Has anyone ever have to use a Leica as a selfdefense weapon?

[david11]

"It's kind of a frightening situation to me to imagine people I encounter in every day situations carrying concealed weapons."

Ray Haack

 

Ray, I hope that you never have to face a truly frightening situation. Frightening to me is staring down the barrel of a loaded .357 magnum revolver, held by a psychopathic killer. Less frightening to me is preparing physically and emotionally to defend my life (although it certainly is a serious commitment). You may be assured that virtually none of the holders of carry permits are alcohol-fueled, egotistical crazies. In all locations in the United States where concealed carry has been authorized, violent crime has decreased. If I chose not to carry, I would feel safer knowing that responsible people were in my proximity should any problem occur. I realize that my best weapon is between my ears, but acknowledging this, I can't easily defend my life with lethal force against a hostile aggressor unless a sidearm is immediately accessible. You can't use it if you don't have it. Recent studies indicate that as many as 4% of the population (Canada included, Bob) is psychopathic. Indeed, I had a confrontation with such a fellow (w/7 year old daughter in tow) one night some years ago. He was a gang member, on the run just minutes after committing a robbery, murder, and kidnapping. Only a miracle prevented our demise. I pray that no similar situation is in my future and absolutely do not relish the thought of using lethal force, although I am quite prepared to do so given the alternative.

[graphicjoe]

I am revolted by this thread. Hand guns have no place in the hands of citizens unless the are police or military.

 

And Knapp, �when you actually hit one of these wretches� that wretch is a child. You seem excited and proud by this revelation. I find it disgusting.

 

In amazement,

 

Joe Stephenson

[james_.1]

Joe, where are you from? Time for me to join the NRA if you're in the US, soon my freedoms will go away otherwise.

 

nra.org

[vic_.]

Japan has one of the strictest laws on gun possession. (Besides the army and police, only the Olympic shooting team is allowed access to guns, and that only at the shooting range.) It is by far the safest country on the planet, with hardly any murder or rape. A woman can walk in any neighborhood in the middle of the night and will be safe, except if near a US base, as has been sadly the case recently.

[robert_byrd1]

The Japanese don't need to carry guns because the people on their streets are Japanese! We need to carry guns in America because too many of the people on our streets are the savages who raped those girls in Japan. It's that simple.

[ray .]

No Robert, the word that fits your argument is <i>simplistic</i>.

[james_.1]

The Japanese were truly savage in WWII. Their culture is very homogeneous, and comformity is the norm. Part of the US's strength is its diversity, but along with that are weaknesses I guess. In the US, if guns were outlawed, the only ones having them would be mainly criminals. Not a scenario I'd like.

[al_kaplan1]

Strange, but I lost a couple of 9mm handguns (amongst other things. They left the Leicas!)in a burglary a few weeks back. I filed a claim with the insurance company. Last week I got a call from the adjuster to go to a nearby gun dealer, fill out some paperwork, and in a few more days they'll call me to tell me that my replacement 9mm pistols are waiting to be picked up. They could have just as easily cut me a check for the value, like they did for 3 rifles and my computer, but they're giving me replacement handguns! Guess they want to make sure I have real handguns instead of squandering the money on less efficient weapons like more Leica M2 bodies with brass mounted Summiluxes.

[nesrani]

Koudelka's gypsies are all right on the page of a photobook, but when you meet them in real life they're "wretches" whose blood on your camera is a health risk. Mary Ellen Mark's or Richard Rogers' street people and drug addicts look real nice in a frame in your lounge, but you carry a gun in case you meet one of these "bums" or "societal vermin" in person. You can "ooh" and "aah" over Nachtwey's pictures of Palestinians or South Timorians, but you despise them as people.

 

Let me tell you what it takes to be a photographer like the "Leica photographers" whose equipment you admire so much: empathy, interest in other people, generosity and fearlessness, and a strong sense of justice. It means putting your life on the line because you feel strongly about things. It means being outraged by the unjust social arrangements that have created a global underclass who sometimes resort to violence in their despair and anger at their oppression.

 

I really don't know what to say.

[ray .]

This thread has opened my eyes like no other. Looks like we need to change the name of this forum now to the Gun Lobby Forum. Jeez. Who ever would've believed it? Lots of people it seems. So many. Wow, oh man. My perspective on the people who go here has changed dramatically.

[james_.1]

Methinks some persons here are relating a simple firearm to TOO MANY OTHER MATTERS. Period. And simple as that.

 

Yes, to really photograph people, one needs to gain some sort of connection, and you won't be getting it by being a paranoid gun-toter. I don't think most individuals who own firearms are like this. Some are avid hunters and trap shooters with simple shotguns that cost more than entire Leica collections.

