Giving photogs a bad name?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, May 18, 2014.

  1. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    There's no big question. It's covered in HR 4986 National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. It was previously covered in
    the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill, but that was repealed in 2008 and
    replaced by HR 4986. Originally, it was covered in the Insurrection
    Act of 1807.

    As Casey Stengel said "You could look it up".
     
    Tony Cooper, May 28, 2014
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    I'm an advocate of gun control, but I don't harbor any desire or hopes
    of a change in the Constitution or the Second Amendment. Nor do I
    wish to take away your guns.

    There are some who think that gun control advocates want to confiscate
    all the guns, and some who think that anyone who owns a gun and hasn't
    shot and killed someone is just a person who hasn't had a chance. I
    don't think either is the case with the majority of either group.
     
    Tony Cooper, May 28, 2014
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    I'm curious as to why this is or why you feel that way.

    I do understand that in general americans do see guns in a differnt way to those of us in the UK and perhaps other countries too.
    I don't see this as a being right or wrong but a reflection on the society you would like to live in and that goes for most things.
     
    Whisky-dave, May 28, 2014
    #43
  4. RichA

    PAS Guest

    That is on of two methods. The other method can make Constitutional
    changes
    without the Congress. 2/3 of the state legislatures can call for a
    Constitutional Convention. That convention can propose whatever they like
    and if 3/4 of the sates approve any of those amendments then the
    Constitution is amended - all done without Congress.
     
    PAS, May 28, 2014
    #44
  5. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    While the state legislatures are not Congress, they are not the
    "public" either. It's just a different group of politicians, and
    another group that is more influenced by the NRA than by the general
    public and a group that ensures re-election more by gerrymandering
    districts than by effecting the wishes of their constituents.
     
    Tony Cooper, May 28, 2014
    #45
  6. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Every time someone is stabbed, people are quick to point out that guns
    are not the only lethal weapons. True, but so are rocks, hammers, and
    that bust of Darwin's monkey. Realistically, though, death by
    stabbing an infinitesimal number compared to death by gunshot.
    I am not convinced that mental health is a sufficient factor. If
    someone (except those in the military or law enforcement) shoots and
    kills another human, that person is automatically mentally unstable.
    However, being mentally unstable does not result in murder in the
    overwhelming number of people with mental disorders.

    I would like to see small steps to correct the problem. I am in favor
    of criminal prosecution of anyone who has their gun stolen from their
    house or vehicle. If the person has not secured or hidden that
    weapon, the person is guilty of criminal negligence. I don't think
    that Wal-Mart, K-Mart and stores like that should have a license to
    sell guns. They don't have the type of employees or checks that they
    should.
    True, but one cannot pick up the newspaper and not find an article
    about a shooting. That "small percentage" is a significant number.

    Today's newspaper carried reports of a man who robbed a woman at
    gunpoint, another man who attempted to rob a woman at gunpoint, a man
    who committed suicide in the process of being arrested for shooting
    and killing three people, and the arrest of four people for a series
    of shootings that resulted in two woundings. Just today's news.

    Those stories involve a very small percentage of the number of gun
    owners in this city, but an unacceptable number of incidents.
     
    Tony Cooper, May 28, 2014
    #46
  7. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    That thought is implanted through a campaign of disinformation,
    sponsored by the NRA.
     
    PeterN, May 28, 2014
    #47
  8. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    The National Guard is sworn to Federal service, its loyalty is not
    split--it takes orders from the Governor unless the President tells it
    to do otherwise. It is essentially a Federal reserve rented to the
    states. That makes it part of the standing army and not the check on
    that army that the founders intended.
     
    J. Clarke, May 29, 2014
    #48
  9. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    What is your source on what the founders intended?
     
    Tony Cooper, May 29, 2014
    #49
  10. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    So, just to be clear, someone keeps his firearms disassembled with the
    parts in three different safety deposit boxes in different banks,
    someone manages to steal all the parts, and put them together and make a
    firearm, and so the response is to prosecute the gun owner? What's
    wrong with this picture?

    If you want to define "reasonable precautions" at a level achievable to
    a normal person with a modest income, and prosecute anybody who failed
    to take those precautions that's one thing, but prosecuting anybody
    whose firearms are stolen no matter what precautions they took is
    ludicrous.
    However is there any evidence that Wal-Mar, K-Mart, etc are common
    sources of firearms used in the commission of crimes?
    A problem with any "fix" is that it has to pass Supreme Court muster,
    and the Court has been taking a dim view of any deprivation of rights
    that does not involve at least a judge and usually a jury. If you are
    going to disarm someone because he is crazy you are going to have to
    define "crazy" in a way that the courts will accept and put a procedure
    in place for making the determination that the courts will accept.
     
    J. Clarke, May 29, 2014
    #50
  11. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    What "gun control" did the NRA "fight for"?
     
    J. Clarke, May 29, 2014
    #51
  12. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    That it's a ridiculous example?

    I said they are guilty of criminal negligence. Like all criminal
    charges, the defendant has the right to a trial. If the person can
    convince a judge or jury that he was not negligent, then there's no
    penalty.
    Either you aren't trying to present logical rebuttal or you are
    incapable of it. The ease in which guns can be purchased makes it
    more likely that the buyer will either not secure the gun sufficiently
    and that gun will be stolen or the gun will be found by a child.It isn't always about whether or not the gun was purchased legally,
    it's also about what happens to the gun after the purchase.
     
    Tony Cooper, May 29, 2014
    #52
  13. RichA

    -hh Guest

    I'd have to go verify with the history books, but my recollection is that
    it was prompted by the Black Panthers(?) who did an 'Open Carry' in
    California ... to peacefully sit in the public's section of their legislature??

    Thus, that first round of gun control was to suppress Blacks.

