ArtisticGlamour wrote:

THIS!

Training, training, training! The BRAIN is the weapon...all else is just the tools.

Indeed. Models, like all women, need to learn to be self-aware.

RKD Photographic wrote:

I think this is where the problem lies - correct me if I'm wrong, but I've had it explained thus: most US citizens would rather die in poverty than accept 'interference' from a Federal Government and this is a completely alien concept to most Europeans, who expect - demand, even - the Government to control everything - up to a point, anyway. And we pay handsomely for it. We are taxed to the hilt - Germany more than the UK and (I think) Norway and Sweden more than anyone else.

Once you (we) get your head around the concept of an individual wanting to be completely free of all government interference and oversight, the US model becomes easier to understand.
Remember, many of the people who originally left Europe for the US wanted to be completely self-sufficient, as 'government' to them at that time meant unbearable restrictions, persecution, poverty and even death.

Once you take this view: "I don't want the local or central Govt. to be responsible for my safety, I don't want to pay more taxes than absolutely necessary, I just want to do my own thing" (and remember income tax was fought against bitterly in Washington and was originally introduced as a war-measure, to be rescinded on the cessation of hostilities, though as with most taxes, once they're in, they stay), then it becomes easier to see why our bewilderment at current US gun-policy is as equally baffling to them. Under those conditions an individual might very well be justified in his 'need' of firearms as opposed to merely 'wanting' them.
A lot of Texans don't even want to be part of the US at all!

Precisely. America was founded by individuals who advocated individual responsibility and freedom, and a deep distrust of central authority. This has been passed down through nature and nurture for many generations: "Give me Liberty or Give me Death."  We would rather die, and die free, than live indebted.

KonstantKarma wrote:
Precisely. America was founded by individuals who advocated individual responsibility and freedom, and a deep distrust of central authority. This has been passed down through nature and nurture for many generations: "Give me Liberty or Give me Death."  We would rather die, and die free, than live indebted.

Except we borrow (from China, etc) to finance shit now. We're just f#@ked.
Our politicians have sold us out to lobbiests and the highest bidders. We'll actually realize it as a nation in about 20years. But, again...that's another thread about "Economic Patriotism".

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
Training, training, training! The BRAIN is the weapon...all else is just the tools.

KonstantKarma wrote:
Indeed. Models, like all women, need to learn to be self-aware.

+1, and it's a mindset not just for photoshoots, but for everyday life.

KonstantKarma wrote:

Much of Europe we consider the children of the world - And like all children, we are there to protect them - Even when we say "Now, this is the last time!" They know we don't mean it.

Funnily enough we look at you the same way - the kids who left home a little too soon but turned out more or less all right in the end even though they still refuse to listen to the Grown-Ups (with the voice of experience) and have to make their own mistakes before they learn how to do it right...

RKD Photographic wrote:
Funnily enough we look at you the same way - the kids who left home a little too soon but turned out more or less all right in the end even though they still refuse to listen to the Grown-Ups (with the voice of experience) and have to make their own mistakes before they learn how to do it right...

LOL! I would love it if we were as "safe" as UK, and I would be happy for everyone to give up their guns...just everyone else FIRST, and ME last! LOL! 

There's just so many, that ONLY the law abiding citizens would "give them up" and the "criminals" would still have them!

ArtisticGlamour wrote:

Except we borrow (from China, etc) to finance shit now. We're just f#@ked.
Our politicians have sold us out to lobbiests and the highest bidders. But, again...that's another thread about "Economic Patriotism".

Yep.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
+1, and it's a mindset not just for photoshoots, but for everyday life.

And yep. That's my point, "women" and "models" really aren't different categories...

While working toward my criminal justice degree, I took Victimology (the counterpart to Criminology).

Without victim blaming, victims many times do hold responsibility for their actions.

RKD Photographic wrote:
So when I say things like I did earlier it's with the perspective of someone who's seen shit in real life in a number of really shitty places and not just parrotting some shit they read online.

Here's a little news about my city...(I've seen in "real life").
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P1dmnjAEPA

I won't be giving up my guns anytime soon.

RKD Photographic wrote:

Funnily enough we look at you the same way - the kids who left home a little too soon but turned out more or less all right in the end even though they still refuse to listen to the Grown-Ups (with the voice of experience) and have to make their own mistakes before they learn how to do it right...

Oh c'mon, we showed Germany how to do it right in 1945.

