Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Street Shots  (Read 9446 times)
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #60 on: August 03, 2011, 02:13:25 PM »
ReplyReply

John,
I agree with you 100% on this topic. It sure would be "nice" if there weren't all those bad guys out there breaking the hundreds of well-intentioned gun laws. And it would be "nice" if there weren't such things as home invasions and armed assaults both day and night. Call me a realist but I'd rather grab my Glock than my cell phone when faced with imminent danger to me or my family.

That is about as succinctly as one can put it.

.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #61 on: August 04, 2011, 02:34:47 AM »
ReplyReply

That is about as succinctly as one can put it.

.



To which you might have added the impossibility of mixing oil and water. On which note, I leave you to your guns and dreams of butt-bustin' Alpha Males.

Adios!

Rob C
Logged

Chairman Bill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1607


WWW
« Reply #62 on: August 04, 2011, 03:25:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Blimey! I thought 'street shots' was all about street photography. Turns out it's about good ole Merkin gunslinging. Frankly, if I felt so unsafe walking the streets where I live that I felt I had to carry a handgun, I'd move. My advice folks, get outta Dodge, now.
Logged

pegelli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 609



WWW
« Reply #63 on: August 04, 2011, 06:16:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Forget the guns, let's get this thread back where it belongs: voyeuristic intimacy  Tongue

Logged

pieter, aka pegelli
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8309



WWW
« Reply #64 on: August 04, 2011, 09:09:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Blimey! I thought 'street shots' was all about street photography. Turns out it's about good ole Merkin gunslinging. Frankly, if I felt so unsafe walking the streets where I live that I felt I had to carry a handgun, I'd move. My advice folks, get outta Dodge, now.
+1.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8309



WWW
« Reply #65 on: August 04, 2011, 09:09:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Forget the guns, let's get this thread back where it belongs: voyeuristic intimacy  Tongue


+2.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6565



WWW
« Reply #66 on: August 16, 2011, 10:09:49 AM »
ReplyReply

In the United Kingdom, the majority of police officers do not carry firearms, except in special circumstances.


Right, Tom. How's that working out in London?
Logged

JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #67 on: August 16, 2011, 02:39:49 PM »
ReplyReply





.
Logged
tom b
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 874


WWW
« Reply #68 on: August 16, 2011, 04:06:42 PM »
ReplyReply

One idiot with a gun in Copely, how's that working for you?

As I wrote, nothing that I say, think or do will have any influence on your opinion.

Cheers,
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6565



WWW
« Reply #69 on: August 16, 2011, 04:50:23 PM »
ReplyReply

That's not my point. How are the cops doing without guns?
Logged

tom b
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 874


WWW
« Reply #70 on: August 16, 2011, 05:31:07 PM »
ReplyReply

How are cops doing with guns? Did it stop riots in the US happening?

"The United States has the largest number of guns in private hands of any country in the world with 60 million people owning a combined arsenal of over 200 million firearms." Of course you need an armed police force and taking that amount of weapons off the streets isn't going to happen.

Possibly the best way to prevent riots happening is not letting things like the subprime crisis happen in the first place.

We need better politicians not more guns.

As I wrote…

Cheers,
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6565



WWW
« Reply #71 on: August 16, 2011, 07:04:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Okay, but that doesn't really answer the question, does it Tom? According to an article in the Wall Street Journal this morning by Joyce Lee Malcolm, professor of law at the George Mason University School of Law, the English disaster has resulted in "...a 5,000% increase in purchases of baseball bats from Amazon." Now, as I've said before, figures don't lie, but liars figure, and it may be that before the disaster Amazon sold a total of two baseball bats, so the humongous percentage increase may not be as bad as it sounds. But, let's face it, even ten thousand baseball bats is a lot of bats. What this tells us is that, unlike in the days of Sherlock Holmes, or even of Winston Churchill, Britons now are reduced to defending themselved with clubs.

Ms. Malcolm also pointed out that if this were happening in the U.S., with our "largest number of guns in private hands of any country in the world," there'd be armed groups out making sure this kind of crap comes to a screeching halt. There wouldn't be pictures of unarmed cops standing in an unmoving line while the rioters throw rocks at them. The point is that rioters who do this kind of thing are cowards at heart. Blow away one or two and the rest will desist at once. But doing that with baseball bats is a really messy job.
Logged

tom b
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 874


WWW
« Reply #72 on: August 16, 2011, 08:56:13 PM »
ReplyReply

The riots started as a result of the fatal shooting of Mark Duggan by police. Just because the average bobby doesn't carry a gun doesn't mean that all British police are unarmed. Killing a couple of rioters would probably inflame the situation more I think.

