Made a lot of headway with an anti friend with this

Status
Not open for further replies.

Erebus

Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
1,374
Location
North Central MA
Maybe this belongs in general, feel free to move it if so, I felt it was more political.

My friend is a photography buff. She's very good at it. Taken classes on it and isn't pro but easily qualified to go pro. Anyway after getting no where for a long time I made this example to her. But it could work with anyone. Who doesn't own a camera?

Gun Owners = Murderers like Photographers = Child Porn Producers(CPP). I asked her how she would like to live in this world.

You must have a state issued licence to own or purchase any camera or film. It will be issued by your local police chief and they can reject your application for any reason they choose. They can reject all applications if they so choose.(may issue)

You must pass a background check every time you want to buy a camera.

You must register all your cameras with the state.

Camera stores must have licences issued by the federal government to sell cameras.

All your photos must have copies sent to and registered with the Bureau of Photography. So they can approve them as not being inappropriate. BATFEP perhaps?

All your photos must display the serial number of the camera on the photo for the purposes of tracing them back to your camera.

You may not bring cameras into schools as children are there and it's assumed you would be taking inappropriate pictures of them.

You may not bring cameras into courthouses as it's assumed you would be taking pictures of witnesses there for the purpose of identifying them for intimidation or retaliation.

Telephoto lenses over a certain power are banned as they are only good for long distance secret inappropriate pictures of children.

"Evil Black Cameras"(solid black cameras) are banned as they are only used in concealment of your activity in taking inappropriate pictures of children.

Cameras that take more that one picture per press of the shutter button are banned as they have no purpose except to take multiple inappropriate photos in rapid succession.

Rolls of film of more than 10 exposures are banned as they could only be for taking many inappropriate pictures in short time without having to reload the camera.

Camera phones or inexpensive cameras under a certain size would be referred to as "up-skirt specials" and be banned as they have no good use. Even if they are all that the poorest of people can afford.

Your cameras must be stored inside a locking container or equipped with a disabling device, approved by the state, to prevent unauthorized individuals from operating it.

A lost or stolen camera must be reported to the police within 24 hours or you will be fined or imprisoned even if you are thousands of miles away on vacation and are completely unaware of the theft.

Camera dealers are not allowed to sell or transfer ownership of any camera not approved by the state.(CA & MA) As a result there are brands you will never be able to buy and the ones you can will take up to a year for a new model to be approved. The attorney general can reject any camera he/she sees fit. Even it it passed the testing mandated by law. You may not buy any of the unapproved cameras in another state and bring it home.

Some municipalities will completely outlaw the possession or ownership of cameras and you may not know you have crossed into one until you are arrested for taking a picture of a bird in a tree.(NYC/DC/CHI/...)

Camera ownership will immediately make the police suspect that you are a CPP whenever you tell them you own a camera.

Anytime you sell or give a camera to someone else you must go to a camera dealer and pay to have a background check run on that person to close the "Photography Show Loophole".

Camera ownership will also come with these social benefits.

Whenever you meet someone and they learn you are a photographer you will have to live with their assumption that you own a camera to produce child porn. Many will accuse you of owning it for that purpose to your face. Some will call you some kind of idiot or backwater hillbilly.

Every time child porn is discovered the media will blame the camera and refer to it as only good for producing child porn.

Politicians will frequently refer to cameras you own as only good for producing child porn and will actively try to ban them and confiscate them. They will tell you that you don't need this camera or that camera and try to ban it even if you want it and would never commit a crime with it. What you want will be meaningless to them. They would try to levy taxes on film with the intention of making it so expensive that you can no longer afford to buy it.

People would ignorantly think that if cameras or film were banned all forms of child porn would cease to exist and no longer be produced. Even when there are examples of countries that have done so and it's clear it doesn't work.

------

I basically came up with equivalent anti camera laws and attitudes to the anti gun laws and attitudes we put up with everyday. And explained the attitude many have that guns are only good for murder and how that type of attitude could turn to an attitude of cameras only being good for making child porn.

