# Change to forum Firearms policy



## Overread (Jan 8, 2014)

After recent consultation with members of the forums, in private and in general conversations on the forums we've had cause to review our policy on the display of firearms on the site. As a result of the review of the policy and the practical enforcement of the policy that we were carrying out we've made the following change to the site rules:


 *While images containing firearms depicted for the sake of art are permitted, discussion of firearms and related politics is not. Like politics and religion, it is another hot button topic that can lead to inflammatory discussion. Such discussion posts will be removed by the moderating team.


 We hope that the following change will now allow those who wish to display such photos to do so freely and that users will take heed of the restriction regarding discussion topics relating to firearms.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 8, 2014)

can we ban HDR while we are at it?  leads to the same discussion.

:er:


----------



## gsgary (Jan 8, 2014)

And wedding photography

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## gsgary (Jan 8, 2014)

And children photography

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## runnah (Jan 8, 2014)

gsgary said:


> And wedding photography
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2



And babies/pets.

Lets ban every except tasteless nudes.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 8, 2014)

Pets are ok as long as its dogs 

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## runnah (Jan 8, 2014)

gsgary said:


> Pets are ok as long as its dogs
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2



You've seen one dog you've seen em all.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 8, 2014)

gsgary said:


> Pets are ok as long as its dogs
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


Except for those nasty little Terrier breeds; they're worse'n cats!


----------



## gsgary (Jan 8, 2014)

And macro photography

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 8, 2014)

Happy New Year Overread :meh:


----------



## SnappingShark (Jan 8, 2014)

I have to chip in, I am tired of seeing photographs of trees. They can be banned also. Thanks. Phew, 2014, best year EVA!!!!


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 8, 2014)

And spouses that showoff and get more attention  :violin:


----------



## sm4him (Jan 8, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> And spouses that showoff and get more attention  :violin:



Wow, did you REALLY just vote to ban your wife?
Now THAT would definitely be a bigger "hot button" topic than firearms!! 

I dunno, Jaca, I like you, I really, really do&#8230;but I suspect you don't want us to end up having to pick between YOU and HER. :lmao:


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 8, 2014)

tirediron said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Pets are ok as long as its dogs
> ...



So really what we need here is a picture of a terrier being shot by a cat at a wedding with a large caliber hand gun?

Let me check my archives.. lol


----------



## gsgary (Jan 8, 2014)

Unless they are nude

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## runnah (Jan 8, 2014)

gsgary said:


> Unless they are nude
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2



The more tasteless the better.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 8, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> And spouses that showoff and get more attention  :violin:




Hey now, don't fault the woman or being an incredibly talented photographer.  I mean you..um.. er.. well, you've got a great personality so that's something right?   Rotfl


----------



## Overread (Jan 8, 2014)

gsgary said:


> Pets are ok as long as its dogs
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2



Our external professional consultant on the matter is not impressed with these suggestions







Our other external professional was unavailable to comment.


----------



## runnah (Jan 8, 2014)

Overread said:


> Our external professional consultant on the matter is not impressed with these suggestions



Showing your ***** won't help matters. 



First time I've ever said that.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 8, 2014)

Overread said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Pets are ok as long as its dogs
> ...



Thats dinner for Archie and Rosie

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 8, 2014)

sm4him said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > And spouses that showoff and get more attention :violin:
> ...



 Ooopsie.  See, I am one of those that does not think (enough) before I click the post button.  SHOOTING myself in the foot...........punny pun pun.


----------



## shefjr (Jan 8, 2014)

I'm gonna have to give you all two tickets to the gun show. 
:flexes arms:


Wait! Ron can do it better.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 8, 2014)

gsgary said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



And as with all things TPF, be sure to check your shoes carefully before donning them.. lol


----------



## Designer (Jan 8, 2014)

I'm glad for the clarification.  Thank you.


----------



## kathyt (Jan 8, 2014)

Whoop whoop! It is like Christmas all over again! Thanks mods!


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jan 8, 2014)

Seems like an appropriate way to handle it, keeping the discussion to critique and photography. 

