# How do you deal with the fear of having your gear stolen?



## LizardKing (Jan 21, 2012)

Hello everybody

I'll try to explain my situation and hopefully some of you may have an advice for me 

A couple of months ago I bought my first DSLR... And now, when I should be going outside as much as time permits, sometimes I find myself reluctant to take out my gear depending where I'm going.

The thing is... getting the money to buy it wasn't easy. So, if it gets stolen, it's not like I can replace it anytime soon...

I'd like to be able to take my camera everywhere I go, but when you live in a big city like Buenos Aires, sometimes that can be challenging. 
Now, I've been to enough "big cities" in the world to know it's not just about my city. So, I'd like to know how you deal with this situation... 

I find some of my friends here going through the same problem... any advice? 
It will be much appreciated!

Thank you very much in advance and have a nice day!

Regards,
*LizardKing*


----------



## Overread (Jan 21, 2012)

Get yourself insurance on the gear against theft and accidental damage etc...

You should be able to get a separate insurance policy which shouldn't got you too much or there might be national photography groups you can join which will give you a discount on a group rate for insurance. There is also the option of a rider on your home-owners insurance, but be careful with this latter one. Insurance companies don't like people that actually claim and you won't need many claims on the insurance before your costs might rise up rapidly or worse you end up on a blacklist; companies not wanting to insure you and giving you very very high costs if they will. 
Against that you've got to remember that against a big household claim your camera replacement costs are tiny; so there is even less intensive to actually claim on a homeowners rider. Better to pay for insurance which you can claim on without fears of losing insurance on your whole home.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 21, 2012)

I carry.  Stealing my stuff will cause lead poisoning.  Problem solved.


----------



## Overread (Jan 21, 2012)

480sparky said:


> I carry.  Stealing my stuff will cause lead poisoning.  Problem solved.



Coming from the UK I had to read that several times before I got what you meant


----------



## Dominantly (Jan 21, 2012)

I'm insured for more than my gear is worth. So it getting stolen only means an upgrade.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 21, 2012)

Overread said:


> Coming from the UK I had to read that several times before I got what you meant



lol

I'm also insured for both general liability and equipment.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Jan 21, 2012)

Overread said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > I carry.  Stealing my stuff will cause lead poisoning.  Problem solved.
> ...


 LMAO!  Yup.  Between Kimber and State Farm, I'm "covered."


----------



## ann (Jan 21, 2012)

i have been to BA several times and would always carry my camera but i was covered with insurance. I don't speak Spanish and didn't know the area but I never worried. That is not true in Rio, where the driver wouldn't stop at some places and when he did would get out of the car and stand behind me.  

So, I understand your feelings.  

I live in a large city and we have areas in town I would not go by myself with any camera, and then I have been in places all over the world where I never felt worried.

Pay attention to your instincts. you know in your city what/where may  be risky. Take a friend with you when you go out shooting, and if at possible have your camera insured.


----------



## Tony S (Jan 21, 2012)

I have insurance for everything, damage or theft. The biggest thing though is being aware of what/who is around you and use a little common sense.

For the times I'm on the road, if I'm in the truck it's covered under a blanket so no one can see anything through the tinted windows. For those times I need to absolutely leave it in the car I have disabled the trunk switch in the car so if they break a window they can't pop the trunk, it's just as easy  for me to open it with the remote lock for me. I don't move things around in public so people can see what I've got. At games and such I use a cable lock along with my camera bag, which locks, and lock the bag of gear I may need to the scorers table or someplace where I know there will always be someone.

When I'm out in the woods hiking....... well, I have a different insurance policy that I carry for that.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 21, 2012)

Tony S said:


> I have insurance for everything, damage or theft. The biggest thing though is being aware of what/who is around you and use a little common sense.
> 
> For the times I'm on the road, it's in the truck it's covered under a blanket so no one can see anything through the tinted windows. For those times I need to absolutely leave it in the car I have disabled the trunk switch in the car so if they break a window they can't pop the trunk, it's just as easy to open it with the remote lock for me. I don't move things around in public so people can see what I've got. At games and such I use a cable lock along with my camera bag, which locks, and lock the bag of gear I may need to the scorers table or someplace where I know there will always be someone.
> 
> When I'm out in the woods hiking....... well, I have a different insurance policy that I carry for that.



Looks familiar.............







This is what I carry:


----------



## ConradM (Jan 21, 2012)

I'm with you guys :thumbup:

My winter carry -


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 21, 2012)

I'm anticipating the anti-self defense crowd to jump on this thread....


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 21, 2012)

BTW, this is how I carry...


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 21, 2012)

Vtec44 said:


> I'm anticipating the anti-self defense crowd to jump on this thread....



Yeah, considering we'll all a bunch of mentally-imbalanced nutcases.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 21, 2012)

Vtec44 said:


> BTW, this is how I carry...



Wow, and I thought two extra magazines was overkill...you carry two extra complete pieces!!!


----------



## Overread (Jan 21, 2012)

Such a waste - you can't get one in each hand if they are all up one leg - I mean what is the point of carrying 3 guns if you don't duel wield them ?


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 21, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Wow, and I thought two extra magazines was overkill...



Just two???


----------



## Bossy (Jan 21, 2012)

I insure my stuff. No guns for me


----------



## RebeccaAPhotography (Jan 21, 2012)

What are some companies yal use to insure? Ive often wondered about this myself. I'd really like to talk to folks about it. I know I have a very small investment in photography stuff but it took me awhile to save for it. I'd hate for it to get stolen.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 21, 2012)

RebeccaAPhotography said:


> What are some companies yal use to insure? Ive often wondered about this myself. I'd really like to talk to folks about it. I know I have a very small investment in photography stuff but it took me awhile to save for it. I'd hate for it to get stolen.



I have Statefarm.  It comes with a package for both general liability and equipment, $10,000 for equipment and $2M for liability.


----------



## nickzou (Jan 21, 2012)

I live in Canada. Guns aren't as easy to come by. Basically all I've got are these:






But I'm not even worried about people taking my gear. I'm more worried about me being an absent minded idiot and forgetting it. I've already lost a monopod this way.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Jan 21, 2012)

LizardKing said:


> Hello everybody
> 
> I'll try to explain my situation and hopefully some of you may have an advice for me
> 
> ...



I carry a liability insurance policy for about twice what my gear is worth, and a handgun in my wastband.   Thanks to the laws in Texas, that's perfectly acceptable.


----------



## RebeccaAPhotography (Jan 21, 2012)

Vtec44 said:
			
		

> I have Statefarm.  It comes with a package for both general liability and equipment, $10,000 for equipment and $2M for liability.



I'll have to look into that. Thanks! 2m for liability with a camera? :uts dumb blonde wig on lol:: why so much. Business? I'm just a hobby shooter with 2k in gear not much at all in reality but it's not like I make a super lot either ya know


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 21, 2012)

RebeccaAPhotography said:


> I'll have to look into that. Thanks! 2m for liability with a camera? :uts dumb blonde wig on lol:: why so much. Business? I'm just a hobby shooter with 2k in gear not much at all in reality but it's not like I make a super lot either ya know



Some place requires you to have at least 1m of liability insurance to get a permit to shoot there.


----------



## Jeremy Z (Jan 21, 2012)

Insurance like you guys are talking about may not be available in Argentina. Maybe there's a higher risk of fraud.

I'm a gun owner too, but you have to remember a couple things:

- The mugger is mentally prepared for this, and he has a strategy; he's got the drop on you. If you're not careful about HOW you carry it, it will get stolen.

- Shooting at someone in a crowded city like Buenos Aires is just as likely to result in the wrong person getting shot; not worth it to protect camera gear. I'd have a hard time living with myself after that. I suggest a baton, stun gun, or pepper spray as alternatives to lethal force.

- Instead, focus on your carrying habits. Carry camera bags cross-shoulder, not on one shoulder. Close them up when you're not actively digging in them.

- Be as inconspicuous as possible; don't bring all your gear if you don't need to. For instance, if you're doing candid people pictures in the streets, you probably don't need your fancy bounce flash, big tripod, or fisheye lens. Maybe just a normal zoom or a single prime lens.

- Carry the camera on a strap around your neck or with a wrist strap; not on the shoulder.

- When you sit down to lunch or something, close up your bag, put it under the table, and loop the strap around your leg a couple times.

- This is not what you want to hear at this point, but consider a camera that is very good, but does not look expensive. I've been carrying my Canon S90 for all my city shooting lately. When I'm not shooting, no one even knows I have a camera. Yet, when I am shooting, it is high enough quality to get the results I want. (Canon is on the S100 now, which is even nicer) I use the SLR only when I feel safe carrying it: countryside, wilderness, people pictures in friendly places, etc.

- Limit where you go in the city with the SLR set-up. As a resident, you know where and when it would be the most dangerous to carry it. Avoid those places, or only go to those places with a good point and shoot camera. 

- Consider a camera back that doesn't look like a camera bag. I've got a small Domke bag that just looks like a small shoulder bag. There's room inside for an SLR w/kit lens and an extra lens too. I'll just cut the label off of it next time I bring it to the city. (as I said, I use the Canon S90 as my city camera)

I hope that helps! 

Let us know what you decide to do.


----------



## Netskimmer (Jan 21, 2012)

Here are the two I most commonly carry.