Her response.... I wouldn't put up with that s**t. My response, you wouldn't have a choice. I really think I got through to her.

Next step, invitation to the range.

Feel free to add comparisons or tweak mine. Try to keep it really close to the equivalent anti gun law.
 
Good analogy. Another one is the restriction of dog breeds that "look dangerous". In some cities there have already been attempts to ban certain breeds of dog because of well-publicized maulings.
 
I've done the same thing with guns and computers. The reactions shake out into roughly these responses:

"Hmmmm..."

"Yes, computers SHOULD be registered!"

"Fascist!!!!"
 
[sarcasm on] Why does anyone "need" a camera anyway? Law enforcement officers are the only folks who really "need" cameras, like for collecting evidence, and building a criminal case against someone. Private ownership of cameras has led to, among other things; privacy invasion, corrosion of moral values, and online child pornography. We need more restrictions on who is allowed to own a camera. Convicted felons have no business owning a camera. I propose a 5 day wait on the purchase of a new camera, and a one camera per month limit.
 
That's a great analogy. When carrying a high-grade SLR around, I've had suburban sheep approach me and pretty much accuse me of being some sort of voyeur, especially if I have a long lens on it. Sometimes they ask to see my press pass, assuming I must have one if I'm carrying the camera for lawful purposes... analogous to a CCW permit.

You could make cases for suing Canon because their digital SLRs allow for photography in exceptionally low lighting, and who but a skulking pervert could put that feature to use? Really, all digital cameras should be banned, because they allow you to make photos with no lab or darkroom, making the child porn production process much faster and easier.
 
Add to "social benefits"
Bird/Wildlife photographers will bury their heads in the sand stating "but they won't come after my classic Leica because it's just a "bird camera" not one of those evil child porn cameras..

News photographers will believe that their state supplied permission to carry a camera somehow make them superior to the visiting tourist family on their once in a lifetime vacation. Those tourists will not be allowed to take photos for themselves and will be required to call a "real professional" and wait for them to arrive and take the photos which they can pay for later when they are developed.

EDIT... Just thought of this one.
Oh and of course because some cameras can be modified to snap "see-through-the-clothing" infared pictures we KNOW that all the other cameras that look the same can also be modified that way so if it looks the same it should be banned too.
 
I like your logic, but a lot of antis would cut you off and say that the analogy is ridiculous or unrealistic. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't work with one guy that I know in particular.
 
Nico - Actually it's not that silly. We've all seen multiple instances where photography used carelessly or maliciously have destroyed more lives than a bomb or gun could have. Just follow some of the "Paparazzi" stories.

Funny how the death of Princess Diana got blamed directly on the Photographer but nobody ever mentioned the camera he was using. After all if there were no cameras that whole thing wouldn't have happened...right?

Jealous husband kills wife or her lover because he saw the private detective's photographic proof of the affair, wouldn't have happened if cameras were controlled...right?

(yes, sarcasm on that last bit).
 
Hmm... the classic Leica cameras (at least the rangefinders) are actually better suited for sneaky voyeurism than most high-grade equipment. Bird and nature photogs usually use the latest Canon equipment with the big white lenses; the "assault cameras" if you will.

The analogy may be kind of silly to the general public but it's an apt one for photographers, because photography has always been under attack by certain segments of society. I and other photogs I know have been hassled by people who assumed we were voyeurs, particularly when covering street fairs and such with kids present. There are lots of discussions on photo forums about what a pain it is to carry big, fancy cameras into parks where people will assume you're a pervert for having one.

"Homeland security infrastructure" is another interesting topic; cops will often question architectural photographers with fancy gear, while ignoring tourists with cell phone cameras and little point-and-shoots. No terrorist with half a brain would use a big, attention-grabbing camera to take photos when a little one would suffice.
 
Owning a camera is really a collective right anyway. That's why we have the National Eye (the fictitious camera equivalent to the National Guard).
 
That's why we have the National Eye (the fictitious camera equivalent to the National Guard).
Would that include the big brother cameras watching me at every intersection and street cornor?