Let's hope this doesn't end in cats 'n dogs, living together... or either in a wedding dress.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 8, 2014)

I hope the correct photo pops up.  https://www.google.com/search?q=dog...ZDZHioASujIGoBw&ved=0CDQQsAQ&biw=1440&bih=791


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 8, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> I hope the correct photo pops up.  https://www.google.com/search?q=dog...ZDZHioASujIGoBw&ved=0CDQQsAQ&biw=1440&bih=791



Yikes.. ok, think I'm scarred for life now.  Lol


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 8, 2014)

See, this thing called life really gets strange no matter....guns, politics, religion, pets, pantyhose, man boobs.  You just can't win.


----------



## Tailgunner (Jan 8, 2014)

kathythorson said:


> Whoop whoop! It is like Christmas all over again! Thanks mods!



Yup, now you can post those pictures...


----------



## limr (Jan 8, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> I hope the correct photo pops up.  https://www.google.com/search?q=dog...ZDZHioASujIGoBw&ved=0CDQQsAQ&biw=1440&bih=791



What in the what?? Who would do this to a dog??

Oh yeah. I would, if I had a dog. 

It's still six kinds of wrong, though. But funny.


----------



## peter27 (Jan 8, 2014)

NSFW/Nudes are in a private area. The site should put a similar restriction on guns.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 9, 2014)

peter27 said:


> NSFW/Nudes are in a private area. The site should put a similar restriction on guns.


Thanks for the suggestion.


----------



## Light Guru (Jan 9, 2014)

This thread and the recent thread with gun images reminded me of this quote. 

"Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someones lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You dont have to compromise convictions to be compassionate."     - Rick Warren

Banning photos of guns because some people don't like them essentially breeds intolerance towards those that own guns. 

I personally find it crazy that the forum would allow Nudes/NSFW photos but not photos of guns. I don't want to see nude/NSFW images so I don't look at those threads, why can't it people that don't want to see gun photos choose not to look at the threads with gun photos. 

I find most HDR images to be offensive to the eye, but I don't ask for those to be banned.


----------



## cmhbob (Jan 9, 2014)

peter27 said:


> NSFW/Nudes are in a private area. The site should put a similar restriction on guns.



No. No, they shouldn't. There's no comparison. 

Mods and admins, thanks much for the careful consideration. I know what a tireless pain that job can be.


----------



## skieur (Jan 9, 2014)

gsgary said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



Yup, my terrier breed has been used to hunt cougars in the early 1900s, so this would be a quick snack.


----------



## skieur (Jan 9, 2014)

Overread said:


> After recent consultation with members of the forums, in private and in general conversations on the forums we've had cause to review our policy on the display of firearms on the site. As a result of the review of the policy and the practical enforcement of the policy that we were carrying out we've made the following change to the site rules:
> 
> 
> *While images containing firearms depicted for the sake of art are permitted, discussion of firearms and related politics is not. Like politics and religion, it is another &#8220;hot button&#8221; topic that can lead to inflammatory discussion. Such discussion posts will be removed by the moderating team.
> ...



Hmmm. I wonder how you determine how ARTISTIC a shot of a gun is.

We need a new set of rules on COMPOSITION for guns!


----------



## mishele (Jan 9, 2014)

Overread do you own the rights to that picture? :greenpbl:


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Jan 9, 2014)

Hmmmmmm..............while I've not posted images of firearms and had no plans to do so I don't wish to participate in such an arbitrarily restrictive atmosphere. Please delete my account as soon as possible.

Good day to those I've interacted with and best wishes to you.


----------



## manicmike (Jan 9, 2014)

Light Guru said:


> This thread and the recent thread with gun images reminded me of this quote.
> 
> "Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone&#8217;s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don&#8217;t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate."     - Rick Warren
> 
> ...



I like this guy.


----------



## amolitor (Jan 9, 2014)

Just to review, people:

PHOTOS OF FIREARMS ARE NOT BANNED.
PICTURES OF GUNS ARE EXPLICITLY PERMITTED.
YOU CAN POST PICTURES OF GUNS.
IT IS OK.

FIREARMS RELATED POLITICAL DISCUSSION _IS _BANNED.
DON'T ARGUE ABOUT GUN LAWS.
DON'T BABBLE ON ABOUT YOUR OPINIONS ABOUT GUNS.
SUCH POSTS _WILL BE DELETED._
THEY ARE NOT OK.


----------



## Overread (Jan 9, 2014)

We did not ban gun photos because people didn't like them

We banned them because at the time there were frequent arguments and fights relating to discussions about gun ownership being started in threads with gun photos. Part of moderating is keeping the forum running smoothly and just like we restricted politics and religion discussions along similar grounds we also restricted gun photos to help prevent further fights within the community.