I like to carry the Springfield when my wardrobe allows it. (usually in a shoulder holster) I carry it on my hip in a tac holster when in the woods. I use the Walther as backup. When I can't carry the Springfield the Walther is my primary. I always carry the Walther in an IWB. Both are chambered for S&W .40


----------



## Tony S (Jan 21, 2012)

I get my insurance through Tom Pickard and Company, they specifically do photography. Covers my equipment, errors and omissions and liability up to 2 million. Liablity is a good idea, all it takes is one goofball to trip over a cord, fall off a posing stool, or when I'm covering a sporting event for one player to go into the crowd on the sidelines before a lawyer comes calling with paperwork for the coverage to pay for itself.  They also provide certificates of insurance for locations, which often times you are required to have to shoot in places (it also helps get you into places when you can show you are insured).
TCP&Co.

  I have State Farm for my home owners insurance, my agent said they won't cover my gear through them since I am in business.  They can provide coverage through whats called an inland marine policy, but it was more $$ than the option I chose plus I'd like to keep my private stuff separate from the business side.

  You can also get insurance through the Professional Photographers of America if youy become a member, there are plenty of benefits that go with that membership besides the group rate on insurance.  Professional Photographers of America


  A Google search for "photography insurance" turns up 156,000 results.  lol


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jan 22, 2012)

If someone steals your gear, you cant shoot them.  You go to prison.  You can only shoot it if you are in danger.  As much as I hate getting my gear stolen, I dont want to kill anyone.


----------



## blackrose89 (Jan 22, 2012)

How much does coverage typically run?


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 22, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> If someone steals your gear, you cant shoot them.  You go to prison.  You can only shoot it if you are in danger.  As much as I hate getting my gear stolen, I dont want to kill anyone.



Yeah it depends on the laws in each state but typically deadly force is to protect life, not properties.  My insurance is for my gear, my gun is for my life.


----------



## blackrose89 (Jan 22, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> If someone steals your gear, you cant shoot them.  You go to prison.  You can only shoot it if you are in danger.  As much as I hate getting my gear stolen, I dont want to kill anyone.




Depends. I really don't think it happens where someones grabs your gear and shoot them down. You simply pull your gun out when you're being mugged.The mugger will most likely back down. If not that means he's using excessive force which must be pretty life threatening for him not to fear a gun. In which your life is legitmately in danger and you have a full right to defend yourself.


----------



## Netskimmer (Jan 22, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> If someone steals your gear, you cant shoot them.  You go to prison.  You can only shoot it if you are in danger.  As much as I hate getting my gear stolen, I dont want to kill anyone.



I agree with you. I wouldn't want to kill someone for any reason including my gear and I certainly wouldn't do it if I had a choice, but if someone wants to mug me I have to believe they mean me harm and will defend myself accordingly.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 22, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> If someone steals your gear, you cant shoot them.  You go to prison.  You can only shoot it if you are in danger.  As much as I hate getting my gear stolen, I dont want to kill anyone.



If someone assaults me, I can defend myself.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 22, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> If someone steals your gear, you cant shoot them.  You go to prison.  You can only shoot it if you are in danger.  As much as I hate getting my gear stolen, I dont want to kill anyone.



Not in TX sir.  In TX, I have the right to shoot someone running down the street AWAY from my house with MY property in there posesion.  

Realistically, that's not a good reason to shoot IMO, but the law states that in TX you have the right to use deadly force to protect your property (in the case at hand would be my camera gear).

BTW, I carry too.  Most of the time a mini revolver, but when allowed by my clothing, Officers model 1911.  

That being said, it's hard to say what the right thing to do would be in a given situation until you are put in said situation.  I agree with others though ... situational awareness is most likely the best prevention around here.


----------



## ConradM (Jan 22, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> If someone steals your gear, you cant shoot them.  You go to prison.  You can only shoot it if you are in danger.  As much as I hate getting my gear stolen, I dont want to kill anyone.



False. Depends on where you live. Here in Idaho I can legally defend my property with lethal force. Not saying I would over a camera though.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 22, 2012)

It's called _Castle Doctrine_ (also known as _Castle Law_ or _Defense of Habitation Law_).  It varies by state.  Some states allow you to shoot someone you suspect might be breaking into your house, others have a 'duty to retreat'.


----------



## ConradM (Jan 22, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > If someone steals your gear, you cant shoot them.  You go to prison.  You can only shoot it if you are in danger.  As much as I hate getting my gear stolen, I dont want to kill anyone.
> ...



That's actually called brandishing and it's illegal. You should only pull a gun if you intend to kill someone as a last resort. Not wound, not threaten, kill. 

If someone grabs my camera I would probably just chase them down and handle it with force. If someone breaks into my house, with my 75lb dog in their face, I'm doing my best to kill them as quickly as I can.


----------



## blackrose89 (Jan 22, 2012)

Is it wrong to shoot someone over your gear? Honestly it depends. To a lot of us it's a hobby. To others it could be their bread and butter, and they may not be able to replace the gear with financial ease.


----------



## ConradM (Jan 22, 2012)

480sparky said:


> It's called _Castle Doctrine_ (also known as _Castle Law_ or _Defense of Habitation Law_).  It varies by state.  Some states allow you to shoot someone you suspect might be breaking into your house, others have a 'duty to retreat'.



duty to retreat is not a part of castle doctrine.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 22, 2012)

ConradM said:


> .........That's actually called brandishing and it's illegal. .....



Again, depends on the laws of the state.  I can pull out my gun in public and it is NOT brandishing.  It would be considered brandishing if I used it in a threatening manner towards someone (i.e., aimed it at you intentionally).


----------



## ConradM (Jan 22, 2012)

480sparky said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> > .........That's actually called brandishing and it's illegal. .....
> ...



That's what she was talking about.


----------



## Netskimmer (Jan 22, 2012)

Thankfully we have castle doctrine here in WV as well. 



ConradM said:


> That's actually called brandishing and it's illegal. You should only  pull a gun if you intend to kill someone as a last resort. Not wound,  not threaten, kill.



It's not brandishing to draw your weapon in defense and demand that the aggressor submit until authorities arrive.


----------



## blackrose89 (Jan 22, 2012)

Netskimmer said:


> Thankfully we have castle doctrine here in WV as well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's not coercing someone into doing something. I think on any level, if you're being mugged you have legitimate concerns. Even if it's just camera gear. People have been killed for less. I was saying that if you have a concern you most likely will just need to draw your gun, this in most cases will be enough. I wasn't really questioning if you have a right to or not. I was just speaking in general terms if you feel you have draw your gun you most likely won't have to shoot them.


----------



## ConradM (Jan 22, 2012)

Netskimmer said:


> Thankfully we have castle doctrine here in WV as well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes it is. If you get charged forit  is up to the police/court. I know it seems like it's a good idea to use a gun to "threaten" an attacker and it might be. But it's still brandishing. 

Also, if said attacker calls your bluff you could very well be getting killed with your own gun.


----------



## blackrose89 (Jan 22, 2012)

ConradM said:


> Netskimmer said:
> 
> 
> > Thankfully we have castle doctrine here in WV as well.
> ...


BrandishingVerb:	Wave or flourish (something, esp. a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.It says you can't generally threaten someone. Doesn't say doing so in self defense. I think this is in general terms, not intended for if you're in danger. Is it Really worse to threaten someone of you're in danger rather then to just shoot them?


----------



## ConradM (Jan 22, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> Netskimmer said:
> 
> 
> > Thankfully we have castle doctrine here in WV as well.
> ...



That would be the worst mentality to have carrying a gun. :blushing: It should be more like, If you feel you have to draw your gun, then you feel like you have to kill someone. 

Concealed carry guns are not deterrents. If you're using your carry gun in a manner other than to kill someone in self defense or defense of property then there's a good chance you're breaking the law. 

If you want a deterrent then carry pepper spray or a tazer.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 22, 2012)

Using a gun is a bad idea. There is a 50/50 they have one also, and if you're getting jumped then your assailant already has the upper hand.

Unlike many of the guys here who play rambo in their suburban daydreams at the rifle range, I actually do live in a not so great neighborhood - not the worst neighborhood, but not the best either. 

At first I really worried about getting jumped, not so much the camera but I really don't like getting beaten. But after a while, you just have to deal with it and realize that there is no point in owning a nice camera if you don't ever use it. I've found myself in a couple situations, and it really sucks to feel like you're being preyed upon, but you just deal with it, stay conscious of what's going on and always have an escape plan when you're in an isolated urban location. People are by far your best defense - way better than a handgun - and if you're in a sticky situation it's best to just move into a more public area.

Instead of using a gun, which is a TERRIBLE idea - the liability alone is tremendous - I'd suggest owning pepper spray or a taser. You could even attach a mace canister to your camera strap if you know you're going to be in a less public area.

Obviously unless you're doing a documentary on the subject, there is no reason to flounce your camera around in a neighborhood which you might not be welcome. Just use common sense, stay around people and if you find yourself in an isolated location always have some way to get back into the public.


----------



## Netskimmer (Jan 22, 2012)

ConradM said:


> Also, if said attacker calls your bluff you could very well be getting killed with your own gun.



Oh it wouldn't be a bluff, I would pull the trigger if necessary.


