Tips on deterring forcible equipment theft while carrying camera?
- Thread starter Kit Lens Jockey
- Start date
Hillsilly said:
Hillsilly, Thank you for your input. This whole issue about "uncivilized" Americans and the rights of gun ownership is essentially about crime. The OP who started this thread was unarmed, yet his attackers were. He was going about his normal activities and unfortunately, some non law abiding individuals decided to interrupt his activities and put his life in danger for a few dollars. If it weren't for the amount of crime in this country, this heated argument would not exist. There would not be a frenzy to purchase guns. Guns or no guns does not matter here. Even without guns the murder rate and other criminal activities would continue.
As stated earlier America has severe social problems that are unique to this country. Is it because of the divide of haves vs have nots? (America is a huge land of opportunity and with that comes the criminal element to illegally prey on those that do well in society). Is it because of the porous border with our southern neighbors. (We don't seem to have much of a criminal element coming from our northern neighbors). Is it because of our immigration policies? (We do have a lot of Asian gang activity here from people that have been unable to adjust to our society). Is it because of American love for illegal drugs and all the gang violence that comes with it? Is the problem ethnic in nature? (Most of the crime comes from a certain race of people. The Black on Black murder rate is staggering and the gun is the weapon of choice). Is it because of ineffectual laws and bleeding heart judges who do not put the criminals away for a long enough time? (How is it that a murderer here was walking the streets with 13 prior convictions of violent crimes)? Also, once America imported huge numbers of African slaves and fought a vicious war to free them, once freed what do you do with them? Had the whites done a better job of bringing them into society would we have all this crime? Do jails even work to rehabilitate criminals? Do the victims of crime ever get compensated by the criminal once he has been apprehended? NO! I could go on and on and on here.
Hillsilly, none of my comments were directed at you. I simply wanted to explain some of the reasons Americans feel the way they do.
For the record, I am a war veteran and sometimes have had to carry a firearm in my jobs. I also have been the victim of crime on several occasions. But, as the day rapidly approaches that I must settle up with my maker, I no longer own any guns and have become much more tolerant of other people's beliefs and opinions.
Good day,
Brian
Upvote
0
Hillsilly said:
Hillsilly, first I wanted to comment that I've spent some time in your country - in particular Brisbane - and I absolutely loved it. My cousin loved it so much that he stayed there, in Melbourne, and married an Australian.
The big difference in gun laws between the two countries is they aren't guaranteed in the Australian constitution. Because of that, Australians were able to have rational conversations about what guns should be allowed, and who should have them. After, at the time, the worst mass shooting in history, you were able to introduce laws to reduce gun ownership and since that time gun deaths have fallen.
We can't have that conversation here. While, yes, I despise guns, the truth is I do see their use as a tool. In the far country they may be necessary for wildlife and there's nothing wrong with target shooting. Yet how many Australians would condone their fellow citizens walking with automatic rifles on a busy city street? How many would want them in schools and sports stadiums? From the Australians I've talked to, very few are in favor of that.
I realize that I'm in the minority here for advocating getting rid of the 2nd Amendment, which even I realize is not possible in this political climate. However, what I really desire is the rational debate that Australians are allowed to have? With proper regulations we can severely reduce the 33,000 Americans who die from guns every year, while still allowing those who respect guns and care for them properly to own them.
I apologize that my polemic against guns comes on a forum dedicated to cameras, but this is an issue very close to my heart.
Upvote
0
kirispupis said:
True.
It has been quoted several times in different media recently that the majority of Amercians want tighter gun control, a majority of NRA members want greater gun control. Yet the NRA wants to reduce gun control - so if the figures are to be believed this is against the preference of their own members.
With any survey so much comes down to how you phase the question. NRA will phrase it along the lines of 'do you believe in upholding the citizen's right to defend themselves or 'do you defend the right to hunt'. Those in favour of more control will phrase it along the lines of 'do you believe the average citizen needs an assault weapon to defend themselves or to hunt a deer'.
The problem is this is not about the second amendment but is about big business. Pure and simple.
Upvote
0
Sport hunting is not a right protected by the US constitution. Subsistence hunting is different, and there are few places left in the US where subsistence hunting is necessary. So it is irrelevant whether a rifle with 1 or 25 shells is necessar to kill a deer..
The most accurate deer rifle I ever owned was a ruger one, as the name indicates it is a single shot. The best tool I own for deer is a bolt action chambered for five. It is illegal in many states to hunt with a firearm with more than a few shells.
Owning a firearm for the protection of self and country is a 2nd amendment right. There is a reason why a person would want a 25 round clip during a home invasion. Home invaders with body armor, multiple invaders, and the ability not to need a reload. To protect country I think the need for 25 would be of greater importance.