My point was to bring the argument into focus(no pun intended) for her. It's the belief that "guns are nothing but killing tools" that hangs alot of people up, they have been conditioned to see them in no other way. Showing them that something everyone uses at least from time to time can be mispercieved just as guns are. At one time everyone owned a gun.

It may seem ridiclous to them until you show them this.
 
I used to work (supervisor) in a photolab. One of the other employees was a freak about baby pictures. EVERY (and I emphasize EVERY) single picture of babies or small children that came through the machines she analyzed and came up with several different senarios as to why the picture could be child porn and wanted to call the cops.

I got on her case about it one day finally saying something like parents take pictures of their new babies and babies by default are going to be naked A LOT.

She relented, but then came up with the excuse..."well what if the pictures are stolen and posted on the internet on a child porn site!"

Ah jeez...
 
"well what if the pictures are stolen and posted on the internet on a child porn site!"

My point exactly, she wants to go after/blame a parent taking a picture of their baby because someone else could steal and misuse the picture. Sound famaliar?
 
Erebus

With your permission I would like to circulate this.

It could wind up on my wife's blog or on another site we're helping manage.

If you have any special attribution you'd like included, feel free to PM me on it.

There's also the "blackmail" angle -- some will assert that "guns kill" but cameras don't -- but the blackmail angle has the "ruins lives" edge to it.

Blackmail has driven many people to ruin and suicide.

Clearly, cameras are evil, and must be regulated.

Nice work.
 
Actually it's not that silly. We've all seen multiple instances where photography used carelessly or maliciously have destroyed more lives than a bomb or gun could have. Just follow some of the "Paparazzi" stories.
I agree with you, but the perception among a lot of antis is that cameras are something benign that has a million "good" uses and few "bad" uses, while a gun is inherently bad with a couple uses that aren't that bad "hunting, police use."

The guy I was referring to in my first post says he's been to the range twice, but thinks "if a bullet comes out of it, it's bad." He would write off the camera analogy just like he would the standard car analogy ("cars kill a lot more people than guns. . ."). The sad thing is I know quite a few people who probably have equally irrational views. I've actually been trying to think of how I can get through to this guy. But, since he's been shooting (I've found that taking a person shooting is one of the best ways to assuage irrational ideas about guns), I'm not quite sure what I can do.
 
Established Media

Quote:

Owning a camera is really a collective right anyway. That's why we have the National Eye (the fictitious camera equivalent to the National Guard).


Actually, you did not express fictional ideas or sarcasm there. The
"National Eye" would be established media, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, BBC,
etc. They already want to shut down any news that is not their own.
 
Everyone feel free to copy, cross post, quote, publish, and in any other way spread this if you like. I certainly don't want to limit how we fight our fight.

If you want to credit me just credit the writer as Erebus and link to http://www.erebus.com

I will be revamping my website shortly and this will be posted there as well. I plan on relaunching my blog. My father had a bout with cancer and I was rather distracted from it for a time. They caught his cancer very early and got it with surgery. He required no chemo or radiation and he should have no further problems with it since they caught it so early.

Within the next few days I will start posting again.
 
The guy I was referring to in my first post says he's been to the range twice, but thinks "if a bullet comes out of it, it's bad." He would write off the camera analogy just like he would the standard car analogy ("cars kill a lot more people than guns. . ."). The sad thing is I know quite a few people who probably have equally irrational views. I've actually been trying to think of how I can get through to this guy. But, since he's been shooting (I've found that taking a person shooting is one of the best ways to assuage irrational ideas about guns), I'm not quite sure what I can do.

If he is actually a hoplophobe (sounds like he might be one though I doubt a true Hoplophobe would ever even go to a range) then they have a mental disorder and you -can't- reach them via rational methods any more than you can reach a claustrophobe or any other "phobic".
 
thats hilarious. i love reading that stuff. its as good as when someone gets killed with a hammer and they start threads saying how we need to register hammers, and its for the children. thats great, keep up the good work
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top