back and my wife had not walked up while he was there. Kind of scary.

This all happened just an hour after we left another outlet mall that had signs posted on the doors that cameras were not allowed inside!!

Are people paranoid or what?

[Cadenza]

That's what this country's become under the
hysteria promoted by the current administration.
I was harassed this week for taking a picture
of... a neighborhood taqueria!!! Nowhere near
any strategic security interests.

The private security guard called the cops on
me, and a policeman actually pulled me aside
to ask me if I had any guns! Thanks, Mr. Bush.
I feel so safe now.

[drisley]

Wowza :shock:
Luckily it's not that bad up here yet.
But in the US, it almost sounds like you might get in trouble just taking pictures of a landmark like the statue of libery?
:?

[Big_B]

It can be pretty bad in the UK too. This is one of many incidents that happened last christmas:


A primary school in Norfolk has joined the growing number around the country in banning cameras at its nativity play on Wednesday.

....

School governors said it would have been impossible to ensure any filmed material did not end up in the hands of paedophiles.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2588845.stm

Its a crazy world when parents can't film their own kids.

[Cadenza]

It's a good thing I hate children.

[jgbeam]

I shoot many childrens' stage productions as the defacto official photographer but am constantly aware of this issue. It definitely has an effect on my shooting. I make it a practice to give the school a CD of all my shots, with no missing files, so they have a record of exactly what I shot. I also compile a CD for parents, relatives and friends of the students which I sell at a nominal fee, usually about $5. So far, no problems, but it is a constant concern.

Jim

[cmM]

this is crazy.... I'm so sick of stuff like this.
I think many of us had similar incidents with the authorities. I know I was embarrased once when I was taking picture of a highway at night and 2 police cars blocked half the damned street to question me for 5 minutes why I was taking pictures of a highway... :roll:
Makes me wonder about the future of *freedom* in this country

[jaypie77]

Cadenza - I've reported your child-hating to the police. Expect a visit from a local law enforcement official and area news reporters shortly.

Seriously, though, this is ridiculous. The idea that a paedophile would take pictures of all the kids at a school and then would plot to abduct kids from his/her secret child molesting hideout is preposterous. Firstly, most children that are abducted, are abducted by their parents, friends, or somebody they know. Abduction by stranger is relatively uncommon, and I would bet that a kidnapper would want to NOT attract the attention that a photographer attracts. Furthermore, I would imagine that most child abductions are unplanned and are simply crimes of opportunity (ie: a child alone on a playground with nobody around at all and the kidnapper is driving through the neighborhood on the way to the store).

The hysteria over this type of crime has gone to the point where people don't even have a reasonable idea of the reailty of the crimes that they want to protect their children from - which puts the kids at greater risk.

[schmoelzel]

I own a small tea-shop here in a large public Market building in London Ontario and recently bought a 70-200 F4 lens (thanx DRISLEY!!) I was taking pictures of the market and the front of my shop when one of the security guards approached and asked what I was taking pictures of. I told him that I was testing out the new lens and he informed me that the policy of the market now required that you obtain permission from the administration before using a camera! I am a vendor here and checked my lease agreement and there was no mention of this in the lease. He proceeded to tell me that some 'men' had been taking photo's of women in the market..........it seems that everyone is paranoid these days. He let me continue taking pictures once I told him that I owned the shop we were standing in front of!

Next week I am off to Germany for two weeks. I hope I don't have to apply for permission to take photo's at every place we stop at..........

[Jmurman]

That's what this country's become under the
histeria promoted by the current administration.
I was harassed this week for taking a picture
of... a neighborhood taqueria!!! Nowhere near
any strategic security interests.

The private security guard called the cops on
me, and a policeman actually pulled me aside
to ask me if I had any guns! Thanks, Mr. Bush.
I feel so safe now.

Its not Bush thats making you feel unsafe, how about the people that would think nothing of taking out kids for their own agenda?

We had an incident the other day where a Middle Eastern couple were video taping the Chesapeake Bay Bridge.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/custom/attack/bal-te.md.suspect26aug26,1,6856267.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

[jaypie77]

Jmurman - That is a very frightening story. I recall once taking a trip and doing some typical tourist type of photography - architecture, parks, statues, bridges, etc... Imagine if my vacation photos had gotten into the wrong hands! I still wake up in a cold sweat thinking about it.

[Cadenza]

Jmurman - That is a very frightening story. I recall once taking a trip and doing some typical tourist type of photography - architecture, parks, statues, bridges, etc... Imagine if my vacation photos had gotten into the wrong hands! I still wake up in a cold sweat thinking about it.

Or worse! Imagine if these terrorists found out about newstands
and bookstores, where they can buy postcards and coffee table
books of these landmarks in complete anonymity!

[ejwebb]

Anyone that thinks restricting photograpy in public places will end or even reduce crime and terrorism is out of touch with reality. Should we also restrict pens and paper so no one can take notes or sketch? Where does it all end? Maybe if we eliminate all the tools that could be used for such crimes we will eliminate the desire to commit them. No nail clippers on an airplane - but which can do more damage - nail clippers or a sharpened wooden pencil?

I really don't have a problem if someone wants to ask what I'm up to in order to let me know they are aware of my actions and to feel me out - that is their right. But I do have a problem with harrassment or restrictions of my freedom to begin with - particularly in public places.

If someone wants to commit terrorist acts or other crimes they will find a way. Would 9/11 have been prevented if photographing the Centers was illegal? I am not suggesting that we just give up and give in but some measures are so ineffective that it is just incredible that they are even considered.

[Jon]

Jmurman - That is a very frightening story. I recall once taking a trip and doing some typical tourist type of photography - architecture, parks, statues, bridges, etc... Imagine if my vacation photos had gotten into the wrong hands! I still wake up in a cold sweat thinking about it.

Or worse! Imagine if these terrorists found out about newstands
and bookstores, where they can buy postcards and coffee table
books of these landmarks in complete anonymity!

Department of Homeland Insecurity did promulgate an advisory whereby almanacs were deemed suspicious.

[Jon]

If someone wants to commit terrorist acts or other crimes they will find a way. Would 9/11 have been prevented if photographing the Centers was illegal? I am not suggesting that we just give up and give in but some measures are so ineffective that it is just incredible that they are even considered.

They aren't suggested because anyone who's looked at them seriously believes they're effective (at least I hope the promulgators have really examined their own proposals). They're being imposed because they give the appearance of responding to the situation. Even if they're in response to a situation that would never recur (how many people will sit by while their airline is hijacked, never mind that the cockpit doors have been reinforced against break-ins?). So we get Congressional Medal of Honor winners being stopped because their mini-CMH violates some irrelevant prohibition.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Near the City park where I do some of my "heron" shooting.. there is a softball feild complex (4 diamonds)

Last Fall when school had started I used to walk across to the games or practices in session when I was having no luck with the wildlife.. and I would try my hand at sports.

Timing the pitches.. the swings.. the catches etc...

All stuff I have no experience with and what seemed like the perfect atmosphere in which to learn/practice. (it was here by the way that I discovered my Sigma 70-200mm/Hoya UV filter focus issue)

Anyway.. one day I was taking photos and getting a few shots of "The Wizards" pitcher when it occured to me.. this young lady is not only only good,. but she is going to grow up to be a very beautifull young woman"

:shock:

Suddenly it occured to me just how "crude" my presence could be interpereted. :(

I had seen it all as kids having fun,. and athletes working hard.
But the possibility of being seen as some kind of "masher" had allways been there.. I just failed to see it.