----------



## ConradM (Jan 22, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> > Netskimmer said:
> ...



Yes it is. Because, where do you draw the line? I could say I felt I was in danger because someone was shouting at me in the parking lot. You get what I'm saying? There has to be an "actual" threat. If there is an actual threat then you should be defending yourself with deadly force.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 22, 2012)

ConradM said:


> That would be the worst mentality to have carrying a gun. :blushing: It should be more like, If you feel you have to draw your gun, then you feel like you have to kill someone.
> 
> Concealed carry guns are not deterrents. If you're using your carry gun in a manner other than to kill someone in self defense or defense of property then there's a good chance you're breaking the law.
> 
> If you want a deterrent then carry pepper spray or a tazer.



Yep, that attitude will also get you killed.  You draw a gun to shoot until the thread to your life is no longer a thread.  You don't shoot to injure and when you point a gun at someone expect them to shoot back.


----------



## ConradM (Jan 22, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Using a gun is a bad idea. There is a 50/50 they have one also, and if you're getting jumped then your assailant already has the upper hand.
> 
> Unlike many of the guys here who play rambo in their suburban daydreams at the rifle range, I actually do live in a not so great neighborhood - not the worst neighborhood, but not the best either.
> 
> ...



Are you against guns in general or just the idea of using a gun to prevent theft?


----------



## unpopular (Jan 22, 2012)

Oh. and one thing on less lethal weapons - PRACTICE USING THEM.

Just like a gun, be prepared in how they operate. Especially with pepper spray.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 22, 2012)

ConradM said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > Using a gun is a bad idea. There is a 50/50 they have one also, and if you're getting jumped then your assailant already has the upper hand.
> ...



I am extremely pro-gun. But in this situation it's a very bad idea.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 22, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Instead of using a gun, which is a TERRIBLE idea - the liability alone is tremendous - I'd suggest owning pepper spray or a taser. You could even attach a mace canister to your camera strap if you know you're going to be in a less public area.



Why even bother when the bad guy already has a gun? That's like bringing pepper spray to a gun fight.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 22, 2012)

In the movies they always have the thug walking up to you and firmly, but politely, asking your for your wallet.

This isn't how it actually happens. 

If you have a gun drawn at you, your only option is to hand over your camera.


----------



## Netskimmer (Jan 22, 2012)

I think the problem here is that we are talking about what we might do  in this hypothetical situation which hasn't been well defined. We are  arguing vague points that really aren't constructive to the OP's  question. I say we file this along with the 'Nikon vs Canon' and 'are UV  filters helpful in protecting lenses' debates and move on.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 22, 2012)

I'll point out also having some fear is really a good thing, it keeps you aware of what's going on and the behavior of those around you.

It's really only a problem when it limits your ability to work effectively.


----------



## Diver_matt (Jan 22, 2012)

I've been in law enforcement for 20 years now.  I have been involved in lethal force situations and a close friend actually took a life.  I'm 100% convinced that taking a life for material possessions is simply not worth it.  You can thump your chest all you want.  My friend used to, also.  When you actually take a life for a camera, you will either regret it for the rest of your's or you aren't much better than the one you killed.  Simply meaning you lack compassion for human life.  It's a camera...seriously.  Generally speaking, when a victim pulls a firearm, it doesn't often go so well.  Of course, we're on the internet so I'm sure everyone on here has been in numerous gun battles, hit every target (another reason not to worry so much about a camera) and were emotionally fine regardless of outcome.  

So, to the OP:  First, get insurance as many have suggested.  Second, don't be a victim.  Thieves don't want to get into a fight over your camera.  Chances are it could get damaged making it useless to them, it would take longer to get from you and attract more witnesses.  Look like a hard target.  Walk with confidence.  Hold your stuff firmly.  Look into people's eyes with confidence.  They prey on the weak.  Lastly, situational awareness.  Know what/who is around you.  Don't get soooo focused on a photo that you lose peripheral vision.  Make a note of your surroundings before setting up that awesome shot.  Go with other photographers.  Lots and lots of ways to protect yourself.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 22, 2012)

^^ excellent advice!

I would also add to not dress like you have a lot of money. For one thing I _hate_ it when rich people come into my neighborhood. It's like WTF are you doing here?! I'd imagine that if you look out of place, you'd be much more likely to be targeted.

At night, I've found it helps to carry a HUGE flash. Like a Sunpak 622 or maybe even something like a Flashpoint 400. I have no idea how useful this would actually be, but it helps so much just to have some idea line of defense in mind - and these flashes would be very disorienting.


----------



## enzodm (Jan 22, 2012)

I come from a country with a totally different approach to guns, which is also one reason of the much lower number of homicides we have. Diver gives good advice on how to behave. I feel more risk in situations where your things can be robbed without your knowledge (wallet in metro, etc); thief does not mean violent, in principle.

I usually do not fear much - I live in a place where I can even forget to close my car without many risks. 
When I travel, I try to understand where I can go showing off my camera. However, I'm prepared to let it to a thief, if really convincing.  
For the last business trip to South Africa, I bought a P&S too for the places where I could feel less safe. After being back, I could tell I was overprudent, although it depended from the amount of people I was moving with (alone could have been different). 
At present I travel with <1500 euros between camera and lens.  If in  the future the overall value of my kit will grow too much, I would  eventually buy an insurance.


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Jan 22, 2012)

LizardKing - Hello!!! I have hoped to see you post again....its been a while and I hope you are enjoying your new camera...I only saw a few shots posted right after you got it and would love to see more. Interesting food for thought here on your question. We travel a bit and I limit what I take depending on where I am going, but at the end of the day, if they want to take my camera out of my hands they can have it....I'd rather not have it be my camera or my life.


----------



## Compaq (Jan 22, 2012)

One look at my evil eyes, and they run like hell.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 22, 2012)

I don't worry about it, but this is my insurance at night Audio-Etcetera.com


----------



## RebeccaAPhotography (Jan 22, 2012)

blackrose89 said:
			
		

> Is it wrong to shoot someone over your gear? Honestly it depends. To a lot of us it's a hobby. To others it could be their bread and butter, and they may not be able to replace the gear with financial ease.



Girl your frickin nuts! No camera is worth taking someones life! EVER!


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 22, 2012)

RebeccaAPhotography said:


> Girl your frickin nuts! No camera is worth taking someones life! EVER!



Yet there's plenty of doped-up scumbags out there who are more than willing to kill me for a camera.


----------



## ann (Jan 22, 2012)

Goodness, you all are a violent bunch.


----------



## Overread (Jan 22, 2012)

People - calm down with the maiming and the killing and the shootings - its worse than reading logs of people playing Grand Theft Auto 



gsgary said:


> I don't worry about it, but this is my insurance at night Audio-Etcetera.com



You shoulda got one with a tripod screw on the end


----------



## ConradM (Jan 22, 2012)

480sparky said:


> RebeccaAPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Girl your frickin nuts! No camera is worth taking someones life! EVER!
> ...



Yup. People always talk about the value of human life. Those same people don't realize that there are people who's lives have no value. If you made the choice to enter my home while you're hopped up on meth then you don't even value your own life.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 22, 2012)

ConradM said:


> That's actually called brandishing and it's illegal. You should only pull a gun if you intend to *kill* someone as a last resort. *Not wound, not threaten, kill.*



Again ... depends on state laws.  In TX you don't shoot to kill.  You shoot to stop the threat.  You don't shoot in the head either, intentionally, that implicates execution.  You shoot center mass.  

This is what the instructors teach in the licensing classes.  It's also worth mentioning, you must take a training course which will familiarize you with all of the state laws and prove your profeceincy with your designated firearm class (semi-auto or revolver) before you can even apply to the state.  After applying to the state, you have to pass an extensive background check and be paid upon your property taxes and child support is applicable.



That aside .. rather or not it's worth making a shoot over camera gear or not is up to the individual holding the amera and in that situation.  Being a hobby to me, probably not worth the shoot.  If I had $6k wrapped up in what I was holding and that much more in my bag that the BG was wanting, and I depended on this for the livlihood of my family and myself, well that may very well be reason enough for me to take someones life.  You have to consider, is it worth preserving some low life's life who's wasted thier mind, thier life, thier sanity away over the use of drugs and a string of bad decisions over you own ability and means to provide for your own family if you have all of your resources invested in your gear?

At that point, I look at it as, either his life or my families well being.  

Now .. all that being said, there are WAY to many variables to ever be able to say with certainty that a given situation is a good time to shoot, however given the oppurtunity, I would not hesitate defending myself or my family with deadly force if put in a situation where I deemed it necessary.

Sorry for the long ramblings.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 22, 2012)

ann said:


> Goodness, you all are a violent bunch.



Where is this so-called violence? I don't see anyone here even hinting of being violent.

Oh, yeah....... it's the age-old, "They carry guns therefore they are violent" mind-set.


----------



## ConradM (Jan 22, 2012)

Flyer said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> > That's actually called brandishing and it's illegal. You should only pull a gun if you intend to *kill* someone as a last resort. *Not wound, not threaten, kill.*
> ...



Oh I wasn't talking legal terms. I just meant, if you're pulling a gun, then make sure the BG is dead. :lmao: Last thing you need is a lawsuit because you let someone live to get a lawyer.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 22, 2012)

ConradM said:


> Oh I wasn't talking legal terms. I just meant, if you're pulling a gun, then make sure the BG is dead. :lmao: Last thing you need is a lawsuit because you let someone live to get a lawyer.



No matter how scummy said scumbag is, and no matter how dead you kill said scumbag, said scumbag will _always_ have a relative who insists said scumbag is perfectly innocent and somehow manages to retain a lawyer willing to sue you for 40%.


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 22, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> Is it wrong to shoot someone over your gear? Honestly it depends. To a lot of us it's a hobby. To others it could be their bread and butter, and they may not be able to replace the gear with financial ease.


Surely that's what insurance is for, and if you are a professional, surely insurance is part of the cost of doing business.  I'm from the UK and fail to see the sense in carrying guns.  We're all different.  But surely if we arm ourselves more then thieves will arm themselves more.  Never decreasing circles.


----------



## enzodm (Jan 22, 2012)

thereyougo! said:


> Surely that's what insurance is for, and if you are a professional, surely insurance is part of the cost of doing business.  I'm from the UK and fail to see the sense in carrying guns.  We're all different.  But surely if we arm ourselves more then thieves will arm themselves more.  Never decreasing circles.



From WHO databases in 2003, males only: UK: 0.7 homicide deaths/100000 , Italy 1.7,  USA 9.6. 
We are indeed different.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 22, 2012)

thereyougo! said:


> Surely that's what insurance is for, ........



Insurance is for the gear.  The sidearm is for my health and life.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 22, 2012)

ConradM said:


> Oh I wasn't talking legal terms. I just meant, if you're pulling a gun, then make sure the BG is dead. :lmao: *Last thing you need is a lawsuit because you let someone live to get a lawyer.*



I like the way you think.  

I literally LOL'd at that one.  That obviously attracted the attention of my wife (thinking I was looking at pics), so I gave her a quick run down, to which she too LOL'd.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 22, 2012)

enzodm said:


> From WHO databases in 2003, males only: UK: 0.7 homicide deaths/100000 , Italy 1.7,  USA 9.6.
> We are indeed different.



What percentage of that 9.6 number is law-abiding citizens forced into a situation where they have no other choice but to kill their assailant in order to survive the incident?


----------



## TheBiles (Jan 22, 2012)

I have full insurance on my gear from USAA. I don't go around leaving my bag in my unlocked car or anything, but I wouldn't hesitate to hand it to a mugger in a heartbeat. 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------



## unpopular (Jan 22, 2012)

Gun owners either don't have enough responsibility, or they think they have no responsibility.

If you shoot someone, you better be right about the situation. You better understand the law involved with shooting someone. Because if you're wrong - or even if it overwhelmingly looks wrong - you're going to loose a lot more than your camera. You might be going to jail. You might get sued.

Like I said, the liability in this situation is WAY more costly than any camera and goes beyond that which you can control.

If you're bringing a gun out with you when you're taking pictures in the city, you're looking for trouble.


----------



## ConradM (Jan 22, 2012)

Flyer said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> > Oh I wasn't talking legal terms. I just meant, if you're pulling a gun, then make sure the BG is dead. :lmao: *Last thing you need is a lawsuit because you let someone live to get a lawyer.*
> ...



:lmao:


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 22, 2012)

480sparky said:


> enzodm said:
> 
> 
> > From WHO databases in 2003, males only: UK: 0.7 homicide deaths/100000 , Italy 1.7,  USA 9.6.
> ...


Isn't homicide where someone has been muredered, I.E. killed illegally?  If what you say is where people have been killed as a result of the use of deadly force *legally*, then they won't be included in the figures.  I'm still of the view that if wqe arm ourselves, surely the bad guys will just arm themselves more and will usually have the element of surprise on their side.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 22, 2012)

It doesn't matter. It's a stupid statistic that asserts there is no difference between the EU and US aside from gun laws. If there is a statistic which says that all countries with liberal gun laws have a similar homicide as compared to countries with more conservative gun laws, then that might be something to at least consider.

But simply saying the US has a higher gun ownership rate does not indicate a causal relationship with an increased homicide rates.


----------



## ConradM (Jan 22, 2012)

thereyougo! said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > enzodm said:
> ...



Spoken like a true victim. 

Newsflash. No matter how many good people arm themselves, bad guys will always be armed. This is why violent crime is higher in states with gun control.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 22, 2012)

thereyougo! said:


> What percentage of that 9.6 number is law-abiding citizens forced into a situation where they have no other choice but to kill their assailant in order to survive the incident?


Isn't homicide where someone has been muredered, I.E. killed illegally?  If what you say is where people have been killed as a result of the use of deadly force *legally*, then they won't be included in the figures.[/quote]

You'd think but statistic has been skewed for political agenda many times before.




> I'm still of the view that if wqe arm ourselves, surely the bad guys will just arm themselves more and will usually have the element of surprise on their side.



My opinion is that the bad guys ALWAYS have guns, regardless if the good guys have them or not.  Washington DC had the strictest gun regulation in the US and it is the murder capital.  Arming yourself to defend your life and your family is your choice.


----------



## enzodm (Jan 22, 2012)

480sparky said:


> What percentage of that 9.6 number is law-abiding citizens forced into a situation where they have no other choice but to kill their assailant in order to survive the incident?



I start from the assumption USA is as civil as UK.


----------



## IgsEMT (Jan 22, 2012)

LizardKing said:


> Hello everybody
> 
> I'll try to explain my situation and hopefully some of you may have an advice for me
> 
> ...



Insurance, if possible, is one. Second, take only what you need.
My go-to gear when I'm out with my kids or w/e is D90 with either 18-105 or 50 and sb600. For basic stuff around town/park, I *don't need* more then that. My higher grade gear is nowhere near my kids or situations that you described. Opposite is true when I'm either in the studio or at an event. I might grab the 50 with me and sb600 (and a 3rd backup) but chances are they won't even see outside of camera bag. This is one of those situations where "all in one" lenses are good to have (18-200). It's quality isn't top-notch BUT versatility is very helpful.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 22, 2012)

ConradM said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



Simply because states with higher gun control have higher murder rates does not indicate a causal relationship to homicide rate. Find me the statistic that indicates that gun violence increased _after_ gun laws were enacted. These laws are in response to problems, no matter how misguided a solution.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 22, 2012)

enzodm said:


> I start from the assumption USA is as civil as UK.



Wow.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 22, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Simply because states with higher gun control have higher murder rates does not indicate a causal relationship to homicide rate. Find me the statistic that indicates that gun violence increased _after_ gun laws were enacted. These laws are in response to problems, no matter how misguided a solution?



Same can be said, find me a statistic indicates that crime in general decreases after gun laws were enacted.  After all, that's the goal of these gun control regulations right?


----------



## Jeremy Z (Jan 22, 2012)

Well, I gave some helpful advice a couple pages back that didn't involve hurting anyone, but it is buried in pages of posts about the ethics of shooting poeple.   Kind of sad.

Maybe it's time to just lock this thread down, as it has been compromised and is not really related to the OP's question any more.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 22, 2012)

thereyougo! said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > enzodm said:
> ...



So in short, the numbers posted are meaningless.

And the bag guys ARE armed, and most likely prefer to use the element of surprise.  The thug portrayed in the movies and cartoons as jumping out of a dark alley and pulling a knife on a wealthy couple wearing expensive clothes demanding, "Gimme you wallet & jewelry!" just don't happen.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 22, 2012)

_



ConradM said:



			This is why violent crime is higher in states with gun control.
		
Click to expand...


furthermore


_this is not even true. The majority of states do not require a permit to own a handgun. Notably Florida, South Carolina, and Louisiana all have very high violent crime rates despite relatively liberal gun laws.

Even California currently does not require a permit to own a handgun - which I'd imagine are overwhelmingly used in gun crimes.

NRA-ILA ::
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/US_Violent_Crime_2004.svg


----------



## enzodm (Jan 22, 2012)

thereyougo! said:


> Isn't homicide where someone has been muredered, I.E. killed illegally?  If what you say is where people have been killed as a result of the use of deadly force *legally*, then they won't be included in the figures.  I'm still of the view that if wqe arm ourselves, surely the bad guys will just arm themselves more and will usually have the element of surprise on their side.



actually, these are WHO mortality statistics, so they do not include evaluation on legal issue. They are just deaths. 

Anyway, while there is some difficulty in giving causal relationship, correlation indeed exists between gun ownership and homicide (and suicide too, but likely in a substitutive way):
Firearm suicides and homicides in the United Sta... [Soc Sci Med. 1998] - PubMed - NCBI
Australia's 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in f... [Inj Prev. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI
(and others)

We are far OT, but anyway, isn't it what a forum is made for?


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 22, 2012)

unpopular said:


> this is not even true. The majority of states do not require a permit to own a handgun. Notably Florida, South Carolina, and Louisiana all have very high violent crime rates despite relatively liberal gun laws.
> 
> Even California currently does not require a permit to own a handgun - which are overwhelmingly used in violent crimes.



Same can be said about Washington DC, Chicago, New York, and other areas with strict regulations.

California requires you to go through hand gun safety test before you can purchase a gun, background check, and the waiting period is 10 days (1 handgun per 30 days) before you can actually own a gun.  I guess all that regulations failed as well.


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 22, 2012)

MAybe it's me, but I find it a rather sad reflection on human nature that when posed with the question, how do I secure my gear one of the answers is a picture of a gun with bullets.  Maybe I'm weird, but I would have thought tht the most sensible suggestions have been made without the use of firearms.  Just goes to show that a right to own a gun isn't necessarily coupled with the intelligence and sense of thought.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 22, 2012)

Vtec44 said:


> Same can be said about Washington DC, Chicago, New York, and other areas with strict regulations.



