PDA

View Full Version : Photographers and Marksmen


Pages : [1] 2

Peter
11-29-2004, 15:11
I have this little theory that firearms shooters tends to be involved in photography. I have noticed it here in Singapore at the local shooting club.

wlewisiii
11-29-2004, 16:13
I've been a gun nut and hunter even longer than a photographer. Perhaps it has something to do with these activities all being very observation oriented?

William

Nikon Bob
11-29-2004, 17:33
I gave up on firearms after they had us register all firearms in Canada and moved to photography. A lot of the same techniques used to get off a successful shot are the same with both. It is really ironic that photography is suffering in a similar way post 911. I must have a black cloud following me.

Bob

doubs43
11-29-2004, 17:36
"I've been a gun nut and hunter even longer than a photographer."

Me too. Fired my first handgun - a 1927 Colt Woodsman - in 1948. My father was also interested in both guns and photography and has between 100 & 120 photographs in the Archives of the Smithsonian Institute.

Walker

GallenWolf
11-29-2004, 17:50
Peter, may I know a bit more info about this shooting club? I love going for range, once took part in safisam, but only as "backup shooter".

Alvin

Peter
11-29-2004, 18:01
I was with SAFRA IPSC before I quit shooting as I am too busy these days. It is at National Shooting Centre at Lim Chu Kang. When I was in the army I was the section marksman (designated sharpshooter) during SISPEC. Before army I was in the secondary school air rifle team. Photography and shooting have a lot of similarities in the form of stance, breathing, holding and trigger control.

GallenWolf
11-29-2004, 18:13
Any links or urls for this particular club? Talking about air rifles, yeah kinda forgot about them. I was in the club too during secondary school!

Alvin

bmattock
11-29-2004, 18:23
Originally posted by Nikon Bob
I gave up on firearms after they had us register all firearms in Canada and moved to photography. A lot of the same techniques used to get off a successful shot are the same with both. It is really ironic that photography is suffering in a similar way post 911. I must have a black cloud following me.

Bob

In the Marine Corps, they called it BRASS. Breathe, Relax, Aim, Stop, Squeeze. Works great for holding a camera steady, too.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Peter
11-29-2004, 18:26
Originally posted by GallenWolf
Any links or urls for this particular club? Talking about air rifles, yeah kinda forgot about them. I was in the club too during secondary school!

Alvin

You could take a look here http://www.singaporeshooting.org/index.shtml
It seems that we have quite a few shooters here in RFF!

bmattock
11-29-2004, 18:38
I have been pondering your statement - and it seems there is some truth to it, more than the casual glance might reveal. Do people who enjoy fine cameras (specifically rangefinders) also appreciate firearms? I now believe you're on the right track, but there is more to it...to wit:

I also suspect that a part of it might be the appreciation of fine machinery. Great classic SLRs and rangefinders have that essence of the awesome about them, such that they transcend being merely recorders of photons on film, objects of glass and steel, and become imbued with something that, if not an actual soul, is very much like one in many respects.

This can also be observed in fine mechanical watches, high-quality firearms, steam trains, and one or two automobiles.

I note also that with the exception of the most expensive end of the enthusiast's pursuit, the heyday of fine mechanical objects for the sake of their being fine mechanical objects is past. The appreciation for a man's labor and skill beyond what mass-production can give us is past.

Fortunately, being fine mechanical objects, they are often found in the loving hands of those who treat them with respect and use them as the tools they were meant to be.

If my photograph made with an ancient Serenar lens is less sharp than a modern autofocus autoexposure plastic-bodied chimera, then so mote it be. I have the privilege of owning and using a fine mechanical specimen that feels good in my hand and guides my spirit to take better photographs than I otherwise might - or so I choose to believe.

While time marches on, and I am certainly not immune to the charms of the beckoning, glittering, digital future, there must still be some dark and quiet place where one can shoot all day, then return home and dunk a roll of film in a bucket of developer and try to bring forth magic.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Peter
11-29-2004, 19:04
Well said Bill! Somehow mechanical/classic RF users feel that the process is just as important as the outcome. I like good photos but I enjoy the feeling of operating a mechanical RF even more! Good end results are bonuses! It is the same with good bolt action target rifles.

Nikon Bob
11-29-2004, 19:22
Yeah , an auto loading 12 guage is a tool but a side by side sidelock 12 guage with an English style straight grip stock is a tool/work of art. The photographic equivilant to me is the comparison of a pro DSLR to a Leica screw mount. I like steam trains and piston engined vintage aircraft also. They seem to have more soul/personality.

Bob

r-brian
11-29-2004, 21:36
I found that its much easier getting a deer out of the woods after shooting it with a camera than with a gun.

Brian

Doug
11-29-2004, 21:38
Bill I think you're right. As a former mechanical engineer, I appreciate mechanical artistry, and that certainly includes ergonomics and performance along with design, materials, craftsmanship, etc.

As there are different kinds of viewfinder systems, there are different approaches to firearm actions, and it's fun to experience different thinking along those lines.

I got involved in reloading, too, akin to darkroom work, and treated the firing range as a testing lab. The result was benchrest shooting, action pistol shooting, self-defense training with pistol, knife, and rifle, and the biggest black hole I encountered, Collecting!

As a consequence of flirting with that issue with firearms I learned some interesting history, but I have to keep reminding myself, in regard to cameras, I am NOT a collector! Too dangerously expenseive.

doubs43
11-29-2004, 21:39
Bill, IMO you've pretty well nailed it. Most people who like firearms and old cameras are appreciative of - even reverent towards - precision mechanical and optical devices. I know I am and to your list I would add finely crafted writing instruments.

Doug, collecting guns is absolutely a black hole. Take it from someone who had/has a love of Lugers.

Walker

Doug
11-29-2004, 21:41
Brian, you're a shooter, too? Do I know you from, formerly, the Shooting forum on AOL?

oftheherd
11-29-2004, 22:06
Originally posted by r-brian
I found that its much easier getting a deer out of the woods after shooting it with a camera than with a gun.

Brian

How true.

But for all that I love the smell of fixer in the early morning, the tastes just can't compare. :D

As to weapons, how about a S&W 45 revolver, Colt 45 Auto, a Mauser 380; A 243 Winchester lever action, 7 mag bolt action. Talk about workmanship! All past passions.

Tim
11-29-2004, 22:24
Now I'm scared at just how much I fit in......

I am a Mechanical Engineer.
I use RF cameras in part because I hate automation getting between me and teh picture, and in part because I love the craftsmanship and feel.
I shoot target with a .50 cal Pennsylvania flintlock rifle and a .36 cal Colt Navy cap and ball revolver because I enjoy the challenge and the history.
I drive a 1966 MGB, because it has a great feel, and because I can actually work on it.

I think I'll stop there....


:)

tim

bmattock
11-29-2004, 23:27
Originally posted by Doug
Brian, you're a shooter, too? Do I know you from, formerly, the Shooting forum on AOL?

Might have been my father, who had the same name. Sadly, he has gone on now, but he was active on AOL. His screen name was MATTOCKSSR007 as I recall.

I helped my dad get his CMP M1 Garand, which my step-mother still proudly displays. I wrote this about the Garand back then:

http://www.fulton-armory.com/whycmp.htm

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

bmattock
11-29-2004, 23:34
Originally posted by r-brian
I found that its much easier getting a deer out of the woods after shooting it with a camera than with a gun.

Brian

I respect your beliefs, Brian, and I know that hunting (and guns) are volatile issues - perhaps not well-suited for the friendly confines of RFF. Let me just say that it is my respect for life and the fact that I acknowledge myself as a meat-eater that I can and have hunted, and have eaten what I have killed. Many of us buy meat in the grocery store - an animal died under unpleasant circumstances for that. I have connected myself by choice to understanding what it means to be human and kill other animals to survive. I pass no judgement on the beliefs of those who choose not to hunt - I have not hunted in many years myself, and content myself with using firearms for making accurate and expensive holes in pieces of paper at a target range from time to time. But I have no moral qualms about hunting, when it comes to that.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

bmattock
11-29-2004, 23:36
Originally posted by Tim
Now I'm scared at just how much I fit in......

I am a Mechanical Engineer.
I use RF cameras in part because I hate automation getting between me and teh picture, and in part because I love the craftsmanship and feel.
I shoot target with a .50 cal Pennsylvania flintlock rifle and a .36 cal Colt Navy cap and ball revolver because I enjoy the challenge and the history.
I drive a 1966 MGB, because it has a great feel, and because I can actually work on it.

I think I'll stop there....


:)

tim

Tim,

Three words for you:

Vincent. Black. Shadow.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

bmattock
11-29-2004, 23:45
Originally posted by Doug
Bill I think you're right. As a former mechanical engineer, I appreciate mechanical artistry, and that certainly includes ergonomics and performance along with design, materials, craftsmanship, etc.

I was hooked on fine mechanical watches the first time I idly opened the back of my grandfather's Elgin pocket watch. Oh, my! The gears, springs, and levers inside - all decorated with engravings that the owner would most likely never see - done in a fine style just because it was the right thing to do. Mechanical engineering as not just a discipline, but an actual art form.

I also realized that in this world of intangible information as wealth and power, this was a physical representation of the past, something that should be kept and appreciated.

When I hold my grandfather's pocket watch in my hand, I hold an appreciable fraction of a man's life who made it. Yes, the gears were cut by machine, but a human being sat down at a bench, assembled the pieces, and made it go with a skill that I cannot fathom, and then polished it, marked it with engravings and swirls and florishes, timed it, and set it in motion - I still carry that today - it still keeps good time. It was made in 1903. It has outlived my grandfather, my father, and my outlive me.

What I have I built, made, or created that will last longer than I will?

I am deeply appreciative of the unknown man's skill who made my grandfather's watch. It has led to an appreciation of all fine mechanical things.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

mac_wt
11-30-2004, 01:58
I have some strong opinions about firearms/guns. Most have to do with moral issues with why they were invented and produced. I can intellectually understand the thing about 'fine mechanics', but my feelings tell me to stay far away from guns. I hope you don't mind.

Wim

Pherdinand
11-30-2004, 02:18
No firearm. But i love to shoot with bows so i said "yes". Although i don't do it too often:(

No, it's not related to my origins. I don't like horseriding. :D

Pherdinand
11-30-2004, 02:19
Yeah, how's that for old mechanical things...a bow :)

Tim
11-30-2004, 02:26
Originally posted by bmattock
Tim,

Three words for you:

Vincent. Black. Shadow.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

drooooooooooollllllllllllllllll!!!!!!!! YES PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

two problems - 1/ money (they are bloody expensive) 2/ the better half :(

tim

Laika
11-30-2004, 04:45
I'm a long time shooter, there isn't many types I haven't been into over the years (99.9% target shooting of some sort btw). A high school buddy and I joined a local pistol club when we were 14yrs old and are still members today (23yrs later :)), my friend now makes his living making small arms projectiles and I for a few years was a gun dealer and a Glock armourer but gave it all up for a job that actually paid the bills. As has been mentioned by others I think the attraction of finely made firearms crosses over to classic cameras, it does for me anyway. But that said I know a lot of shooter but not many that are into photography but most can appreciate a nicely made classic camera.

r-brian
11-30-2004, 06:33
Bill

I have nothing against hunting. In fact, I have a degree in Wildlife Management. I grew up hunting, ergo my degree. (I just love the word 'ergo'.) I've humanely harvested my share of small and large game, spring turkey hunting being my favorite. Even had some worthless bird dogs years ago when I lived in Virginia. Still own some classic guns, 22 cal.Winchester Model 69 (circa late 1940's), 22 cal. Mossberg Model 44M (circa late 1940's) and a 20 gauge Remington Model 670, which I've had since 1967.

Brian

taffer
11-30-2004, 06:46
Originally posted by Pherdinand
Yeah, how's that for old mechanical things...a bow :)

<gamer mode=on>
OF COURSE THAT'S GREAT !

:D BUAHAHAHAHA...
<gamer mode=off>

True that classic guns and classic cameras seem to have so many things in common. I pretty much prefer the second ones though, it doesn't hurt that much if I accidentally shoot my own foot :)

bmattock
11-30-2004, 07:00
Originally posted by r-brian
Bill

I have nothing against hunting. In fact, I have a degree in Wildlife Management. I grew up hunting, ergo my degree. (I just love the word 'ergo'.) I've humanely harvested my share of small and large game, spring turkey hunting being my favorite. Even had some worthless bird dogs years ago when I lived in Virginia. Still own some classic guns, 22 cal.Winchester Model 69 (circa late 1940's), 22 cal. Mossberg Model 44M (circa late 1940's) and a 20 gauge Remington Model 670, which I've had since 1967.

Brian

Brian,

Beg pardon, I misunderstood the basis of your statement regarding taking photos of game vs. shooting them with firearms. You were being literal - I sensed a message!

It's all those years of being a smoker - and a gun owner - I got used to being an 'oppressed minority' of sorts, facing disapproval at every turn...

Mea Culpa,

Bill Mattocks

sfaust
11-30-2004, 08:34
I never hunted, but owned a number of firearms over the years and still have some to this day. For me, it was all about appreciation of the mechanical aspects, and a personal challenge to take a very small object traveling at 2,000mph and put it dead center in small black circle at 100yards or longer.

I started with .22 and 30-06 in my early 20's, and have had something ever since. I got my first camera in my teens, and have always had a camera ever since. There seems to be a connection!

Hunting never appealed to me in the slightest. I just couldn't look a deer int he eye, then kill it. However, I understand how hunting is a part of mankind, and has been ever since, well, since however and whenever we got here on this planet.

There are no moral aspects of firearms with me. That lies squarely on those that use them inappropriately, and shouldn't be a burden on those that don't. I feel the same toward knifes, rope, hammers, autos, bricks, or any other object used inappropriately to harm others.

I currently have a Sig P229, Taurus .357, Colt AR-15, and a Colt Pocket 9. I used to be a police officer in my way past, and I think firearms just stayed with me on part because of all the training, practice, and just because...

Hey, thats funny. I just realized my signature line about never being is jail is incorrect. I was in jails all the time. I used to bring people there a lot!!! :) I guess I should change to read I never spend the night in jail!

Doug
11-30-2004, 10:44
Hey Stephen; cool: another Colt Pocket 9! Couldn't be all that many of those around, they were made so briefly. Like the Bessa-T? :) I too have a police connection in the past as a Reserve for 10 years... valuable experience.

Nikon Bob
11-30-2004, 12:01
Bill

I hear you about the " oppressed minority of sorts" bit being in the same boat. Cheer up I think there is a movement to ban junk food so we will have lots of company.

Bob

sfaust
11-30-2004, 13:20
Doug. I almost gave away the Pocket 9. Its a lousy shooter, but its packs in real small places :)

I spent about 12 years in law enforcement at various levels. Worked quite a few of the NE Patriots games in the Zoo (stadium). I got lured away by big money in networking back when the internet was still a dirt road. Best choice I ever made :)

doubs43
11-30-2004, 14:54
"cool: another Colt Pocket 9!"

I don't have a Colt Pocket 9 but I do have that Colt Woodsman I first fired in 1948. My father bought it new in 1927 and it still has the standard velocity main spring housing. It also has one of the nicest triggers you'll ever find on a pistol of it's type.... a factory hand-honed sear and hammer set installed shortly after being bought. Some day it will go to my son.

rbiemer
11-30-2004, 15:16
Oh boy, this group keeps getting more interesting. I worked for a gunsmith in the 70's while I was finishing highschool. That was just as the patents on the Colt 1911 were expiring and lots of folks were building "clone guns" in an amazing variety of fit and finish. I loved that job for e few reasons. I got to learn the 1911 very well and I got paid pretty good money for a teenager. We put the guns together during the week and then on Saturdays would take them to one of the local gun clubs and test fire them. 3 or 4 magazines through each gun. Then at the end of the day the boss would unbox or unwrap something from his collection. That was a dream! I shot an astounding number of different pistols and revolvers that I will likely never own. And we were still on the clock!
Beside the cool factor and the money I loved that job for one other reason: I was a teenager and my parents hated that I worked for a gunsmith. I have long since gotten that out of my system, thank goodness!
About that same time I found my dad's old Argus C3 in it's bag and asked him to show me how to use it and haven't been withou a camera since.
One major difference between cameras and guns: Its easier (and legal) to make your own cameras. And while I have no problem watching while any one builds/uses their cameras-- if the gun is homemade then I'll be happy to hear the results some other time I just remembered I have anything else to do just now.:D
Rob
Almost forgot, I have shot my foot once at the beginning of almost every roll of film I'v ever loaded into my Olypus Stylus cameras(1st and now Epic version)to check flah and film advance.

st3ph3nm
11-30-2004, 17:02
Originally posted by Doug

I got involved in reloading, too, akin to darkroom work, and treated the firing range as a testing lab.

Please tell me you don't reload in the dark! :D


I'm a "no" vote here. I was kinda into guns a little as a kid - my brothers were in a re-enactment society that had (at the time) the only working horse-drawn artillery piece (a 4pdr. IIRC) in Australia. Very cool watching it getting run across the MCG - much to the groundsman's dismay! So they also had muzzle loaders (old Martinis and the like) and did a little hunting (but with more modern stuff - 30/30's and Lee Enfields). So guns don't bother me. Hunting for food doesn't bother me, either, much. I'm a vegetarian myself, but that's because I, myself, couldn't pull the trigger. So by my own personal code, it seems hypocritical to ask someone else to do it for me. Easier to just not eat them, and restrain myself to patting and photographing them. :)

I *do* believe that there's a strong link on the engineering viewpoint that connects the two hobbies - and as others have mentioned, old cars, planes boats & whathaveyou. I just had a customer buy an 1971 Ferrari, and I can't wait for him to bring it in and show me the SIX (count 'em!) side-draught Webers on it!

Cheers,
Steve

rover
12-01-2004, 02:37
So, the last two times I went hunting...

I was in a field with my brother and father in a line, I was in the middle. We were going up a little hill, my brother was slightly ahead, and higher up than me to my left. I took a step, scared up a really big rabbit that darted forward to the left. It quickly was out of my shooting area, safety first, my brother was over there, but right in front of him, perfect shot. He was like Elmar Fudd fiddling with his gun and dropping his hat while I watched the bouncing white tail of the big bunny bound over the crest of the hill. He actually muttered, “What do I do now?"....

The last time, I think in the same area, I heard a rustling at my feet. I looked down, into a shrubby thing, and there stood a beautiful pheasant. Um, really, at my feet, he could have pecked my boots. So there I stood, gun in hand, bird at foot with a dilemma. You just don't blast the little sucker, it is unsporting, and there would be nothing left to eat!!! Choice two, kick the bugger to get him to fly. Well, that didn't seem right to me either. I hung out with him for a little while, we talked, and then I just moved on. He just poked around under the brush while I was there, and I really wished I had a camera...

I voted no. My father is a regularly unsuccessful hunter (now you know where I get it from) and avid shooter. He actually used to work for Winchester, late 60s early 70s. There are a couple guns in his collection that are mine for the taking, but I do not own one myself. I have not gone shooting since I was in college.