[robert_byrd1]

And to express their "despair" at the "oppression" of being in the U.S. Army, they rape Japanese teenagers. Give me a break.

[oliver_s.]

James HL, thank you very much for you contribution? I couldn't agree more.<p><i>Carrying a gun, or owning a gun is a perfectly legal activity</i>. Except in most parts of the world. Btw I always feel a weapon would take my mind off the actual danger in a critical situation.

[oliver_s.]

Ack. Dear moderators, please replace the question mark in the first line of my post with a exclamation mark, and add that the quote is from Sid. Thank you very much in advance!<br>In the current form my previous post looks as if I wanted to make fun of James HL. I did not intend that, and I apologise! Now I'm off to learn proofreading.

[vic_.]

I wonder how much the tabloid media has to do with the current state of affairs. (Rupert Murdoch in particular.)

 

I was listening to NPR (National Public Radio) yesterday evening and the following story caught my attention (did anyone else catch it?). A German high school football (soccer) team, that was in England to play some matches, was beaten up by a bunch of English people who called them Nazis. Students at the German school in London are told to pretend to be Scandinavian when out in public and to not speak to each other in German. The English authorities are very concerned because England is soon going to play Germany in a football match, and if anyone has any interest, it's as if the WWII is still going on between these two nations. And we're swinging tripods!

 

The German Ambassador was on the radio to express his concern. It seems that a lack of education and awareness is the root cause of the problem. 40 percent of Germans have visited the UK, but only ONE percent of English have visited Germany, and the British TV seems to aggravate this horrendous lack of understanding.

 

They quoted a Private Eye (a satirical magazine that has been around for ages) skit about a UK TV station's daily program schedule: Nazis; followed by Young Nazis; followed by Old Nazis; followed by Young Nazis talking about Old Nazis. It sounds comical but that is the truth. In the US we have a cable channel called the "History Channel" but I call it the Hitler channel. For the past 20 years you could see Hitler every day of the year. They had a news analyst who said that if they put on a show on Adenauer, it wouldn't have as high ratings as Hitler, even though the accomplishments of Germany in the last 50 years are nothing short of a miracle. Nobody seems to be interested in progress but in titillation. Enough already! Meanwhile everyone here wants to drive a BMW, Benz or Porsche.

 

This is almost 2003. I wrote this to illustrate the idiocy that continues in one "developed" nation, so it is not surprising that we consider other people savage or wretches or vermin.

 

The cable news channels here, in particular Fox News and MSNBC are "All Sadaam All the time." People don't think for themselves, and think that nothing else is important. It is a sad state of affairs. Most people outside the US couldn't care less about Iraq. There are too many other concerns on their mind. Meanwhile the Patriot Act is eroding the rights for which this country was created and nobody is protesting about it.

[james_.1]

Indeed Vikram! Good perspectives. I joined the ACLU (aclu.org) because of the "patriot" act. Should be more like the "comrade" act. People not thinking for themselves, they'd rather eat up soundbites. I like watching some PBS news as well, such as DWTV and BBC. It's quite refreshing to see other nation's news reports' take on affairs, and what they find important. Anyway, the US is becoming less a beacon for the West, which is unfortunate. We are hell bent to get Saddam no matter what compliance. If he's hiding arms, won't we find them given his cooperation?

[cd thacker]

<I>I apologise for using the word "fools".</I> - Rob Appleby<P>

 

 

You were thinking maybe "fearful idiots"? Man. I saw the name of this thread; then saw that it had "90 new responses"; and thought to myself, now what could be so interesting as all that, about using your Leica as a weapon? (Especially when all the world knows that all of the Nikon F-series bodies - excepting the F3 - are much better suited for this.) I should have known that "guns" would come up.<P>

 

I can only tell you that I've walked through and shot (a camera) in shantytowns and slums (and tribal villages) throughout Asia (south and southeast) and Australia - but the only time I ever encountered people who were less than friendly and helpful, it wasn't in any of those places; it was in south-central L.A. - Compton, to be precise - where I ended up one day on account of having to pee very badly while on a bus (I'd been riding through when the urge became unbearable and I had to get off). Even there, though, people weren't particularly threatening (though I did get looks that combined pity and contempt). I'm always prepared to defend myself while shooting (again, my camera) (I've often thought that, swung on its strap it would make a dandy mace) - but I've never had to. Fear is always greater than actual danger.<P>

 

Anybody seen "Bowling for Columbine"? If you'd like some terrific insight into violence in the U.S., see it.

[vic_.]