    And FYI, the "Saturday Night Special" laws were similarly motivated by class divisions.


    -hh
     
    -hh, May 29, 2014
    #53
  14. RichA

    -hh Guest

    Nice to see acknowledgement of 'root cause'. Of course, the challenge is
    in identifying the economic expense of 'curing the disease' versus merely
    treating its symptoms.

    Similarly, the statistics are also at risk of being artificially slanted if we
    choose to only at 'deaths' instead of 'violence'. And even so, from a
    statistical perspective, when one realizes that the horror of IIRC ~20K
    deaths per year from firearms ... from the perspective that there's over
    200M of them in the USA, it means that (200M-20K)/(200M) = 99.99%
    of them are _not_ used each year.

    Yes, although let's also recognize that it merely just costs money; the
    question becomes if Society has the will to allocate resources to pay for it?
    Particularly if we're talking about doing it the right way, instead of a lame band-aid.

    There's a slippery slope we need to be careful of. Are we going to
    expect the same level of Duty of Care for people to secure their
    automobiles, and hold them similarly responsible for negligence
    if a car thief steals their car and kills someone with it?

    The problem with media reports is that they've already been filtered.
    For example, that kid who just shot up his college campus - - how many
    of the casualties were because he also ran people over with his car?
    FYI, the number's not zero.

    And to illustrate my point of filtered news, there's also many tragic reports of
    kids getting run over by their own parents in their home driveway, which as
    per online statistics ...

    <http://www.kidsandcars.org/userfiles/dangers/backovers-fact-sheet.pdf>

    ....occurs at a rate of ~7 per day, with at least two fatalities per week. What's
    being discussed to try to reduce that casualty rate is more regulation on new
    cars, to mandate rear backup cameras which (depending on who you believe)
    may add up to $500 to the cost of every new vehicle going forward. This would
    be an example of how Society would be choosing to invest its resources to
    address what it sees as an actionable problem....however, this does not
    necessarily mean that the proposed approach will be cost effective for Society;
    it may end up merely being more 'feel good' stuff.


    -hh
     
    -hh, May 29, 2014
    #54
  15. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    That's what I was hoping for it's more a culture thing than an actual need or requirement.
    I ageee you can't really go 'backwards' in a short time period any more successfully than you can eliminate racism in a day.
    Some say anything can be used to kill, here in the UK we try to keep those things that commonly kill (other than by accident) out of the hands of those that can't be trusted with them, doesn't always work of course.

    We also have a 'ban' on knives althouth this doesn't mean a total ban on all knives in all places either, we try to have a sensible approach to such things.
    There can be a time and a placed for most things.
    That's one way of looking at it, although personally I'd have thought it easier not to allow those with behavior issues to carry guns or even own them..

    It might not stop it, but I believe that the more guns in a society the more likely it is that they'll be used illegally.
    Working out what makes one item illegal and another legal is yet another problem.

    So it's part of your culture and upbring which can't be changed overnight.
    Whyen you fist started shooting I bet there was also more racism in the USA50 years ago, but I hope it's less now or at the very least less people are adversly affected by it. Same with homophobia, most things can be changedwith laws and actions bit by bit.
    There we have the cause and effect, you appear to have chosen a gun almost like I'd choose a computer, which I didn't have a need for 40 years ago even though some people had them I didn't need one, I do now because society has changed.
    Sounds good in theory but as with most things it doesn't always work quite like that does it. How many old drivers just don't realise they are unfit to drive.
    If everyone was fit enough and menatlly aware to drive they'd be far fewer accidents in most countries. Here' I'm thinking of a southpark episode where 'old' people are driving and causing carnage on the roads, exagerated of course.
    But the point is getting peole to realise they are a danger to themselves or others and that isnl;t always easy, sometime you need laws quite restrictive laws too.
    I wonder what percentage that is, and the important point is do you think less guns would be fired in anger if there were less guns in circulation that is the bottom line from my POV.
    Some tragedies can be avioded, some are so called accidents most can be avioded it just depends on how you go about things.

    I was suprised by the number of deaths while building the olympic stadiumsbut it seems some countrieds are better than others at keeping it's workers/citizens safe.

    Greece 2004 13 died
    London 2012 Zero died.
    Sochi 2014 60 died
    Quatar 2014 900 dead, so far

    I believe a country should have some control over it's 'accidents' and be able to learn from others.
     
    Whisky-dave, May 29, 2014
    #55
  16. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    What are the options other than prosecution? If you feel that the gun
    owner should take responsibility, but the gun owner doesn't, then what
    options are there other than prosecution?
     
    Tony Cooper, May 29, 2014
    #56
  17. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    That is true of many criminal violations. If the DA's office doesn't
    charge, there is no case.

    Enough pressure from the public, though, and they will bring charges
    in more cases. And should.

    Many people think that the police charge criminals. They don't.
    Police arrest people, but the charges are brought by the DA or the
    equivalent office.
     
    Tony Cooper, May 29, 2014
    #57
  18. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    I don't see the NRA as a joke. I see them as one of the most powerful
    political action groups in the US, and the most dangerous to our
    society.
     
    Tony Cooper, May 29, 2014
    #58
  19. A very good point, and critical.
    Anyone with a solution— or a reasoned rebuttal?
     
    John McWilliams, May 29, 2014
    #59
  20. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    What some courts will accept may depend on who you are. Nobody can say,
    with certainty, what definition any court will accept, on any given day.
    Having said that, we need not use the term "crazy." Just a person, who
    is more likely than not, constitute a danger to himself, or others, as a
    starting point.
    It is easy to write a definition. The problem is writing one that the
    NRA won't oppose. As an industry lobbying group the NRA places money
    above human lives.
     
    PeterN, May 29, 2014
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.