That's kind of my point. There is no evidence that conservative gun laws create violent crime.

As for CA - making people take a handgun safety class is hardly "gun control". I am not sure how I feel about the limits or waiting periods. I'm against the limits, but not for any reason that pertains to this subject.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 22, 2012)

thereyougo! said:


> a right to own a gun isn't necessarily coupled with the intelligence and sense of thought.



the _well regulated _part of the second amendment is often neglected.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 22, 2012)

unpopular said:


> That's kind of my point. There is no evidence that conservative gun laws create violent crime.



There's also no evidence that gun laws reduce violent crime either.  They exist mostly just to further the career of politicians.


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 22, 2012)

unpopular said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> > a right to own a gun isn't necessarily coupled with the intelligence and sense of thought.
> ...



That may well be true, but the feeling of having a legal right doesn't always come with a well regulated mind.  some may feel that as well as having the right to *bear* arms automatically gives them the right to *use*&#8203; them.  They are different things, but not everyone can see the difference.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 22, 2012)

Vtec44 said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > That's kind of my point. There is no evidence that conservative gun laws create violent crime.
> ...



Absolutely. I never said that gun control was a good idea, only that it does not appear to correlate to higher violent crime rates.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 22, 2012)

thereyougo! said:


> Just goes to show that a right to own a gun isn't necessarily coupled with the intelligence and sense of thought.



Uninformed voters are much more dangerous.  I wish we can ban dumb voters so only smart ones can vote.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 22, 2012)

thereyougo! said:


> some may feel that as well as having the right to *bear* arms automatically gives them the right to *use*&#8203; them.  They are different things, but not everyone can see the difference.



That's when they find out the hard way in court.  I've stated in my previous post, insurance is to replace my gear and gun is protect my life when it comes down to it.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 22, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...



Yep, and most people are brain-washed to believe that gun control reduces crime.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 22, 2012)

thereyougo! said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > thereyougo! said:
> ...



I don't know about that. I think any reasonable person knows that they only have the right to use a gun in certain circumstances. The problem is that people often don't understand when that time is and may feel justified to use a gun when they have no right to do so.

Like that guy in Texas  a few years back who shot robbers of the neighbor's house as they were fleeing. I am pretty sure that he was found guilty - but that doesn't make it to the news.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 22, 2012)

Vtec44 said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > Vtec44 said:
> ...



Prohibition doesn't decrease drug-related property or violent crime either. Laws don't exist to protect us, they exist to satisfy our need to feel safe.

I am not sure if it is brain washing as much as wishful thinking.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Jan 22, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Like that guy in Texas  a few years back who shot robbers of the neighbor's house as they were fleeing. I am pretty sure that he was found guilty - but that doesn't make it to the news.



No, he never went past the Grand Jury process, he was let go.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Jan 22, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> If someone steals your gear, you cant shoot them.  You go to prison.  You can only shoot it if you are in danger.  As much as I hate getting my gear stolen, I dont want to kill anyone.



Thankfully, the lawmakers here in Texas are smart enough to side with the victim instead of the mugger/thief.  Having been in the situation before, I can tell you with authority that when you're jumped you're not worried about trying to differentiate between whether someone just wants your gear, or wants to hurt/kill you.  Thankfully, I didn't have to fire my handgun when I was attacked in an alley while scouting for a shoot,  but I have no doubt that if I didn't draw the gun and address the would-be mugger, I'd be telling a much different story.

Texas law says the requisite for use of deadly force is the perception of immediate mortal danger.  Obviously, retreat is preferred to blowing some perp's brains out, but if I'm ever in the situation again, I'm not going to be the least bit concerned about their safety, only mine.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 22, 2012)

bentcountershaft said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > Like that guy in Texas  a few years back who shot robbers of the neighbor's house as they were fleeing. I am pretty sure that he was found guilty - but that doesn't make it to the news.
> ...



i'm glad i don't live in Texas. There is no way that this situation meets any measure of self defense, of one's property or otherwise.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Jan 22, 2012)

Yeah, I'm not sure how that happened.  The dispatcher told him to wait for the cops but he wanted to shoot them anyway, so he did.  In the back as they were fleeing.  That's ****ed up.


----------



## Tony S (Jan 22, 2012)

> How much does coverage typically run?​



 Blackrose89,
 Coverage cost depends on what you are insuring.  The link I posted to Tom Pickard & Co has a request quote in it, go ahead and use it. They are fast and don't hassle you all the time after getting a quote.  TCP&Co.


----------



## Netskimmer (Jan 22, 2012)

unpopular said:


> i'm glad i don't live in Texas.



So are most Texans, except for the criminals that is.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 22, 2012)

^ if that case was any indication of stereotype, all Texans are criminals.

but I don't know why conservatives think that just because I am associated with the "left wing" I must be anti-gun... gun control is a democrat thing.


----------



## DCMoney (Jan 22, 2012)

After seeing the Beretta's I had to post mine.

I keep my gear in the back of the car under something if not in the trunk when its not with me. At home it all goes in a safe.




Beretta by DCMoney22, on Flickr


----------



## naptime (Jan 22, 2012)

i would be interested to know how many of you gun toting chest thumpers HAVE actually KILLED another human being?

it's all great to go to the range and practice to your hearts content.
it's all great to have your ccw permit.
it's all great to know you have the right to defend yourself and your property.
it's all great to know that when the need arises you will faithful pull your sidearm, and stop the assailant, killing him with your first shot that will be placed firmly between the eyes and the second shot that will be placed firmly in the center of the heart..


now.... how many of you HAVE been in this position.

how many of you HAVE taken a human life?


i am not anti-gun or anti-gun laws. i am pro gun, pro choice, blah blah bliggity blah... 

i have my faithful m1911a1
i have my faithful m4gery (reconfigured ar-15)

i HAVE killed people. and it's not something i boast about or thump my chest about. and it is certainly not something i take lightly.

nor is it something that is my first thought when thinking about defense of myself or my property. 

i value human life. but i also believe some people just deserve to die. when they choose to put themselves in certain situations.

however, as someone who has taken life, i know what it does to you, so it's not my first course of thought.


i do find the urban rambos to be quite humorous though.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 22, 2012)

DCMoney said:


> Beretta by DCMoney22, on Flickr



^^ your highlights have a weird green-cyan cast.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 22, 2012)

unpopular said:


> ^^ your highlights have a weird green-cyan cast.



hahahaha....


----------



## unpopular (Jan 22, 2012)

naptime said:


> i do find the *urban* rambos to be quite humorous though.



naptime - most of these guys live in nice cushy houses, some in gated communities. "urban" is a stretch.

---

A few months ago there was some guy shooting at teenagers a few blocks from us. Fortunately he didn't kill anyone. He'd set up in his window and shoot at any kid that walked by after dark.

What line of defense do these kids have? Shouldn't kids in their late teens have a right to walk home from their jobs or pick up a soda and a bag of chips without getting shot at? Is the answer to this problem really sending a group of seventeen year olds out with a gun?


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 22, 2012)

naptime said:


> i have my faithful m4gery (reconfigured ar-15)



Oh hey, I have one too!  

I grew up in a war torn country.  I've seen the worse of human kind and at the same time the best.


----------



## Netskimmer (Jan 22, 2012)

I suppose we shouldn't stereotype folks. I'm neither conservative nor  liberal, I take a conservative stance on some things and a liberal  stance on others. My take on gun control is more conservative, my take  on religeon and homosexuallity is more liberal. We should spend less  time trying to figure out what party we belong to and more time  inspecting the laws being passed and those pushing them. I'll admit that  the this fellow in Texas probably overstepped his authority (assuming  what has been said here is true and there are no other pertinent facts  left out) but I still blame the thieves for the whole incident and wouldn't punish him too severely.

I'm no gun toting chest thumper and I certainly never want to know what it's like to kill someone or to spend the rest of my life in prison, but I aslo don't want to know what it is like to be shot/stabbed to death . I live out in the country and have had runnins with more that one meth head as well as poachers and ner-do-well drunks, so I'll keep my guns close.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 22, 2012)

naptime said:


> i would be interested to know how many of you gun toting chest thumpers HAVE actually KILLED another human being?
> ........



I would like to know how many anti-gun chest thumpers have been shot at.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 22, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Using a gun is a bad idea. There is a 50/50 they have one also, and if you're getting jumped then your assailant already has the upper hand.
> 
> Unlike many of the guys here who play rambo in their suburban daydreams at the rifle range, I actually do live in a not so great neighborhood - not the worst neighborhood, but not the best either.
> 
> ...




Can't use anything over here, you can even get in trouble for beating someone up robbing your home  from experience, but the police said he must have fallen down the  stairs and broke his arm because they didn't see me stamp on it, my  partner was in a panic because she works for the police


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Jan 22, 2012)

naptime said:


> i would be interested to know how many of you gun toting chest thumpers HAVE actually KILLED another human being?
> 
> it's all great to go to the range and practice to your hearts content.
> it's all great to have your ccw permit.
> ...



While I'd never refer to myself as a chest-thumper, I have been forced to draw my concealed weapon once.  I don't think there's anything glamorous or cool about looking someone in the eyes with your gun pointed at him, knowing that you can end his life with 3.1 lbs of pressure from your index finger.

Now, am I bragging on my great state of Texas that we have a bunch of laws here that protect victims and concealed weapon carriers from bad guys, lawyers and liberals?  You betcha.  Do you think that may have something to do with why Texas issues more than 22,000 new CCW permits every month, and why better than 1 in 20 adults have a permit?  Yeah, me too.