FWIW for our UK, Austrailian and Canadian friends, the US gun rights trace its history back to the days we parted way with your Queens ancestors. While I have been to all your countries and it is wonderful, we Americans have been taught it was not always that way.
The most accurate deer rifle I ever owned was a ruger one, as the name indicates it is a single shot. The best tool I own for deer is a bolt action chambered for five. It is illegal in many states to hunt with a firearm with more than a few shells.
Owning a firearm for the protection of self and country is a 2nd amendment right. There is a reason why a person would want a 25 round clip during a home invasion. Home invaders with body armor, multiple invaders, and the ability not to need a reload. To protect country I think the need for 25 would be of greater importance.
FWIW for our UK, Austrailian and Canadian friends, the US gun rights trace its history back to the days we parted way with your Queens ancestors. While I have been to all your countries and it is wonderful, we Americans have been taught it was not always that way.
Upvote
0
Mikehit said:
Dear sirs,
We do have discussions here about guns and gun control and the results of these discussions can be manifest in gun sales and in the outcomes of our votes.
We have more deaths in this country due to automobile accidents, so should we abolish cars? We have speed limit laws, but how many of you adhere to them?
We also have many deaths on our highways due to alcohol abuse. Should we abolish alcohol? (I say we should, but we have been there and done that and it didn't work).
We have had wars since mankind arrived on this planet. Should we abolish our military to show the world what great people we are? Would that end warfare?
All humanity is horrified by nuclear weapons, as well they should be, so should we abolish our nuclear arsenal? Even if all the major nuclear countries abolished theirs, there would still be stupid leaders like the leader of North Korea that would manufacture them and use them.
My point here is that Pandora's box has been opened. Even if we abolished all weapons other than single shot rifles for hunting and recreation and went door to door collecting all of them, the criminal element would still find a way to have powerful illegal weapons. Crime would not decrease, just the weapon of choice would change.
The issue here is how do we control and prevent crime so that we no longer need weapons for self defense. I don't profess to have all the answers and maybe there aren't any, (at least until people learn to live together in peace and respect the rights and property of others).
Upvote
0
hbr said:
When you apply for a drivers' license in the US, it is made abundantly clear that driving is a privilege - not a right. Because of that, we have laws that prevent certain people from driving and dictate what they can drive. My car already drives itself most of the time, and I predict that in 20-30 years it will become illegal to drive one's own car. Again, the 2nd amendment prevents us from having the logical conversation about guns that we can have concerning cars.
hbr said:
Again, alcohol is not a right. There are many laws stating who may purchase alcohol (no minors), when (in many states - not on a Sunday), how much (bars may limit), and where (not in your car). Because there is no amendment for alcohol, we can do this.
This discussion is about weapons in private hands. I agree that we still need a military, though a few countries have abolished theirs.hbr said:
Again, this is a discussion about private arms. It should be noted though, that there have been serious attempts to get rid of nuclear weapons. Some countries (such as Ukraine) have gotten rid of them, while others (the US) actively attempts to prevent others from obtaining them.hbr said:
Yes, crime would decrease. That is why countries with tighter gun restrictions have fewer murders. A gun is a far more effective murder weapon than a knife. Your chances of survival are much less from a gun and it is a more difficult weapon to defend yourself against.hbr said:
We should also note that the majority of gun deaths are not due to crime. They are due to domestic disputes and accidents. That's how my friend died. He got into an argument with his son, who grabbed a gun from his father's gun cabinet and killed him. One of my other friends (who lived) was accidentally shot by a sibling.hbr said:
Upvote
0
kirispupis,
You have very good points and so do I. That is why there is such a disagreement on this subject. There is no "one size fits all" solution to this problem. I have also stated that this argument, at least in this forum, has no winners. It is the same argument as "Which is better, Canon or Nikon","Chevy or Ford" and all the other arguments like it.
Actually, while the second amendment is used to prevent or restrict the power of the government, our basic laws are based on old English laws that state that a person has the right to defend himself.
And, yes, an awful lot of innocent people die from not respecting the lethal power of guns, it is fear that drives many people to purchase guns. If every citizen would obey the existing laws, gun purchases would fall dramatically and we probably would not be having this discussion. While in a society that is armed, it would appear that the gun is the common denominator, but I still maintain that crime and fear of crime is the real denominator. The gun is just the weapon of choice.
Place a hammer, some nails and some wood on your work table and see how long it will take them to jump up and turn themselves into a table. Take your biggest and baddest weapon, put it on the table and put some bullets beside it and see how long it takes for the gun to kill somebody.
Look at social media and see all the hatred that exists. Look at all the turmoil and strife in the world. It is not the gun, it is society.