All of the things that happened to this guy in the article here went through my mind.

The arrest, the confiscation of equipment, the thought of State Police delving into my Hard drives at home.. (which, I admit, are not 100% innocent as far as downloaded material)

I left the field and have never returned.

I used to go to those same fields to watch my Girlfriends daughter play in the same league and cheer her on.... Now without that connection (Samantha has long since graduated) all I can be seen as is a "pervert"

What can you do?

[Jmurman]

Jmurman - That is a very frightening story. I recall once taking a trip and doing some typical tourist type of photography - architecture, parks, statues, bridges, etc... Imagine if my vacation photos had gotten into the wrong hands! I still wake up in a cold sweat thinking about it.

Or worse! Imagine if these terrorists found out about newstands
and bookstores, where they can buy postcards and coffee table
books of these landmarks in complete anonymity!

Ok, so here is the kicker. The Sun paper ran a full page story on this today. In it was a detailed scale drawing of the entire structure...showing where the "weak" points of the bridge are. :shock:

These guys dont need cameras, just a subscription to the paper!

[Jmurman]

Near the City park where I do some of my "heron" shooting.. there is a softball feild complex (4 diamonds)

Last Fall when school had started I used to walk across to the games or practices in session when I was having no luck with the wildlife.. and I would try my hand at sports.

Timing the pitches.. the swings.. the catches etc...

All stuff I have no experience with and what seemed like the perfect atmosphere in which to learn/practice. (it was here by the way that I discovered my Sigma 70-200mm/Hoya UV filter focus issue)

Anyway.. one day I was taking photos and getting a few shots of "The Wizards" pitcher when it occured to me.. this young lady is not only only good,. but she is going to grow up to be a very beautifull young woman"

:shock:

Suddenly it occured to me just how "crude" my presence could be interpereted. :(

I had seen it all as kids having fun,. and athletes working hard.
But the possibility of being seen as some kind of "masher" had allways been there.. I just failed to see it.


All of the things that happened to this guy in the article here went through my mind.

The arrest, the confiscation of equipment, the thought of State Police delving into my Hard drives at home.. (which, I admit, are not 100% innocent as far as downloaded material)

I left the field and have never returned.

I used to go to those same fields to watch my Girlfriends daughter play in the same league and cheer her on.... Now without that connection (Samantha has long since graduated) all I can be seen as is a "pervert"

What can you do?

I know what you are saying. I am in a unique position here. I have two grown children and when they were younger it would be no big deal to get the standard bath tub shots with all the bubbles. I have sinced re-married and have a 3yo daughter. No way am I going to take bath tub shots now. Crazy huh?

[Jon]

Ok, so here is the kicker. The Sun paper ran a full page story on this today. In it was a detailed scale drawing of the entire structure...showing where the "weak" points of the bridge are. :shock:

These guys dont need cameras, just a subscription to the paper!

Or a standard book on civil engineering, or some military combat engineering training, or . . . Osama is a civil engineer, remember.

[jaypie77]

The fact that we have to think like this really pisses me off.

My parents are immigrants from the former Soviet Bloc and my mother always used to say that the worst thing about the US as opposed to the old country is that you knew that you could never trust the authorities. In the US, conversely, it's never that clear.

[Jmurman]

The fact that we have to think like this really pisses me off.

My parents are immigrants from the former Soviet Bloc and my mother always used to say that the worst thing about the US as opposed to the old country is that you knew that you could never trust the authorities. In the US, conversely, it's never that clear.

yup...but getting clearer.

[Persian-Rice]

This is sad, but you can understand that with some of the recent child pornography, Cecilia Zhang and Holly tragedies, Torontonians seem to have become somewhat over-protective and paranoid.

I'm looking to build a small studio in my basement, and I have seriously considered either avoiding younger girls n' boys or if it is a must I think I ill create some sort of a parent permission form and even welcome them to attend any photo shoots that may transpire. I also think that I will refrain from shooting younger kids 16 & younger in public places......... Once a persons image is tainted, justifiable/guilty or not, people seem to never forget.

I really feel sorry for him, he probably had the best of intentions, yet might be looked at as some child predator. In general most in North America are paranoid about everything nowadays, this really hurts some people like photographers.

[Aylwin]

It seems to me that once you cross the English channel and stretch out across the Atlantic the degree of paranoia increases exponentially. Is it a cultural thing? It doesn't seem to me that the rest of Europe is like this. At least I know the Nordic countries aren't.

My wife comes from a Nordic country and she knows of a family that moved to the U.S. One day, an American friend is at their home going through the family photo albums. In some photos, their small children are naked (running around, playing, whatever). The next thing you know, social workers are at the door coming to investigate child abuse or something.

I don't know the rest of the story but I won't be surprised if the poor couple ended up being branded as something they're not. Regardless of how the investigation went, the gossip would take care of it.

By the way, I find it funny that people with SLRs and fancy camera equipment are the ones that attract suspicion. Attention, yes. But suspicion? How many terrorists, spies, paedophiles (spelling?), etc. will take their photography seriously? Would they really use cameras that attract attention? Would they take their time to make sure the exposure, focus, DoF, etc. is perfect? Haven't people watched enough movies to know that the bad guys have cameras that don't even look like cameras?

[Persian-Rice]

Aylwin, it is a North American thing for sure. I think it was bad before 911 and just got exponentially worse.

The whole culture is shifting towards negativity lately. I noticed the same thing as you did, Europe and Asia dont have this kind of problem. Nowadays, at least here in Toronto, crime has come down yet the news makes it sound like it has shot up 500%. The constant bombardment of news of people getting shot, kids going missing and so on and so forth, you think there is some kind of epedemic going on.

Then you have the homeland security thing that is making Americans jump out of their seats for no appernt reason every other week...........

In all reality, its pretty darn good here.

[drisley]

I own a small tea-shop here in a large public Market building in London Ontario and recently bought a 70-200 F4 lens (thanx DRISLEY!!) I was taking pictures of the market and the front of my shop when one of the security guards approached and asked what I was taking pictures of. I told him that I was testing out the new lens and he informed me that the policy of the market now required that you obtain permission from the administration before using a camera! I am a vendor here and checked my lease agreement and there was no mention of this in the lease. He proceeded to tell me that some 'men' had been taking photo's of women in the market..........it seems that everyone is paranoid these days. He let me continue taking pictures once I told him that I owned the shop we were standing in front of!


That is crazy. Did you give them your best "heil" as they walked away. :lol:
I think some of this paranoia has to do with the invention of cellphone cameras. Whole new privacy laws are being written because of these little devices.
However, the old addage that "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about" seems to no longer apply. :roll:

[Ikinaa]

...

My wife comes from a Nordic country and she knows of a family that moved to the U.S. One day, an American friend is at their home going through the family photo albums. In some photos, their small children are naked (running around, playing, whatever). The next thing you know, social workers are at the door coming to investigate child abuse or something.

...