Similarly in Sydney two of the last three riots were as a result of people dying whist being pursued by police. The third was over who owned Cronulla Beach.

Cheers,
Logged

michswiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 270


WWW
« Reply #73 on: August 16, 2011, 09:10:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Can you guys take this to private email or at least the Coffee Corner.  This isn't the sort of subject I come here to read about.
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8309



WWW
« Reply #74 on: August 16, 2011, 10:54:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Can you guys take this to private email or at least the Coffee Corner.  This isn't the sort of subject I come here to read about.
+10.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #75 on: August 17, 2011, 04:49:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Can you guys take this to private email or at least the Coffee Corner.  This isn't the sort of subject I come here to read about.

And yet you come here and read it



.
Logged
Chairman Bill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1607


WWW
« Reply #76 on: August 17, 2011, 05:22:00 AM »
ReplyReply

I didn't come here to read misinformed nonsense about how terrible it is in the UK. I thought maybe we'd got back on track with discussion about street photography. BTW, I don't own a baseball bat, but then rioting & looting here amounts to some seven year old kids scrumping apples from the local orchard. A farmer shouting, "Oi! Get orf moi land!" is about as violent a reponse as it gets.
Logged

JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #77 on: August 17, 2011, 05:44:24 AM »
ReplyReply

IMO, the absolute folly (the absurdity!) of the idea that disarming all citizens will "protect the people" from harm can best be seen in microcosm:

Suppose you were living in a "roommate" situation with 6 people in a very large home. Suppose further that 3 of the people in this situation "had guns" (one fellow was a good man and an avid hunter; another fellow likewise was also a good responsible chap--who happened to be an excellent target marksman--and yet the 3rd gun owner was an angry, withdrawn social misfit who had an evil heart and a propensity towards violence). The other 3 roommates (one of whom was you) were also good folks who, of their own volition, chose not to have guns.

Suppose one day, in a fit of rage, the violent roommate put his pistol to your head and threatens your life. After this scenario came to pass, you and the remaining 4 good roommates got together to decide what you all needed to "do" about this situation. What do you think would be the most effective, intelligent decision?:

1) To get rid of "the guns," disarming even the good gun owners, while leaving the violent roommate still among you?; or

2) To get rid of the violent roommate immediately?

Anyone can easily see that if the group chose 1, the next time the angry, violent roommate "got angry," he could pull a steak knife out of the drawer and stab a fellow roommate. What should the group do after that, "vote" to remove all knives, sharp objects, scissors, forks and any other cutting tools from the premises? Should "the group" be totally inconvenienced as a "smart strategy" to protect themselves from the one nut? Hell, the next time the angry roommate had another fit, he could reach for a blunt object, a fire poker (strangle someone with a piece of clothing or whatever), or beat one of his fellows with a bat over a disagreement.

Again, when looked at in microcosm, the idea that disarming the innocent 5 as an effective means to "be safe" from the evil aberrant can be seen as absolutely asinine (stupid beyond belief!). And yet people still can't see that it is precisely the same absurdity to try to pass legislation to "disarm all citizens" as an effective means of protection from those who have a propensity towards evil.

The intelligent person can clearly see that it is those who have a propensity towards evil who need to be eliminated, not all the guns (knives, forks, baseball bats, scissors, etc., etc., etc.)

Jack

PS: I promise not to say anything more after this


.
Logged
Chairman Bill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1607


WWW
« Reply #78 on: August 17, 2011, 05:52:47 AM »
ReplyReply

You're obviously right, John. I'm going to buy a smallish thermo-nuclear device, just in case.
Logged

pegelli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 609



WWW
« Reply #79 on: August 17, 2011, 07:33:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Great this is now in the coffee corner, so I can react "on topic"

1) To get rid of "the guns," disarming even the good gun owners, while leaving the violent roommate still among you?; or

2) To get rid of the violent roommate immediately?

I think the intelligent person can clearly see one mistake and one oxymoron in this logic

The mistake is that the word "or" needs to be "and"
The oxymoron is too obvious to point out  Cheesy
Logged

pieter, aka pegelli
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad