I think that most folks on this list *assume* that the primary interest of the other members of the list is photography, either as their main or only hobby or for photography commercial purposes. This is a *false* assumption. I enjoy photography and probably have $15k or so in Pentax equipment. My primary avocation, however, is competitive shooting. I belong to 7 lists associated with this. Nowhere on these lists has anyone ever disparaged photography or Pentax let alone do it using falsehoods, lies, untruths, major errors in logic and a complete lack of any ability to assess risk, either for themselves or for populations. If they did, I'd set them straight.
Below is a publication of rubbish which is dangerous to my primary avocation and major source of joy in my life, not to mention nearly $100k of my own small wealth. In as much as a battle of the minds continues on this issue in *all* forums, with the particular anticipation of perverting truth, you can expect, given my investment, that I will not stand idle while hateful fellows encourage others to deprive me of my primary avocation and no small fortune. I really don't give a damn what the Australians, Brits, Germans, French, Dutch, Mexicans, Spaniards, Canadians (I dropped my dual citizenship) do to their own countries. It's their business. I don't care what their views (your) are. I do have a specific and personal interest in lies and untruths on the topic. This is the most asinine posts I've ever read. - Completely devoid of fact and logic. Hence the comments below. Regards, Bob.... -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!" - Benjamin Franklin From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > From: Keith Whaley > > > You're not talking to old gun nuts like me, you're > antagonizing > > camera-loving folks, some of whom have an absolutely paranoid > and > > obsessive hate for firearms of any kind, shape or color, and > you know that. > > That you and I love cameras _too_ matters not one whit! > > That their position is logically unsupportable and their > arguments are > > specious matters not. > > Their position is completely and logically supportable. Guns are > used primarily to kill people. This is absolute nonsense. Today in the US there are perhaps 280 million firearms in the hands of some 80 million citizens and less than 0.0088% are ever fired at any person. It is therefore clear that 99.99% of these firearms served some other purpose. Each year, more than one billion rounds of ammunition are sold to citizens (manufacturers' domestic sales) and less than 0.002% are ever fired at another person. This means that 99.998% of ammunition expended by citizens serves some other purpose. I myself expend between 400 and 800 rounds a month preparing for matches. > Most guns are designed with killing people as the primary design goal. This is utter nonsense. A walk into any firearms store anywhere in the US easily proves otherwise. Look at the array of rifled long guns. Clearly, the vast majority are designed for hunting deer, pig and the like. Another large category are designed for target. You will be lucky to see even one or two that was designed to kill anyone and these will be old military rifles such as a 1903A3, M1 Garand, M1A or perhaps a No. 4 Enfield. All three of which, though designed to kill people, make excellent big game rifles for hunters on a budget. All are also used as target rifles in classes that allow only these rifles. Look at the array of smooth bore long guns. Clearly, the vast majority are designed for hunting bird, rabbit and the like. Another large category are designed specifically for skeet, trap or clays. You will be lucky to see even one or two that was designed to kill anyone and these will be old trench guns or home invasion protection. One of these has saved my actual butt. Look at the array of hand guns. A little more than half will be for self defense. Most of the rest were built for target. No one buys a national match or Gold Cup .45 to use on people. Currently, when a firearm is used in self defense in the US, 98 percent of the time it is not fired. > Logically, a person of sound mind would find the whole concept > of a device designed specifically to kill another member of > their own species from enough distance that self defence cannot > be argued, Bullshit! Your country's military, the US military, all militaries of the world logically maintain such devices and more. > or to kill a member of another species, I find deer, moose and pig to be tastey. Further, I want a Moose head over my fireplace. > or their own, > as that fellow in Maryland was doing a couple of months ago, for > sport or trophy completely reprehensible. Now here is the complete breakdown of logic. Because we all agree that killing people for sport is reprehensible, we are supposed to agree that the firearm itself is reprehensible. Well, I agree that the fellow who killed his entire family with a kitchen knife did a reprehensible thing. I do not agree that kitchen knives are reprehensible. "But kitchen knives have an actual, legitimate purpose!" As demonstrated above, so do most firearms! False assumption the weapon was designed to kill people. The weapon used by the sniper, regardless of appearance, was designed specifically for target. It was not manufactured for the purpose of killing people. Though it worked for the "sniper" at close range, no actual sniper uses that type of rifle. No, there is no logic presented here, just some statement that it's logical. Further, you've stuffed at least three separate concepts together as though they were one concept and attempted to bind it all together to the Maryland sniper! > Sorry, to continue this thread, but that was one of the most > asinine things I have read on this mailing list. This is the most asinine posts I've ever read. - Completely devoid of fact and logic.