We are allowing them back in accepting that as moderators we might have to work harder to remove fights in gun threads; but also hoping that after a period of denial members will now be more aware of the consequences of their actions and will not seek to start further arguments/fights relating to gun ownership (we've also amended the FAQ to directly prohibit this kind of discussion as well).

Like many site restrictions these are not present in the Subscribers section forum and NSFW gallery. 



MartinCrabtree - we do not delete user profiles. You are free to remove your details from your signature and any posts you've made if you wish to. You can also set your registered email account to something random so that you also no longer get email from the site.


----------



## kathyt (Jan 9, 2014)

MartinCrabtree said:


> Hmmmmmm..............while I've not posted images of firearms and had no plans to do so I don't wish to participate in such an arbitrarily restrictive atmosphere. Please delete my account as soon as possible.
> 
> Good day to those I've interacted with and best wishes to you.


The mods have decided to be less restrictive for our benefit as long as we remain on topic. A thank you to the mods is in order here.


----------



## skieur (Jan 9, 2014)

from Amolitor:

PHOTOS OF FIREARMS ARE NOT BANNED.
PICTURES OF GUNS ARE EXPLICITLY PERMITTED.( You forgot the "for the sake of art")


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 9, 2014)

Light Guru said:


> why can't it people that don't want to see gun photos choose not to look at the threads with gun photos.



Because most of us are NUTBARS and can't help ourselves.  Human nature?


----------



## amolitor (Jan 9, 2014)

There are probably a few people who are genuinely bothered by pictures of guns. There are probably people who are offended by pictures of tulips. It's a big world.

The difference between guns and tulips is that, for some reason, people don't instinctively respond to a picture of a tulip with a long rant about the state of the nursery industry, the ridiculous laws surrounding the import and export of plant materials, and how if the government wasn't run by a bunch of imbeciles there would be more/less restrictions on the sale/import/export of seeds/bulbs/rhizomes so that decent people everywhere could do something or other.

Frankly, TPF would be a lot more fun if we could rely on pitched battles over the politics of tulips. But we cannot.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 9, 2014)

The moderation team (including some admins) have been discussing this topic for a little while now. We got several messages from people about it, along with the usual in-thread discussions. 
The decision to make guns a "hot topic" was because of arguments that broke out over various gun issues.  It was not just some arbitrary decision based on one or two incidents, but stemming from what appeared to be a very predictable negative result from gun threads. 

The decision to reevaluate that rule and repeal it was based on seeing a renewed interest in gun photography, and the hopes that the discussion on those photos will stay purely academic and not venture into politics.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 9, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> The moderation team (including some admins) have been discussing this topic for a little while now. We got several messages from people about it, along with the usual in-thread discussions.
> The decision to make guns a "hot topic" was because of arguments that broke out over various gun issues.  It was not just some arbitrary decision based on one or two incidents, but stemming from what appeared to be a very predictable negative result from gun threads.
> 
> The decision to reevaluate that rule and repeal it was based on seeing a renewed interest in gun photography, and the hopes that the discussion on those photos will stay purely academic and not venture into politics.



What about banning rabbits


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 9, 2014)

gsgary said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > The moderation team (including some admins) have been discussing this topic for a little while now. We got several messages from people about it, along with the usual in-thread discussions.
> ...



It could happen.


----------



## hopdaddy (Jan 9, 2014)

amolitor said:


> There are probably a few people who are genuinely bothered by pictures of guns. There are probably people who are offended by pictures of tulips. It's a big world.
> 
> The difference between guns and tulips is that, for some reason, people don't instinctively respond to a picture of a tulip with a long rant about the state of the nursery industry, the ridiculous laws surrounding the import and export of plant materials, and how if the government wasn't run by a bunch of imbeciles there would be more/less restrictions on the sale/import/export of seeds/bulbs/rhizomes so that decent people everywhere could do something or other.
> 
> Frankly, TPF would be a lot more fun if we could rely on pitched battles over the politics of tulips. But we cannot.


A perfect example of how to sidestep any "Ban" discussion .  It is never so much what you say ........But ,How you say it !