KonstantKarma wrote:
If a woman looks like this, she probably doesn't need anything for self-defense:

But that's not what my models look like.

My eyes! Can't...forget...image. Must go to Met-Art/18+ webpage...now. >>

KonstantKarma wrote:

Oh c'mon, we showed Germany how to do it right in 1945.

Not by yourselves, you didn't...
US troops were only active in Europe from 1943 onwards (Operation Torch in North Africa was November 1942 and Patton's invasion of Sicily, in June 1943; by which time the Soviets had been fighting the Nazis for two years): much as I hate to say it, the European war was effectively won by the Soviets - all the Normandy landings did really was to ensure that only half of Europe ended up under Soviet/communist control.

Patton has been wrongly portrayed as someone who lusted for blood. No, he understood war, that through aggression one ultimately saves blood, by overwhelming and intimidating an opponent into either retreating or surrendering. Men were trapped, fighting for their lives, and he was going to get them out. No war was ever won by someone trying to be “reasonable.”

+1, but many people can't handle that sad truth. And, it applies to the topic of this thread.

When the shit hits the fan...it ain't "talk" that will save you.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
Don't do it KK! Don't get sucked into explaining the "two fronts" theory, etc. It would take pages of explanation and analysis, diagrams, etc.

Let the Brits have their fantasy...until they need us next time. LOL!

Hopefully when that time comes there will still be another "Patton"-like general still alive that hasn't been "pussified" with (European style) political correctness.

http://www.commandposts.com/2011/08/pat … emembered/


+1, but many people can't handle that sad truth. And, it applies to the topic of this thread.

When the shit hits the fan...it ain't "talk" that will save you.

I think you'll find the both the Iraq war and Afghanistan required the participation of UK and other coalition troops to enable operations in both countries to be ratified by the UN - same as Korea, actually, which was a wholly UN-led operation.

Patton was awesome - absolutely no argument there - had he been in overall command instead of Bradley, I think you would have seen a vastly different Western campaign and an end result which might not have ended in a cold war quite so devastating for the (Soviet) occupied European countries.
By contrast, Montgomery was an arsehole of epic proportions (I read his autobiography, it makes you want to puke) and his handling of allied airborne troops (both US and British) both during and after Market Garden to me illustrated that he was almost totally without imagination or flair when it came to leadership. He managed to squander almost 80% of those troops by using them as line infantry even though they were only equipped with light scales.
Had Monty been under Patton's command, I think his excesses would have been curbed and the proper allocation of supplies to Third Army (maybe under Gen. Patch), which was better placed to exploit German weaknesses than the British in the North would probably have prevented the German Ardennes offensive altogether: we'd have already been in Berlin by then.

RKD Photographic wrote:
I think you'll find the both the Iraq war and Afghanistan required the participation of UK and other coalition troops to enable operations in both countries to be ratified by the UN - same as Korea, actually, which was a wholly UN-led operation.

No argument, but I believe it's not exactly a "Blue Helmut" type UN operation, but more technically a "Coalition" of (loosely formed) NATO type forces...correct?
And which the US mostly pays the bill.

Patton was awesome - absolutely no argument there - had he been in overall command instead of Bradley, I think you would have seen a vastly different Western campaign and an end result which might not have ended in a cold war quite so devastating for the (Soviet) occupied European countries.

Spot On, from what I know.

The reason that I think this directly relates to this thread about self-protection is true self-protection is very much like war.

When the time comes to "get serious"...the time is past for "reasoned negotiation"...and it's only with immediate (overwhelming) action that you can stop the aggression as fast as possible.

Patton understood that only through grotesque violence could lives be ultimately saved (and bloodshed reduced). Make the "other guy" die for his country. Peace coming through strength. Or, the "big stick" theory.

Gabby57 wrote:

So much for cultural tolerance I see.  Far better to raise children to remain children, forever terrified of inanimate objects, they make better "subjects" that way.

I'm perfectly happy to tolerate your culture, doesn't mean I have to admire it.

RKD Photographic wrote:

And Bro, you have EARNED the right to have an opinion! (this at age 47!, no less!). Many of the younger folks don't fully appreciate what EXACTLY that entails. LOL! It's SO nice to meet someone who backs it up with something other than "chin muscle" and bullshit. GREAT pics/links.

I thank you for your service. even if it was for the UK (LOL!), it's an allied nation. Much appreciated. And being a Corporal and a Sergeant means you actually "worked" for a living!
That I respect more than anything.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:

David-Harrison wrote:
Aww how cute, a pink gun for a 10 year old.