That being said, there is mechanical beauty in firearms, but they are really works of engineering simplicity. There are a number of major firearm manufactures in CT. I have had the opportunity to tour a number of them, and good fortune to count some as my customers. Marlin Firearms is a very well run clean shop, but it is just that, a big machine shop. I was told many times by the folks I dealt with there that what they do is simple and by no means high tech. I also had an opportunity to tour Colt's Firearms. Colt has been in bankruptcy and on the verge of disaster for probably 20 years. In my years of experience, theirs was the worst manufacturing facility I have ever seen, of any type. But, they still turn out a decent product. I guess my point is that their attraction my be the beauty of simplicity, like an M3, or whatever your nostalgic self enjoys.

dont45
02-03-2005, 17:21
I'm rather shocked by this relationship between guns and photographers. I grew up in the midwest where a gun was as common, and as unthreatning as a baseball. I became interested in photography in the 8th grade, so it's been guns and cameras ever since. I think the comment about liking fine made machines may be right on for me. I just love the fine side-by-side double barrels. A few years ago I bought a new ou Beretta. It's nice, but I never shoot it. I go back to my 1905 English double.
I just bought an MP and shot my first couple of rolls of film. I'm not a leica nut, but I'll tell you that of every camera I've ever touched or used, this one is no comparison. It must be like a Rolex -- I never owned one, but I'm sure glad I sprung for the MP. When I think about the old English gun, and what some of you've said about the M3, I think I understand where you're comming from.
Anyway, what a great array of topics and contributions here. I never know what I'll find, but it's always interesting and often useful.
Thanks
Don Thompson

Rob
02-03-2005, 17:38
I have a Ruger 10-22 and a Ruger P97 (.45) but rarely shoot them.
I just put holes in paper targets, never had a desire for hunting.
Never was into collecting guns, so thats all I have. Tried skeet
shooting recently for the first time, seemed pretty easy to hit them.

Doug
02-03-2005, 21:23
At one time I collected guns, and learned what a black hole collecting can be! That's why I now constantly examine my motives for wanting a new piece of camera gear. I don't want to fall into the trap again!

aizan
02-03-2005, 23:19
archery, too!

RubenBlaedel
02-03-2005, 23:25
In Denmark you need a weapons permit to carry a a pocket knif if the blade is more than 5 cm so I dropped the whole gun collectiong business before i got into it- but i did shoot in a club once and I think that the breathing techniques the trainer told me helped me do hand held shots at at least two stops slower without camera shakes.

Doug
02-03-2005, 23:51
Very good point, Ruben! I too think I can better hand-hold a camera at a slow shutter speed due to techniques learned in competitive rifle shooting.

CraigK
02-04-2005, 04:51
I came upon this topic as I took a break from writing an article about photography and hunting.

Very a propos non?

So let me start off by saying: My name is Craig and I like guns.

(group reply) "Hi Craig"

I am also an artist, photographer, photography educator, self confessed dog nut and lover of jazz and peaty scotch.

I should also mention that when I say "I like" or "I'm into" something I actually mean that I am in so deeply you'd need Jacques Cousteau in a diving bell to pull me out.

Guns? Ya I've got a safe full of 'em despite living in Canada, the home of the 2 billion dollar gun registration program that makes about as much sense as putting a thong on a flatulent rhino. In fact I'm in the market for another gun. I am leaning towards an Aya #2 16 guage but my obsession for a Leica M3 keeps getting in the way of that purchase.....

Photography? Check. What started out as a hobby 20 some years ago is now my profession. I am a commercial photographer specializing in being a generalist in a mid sized Canadian city. My studio (http://www.studio448.com) is of course mainly digital now with all kinds of bits and bites flying around daily but all of my staff shooters are well versed in the traditional ways and some have even caught the RF bug.

Educator? Check. I earned eductation related degrees in Manitoba and Quebec and ended up teaching in the public school system. What did I do when I got out after swearing I would never teach again? Yup, I started a photography school (http://www.prairieview.ca). We have 16 full time students in a 10 month diploma program and welcome over 700 part time enthusiasts to evening courses throughout the year.

Dog? Triple Check... we have three. Two Weimaraners and and an Epagneul de Pont Audemer (http://homepage.mac.com/ckoshyk/English.htm). I am currently writing a book on the various pointing breeds from continental Europe and travel in North America and Europe photographing dogs (http://homepage.mac.com/ckoshyk/Chiendog/PhotoAlbum32.html) with a variety of cameras including my trusty rangefinders.

Jazz and peaty scotch? Stay tuned. I will post some photos of this weekend's concert by Luciana Sousa and I will drink a toast of Ardbeg to all my new friends at RFF

Cheers!

Brian Sweeney
02-04-2005, 07:04
I have not fired a gun in many years, but still have a few. AR-1, Bolt-Action 22LR that my dad gave me when I turned 10, and an 1891 Mauser. I have enough property to legally fire the 22LR in my back yard, but I have not. We have a lot of deer around the area, yesterday 6 came through at once. They are fairly tame, but manage to notice whenever I have a telephoto. Some of my friends hunt, and would love to try out the backyard. I tell them that would be fine, they will be dodging bullets, my Wife has the AR-1, a banana clip, and the high ground...

d30gaijin
02-04-2005, 10:42
To say I'm also a shooting enthusiast would be a slight understatement. For starters I live on and manage the local public shooting range (rifle and pistol range) outside of Boise, Idaho. I have been a long range competitive target rifle shooter since 1991. I shot at Camp Perry in the National Matches in 1995, didn't do all that well (thanks to a cross fire) but had a great time. I haven't been back to Camp Perry since because there is a rather limited number of long range matches at the National Matches there, not to mention it's a 4400 mile round trip for me (long range being 800, 900, & 1000 yards). I have since; each year instead, attended the Rocky Mountain Palma Matches at the NRA Whittington Center at Raton, New Mexico where they shoot long range for nearly a week (that's only a 2000 mile round trip).

I have shot long range matches in California, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and British Columbia. In 1999 and 2000 I was fortunate enough to be selected as a firing team member on the USA Team to British Columbia shooting against the Canadian and British Rifle Teams. In 1999 I finished as 2nd high team scorer for the USA, and in 2000 as the high team scorer for the USA.

Photography wise I am a gearhead, shooting wise I'm a gun nut. I also enjoy astronomy, riding my Harley on occasion, trying to rebuild my Porsche 914, and doing good work for the great people of the State of Idaho by also working for the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (yep, I work two jobs, have for the last 6 1/2 years).

Sorry for the lengthy dissertation.

Don

pradeep1
02-04-2005, 20:24
I have this little theory that firearms shooters tends to be involved in photography. I have noticed it here in Singapore at the local shooting club.

I think it has to do with working with fine, intricate, and well made machinery that can be appreciated. I've noticed photographers, gun nuts, and car nuts tend to flock together.

Ilmarin
02-10-2005, 19:36
That's what I used to do... (http://www.ilmarin.info/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album48&id=fencingVovka03)

Nick R.
02-11-2005, 12:22
Guns
Cameras
Watches
Stereo stuff
Motorcycles
Musclecars


Did I forget anything?

DougK
02-11-2005, 13:57
I don't own any firearms, nor have I ever, but I did in fact enjoy my time on rifle team in college and all weapons qualification in the Army. For some reason, I've always found it relaxing, probably because I have to force myself not to be tense the same way I do in photography.

Roger Hicks
04-15-2005, 11:47
Colt National Match c. 1935, Ruger single-action magnum, stainless.

Lots of Leicas, a 1972 Land Rover Series III, a 1978 BMW R100RS...

Cheers,

Roger

FrankS
04-15-2005, 11:50
Leica, Rolleiflex, BMW R90/6, R100/7

Roger Hicks
04-15-2005, 11:56
Forgot to add: Empire Test, Marksman. Do they still have the Empire Test in the army?

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com, www.motorcycletouringineurope.com)

JoeFriday
04-15-2005, 12:06
I also suspect that a part of it might be the appreciation of fine machinery. Great classic SLRs and rangefinders have that essence of the awesome about them, such that they transcend being merely recorders of photons on film, objects of glass and steel, and become imbued with something that, if not an actual soul, is very much like one in many respects.

that's definitely the case with me.. I was drawn to handguns because of the mechanical aspects.. and like cameras, I learned that newer is not necessarily better.. my first handgun was a H&K USP40, which I bought because it touted the newest technology.. same thing for my first camera, a Nikon D70

now I own a Kimber CDP, which is built on the Browning 1911 design.. and my favorite camera is a Yashica GSN.. with a Bessa R3A soon on its way.. and eventually a Leica (model still undetermined)

nikon_sam
04-15-2005, 12:15
I would love to own a handgun but another hobby???!!!
My wife would shoot me then take one of the cameras and shoot me again to warn any others who try the same !!!

nwcanonman
04-15-2005, 12:24
My mom said I was born with a gun in my hand (watch it!), since as a kid I supplied the myself and the neighbors kids with toy guns playing army, cowboys/indians and cops/robbers.
The photography came later, around age 8, using dad's Brownies's and Polaroids.
The old rangefinders are much easier on the wallet than new pistols these days, and not as much Paperwork to own either - LOL.

Wayne R. Scott
04-15-2005, 12:32
I don't know how I missed this thread until today. I also own firearms and cameras. I have an Old Model Ruger Blackhawk in .45 Long Colt that I did NOT have modified with the new "improved" transfer bar type hammer. It just sounds better when it is cocked than the new model does. I also like the way my Contax IIa and IIIa sound when they are cocked and shot.

I also believe that being a rifle and handgun shooter helps with being a steady hand with a camera. But, having said that, I have shot enough that I know I can do better if I use a rest when shooting a rifle and a tripod when shooting a camera.

Along those same lines I think being a trap and skeet shooter along with being a bird hunter helps with the rangefinder style of seeing the photo oppurtunity and quickly "capturing" the moment.

I might mention that I also reload my ammo, mould my own bullets, make my own feather fletching for my arrows and develop and print my black & white film at home.

I shoot traditional bows (no wheels or cams on the limbs, no Kung-Fu laser sight devices, or releases). It's not that I have any thing against those types of compound bows, they, just like digital cameras, are not right for me.

I have a box full of medals around here some place that supposedly says I am a half way decent shot with a rifle, but I don't shoot near as much as I did as a youth.

Interesting thread.

Wayne

JoeFriday
04-15-2005, 12:59
Leica, Rolleiflex, BMW R90/6, R100/7

Frank, I'd love to see some pics of your bimmers

not to mention a few of the shooters everyone listed

kiev4a
04-15-2005, 13:26
It interesting that just about any film camera forum seems to have quite a few folks interested in guns, too. Probably is the mechanical angle.
I used to shoot a lot -- Colt Combat Commander (just like my Leotax I wish I hadn't sold it). Still have the war surplus 1917 Enfield in my closet that my dad customized about 1949 as well as my late father-in-law's French Labelle bolt action (there's no safety!!). I hunted until my late 40s but found I enjoyed the companionship of the people on a deer hunt more than the actual hunting. Have no problem with people who hunt for meat but don't have much use for folks who trophy hunt. I think you tend to get more sensitive as you get older. Stll, if I didn't spend so much time a money on cameras I would probably has a civilian model AR-15 with the heavy match barrel in my closet. Never know when we might have to repell the Communist Hordes!! ;)

DougK
04-15-2005, 14:16
Forgot to add: Empire Test, Marksman. Do they still have the Empire Test in the army?

Cheers,

Roger
I'm not familiar with that test (at least by that name). Our rifle qualification was done against pop-up man-sized torso targets at ranges from 50m - 300m, although for competitive smallbore rifle I punched a ridiculous number of holes into traditional 25m bullseye targets as well.

Flinor
04-15-2005, 15:00
Anyone who has ever advanced the film on a Leica M3 and then cocked the hammer on a Colt Python will understand the similarity of precision products designed and engineered for a single purpose.

Doug
04-15-2005, 15:18
Modern and... not so modern!
Vektor CP1 (South Africa) and Bergmann-Bayard (Danish production)

Peter
04-15-2005, 16:27
Modern and... not so modern!
Vektor CP1 (South Africa) and Bergmann-Bayard (Danish production)

Hi Doug, you have a Bergmann-Bayard in your collection! :)

FrankS
04-15-2005, 17:27
For me it is the appreciation of fine mechanical design and engineering.

agfa100
04-15-2005, 17:41
I just punch paper, 10 meter air pistol & a Benelli MP-95e with a custom Nill grip, keeps me out of trouble.

Doug
04-15-2005, 20:23
Hi Doug, you have a Bergmann-Bayard in your collection! :)Hi Peter -- Yes, you are familiar with it? The Belgians licensed the design from a German company and sold a bunch of them mostly to the militaries of Spain and Denmark before World War I. This was the origin of the cartridge now commonly called "9mm Largo." After the war, the Danes wanted some more, but the Belgian tooling had been destroyed, so they licensed its production in the Danish Royal Arsenal in Copenhagen.

Only 2204 were manufactured. This one was made in 1924, and is a transitional model between the early and late variations. And the wood grips in their characteristic pattern came from a later arsenal refit. Some history like this gives the piece some character!

The Vektor above is rare too, becuase shortly after commercial distribution, I think within a year, they were recalled to the factory due to a safety-related concern. The company tracked down all the buyers and offered inducements to buy them back. I ignored them... The gun was never reissued with the problem resolved. So I don't know how few others exist.

And beneath the modernistic styling, the mechanical design is interesting too, as it's a "gas-retarded blowback" design like the HK P7, Heritage Stealth, and the rare Chinese Norinco 77B. About the only characteristics it shares with the Bergmann-Bayard is the 9mm bore (it takes the common 9mm Parabellum), and the manual safety integrated with the front of the trigger guard.

Well... that's gun collector chatter; now back to our talk of cameras old and new... :D

Doug
04-15-2005, 20:32
Forgot to mention that my two illustrations were done without a camera; the guns were simply laid on the platten of the flatbed scanner and scanned. :)

davidcreede
05-30-2005, 16:46
think of it, a handgun that weighs 5 ounces, made entirely of polycarbonate, except the barrel it would be aluminium, auto everything, automatic sight adjustment, automatic loading, automatic cocking, automatic magazine release, i mean really, who would want manual features at all?

doubs43
05-30-2005, 16:59
Doug, are you familiar with the Czech CZ-52 service pistol? A lot of them have been imported in recent years, chambered for the 7.62x25 Tokarev cartridge which the Czechs hot-rodded to roughly 1600 fps. Anyway, Century Arms brought some in with a second, 9mm Parabellum (Luger) chambered barrel and also sold some with only the 9mm barrel. I have one that has had the Luger chamber opened up to accept the 9mm Largo. I haven't shot it much but the Largo feeds through the mag perfectly. I reload the Largo cartridge using 38 Super dies and keep the velocities reasonable. I have several other pistols that also fire the Largo cartridge.

Walker

TPPhotog
05-30-2005, 17:04
I don't have them now as it's too much hassle in the UK to own firearms, plus my current wife hates them. I used to shoot smallbore target rifle for about 10 or 12 years. I was represented the County for about 3 years and also represented the Police Force I was with for 4 years.

Doug
05-30-2005, 18:53
Very cool, Walker! I too had the chamber in the 9mm bbl (furnished by Century with the CZ-52) lengthened to 9mm Largo/9x23mm Winchester dimensions for more reliable feeding. Sort of defeated the purpose of the 9x17 barrel though, intended to make the CZ more salable through accepting such common ammo. Oh well, whatever works!

Consulting with Wolff Springs, we came up with a stronger recoil spring to control battering (I see they now offer a couple of spring choices for this model), and avoid launching spent cases into orbit. 38 ACP and 38 Super have a bit larger rim, so they didn't extract or feed well in mine. I use 9x23 Win dies, as the Super's web diameter is a bit smaller. I figure standard-pressure loads for 9mm Largo should be plenty safe in this barrel...

Sounds like we've been having some similar fun with these! :)

tekgypsy
05-30-2005, 19:31
I also believe that being a rifle and handgun shooter helps with being a steady hand with a camera. But, having said that, I have shot enough that I know I can do better if I use a rest when shooting a rifle and a tripod when shooting a camera.

I shoot traditional bows (no wheels or cams on the limbs, no Kung-Fu laser sight devices, or releases). It's not that I have any thing against those types of compound bows, they, just like digital cameras, are not right for me.

I have a box full of medals around here some place that supposedly says I am a half way decent shot with a rifle, but I don't shoot near as much as I did as a youth.

Interesting thread.

Wayne

and another Wayne here.... 18 months as a markmanship instructor at MCRD Parris Island... always shot high expert with the rifle (couldn't hit the floor with a pistol), went for tyro on the rifle/pistol team

don't own any weapons at all now... the limp-wristed congress critters haven't outlawed cameras... yet.

i have already indicated my photo technique (or lack thereof) in the Street Ninjas thread....

there are a lot of similarities...

sychan
05-30-2005, 21:12
I'm also a shooter, but haven't been shooting guns much since I started shooting cameras. There's a HK P7 PSP in my safe that I've been trying to decide what to do with (talk about fine German mechanical devices - it makes my Leica M2 seem coarse and primitive).

Anyone want to trade me some RF gear of comparable value for it? I'm not kidding!

ps.
You guys shooting the CZ-52s are aware that the decockers on those are kind of squirrelly and have been known to act as a second trigger at times, right?!! I'm not some kind of HK snob either - I used to own a CZ PCR, and have lusted after a CZ-75SA for a while.

Doug
05-30-2005, 21:52
Bit of danger of this turning into the Gunslinger Forum! Yeah, I knew about the unfortunate unreliability of the CZ-52 decocker, good to keep that in mind. There've also been incidents with other pistols' decockers, so I just don't use them at all... Probably a good idea to let the hammer down gently in any case.

You've got a gem, there, sychan in the P7, a very innovative and excellent design. Very fast into action too; designed for police use and good in that role. I think yours is the first variation, isn't it; direct predecessor of the P7 M8. Mine is the little P7 K3 model...

doubs43
05-30-2005, 22:02
38 ACP and 38 Super have a bit larger rim, so they didn't extract or feed well in mine. I use 9x23 Win dies, as the Super's web diameter is a bit smaller. I figure standard-pressure loads for 9mm Largo should be plenty safe in this barrel...

Sounds like we've been having some similar fun with these! :)

IIRC, I initially used 9mm Winchester Magnum brass that I trimmed to the correct length. I later bought brass from Starline. The only pistol I've used the semi-rimmed cases (38 ACP or 38 Super cases loaded to Largo pressures) in is the Astra 400 which will handle the semi-rim cases OK. The hood on the barrels of the 1911 look-alikes (Stars) can be relieved to seat and fire the semi-rimmed cartridges but I never liked the idea myself. The 9x23 Mag cases you used have a much thicker web than normal cases and gave you an even greater margin of safety.

I load for some not-so-common cartridges such as the .30 Luger and 7.63 Mauser pistol. I've always had a "thing" for the .30 Luger and own a number of different pistols for the caliber.

Walker

BAPIEMAI
05-31-2005, 00:18
Actually I used to be a special forces sniper a few years ago and it has really helped me to shoot handheld in low light situations. Other than that I hate guns, I think owning a gun is a sign of weakness (no offence intended to anyone). For self defence I prefer my hands (I'd like to see someone try to take my leica when I get one)

Roger Hicks
05-31-2005, 00:40
Sign of weakness? Hmmm... In what way? Immaturity, maybe, and (if they think they do much for 'self-protection') naivety. A friend of mine used to have a Bren gun in the basement in Lhasa but as he said, when the Chinese used tanks and aircraft to invade and subjugate Tibet, there wasn't much you could keep at home that would stop them. Though the Swiss really do seem to have the 'well regulated militia' that the American constitution envisioned.

Like most small boys I had an air pistol and then an air rifle, and I always enjoyed target shooting. At school, we were required to learn rifle shooting (Cadet Corps) and I was pretty good. Then, years later, my late father-in-law was a crack pistol shot (he was head of the Cornell team in the early 30s and he went on getting better for decades) and in the 90s I inherited some of his guns, including a Colt 45 National Match from his Cornell days.

Partly there is the engineering, but there's also the fascination/challenge of using something that is better at what it does than I am: the National Match doesn't limit my marksmanship, just as an MP doesn't limit my photography. It's a different challenge from making things work that don't really want to work, like digital cameras or computers.