<cynic>Now that are nice friends everybody wishes to have...</cynic>

[Aylwin]

I think some of this paranoia has to do with the invention of cellphone cameras. Whole new privacy laws are being written because of these little devices.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the Pacific... these little devices have reached megapixel proportions and continue to improve. A few weeks ago, I was at a mall where a mobile operater was promoting it's new mobile phone offerings. As part of the promo, they'd take your picture with one of the mobile phones, print it out and then give back to you. Of course, the prints weren't that good but they weren't that bad either.

[IndyJeff]

That's what this country's become under the
hysteria promoted by the current administration.
I was harassed this week for taking a picture
of... a neighborhood taqueria!!! Nowhere near
any strategic security interests.

The private security guard called the cops on
me, and a policeman actually pulled me aside
to ask me if I had any guns! Thanks, Mr. Bush.
I feel so safe now.


Yeah and if there is another terrorist attack on this country you will probably be the first to come on here and say how Bush allowed it to happen. What a tool.

[Penguin_101_1]

That's what this country's become under the
hysteria promoted by the current administration.
I was harassed this week for taking a picture
of... a neighborhood taqueria!!! Nowhere near
any strategic security interests.

The private security guard called the cops on
me, and a policeman actually pulled me aside
to ask me if I had any guns! Thanks, Mr. Bush.
I feel so safe now.


Yeah and if there is another terrorist attack on this country you will probably be the first to come on here and say how Bush allowed it to happen. What a tool.

I agree with you IndyJeff. We need to put more guns on the street in order to make it safer! I am not kidding about that either.

[IndyJeff]

I hear ya Penguin. What we need to do too is quit searching grandma at the airport and start searching those that fit the profile of a terrorist. PC mindset is nothing but moronic.

[Andy_T]

Yeah and if there is another terrorist attack on this country you will probably be the first to come on here and say how Bush allowed it to happen. What a tool.

I'm happy that in this case the potential terrorist attack on the taqueria has been prevented thanks to our friendly neighbourhood vigilantes.

I also agree that it would be better if they had guns in order to shoot suspects on site (maybe also on sight)... much more rewarding than just reporting to the police.

:roll:

Best regards,
Andy

[ejwebb]

I agree with you IndyJeff. We need to put more guns on the street in order to make it safer! I am not kidding about that either.

Seems to me that everyone toting around guns only deteriorates our security and freedom and makes us more like those that we are protecting ourselves from. If there were more guns you would just be forced to cease your photography at gunpoint or would you just whip the gun out of your camera bag and blow the guys head off?

[Tom W]

I agree with you IndyJeff. We need to put more guns on the street in order to make it safer! I am not kidding about that either.

Seems to me that everyone toting around guns only deteriorates our security and freedom and makes us more like those that we are protecting ourselves from. If there were more guns you would just be forced to cease your photography at gunpoint or would you just whip the gun out of your camera bag and blow the guys head off?

Out here in "flyover" country, about 50% of the population regularly carries a gun, whether with or without a permit. Its not a shooting gallery. We're pretty self-relaint out here. I don't know how well that would work in places with a very high population density like NY, but it works fine out here. Plus, everyone is very polite. :)

Anyway, getting back to the original subject, I hadn't given it much thought, but I'm going to be a lot more careful taking images at the park when kids are around. Parents do have an instinct to protect their kids from threats, real or percieved. And given today's whacky "for the children at all costs" society, there's plenty of reason to not even let someone think you're a threat to their younguns.

[Tom W]

By the way, I find it funny that people with SLRs and fancy camera equipment are the ones that attract suspicion. Attention, yes. But suspicion? How many terrorists, spies, paedophiles (spelling?), etc. will take their photography seriously? Would they really use cameras that attract attention? Would they take their time to make sure the exposure, focus, DoF, etc. is perfect? Haven't people watched enough movies to know that the bad guys have cameras that don't even look like cameras?

You've got that right. If I were intent on taking images for less-than-wholesome purposes, I'd likely do it in a more stealthy mode. The S-400 fits neatly in a shirt pocket and looks like a pack of cigarettes. That would be my choice.

[Jmurman]

an armed society is a polite society.... :)

[Ikinaa]

an armed society is a polite society.... :)

hmmm politeness generated by fear, not respect... IMO not the right way...

[Tom W]

an armed society is a polite society.... :)

hmmm politeness generated by fear, not respect... IMO not the right way...

It isn't fear - its genuine, at least around here. Regardless, the phrase does seem to hold true. Maybe fear keeps the pimply-faced punk from stealing my car with the NRA sticker on it, but that's just fine. If he wasn't brought up to respect others' property, then fear is the best tool.

But of course, politeness isn't the reason for wanting to be armed. A quick reading of the original Federalist papers gives some strong insights on why most American households have at least one gun - the right to keep and bear arms is in our constitution to prevent fear, as in fear from the government.

I'd never advocate giving dot-gov a monopoly on firearms. That's too much power in too few hands. Keeping arms among the populace disperses the power as it should be.

[Belmondo]

Being the victim of a criminal is largely bad luck. Being the victim of an oppressive government is bad planning. Arming one's self against criminals is optional. Arming one's self against a government that works best when it fears (respects) an armed citizenry is mandatory.

I'm probably near the top of the list of the most strident non-violent people anywhere, but I would consider myself extremely foolish if I relied exclusively on the government to defend my home for me. And then, what if the government is what my home needed defending from?

[ejwebb]

I am not disputing our right to own guns to protect ourselves (from criminals, terrorist or the government if need be) nor am I bashing those that own and carry weapons responsibly, although I don't personally own a gun or feel the necessity to carry one - most of my family members do own them.

I just don't think that arming more citizens (which includes those that are not responsible as well as those that are) serves as a deterrent to terrorists/criminals wanting to do wrong but does increase the likelihood of violence among those that otherwise would not.

[Tom W]

I am not disputing our right to own guns to protect ourselves (from criminals, terrorist or the government if need be) nor am I bashing those that own and carry weapons responsibly, although I don't personally own a gun or feel the necessity to carry one - most of my family members do own them.

I just don't think that arming more citizens (which includes those that are not responsible as well as those that are) serves as a deterrent to terrorists/criminals wanting to do wrong but does increase the likelihood of violence among those that otherwise would not.

I don't know that an armed citizenry is a huge deterrent against terrorism, but I do know that if I had been on one of those planes on 9/11 and I had been armed, it would have landed safely at an airport with authorities waiting. As for the effects on criminals, I point to the statistics - in most cases, crime is highest in the areas with the most restrictive gun laws.

[ejwebb]

I don't know that an armed citizenry is a huge deterrent against terrorism, but I do know that if I had been on one of those planes on 9/11 and I had been armed, it would have landed safely at an airport with authorities waiting. As for the effects on criminals, I point to the statistics - in most cases, crime is highest in the areas with the most restrictive gun laws.

That may be true - or not, depending on who won the firefight. If there were no airline restrictions on carrying guns then the bad guys would have had them, too. The idea of lifting the airline restrictions on guns does not make me feel safer in any way, although the restrictions on nail clippers could be loosened.:lol:

And I don't trust statistics unless I have all the relevent data to review. It's too easy to make the numbers say what you want - even using factual information. Were the gun laws possibly enacted as a response to the high crime in the area? And how do you account for other variables in the populations?

Again, I don't disagree with a citizen's right to bear arms - I just don't think advocating that more people carry them resolves the current issues of safety and security. In fact, I think it feeds the paranoia when everyone feels it is necessary to carry a weapon everywhere they go.

