Tips on deterring forcible equipment theft while carrying camera?

[takesome1]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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?

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 :

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]

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...

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

 

[Loswr]

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...

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

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]

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?

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 :

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.

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]

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...

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

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.

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]

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]

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?

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 :

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.

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.

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]

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?

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 :

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.

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.

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.

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]

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...

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

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.

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]

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

 

[Loswr]

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]

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.

Those who resisted in the Warsaw ghetto would also disagree with you. Resisting evil is always the right thing to do. The uprising may have been defeated, but these resistors are heroes.

Gun control laws here in the United States are largely there to prevent the law abiding poor and destitute in dangerous neighborhoods (overwhelmingly minority) from having a means to protect themselves from thugs. The laws are inherently racist. Chicago, Washington D.C., etc.

The NRA happens to be the oldest civil rights organization in the United States.

You say Southern Plantation owners were worried about being outnumbered so lobbied for the 2nd amendment. Prove that.

On the other hand, if NOTHING had been placed in the Constitution about the right to keep and bear arms, the powerful southern plantation owners could own whatever they want anyway. There would have been no federal law for or against.

My God man, slave owners were killing slaves at will. They had guns. The slaves had none. No way whatsoever to defend themselves. 'twas GOVERNMENT, armed GOVERNMENT presiding over a disarmed people that made this possible. It was GOVERNMENT that sanctioned slavery and the plantation owners controlled it.

The problem wasn't that the plantation owners were armed. The problem was that the slaves were not.

Gun control laws are racist.

"The right of the PEOPLE...." The 2nd Amendment is there for ALL people, not just white southern plantation owners.

Get a college tuition refund.

BTW: How many concentration camp residents were armed and able to defend themselves? None. They were disarmed before ever being taken into captivity. Can't have a vulnerable race of people carrying guns around, now can we? They might be able to resist. Then again, according to you, resistance is futile anyway, right? You say that had your ancestors resisted that maybe none of them would have survived. What say you, then, to the whole families that were completely wiped out. Your logic is very strange.

The very fact that governments have killed more people many times over than individuals have is all the more reason for the populous to be armed. It makes the job of subjugation much harder and worrisome.

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.