----------



## gsgary (Jan 9, 2014)

hopdaddy said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > There are probably a few people who are genuinely bothered by pictures of guns. There are probably people who are offended by pictures of tulips. It's a big world.
> ...



Tulips dont kill school children

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## amolitor (Jan 9, 2014)

gsgary said:


> Tulips dont kill school children



If you cannot kill your school age child with a tulip, you're just not trying hard enough.


----------



## runnah (Jan 9, 2014)

amolitor said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Tulips dont kill school children
> ...



If you outlaw tulips only outlaws will have tulips.


----------



## kathyt (Jan 9, 2014)

gsgary said:


> hopdaddy said:
> 
> 
> > amolitor said:
> ...


Oh crap, and we were doing so good gsgary.


----------



## Tailgunner (Jan 9, 2014)

kathythorson said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > hopdaddy said:
> ...



My thoughts exactly...I just figured I would put them on the ignore list.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Jan 9, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> The moderation team (including some admins) have been discussing this topic for a little while now. We got several messages from people about it, along with the usual in-thread discussions. The decision to make guns a "hot topic" was because of arguments that broke out over various gun issues.  It was not just some arbitrary decision based on one or two incidents, but stemming from what appeared to be a very predictable negative result from gun threads.  The decision to reevaluate that rule and repeal it was based on seeing a renewed interest in gun photography, and the hopes that the discussion on those photos will stay purely academic and not venture into politics.


 I have a crazy idea. How about just banning arguments, period. It's not about guns, or politics etc, some people just live to argue.


----------



## manicmike (Jan 9, 2014)

gsgary said:


> hopdaddy said:
> 
> 
> > amolitor said:
> ...



Messed up people with tulips do.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 9, 2014)

HughGuessWho said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > The moderation team (including some admins) have been discussing this topic for a little while now. We got several messages from people about it, along with the usual in-thread discussions. The decision to make guns a "hot topic" was because of arguments that broke out over various gun issues.  It was not just some arbitrary decision based on one or two incidents, but stemming from what appeared to be a very predictable negative result from gun threads.  The decision to reevaluate that rule and repeal it was based on seeing a renewed interest in gun photography, and the hopes that the discussion on those photos will stay purely academic and not venture into politics.
> ...



Do not!


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 9, 2014)

HughGuessWho said:


> I have a crazy idea. How about just banning arguments, period. It's not about guns, or politics etc, some people just live to argue.



Wouldn't that necessitate that we first have an argument over what constitutes an argument?  Lol


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 9, 2014)

Then start an argument about how constipated we are about constitutions.  :er:


----------



## manicmike (Jan 9, 2014)

I like cheesecake.


----------



## runnah (Jan 9, 2014)

manicmike said:


> I like cheesecake.



Well its bad for you so we should ban it.


----------



## Tailgunner (Jan 9, 2014)

tirediron said:


> HughGuessWho said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...




Hahahaha....


----------



## JTPhotography (Jan 9, 2014)

Light Guru said:


> This thread and the recent thread with gun images reminded me of this quote.
> 
> "Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someones lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You dont have to compromise convictions to be compassionate." - Rick Warren
> 
> ...



Well friggin said!


----------



## JTPhotography (Jan 9, 2014)

MartinCrabtree said:


> Hmmmmmm..............while I've not posted images of firearms and had no plans to do so I don't wish to participate in such an arbitrarily restrictive atmosphere. Please delete my account as soon as possible.
> 
> Good day to those I've interacted with and best wishes to you.



Can't say that I blame you, I actually thought this thread was a joke when I first read it. Between this and the photo competition cluster, I probably won't be far behind you. But to be honest, like driving past a traffic accident, I kinda want to stay a while and watch the toilet flush.


----------



## JTPhotography (Jan 9, 2014)

I have an idea, post your gun pictures in the photo competition thread, the mods never look look in there.


----------



## EIngerson (Jan 9, 2014)

Thank you TPF.


----------



## peter27 (Jan 9, 2014)

So what it basically boils down to then is this: In the TPF open galleries you have the right to bear arms but aren't allowed to bare your breasts. Interesting.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 9, 2014)

peter27 said:


> So what it basically boils down to then is this: In the TPF open galleries you have the right to bear arms but aren't allowed to bare your breasts. Interesting.