Oh, well - just my $.02. I guess we should just agree to disagree on this and let the thread get back on topic. It has been a good discussion. :)

[Aylwin]

but I do know that if I had been on one of those planes on 9/11 and I had been armed, it would have landed safely at an airport with authorities waiting.
That may be true - or not, depending on who won the firefight. If there were no airline restrictions on carrying guns then the bad guys would have had them, too.
A shoot out in an airplane at 33,000 ft.? I seriously doubt anyone's coming out of this one alive. :roll:

There may, however, be a point to allowing guns on board a plane. If everyone had guns (the terrorists, the pilots, the flight attendants, and all the other passengers) then I thinking hijacking a plane would be very difficult. On the other hand, this would be perfect for suicide terrorists. They'd simply start shooting... at whatever. :roll:

[Tom W]

but I do know that if I had been on one of those planes on 9/11 and I had been armed, it would have landed safely at an airport with authorities waiting.
That may be true - or not, depending on who won the firefight. If there were no airline restrictions on carrying guns then the bad guys would have had them, too.
A shoot out in an airplane at 33,000 ft.? I seriously doubt anyone's coming out of this one alive. :roll:

On the decompression issue, I present this:

http://www.thegunzone.com/091101/goldfinger.html

and this:

http://kwc.org/blog/archives/2004/2004-01-18.mythbusters_explosive_decompression.html

There may, however, be a point to allowing guns on board a plane. If everyone had guns (the terrorists, the pilots, the flight attendants, and all the other passengers) then I thinking hijacking a plane would be very difficult. On the other hand, this would be perfect for suicide terrorists. They'd simply start shooting... at whatever. :roll:

Air Marshalls already carry guns on planes, and did before 9/11 (the very few marshalls that existed). Pilots are supposed to be able to carry them too (In the US), but there's been all kinds of red tape with that issue. Private pilots are relatively free to carry if they desire, provided they stay away from commercial airports. I wouldn't have a problem with off-duty police carrying their weapon on board. Even CCW-holders wouldn't bother me.

[ejwebb]

I love the Mythbusters - even seen this one twice!!

[CyberDyneSystems]

The rouble with the mythbusters is they have a plane that is parked on the ground.. not moving 300MPH etc...

There have been a number of incidents.. one over hawaii I remeber particulary.. because the pilots were able to save the plane.. where a small hole resulted in a large section of the plane being ripped open.

I don't see the "test" in an airplane graveyard as having a lot of relevance to a plane 30,000 feet up moving at 300mph.

[Persian-Rice]

I will never agree with wide use of guns. But I tell you this, the saying that goes "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is true.

There is nothing wrong with carrying a gun, the issue comes along when the person carrying it does not know how to properly use it and is willing to use it at the first problem he/she see's fit.

Tom, I think the main reason for the difference in gun violence where you live and where I live, even though you guys carry them as a common tool, is that there is a certain level of respect and you can say a set of unwritten rules. The unfortunate thing is, when you move up into major cities like New York, Toronto, LA etc etc, the diversity of cultures and people in general create all sorts of problems.

You guys grow up with guns and live among them. Places like where I live, hundreds and thousands immigrate everyday, this creates an obvious contrast withing cultures from one household to another . I think this is the reason why even though our population carries less then maybe 1/4 of guns as your population does, crimes and the use of them is much higher.

Over here, people shoot other people for things like looking at someone funny or someone telling someone else to F off. Now I am not perfectly sure, but Tom, would you shoot someone of that happened to you? I don't think so, but over here it happens more then once a day, and Toronto is considered one of the safer major cities in North America.

For your people(as in your culture) carrying a gun might be a good cure, for people where I come from all it does is create more problems.

[Persian-Rice]

The rouble with the mythbusters is they have a plane that is parked on the ground.. not moving 300MPH etc...

There have been a number of incidents.. one over hawaii I remeber particulary.. because the pilots were able to save the plane.. where a small hole resulted in a large section of the plane being ripped open.

I don't see the "test" in an airplane graveyard as having a lot of relevance to a plane 30,000 feet up moving at 300mph.

Well said, I was about to argue this, but you spoke my mind :D

[Tom W]

The rouble with the mythbusters is they have a plane that is parked on the ground.. not moving 300MPH etc...

There have been a number of incidents.. one over hawaii I remeber particulary.. because the pilots were able to save the plane.. where a small hole resulted in a large section of the plane being ripped open.

I don't see the "test" in an airplane graveyard as having a lot of relevance to a plane 30,000 feet up moving at 300mph.

You're thinking of flight 811 out of Honolulu - the forward lower cargo door dislodged and tore up the fuselage behind the door. The result was 8 passingers ejected from the plane. This was due to a large piece of the plane dislodging, not a small bullet-sized hole. Planes are equipped with holes larger than that.

Anyway, you're right in that the test at mythbusters did not take into account the slipstream and its effects on the plane. If an entire window were blown out (not likely from gunshot since they aren't glass), the location of the window would probably determine how much of an effect the moving air would have on the opening. I wouldn't want to be in that window seat, and I certainly wouldn't want to be unbuckled.

[IndyJeff]

I am not disputing our right to own guns to protect ourselves (from criminals, terrorist or the government if need be) nor am I bashing those that own and carry weapons responsibly, although I don't personally own a gun or feel the necessity to carry one - most of my family members do own them.

I just don't think that arming more citizens (which includes those that are not responsible as well as those that are) serves as a deterrent to terrorists/criminals wanting to do wrong but does increase the likelihood of violence among those that otherwise would not.


ej, I am sorry but your thinking is incorrect. When properly licensed, a right to carry state has been shown to have a decrease in crime.

* Between 1977 and 1992, 10 states adopted right-to-carry laws. Dr. Lott's study found that the implementation of these laws created:
-- no change in suicide rates,
-- a .5% rise in accidental firearm deaths,
-- a 5% decline in rapes,
-- a 7% decline in aggravated assaults,
-- and an 8% decline in murder

for the 10 states that adopted these laws between 1977 and 1992. (7)
* Using 1995 numbers, this amounts to:

-- 1 more accidental gun death,
-- 316 less murders,
-- 939 less rapes,
-- and 14,702 less aggravated assaults

in these 10 states annually. (16)




When Florida enacted a right to carry law, which they needed, changes began to happen.

[quote]* When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:
Florida United States
homicide rate -36% -.4%
firearm homicide rate -37% +15%
handgun homicide rate -41% +24%
(3)

* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)

* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)

* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life. (7)

[quote]

An incident occurred in Texas where a man walked into a restuarant and began blowing people away. If I remember correctly there were maybe 13 people injured and 7 or so killed. The sad part of it was, this one lady who was a traveling salesperson was meeting her mom and dad there for lunch. She arrived and before she got out of her car she removed a pistol from her purse and left it in the car. Her father was killed and in an interview I heard with her she stated that, if she had a carry permit she wouldn't have left the gun in the car and her father and a lot of other people wouldn't have been shot. The gunman had his back to her as he began firing at random. She said that at the most 3 people would have been shot before she dropped him. That was a perfect example of someone who should have been DRT.


If criminals know that no one has a gun they will prey upon anyone and everyone. When they aren't sure who is armed and who isn't, they are little more cautious about who they target.