Finally, I think that everyone should be required, as part of the school curriculum, to learn to use firearms so that their ideas don't come from Hollywood, where even 44 magnums merely inflict small flesh wounds on the goodies while 22 pistols instantly kill all the baddies, sometimes at 48 to the magazine. They can give them up as soon as they like, but at least they might require some respect for the things and realize that unless you are careful they are seriously dangerous.

Cheers,

Roger

BAPIEMAI
05-31-2005, 00:55
'...In what way? Immaturity, maybe...'

I mean exactly that. Here in Greece owning a gun is illegal and it is very difficult to get a permit. The people which do own guns here think themselves as John Rambo and I don't mean kids but adults in their 30s.

And don't get me started about the army, there was a guy in my platoon who was a regular Commando, tall, strong full of self confidence. The moron when he thought noone watched talked to the gun. So this great Special Forces Commando when he got a transfer he didn't like he was crying like a baby yelling he will quit and escape and stuff like that.

And let's ask this what is the purpose of a gun ? To kill people and for sport. I don't like the idea of killing anyone and for sport shooting I prefer my EOS with 75-300.

Roger Hicks
05-31-2005, 01:15
Dear Bapiemai,

The very illegality of it is one of the worrying aspects. The anti-gun hysteria in Britain is characteristic of a somewhat hysterical nation (the Dangerous Dogs Act is another example, or the current paedophile hysteria): I just don't like being told I can't own a gun. When they were legal I never considered buying one, but once I had firearms (by accident, as I say above), I was damned if I was going to give them up when they were suddenly made illegal.

Then again, if I were the kind of illiberal, authoritarian control freak that Britain has selected for most Home Secretaries in the last decade or more, I suppose I'd want to ban guns too, knowing I'd be a favoured target.

As for the purpose of a gun, apart from shooting Home Secretaries, don't forget too that some farmers can make an excellent case for vermin control with guns. What am I saying, APART FROM Home Secretaries?

Also, well-regulated hunting is defensible; the Germans and Czechs (for example) don't seem to slaughter one another when hunting in quite the same numbers that some other nationalities do. But of course these are long guns rather than pistols -- though where I live, hare are so plentiful this year I reckon I'd be OK with a pistol... And I do like hare!

I fully take your point about the morons and the Rambos but wouldn't you say that even a moron might have slightly more respect for a gun once he'd seen what happened when the bullet hits something -- straight through planks of wood, that sort of thing -- and that the best place for this would be at school, which is rarely associated with excitement and the illicit?

Cheers,

Roger

BAPIEMAI
05-31-2005, 01:31
I suppose it all depends where you live. In Greece crime rates are not so high for people to demand to have handguns so those that do are the Rambo types. As far as hunting goes you can get any hunting rifle and shotgun and you can even purchase shells for hunting wild boar (they can cut a man in two theses shells).

Hunters are totally different but there are two categories. There are those who love nature and hunt for sport but ALWAYS respect the hunting laws and kill only what they will eat. These guys you cannot tell them apart from Greenpeace, they repsect the prey they do not torture it and will not eradicate a whole ecosystem for fun.

But there are also types who shoot down eagles. What kind of pervert you have to be to kill an eagle ?

Maybe I have strong opinion because I know guns, I know people who use them and I have used them. I have witnessed som very bad accidents involving sniper rifles and 7.62 rounds (the guys scalp was blown off but after two weeks in a comma he came out fine)

TPPhotog
05-31-2005, 02:00
There are always exceptions but here in the UK before the effective ban, the firearms laws were always very strict. Anyone applying for a Section 1 license which was any firearm other than a shotgun or air weapon under a certain power had to be a club member and be positively vetted by the Police to get a license.

In order to stay in the County Squad and the Police Team I would be either practicing or taking part in competitions 4 or 5 days a week, very much like any other sport at a higher level.

Since the ban on firearms in the UK, the incidence of gun related crime has increased dramatically. So now the villains have firearms and the peace loving sportsmen do not.

As Roger said it was "anti-gun hysteria" :(

bruenhilde
05-31-2005, 02:23
My experience with hunters was quite scary. Those guys can be quite dangerous, if it happens to you to meet them unwillingy in the woods. I was with my young son (4 years old then) picking up some mushrooms (edible of course) and those bloody hunters were surrounding the area full of wild animals, and
scaring those poor beings ****less, and I didn't know that we two (me and my kid) were in that same hunting area. There was no warning that hunting is going on, nothing... I saw some deers running like mad through the woods, but I didn't suspect anything is wrong... And then, after some time, I saw that strange and powerful animal, wild boar, very excited, criss-crossing in my direction. I just grab my kid under my arm, when scared beast stopped around 3 meters before me, and I run for life with my child in my arms, but animal also turned other way and probably did the same as I was doing..., running to some safe place...

I thanked to the stars for good luck, because if that beast had been wounded, I just didn't want to think about the consequences of such an event.

TPPhotog
05-31-2005, 02:29
The only experience I have with hunting as I live in the country side are those that use shotguns or horse and hounds. The ones I have met have always been friendly but I've never hunted myself unless you count fishing, never seen the point as we have many wonderful butchers shops for food.

BAPIEMAI
05-31-2005, 02:50
The idea of eating your prey is about respect to nature. You don't kill for sport you kill as a hunter only what you need as the first humans did. Of course you don't need that to survive in modern times but they way it is done it causes no harm to the ecosystem. In Greece when hunting for wild boar you don't kill everything in your path you just hunt for one and after that it's over. It is no more unethical as going to the butcher's.

TPPhotog
05-31-2005, 02:54
I see nothing unethical in hunting and have no objections to those that do. I'm just not into hunting myself.

BAPIEMAI
05-31-2005, 03:00
I'm not into it either because I don't like guns. I prefer to 'hunt' lizards and other bugs with macro lens, now that takes skill.

TPPhotog
05-31-2005, 03:07
LOL Good point as a Street Shooter I guess I am a Hunter after all :D

bruenhilde
05-31-2005, 03:11
I agree with you BAPIEMAI. I admire hunters that go after their prey like Indians in Northern America did, but those modern hunters of our time, they come on the scene in their luxurious 4x4 SUVs, surround as much area of the wood as possible with the help of a packs of hunting dogs, and then those great wild animals like deers, bears, wild boars, lynxes, wolves, etc... are mercilessly slaughtered from the safe distance of course... In my country, the profile of a hunter that I have met is more or less fat, lazy and rather drunk soulless creature. And there is not so low a figure of collateral damage (wounded or dead humans), caused by these madmen,...

TPPhotog
05-31-2005, 03:17
... In my country, the profile of a hunter that I have met is more or less fat, lazy and rather drunk soulless creature....Maybe in your country you could hunt the hunters?

BAPIEMAI
05-31-2005, 03:30
I guess morons are everywhere. How the hell can we trust guys like that with guns. But I suppose guns replece sex to these fellows, what they cannot do to their wifes they do to animals.

The bad thing is that legitamate hunters are blamed too, just like with street photographer these days who cannot shoot kids because tey branded as perverts

bruenhilde
05-31-2005, 03:51
TPPhotog,

Of course, I don't believe that all hunters in my country are such *******s as I depicted them. But, from my experience, I could not say much good about them. They do shoot (protected by law) eagles (perverts), they do shoot protected species of animals in our mountains, like chamois and ibexes... But I am speaking only from my experience, and I did see them in action, and I did see the consequences --> dozen or more killed young deers, in winter hills (I am an avid mountain hiker), when there was 1m of snow, and those poor animals were more or less helpless,... I did see their ugly (hidden) "bloodthirsty-drunken-triggerhappy" face, other (public or newspaper) face is all "friendly-somber-eco-green" of course.

But, sometimes, yes, sometimes even one of them got a bullet from their comrade... Friendly fire I guess....

I am also some sort of a hunter, but only when using my macro equipment. And only flowers and plants are not too fast for my clumsy hand :) But this is RFF forum, my macro is all SLR...

TPPhotog
05-31-2005, 04:24
Bruenhilde, no worries I didn't think you were inferring that they are all the same ;) Happily in the UK we usually (not always depending on the persons views) differentiate between hunters and poachers. Sadly there will always be those that have no morals and/or break the rules, happily they are a minority for the present or we would have anarchy.

Also sadly the hysteria in the UK is targeted towards pictures of children these days and it is getting more risky taking street shots. The media has effectively labeled all photographers taking pictures of children with the blanket feeling that we must be up to something un-natural. HCB and other icons would turn in their grave.

Nikon Bob
05-31-2005, 04:25
Anyone who has ever advanced the film on a Leica M3 and then cocked the hammer on a Colt Python will understand the similarity of precision products designed and engineered for a single purpose.

You are absolutely correct. Both are very crisp and clean in their mechanical workings. Wish I had not sold the Python many years ago.

Bob

nwcanonman
05-31-2005, 06:16
Actually I used to be a special forces sniper a few years ago and it has really helped me to shoot handheld in low light situations. Other than that I hate guns, I think owning a gun is a sign of weakness (no offence intended to anyone). For self defence I prefer my hands (I'd like to see someone try to take my leica when I get one)
............................................
If you are a trained SF soldier, "using your hands" is great. If you are an elderly person, a small woman or the average untrained person is attacked by a street thug, the ability to protect him/herself is small if they don't have a legally trained weapon.
Here is the USA it is legal to carry a pistol in most states, and those that have carry permits very rarely use guns illegally.
Daily street crime is why we own firearms, not to protect against tanks and soldiers.

doubs43
05-31-2005, 15:59
I lived in England between 1981 and 1987. I belonged to the "Viking Pistol Club" at Wickham Market, Suffolk County. I had a Firearms Permit and owned three handguns with which I shot competition in Smallbore (.22), Centerfire Revolver and Centerfire Pistol. I often shot on the Suffolk County Pistol Team in competitions from Great Yarmouth to just North of London. I still have all three handguns.

The so-called "Hungerford Massacre" happened not many months before I came back to the States and it didn't take long for the anti-gun faction in England to get legislation introducted in Parliment to remove most guns from the hands of private British Subjects. I'll long remember the conversation that I had with one of the Richardson Brothers at their gun shop in Halesworth. He said "Well, the new legislation won't hurt us as all we sell are shotguns and air rifles." I told him that I was sorry to disagree but that the anti-gun people wouldn't be satisfied until every gun of every kind was outlawed. He didn't believe me.

The pity is that every gun owner that I knew or met in England was aware of the consequences of misusing a gun and were possibly the most responsible, law-abiding people I've known. They didn't deserve their fate and it will be the everlasting shame of every MP who voted for the legislation that they wronged so many fine people....... better people than the average by far, IMO.

Walker

There are always exceptions but here in the UK before the effective ban, the firearms laws were always very strict. Anyone applying for a Section 1 license which was any firearm other than a shotgun or air weapon under a certain power had to be a club member and be positively vetted by the Police to get a license.

In order to stay in the County Squad and the Police Team I would be either practicing or taking part in competitions 4 or 5 days a week, very much like any other sport at a higher level.

Since the ban on firearms in the UK, the incidence of gun related crime has increased dramatically. So now the villains have firearms and the peace loving sportsmen do not.

As Roger said it was "anti-gun hysteria" :(

Nikon Bob
05-31-2005, 16:24
When I started shooting pistols over 30 years ago in Canada and it was then legal to own a machine gun as it was a class of restricted firearm that had to be registered. I watched as a series of progressively more draconian gun regulations were passed over the years. First to go was the legally owned machine guns and the hunters and trap and skeet shooters did not care. Then they slowly cut down on the type of handgun you could legally own and the aforementioned groups did not care. The light finally came on after you had to register all firearms and the whining started. It took 30 years and they got what they wanted. From my point of view it is a billion dollar pacifier to stick in the general public's collective mouth to calm the anti-gun hysteria. That money could have been better spent on our public health care sytem. We are no safer today. This trend is also happened in Australia, the USA and England at the same time. To get back on topic, I am glad I had the chance to learn to shoot firearms as the techniques used apply very well to camera shooting.

Bob

nwcanonman
05-31-2005, 18:45
Nikon Bob,
In the USA there is one major stumbling block for the anti-gun hysteria, the National Rifle Association. Despite being demonized by the media, the NRA fights legally for honest gun ownership by target shooters, hunters, collectors and trains thousands of policeman and soldiers as well.
Every time I hear the anti-gun crowd say, "Guns are only used to kill people", I wonder what the 200+ USA Olympic Shooters team members are winning medals for - LOL.
I'm proud to be an NRA Life member.

BAPIEMAI
05-31-2005, 23:48
@ nwcanonman

I am NOT against the ownership of guns I just say that owning one makes you even more vulnerable.

If it was legal in Greece to own handguns I probably would have one in my closet but I am well trained to use it in self defence (and offence) but I wouldn't carry it with me outdoors.

You said that law abiding citizens like elders should carry guns for self defence. Do you think a guy with no military training can defend himself against a thug who uses a gun for a living ?
If you stick a gun to my face I could kill you with my hands before you can squeeze that trigger BUT if something like that happens I'll just give you my money because the risk is not worth it and furthermore I don't want to kill a thief.

The fact is that all of us 'normal' citizens have never been in a life/death situation but probably the criminals have, so even if we do make a move against them they do have the upper hand and most probably will end up dead as well as empty pocketed.

I for myself have been trained but have never seen real combat, in a firefight with an armed thug I think I would lose.

nwcanonman
06-01-2005, 06:54
LOL - the only life/death situation most criminals get into is when they attack an armed citizen. Most criminals are (A) Lazy and (B) Cowards.
If they see someone walking with confidence and another who exudes fear, the criminal will pick on the fearful one knowing he won't put up any resistance.
As an emergency services worker, I've been shot at, but never had to point my gun at another human being. But I'd have no problem defending my life if it should ever become absolutely neseccary.
BTW- most armed thugs do not practice shooting, they're lucky to just scare their victims, and only hit them at contact distance (a meter away).

TPPhotog
06-01-2005, 10:35
..... The pity is that every gun owner that I knew or met in England was aware of the consequences of misusing a gun and were possibly the most responsible, law-abiding people I've known. They didn't deserve their fate and it will be the everlasting shame of every MP who voted for the legislation that they wronged so many fine people....... better people than the average by far, IMO.

WalkerWalker I completely agree with you. I used to visit several clubs and I don't think I ever met a person in one of those clubs I didn't like. There were some that I disagreed with of course, but everyone was responsible and law-abiding.

Roger Hicks
06-01-2005, 12:03
I'm right with BAPIEMAI on this one -- NO-ONE should be allowed to handle firearms without firearms training: Floridian geriatrics and Rambos of any age are unlikely to be able to defend themselves effectively without training, which almost no-one ever takes. Guns for self defence, for most people, are a worthless fantasy. Statistically, having a gun in the house makes it MUCH likelier you will be shot, at least in the USA.

This is because a staggering percentage of US gun-owners have absolutely no idea what they are doing with the guns they buy. More than once I have walked out of gun shops because I have been frightened by the cretins in them -- like the guy who walked into an Alabama gunshop I patronize; laid a pistol on the counter, barrel pointing at the shop assistant's gut; and said, "I had a hang fire and it's jammed. What should I do?" The man behind the counter hastily pointed it in a safe direction...

The phrase 'well regulated' in 'well regulated militia' is completely ignored by the NRA, and indeed the constitution is regularly flouted: if a militia is indeed the constitutional excuse for owning firearms, the one gun you cannot ban is the auto/semi auto switchable 'assault rifle'. Pistols, shotguns and everything else are arguably NOT covered by this amendment.

I am not anti-gun: I am pro-gun. I have experience of firearms ownership; I lived in California for 5 years; I own guns (which are stored in California); and my wife is a US citizen who has been shooting since she was big enough to hold a gun. But I do believe in gun control, and I am not very sure that I believe in guns for 'personal defense'.

I have never pointed a gun at anyone, because I was always told that you never point a gun at anyone unless you entertain the possibility of firing it. I have only looked down the muzzle of a gun that was pointed at me once: he was a Vietnam vet, at the time (this was many years ago) still in the Marines: I was 16 or 17 years old. The muzzle did, indeed, look like the mouth of the Blackwall Tunnel. I believe (with BAPIEMAI) that a frightening number of gun owners suffer from SWS (Small Willy Syndrome) but I am still enough of a libertarian to believe that this is not a convincing argument for banning guns completely.

Cheers,

Roger

Nikon Bob
06-01-2005, 14:25
Well said Roger.

Bob

phototone
06-01-2005, 15:24
I am not a gun owner, but my ex-brother in law was really into target shooting, and at one time I participated with him in shooting metal targets with one of his pistols, and turns out I was a really good shot. I think the training of holding a camera steady for a long exposure helped that out quite a bit. So the same skill sets may be applicable.

TPPhotog
06-01-2005, 15:26
.... So the same skill sets may be applicable.I 100% agree ;)

JimL
07-04-2005, 11:02
Used to be a enthusiastic handgunner.
All handguns were outlawed in the UK a few years ago.
Bummer.

tenebrae
08-04-2005, 12:26
A friend of mine once remarked that I, obviously, was "into" black artifacts. Bakelite telephones, vintage typewriters, camera's. And firearms. I no longer have the telephones and typewriters (lack of storage space), but I am both a photography and shooting enthusiast. Luckily, I have a wife who also enjoys both hobbies...

The cameras and guns we own are based on technology that has virtually remained unchanged for many decades. With a 40-year old camera or rifle, it is possible to still get better (or aesthetically more pleasing) results than with any "modern" (brand new) one. It all depends on the shooter. Quite unlike, say, computers, which are hopelessly outdated and useless within a few years, no matter how proficient the man or woman behind it.

As for shooting, we both very much enjoy Dynamic Service Rifle and static target shooting with military rifles. We own two SIG rifles (a 550 and a 510-4), and two Heckler & Koch rifles (a G3 and a HK51). One of these days, I will shoot some nice wide aperture "portraits" of them on 25 ASA B&W film...

TPPhotog
08-04-2005, 12:30
Used to be a enthusiastic handgunner.
All handguns were outlawed in the UK a few years ago.
Bummer.Yep one of the few things in the UK we can win Olympic medals at and they ban it. Still I suppose we have dominoes until they discover it can cause RSI ;)

p.ath.
08-04-2005, 13:58
the differences may be cultural (im a brit living currently in germany), but i have to admit im having my problems with this discussion.
im an ex soldier and have handled firearms proffesionaly, but i fail to see why anybody would want to keep assault weapons at home.
anybody who eats meat really shouldnt have a problem with hunting for food and
ok, i can see the mechanical analogy, but i have to wonder at the motivation of somebody who needs to keep these things at home - particularly if theyre not used for gathering meat.
just my opinion, and i dont want to offend knowing how the passion for this subject sometimes flares on the other side of the pond, but isnt it obvious that if every person has a hand gun, the potential for shootings is somewhat higher than if theyre banned?
perhaps its just that those who have grown up in such a culture cant believe that there is any other way, and at this point the comments about limp wristed liberal politicians come in.
im not saying that in societies without ready access to guns that there is no gun crime, that would be inherrently silly, what i am saying is that it is possible to live and look after yourself in a gun free country.
im happy to shoot and be able to reproduce my victim from a negative :-)

paul

Roman
08-04-2005, 14:06
Paul,
I'm 100% with you on this - but I guess that's one of those cultural US vs. Europe things - here everybody owning a firearm is considered a wacko, if not a criminal, there it is quite normal (and the crime rates there - the US prove you right...). Better not even to touch that subject with a long stick...

Roman

d30gaijin
08-05-2005, 06:25
Paul,

Define "assault weapon" for us.

Contrary to what some folks think, assault weapons are not readily available here in the USA. We are allowed to own the semi-auto version of the AK-47, M16, G3, etc. but not full the auto versions. And, contrary to what many may think, they function no differently than the old Remington Model 8 semi-auto hunting rifle that's been around since shortly after the turn of the last century. They look a little different but their function is the same, magazine fed and one shot with each pull of the trigger.