Wow, never thought of it like that. I'm thinking good point.....until someone comes up with something better.  I certainly should be allowed to bare my bear boobs openly.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 9, 2014)

"And I'm thinking the rails are over there somewhere.  Nope, not sure what happened to be honest.  One minute we were sailing along fine, next minute, we jumped the track.  Yup, completely left the rails.  Yup.. the cars are still tumbling end over end - as a matter of fact where heading right toward the edge of a really nasty cliff.  Yup.. most likely be plummeting to our doom any second now.  Oh.. wait.  Got another call.  Going to have to put you on hold. "


----------



## runnah (Jan 9, 2014)

EIngerson said:


> Thank you TPF.



I am excited to see what you have in store for us!


----------



## ratssass (Jan 9, 2014)

... i wanna see dem der bear boobs!!!


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 9, 2014)

peter27 said:


> So what it basically boils down to then is this: In the TPF open galleries you have the right to bear arms but aren't allowed to bare your breasts. Interesting.



that is a policy that comes directly from the site owners. 
they want a somewhat "family friendly" environment. 
we DO allow those sorts of NSFW photos in the subscribers gallery. 
as well as allowing NSFW pictures, the subscribers section is also less moderated for speech, so you can pretty much say whatever you want. (with the exception to very extreme ends, and threats, obviously)
Its worth checking out.


----------



## mishele (Jan 9, 2014)




----------



## RichieT (Jan 9, 2014)

Light Guru said:


> This thread and the recent thread with gun images reminded me of this quote.
> 
> "Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someones lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You dont have to compromise convictions to be compassionate."     - Rick Warren
> 
> ...



Well said!!! I couldn't agree more. To be honest, when I read the recent posts about no gun pictures, I felt like I would have to hide part of my life, which I am not willing to do, or risk being 2nd class. I know I haven't been here too long or contributed that much yet so my leaving wouldn't really matter much to the forum, but I started looking for other photo forums yesterday because of this. I'm glad to see the mods are easing up on this. 

I agree with not banning HDR photos. They should just be banished to that little back room behind the NSFW section, where some of the members wanted to put the gun photos.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 9, 2014)

Just before we get too carried away folks, let me reiterate that the decision to [temporarily] ban the posting of fire arms images had NOTHING to do with liking, disliking, or even caring about guns as an entity, it was simply because several gun threads had deteriorated into 'guns good / guns bad' debates.   Had that happened with nudes, you can bet our actions would have been the same.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 9, 2014)

gsgary said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > The moderation team (including some admins) have been discussing this topic for a little while now. We got several messages from people about it, along with the usual in-thread discussions.
> ...



Maybe ban rabbits with guns?

Or cats with hideously bad breath that lick your face while you're sleeping.

I think we can ALL get behind that one.


----------



## Light Guru (Jan 9, 2014)

tirediron said:


> Just before we get too carried away folks, let me reiterate that the decision to [temporarily] ban the posting of fire arms images had NOTHING to do with liking, disliking, or even caring about guns as an entity, it was simply because several gun threads had deteriorated into 'guns good / guns bad' debates.   Had that happened with nudes, you can bet our actions would have been the same.



So temporarily suspend the accounts of those engaging in the debates. The images are not the problem, the people that don't respect others are the problem. 

As for the so called ban on gun photos. I've actually seen more gun photos posted on the forums since the ban then I ever did before it.


----------



## Light Guru (Jan 9, 2014)

manaheim said:


> Maybe ban rabbits with guns?



If rabbits are going to be banned does that include rabbit profile photos?


----------



## tirediron (Jan 9, 2014)

Light Guru said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Just before we get too carried away folks, let me reiterate that the decision to [temporarily] ban the posting of fire arms images had NOTHING to do with liking, disliking, or even caring about guns as an entity, it was simply because several gun threads had deteriorated into 'guns good / guns bad' debates.   Had that happened with nudes, you can bet our actions would have been the same.
> ...



Thank-you for your input.  We will take it under advisement.


----------



## limr (Jan 9, 2014)




----------



## peter27 (Jan 9, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> peter27 said:
> 
> 
> > So what it basically boils down to then is this: In the TPF open galleries you have the right to bear arms but aren't allowed to bare your breasts. Interesting.
> ...



So according to the site owners NSFW photos don't belong to a family friendly environment but images of guns do. Again, interesting.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 10, 2014)

Okay, I think we're done here.  Regardless of your opinion on the matter, the policy is what the policy is.


----------