[ejwebb]

IndyJeff,

We obviously have differing opinions on this and, as with all subjective opinions it is difficult, if not impossible, to prove one or the other's thinking "correct" or "incorrect". All the statistics in the world will not convince me that our world would be a better place if everyone carried a gun. I prefer to believe that a society should pursue solutions that enable its citizens to feel free to walk down the street without a gun for protection.

Additionally, while the crime rates may have declined after such laws were enacted, I find it hard to believe that anyone can PROVE that the declines were a direct result of the laws. Again, there are any number of factors that influence such trends and I would be surprised if a truly scientific study could contemplate the interplay of all such variables to support these conclusions.

Again, my opinion.

[jgbeam]

Lets just stick to shooting cameras. :wink:

Jim

[Belmondo]

Heck no. After we talk about the Republican Convention and gun control, we're going to swing into a no-holds-barred discussion on abortion, gay marriage, and prayer in schools. We'll follow that up with a couple days worth of religious debate.

We may never have to talk about photography again.
:roll: :?

[IndyJeff]

IndyJeff,

We obviously have differing opinions on this and, as with all subjective opinions it is difficult, if not impossible, to prove one or the other's thinking "correct" or "incorrect". All the statistics in the world will not convince me that our world would be a better place if everyone carried a gun. I prefer to believe that a society should pursue solutions that enable its citizens to feel free to walk down the street without a gun for protection.

I never said "if everyone carried a gun". I don't believe if everyone was armed it was be a safer society, in fact I think it would be much more dangerous.
That is why people must apply for a permit to carry. People are denied permits all the time because of variuos reasons. If your fresh out of the nut house your chances of getting a carry permit are about as good as mine being elected president on a write in ballot this year. In fact I think I have a better chance LOL.
Society does have a soultion so people can walk down the street and feel safe, it is called prison.
Additionally, while the crime rates may have declined after such laws were enacted, I find it hard to believe that anyone can PROVE that the declines were a direct result of the laws. Again, there are any number of factors that influence such trends and I would be surprised if a truly scientific study could contemplate the interplay of all such variables to support these conclusions.

Again, my opinion.

While it may not be scientific, it is a fact that states which enacted right to carry laws had a decline in major crimes, nationwide. On the otherhand, states which didn't think it's responsible citizens should be armed has shown an increase in crime in the same years that the study was done in.
In an interview I read sometime ago, a convict who was doing life without parole stated that when he was committing crimes he would pick victims he thought to be least amount of resistance. When informed of the right to carry laws that had been proposed he stated that a lot of criminals should be considering looking for another line of work.
While this is not directed at you, it is directed at your objecting points. When confronted with facts of RTC laws opponents state that many factors can come in to play such as new laws which were enacted. Yet when the fact is brought up that tougher laws were enacted in states that had no RTC laws, crime went up. Again, there are many factors to consider. Why can't they admit that maybe, just maybe the RTC laws have helped reduce crime? They can't because that would defeat their agenda of disarming all citizens.

I will tell you this, I have participated in debates on the subject of crime and guns for years. I am very pro-gun but, I believe that what we need are jusrisdictions that will enforce laws already on the books, not enact new laws which will be lightly enforced if at all. I am also in favor of background checks before purchasing a weapon, or getting a license to carry one.

[cmM]

Heck no. After we talk about the Republican Convention and gun control, we're going to swing into a no-holds-barred discussion on abortion, gay marriage, and prayer in schools. We'll follow that up with a couple days worth of religious debate.

We may never have to talk about photography again.
:roll: :?
LMAO !!!!
Why do you have to bring that up belmondo? Get this people started (including me) and you are deffinitely right... we may never get to talk about photography.

[Aylwin]

Heck no. After we talk about the Republican Convention and gun control, we're going to swing into a no-holds-barred discussion on abortion, gay marriage, and prayer in schools. We'll follow that up with a couple days worth of religious debate.
Okay, here it goes. Women should have the right to choose, gays should be able to do whatever they want but not be allowed to raise kids (call me old-fashioned) and prayer in schools shouldn't be mandatory (not everyone prays to the same god) although everyone should be allowed to pray if they wish.

By the way, I love debate. I find it a shame that most people don't. I don't believe in social taboos on what's inappropriate to discuss. I believe that sensible adults can discuss anything and be mature enough to realise that not everyone has to agree and that's okay.

Bring it on! :twisted:

[CyberDyneSystems]

It's not carrying firearms that would make the world safer..

We need to make "duelling" legal again! :)

I say this half heartedly of course..

But there is some thought behind this. I have spent a good deal of time reading about the early 1800's... and how people behaved to one another back then was truly a different cosmos from the world as we know it now.

Bottom line.. people were much more carefull about how they spoke to eachother. An insult could very well result in a life and death situation.

[RichardtheSane]

Bottom line.. people were much more carefull about how they spoke to eachother. An insult could very well result in a life and death situation.

Sounds like some of the shadier areas near where I live :D :D

In the UK all handguns above .22 are illegal to own in a private household. If you want a Shotgun you need to apply for a shotgun license from the police, I have a license and they are not so easy to get! If you wish to own a rifle then you need a firearms license, which are harder to get. When you apply the police will investigate you, check medical history etc.

The complete ban on handguns above .22 led to a lot of rare and valuable firearms being deactivated and was a kneejerk reaction by the government because of the actions of one man who misused handguns.

I for one welcome the day (If ever) that the restrictions on handguns are lifted. Even though it always has been illegal to carry a firearm in public (Unless it is in a case and not loaded).

The UK police don't carry guns either, if there is a situation where firearms are involved they will call up a special unit to deal with it.

Just a bit of info about other countries for you.

[eric1]

in Missouri it's legal to carry a hand gun. they just passed this law. i guess the whole premiss to this is making the crooks think twice. they don't know if your packing or not. the thing that bothers me is if i have a gun, and i shoot someone, i go to prison. i've worked on a few prisons, not the place i want to be. i don't want a jury trying to decide whether it was self defence or not. too much margin of error for me. i guess for me, i'll let the others carry the guns, and i'll just have to talk my way out of it. :shock:

[neil_r]

This forum used to have a real international flavour, but over the last 12 months it seems to have taken a real US bias.

There have been a number of really contentious posts lately, stimulated by US foreign policy, the up and coming elections, the Patriot Act and many other incidents and circumstances in the USA. It is really interesting to follow the polarised (polarized) debate, with the usual protagonists taking there respective stance. The only thing we know for sure at the start of these threads is that there will be no compromise or change of opinion brought about by reasoned debate.

Some of the more interesting views lately…

Only people that fit a “terrorist profile” should be targeted (now I may be wrong, but I took this to be racist) however prior to 9/11 I guess the Murrah Federal Office bombing in Oklahoma City was about the biggest terrorist outrage in recent times in the US and would Timothy McVey fit the current profile.

Iraq was invaded for ignoring a UN mandate, indeed it was, but where was the UN mandate or even support for the US/UK invasion. When someone tried to inject the fact that Israel was in breach of several UN mandates there were screams of anti Semitism and CDS had to lock the tread.

There is a hint in this thread that guns can make the world a safer place. OK but I am sure that the victims of John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo “The Washington Snipers”, would not take that view, and I am not even going to mention Columbine

Going back a little further..

