Tips on deterring forcible equipment theft while carrying camera?

[Hillsilly]

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

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

 

[Mikehit]

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

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

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

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

 

[Pippan]

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

 

[Hillsilly]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Mikehit]

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

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

 

[Hillsilly]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Mikehit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But you said today at 05:07:

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

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

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

 

[Ozarker]

Just some nits to pick


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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ozarker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But you said today at 05:07:

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

Your point seems to be that that is a semantic distinction and I have sympathy with that comment. But the fact they have gone from 10 mass killings to zero (ie minimum of 50 killed to..what....8 or so suggests that that the changes in gun control legislation have made it less likely that multiple people will be killed. From 10 vs none seems like a pretty good statistic to me.
I think it is also worth pondering that out that in all the massacres in Australia and US how many of them have been stopped by Joe public? As far as I recall not a single one.

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

 

[AcutancePhotography]

I know of no federal law that does.

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

Currently there are no federal assault weapon laws.

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

 

[Mikehit]

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

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

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

 

[ExodistPhotography]

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

 

[kirispupis]

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

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

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

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

 

[kirispupis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dafrank]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this reply gave you some ideas to consider.

Regards,
David

 

[Labdoc]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this reply gave you some ideas to consider.

Regards,
David

 

[AJ]

Two ideas here:

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

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

 

[Ozarker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ozarker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Mikehit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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