And by 'cute' I mean jaw-droppingly screwed-up.

Don't worry Gabby! It's just another who's probably never been here, throwing stones at our "lifestyle" from across the vast ocean.

Someday they'll need us (and our weapons) again...and their tune will change quickly.

They're happy to let someone else "protect" them. It's their culture, they're used to it.

Military deaths, WW2

UK  0.8% of population
US  0.3%

WW1

UK  1.9%
US  0.1%

Yeah, thanks for your "protection"; and don't forget Africa, the rest of Europe, Australasia.

RKD Photographic wrote:

Not by yourselves, you didn't...
US troops were only active in Europe from 1943 onwards (Operation Torch in North Africa was November 1942 and Patton's invasion of Sicily, in June 1943; by which time the Soviets had been fighting the Nazis for two years): much as I hate to say it, the European war was effectively won by the Soviets - all the Normandy landings did really was to ensure that only half of Europe ended up under Soviet/communist control.

Are you sure? That's not the way Hollywood tries to tell it.

David-Harrison wrote:
Military deaths, WW2

UK  0.8% of population
US  0.3%

Yeah, thanks for your "protection"; and don't forget Africa, the rest of Europe, Australasia.

So you blame British deaths on the fact that USA didn't get there quick enough? LOL! (Ironic).

I guess US .3% (compared to your .8%) wasn't sacrifice enough for you?
Maybe more of US should have fallen on the sword for Montgomery?
Never enough for you Brit's! (that's why we 86'ed you!) 

BTW: US lost 416,800...the UK(including colonies) lost 383,000 in combat. Another UK 67,000 in civilian deaths.

And sadly,...notice that statistic includes the sacrifice of your colonies (and civilians)...so, to me, just more proof of an "entitled" culture of needing "others" to protect and sacrifice for you. LOL!

David-Harrison wrote:
Military deaths, WW2
UK  0.8% of population
US  0.3%

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
Never enough for you Brit's! (that's why we 86'ed you!)

Actually, that's incorrect.

We didn't "86" you...we "76'ed" you! LOL!

ArtisticGlamour wrote:

So you blame British deaths on the fact that USA didn't get there quick enough? LOL! (Ironic).

I guess US .3% (compared to your .8%) wasn't sacrifice enough for you?
Maybe more of US should have fallen on the sword for Montgomery?
Never enough for you Brit's! (that's why we 86'ed you!) 

BTW: US lost 416,800...the UK(including colonies) lost 383,000 in combat. Another UK 67,000 in civilian deaths.

And sadly,...notice that statistic includes the sacrifice of your colonies (and civilians)...so, to me, just more proof of an "entitled" culture of needing "others" to protect and sacrifice for you. LOL!

Where did I blame British deaths on the US not getting there quickly enough? Don't dare put words in my mouth.
Where did I say the US sacrifice of lives wasn't enough?
My point was in response to yours that we'd soon need your protection again and it was part of our culture. From a country that took 4 years to enter WW2, I consider that a insult to the thousands of men and woman who had already lost their lives from the UK and the other countries.

David-Harrison wrote:
My point was in response to yours that we'd soon need your protection again and it was part of our culture. From a country that took 4 years to enter WW2, I consider that a insult to the thousands of men and woman who had already lost their lives from the UK and the other countries.

As I said...boo-f#@king-hoo...you cry because we didn't get there soon enough (except with $31.4billion of our manufacturing). It's never enough for you entitled wankers. It's your culture, I guess.

See, a LOT of people here in the USA thought we should let you fight your own fight and not get involved. They called it "isolationism". But, eventually we (and your colonies, and even Russia) saved your ass. Sometimes I wonder WHY!? LOL!

ALSO...when I say "we" I am talking about US History (my Dad and his buddies)...not myself personally.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:

As I said...boo f#@king hoo...you cry because we didn't get there soon enough (except with our manufacturing). See, a LOT of people here in the USA thought we should let you fight your own fight and not get involved. They called it "isolationism". But, eventually we (and your colonies, and even Russia) saved your ass. Sometimes I wonder WHY!? LOL!

ALSO...when I say "we" I am talking about US History (my Dad and his buddies)...not myself personally.

Yes, and I'm talking my dad and his buddies. And you know what, it wasn't a case of saving Britain's ass, or "our" fight - it was a case of stopping the takeover of the whole of Europe and beyond by a Nazi, fascist dictatorship.