There appeared to be a consensus a while back that the woman who took the photographs of the US caskets being flown out of the middle east should have lost her job because she was not supposed too and it contravened her contract of employment, there may be some merit in that argument, however it does tend to ignore the fact that people have a right to know what is being done in their name and what the consequences of those actions are. I for one am glad that people take photographs of thing that they shouldn’t. Had people not taken illicit photographs we would never have known what was going on in Abu Ghraib prison and without the photographic evidence the world would never have believed that such things could happen under an American regime.

At the risk of touching on the ultimate taboo, I find I really have to bite my lip at some of the self righteous indignation about terrorism that I read in some of these threads, I know it is hard to live with, but the US has a long history of sponsoring terrorism all over the world. Whether it is covert but government sanctioned as in Nicaragua and Cuba or just ignored as in Northern Ireand to an out and out invasion as in Grenada, the US does not have clean hands in these matters.

Cut to the chase……

I really don’t want to fall out with anyone on this forum, I would much rather keep this area of my life on a photographic footing, I keep telling myself that I will stay out of these threads, but I got suckered into this one as it started out on a different tack and then took a violent swing.

Pekka, CDS, Belmondo please start a new forum and call it “Of interest to US Citizens” and then I will have to stay out of it.

Rant over…. Now ducking

N
xx

<edited for spelling>

[ejwebb]

Neil_R,

I enjoy the international flavor of the forum and it is interesting to me that, as a US citizen, I realized looking through the posts in this topic that my view appears to be more closely aligned with many from other countries. Maybe I should start looking over my shoulder :lol:

I have ducked out of this topic for the reasons you mentioned - I really just come to this forum for photo fun and got sucked into this topic before I knew it!!

Stick with us - we'll try to be good!

[Penguin_101_1]

"As long as there are guns, the individual that wants a gun for a crime is going to have one and going to get it. The only person who's going to be penalized and have difficulty is the law-abiding citizen, who then cannot have [it] if he wants protection-the protection of a weapon in his home, for home protection."
-- Ronald Wilson Reagan (b. 1911), 40th US President, Republican

[Cadenza]

This country is insane. For every episode of alleged
gun use in self-defense, there are dozens of random,
accidental killings and wounding by gun toting idiots
and lunatics. Not to mention the ready availability of
guns makes them that much easier for those with
criminal intent to acquire them. But the pro-gun
crowd will hear none of it.

Even retail small time criminals can get them, at very
little expense, and in some U.S. states no background
check is done. In California, you can buy guns at
Walmart for the price of a couple disposable cameras.

To advocate unrestricted, unregulated use of guns as
a right of citizenry is misguided, it is incendiary and
revolutionary in that shows a lack of confidence in the
very democratic process this supposed right claims to
be upholding.

Meanwhile, the U.S. is the most violent society in the
developed world, (getting much worse since Bush took
over)with a rate of violent crime several times that of
gun-controlled Europe.


Yeah and if there is another terrorist attack on this country you will probably be the first to come on here and say how Bush allowed it to happen. What a tool.

No, if we have another terrorrist attack, it'll just
further show that Bush/Rummy/Condi are incompetent
at their job, setting wrong priorities while they make
their henchmen defense and energy contractors rich.
And where is the cheap gas our boys died for???

[drisley]

Whoa, this is getting way off topic.
However, it's a proven fact that countries that allow citizens to own firearms have a higher rate of murder than those that don't.
Even in smaller terms, in Canada, the stricter the gun control laws are in each province, the lower the number of murders. The looser the gun control laws, the higher the murder rate. It's a direct correllation.
Allowing guns as a means of defense has been proven as incorrect many times the world over.
Anyway, sorry for the off topic rant. Let's be careful out there. :)

[Big_B]

This forum used to have a real international flavour, but over the last 12 months it seems to have taken a real US bias.

There have been a number of really contentious posts lately, stimulated by US foreign policy, the up and coming elections, the Patriot Act and many other incidents and circumstances in the USA. It is really interesting to follow the polarised (polarized) debate, with the usual protagonists taking there respective stance. The only thing we know for sure at the start of these threads is that there will be no compromise or change of opinion brought about by reasoned debate.

Some of the more interesting views lately…

Only people that fit a “terrorist profile” should be targeted (now I may be wrong, but I took this to be racist) however prior to 9/11 I guess the Murrah Federal Office bombing in Oklahoma City was about the biggest terrorist outrage in recent times in the US and would Timothy McVey fit the current profile.

Iraq was invaded for ignoring a UN mandate, indeed it was, but where was the UN mandate or even support for the US/UK invasion. When someone tried to inject the fact that Israel was in breach of several UN mandates there were screams of anti Semitism and CDS had to lock the tread.

There is a hint in this thread that guns can make the world a safer place. OK but I am sure that the victims of John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo “The Washington Snipers”, would not take that view, and I am not even going to mention Columbine

Going back a little further..

There appeared to be a consensus a while back that the woman who took the photographs of the US caskets being flown out of the middle east should have lost her job because she was not supposed too and it contravened her contract of employment, there may be some merit in that argument, however it does tend to ignore the fact that people have a right to know what is being done in their name and what the consequences of those actions are. I for one am glad that people take photographs of thing that they shouldn’t. Had people not taken illicit photographs we would never have known what was going on in Abu Ghraib prison and without the photographic evidence the world would never have believed that such things could happen under an American regime.

At the risk of touching on the ultimate taboo, I find I really have to bite my lip at some of the self righteous indignation about terrorism that I read in some of these threads, I know it is hard to live with, but the US has a long history of sponsoring terrorism all over the world. Whether it is covert but government sanctioned as in Nicaragua and Cuba or just ignored as in Northern Ireand to an out and out invasion as in Grenada, the US does not have clean hands in these matters.

Cut to the chase……

I really don’t want to fall out with anyone on this forum, I would much rather keep this area of my life on a photographic footing, I keep telling myself that I will stay out of these threads, but I got suckered into this one as it started out on a different tack and then took a violent swing.

Pekka, CDS, Belmondo please start a new forum and call it “Of interest to US Citizens” and then I will have to stay out of it.

Rant over…. Now ducking

N
xx

<edited for spelling>


You made some good points in your 'rant'. I have to confess that I try to steer well clear of these sorts of debates, partly for the reasons you outlined, but more importantly because I simply can't be bothered after a long day of studying.

[Caution: Rant mode initiated]
So lets say that someone wants to claim that all muslims are terrorists or that Husain has nuclear weapons (n.b. I don't read these threads normally so I'm not referring to specific individuals/instances). I would rather that he/she feels free to share this feeling. We can then tell said individual that they are wrong for reasons x y and z. Perhaps they won't listen.... perhaps they will. I guess that at worst we won't be any better off and at best we may be able to show someone a different point of view.

So I guess I'm saying lets have more of these discussions. Lets here what people have to say. Perheps wisdom will provail in the end...

[End of rant]

Important post script: I have had a very stressfull day so I'm sorry if the above is rubbish :shock: :oops:

[IndyJeff]

This country is insane. For every episode of alleged
gun use in self-defense, there are dozens of random,
accidental killings and wounding by gun toting idiots
and lunatics.

Are these your observations or are these statements supported by facts?


Not to mention the ready availability of
guns makes them that much easier for those with
criminal intent to acquire them. But the pro-gun
crowd will hear none of it.