Now, how about we get back to the thread and talk about photography...


----------



## Netskimmer (Jan 22, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> Now, how about we get back to the thread and talk about photography...



Good luck with that, I tried too get this thread back on it's rails about 5 pages ago.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 22, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Simply because states with higher gun control have higher murder rates does not indicate a causal relationship to homicide rate. Find me the statistic that indicates that gun violence increased _after_ gun laws were enacted. These laws are in response to problems, no matter how misguided a solution.



I watch the Shreveport news because that's how close I live to the state line.  They announced just last week that the murder rate was the lowest in 2011 than many years past, a notable amount as memory serves, but I try not to rely much on my memory.




unpopular said:


> i'm glad i don't live in Texas. There is no way that this situation meets any measure of self defense, of one's property or otherwise.



Snipping quotes takes out the part about the Joe fella that shot his neighboors robber while they were out of town ...

How is that not a situation of defending ones property?  His neighboors belongings were in this robbers poessesion when he got shot.  It doesn't get any more clear as theft than that.

The issue wasn't rather or not it was a legal shoot or not, but rather or not he had the authority to be shooting someone on behalf of his neighboor (again relying on my memory).

Joe Horn was his name I believe.

@naptime:  I have never had to draw my weapon on a 2 legged foe and I pray that I never ever have to.  I don't pretend to be big and bad and I don't carry myself as such.  I do everything in my ability to avoid situations like such, but I am very pleased that the laws of my great state of TX allow me to defend myself when and if needed.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jan 22, 2012)

480sparky said:


> I carry.  Stealing my stuff will cause lead poisoning.  Problem solved.


God that's just retarded. 

YES. GREAT IDEA. LET'S ESCALATE A BAD SITUATION INTO A CATASTROPHIC SITUATION.


----------



## naptime (Jan 22, 2012)

480sparky said:


> naptime said:
> 
> 
> > i would be interested to know how many of you gun toting chest thumpers HAVE actually KILLED another human being?
> ...



i have. in war, and here stateside.


i would like to know how many here have been shot..

i'll go ahead and raise my hand now too.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 22, 2012)

naptime said:


> ........i'll go ahead and raise my hand now too.



I'll raise mine next.


----------



## naptime (Jan 22, 2012)

Flyer said:


> @naptime:  I have never had to draw my weapon on a 2 legged foe and I pray that I never ever have to.  I don't pretend to be big and bad and I don't carry myself as such.  I do everything in my ability to avoid situations like such, but I am very pleased that the laws of my great state of TX allow me to defend myself when and if needed.



that's what i am getting at.

i believe in one's right to protect themselves, and i am pro-weapon.

but i makes me laugh when someone says "how to i protect my camera gear when out and about"  and the answer is pages of guys showing off their handguns, and boasting how the would be robbers would never see the light of day again because they would shoot and kill them dead in their tracks. 

i have never had to shoot anyone here in the u.s. and i hope i never have to. 

but, if presented with choice, i know what choice i would make.

and i feel qualified to make the choice to take a human life, because i have done so in the past.

though, even with that experience... to take a life because someone is trying to steal your camera......

that's a far cry from someone invading my home, or an enemy shooting back at me in war torn streets.


----------



## Netskimmer (Jan 22, 2012)

I think the first gun post wast mostly in jest. Your analogy assumes we know that all the mugger wants is our gear and not our lives. If the mugger just jumps me and I find myself under physical attack then he wants more that my gear. If he approaches me with a gun and tells me to hand over my camera I will do so without hesitation and let him go. If he grabs it purse snatcher style and is in retreat before I have time to respond I wouldn't go running after him guns blazing. If he walked up to me with a knife or bat and demanded my gear I *might* pull on him if he's far enough away or I might not, there are just too many variables to say what we would or wounldn't do or whether or not those actions would be justified.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 22, 2012)

Flyer said:


> Joe Horn was his name I believe.



Horn absolutely had the right to bear arms in defense of his or his neighbor's property. He would have had the right to fire a warning shot. If the robber had charged at him, he would have had the right to shoot to kill. In this case the robber was fleeing and were unarmed. They posed no threat to anyone's life or property, and certainly not his own.

I'm not even sure that would be legal in wartime.


----------



## xj0hnx (Jan 22, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Flyer said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Horn was his name I believe.
> ...





> Sec. 9.32.  DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a)  A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
> (1)  if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
> (2)  [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and
> [(3)]  when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
> ...



It's actually written into the law here. On another note, I hadn't even heard this part ...



> A plain clothes police detective responding to the 9-1-1 call arrived at the scene before the shooting, and witnessed the escalation and shootings while remaining in his car.[SUP][3][/SUP] His report on the incident indicated that the men who were killed "received gunfire from the rear".[SUP][1][/SUP] Police Capt. A.H. Corbett stated the two men ignored Mr. Horn's order to freeze and that one of the suspects ran towards Joe Horn before angling away from Horn toward the street when the suspect was shot in the back. The medical examiner's report could not specify whether they were shot in the back due to the ballistics of the shotgun wound.[SUP][7][/SUP] Pasadena police confirmed that the two men were shot after they ventured into Horn's front yard. The detective did not arrest Horn.



He was cleared by a Grand Jury, but I don't really agree with how he handled it. If there was a cop there, he should have let them go, and they would have been immediately arrested. Then again, both of them were illegals with careers as criminals, so I don't feel sad they are gone. I am very curious why the cop just sat in his car and watched as this situation escalated.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 22, 2012)

Ok. well, then I stand corrected. It seems this is yet another incident where the media has warped the facts to make a more compelling story.


----------



## RebeccaAPhotography (Jan 22, 2012)

480sparky said:
			
		

> Yet there's plenty of doped-up scumbags out there who are more than willing to kill me for a camera.



Doesn't mean it's right.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 22, 2012)

I haven't read the firt 4 pages (at a 30 post per page view). 

I first noticed that this thread started yesterday... And that there were 5 pages to the thread already. Before clicking on page 5, I briefly pondered what issue could be plaguing this thread, that had probably also derailed it to the point where a lock is imminent. 

The reason that I only briefly pondered, was because it popped into my head... "Must be a gun issue." 

I was right.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 22, 2012)

RebeccaAPhotography said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Never said it was.  But if I'm forced to make the choice, you can bet your sweet bippy who I'm gonna root for.


----------



## Ryan L (Jan 22, 2012)

A lot of reasons I agree with open carry as opposed to concealed. I definately do not disagree with concealed carry, just like open a bit more for a deterrent.


----------



## xj0hnx (Jan 22, 2012)

RebeccaAPhotography said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What's not right is that someone can't go on a walk downtown to take pictures without the very real possibility of being attacked, and possibly killed for a camera, or a wallet.

On topic ...

California Sunbounce Sun-Sniper "Steel" N-SSN-2ST B&H

That could help if they are a snatch and grab.


----------



## xj0hnx (Jan 22, 2012)

Ryan L said:


> A lot of reasons I agree with open carry as opposed to concealed.



Only problem with open carry while walking around shooting pictures, is being distracted while shooting and then they're robbing you with your gun.


----------



## skieur (Jan 22, 2012)

Take the usual precautions. Insure your equipment. Predict what you are going to need and don't take extra. Keep your camera out of sight unless you are using it.  Use a black camera against dark clothing.  Take a good quality pocket camera if you are not certain that you will need a camera and it is after dark. Take company along. (My son is built like a brick wall and so is my large dog). Be aware of your surroundings and don't stay long in one place unless there are people around. Don't look like a victim.

skieur


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 22, 2012)

xj0hnx said:


> Only problem with open carry while walking around shooting pictures, is being distracted while shooting and then they're robbing you with your gun.



I'd love to see someone try to pull my .38 out of it's holster... it don't just pull out.


----------



## naptime (Jan 22, 2012)

skieur said:


> Take the usual precautions. Insure your equipment. Predict what you are going to need and don't take extra. Keep your camera out of sight unless you are using it.  Use a black camera against dark clothing.  Take a good quality pocket camera if you are not certain that you will need a camera and it is after dark. Take company along. (My son is built like a brick wall and so is my large dog). Be aware of your surroundings and don't stay long in one place unless there are people around. Don't look like a victim.
> 
> skieur



what's the bg idea trying to post on topic?

you can't threadjack a threadjack.. there are rules ya know!!


----------



## Ryan L (Jan 22, 2012)

xj0hnx said:


> Ryan L said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of reasons I agree with open carry as opposed to concealed.
> ...



Now we're just getting picky. Always have to be aware of your surroundings, no matter if its concealed or open. There are plenty of safety holsters out there, unless you want a revolver in an old leather cowboy holster ready for the showdown at sundown. There are lots of options. It's not like they just hang in there and come out with the slightest pull.


----------



## skieur (Jan 22, 2012)

naptime said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Take the usual precautions. Insure your equipment. Predict what you are going to need and don't take extra. Keep your camera out of sight unless you are using it. Use a black camera against dark clothing. Take a good quality pocket camera if you are not certain that you will need a camera and it is after dark. Take company along. (My son is built like a brick wall and so is my large dog). Be aware of your surroundings and don't stay long in one place unless there are people around. Don't look like a victim.
> ...