Some would classify the M14 and M16 semi-auto version as an assault weapon, but they are not. So what use would anyone have for either? Well they happen to be the two consistent winners in the very popular target rifle shooting sport here known as NRA High-Power Competition. In fact our USA National High-power Target Championships are just finishing up at Camp Perry Ohio. And if you were there, you'd see hundreds of them in use in three position paper target shooting, targets no different than those used in the UK Full-Bore matches.

Also, the states here in the USA with the highest crime rates are those with the strictest firearms laws, so Roman's analogy isn't quite correct. And I notice that violent and firearms crime in the UK and Australia have heavily increased since their (near outright) firearms bans have been in place in both countries.

I live in the state of Idaho, a state with very few firearms laws, and lots of firearm owners. We also have the right to carry firearms concealed (after applying for a permit), yet we have one of the lowest crime rates in the USA.

As has been said, "An armed society is a polite society."

My 2 cents worth from this side of the pond.

Regards,

Don

nwcanonman
08-05-2005, 06:32
Don,
You are 100% correct. Great job!
Those who own single shot black-powder guns, but think it's OK to ban semi-auto firearms should think about what's next on the list of gun-grabbers. It's not about public safety, it's about keeping all firearms out of the publics hands.
I, too, have studied this subject for over 40 years.

Peter
08-05-2005, 06:41
I would have to agree with Don on this. I am an army reservist and target shooter here in Singapore and I feel that the local gun law is really too strict for shooting enthusiast. With proper precautions like trigger lock, gun safe and background check it should be not a problem to keep firearms at home. Semi-auto rifles are not assault weapon by conventional weapon classification. Shooting at full auto in fact is more harmless than a trained markman with a semi-auto AR 15 as the recoil from the automatic weapon will result in excessive muzzle climb. The very fact that the person sitting beside you could be armed automatically will increase your awareness to your surroundings and also your manners! It is illogical and naive to rely your personal and family's safety the overworked law enforcement officers.

d30gaijin
08-05-2005, 06:59
I'm right with BAPIEMAI on this one -- Guns for self defence, for most people, are a worthless fantasy. Statistically, having a gun in the house makes it MUCH likelier you will be shot, at least in the USA.

Cheers,

Roger

Roger,

While I agree with much of what you say with regards to people taking firearms training, I have to disagree with your statement above. It is pure and simple anti-gun Brady Campaign nonsense with no basis in fact. I doubt you can find any impartial statistics to support that claim. What has been statistically proven is that firearms are used in the USA hundreds of thousands of times each year to prevent crime (most without ever firing a shot).

I recommend a visit to Professor John Lott's web page: http://www.johnrlott.com/
Professor Lott started out as an anti-gun type who began a study to support your above statement with a statistical basis in fact. What he found was just the opposite, and he was gentleman enough to publish his findings even though they were contrary to his original perception.

Regards,

Don

nwcanonman
08-05-2005, 07:12
Paul,
Just where is this "gun free country"?
Yes, you can pass laws keeping law abiding citizens from owning firearms, but you'll never keep criminals from stealing/making/importing them. No country on this planet is "gun-free", so when you make that decision to not let honest citizens own firearms you put them all at the mercy of the dishonest ones.
It's also against the law to make bombs and blow up innocent people, but we see how well that protects everyone. I'm not saying that bombs should be legal, I'm saying passing laws doesn't make this a safer world, only eternal vigilance by ALL citizens can do that.
Maybe taking pictures of suspicious characters will make them more nervous of being caught - just bring us back to photography ~; - )

p.ath.
08-05-2005, 07:45
like i hinted, i suspect its cultural and the right to own a firearm is more important to some than actually owning one.
on the point of my reference to assault weapons, id think that any automatic or semi-automatic rifle which has been designed and for military use would fall into that category, or would there be any reason to attach a bayonet for target shooting or hunting.
it looks like a seemingly harmless post has disturbed the proverbial hornets nest and i certainly dont want to cause any offence with my comments as i am aware that the critisism some of you may have had to weather probably makes it a bit of a sore subject.
i would ask though that you try to understand that not believing in guns in every house, doesnt equate immediately to weakness or fear.
its more than likely that if id grown up where some of you did, id think differently. of course there is no such thing as a gun free country and i perhaps misused the phrase, but if armed crime isnt a widespread problem, you dont think you have to arm yourself against the next psycho who rings your doorbell.
not an easy one this, and i suspect theres going to no ultimate consensus of opinion.
cant we just get back to photography?

paul

d30gaijin
08-05-2005, 08:23
Paul,

I don't think anyone is going to flame you. This is one of the most polite and civil forums on the net. I certainly respect your thoughts and opinions, and especially your right to express them. It would be a boring world if everyone thought the same way I do.

As for getting back to photography, I agree. But the title of this thread is photography and shooting enthusiasts.

I'm a long range target rifle shooter, love Leica and rangefinder cameras (but have been dabbling in digital recently with a Pentax *ist DS), have been deep into the rebuild of my Porsche 914, and enjoy riding my Harley Davidson motorcycle. I also have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, but I very rarely do. I also have 20 years of US Army service behind me. Not that any of that means anything here, just thought I'd throw it out.

Best regards,
Don

d30gaijin
08-05-2005, 08:32
Paul,
It's also against the law to make bombs and blow up innocent people, but we see how well that protects everyone. I'm not saying that bombs should be legal, I'm saying passing laws doesn't make this a safer world, only eternal vigilance by ALL citizens can do that.)

NW Canonman,

Very well put! I just wish more folks would understand that simply passing laws only works with the already law abiding citizens.

Best regards,
Don

nwcanonman
08-05-2005, 09:46
Paul,
To my knowledge, there's never been a crime committed by a bayonet-mounted rifle. So, WHY would we waste time, money and pass laws against it?
If someone enjoys collecting true military rifles, why infringe on that colllector? Our country's traffic speed laws are mostly 60 miles per hour, yet we import 10,000's of vehicles that can go 2 or 3 times that speed. Why? Far more people are killed by speeding vehicles than all firearms, yet no one suggests banning fast cars, we ask the DRIVERS to be more cautious. There is nothing inherently dangerous about that lump of steel, the gun; it's the human holding it that needs to exercise control.

p.ath.
08-05-2005, 10:36
youre absolutely right of course, i supose the difference is whether the power of control is in the hands of the people or the government. and that really is a tough one to answer from within any individual society.

moving swiftly back to some earlier points, ive also found that the principles of shooting helps with those slow shutter shots. i think it is easy to compare the process / sequence of shooting and er shooting.

paul

Byuphoto
08-05-2005, 13:45
I think by my avatar everyone knows where I stand. Fine women,guns and cameras go together like Fred and Ginger. When I caress either one it sends chills up my spine. I am holding a fine old S&W triplelock .44 right now. I just put up an original Winchester Hi-wall .45-110 and to close tha barrels on my LC Smith double is heaven. Iget the same feelings from a fine Canon F-1 or my Letz lens. or a nice Victonox knife and watch
BTW an armed citizenry can not be terrorized

tenebrae
08-05-2005, 14:57
This website:

www.a-human-right.com

should be read by all anti-gun folks. I did, about five years ago, and it really was an eye-opener for me. The site has some very convincing artwork.

I feel that the general European criticism of the American (so called) "gun culture" is largely based on ignorance, and fuelled by liberal media bias. Anti-gun agit-prop like "Bowling for Columbine" is heralded as a milestone "documentary"while writers like Lott, Malcolm and Kleck hardly if ever get any attention over here. Arguments such as "thousands of children end up as firearms victims each year in America" go unchallenged - the media "forget" to tell us that most of these victims are youthful gang members who end up getting shot by their competitors.

I'd say, be proud of your 2nd Amendment and protect it...

Byuphoto
08-05-2005, 15:12
Once again the content and meaning of the 2nd amendment are taken out of context. The term "well regulated" does not mean trained. In 18th century venecular it meant well equipped. Most militia were not trained. But were requiered to show up with certain essential equipment. Like there own firearm. And while we are at it why does no one in Europe ever mention Switzerlands gun ownership
As to the statement of firearms causing more accidents and deaths. Since Louisiana went to a right to carry law violent crimes, rape murder and even break ins have taken a drastic reduction while the number of firearms related accidents/ deaths have also gone down.
The moral never bring a knife to a gunfight. If you meet me out in public justknow that I am armed.
I do not question your right not to carry/pocess and you should not mine. If a terrorist/rapist/murderer threatens,with bodily harm, me, my family or an honest citizen I will shoot. I will shoot quickly. I will not plead or ask them to stop. I will shoot to kill and do not expect to give any more quarter than they give.

JohnL
11-04-2005, 11:21
My own experience confirms this coincidence between shooting and photography. I have only ever shot at targets -- rifles .22 and 303, and pistols, mostly IPSC. I was delighted when the referendum here in Brazil -- intended to prohibit the "legal sale of arms and ammunition" (without doing anything about the illegal sales) -- was roundly defeated a couple of weeks ago. Headlines in the country's biggest newspaper about a week before the vote: "Bandits recommend voting Yes" :rolleyes:

ch1
11-04-2005, 12:13
I just saw the poll. Since I'm not a shooting "enthusiast" I voted NO. But I do own a .22 rifle which I used on occasion to dispatch woodchucks (damned rodents keep burrowing under the house!) so I'm not anti-gun per se.

To me, a rifle or pistol is a tool. Certain people use the tool more than others - just like carpenters use hammers more than weekend "thumb smashers" like me.

We own about 15 acres in upstate NY and while I don't hunt - gladly let my neighbor onto my land to do so. He enjoys it and if he's lucky I get venison or turkey. Further, with him having permission to hunt the land I have a built-in gameskeeper who will prevent others from tresspassing.

At the same time, I also have little sympathy for "gun nuts" and do believe that private gun ownership should be seen as a prviledge, not a right - just like automobiles. I think we get it about right in New York State and that's that.

djon
11-04-2005, 19:47
I'm a bowhunter. Wooden bows, wooden arrows. As a college kid I was on the University of California rifle team, the year after it went to the Olympics. I was very good. But shooting's a staggering bore, it's like listening to paint dry by comparison to running around in the woods under any circumstances, and especially by comparison to flinging arrows. Archery's athletic, unlike gun sports.. it's almost orgasmic when one releases an arrow...a shock to the system when a 600g shaft launches at a mere 160fps from a bow that's pulled at 60#. Far more jazz than wheel bows with 400g @ 200fps .

Doug
11-04-2005, 20:32
I was delighted when the referendum here in Brazil -- intended to prohibit the "legal sale of arms and ammunition" (without doing anything about the illegal sales) -- was roundly defeated a couple of weeks ago.John, congratulations on the sane outcome of your referendum! As we are individually responsible, ultimately, for our own safety as well as that of our families and companions, we obviously must not be barred effective tools to accomplish it. Fortunately, my state's constitution is even more explicitly clear about this right than the national constitution.

Gabriel M.A.
11-04-2005, 20:53
Well, just to throw a monkey-wrench on the "balanced" discussion: Afghanistan didn't bar anybody from owning a gun; everybody owned guns, and it was indeed for their own protection. Everybody agrees that that didn't make the country any safer. It's not an argument against the U.S. Constitution's 2nd Amendment, but it's also a very...weak, argument for it too.

ch1
11-04-2005, 21:25
I'm a bowhunter. Wooden bows, wooden arrows. As a college kid I was on the University of California rifle team, the year after it went to the Olympics. I was very good. But shooting's a staggering bore, it's like listening to paint dry by comparison to running around in the woods under any circumstances, and especially by comparison to flinging arrows. Archery's athletic, unlike gun sports.. it's almost orgasmic when one releases an arrow...a shock to the system when a 600g shaft launches at a mere 160fps from a bow that's pulled at 60#. Far more jazz than wheel bows with 400g @ 200fps .

djon,

Interesting observation. This may explain why my neighbor has also taken up bowhunting in recent years. Although I suspect it's mainly to lengthen his hunting season.

Funny story he relates is that the Autumn turkey season overlaps with the first part of the Deer season, the latter of which is bow only - and by regs - you can only have a rifle or a bow in your blind - not both.

So of course (I mean we've all seen the cartoons) if he goes up to the blind with a rifle intent on getting bird - the only thing that walks by are deer. So, obviously, he treks back to his car - changes his cammo gear and goes back to the blind with his bow. And yes, as you might figure, then the only thing he sees going by are turkeys!

Maybe this helps explain why our freezer is empty? :bang:

jan normandale
11-05-2005, 05:39
Interesting thread, I’d suggest that the thread may be more an ‘acquisition/hardware’ fetish. I know many hunters who have more than one gun and it’s not because they hunt with them or infrequently if they use them at all.

There are quite a few ‘fishermen’ at this forum, I know because we had a photo thread earlier this year. I think if you were to ask them they would talk all about hand machined reels, fly tying vices, hand planed bamboo rods. Not too dissimilar from the hunters who also expose film.

I used to shoot and hunt but gave it up. Guns I decided were really for killing things for sport or otherwise. It wasn’t a big step. The licencing and storage issues in Canada were not a factor for me. I have to get a licence to drive, own a car neither were any more a barrier or denial of my rights. Having said that I will cynically enjoy a meal of game from a friend. Go figure. Still I fish and kill a few for the pan when I am on a trip with friends. You all know how good it can be.

So in a roundabout way I think you should re-poll but with a topic of ‘hardware fetish’ I think that is going to get even more positives on a poll. Because we are all a bunch of sick puppies in denial about Leica Lust. LOL (joke for all us Yashica/FSU owners)

Doug
11-05-2005, 09:15
Hmm, I like it: "Hardware fetish" :) We've seen the fairly inept attempts by some in the FSU to decorate certain Zorkiis and Kievs as collectible Leicas and Contaxes, and I wonder to what extent there are real experts counterfeiting real Leicas and others as certain rare and valuable models. This sort of thing has become a real danger in collecting historically rare and interesting Luger pistols; it's virtually assumed the item is a forgery until proven otherwise. Even honest expert dealers have been fooled. It's all about the money...

djon
11-05-2005, 09:43
I'm convinced that gun enthusiasm (as opposed to hunting, which is generally athletic) has a lot to do with personal insecurities, and often accompanies middle age, poor physical fitness and tendency to heavy drinking.

I have a couple of rifles and a 12 ga pump shotgun here. I used frequently to carry a S&W .357 (3"bbl) until I realized that the mere fact of carrying was blinding me to smarter alternatives...such as avoiding anticipated risks and remembering that I could kick most ass that was actually a peril.

As I get older that ass-kicking potential declines, but wisdom increases. I certainly don't want ancients wandering the world with handguns, any more than I want them on the highway. I'll be the latter, but I won't be the former.

Jason Sprenger
11-05-2005, 10:55
DJon,

I contend there's various levels of gray with regard to "gun enthusiasm" like there is with all enthusiasms.

I personally own maybe 20 firearms from dueling pistols to an AR-15 and none of them are loaded on my person nor in reach of my bedstand. I can't say the same for my cameras. Perhaps I am just insecure about my photography.

Though I do understand your point but I figure it has more to do with testosterone than anything. Men do like to thump their chests. Assertive prowess is how men determine the pecking order since their sandbox days. Guns can express it, physical fiteness can express it, but then so can a Leica MP with an Aspherical Summilux.

FWIW,

In all areas, enthusiasts run the gamut from duffers to poseurs to collectors to artists. Most of enthusiasts are duffers. Testosterone creates poseurs. GAS creates collectors. And if I really knew how to be an artist at anything, I'd be one.

Rather than just being anti-gun, I'd say that I'm anti-poseur.

djon
11-05-2005, 11:25
Jason, you're right of course, but you left out several classes of gun owner: nutcases, druggies, criminals, wannabe-traitors (militias), incompetents: the same classes do exist among photographers, but I suspect they're less a problem to their neighbors.

I've been shocked and infuriated by the gross ignorance of shooters at our very highly disciplined and beautiful public shooting range (Albuquerque). Lice who resent having to open their actions and dump cartridges when the range master orders it (in order to check targets).

Hang out for a few minutes in the gun dept at Walmart. That alone would create anti-2nd-amendment agitators if they actually understood what was being discussed.

I recently visited an archery/gun shop in Texas...had to spend a couple of days in the particular town...I had bow, boots, camo and gear in the car...I asked "what do you hunt around here?" It was classic south TX, just rock, stickers, and mesquite..I figured there'd be pigs and other varmints that would just require a cheap varmint license. The shop owner's answer to my question was, however, "Mexicans." Another class of gun enthusiast is what we conservatives like to call "bad people."

anselwannab
11-05-2005, 11:46
DJON wrote "I'm convinced that gun enthusiasm (as opposed to hunting, which is generally athletic) has a lot to do with personal insecurities, and often accompanies middle age, poor physical fitness and tendency to heavy drinking. "

Wow, that's not prejudiced or anything. The two biggest gun collectors (you would call them nuts) are a woman pediatrician and a 6 foot 4 250lb guy who everyone calls "sir".

You don't need a gun to be a belligerent idiot, have you seen some people's road rage?

bmattock
11-05-2005, 12:51
I realize that comments about what kind of person I must be to own guns are designed as insults to make me come roaring back with some kind of counter-attack, and then we can turn this into a warzone around here again.

Rather than respond in kind, I'm just going to let everyone realize who is showing their ass around here this time. Maybe I'll be the asshat next time, but today you win the prize.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

ClaremontPhoto
11-05-2005, 21:12
Many times I'm glad I live in Europe.

fgianni
11-06-2005, 06:23
There are no moral aspects of firearms with me. That lies squarely on those that use them inappropriately, and shouldn't be a burden on those that don't. I feel the same toward knifes, rope, hammers, autos, bricks, or any other object used inappropriately to harm others.

So I guess you would have no problem in letting anyone buy a B1 bomber with nukes providing they have the money for it.

Gabriel M.A.
11-06-2005, 06:30
LOL Francesco, che facesti? Fare pensare tutti il cowboys? (ok, so my italian is molto spagnolo)

fgianni
11-06-2005, 06:42
LOL Gabriel, no it was just to point that the statement

"or any other object used inappropriately to harm others"

Is quite extreme, and that you have to draw the line somewhere.

djon
11-06-2005, 15:56
"DJON wrote "I'm convinced that gun enthusiasm (as opposed to hunting, which is generally athletic) has a lot to do with personal insecurities, and often accompanies middle age, poor physical fitness and tendency to heavy drinking. "

Wow, that's not prejudiced or anything."
__________________________

I think it's easy to confirm, though I certainly am prejudiced against a sub-class of people who are so insecure that they focus on firearms rather than addressing their personal deficiencies.

I didn't say every gun owner was insecure. I'm personally a gun owner, well trained and coached, a competitive target shooter (Jr. NRA, Olympic-class target team and ROTC team in college), hunter etc. The weirdness I see frequently among people who are more gun-enthusiast than they are hunters does argue against the NRA's liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment.

I'm all in favor of the bloody killing and eating of animals, if one plays by sportsmanlike rules. But I'm not in favor of weirdos who fear the minorities in their community, speak badly about them, do nothing about the situation, arm themselves to the teeth, yet fear to leave, somehow expecting normal respect.

While a diminutive female physician may reasonably fear for her life (anti-abortion terror), physical size has little to do with insecurity in men.

There's a C&W song: all a man needs is $500, a pickup, and a 30:06. When I first heard that song I had about that much money, a big old Forest Service 4WD Blazer, and a 30:06, a 12ga, a .357, and a .22. The song rang true, except that I also knew SOME men needed ambition, needed to deserve respect from other men and needed good relations with women...things evidently not needed by SOME gun enthusiasts.

derevaun
11-06-2005, 20:55
I like my guns, but I try not to have illusions about why. For example, I have never tried to envision a short barrelled sporter rifle as a good choice for hunting (I don't hunt by running around in tight quarters and shooting around corners). Guns make you feel lethal, and for many gun owners that's a personal problem. For some, it's a public problem.