Can we at least agree that this thread no longer serves any purpose on this site?
You have very good points and so do I. That is why there is such a disagreement on this subject. There is no "one size fits all" solution to this problem. I have also stated that this argument, at least in this forum, has no winners. It is the same argument as "Which is better, Canon or Nikon","Chevy or Ford" and all the other arguments like it.
Actually, while the second amendment is used to prevent or restrict the power of the government, our basic laws are based on old English laws that state that a person has the right to defend himself.
And, yes, an awful lot of innocent people die from not respecting the lethal power of guns, it is fear that drives many people to purchase guns. If every citizen would obey the existing laws, gun purchases would fall dramatically and we probably would not be having this discussion. While in a society that is armed, it would appear that the gun is the common denominator, but I still maintain that crime and fear of crime is the real denominator. The gun is just the weapon of choice.
Place a hammer, some nails and some wood on your work table and see how long it will take them to jump up and turn themselves into a table. Take your biggest and baddest weapon, put it on the table and put some bullets beside it and see how long it takes for the gun to kill somebody.
Look at social media and see all the hatred that exists. Look at all the turmoil and strife in the world. It is not the gun, it is society.
Can we at least agree that this thread no longer serves any purpose on this site?
Upvote
0
hbr said:
Yes, I can agree to disagree on this subject.
In this forum it is more appropriate to debate things like
[list type=decimal]
[*]DxoMark is ridiculous and should be ignored. It is ludicrous to think that you can qualify one camera over another with a number.
[*]One must be mad for selling Canon gear to get a Sony. Their lenses suck and the things are practically unusable.
[*]If you have to take a 50 test shots and compare the pixels at 200%, then you've just wasted some time you could've used to take better photos
[/list]
I mentioned before I wouldn't mind for the moderators to lock this thread. It has nothing to do with censorship. We should just move on.
Upvote
0
kirispupis said:
I don't mind your views or your choices. I just wish they were better informed.
1. In the United States there are not people walking around the streets with "assault" weapons or automatic rifles. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle that operates in the same way as a semi-automatic hunting rifle. Just because it looks like an M-16 or an M4 doesn't make it one and many people do hunt with AR-15s. The AR-15 is not an assault weapon no matter how many times a media outlet or anti-gun group says it is. It does not keep firing as long s one holds the trigger back as a machine gun does.
2. Half the 33,000 deaths in this country by guns are suicides. Take away the guns and the determined person who would have used a gun would find another way to off himself.
3. The remaining 16,500 gun deaths in this country include shootings by police and the owners of illegal guns, criminals, or people defending themselves. So, you see, the 33,000 number isn't broken down into categories as it should be. Outlawing the private ownership of guns does not remove the guns from the hands of criminals.
4. Approximately 36,000 people a year die in automobile accidents. Yet there are not the calls for outlawing automobiles that we hear for guns. The argument might turn to, "We all need cars." No we don't. The public transportation system could be hugely expanded to get people within a mile or two of their destination and the people could simply walk the rest of the way. Imagine the number of people who would lose weight and not die from heart disease or diabetes.
5. There are approximately 35,000 suicides in the United States each year despite suicide being illegal in most states. Only half of those are done with guns. Again, the person determined to kill himself will always find another way.
6. The number one cause of death in the United States each year is coronary heart disease at 445,000 a year, yet I don't hear nearly the emotional outrage against french fries and fatty or high carb sugary foods as I do about deaths by guns.
7. If somebody wants to kill you there are hundreds of ways to do so without a gun. Using a knife is just as easy.
8. 50 top causes of death in the United States https://nationalsafetyinc.org/2013/07/26/top-50-causes-of-death-in-the-us/
9. First comes guns, then the next thing. In the United Kingdom there is now a movement to ban kitchen knives. Docs say most of the stabbings are fueled by drugs and alcohol. Why not ban the cause and not the symptom? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
10. Machine guns are legal in the United States as long as one can pass a stringent background check, the machine gun was manufactured before 1986, the tax stamp is paid for, and the buyer can afford one (approx $40,000 and up). Any other machine gun is illegally owned. I have not ever heard a news report of somebody who legally owned a machine gun killing anyone (Except before the National Firearms Act of 1934).
I own three AR-15s and have never, ever been in trouble with the law in any way. I am a former U.S. Army Solder and a U.S. Marine. I am better trined now than when I was in the military and better trained than most cops. There is absolutely no reason to suspect that I or any other legal gun owner has or intends to commit a crime with his weapons. Of course it happens. But by and large it does not.
I do know this: My AR-15s are NOT assault rifles. I have 10, 20, and 30 round magazines for them. So what. It isn't the gun that is evil. There are just evil people among us. They don't need guns to do us harm.