Yeah, I keep trying. ....not to follow the rules. :lmao:

skieur


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 22, 2012)

xj0hnx said:


> Ryan L said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of reasons I agree with open carry as opposed to concealed.
> ...



That's only a problem for a novice gun carrier. Clearly you would have a fake gun in an open carry holster, and you'd also be concealed carrying. That way if someone tried to rob you with your own gun, it would be fake (or an unloaded firearm). Duh.


----------



## naptime (Jan 22, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> xj0hnx said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan L said:
> ...



:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## unpopular (Jan 22, 2012)

my issue is usually by the time you know you're getting robbed, you loose any tactical advantage anyway.


----------



## APHPHOTO (Jan 22, 2012)

Get insurance! I have about $14000.00 worth of gear insured for full replacement and it only costs me about $120.00 a year through State Farm.
Its not about getting it stolen but incase you drop a lense. Or worse yet drop it in water. I watched an episode of funniest home video's and it showed 
a photographer walking backwards and fell into some kind of water fountain. After he got himself out he reached in after his camera which looked like a
70-200 and a spead light. Ouch!


----------



## Ryan L (Jan 22, 2012)

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> That's only a problem for a novice gun carrier. Clearly you would have a fake gun in an open carry holster, and you'd also be concealed carrying. That way if someone tried to rob you with your own gun, it would be fake (or an unloaded firearm). Duh.



Lol this would work too.


----------



## zamanakhan (Jan 22, 2012)

I think i can take care of myself unarmed, i used to box. But if the situation was serious i would just let them have my gear. Life goes on. I should look into insurance actually.


----------



## Hickeydog (Jan 22, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Ok. well, then I stand corrected. It seems this is yet another incident where the media has warped the facts to make a more compelling story.



Just in case, that's the rule.  Not the exception.


----------



## LizardKing (Jan 22, 2012)

Hello everybody! I just wanted to say thank you for your answers. Starting tomorrow, I'll do a quick research on the options I have to get insurance. Seems to be the best option.
I don't mean to get in the middle of all the pro-gun / anti-gun discussion. But it's been fun to see how the thread grew from a simple question to this.

Again, thank you all for your responses 

Regards,
*LizardKing*


----------



## blackrose89 (Jan 22, 2012)

Isn't kinda funny that you start this thread about the fear of your gear getting stolen and it turns into firearm rights, murder, shooting, when it's ok to shoot/kill someone or not, the lieklyhood of being killed while be mugged, going to jail for self defensive. Are these really best things to bring up to someone already scared lol? I bet your gear getting stolen doesn't look so bad now


----------



## colintrax (Jan 23, 2012)

Edited


----------



## LizardKing (Jan 23, 2012)

And now we add knives to the mix? jajajaja



blackrose89 said:


> Isn't kinda funny that you start this thread about the fear of your gear getting stolen and it turns into firearm rights, murder, shooting, when it's ok to shoot/kill someone or not, the lieklyhood of being killed while be mugged, going to jail for self defensive. Are these really best things to bring up to someone already scared lol? I bet your gear getting stolen doesn't look so bad now



I guess you've successfully cured the fear of having my gear stolen. I've got worst things to worry about now... Thank you guys! jajajaja just kiddin'


----------



## colintrax (Jan 23, 2012)

Edited


----------



## blackrose89 (Jan 23, 2012)

Well if it wasn't for target shooting and knife throwing my husband and I would suck at all sports. We can't last more then 5 seconds in any type of physical sport to save our lives. But give us a weapon and we're good. Hubby was #1 on the marksmanship team  .


----------



## Diver_matt (Jan 23, 2012)

Maybe we can get some statistics on stabbing deaths now!!  That would be swell. The stats on gun deaths in UK vs US were accurate. However, there's equal numbers of shootings. We just have better aim in the US. Kidding, of course. Have a great week!!!


----------



## DCMoney (Jan 23, 2012)

unpopular said:


> DCMoney said:
> 
> 
> > Beretta by DCMoney22, on Flickr
> ...



Very old .jpg, taken before I understood "photography"...


----------



## gsgary (Jan 23, 2012)

colintrax said:


> 11 pages and no one has brought up knives? A knife can be just a good as a pistol and you don't have to worry about killing anyone innocent.
> 
> For those of you who carry a gun and want to use it, don't say another word until you post a pic of your group size and at what distance. If it's not an above average group, leave the gun at home and carry a knife/pepper spray/flash light.
> Btw, a flash light is good for other than "blinding" just hold it in your fist and swing.



And what if you meet up with someone that has martial arts training ? the knife would be gone in seconds


----------



## DiskoJoe (Jan 23, 2012)

I carry a knife when in skeptical parts of town. But ive never had a problem. A tripod is formidable weapon too.


----------



## TheBiles (Jan 23, 2012)

gsgary said:


> colintrax said:
> 
> 
> > 11 pages and no one has brought up knives? A knife can be just a good as a pistol and you don't have to worry about killing anyone innocent.
> ...


 
This thread has gone way off topic, but I found this comment to be hilarious. How many muggers have you ever seen who know martial arts? I'm pro-concealed-carry, but I'm not about to use the threat of "martial artists" to justify it. 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------



## unpopular (Jan 23, 2012)

DiskoJoe said:


> I carry a knife when in skeptical parts of town. But ive never had a problem. A tripod is formidable weapon too.



I felt MUCH safer carrying this camera:





Used Contax RX Camera Body 124000 B&H Photo Video



Three pounds of brass and glass at the end of an aluminum bogen tripod made for a good club. When this big ugly skinhead was eyeing my plastic fantastic Sony DSLR I was REALLY missing that camera as I was hiding in the bushes, listening for his truck to pass by.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 23, 2012)

DiskoJoe said:


> I carry a knife when in skeptical parts of town. But ive never had a problem. A tripod is formidable weapon too.



Hush up!  Da gubbamint is watchin ewe.  Next thing ya no, dere'll be a to-weak waytin' periud fer byin a trypod.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Jan 23, 2012)

Tony S said:


> I have insurance for everything, damage or theft. The biggest thing though is being aware of what/who is around you and use a little common sense.
> 
> For the times I'm on the road, if I'm in the truck it's covered under a blanket so no one can see anything through the tinted windows. For those times I need to absolutely leave it in the car I have disabled the trunk switch in the car so if they break a window they can't pop the trunk, it's just as easy  for me to open it with the remote lock for me. I don't move things around in public so people can see what I've got. At games and such I use a cable lock along with my camera bag, which locks, and lock the bag of gear I may need to the scorers table or someplace where I know there will always be someone.
> 
> When I'm out in the woods hiking....... well, I have a different insurance policy that I carry for that.



Black Talon--good stuff.  Too bad it's been discontinued.


----------



## RichardsTPF (Jan 23, 2012)

Looks like I need to start a new hobby.

I am never in situation like this.
IMO. I would prefer a gun or nothing rather than a knife. A gun have enough stopping power. Pulling out a knife means I am ready to fight, the theft either pull out a bigger knife/gun or charge at me. Being not skilled enough to defend myself with a knife, I could got injured.


----------



## RichardsTPF (Jan 23, 2012)

> BTW, this is how I carry...



I see something interesting under that table.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 23, 2012)

Using a knife is really hard. 

You have to apply way more pressure than you think you would, and if you mess up you'll end up with a really pissed junkie who is already pumped with rage and adrenalin due to withdrawal.


----------



## RichardsTPF (Jan 23, 2012)

Btw, my history professor told me a story. When he was a student, he worked at a gas station at night. A guy jumped on him and pointed a gun at his head just to rob a pack of beer.
Yeah, those junkies are stupid enough to kill someone for a beer.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 23, 2012)

RichardsTPF said:


> I see something interesting under that table.



Very good eyes..


----------



## Netskimmer (Jan 23, 2012)

I don't know why we even bother carrying anything. All you need is your cellphone. Just dial 911 (or your regions equivalent) and the cops will show up and protect you.


----------



## Overread (Jan 23, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Using a knife is really hard.



Most people that get stabbed by a knife were stabbed with their own knife. 

Might be a bit untrue, but I think its a quote that comes from proper study which shows that knives are really not a suitable weapon for the untrained. Plus you gotta have skill and some strength behind it as in order to use it you gotta get right up close to whoever it is.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 23, 2012)

RichardsTPF said:


> Yeah, those junkies are stupid enough to kill someone for a beer.


Honestly, I feel it's more likely i'd get mugged walking alone in the dark with a six pack of beer than I would with a camera. The camera you have to fence to buy the beer.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 23, 2012)

Netskimmer said:


> I don't know why we even bother carrying anything. All you need is your cellphone. Just dial 911 (or your regions equivalent) and the cops will show up and protect you.



When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.

If you're conscience enough to call them and intelligible enough for them to hear your location.


----------



## Netskimmer (Jan 23, 2012)

Yeah minutes, right. I would be amazed if I called the police while out and about and they got to me in mere minutes. Tens of minutes maybe.


----------



## RichardsTPF (Jan 23, 2012)

In hollywood movies, the cops never show up until all actions are preformed and damerages are done.


----------



## jaicatalano (Jan 23, 2012)

I went to Colombia with my gear and all went well. I try my best not to get robbed.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 23, 2012)

Netskimmer said:


> Yeah minutes, right. I would be amazed if I called the police while out and about and they got to me in mere minutes. Tens of minutes maybe.


Especially in the neighborhoods where you need them.