So I feel pretty supportive of restricting and regulating gun ownership. If it got to the point of making it as accountable to own and use a gun as is it to own and drive a car, I'd be receptive to giving the NRA arguments some credibility.

In any case, I'm not really into the machinery of my guns. I do like tinkering with the Makarov, and some nights I swear I can hear it whispering to the Fed-2 in the other cabinet....

bmattock
11-06-2005, 22:27
I like my guns, but I try not to have illusions about why. For example, I have never tried to envision a short barrelled sporter rifle as a good choice for hunting (I don't hunt by running around in tight quarters and shooting around corners). Guns make you feel lethal, and for many gun owners that's a personal problem. For some, it's a public problem.

Guns make YOU feel lethal. Speak for yourself, please. You have no idea how my guns 'make me feel' or if they give me any emotions at all. Frankly, I don't get off on fondling my firearms - seems a bit daft to me.

See, here's the deal. You say you have these weird feelings about your guns - some kind of power trip thing? OK, fine. You seem to want to put that on all gun owners, but see, you don't actually know squat about anyone's mind but your own. And don't feel like the Lone Ranger, I have no idea how YOU feel about guns, other than what you've told me just now. I'm no better than you - but I don't pretend to be, either.

Since you seem to have a problem with your gun ownership, and you're worried about it, I suggest that you restrict and regulate your own personal gun ownership, and worry a little bit less about my guns - because as I've mentioned, you don't know Jack about how I feel. So your fix for my problem isn't. Which is a bit of a problem itself, really. People wandering around wanting to fix problems I haven't got. And against my will at that! Cheeky!


So I feel pretty supportive of restricting and regulating gun ownership.

Take out the words 'gun ownership' and put in the words 'free speech' or 'freedom of religion' or 'freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures' and I suspect (of course I don't know) you'd be screaming bloody murder (as would I). The 2nd is an Amendment too. Imagine that.

Oh, I know, the Framers never envisioned machine guns and atomic bombs when they said 'arms'. I know. They never envisoned the Internet when they said 'free speech', either, or Mormons when they said 'freedom of religion'. Funny, most seem not to want to give up that nasty dangerous old free speech thing, or the religion thing. Even if it what we have now could not have been imagined by the dead white guys who wrote the Constitution and the citizens and states who ratified it.

If you can just blithely write off the 2nd Amendment because we don't really need that one, then you can write off the rest as well. They're Amendments precisely so that well-meaning citizens with a fear of an armed populace can't just vote away a civil liberty on a whim. Even a well-reasoned, well-intentioned whim. Even if you were right and I were dead wrong - you still have the uphill battle to get an Amendment passed and ratified - and that was by intention, don't you see? You don't just get what you want in this matter - everybody else has to agree too.

Well, 3/4 of them, anyway.


If it got to the point of making it as accountable to own and use a gun as is it to own and drive a car, I'd be receptive to giving the NRA arguments some credibility.


Gosh, is that all? We already have that, sport.

I can buy an car anytime I like if I have the cash or the credit. There are no restrictions on ownership - none. There is no background check done to see if I've been a bad boy and got all tanked up and splashed a few fellow citizens all over the highway. In fact, if I don't have a license at all, I can still buy a car.

Drive a car? Well, to drive legally, I have to have a license. Of course, there is no national database, I can go to a state that doesn't have a computer hookup or reciprocity with my state and get a license there. Or, I can just drive without one. And if I have my ability to drive restricted, I will get it back eventually.

But buying a gun? Well, I can buy a gun in a private sale, and that's not registered or tracked anywhere, that's true. But if I buy a gun at a dealer or at a gunshow, I have to go through a federal and state background check. I also must swear under penalty of federal perjory that I am not a felon, not a mental defective, have not been convicted of domestic abuse (did you know that if you hit your wife, you lose your right to own a gun forever?), are not under an restraining order of any kind, are not addicted to drugs, etc, etc. You have to give affirmative ID and it has to be checked with the FBI's crime computer before you can take possession of your firearm.

Many cities have gun registration laws - some make ownership illegal altogether, such as Washington DC and NYC and so on. States have their say too, with restrictions on the type of weapons that can be owned (California) and magazine capacity and blah blah blah.

In short, there are all kinds of regulations surrounding the legal ownership, carry, and use of firearms - city, state, and federal. Far more than those simply required to buy and drive a car.

Funny old world, innit?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

fgianni
11-07-2005, 01:53
I think the only difference here is where to draw the line, since everyone agrees that it has to be drawn somewhere.

Even the USA don’t allow people to buy nukes of figters/bombers, so the freedom to go around armed is somehow already limited.
At the opposite scale you can have someone that says: you are free to carry around any weapon you like as long as it is not more dangerous than a pencil sharpener, and he too is not going strictly against the 2nd amendment, he is just giving a more restrictive interpretation that the guy that would like everyone to be able to buy nukes.

So most of us all agree that a line needs to be drawn, this mainly because the society needs are more important that the individual ones (ubi maior minor cessat), what we disagree on is where.

West Europe society is fairly similar to the USA one, however homicide rates in the USA are 300% higher (0.04 per 1,000 people in the USA compared to 0.01 per 1,000 people in most European countries), and those like me, think that this is most likely due to greater availablility of weapons. And that saving almost 10000 lives every year is reason enough to restrict access to guns.

I saw a documentary by an American guy, titled “Bowling for Columbine”, and at the end of the movie he seemed to think that high homicide rates in the USA were more due to the fact that Americans are nutters than to availability of weapons, but somehow I don’t believe it, of course I am prepared to change my mind if someone proves me wrong.

bmattock
11-07-2005, 03:15
I think the only difference here is where to draw the line, since everyone agrees that it has to be drawn somewhere.

If 'everyone' means US citizens, then fine. You don't get a vote, unless you happen to carry that peculiar distinction known as US citizenship.

And I meant it when I said that I don't care for people from other countries telling me what my country ought to do. I won't weigh in on fox hunting, kindly keep your nose out of the 2nd Amendment.


Even the USA don’t allow people to buy nukes of figters/bombers, so the freedom to go around armed is somehow already limited.


Limited, based on the fact that the US Supreme Court won't grant cert to a 2nd Amendment case. All we have is the defective Miller case, in which the defense attorney did not even show up. Not hard to get things to go your way when your opponent is absent, eh? And then use that as precedent and never revisit the argument - astounding considering how often all the other Amendments are challenged and reconsidered by SCOTUS.


At the opposite scale you can have someone that says: you are free to carry around any weapon you like as long as it is not more dangerous than a pencil sharpener, and he too is not going strictly against the 2nd amendment, he is just giving a more restrictive interpretation that the guy that would like everyone to be able to buy nukes.

People can say what they like. In the USA, a right protected by the Bill of RIghts cannot be abrogated by 'people saying things'.


So most of us all agree that a line needs to be drawn, this mainly because the society needs are more important that the individual ones (ubi maior minor cessat), what we disagree on is where.

Who is us? If us is citizens of Europe or the UK or Lower Elbonia, I don't much care.
You don't get a vote - but you can have an opinion. Thanks, we'll keep it in mind.

As strongly as I feel about the concept of giving up my guns to please my fellow citizens, I feel even more strongly about giving up my guns to please people from other counties - which all seem to run so well and have no problems, by the way.


West Europe society is fairly similar to the USA one, however homicide rates in the USA are 300% higher (0.04 per 1,000 people in the USA compared to 0.01 per 1,000 people in most European countries), and those like me, think that this is most likely due to greater availablility of weapons. And that saving almost 10000 lives every year is reason enough to restrict access to guns.


Actually, the USA is very different than Europe, which ya'll are most happy to point out whenever we dare to suggest our similarities, like having cuisine, culture, art, or even history. We are told curtly over and over again how NOT LIKE Europe we are.

And frankly, I agree. Unlike your countries, we have always had a tradition of gun ownership - our founders rejected the notion that the people should be disarmed and depend upon the government to protect them. All power flows from the citizenry (although many Americans forget that), and so we reserve to ourselves the source of power.

We don't have a thousand-year history of society rising from feudalism to the development of the concept of the rights of man, from a citizenry largely kept disarmed - our society was born in bloody rebellion, and even before we rose up, we all carried firearms of daily necessity.


I saw a documentary by an American guy, titled “Bowling for Columbine”, and at the end of the movie he seemed to think that high homicide rates in the USA were more due to the fact that Americans are nutters than to availability of weapons, but somehow I don’t believe it, of course I am prepared to change my mind if someone proves me wrong.

A) You saw a documentary and on that basis, I should lose my rights. Short-Attention-Span Theatre, indeed. I could point you at some literature, but frankly, it would involve doing more than sitting passively in a theater for 2 hours and having your opinion given to you.

B) Your statistics are useless because they don't carry through. The US is number 24 on the list of homicide rates, compared to the UK at 46, and Italy, Spain and Germany after that. Ooh, sounds bad for us, eh?

However, Thailand is number 14, Mexico is number 6. And what does this mean?

Many of those countries with higher murder rates already have very restrictive gun laws - or simply don't permit private gun ownership at all. Now wait a minute. If they have higher homicide rates than even the (gasp) US, and they don't all legally own guns, then how can this be?

We have not established what might otherwise be considered 'common sense' - that if you cut gun ownership, homicide rates will likewise drop. Yeah, sounds good, eh? But when it doesn't hold true across the board - and it clearly doesn't - then the theory must be defective. Remember, this is using YOUR statistics - just taking the whole picture instead of clipping out the bits that make it look bad for private gun ownership.

It would appear that there is no causal relationship, or that the relationship between private gun ownership and homicide rates is more subtle and complex than simply collecting up all the guns.

But as long as we only quote that portion of the statistics that seems to favor our pet theory, we'll be fine, right? We can justify our desire to disarm the US citizen.

C) There are more guns than there are people in the USA. A well-cared for firearm, or simply one that has not been overly abused, is most likely still serviceable. No restriction that can be placed on future ownership can change that fact. So if one truly believes that cutting back on gun ownership will cure societies' ills, then one must of necessity go house-to-house collecting up the guns. Let's just say it is probably not something most people who loved life would really want to do, badge or no badge.

D) Talk all you like. Nobody is getting my firearms, and I suspect that there are a large number of people in the US who feel likewise.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

pvdhaar
11-07-2005, 03:48
"And I meant it when I said that I don't care for people from other countries telling me what my country ought to do."

This happens in many more subtle ways than you can apparently imagine. Take power plants for instance. Even though the USA didn't sign the Kyoto protocol, US manufacturers are confirming to derived targets, in order to be able to sell their power plants abroad... The reverse also happens, vehicle emission standards from California are forcing car manufacturers to create cleaner cars, which will also find their way across the globe...

Talk about a win-win situation..

pedro.m.reis
11-07-2005, 04:02
Just my 2 cents...
"I" beleive that a "regular joe" does not have a need for a gun, amd sould not be allowed to carry one.
But this is "my" beleive, because "my" education and "my" social enviroment.
But i dont, and i wont, judge others just because they live in different social enviroments and had different education.

bmattock
11-07-2005, 05:03
Just my 2 cents...
"I" beleive that a "regular joe" does not have a need for a gun, amd sould not be allowed to carry one.
But this is "my" beleive, because "my" education and "my" social enviroment.
But i dont, and i wont, judge others just because they live in different social enviroments and had different education.

No 'regular joe' has a need for a camera. They should not be allowed to carry one.

Rights aren't defined by what others think their level of need is. Shall I then define and defend my 'need' to speak freely, or lose that right? Shall I prove to the unbelieving that my God exists, or else I will not be allowed to worship as I please?

But as you said, this is your belief, and I respect it. Thank you for not wishing to press it down upon my head.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

fgianni
11-07-2005, 05:09
If 'everyone' means US citizens, then fine. You don't get a vote, unless you happen to carry that peculiar distinction known as US citizenship.
By everyone I mean exactly that, everyone, I did not mention your country in this context did I?
And in the context of everyone inside or outside the US I still think that every country puts some limit on the kind of weaponry the public is allowed to own, this includes the USA.
Unless you want me to believe that you are free to buy a B1 bomber complete with nukes I will keep my idea that freedom of buying weapons is somehow limited even in the US, and for good reasons.

And I meant it when I said that I don't care for people from other countries telling me what my country ought to do. I won't weigh in on fox hunting, kindly keep your nose out of the 2nd Amendment.
Well an issue has been raised in this forum, (not by me) and I thought I was allowed to express my opinion about it; you take exception of people expressing their feelings about some policies of your country, however I think now you are being unreasonable, one of the disadvantages of freedom of speech is that we may have to hear things that we don't like, do you really think the alternative is better?

As strongly as I feel about the concept of giving up my guns to please my fellow citizens, I feel even more strongly about giving up my guns to please people from other counties - which all seem to run so well and have no problems, by the way.
Bill, you could not be farther from truth here, you can keep all the weapons you have and even buy more, and it won't make any difference to me personally.
My point was to explain the reasons behind European attitude towards firearms, and I used the USA as an example of what we don't want to happen here.

whenever we dare to suggest our similarities, like having cuisine, culture, art, or even history. We are told curtly over and over again how NOT LIKE Europe we are.
There is ideed someone that sees it this way, but you can't blame me for it, I always considered american whites as sort of European expats, unlike native americans their roots are in Europe, like it or not.

And frankly, I agree. Unlike your countries, we have always had a tradition of gun ownership - our founders rejected the notion that the people should be disarmed and depend upon the government to protect them. All power flows from the citizenry (although many Americans forget that), and so we reserve to ourselves the source of power.

We don't have a thousand-year history of society rising from feudalism to the development of the concept of the rights of man, from a citizenry largely kept disarmed - our society was born in bloody rebellion, and even before we rose up, we all carried firearms of daily necessity.
I fail to se how the fact that the common citizen needed firearms in the 19th century should automatically prove that he needs them in the 21st
Also I have news for you, you may not like it but you share exactly the same thousand year history as the rest of Europe until about 200 years ago, since most of the immigration in America occurred in the 19th and 20th century.


A) You saw a documentary and on that basis, I should lose my rights. Short-Attention-Span Theatre, indeed. I could point you at some literature, but frankly, it would involve doing more than sitting passively in a theater for 2 hours and having your opinion given to you.
So the fact that I cited a documentary, and actually disagreed with the conclusions drawn by the author, means that I never read books, nor articles in newspapers, nor heard news about the matter?
I cite something and that suddenly becomes my only source of information, where did you get this idea from?

B) Your statistics are useless because they don't carry through. The US is number 24 on the list of homicide rates, compared to the UK at 46, and Italy, Spain and Germany after that. Ooh, sounds bad for us, eh?

However, Thailand is number 14, Mexico is number 6. And what does this mean?

Many of those countries with higher murder rates already have very restrictive gun laws - or simply don't permit private gun ownership at all. Now wait a minute. If they have higher homicide rates than even the (gasp) US, and they don't all legally own guns, then how can this be?

We have not established what might otherwise be considered 'common sense' - that if you cut gun ownership, homicide rates will likewise drop. Yeah, sounds good, eh? But when it doesn't hold true across the board - and it clearly doesn't - then the theory must be defective. Remember, this is using YOUR statistics - just taking the whole picture instead of clipping out the bits that make it look bad for private gun ownership.

It would appear that there is no causal relationship, or that the relationship between private gun ownership and homicide rates is more subtle and complex than simply collecting up all the guns.

But as long as we only quote that portion of the statistics that seems to favor our pet theory, we'll be fine, right? We can justify our desire to disarm the US citizen.

It may have escaped you but their society and traditions are very different from the western ones, that's why I don't put Colombia (with its economy mainly fuelled by cocaine trade) South Africa (where the black majority still has an axe to grind against the whites) or other developing countries in the statistics, hasn't occurred to you that an extremely different social fabric might have something to do with it?
Western developed countries are the sample that should be used to see what the US might be able to achieve, should they care of reducing their homicide rates, with tighter gun controls. However if you are happy with what you have, then fine for me, as I said I wanted only to illustrate our position, not forcing you to follow it.


C) There are more guns than there are people in the USA. A well-cared for firearm, or simply one that has not been overly abused, is most likely still serviceable. No restriction that can be placed on future ownership can change that fact. So if one truly believes that cutting back on gun ownership will cure societies' ills, then one must of necessity go house-to-house collecting up the guns. Let's just say it is probably not something most people who loved life would really want to do, badge or no badge.
In Northern Ireland they convinced the IRA to give up their arms, as a task I suspect it can't get much more difficult than that.


D) Talk all you like. Nobody is getting my firearms, and I suspect that there are a large number of people in the US who feel likewise.
Yes the old cliché "you'll have to pry it from my cold, dead hands" thing, except that sometimes the firearm had to be pried from a child's cold dead hands.

And anyway tighter arms control does not mean "no firearms", a lot of my relatives live in the mountains in Italy, they often go hunting, and almost every family in the area own legally one or more rifle.
So if you want to hunt you can buy a gun, if you shoot as a sport you can own a gun, if you need it for self protection you can own a gun, and even if you are a collector you can own one (or more).
Just you need to apply for a permit, and checks are done that you don't have criminal convictions and that you don't suffer from serious mental illnesses, every gun legally sold is tracked and stored in a database, and no shop can sell a gun to someone without a permit.
To get the permit you have also to demonstrate a minimum level of expertise (often following a course) so that the authorities are satisfied that you know how to properly use it.
I suspect the law in the rest of Europe to be fairly similar.

Have a nice day, and try not to take things too personally. ;)

bmattock
11-07-2005, 05:36
"And I meant it when I said that I don't care for people from other countries telling me what my country ought to do."

This happens in many more subtle ways than you can apparently imagine. Take power plants for instance. Even though the USA didn't sign the Kyoto protocol, US manufacturers are confirming to derived targets, in order to be able to sell their power plants abroad... The reverse also happens, vehicle emission standards from California are forcing car manufacturers to create cleaner cars, which will also find their way across the globe...

Talk about a win-win situation..

I am actually quite aware of this, and approve of it. Private enterprise needs to sell, buy, provide, and provision to continue to exist. As more and more borders to commerce are set aside, the world becomes more multi-national and interlocked and interdependent and all this is good - as it pertains to business.

But we're not all one happy government, nor do I have any particular interest in us becoming so. Business and governments may have overlapping interests in many areas, but most legitimate international business needs have no impact on my civil liberties. Sharing governments would.

If you read my statement that you quoted, I said that I don't care for people (meaning individuals) from other countries tell me (meaning me personally) what my country ought to do. I meant it as I wrote it, and I stand by it.

Everyone is free to have their own opinions, of course. I get a little tired of people throwing stones from the safety of their glass houses, and I find it more than a little ironic that so many Europeans urge us Americans to be more like Europeans - which of course, they despise the very thought of and decry the notion that we great unwashed could ever be as cultured, intelligent, or altogether wonderful as themselves.

Yes, we want to be much more like those who find us little more than slightly smelly savages with guns.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

fgianni
11-07-2005, 05:43
I need to clarify one of my statements, When I say:

what the US might be able to achieve, should they care of reducing their homicide rates, with tighter gun controls.

1) I refer ONLY to homicide rates, there are many other things that the USA have achieved better than us in Europe, simply we are not talking about them here. And also who likes to admit that someone else is doing things better?
It is up to you across the pond to point these things out, you are not getting anything out of me! :D

2) I don't want to imply that tighter gun control alone will work, but I think it will help as part of a wider policy.