To begin with, the guns used in crimes are almost always aquired illegally. Has the ban on handguns in Mass. stopped handgun crimes? I think not. So how come? Guns are illegal in Mass so there should be no guns for criminals to buy right? The NRA is one of the largest proponets of prosecuting gun violence acts.

Even retail small time criminals can get them, at very
little expense, and in some U.S. states no background
check is done. In California, you can buy guns at
Walmart for the price of a couple disposable cameras.

What state can you buy a gun with no background check? Are you aware of NICS? It is a federal law that requires background checks. Maybe more facts and less propaganda will make your points more valid.

To advocate unrestricted, unregulated use of guns as
a right of citizenry is misguided, it is incendiary and
revolutionary in that shows a lack of confidence in the
very democratic process this supposed right claims to
be upholding.

Who said that? Nobody advocates unrestricted, unregulated use of guns. The NRA, the largest organization of guns rights in the US is also the largest organization that promotes prosecuting gun law violations.

Meanwhile, the U.S. is the most violent society in the
developed world, (getting much worse since Bush took
over)with a rate of violent crime several times that of
gun-controlled Europe.

First off don't use a qaulifying statement to support your opinion and detract from reality. Since Bush took over? Can you show figures to support these claims?
Really, why don't you just come out and say that Bush bought guns for criminals and told them to go out and kill people at will, it will make about as much sense and be about as close to the truth as your claims.


Yeah and if there is another terrorist attack on this country you will probably be the first to come on here and say how Bush allowed it to happen. What a tool.

No, if we have another terrorrist attack, it'll just
further show that Bush/Rummy/Condi are incompetent
at their job, setting wrong priorities while they make
their henchmen defense and energy contractors rich.
And where is the cheap gas our boys died for???

First you wanna show me how they are incompetent at thier jobs? Seems to me they are doing the best they can given the fact that they must do it while being politically correct.
Just what henchmen and contratctors would that be, Haliburton? Oh you mean the ones who won the bid to do the war support while Bush was in the White House. Yes that would be the same group who was given a contract by the Clinton administration without a bidding process. So who is violating the law?
Our boys haven't died for cheap gas. Gas/oil was never part of the equation. I know you on the left wish to make people think that is what it is all about but, it is not. If this country would build more refineries to keep up with the demand that would help to lower prices. Also given the fact that China has become more motorized than it was 3 years ago (36% more) and is requiring more oil than they used to is more a cause of the rise in gas/oil prices than anything Bush has done or didn't do. Nice try but that don't float.

[IndyJeff]

Only people that fit a “terrorist profile” should be targeted (now I may be wrong, but I took this to be racist) however prior to 9/11 I guess the Murrah Federal Office bombing in Oklahoma City was about the biggest terrorist outrage in recent times in the US and would Timothy McVey fit the current profile.

Neil, how does profiling of terrorist types fit the "racism" label. Does it suggest a "superiority or dominance of one race over another"? No it suggests that a certain type will be the one most likely to commit a certain act. When you were going out to a bar looking to get lucky, did you look for a girl dressed like she was a librarian or a hooker? Profiling works?

McVey wouldn't fit the profile at all, however he would fit the profile of a domestic terrorist. The FBI can profile these guys with no problem at all, wonder why?

Iraq was invaded for ignoring a UN mandate, indeed it was, but where was the UN mandate or even support for the US/UK invasion.

It was in UNSCR 660 where as Iraq agreed to comply with this and all subsequent UN resolutions. It was in UNSCR 678 where it was stated:

Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.">

Hell with it let me list the UN Resolutions pertaining to Iraq as a result of their invasion of Kuwiat, WMD development and supprot of terrorism.

<<UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991



Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.


Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.


Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.


UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991



Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."


Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.


Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."


Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.


Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.


Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.


Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.


Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.


Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.


UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991



"Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."


Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.


Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.


UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991



"Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.


"Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.


Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.


Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.


Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.


Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.


UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991



Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.


UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994



"Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.


Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.


Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.


UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996



Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996



"Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997



"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.


UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997



"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.


UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997



"Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.


Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998



Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."


UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998



"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998



"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.


Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.


UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999



Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).


Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.


Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.


Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.


Most of the language condems over and over Iraq'a refusal to comply with earlier resolutions. Kind of like the mother who keeps on telling her kid, "stop that or I am going to spank you." After a while the kid knows it is only an idle threat and no action will be taken so the kid continues doing as they please with no consequences. Only more warnings.

[Persian-Rice]

Jeff, I don't think he meant that one is racially superior. I actually take offence to the whole singling out of one general ethnicity, especially while we are one the topic of terrorism. If this is the case, then you can't say I am wrong for saying and you should not expect any reaction if you say such things in public as.......

***WARNING Offensive comments below , that are just for the sake of argument., I don't actually mean them***

Watch out, he is black, he might try to steal your car
or
Chinese guys have little penis'
or
White people from the southern US are inbreeding hicks.

***sorry again***

There was no reference to racial superiority, it was rather a reference to stereotypical misconceptions. Labelling an olive or browned skinned person a terrorist is far more offencive then any of those comments above. As we all agree, terrorists are pieces of ****, they are cowards and murderers...............

Why else is it wrong? not only Arabs/Iranians fit the description but so do Israelis, Italians, Greeks, Portuguese and many others. Hell by blood, I'm pure Iranian, yet I am no more of a terrorist then you are.

Even beyond that fact, are there no terrorists of other ethnicities, McVey was a local yes? Have you been to an Arab country? do you know a good 1/4-1/3 of Arabs are light skinned blonds with blue eyes? My own brother can pass off as a European. My uncle is blond and has blue eyes as does one of my aunts. Yet they are pure Iranians.

Even my post does not really belong in an environment like this. I feel that you should know that the same argument I am presenting here is how I perceive the comments that have been made yet you feel that you should justify them. Maybe you don't understand how I feel because we are different, because you don't get to go through what I do, as I don't understand what you go through.

My point, lets just keep all stereotypes out of all threads. It's offensive and inappropriate.

BTW, wasn't this post about a poor guy being labelled a paedophile or something?

[neil_r]

When you were going out to a bar looking to get lucky, did you look for a girl dressed like she was a librarian or a hooker? Profiling works?

:lol: And I still was not very successful :lol:

N

[Belmondo]

The following is a statement of my own opinion. I want to be careful to qualify it as such lest any of you think that I’m ‘moderating’ now. This is just how I feel, and as such this carries no more weight than another person’s point of view.

Personally, I hate all this. It's disruptive, unpleasant, and serves no purpose for advancing this forum, our enjoyment of photography, or our lives in general.

For all the time that's been wasted posting page after page of flag-waving pro this or that, not one mind has been changed, or even one attitude softened. If anything, just the opposite has happened. The active participants have just become even more entrenched in one-sided unreasoning argument disguised as debate.

I understand that there are people in this world that don't like each other. Moreover, as an American, I'm at the top of a lot of enemy lists. Okay, so what? This is the world---not Woodstock, and I don't need to log onto my favorite photography forum to be reminded of it.

It seems pretty silly and irresponsible to keep reiterating the same arguments over and over again. These are talking points straight out of the playbooks of the various political interests. There’s no new or original thought in any of it; it’s just mind-numbing, boring, repetitious, rehashing of things we’ve heard a million times before, and it’s a complete waste of time. It adds nothing to this forum, or the quality of the lives of people who take the time to read it.