The closest I've ever come to camera related violence is while taking pictures of some punk rockers in Picadilly Circus (London). They didn't like it that I was photographing them without their permission, but I had already taken the pictures, so I gave the "leader" two pounds and that seemed to appease them. Then we started talking and I had to listen to them for 15 minutes giving their life story, about how the police pick them up for no reason and beat them up because of the way they look. They became friends for those 15 minutes. I guess people feel alienated in certain societies and like it when someone takes the time to empathize with them.

 

Contrast that with my experience in poor countries, where people, especially children, love to be photographed, and cannot seem to get enough.

 

With all the talk on this forum about grab shots, and grab shot techniques, isn't that inviting trouble? I mean, try doing that at a Harley Davidson rally. I've seen Albert Smith's nice portfolio, I don't know how he got out alive from Daytona!

[karl_georg_wolf]

My god, what a thread!

 

Please remember: it´s still Christmas (MOL) and we should celebrate peace. What results in too many weapons can be seen in a terrific recent film:

 

BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE ...

 

No LEICAS there, and the filmmaker seems to love CANADA out of good reasons.

 

Happy New Year to all and best wishes

[preston_merchant]

Yes, street children are pesky little buggers. So are the homeless, Vietnam veterans, and other down-and-outs. They're all on drugs, of course. It is right and a good and joyful thing to pummel them with heavy photographic equipment.

 

These are dangerous times, of course. Evildoers proliferate. You can't trust anyone with brown skin, especially the gypsies who have been marauding Europe pocket by pocket for millennnia. The good doctor Knapp offers sage advice about how best to subdue them (and guard against HIV infection from the splattering blood). We should trust him because he swore an oath to do no harm.

 

But all of this is really neither here nor there.

[butterflydream]

Leica must be a good weapon, because your opponent will never suppose you will attack him with that expensive camera. You are making surprise attack.

 

You don't necessarily have to hit the guy. Just demonstrating that you are intend to fight if necessary even with the camera. The guy (if he is clever) will give up you because he'd better find easier victim.

[chip l.]

I was just going to read through the thread but James Allen's commnet (Yes, I hope we don't forsake our rights as Americans, and those concerned about that should vote for pro-gun politicians and join the NRA.) caused me to add to this thread.

 

My wish is that we had a Supreme Court that would take and look at the meaning that our founding fathers had in mind.

 

The Second Amendment reads:

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Militia defined by the American Heritage Dictionary reads:

 

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.

2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.

3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

 

Given this I have no problem with people owning guns (in the US), as long as they are part of our National Guard system (the fore runner which was the Militia). To allow anyone (defined loosely) to own a gun was not the intention of the founding fathers IMO.

 

As stated else where in this thread, a poorly trained individual is more likely to end up on the wrong side of the equation.

 

Just a few thoughts....

 

Chip

 

PS - James this is not an attack on you. Given the current intereptation of the Second Admendment, you and others are well within your rights. The overall shame is that we allow special interests (of any interest) to force their views on others through the use of money to grease the political machine.

[vic_.]

Chip, I think Switzerland has what you consider to be the ideal system, where most men have a military issue weapon of some sort and can get called up in an instant to defend the country. They probably have the highest guns per capita in the world. I don't read about Swiss people having a gun-related murder problem such as in the US. (Please, somebody from Switzerland correct my facts.)

[rob - atlanta, ga usa]

I hesitate to add to this thread, but the truth means a lot to me.

 

The first ten amendments to the US Constitution are called the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights grant rights to individuals. If the second amendment was meant to grant a right to the states for a militia, then it is the only one of the ten not granting a right to individuals. The second amendment was specifically meant for self-protection, not hunting, sport shooting, or a state militia. Like it or not, here are just a few quotes from the founding fathers that shed light on their original intent:

 

Ten Original Amendments: The Bill of Rights AMENDMENT II.

 

Right to keep and bear arms.

 

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

�I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.�

George Mason 1725-1792

 

�A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms.�

Richard Henry Lee 1756-1818

 

�Those that would trade freedom for security will have neither.�

Benjamin Franklin 1706-1790

 

�The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.�

Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826

 

 

�The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.�

Noah Webster 1758-1843

 

�Suspicion of government power and trust in an armed public to preserve liberty were England�s legacy to the colonists. William Blackstone, the English jurist, explained that if rulers become tyrannical, the people�s right to be armed would enable them to �restrain the violence of oppression.� The historian Thomas Macaulay called this �the security without which every other is insufficient.��

 

Joyce Lee Malcolm

Chairman of Bentley College�s

History Department.

 

USA Today, June 23, 1995

[chip l.]

Bob,

 

You did give me pause here. But then how do you define the statement: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."? The key here IMO is a "well regulated" and "security of a free State"; in my interpetation of these, it would seem that the National Guard would be meetng both of those.

 

Chip