Mike Kovacs
11-07-2005, 06:35
Being from Canada (and believe me there are lots of guns/hunters here) I think there is a big attitude difference in the USA that no amount of gun control can adjust.

In Canada, the vast majority of gun related deaths in Canada is suicides, which while tragic, would probably just be accomplished some other way were guns not available. The next in ranking is accidents and homicides take up the remainder. 0.5% in 100,000 will suffer a gun-related death in this country.

Our long rifle registry is a joke. I do believe there are many firearms that should not be the hands of your average non-military person as they serve no purpose other than to kill. Many are prohibited here, or restricted meaning they can only be fired on a range and are subject to (overly IMO) strict transport regulations.

I have been pursuing an interest in gun smithing - some similarities to camera repair which I also enjoy. Requires a contemplative approach with attention to detail.

bmattock
11-07-2005, 07:08
Unless you want me to believe that you are free to buy a B1 bomber complete with nukes I will keep my idea that freedom of buying weapons is somehow limited even in the US, and for good reasons.

No, I want you to believe that all of our federal laws prohibiting gun ownership hinge on one precendent-setting case (Miller) in which the defense attorney was not even present. The Supreme Court refuses to hear another such case to settle the 'right to private gun ownership' debate, which leave us with laws that depend on a single defective case.


Well an issue has been raised in this forum, (not by me) and I thought I was allowed to express my opinion about it; you take exception of people expressing their feelings about some policies of your country, however I think now you are being unreasonable, one of the disadvantages of freedom of speech is that we may have to hear things that we don't like, do you really think the alternative is better?

No, I take exception to being told what to do by foreigners. You're welcome to your opinion.


Bill, you could not be farther from truth here, you can keep all the weapons you have and even buy more, and it won't make any difference to me personally.
My point was to explain the reasons behind European attitude towards firearms, and I used the USA as an example of what we don't want to happen here.

Then don't let it happen there.


There is ideed someone that sees it this way, but you can't blame me for it, I always considered american whites as sort of European expats, unlike native americans their roots are in Europe, like it or not.


Can't blow hot and cold with the same breath. We are Europeans, we're not Europeans. Oh, we're Europeans when it suits those who want it to suit them, and not when they don't. Nope, not buying it. I'm not European, I'm American.


I fail to se how the fact that the common citizen needed firearms in the 19th century should automatically prove that he needs them in the 21st


It doesn't, but then again, it doesn't need to.

No rights are derived from need, perceived or unperceived. If so, your right to religion could easily be abridged - show me how you NEED to worship God.

Rights are rights - they need no further justification.


Also I have news for you, you may not like it but you share exactly the same thousand year history as the rest of Europe until about 200 years ago, since most of the immigration in America occurred in the 19th and 20th century.


Like hell I do. My ancestors left Europe, in large part because the British were starving us to death (in Ireland) and killing us for being Catholic (in Germany). You mean that history? Oh yeah, loved it.

We started our own history, and it started with every man having a gun and knowing how to use it. The first thing we did was use it on those who tried to control us from afar.


So the fact that I cited a documentary, and actually disagreed with the conclusions drawn by the author, means that I never read books, nor articles in newspapers, nor heard news about the matter?
I cite something and that suddenly becomes my only source of information, where did you get this idea from?


You cited one source.


It may have escaped you but their society and traditions are very different from the western ones, that's why I don't put Colombia (with its economy mainly fuelled by cocaine trade) South Africa (where the black majority still has an axe to grind against the whites) or other developing countries in the statistics, hasn't occurred to you that an extremely different social fabric might have something to do with it?


Hmmm. Our society and traditions are very different than those of Europe, but we don't count, because we're actually European. All those Spanish-speaking countries and Portugese-speaking countries that were colonized by (gasp) Europeans, they're different cultures and traditions and it matters.

Very convenient. BS, says I.


Western developed countries are the sample that should be used to see what the US might be able to achieve, should they care of reducing their homicide rates, with tighter gun controls. However if you are happy with what you have, then fine for me, as I said I wanted only to illustrate our position, not forcing you to follow it.


Your opinion is noted and rejected.


In Northern Ireland they convinced the IRA to give up their arms, as a task I suspect it can't get much more difficult than that.


Hahahahaha! You have no idea. Do you know how many 'active' IRA members are estimated to exist? Let's be generous and put the number at a couple thousand. We have 275 million citizens, at least 25% percent of which are gun owners. Good luck, fella.


Yes the old cliché "you'll have to pry it from my cold, dead hands" thing, except that sometimes the firearm had to be pried from a child's cold dead hands.


Yes, let's wave the bloody shirt.

I read a lot about kids being killed by DUI drivers. Don't hear much about cars being banned. Huh.


And anyway tighter arms control does not mean "no firearms", a lot of my relatives live in the mountains in Italy, they often go hunting, and almost every family in the area own legally one or more rifle.

Gun restriction leads directly to gun confiscation, just about everywhere it's been implemented.


So if you want to hunt you can buy a gun, if you shoot as a sport you can own a gun, if you need it for self protection you can own a gun, and even if you are a collector you can own one (or more).

I don't have to tell anyone why I want a gun or guns. It is no one's business.


Just you need to apply for a permit, and checks are done that you don't have criminal convictions and that you don't suffer from serious mental illnesses, every gun legally sold is tracked and stored in a database, and no shop can sell a gun to someone without a permit.

The background check is required here as well, also a waiting period (a 'cool off' period).

We do not track the individual guns, because gun owners in the USA fear that one day the lists of registered owners would be used to collect the guns up.


To get the permit you have also to demonstrate a minimum level of expertise (often following a course) so that the authorities are satisfied that you know how to properly use it.

Many states in the US have similar licensing requirements for hunting permits, and that includes mandatory gun safety classes, tests, and so forth. But in the USA, each state is free to have their own laws regarding this.


I suspect the law in the rest of Europe to be fairly similar.


Our laws are not that different. Which leads me to believe that either most of Europe has no idea what American gun laws are, or that their real motivation is what we 'gun nuts' believe - which is that your real agenda is gun confiscation.


Have a nice day, and try not to take things too personally. ;)

Y'know, I tried to stay out of this nasty business. I tried to ignore it and let it go. And I'll try to do it again, it's not worth it.

But I'll tell you something, sir. I used to be quite active in the pro-and-anti gun debates in the USA, and of course I took the pro-gun side and of course I always won the debates. That's because law, history, and right are on my side. If I enter into the debate here, I already know all the sad pathetic little arguments against private gun ownership in the USA, and I can demolish each of them with logic, fact, and historic documents.

But I don't bother anymore. Because at the end of each of these sad little tableaus, we come to the same conclusion. When all your so-called facts and your nonsense statistics are stripped away and the lies are made clear, you still will think that Americans should not be allowed to own guns. And that's fine, but it is like pulling teeth to finally get to the point where you say "I just hate guns and that's that."

So enjoy your opinion. I don't share it, but you're welcome to it.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

bmattock
11-07-2005, 07:12
2) I don't want to imply that tighter gun control alone will work, but I think it will help as part of a wider policy.

"I think it will help" is not a good basis for taking away liberties defined in the US Constitution.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

bmattock
11-07-2005, 07:30
Being from Canada (and believe me there are lots of guns/hunters here) I think there is a big attitude difference in the USA that no amount of gun control can adjust.

In the USA, the 'attitude' to which you refer is the complete and total rejection of any sort of gun control legislation by a majority of citizens of the USA, because most gun owners realize that the minority of anti-gun people will stop at nothing to achieve their aims. We're under attack - and the cost of losing is a precious liberty gone forever.

We know that the anti-gun crowd have gone to a 'Divide and Conquer' strategy, since it became clear to them that they could not get the US citizen to buy off on a 'let's ban all the guns' law. So they go after our rights piecemeal.

First - they succeeded in getting 'Saturday Night Special' laws passed. This kept cheap handguns from being sold in the US, and pistols with short barrels. They did this by stirring up fears (unsupported by facts) that criminals were using cheap handguns with short barrels to commit crimes - no average citizen had need for any such gun. Did it lower the crime rate? No, it did not.

Then - they succeeded in getting the 'Assault Weapons Ban' which banned all guns which LOOKED like military weapons. They misled the average citizen into believing that they were banning automatic weapons (machine guns) which they were not - those weapons have been heavily regulated since the 1930's. But Joe Sixpack thought they were voting to ban machine guns, and that sounded like a good idea, so it was made law. But it also did not lower the crime rate, and just this year, the law expired. No explosion in crime as a result, by the way.

They have tried to pass laws raising the tax on ammunition 10,000 percent.

They have tried to pass laws forbidding the ownership of any weapon that did not have a 'sporting use' as defined by them.

They have tried to create a national registry of firearms - but they promised that it would never, never, be used to later confiscate same - despite the fact that their own leaked internal memos said that it was EXACTLY what they intended.

They have written books that tried to show that American citizens never actually owned guns in the 19th century (the author, Michael Bellesiles, discredited and resigned in disgrace).

They have tried and tried to get us to accept that if we take just a little bit of gun registration, some 'common sense' rules, we'll all be happy and no one will try to take our guns away.

But we know them to be liars. If we give them an inch, they will take a mile. Their promises mean nothing, and their stated aims have always been the complete and total ban on private gun ownership in the USA.

So, when you see us 'gun nuts' seething and refusing to give an inch, there's a reason for it. We've been under attack in the USA since the 1960's, by our own citizens who wish to erode and then end our right to own firearms. We know that once we start giving in, the 'giving' never ends.

If we seem harsh, that's the reason. And that is the basis for our statement about 'cold dead hands'. We need to make sure that our stand is clear - under no circumstances, none - will we ever willingly give up our arms. It literally means that if guns are outlawed, we will defend our rights by force if we must. Any who think to just walk into my house under color of authority and take my guns must count the cost - warning has been given. And not just me - I'm just one guy. Something just shy of 100 million other gun owners in the USA. There is no military force in the world that can disarm 100 million gun owners who say 'no'.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

pedro.m.reis
11-07-2005, 07:45
[QUOTE=But it also did not lower the crime rate, and just this year, the law expired. No explosion in crime as a result, by the way.[/QUOTE]

In US the laws have expiration date, or just some kind of laws? I'm just curious.

Mike Kovacs
11-07-2005, 07:56
Bill, I don't mean an attitude with respect to resisting gun control. I mean a more cowboy attitude towards the use to of firearms to solve problems. More people willing to use them spurns more people wanting (needing) them to protect themselves.

We have had registration of restricted firearms on the books since the '30s. All full automatic firearms are prohibited. All pistols below 4.5" barrel length, certain small calibres, prohibited. Sawed-off shotguns, prohibited. Certain others, prohibited for who knows why. Only grandfathered prohibited firearms owners can even have them, with provisions in place to pass them onto immediate children after death. Restricted firearms (all handguns, various centre fire semiautos like AR-15) are subject to stringent transport controls and can only be discharged at a licensed range. I could buy a restricted firearm but I won't because its honestly too big a pain, and although its my right, I just don't need a handgun or short rifle which incidently is illegal to use against an intruder anyway in this country. No centre fire semiautomatic firearm can have a larger than 5-shot clip, with the exception of the M1 Garand.

I can't honestly say I disagree with some form of regulation. I'm definitely a moderate but things have gone too far already here with really no demonstratable benefit. The main problem is much of the Canadian Firearms Act is just too complicated. Even cops don't understand the Firearm Act. It regulates the acquisition, possession, storage and use of firearms and ammunition.

So I don't disagree with the arguments, I just wish there was some common sense solution that didn't involve all or nothing.

fgianni
11-07-2005, 08:31
Can't blow hot and cold with the same breath. We are Europeans, we're not Europeans. Oh, we're Europeans when it suits those who want it to suit them, and not when they don't. Nope, not buying it. I'm not European, I'm American.
Ok fine, and enjoy your murder rate, we'll enjoy ours.


No rights are derived from need, perceived or unperceived. If so, your right to religion could easily be abridged - show me how you NEED to worship God.
Rights are rights - they need no further justification.
And what defines a right?

You cited one source.
I was writing a reply to a forum, not a book, did not think was necessary to quote all my sources, if you want I can, but I am not sure a post several pages long would be tolerated.

Very convenient. BS, says I.
Ok BS everything you dont like, you know, even a kid aged 3 is able to do that.


Hahahahaha! You have no idea. Do you know how many 'active' IRA members are estimated to exist? Let's be generous and put the number at a couple thousand. We have 275 million citizens, at least 25% percent of which are gun owners. Good luck, fella
Sorry its you that have no idea on how many weapons the IRA owned, and they gave them up voluntarily, also regulating weapon ownership does not mean confiscating them automatically.


Yes, let's wave the bloody shirt.
Why not, it is there we might as well show it, I mean is not as if it never happened over there is it?

I read a lot about kids being killed by DUI drivers. Don't hear much about cars being banned. Huh.
Maybe because the benefits to society from the existence of cars outweight the drawbacks?


Gun restriction leads directly to gun confiscation, just about everywhere it's been implemented.
Can you cite your everywheres? In Italy, Uk, France, Geamany, Spain and many other eurpoean counties restriction has not meant confiscation, so your everywhere is at least 5 countries short.


I don't have to tell anyone why I want a gun or guns. It is no one's business.
Based on the very same principle
"I don't have to tell anyone why I want a nuke or nukes": North Korea
So why the US are so active in trying to prevent North Korea and Iran from owning Nukes, it is a right and a right needs no further justification (I already heard this one) ;)


The background check is required here as well, also a waiting period (a 'cool off' period).
We do not track the individual guns, because gun owners in the USA fear that one day the lists of registered owners would be used to collect the guns up.
So why do you track cars, are you not afraid they could be confiscated as well?
Also if you don't track guns, how do you ensure that someone that passed the background check does not sell them to someone that would not pass them?
I'd say that your Background checks are a waste of time and money.


But I'll tell you something, sir. I used to be quite active in the pro-and-anti gun debates in the USA, and of course I took the pro-gun side and of course I always won the debates.
Won the debates according to which standard exactly?

If I enter into the debate here, I already know all the sad pathetic little arguments against private gun ownership in the USA, and I can demolish each of them with logic, fact, and historic documents.
What a coincidence! I too already know all the sad pathetic little arguments for unregulated private gun ownership everywhere (not only in the USA), and I can demolish each of them with logic, fact, and historic documents, I'll show you my documents as soon as you show me yours.

But I don't bother anymore. Because at the end of each of these sad little tableaus, we come to the same conclusion. When all your so-called facts and your nonsense statistics are stripped away and the lies are made clear, you still will think that Americans should not be allowed to own guns. And that's fine, but it is like pulling teeth to finally get to the point where you say "I just hate guns and that's that.".
Now it's my turn to say BS! I have several relatives that own guns, and I am not against gun ownership, only I consider guns very dangerous things that should be tracked and not be given to people that are unable to properly use them, I also used one on a hunt expedition with an uncle (however unless thew duck I shot died from a heart attack later I must admit that I did not manage to harm it)
So sorry you are wrong here, I don't hate guns, I hate to see guns in the hands of the wrong people

So enjoy your opinion. I don't share it, but you're welcome to it.
Ditto

Best Regards

bmattock
11-07-2005, 08:49
In US the laws have expiration date, or just some kind of laws? I'm just curious.

It is normally called a "Sunset Law" meaning that it has an expiry date. Most laws do not, but hotly contested ones sometimes do, as a concilatory move that placates the opposition. See Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_provision

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

fgianni
11-07-2005, 08:52
Actually Bill I think here the best course of action is agreeing that we disagree, and stop bumping a thread that is quite OT and probably interests only a tiny minority of our members.

Should you want to tell me something more about it you can always PM me.

If however you really can't hold it then please disregard the advice and post to the forum, I don't want to be accused of trying to silence disagreeing voices.

bmattock
11-07-2005, 08:57
Bill, I don't mean an attitude with respect to resisting gun control. I mean a more cowboy attitude towards the use to of firearms to solve problems. More people willing to use them spurns more people wanting (needing) them to protect themselves.

That's a common misconception that is perpetuated by Hollywood movies. We don't know how many citizens have solved problems without resorting to the use of firearms that they owned - because they didn't use them. We only hear about the cases where wackjobs do reach for guns. And time and time again it is shown that most of these are not legal gun owners anyway - in other words, they were already breaking federal law by having the guns they used.

More laws don't make criminals obey them - and they don't make honest people more honest.


We have had registration of restricted firearms on the books since the '30s. All full automatic firearms are prohibited. All pistols below 4.5" barrel length, certain small calibres, prohibited. Sawed-off shotguns, prohibited. Certain others, prohibited for who knows why. Only grandfathered prohibited firearms owners can even have them, with provisions in place to pass them onto immediate children after death. Restricted firearms (all handguns, various centre fire semiautos like AR-15) are subject to stringent transport controls and can only be discharged at a licensed range. I could buy a restricted firearm but I won't because its honestly too big a pain, and although its my right, I just don't need a handgun or short rifle which incidently is illegal to use against an intruder anyway in this country. No centre fire semiautomatic firearm can have a larger than 5-shot clip, with the exception of the M1 Garand.

Forgive me, but rights in Canada are not the same as rights in the USA.

All I can say is I'm sorry things have worked out the way they have for Canada.


I can't honestly say I disagree with some form of regulation. I'm definitely a moderate but things have gone too far already here with really no demonstratable benefit. The main problem is much of the Canadian Firearms Act is just too complicated. Even cops don't understand the Firearm Act. It regulates the acquisition, possession, storage and use of firearms and ammunition.


That has been the problem here as well. Each attempt to restrict some type of firearm ownership has been urged because it will make things better, reduce crime, whiten our teeth. When that fails to happen, well, all kinds of excuses and reasons why not - but hey, let's ban some more guns. Sure to fix things this time.


So I don't disagree with the arguments, I just wish there was some common sense solution that didn't involve all or nothing.

I don't think you'll find any rational gun owner in the USA who is not secretly in favor of some type of restrictions - such as keeping the crazies away from guns, for example. But the way the war against private gun ownership has been fought in the USA, giving in to 'common sense' solutions has been detrimental - because the other side refuses to honor their word and 'stop with this'. They always come back for more. So it does become all or nothing, but that was their doing.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Gabriel M.A.
11-07-2005, 09:24
I like ice cream on sugar cones. Don't you just like how as you're eating off the scoop of ice cream, the more it sinks into the cone, and by the time there isn't any more ice cream above the cone, you can start eating the cone, and chipping it away?

Mmmm, Rocky Road ice cream...

Nikon Bob
11-07-2005, 09:26
I thought I would steer clear of this pro/anti gun thing but I guess not. I have watched over the last 30 years the gun laws in Canada become progessively more restrictive as to who may own a firearm and what type can be owned. This last piece of gun legislation has been estimated to cost over one billion dollors to get up and running and the results have not justified it, in my opinion. Toronto has a very serious murder rate involving the use of guns. This would likely have happened with or without any new laws having been put in place. It will not be cured by further restrictive laws. As for registering anything, I wonder how many motor vehicle accidents were ever prevented by registering a car. It is a people problem and not a gun problem but the quick fix for politicians is to tighten up existing laws further. They can say they have done something about it and the general public has a nice pacifier to suck on. At the gun club we all howled at the fact that this last piece of legislation was written in such away, by so called experts, as to put the Walther GSP/OSP line of international target pistols on the prohibited list because of barrel length and caliber if I remeber correctly. It is a difficult problem generally not cured via registering inanimate objects.

Bob

bmattock
11-07-2005, 10:00
Actually Bill I think here the best course of action is agreeing that we disagree, and stop bumping a thread that is quite OT and probably interests only a tiny minority of our members.

Should you want to tell me something more about it you can always PM me.

If however you really can't hold it then please disregard the advice and post to the forum, I don't want to be accused of trying to silence disagreeing voices.