Upvote
0
CanonFanBoy said:
CanonFanBoy, I already responded to most of these above. In short, every one of the items you mention is not a right. We can and have limited them through laws. I don't think we need to get rid of every gun, but we can't even have a logical discussion about it due to the 2nd amendment.
Now, this thread was about to enter the realm of forgotten debates before you resurrected it.
I will always fight to remove as many guns I can from society. I've made that abundantly clear and will not change that position. You've made it very clear you like guns. Despite my vehement disagreement with everything you say, and your similar polemic, it is highly unlikely either of us will agree with the other on this subject.
So, in the interest of being friendly on a normally very comforting forum, how about we both concern ourselves more with when Rokinon/Samyang is going to ship that darned 14/2.4 and less about this particular debate?
Upvote
0
kirispupis said:
I am not sure if you are just looking for the last word or what. But you respond to posts and make new comments and end your comment with lock the thread and move on.
Simply if you want the thread to die, stop posting to it. It does take two to continue the debate.
Upvote
0
Brian, thanks for your comments. I've never served overseas, but I was in the Army for much of the 90's. I don't own any guns either (Hey...I've got young kids and I want to see them become old kids) but I take an active interest in international affairs. For that reason, my Youtube habit includes channels like IV8888, TFB etc (And I've recently stumbled upon Forgotten Weapons - its not political but very entertaining). I find it interesting to hear what people in the US say about gun control and the attempts to control them. (But more from an academic people vs the government perspective than a self-protection perspective.)hbr said:
I sense a lot of people's frustration in looking for an answer. FWIW, Stefan Molyneux has Youtube video where he outlines some facts about crime and gun control - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hyQDQPEsrs
There are some interesting (but probably not unsurprising) correlations. It all seems to revolve around violence within black communities. It must be a very politically incorrect topic in the US - I think you are the only person game enough to point to real causes of this.
Upvote
0
Evidence that Australians are happy with our current licencing system? I don't know how you'd prove that? In the last twenty years, there hasn't been any discussion of toughening laws. There has been the occassional murmuring about loosening laws - eg a lot of people want a higher capacity Adler shotgun to be re-classified to make it easier for everyone to own. Overall, it isn't something that gets discussed. The only time guns are mentioned are when talking about middle eastern, Somalian or bikie gangs. But they're predominantly using illegal weapons.Mikehit said:
Otherwise, what parts do you want me to cover? First he talks about gun bans and how Australians happily went along with one and how this has led to less gun deaths. But there is no gun ban - guns are easy to buy legally. He infers that the less guns you have, the less homicides you have, which has been proven incorrect (in fact, it is the opposite). He says the civil war was all about slavery, which it wasn't.
He says gun control will stop mass killings and that Australia hasn't had one since 1997. But we have. Googling the topic brings up comprehensive lists.
He then said that banning guns would stop criminals getting guns. That hasn't been the experience here. Criminals have no problems smuggling guns. A very high percentage of guns used to commit crime in Australia are illegally smuggled in by middle eastern crime gangs. An unlicenced handgun can be picked up for about $1,000.
Did he say anything factual?
Upvote
0
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.
"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.
Upvote
0
Hillsilly said:
Well, it was you who said
And I was asking how you knew that. That was all
What I heard him doing was denouncing the arguments used by pro-gun lobby that more guns would make everyone safer.
I was listenig to what he was saying, not what I thought he might be inferring.
I heard him say that gun control would make it harder because you are cutting off one source - taking guns from legal owners.
Actually he says quite clearly he has no problem with gun ownership and that he wishes people would simply say 'I love guns' instead of creating fallacious arguments and to me it was those arguments he was making fun of.
Your comments remind me of the objections when the Monty Python film Life of Brian came out. The religious groups claimed it was blasphemous - others (me included) was saying it was not blasphemous and was making fun of the religious zealots not the religion itself.
Upvote
0
What are his arguments? He doesn't seem to have any - its mostly just 15 minutes of rambling.
His comments about Australian rules are factually incorrect. I've pointed that out. And I know that people here are happy with the current system (ie - of allowing guns) because no one is actively advocating for change one way or the other. The topic is never recognised as an important election issues. There is just no momentum for any changes. To me, that is a clear sign that people are happy with status quo. And that is very different to the image he is portraying.
His comments about Australian rules are factually incorrect. I've pointed that out. And I know that people here are happy with the current system (ie - of allowing guns) because no one is actively advocating for change one way or the other. The topic is never recognised as an important election issues. There is just no momentum for any changes. To me, that is a clear sign that people are happy with status quo. And that is very different to the image he is portraying.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