One night we had a drunk trying to enter our apartment. I don't think he was as dangerous as he was confused, but it was 30 minutes before the cops arrived - and found him passed out in the neighbors car.


----------



## Crollo (Jan 23, 2012)

> 11 pages and no one has brought up knives? A knife can be just a good as a pistol and you don't have to worry about killing anyone innocent.




Unless you have extensive knowledge of human anatomy using a knife to defend yourself is moronic. Using a knife is *not* a matter of hack'n'slash, there are vital arteries and veins that can be severed and kill somebody in a matter of minutes if they don't receive _extremely immediate medical attention._ If your only intent is to kill the other person, sure a knife is fine, but for self defense purposes you're looking at _very_ extensive training.

I like firearms, I personally find them to be great recreational tools, but for self defense I feel they should _only_ ever be a last resort, when you have absolutely no other choice. It's disgusting to see people utilize firearms as solutions instead of tools, if somebody tries to rob your 2$ in pocket, kill them on sight. Absolutely psychotic.


----------



## UUilliam (Jan 23, 2012)

I've skipped the full thread,
I live in the UK, where guns are illegal (a good, maybe bad thing?)

How I deal with the fear of carrying it?
Much like yourself, it took me quite some time to build up my gear, however, I go to night clubs with abotu 3 - 4k worth of kit.
It's all inside a bag (not a well known brand, VanGuard) so people don't know what is inside it for 1.

The other way is to also not look like you are carrying something valuable, I leave my camera strapped around my shoulder (it would be SO easy to steal if people wanted to, but I'd probably make chase.)

The other thing too is, just take it out!  The more you do it, the less you fear it (Apply this to ALL your fears!)

I think (to re-itterate) the way to deal with it is by simply, "not caring" too much.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 23, 2012)

Crollo said:


> I've got no problem with weapons or self defence, however killing somebody over a low-tech camera is so borderline psychotic I'm not sure I'd feel safe around you at all.



So now we have a specific camera type and I'm psychotic.  I didn't even remember I was advocating killing people for a camera.  Dang, old age is making me forget things.


----------



## Overread (Jan 23, 2012)

Crollo said:


> Unless you have extensive knowledge of human anatomy using a knife to defend yourself is moronic. Using a knife is *not* a matter of hack'n'slash, there are vital arteries and veins that can be severed and kill somebody in a matter of minutes if they don't receive immediate medical attention. If your only intent is to kill the other person, sure a knife is fine, but for self defense purposes you're looking at _very_ extensive training.[/COLOR]



To be fair you can also shoot those vital parts with a gun. Heck I'd argue that its a lot easier to cause serious injury to another with a gun than with a knife when both are in in-experienced hands.


----------



## Crollo (Jan 23, 2012)

Exactly. If you don't know what you're severing [veins\muscles\tendons], then utilizing weapons should _only_ be used as a method to _*kill*_ the other person before they inevitably kill you. A last resort. 

Unfortunately I find the attitude of many [Certainly not _*all*_, by any means] Americans is that if they brandish a weapon they don't _have _to learn about self defense, their gun will take care of everything, and they end up killing innocents because they were skittish and thought that the person in question intended to harm them.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 23, 2012)

Crollo said:


> Exactly. If you don't understand the human body, then utilizing weapons should only be used as a method to kill the other person before they inevitably kill you. A last resort.



That's why God invented hollow points and 12-round magazines (for pistols).


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 23, 2012)

Crollo said:


> Unfortunately I find the attitude of many [Certainly not _*all*_, by any means] Americans is that if they brandish a weapon they don't _have _to learn about self defense, their gun will take care of everything, and they end up killing innocents because they were skittish and thought that the person in question intended to harm them.



There's something called "personal liability" that makes the average American think twice before firing a shot.  Your average American doesn't have the same legal protection compare an American police officer. This the reason why your average American is less likely to shoot the wrong person compare to your average American police officer.


----------



## Austin Greene (Jan 23, 2012)

ConradM said:


> Flyer said:
> 
> 
> > ConradM said:
> ...



I was always taught, and agree with, the same policy my brother in law follows. If someone breaks into his house (or my house in the future), and if I believe they intend harm to myself or my family, I'm going to empty the entire clip into them as fast as I can if they won't leave at my repeated request and I've deemed their being shot necessary. The worst thing to have come up in court is someone who you've killed by only shooting once or twice, it implies calculated thought. The more rounds you can put into them (to a reasonable extent, we're talking handguns here), the more panicked the situation looks to the officers (implying you were scared for your life), the better off you are in court. 

It should be noted though, that my family lives in the woods, and things work differently out here. Should someone inflict harm on my loved ones and then try to run off (it happens around my hometown), thats when I take the .270 and go hunting for their ass. They might be able to run pretty fast, but I'm willing to bet my bullet can run a lot faster


----------



## Overread (Jan 23, 2012)

Wait - the more you shoot someone the more innocent you appear? 
something in that sounds darn quirky

If you want to simulate panic - empty the clip into the surroundings not the person or just only leave 5 bullets in the clip to start with so you can't panic fill them with 50 rounds (or however many)


----------



## Austin Greene (Jan 23, 2012)

Overread said:


> Wait - the more you shoot someone the more innocent you appear?
> something in that sounds darn quirky
> 
> If you want to simulate panic - empty the clip into the surroundings not the person or just only leave 5 bullets in the clip to start with so you can't panic fill them with 50 rounds (or however many)



I can look it up later, but this is taken expressly from a court case where the victim shot twice, the suspect died within minutes, and then the victim was charged with pre-meditated murder. I don't mean to say that you should walk up to a shot man and empty out on him, but rather that if you have a good bead on someone who poses a mortal threat to your life, you pull that trigger as many times as you can, as fast as you can, until they are on the ground. Again, I'm referencing handguns, so we're not talking about large capacities here, and I also am not referring to a firearm such as a shotgun where it would indeed be excessive. The bottom line is that if someone wants to kill you, your average 9mm is not going to do the job with one shot to center of mass (assuming you hit your mark). Better safe then sorry.



Overread said:


> empty the clip into the surroundings not the person



Also, just to point out, that is one of the worst things you can do. Deciding to take a life is no small decision (not that you implied it is), but having the blood of someone else who you hit with a stray bullet is something I would not want to live with. Very similar reason why shotguns are not recommended for home defense. Birdshot won't do much, but buckshot or slugs will pass right through your average house wall, endangering those in adjoining rooms.


----------



## Crollo (Jan 23, 2012)

Reading back on the thread I see my original readings of the people who carry here are incorrect. Seeing that most of the carry-goers have the same beliefs [Shoot to _kill_, last resort only, don't kill over material possessions] I'm finding myself extremely relieved. Again, I have no problems with firearms, I would love to shoot them for recreational purposes but I live in Canada, and it really is very relaxing to know the people here are in fact not what I found them to be originally. [People who would straight up _*kill*_ somebody for attempting to steal their equipment]

Also overread, what he's saying is that if you kill somebody via 2 shots [To the heart, head or spine is the only spot I imagine you'd effectively kill them with 2 shots] then it implies you were under no pressure [it's difficult to get a good shot to the heart, spine or head with a moving target, much more difficult when under immense pressure] and you straight up *murdered* the person. If you unload a firearm it implies you were under severe pressure [Getting shot at, etc] and you were acting out of self defense.


----------



## Austin Greene (Jan 23, 2012)

Crollo said:


> [Shoot to _kill_, last resort only, don't kill over material possessions]



Absolutely. Often the viewpoints of gun owners and those who carry is so heavily stereotyped its sickening. If you shoot someone, you shoot to kill, and you don't choose to do so lightly (especially over material possessions).


----------



## Crollo (Jan 23, 2012)

togalive said:


> Crollo said:
> 
> 
> > [Shoot to _kill_, last resort only, don't kill over material possessions]
> ...



Well, it's just that many gun owners on the first thread brandished their carrys as 'insurance policy' for their equipment\materials which misleads me greatly into the assumption that they genuinely would use their firearms over material possession instead of last resort. That's why the stereotype is so much alive in this thread specifically.

My problem personally is, I've actually known some pretty bad gun owners. So for me it's a little more then just a stereotype having known somebody who got a firearm to _*prevent*_ his <400$ laptop being stolen while on campus [He is extremely skittish, I'd feel extremely unsafe being around him]. Unfortunately he's in a different country so there's little I can do to report him or do anything about it.


----------



## Ryan L (Jan 24, 2012)

I'm pretty good with a bowstaff, still working on the nun-chuck skills...


----------



## blackrose89 (Jan 24, 2012)

http://www.google.com/search?q=gun+forums&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari


----------



## Ballistics (Jan 24, 2012)

ConradM said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> > Schwettylens said:
> ...



Presenting or brandishing your weapon while being attacked ie mugging, is not illegal. What you are saying is complete nonsense. You can present your weapon in self defense and are in no way legally obligated to kill someone when you draw it. That's just silly.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 24, 2012)

I think 'brandishing' is more like using a weapon to intimidate people without explicitly threatening them or otherwise displaying a weapon in a situation where it is not safe, socially acceptable or legitimately appropriate to do so.

Brandishing would be waving a gun around at Starbucks because you need your Latte immediately; not using a gun to deter a robbery, shooting at a riffle range or displaying it at a gun show.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Jan 24, 2012)

Ryan L said:


> I'm pretty good with a bowstaff, still working on the nun-chuck skills...



No computer hacking skillz?


----------