I didn't see your post until I had posted my most recent broadside - I have deleted it, as your advice is sound.

I'm happy to consider the matter closed.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

fgianni
11-07-2005, 13:19
I didn't see your post until I had posted my most recent broadside - I have deleted it, as your advice is sound.


This must be the first time ever someone manages to successfully recall a broadside :D

Sorry for the bump but I thought it funny.

Cheers

djon
11-07-2005, 13:34
This thread is so far off topic, and so driven by weirdness, that it belongs on AOL.

An American perspective.

Doug
11-07-2005, 15:47
This thread is so far off topic, and so driven by weirdness, that it belongs on AOL.

An American perspective.While enjoying AOL's hospitality in the Gun Talk forum, many post their displeasure at how anti-gun AOL is. That's weirdness. :)

But this thread is surely 'way off topic, and weirdly so. Unlikely to change any opinions on this issue. I have a theory that divisive OT topics like this undermine a forum's sense of community.

Mike Kovacs
11-07-2005, 16:35
OK Bill I've said all I'm going to say. I do enjoy firearms and marksmanship as well as photography.

Gabriel M.A.
11-07-2005, 16:52
I enjoy photography, and my views are mine, and everybody else's, theirs. Preaching left lots of scorching for centuries, centuries ago...

ampguy
03-28-2012, 16:28
I've found the similarities between the M16 (and ar15s) and 50 year old RF's pretty interesting.

Both mechanical, but the ARs have about 30 companies, and the usage model is still evolving (check out the IBIZ zeroing techniques which are a pretty recent devlopment for a 50 year old gun).

For RF's, we have Leica, CV, Zeiss, and maybe a dozen aftermarket parts makers, while the AR parts makers are thriving.

ampguy
03-28-2012, 16:36
So on a Leica note, anyone use Elcan zoom red dots?

http://www.elcansightingsystems.com/products/specter_sights.php

ampguy
03-28-2012, 16:49
You're home alone for the evening, Black Hawk Down in Blu Ray is what' you're going to watch with 7.1 audio. What are you gonna fondle, the Leica or the AR?? :D


Guns make YOU feel lethal. Speak for yourself, please. You have no idea how my guns 'make me feel' or if they give me any emotions at all. Frankly, I don't get off on fondling my firearms - seems a bit daft to me.

See, here's the deal. You say you have these weird feelings about your guns - some kind of power trip thing? OK, fine. You seem to want to put that on all gun owners, but see, you don't actually know squat about anyone's mind but your own. And don't feel like the Lone Ranger, I have no idea how YOU feel about guns, other than what you've told me just now. I'm no better than you - but I don't pretend to be, either.

Since you seem to have a problem with your gun ownership, and you're worried about it, I suggest that you restrict and regulate your own personal gun ownership, and worry a little bit less about my guns - because as I've mentioned, you don't know Jack about how I feel. So your fix for my problem isn't. Which is a bit of a problem itself, really. People wandering around wanting to fix problems I haven't got. And against my will at that! Cheeky!



Take out the words 'gun ownership' and put in the words 'free speech' or 'freedom of religion' or 'freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures' and I suspect (of course I don't know) you'd be screaming bloody murder (as would I). The 2nd is an Amendment too. Imagine that.

Oh, I know, the Framers never envisioned machine guns and atomic bombs when they said 'arms'. I know. They never envisoned the Internet when they said 'free speech', either, or Mormons when they said 'freedom of religion'. Funny, most seem not to want to give up that nasty dangerous old free speech thing, or the religion thing. Even if it what we have now could not have been imagined by the dead white guys who wrote the Constitution and the citizens and states who ratified it.

If you can just blithely write off the 2nd Amendment because we don't really need that one, then you can write off the rest as well. They're Amendments precisely so that well-meaning citizens with a fear of an armed populace can't just vote away a civil liberty on a whim. Even a well-reasoned, well-intentioned whim. Even if you were right and I were dead wrong - you still have the uphill battle to get an Amendment passed and ratified - and that was by intention, don't you see? You don't just get what you want in this matter - everybody else has to agree too.

Well, 3/4 of them, anyway.



Gosh, is that all? We already have that, sport.

I can buy an car anytime I like if I have the cash or the credit. There are no restrictions on ownership - none. There is no background check done to see if I've been a bad boy and got all tanked up and splashed a few fellow citizens all over the highway. In fact, if I don't have a license at all, I can still buy a car.

Drive a car? Well, to drive legally, I have to have a license. Of course, there is no national database, I can go to a state that doesn't have a computer hookup or reciprocity with my state and get a license there. Or, I can just drive without one. And if I have my ability to drive restricted, I will get it back eventually.

But buying a gun? Well, I can buy a gun in a private sale, and that's not registered or tracked anywhere, that's true. But if I buy a gun at a dealer or at a gunshow, I have to go through a federal and state background check. I also must swear under penalty of federal perjory that I am not a felon, not a mental defective, have not been convicted of domestic abuse (did you know that if you hit your wife, you lose your right to own a gun forever?), are not under an restraining order of any kind, are not addicted to drugs, etc, etc. You have to give affirmative ID and it has to be checked with the FBI's crime computer before you can take possession of your firearm.

Many cities have gun registration laws - some make ownership illegal altogether, such as Washington DC and NYC and so on. States have their say too, with restrictions on the type of weapons that can be owned (California) and magazine capacity and blah blah blah.

In short, there are all kinds of regulations surrounding the legal ownership, carry, and use of firearms - city, state, and federal. Far more than those simply required to buy and drive a car.

Funny old world, innit?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

TXForester
03-28-2012, 17:08
I don't hunt much, but I go out behind the house and "kill" a lot of tin cans. I also shoot a recurve bow.

Field
03-28-2012, 18:43
Oh boy! I love firearms.

I'd be fine with all them disappearing off the face of the earth, but never ok with taking them out of the hands of the common people.

The most confusing thing to me is that all the people that are afraid of inanimate objects (firearms) are the people I want to own them the most, typically. I prefer that every average level headed citizen that makes a point to be media literate, own some sort of firearm. I prefer my friends who are radical in the favor of people, unions, stuff like that, own them.

It is a fundamental position that the common person should have the potential to combat their government, or another. I wish my friends had better training with them, though. Unfortunately they can be way too uptight about advice on it, seeing it as a "I can learn on my own" thing... Which may be true but damn, if my life depends on them I'm screwed!

Seriously, I want my friends, family, and community supporters to own firearms. I don't want police to own them. I trust probably almost everyone on this forum a lot more than a cop.

I'm going to ignore most the arguing but state a few things.

1. A healthy safe state (country) has little to no fear of misuse of firearms because the incentive does not exist. Switzerland is a good example. Look at some real facts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence You will notice the poorest - with the most civil unrest - countries have the highest gun violence. The happier the citizens the lower the gun violence without relation to gun ownership.

2. People die more frequently from other things constantly. Firearms are not a real threat in your daily life unless you live somewhere real bad, and know all the wrong people. You are more likely to die from just about anything you can think of, literally. They are no different that cars... It is amazing that millions of cars drive everyday and out of the millions the rate of accidents and deaths is not that high when you consider everyone driving must adhere to pretty close tolerances in order to survive (probably 3/4 of car travel is at lethal speeds). It is kind of amazing the synchronicity that happens around the world with them. You are, of course, way more likely to die in an automobile accident, but the point is frequency of potential danger doesn't equal deaths in an exponential way. See the first statement I made, if you want to find a reason behind gun violence. Consider how many millions of guns are owned in th U.S and how essential only a few heavy poverty crime areas exist. We literally refer to other places, other states or cities in the U.S. that we don't even live in to talk about them, a lot of the time. The frequency of violent use is just really low given the rotation of them in and out of our hands, and being carried daily by many individuals (including police).

3. I'm opposed to gun registration. What difference does it make? First you can't go check on anyone, ever, without a warrant. What good does it do to point out someone illegally owned a firearm after they used it? I disagree with convicted felons not being able to vote or own a firearm. They are essentially stateless at that point. It requires almost nothing to become a felon these days, as well. There just isn't any particular good reason for gun registration (safety wise). Anyone that wants a gun can get one, period. In fact the more illegal and harder to get a gun legally, the more likely someone with devious intentions will be able to acquire one. Why? Because if the market is better in selling illegal firearms than it is to go through the legal hassled-to-death route, people will sell more illegally. It is only a mark for a broken society when this is a big concern, if you want to refer to point 1.

4. I don't think anyone really needs a bunch of automatic weapons, or needs to spend the incredible amount of money they cost, on them, but I really don't care that all the legal ownership of class 3 weapons happens. Seriously rich dudes shoot automatic rifles. They don't need them for violence; and don't use them for it. Poor people can't afford class 3 weapons. If criminals can afford them then you have some kind of bigger societal issue where a gap between the state and people has been created, allowing serious crime.

5. Afghanistan is not run by the U.S. implemented state really. It is a war zone that hasn't been won because they are tactically super smart. They may not be well trained with rifles, but they often make our military look like fools. I know my friend has been ambushed by them and lost people he knew. Imagine if everyone rebelled to U.S. forces there, we wouldn't even try to invade.

On to the gun bits... Very few guns are up to the standard of a Leica M2, M3, or M4. Unfortunately most guns lack a "clockwork" quality. You might be surprised how simple they are. Most of it is just gaining a better understanding of physics, than anything else. I love gear, and firearms, but camera designers are closer to watch makers than firearm makers. That being said firearm makers could probably teach camera makers a few tricks of physics. The simplicity of some of the best firearms made, are what make them great. Doing an incredible amount with very little...

Jobin
03-28-2012, 20:58
I love shooting. Some rimfire fun.

Steinberg2010
03-28-2012, 23:22
I voted yes, principally because I shot target rifles (both full-bore and small-bore) while at school. However, I'm also an aspiring musician and that takes up far more time these days!

~S

taylan
03-28-2012, 23:44
I never touch a gun and I was very surprised when I saw the results. Also I never met a photographer who interested in guns.

rxmd
03-28-2012, 23:45
Reading these vitriolic debates between a US gun nut and a UK gun control advocate seven years after the fact is quite interesting.

If there's one thing the last seven years have shown, it's that liberty erodes equally fast in the UK with gun control and in the US with its liberal gun ownership. The latter is usually explained by the defense of liberty, but it seems that when it comes to defending any liberties except that of gun ownership itself, gun ownership in practice doesn't help.

Kiev Ilegalac
03-29-2012, 00:19
I think that any sane person should hate guns and that talk about love for fine mechanics is just a cover for some deeper issues. Photographers (not implying that I'm the merit one, I know I'm not) care about photographs and life they are trying to capture rather than tools. Tools are geeks' domain. Guns?!? OMG

thegman
03-29-2012, 00:48
I do not love or hate guns. I've enjoyed target practice, and would consider owning a gun if I lived somewhere where it was legal to do so. However, it's undeniable that the world would be a better place without them, assuming something else more deadly was not invented to take the gun's place.

Beemermark
03-29-2012, 03:12
However, it's undeniable that the world would be a better place without them, assuming something else more deadly was not invented to take the gun's place.
You really think so? The world was a deadly place before the invention of guns. People manage to kill people with what ever tool is handy at the time.

tbarker13
03-29-2012, 04:20
You really think so? The world was a deadly place before the invention of guns. People manage to kill people with what ever tool is handy at the time.

So true. Human beings have been killing and hurting each other throughout history. Like it or not, that's just part of who we are.

ronnies
03-29-2012, 04:20
I do not love or hate guns. I've enjoyed target practice, and would consider owning a gun if I lived somewhere where it was legal to do so. However, it's undeniable that the world would be a better place without them, assuming something else more deadly was not invented to take the gun's place.

It can't be illegal to own a gun in the UK since I own two rifles. ;)

Ronnie

tbarker13
03-29-2012, 04:27
Photographers (not implying that I'm the merit one, I know I'm not) care about photographs and life they are trying to capture rather than tools. Tools are geeks' domain. Guns?!? OMG

I'm not sure this forum would exist if what you say is true.
I rarely meet a photographer who doesn't exhibit many of the same characteristics as my gun enthusiast friends - when it comes to the equipment.
Photo forums like this one are full of threads dedicated to things like build quality. Hell, that's one of the top selling points for Leica gear.

Some people simply love well-made stuff. Whether it's cameras, fountain pens, fly rods, furniture, firearms, etc.
There are gun collectors who will buy a gun and never shoot it. Sort of like some camera collectors I've run across.

jsrockit
03-29-2012, 04:48
I'm truly scared of guns (and especially fools with guns). However, I did go to a shooting range and it was one of the funnest things I've done in a long time. Very cool in a controlled environment.

Kiev Ilegalac
03-29-2012, 05:01
Fascination with well made items I can understand, but I still think that people with gun-fetish have certain problems. well made gun is well made for killing, that is what distinguishes it from other well built things someone can be interested in. If you choose guns you choose them because they kill, not because they are beautiful. I assume it's not the beauty that matters, because there are lot of things that come in mind before the guns when we think of beauty

Kiev Ilegalac
03-29-2012, 05:05
I should have used quality instead of beauty. well made would mean that thing is in line with it's function, it's intrensic quality, in case of guns that would be killing

jsrockit
03-29-2012, 05:19
Fascination with well made items I can understand, but I still think that people with gun-fetish have certain problems. well made gun is well made for killing, that is what distinguishes it from other well built things someone can be interested in. If you choose guns you choose them because they kill, not because they are beautiful. I assume it's not the beauty that matters, because there are lot of things that come in mind before the guns when we think of beauty

While I think it's healthy to always be aware of what a gun is capable of (yes, killing), you cannot lump everyone who likes guns into one category. People choose to use / own guns for things other than killing... competition / target shooting, collecting, fascination with history, etc.

tbarker13
03-29-2012, 06:00
I should have used quality instead of beauty. well made would mean that thing is in line with it's function, it's intrensic quality, in case of guns that would be killing

A person could choose to see it that way.
But there are many games and sporting activities (none of them involving killing) that have developed around firearms.
Here are a few of them:
* Sporting Clays, Trap, Skeet - Shotguns used to shoot clay pigeons on the move. Obviously it's based on concept of hunting birds or other small game. But there are many shooters of this sport (myself included) who never hunt.
* Bullseye: These are shooters who play games of incredible accuracy. It's all about putting the bullet exactly where you intend it to be.
* Action Pistol (IDPA, IPSC, USPSA). These are games where shooters compete against each other shooting a course of fire that includes moving targets, partially hidden targets, etc. Shooters' scores are based both on their accuracy and the time it takes to complete the course of fire. These are my games.

tbarker13
03-29-2012, 06:13
If you choose guns you choose them because they kill, not because they are beautiful. I assume it's not the beauty that matters, because there are lot of things that come in mind before the guns when we think of beauty

One of the biggest mistakes we make is assuming that our view of life is the only view that's correct.
You see no beauty in guns. You see them as evil. I get that.

But many of use do believe firearms are beautiful in their own way.
There is a gun store near my house with a high-end room containing a lot of antiques and English shotguns. Many of them are simply gorgeous examples of wood and metal craftsmanship. While I'd never spend $20,000-$30,000 on a single gun, I do see the appeal.

Thankfully, there is no universal definition of beauty.

Brad Bireley
03-29-2012, 06:20
I have guns because I like to hunt. Our family enjoys venison very much. Since this is a photo forum how about some photos...
Here's one of my .308 Remington Gamemaster that I use for deer...The photo was taken with my Olympus XA..

PhotoMat
03-29-2012, 07:42
You really think so? The world was a deadly place before the invention of guns. People manage to kill people with what ever tool is handy at the time.

Yep. If we all beat our swords into plowshares, eventually some dude will come along and smack you with a plowshare.

redisburning
03-29-2012, 08:10
ok look, people will always be out to kill each other due to genetics but you have to admit less people died in the crossfire when people had to carve each other up with swords.

ok, back to the topic.

I guess I like guns. I don't care for rifles or shotguns but I would be lying if I said I didn't like handguns. they ARE mechanical wonders. let's forget the appreciation of fine objects or anything like that because that's not me, but anything that works through pure brilliance of design gets me.

a handgun is as much at the height of mechanical design as a camera, at least IMO.

and I do not hunt. I go to the grocery store. if I could not, I would hunt. I would never consider killing an animal for entertainment sport.

micromontenegro
03-29-2012, 09:04
Not made for killing:

paulfish4570
03-29-2012, 09:04
long-time shooter and hunter. bought my first shotgun when i was 11, with lawn-mowing money. health stopped me from deer hunting 3 years ago, but health has much improved, and i will take up deer-hunting again this coming season. used to handload for my bolt-action rifles. down to a single-shot .30-'06 now. oh, but i do love a '96 swedish mauser. taught all three of my children to shoot pistols when they turned 6. both my boys got .22 rifles at that age, but they never got to shoot them unsupervised until they were young adults. one of the best times i ever had with my daughter was a long weekend deerhunt together. the boys have maintained an interest in firearms; the daughter has not but she does much appreciate wild game. only the daughter has an interest in photography. my bride enjoys shooting handguns, and using our .22 rifle to plink squirrels.
oh, by the way, none of us has killed anyone ...

Oldskewl808
03-29-2012, 09:22
In the Marine Corps, they called it BRASS. Breathe, Relax, Aim, Stop, Squeeze. Works great for holding a camera steady, too.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks Exactly! Sometimes I find myself wanting to work on the trigger after firing off a frame. :D

ronnies
03-29-2012, 09:35
Fascination with well made items I can understand, but I still think that people with gun-fetish have certain problems. well made gun is well made for killing, that is what distinguishes it from other well built things someone can be interested in. If you choose guns you choose them because they kill, not because they are beautiful. I assume it's not the beauty that matters, because there are lot of things that come in mind before the guns when we think of beauty

My rifles have never killed nor were they designed to kill. They are for target shooting only. Designed that way too. A bit like the way a golf club is related to a prehistoric club.

Ronnie

Kiev Ilegalac
03-29-2012, 09:39
One of the biggest mistakes we make is assuming that our view of life is the only view that's correct.

Completly agree. Mistake I often make.

thegman
03-29-2012, 10:57
You really think so? The world was a deadly place before the invention of guns. People manage to kill people with what ever tool is handy at the time.

That is true, but I think reduction of any sort of weapons is probably going to be a positive thing. Maybe I should have said "I hope" more than "I think". Also, I think that so many deaths were caused prior to the gun due to religious/political extremism, and apart from the USA and the Middle East that would seem to be on the decline overall.

thegman
03-29-2012, 11:00
It can't be illegal to own a gun in the UK since I own two rifles. ;)

Ronnie

You're right, I guess I meant "readily available".

paulfish4570
03-29-2012, 11:11
stricter laws against guns mean the government and criminals have all or most of the guns. that is not a situation in which i'd want to live. look at washington, d.c., with the strictest gun laws in the usa. rate of murder by gun is tops in the nation.

Joe AC
03-29-2012, 11:21
stricter laws against guns mean the government and criminals have all or most of the guns. that is not a situation in which i'd want to live. look at washington, d.c., with the strictest gun laws in the usa. rate of murder by gun is tops in the nation.

I agree 100%

Joe

Jobin
03-29-2012, 11:27
I agree 100%

Joe

I agree as well. Without divulging too much personal information I see criminals on a day-to-day basis. They will be armed regardless of the law. Only way to protect yourself and your family is to be equally, if not more, prepared. Some may not understand this, but some have not lived in areas to see the actual issue.

pakeha
03-29-2012, 11:28
Well,well,well, no surprises with this poll.
I actually used to be an ISSF shooter.50 free pistol and 25 mtr.Thats right only one hand..REAL shooting.
Problem was i found myself surrounded by absolute tools at the club. You know the real gung ho i gotta big gun types.Can`t stand these people so they kinda ruined the sport for me. Guys with 25 round mags shooting a barrel 10 feet away..tossers.