David-Harrison wrote:
Yes, and I'm talking my dad and his buddies. And you know what, it wasn't a case of saving Britain's ass, or "our" fight - it was a case of stopping the takeover of the whole of Europe and beyond by a Nazi, fascist dictatorship.

Meh...not if YOU would have stopped them. WTF? LOL!

So, then tell me all about the Gurkhas, then...a prime modern example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha_Justice_Campaign

Just face it...it's your culture to use others (Colonies, Gurkhas, US, etc) to protect the crown. And that "dependant" culture trickles all the way down to independent gun ownership...and counting on the police to protect you personally. It's a kingdom that goes back thousands of years with that same give-TAKE culture.

Sadly, we are becoming more LIKE you.

olegvolk Oleg Volk wrote:
Most of my models already carry sidearms. Realistically, the only reason why you'd need one on a photo shoot is if you walk into a trap the first time. That gives you a chance to back away without losses. Once you figure out that the photographer is safe, then a sidearm isn't necessary (and often not quickly accessible).
Still having one is prudent for the trip there and back and in case some unexpected danger comes form the outside (feral dogs or humans, for example).

How do you spot a dangerous photographer what are the tell tale signs ? ? big pointed teeth and a black cloak ! jumping out of the dark !

c_h_r_i_s wrote:

Were they photographers ?

I didn't ask them that.

Eowyn-Rose wrote:
I check references. I have someone know the names, times, and addresses for all shoots, and then just check in when I get there/leave. It's good to have someone know where you are as a general rule of safety, but I usually just have to check in because I'm running late for dinner after checking out the cool shots we took that day.

Regardless, a weapon isn't going to do you much good in your bag somewhere else while you shoot. I find knowing some self defense maneuvers much easier to carry with me at all times than mace.

You use common sense!  I like that!

Not to change the topic too much, I am a huge fan and supporter of Malala Yousafzai.  If you don't remember, she is the girl that was shot in the head by a coward hired by terrorists (the Taliban) as it is a terrible sin against Allah in the Muslin faith to kill children.  Malala lives and is a advocate of girls every where!  The Taliban targeted her because they don't want women or girls to get an education.  You see ... terrorists have no weapon against education. 

With that said, it's common sense and becoming educated that will always be a better weapon against evil in this World.

Anna Von Leigh wrote:
Ok kids, I want to get other llamas ideas on this subject. Feeling protected on photo shoots. I'm talking about bringing a weapon or pepper spray, or something of that matter to a shoot.

We all have our bag full of clothes and makeup, do you also carry a knife? Gun? Taser?


*EDITED*

What good will that do you? when I carry a 45!

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
Here's a little news about my city...(I've seen in "real life").
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P1dmnjAEPA

I won't be giving up my guns anytime soon.

So you are a drug dealer?  That taped phone call of drama between a "rival drug dealer" being kidnapped is so scary, that I wont ever deal drugs!  The vast majority of killings in the streets of cities like yours and mine are done between rival gang members ... many of which come up from Mexico.  So unless you've got some "rival" wanting to kidnap you for money or kill you, what are you worried about?

I don't need a gun, and never have.  My brain is by far the best weapon I have! 

T A Y L O R  wrote:
I have some mace on my keychain. I bring that everywhere.

this.
i also usually have a pocket knife.

but i don't only take those things to photo shoots.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
Guns are like Pit Bulls...nobody wants to see them or hear about them at "tasteful" cocktail parties, until they actually need them, then it's all about "how quick" can they respond.

Most can't handle the truth...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo
Sadly, well stated in this Hollywood speech...Spot On.

"Self"-protection is a serious responsibility.
Training, training, training...whichever "tool" you "use".

Um...
Pitbulls are cute, cuddly, sensitive and wise dogs.  I don't really get your analogy.

Rik Austin wrote:
This is way off topic.  There is little else to be said in this thread but if you feel you must then keep it on topic and polite.

Man!!!!   This thread went to hell in a basket!!!  From model protection to guns and then to World War II?    

Excuse me!  War is not fought like it was over 60 years ago!!   Heck, war is not fought like it was 20 years ago!  We use drones and the Internet.  Guns are so ancient and useless against intelligence.  Use your brains, people!!!  Only barbaric terrorists, and gangsters use guns.  The best way to protect yourself from harm, is to not put yourself there in the first place.