A special note to my fellow Americans who occasionally forget that this is an international forum: We seem to be doing an amazing job of showing the rest of the world just how self-important we really believe ourselves to be. Just in this forum we have managed to repeatedly embarrass ourselves with endless rantings about our moral superiority and high ideals. Amongst ourselves, perhaps this is relevant, but to others in our world, it’s pointless, self-serving, and a little disingenuous. Why do we seem to feel we have to be evangelists, promoting beliefs and debating issues that have no substance or meaning to anyone but us? What difference could it possibly make to someone in England how people in Oklahoma feel about gun control? What is the relevance of the Patriot Act to someone in South Africa? Get over it.

Unfortunately, I have to read this crap; it's part of my job description as moderator. But I really wish you folks would find something else to discuss, or at least try to come up with some new ideas instead of this perpetually rehashing old ideas. For the sake of this forum, and for the sake of my mental health, please try.

My rant is over. My abuse is about to begin.

Tom

[Tom W]

This country is insane. For every episode of alleged
gun use in self-defense, there are dozens of random,
accidental killings and wounding by gun toting idiots
and lunatics.

That's just plain false. And, precious few people "toting guns" are idiots or lunatics. I'd hope that you don't mean the police, though there certainly is no reason to believe that they aren't subject to the same bell curve as the rest of the population.

Not to mention the ready availability of
guns makes them that much easier for those with
criminal intent to acquire them. But the pro-gun
crowd will hear none of it.

Even retail small time criminals can get them, at very
little expense, and in some U.S. states no background
check is done. In California, you can buy guns at
Walmart for the price of a couple disposable cameras.

At the retail level, all gun purchases require the background check. Private sales do not, nor should they.

To advocate unrestricted, unregulated use of guns as
a right of citizenry is misguided, it is incendiary and
revolutionary in that shows a lack of confidence in the
very democratic process this supposed right claims to
be upholding.

Having the government regulate ownership of firearms is akin to letting a fox guard the henhouse. The United States, as a Constitutional Republic, allows the private ownership of firearms for the specific purpose of keeping the government in check. Read the federalist papers, not the NY Times.

Meanwhile, the U.S. is the most violent society in the
developed world, (getting much worse since Bush took
over)with a rate of violent crime several times that of
gun-controlled Europe.

Where on earth did you find that little burst of propaganda?

No, if we have another terrorrist attack, it'll just
further show that Bush/Rummy/Condi are incompetent
at their job, setting wrong priorities while they make
their henchmen defense and energy contractors rich.
And where is the cheap gas our boys died for???

Using that logic, if your house gets robbed, its the incompetent policeman's fault for not adequately guarding your front door. You cannot expect perfect coverage by the nation's police and armed services, nor should you want that. The fact that nothing has happened since 9/11 (or possibly 11/2/2001 if what I've heard lately is correct) is a good indication that they're doing something right. I'd be more worried about what the leftist-anarchists and washed-up hippies, hiding behind the shield of protestors, do next week in NY.

BTW, we aren't in Iraq for cheap gas. If we were, we'd have just taken it.

[neil_r]

Personally, I hate all this. It's disruptive, unpleasant, and serves no purpose for advancing this forum, our enjoyment of photography, or our lives in general.

For all the time that's been wasted posting page after page of flag-waving pro this or that, not one mind has been changed, or even one attitude softened. If anything, just the opposite has happened. The active participants have just become even more entrenched in one-sided unreasoning argument disguised as debate.

Tom

Tom, you are right, I am indeed chastened. I now remember why I joned this forum and in future I will stick to photography.

Having just re-read your post I now know why they made you a mod :lol:

N

[Jmurman]

I read that this is a "room" called "Talk about photography" Maybe there could be a "Off Center room" or something where these topics could be discussed without spilling over into the photo forums.


My .002

[Belmondo]

Tom, you are right, I am indeed chastened. I now remember why I joned this forum and in future I will stick to photography.

Having just re-read your post I now know why they made you a mod :lol:

N

Neil:
Thanks. I still haven't figured out why Pekka made me a moderator. I don't know a great deal about photography, and I'm usually not moderate. Maybe he figured out that I'm bored and need something to do. If so, thanks, Pekka.

There is a growing sentiment that this forum is not an appropriate vehicle for these discussions, and I'm in total agreement. Once in a while, maybe, but lately we've had several threads degenerate into political demolition derbies, and a lot of people are weary of it.

This board is 'about photography,' and as such should be limited to topics that deal at least generally with that range of topics. Gun control seems pretty 'off-topic' to me. For that matter, I question whether or not these exchanges even belong in General Chat, but that’s just me I suppose.

[Andy_T]

It isn't fear - its genuine, at least around here. Regardless, the phrase does seem to hold true. Maybe fear keeps the pimply-faced punk from stealing my car with the NRA sticker on it, but that's just fine. If he wasn't brought up to respect others' property, then fear is the best tool.


Tom, I might be messing up something here, but weren't you the one who posted that his camera equipment was stolen because it was kept in a gun case?

Think again about how safe that car might be, if someone suspects there *might* be a gun inside.

Best regards,
Andy

[Tom W]

It isn't fear - its genuine, at least around here. Regardless, the phrase does seem to hold true. Maybe fear keeps the pimply-faced punk from stealing my car with the NRA sticker on it, but that's just fine. If he wasn't brought up to respect others' property, then fear is the best tool.


Tom, I might be messing up something here, but weren't you the one who posted that his camera equipment was stolen because it was kept in a gun case?

Think again about how safe that car might be, if someone suspects there *might* be a gun inside.

Best regards,
Andy

No, that wasn't me.

[Andy_T]

No, that wasn't me.

My mistake then, sorry. No offense intended.

But I remember reading a post that some forum member put his N**** photo equipment in a S&W case and had it promptly stolen from his truck.

Of yourse, I can understand if you don't want to admit you have N**** equipment :lol:

Best regards,
Andy

[Belmondo]

My mistake then, sorry. No offense intended.

But I remember reading a post that some forum member put his N**** photo equipment in a S&W case and had it promptly stolen from his truck.

Of yourse, I can understand if you don't want to admit you have N**** equipment :lol:

Best regards,
Andy

It sounds like the photographic equivalent of a mercy killing to me. :lol:

[Aylwin]

It sounds like the photographic equivalent of a mercy killing to me. :lol:
:lol:

Going back to the original topic, I think it's good that this was brought up. Even though it's only (or at least mostly) applicable in the U.S. this is still useful information for the rest of us who might happen to visit the U.S. in the foreseeable future.

I, for one, might fit the "profile" so I'll probably have to pay more attention to where I point my camera. I'm rarely in the U.S. though so it's not something I have to worry about too much.

Here in Japan, taking photos isn't something anyone has to worry about at all. Everyone has a camera, and people here take pictures of just about anything. One of the best (strangest) I've seen is some guy taking a picture of the ceiling down in the subway station with his mobile phone. :roll:

[CyberDyneSystems]

Folks.

Belmondo was quietly and graciously nudging you towards abandoning this line of propaganda.

You may want be more sensitive to those moments when a moderator of this forum is offering a shameless way "out" . When this opportunity is not taken voluntarily, it will result in firmer action.


I am in full agreement with Belmondo. We have experimented with the use of political discussion in the "Chat" forum.. and the experiment seems to be leading towards failure.


The attitudes expressed here are spilling over into the other forums.

Find another venue to air your political views please.