Field
03-29-2012, 11:34
I agree as well. Without divulging too much personal information I see criminals on a day-to-day basis. They will be armed regardless of the law. Only way to protect yourself and your family is to be equally, if not more, prepared. Some may not understand this, but some have not lived in areas to see the actual issue.

Actually the best protection is to remove incentive. Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence and look at gun violence in relation to the countries and notice the countries that are the least stable have the most gun violence. The countries with better care of people down on their luck have less, than say the U.S.

That being said I still think it is wise to own, and that it be known that people do own firearms. I do believe the government and criminals being the only armed people is a very bad situation. However I have to be realistic, if people have opportunity in their life that doesn't threaten their freedom, over 99% of them will take it. Rare excepts exist but we can't write the rule book on them since they never follow it to begin with.

Paul Luscher
03-29-2012, 11:41
Bad with a 9mm, pretty decent with a 50mm...

paulfish4570
03-29-2012, 11:42
agreed, pakeha ...

Jobin
03-29-2012, 11:48
Sorry, not to be rude, but I don't refer to anything "wiki". As far as your second paragraph, I am not quite sure what you're saying.

Iv been shooting a lot of rimfire since the price of centerfire has increased and I have no time for self loading.

Actually the best protection is to remove incentive. Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence and look at gun violence in relation to the countries and notice the countries that are the least stable have the most gun violence. The countries with better care of people down on their luck have less, than say the U.S.

That being said I still think it is wise to own, and that it be known that people do own firearms. I do believe the government and criminals being the only armed people is a very bad situation. However I have to be realistic, if people have opportunity in their life that doesn't threaten their freedom, over 99% of them will take it. Rare excepts exist but we can't write the rule book on them since they never follow it to begin with.

PhotoMat
03-29-2012, 12:38
Bad with a 9mm, pretty decent with a 50mm...

Yeah, my 9mm seems to have a lot of barrel distortion!;)

rxmd
03-29-2012, 12:54
Bad with a 9mm, pretty decent with a 50mm...

Artilleryman?

mfunnell
03-29-2012, 13:01
Artilleryman?I should have thought 50mm rather small even for a mortar bomb. Infantry only would be my guess, perhaps in a weapons platoon.

...Mike

P.S. I sometimes shoot 400mm. That's battleship territory!

Beemermark
03-29-2012, 14:00
There are always exceptions but here in the UK before the effective ban, the firearms laws were always very strict. Anyone applying for a Section 1 license which was any firearm other than a shotgun or air weapon under a certain power had to be a club member and be positively vetted by the Police to get a license.

In order to stay in the County Squad and the Police Team I would be either practicing or taking part in competitions 4 or 5 days a week, very much like any other sport at a higher level.

Since the ban on firearms in the UK, the incidence of gun related crime has increased dramatically. So now the villains have firearms and the peace loving sportsmen do not.

As Roger said it was "anti-gun hysteria" :(
I like to use Britain as an example. In the US, states with stricter laws blame gun violence on neighboring states supposedly supplying guns.

So Britain, with extremely strict gun laws since WWI, and a total ban since about 1980 or so, is an island and still can't control gun violence.

My point is, guns don't kill, people do. Guns will never be eliminated from the world, neither will evil people. If all the guns in the world disappeared tomorrow evil people would still kill. The US has an estimated 40 million privately owned guns. I'm more afraid of the people on the highway. Most evil people are cowards deep down. They do not attack big, young strong men. They pick on elderly people and women. I know some people believe in submitting to evil but some of us do not.

I like to collect, I love reloading, and I shoot targets (when I can hit them).

NaChase
03-29-2012, 14:57
Represented elsewhere on the site, but this seems a more fitting place.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7015/6709650653_ab6380cf19_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/6709650653/)
Happiness is a Warm Camera (and Gun) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/6709650653/) by N.Chase (http://www.flickr.com/people/[email protected]/), on Flickr

Nikon Bob
03-29-2012, 15:24
The world is a funny place, when I was shooting firearms I understood SLR meant self loading rifle. I take up photography and find it is a type of camera. Oddly enough both are considered evil in some circles. Ya just can't win.

Bob

paulfish4570
03-29-2012, 15:30
har! good one, bob.

Field
03-29-2012, 16:22
Sorry, not to be rude, but I don't refer to anything "wiki". As far as your second paragraph, I am not quite sure what you're saying.

Iv been shooting a lot of rimfire since the price of centerfire has increased and I have no time for self loading.

What I am saying is you can fundamentally argue that having a firearm means you are better protected and there for less likely to experience gun violence. However you are making an ethical point, not a quantifiable one.

My point is the best protection that can possibly be offered to lower gun violence is to reduce incentive. There is a direct empirical relation, a fact, that overall (not anecdotal) regardless of gun law and ownership, gun violence is decreased as stability and prosperity of living is increased.

Speaking from a psychological point, the more dire someone is the more they are willing to risk actual confrontation with firearm wielding individuals. The incentive to surpass the decision, to take the risk, is a reality that has been proven many, many times. Put it to you this way, you can't own enough firearms to prevent the ultimate decision of someone willing to confront you. There isn't enough guns in the world to prevent someone that is headed towards death or living for nothing from risking themselves, and putting you or your family at risk. The one thing we can understand is that actions taken or not taken are based on incentive from their point of view of how badly they need whatever it happens to be they want, not how many firearms you posses; your possession only tips the scale a certain amount. If they don't want what you have, then it doesn't matter if you try to give them what they could of otherwise been willing to engage in a mortal situation over, they don't want it.

Please don't confuse this with the idea of me saying you shouldn't own firearms since I have stated I prefer all regular non-authority citizens own them. But what I am saying is, it isn't the best way to combat potential harm; it isn't a good argument on a macro level. It only works when you are in that situation and the odds of that situation increasing or decreasing are basically entirely independent.

anthony_semone
03-29-2012, 17:08
And, sir, who reduces the incentive?? Under what conditions? Over what time line?? In the moment when I'm in a bank undergoing a hard take down, what do I do?? "Excuse me, kind sir, please refrain from engaging in this armed robbery; other, more positive incentives will surely come your way, a hey, hey." What Ivory Tower of academia do you live in?? Get on the streets, sir. Perhaps you could have a T-shirt that says: "Incentives will shortly arrive!! You need not attack me."

Phil_F_NM
03-29-2012, 17:27
Yeah, theoretically, it's taking away the incentive to commit crime by educating/feeding/clothing/sheltering the populace but that's just academic. If it were practicable then the person to put it into being would win the Nobel prize and be crowned ruler of something. We all know that if you provide for the comfortable living and education of a family then there is far less incentive for anyone in that family to commit crime but we can't do that. Not in this country at least. And in the nations that attempt it, capitalism is strong but in the black market so crime still exists.

There has always been and will always be envy of another being's possessions. It's not a human trait, it's an animal one. So as long as people want to take what is ours, we should be willing, ready and able to defend it. Otherwise, placate the envy of others by giving away the stuff that other people want. It's all academic still. If you're not willing to defend it, you don't really want it.

Phil Forrest

Field
03-29-2012, 18:36
By saying we can't change anything is making it true. It is that ideology that keeps us in some archaic-never-gone-anywhere state despite being "civilized" for supposedly centuries. I didn't think the relationship between bickering over gun ownership which has no statistical rating high enough to matter, and working towards things that statistical do matter, was all that difficult to see. That makes gun ownership to me is a non-issue, allow people to have them, and it is that simple, since it doesn't matter in a functioning state. Fundamentally in a broken state, you want to have them since it is one of the few playing cards you could have (like having a nuclear weapon if you want to be taken seriously at international talks for countries).

"In a bank during a hard take down" get real, almost no one ever has been in a bank robbery. (Who uses words like "hard take down"? Do you have to watch safety videos at work for this or something?) They have happened, but to an insignificant amount of the population. Further more they are FDIC insured so just let them take the money that is not worth a human life. The police will engage them anyhow.

Phil I don't think academic is the word you want to be using. I get what you are saying but it just doesn't appear to be true. You are using ultimatums that represent an insignificant amount of function within most societies. If it was all "academic" then all the major countries with higher standards of living would be in truth total war zones. Your ultimatums are simply anecdotal. It isn't that they aren't true, it is just that they are only true for enough people that it doesn't matter. Think about the amount of people not committing any kind of crime, and then think how many people are not committing violent crimes, in the major countries. It is actually truly astounding if we are all just animals willing to take from each other given that most people don't carry firearms. Society functions at large and is proof that anecdotes like you are wanting to state, are not the reality that we know.

I'm not disagreeing that we should be able to defend ourselves, in fact I wish pistols, open carry, and concealed carry at large was much more accepted. It is just that we spend our time bickering about that when the truth is every known bit of information we have doesn't amount to any kind of quantifiable reasoning for that to be a debate for gun violence. Our energy should be somewhere else. Our investments in our communities means a lot more.

Phil_F_NM
03-29-2012, 19:09
Yes, they are anecdotal but I live in one of the cities with the highest rates if not the highest rate of violent crime in the nation. We go around in circles with DC, Detroit and New Orleans when it comes to violent crime.
Anyway, what I was saying is that while we can move somehow towards the goal of removing incentive for committing criminal acts, we still should be able and willing to defend ourselves, families and property. Go one step further and I believe that every voting citizen should be willing to do the same for the fundamentals that the country was founded upon, but that's a different topic altogether.
We agree on the same things but our approaches are different. I use hyperbole far too much but only do so to demonstrate a point.
At the same time, I've been right in the very heart of a crumbling, society and I know just how bad people can get towards their fellow man when the consequences of crime are removed. Inject any sort of ideology and then it can be worse than anything Hollywood can dream up. There the weapons of choice were sometimes heavy framing hammers and very large knives.
I digress.
Yes, we should look towards the betterment of all civilization but unfortunately work in that direction is painfully slow, like the movement of tectonic plates.

Phil Forrest

Field
03-29-2012, 19:41
Well... I am glad I don't live in DC.

anthony_semone
03-30-2012, 06:35
Come to the little "burb" where I live, Field. I'll show you the bank where indeed I was when it did in fact undergo a "hard take down." While I could have ended the *******'s foray, my weapon was too valuable to give up for evidence, and taking his life wasn't worth that. Oh, I only watch police videos when I'm training the police :D :D

Phil_F_NM
03-30-2012, 12:21
Anthony,
Something tells me you have a beautiful tool like a Kimber pro carry, commander-style 1911. I'm thinking not quite an IPSC race gun but something fast and extremely reliable that makes a .45" hole.

Phil Forrest

anthony_semone
03-30-2012, 14:05
Anthony,
Something tells me you have a beautiful tool like a Kimber pro carry, commander-style 1911. I'm thinking not quite an IPSC race gun but something fast and extremely reliable that makes a .45" hole.

Phil Forrest

Hi Phil, nope, just a prosaic HK P2000 9mm. It's serves me well, given the arthritis in my wrists :) The long stuff is the esoteric gear :D

S/F, brother,

tony

Phil_F_NM
03-30-2012, 14:21
Point, aim, focus, click.

Phil Forrest

ampguy
03-30-2012, 15:32
just an accurate high speed paper punch, by fast, like 3200 fps.

smiling gecko
04-04-2012, 19:16
ummm...is that something made by general electric? ;)

breathe, relax and enjoy.
smiling gecko, aka kenneth
www.neverforgetbeslan.org

mynikonf2
04-05-2012, 02:44
Too much testosterone in this thread for me, have at it boys with all your toys.

P.S., Guns are icky.


...icky?????:confused: perhaps your thoughts about guns are what is ichy. :)
How can an inanimate, machined & polished object be ichy? Just puzzles me.

gavinlg
04-05-2012, 03:02
I shoot, and I support the right to bear arms. Don't necessarily require the right to carry here in Australia, but I think everyone should have some weapons safety training and everyone should be allowed the right to handle some firearms at a safe place like a range - and learn how to use them safely.

rxmd
04-05-2012, 04:01
I shoot, and I support the right to bear arms.

And don't forget the right to arm bears!

Mr_Flibble
04-05-2012, 04:01
I used to do a lot of tournament based target shooting, with .22LR rifles and airguns.

Only thing in my gun locker that works at the moment is my M1 Rifle (Springfield Armory 1943), but it only shoots blanks I'm afraid.

Nikon Bob
04-05-2012, 05:06
And don't forget the right to arm bears!

Wife had that T shirt, got to love her.

Bob

PhotoMat
04-05-2012, 06:56
Wife had that T shirt, got to love her.

Bob

Maybe she can add this to her wardrobe:

http://www.btfh.net/shoot/misc/kalashnikitty.jpg

(No, it's not my shirt.;) I'm not into AK's -- I'm more of an FN FAL guy.)

gns
04-05-2012, 07:05
I can hardly think of 2 things more different.
Shooting is about hitting the target, the bulls eye. It's about repetition, doing the same thing over and over exactly the same way in order to perfect and standardize every nuance. The goal is to arrive at the same result every time.
Taking pictures is not that at all.

Cheers,
Gary

anthony_semone
04-05-2012, 07:42
gns,

actually long range precision shooting deviates quite remarkably from your protocol, which is quite suitable for an indoor 25meter .22LR shooting. When out of doors, there is great need for variability in the shooter's approach depending upon such things as: ambient light, temperature, humidity, density altitude, the effects of wind, coriolis, ammunition, i.e., powder type and charge, primer, case, together with ballistic coefficient, bullet design and configuration. And I haven't even begun to talk about target distance, target inclination, declination; known or unknown distance; type of scope, type of scope reticle; yet alone the body posture of the shooter, etc., etc. and all this assumes the target is not shooting back :D

Sparrow
04-05-2012, 07:53
Naa, that's no fun ... we need rootin' tootin', shoot-em up, calibre comparing, grand theft auto second amendment street-shooting stuff ... cowboys don't need all that complex twaddle

paulfish4570
04-05-2012, 08:00
funny, stewart ... :)

gns
04-05-2012, 08:00
gns,

actually long range precision shooting deviates quite remarkably from your protocol, which is quite suitable for an indoor 25meter .22LR shooting. When out of doors, there is great need for variability in the shooter's approach depending upon such things as: ambient light, temperature, humidity, density altitude, the effects of wind, coriolis, ammunition, i.e., powder type and charge, primer, case, together with ballistic coefficient, bullet design and configuration. And I haven't even begun to talk about target distance, target inclination, declination; known or unknown distance; type of scope, type of scope reticle; yet alone the body posture of the shooter, etc., etc. and all this assumes the target is not shooting back :D

Ok, good points. All those variables would require adjustments. And a target shooting back could surely require some on-the-fly creativity.

Gary

Sparrow
04-05-2012, 08:58
... real men don't do itchy ... scratch first and ask questions later

Nikon Bob
04-05-2012, 09:14
Maybe she can add this to her wardrobe:

http://www.btfh.net/shoot/misc/kalashnikitty.jpg

(No, it's not my shirt.;) I'm not into AK's -- I'm more of an FN FAL guy.)

No, she is more an animal rights tree hugger type. I enjoy AKs but, like you, I am more of an FN FAL type. To be specific an FN C1A1 8L series produced by Canadian Arsenals Ltd. at Long Branch, Ontario. Two opposing views can exist quite well side by side and have so for going on 25 years.

Bob

victoriapio
04-05-2012, 20:04
I have one Leica lens in my safe (the rest of them are in my camera bag) but the safe is full of antique Winchesters, Spanish shotguns, hunting rifles, and a 22 Sauer Mosquito for fun. Oh, I have a Sauer 228 next to the bed for "varmints."

rxmd
04-06-2012, 16:26
I enjoy AKs but, like you, I am more of an FN FAL type. To be specific an FN C1A1 8L series produced by Canadian Arsenals Ltd. at Long Branch, Ontario.
See, and at this point, where two guys start having an exchange about what automatic asssult rifle "type" they are, it begins to strike me as completely bizarre.

Maybe when people grow up in a culture that embraces violence, and they have a disposition to be a gearhead, they have a higher probability to end up being gun nerds and thinking of themselves as "marksmen".

PhotoMat
04-06-2012, 18:17
Maybe when people grow up in a culture that embraces violence, and they have a disposition to be a gearhead, they have a higher probability to end up being gun nerds and thinking of themselves as "marksmen".

And maybe when people make broad-based insults and assumptions about people whom they know nothing about, and they have an inclination to play armchair psychologist, they tend to have a higher probability of coming off as boorish and offensive.:rolleyes:

victoriapio
04-06-2012, 18:20
See, and at this point, where two guys start having an exchange about what automatic asssult rifle "type" they are, it begins to strike me as completely bizarre.

Maybe when people grow up in a culture that embraces violence, and they have a disposition to be a gearhead, they have a higher probability to end up being gun nerds and thinking of themselves as "marksmen".

Countries where guns are allowed do not necessarily embrace violence. Ask Switzerland, Isreal and others where guns are not only allowed, but issued to trained adults.. As a Texan, I grew up in the US where guns are allowed for several reasons: to protect our country against invaders when our government cannot, to protect individuals against our government and, to put food on the table, and for self protection. I learned to shoot long before I learned to photograph. Live in peace and freedom. :o

rxmd
04-06-2012, 21:13
And maybe when people make broad-based insults and assumptions about people whom they know nothing about, and they have an inclination to play armchair psychologist, they tend to have a higher probability of coming off as boorish and offensive.:rolleyes:

Well, "gearhead" is hardly an insult on a site like this; and gun nerd - well having a preference among various automatic rifles IMHO qualifies and is also hardly an insult. And for the culture that embraces violence, just turn on the TV. Care to elaborate which of the three you found offensive to you in particular?

Sparrow
04-07-2012, 01:26
Switzerland and Israel ... liberal pussies, they're still clinging on to the "well regulated militia" bit, geez ... no mixing beer and guns! what's that all about?

mfunnell
04-07-2012, 02:22
no mixing beer and guns! what's that all about?They like to keep their own feet intact? Why bother if you only drive...

As it happens, a long time ago I had a lot to do with smallarms - almost always for purposes of employment, firstly inside the military then not. Never, ever, mixed with alcohol. I applied a firearms version of the 12-hour-bottle-to-throttle rule used in aviation. I was in circumstances (especially on the civilian side) where that wasn't a legal requirement. But it was my requirement. OK, so I was a bore (don't even ask small-bore vs large-bore; just a bore). But I don't limp. And don't suffer from worse. I've met people who do, directly from not applying a similar rule. I'm thankful I've not met anyone who has injured another for that reason, though I'm aware all too many have.

...Mike

Sparrow
04-07-2012, 03:13
They like to keep their own feet intact? Why bother if you only drive...

As it happens, a long time ago I had a lot to do with smallarms - almost always for purposes of employment, firstly inside the military then not. Never, ever, mixed with alcohol. I applied a firearms version of the 12-hour-bottle-to-throttle rule used in aviation. I was in circumstances (especially on the civilian side) where that wasn't a legal requirement. But it was my requirement. OK, so I was a bore (don't even ask small-bore vs large-bore; just a bore). But I don't limp. And don't suffer from worse. I've met people who do, directly from not applying a similar rule. I'm thankful I've not met anyone who has injured another for that reason, though I'm aware all too many have.

...Mike


Ah, sorry, I forgot they abolished satire when Henry Kissinger got the Nobel peace prize ...

anthony_semone
04-07-2012, 04:02
Sorta like when Obama got his :D LOL

mfunnell
04-07-2012, 04:05
Ah, sorry, I forgot they abolished satire when Henry Kissinger got the Nobel peace prize ...Sorry if I came across a bit po-faced. That should have been two posts, but I let one idea run on after the other. Possibly due the combination of whiskey, and, well, I'm not quite sure what. The first sentence - if left by itself - might have been more the right mood.

...Mike