Please visit one of the specific Bimmerpost sites above  

Go Back   BMW 3-Series (E90 E92) Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      12-17-2012, 03:14 PM   #45
MiddleAgedAl
First Lieutenant
 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sitting down, facing the keyboard

Posts: 316
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate4641 View Post
To say that no one needs to own an assault weapon just shows you do not know as much about firearms as those who are afraid they will be taken away.
Seriously, what exactly are you afraid of ?

Are you honestly afraid that your ability to defend yourself against the government will be impaired, because, you know, without such a ban, you and your rifle could easily fend off a bunch of troops who are equipped with body armor, night vision goggles, tanks, RPGs and helicopter gunships, when the "police state" lockdown inevitably comes? Back when the 2nd amendment was written, I suppose the premise of "the people" fighting back was not so crazy, but then all the gear listed above was not invented yet, so the field was more level. Still, last I checked, places like Australia, Canada, England have not oppressed their people, despite the lack of ability of their electorate to shoot back if they tried to do so.

Are you honestly afraid that walking around in public you are that less safe without a handgun in your jacket, because someone is about to shoot you? No, that cant be right, because the argument is that such shootings are extremely rare, so if they are so rare, then why do you need to carry one for protection if you are more likely to be struck by lightning? If your safety is a concern, then you should logically build yourself a portable lightning shield before you get around to carrying a gun.

Why would you stay here if you are that convinced that your own government was perpetually that close to crossing the bounds we've given it, or if the chance of you being shot in the menswear section of Macy's was that great that you legitimately needed the ability to carry at all times so you could shoot back ? Lots of other places in the world where the people dont have the ability to own assault weapons, yet they dont seem to be consumed with such daily fear or paranoia.

If someone in Sydney or Toronto gets to raise their kids in an environment where they dont get shot in grade 1, dont you think you deserve that right too?

Ultimately, the question is this: Which type of freedom would you prefer, being allowed to own an assault rifle, or not having to worry about being in a situation where you really need one in the first place ? Of course both would be nice, but observation shows that not too many places exist where both things are true at once.
MiddleAgedAl is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-17-2012, 04:24 PM   #46
JuuS
Private
 
Drives: 2009 135i
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC

Posts: 93
iTrader: (0)

I own a 9mm, shotgun and a rifle with a mil-spec barrel. And I am in CANADA! Shocking? Not really for us. Lots of us own guns up here. A lot more than is widely stereotyped when you think about Canada I am sure. Heck, I could go out and buy a .50 cal Barrett or a Sako .338 Lapua right now if I wanted to. But why? I have no government to overthrow. Isn't it easier to elect someone I like?

Simply put, it's obvious the gun culture is different up here. Ownership is regulated, licensed and controlled and I'm not complaining. I understand it as a privilege and responsibility - not a birth right. This may sound weird for Americans, but I'm thankful for the ability of our government to revoke licenses and remove guns from bad owners. We'd no less for bad drivers, don't we?
JuuS is offline   Canada
0
Reply With Quote
      12-17-2012, 04:52 PM   #47
UncleWede
Long Time Admirer, First Time Owner
 
UncleWede's Avatar
 
Drives: E90 325i Arctic
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxnard, CA

Posts: 2,284
iTrader: (0)

I own guns. My father gave me my first for Christmas at about age 12.
I'm teaching my son a healthy respect for firearms. We are going thru hunting license routine together. His only comment so far: "This seems like common sense" I had to remind him that, unfortunately, it's not so common any longer.
I was a previous member of NRA, but they were CONSTANTLY telling me I had dues to pay, so I stopped.
I have shot "assault rifles" It was enjoyable for a bunch of us near the end of the day to save a complete mag/clip/barrel of ammo and shoot it all together as the grand finalé.
I can support much more intensive regulation of gun ownership. I wish there was something akin to driving tests, with the need to recertify every couple of years.

BUT,

how much longer would it have taken me, with a snub-nose 6-shot .38 revolver and a few speed loaders, to kill all those people? (ASSUMING I had the mental DISability to try it)

I would be willing to trade 10-20 rounds from my maximum magazine, for some much-needed emotional/mental support for these kids who society is leaving for the TV to raise. Both will cost money. Willing to make the trade?

P.S. Read up on Oedipus complex, it will be a contributing factor in the CT case. This kid was extremely jealous of his mother's attention paid to all the little kids in her class.
UncleWede is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-17-2012, 07:33 PM   #48
RambleJ
Colonel
 
RambleJ's Avatar
 
Drives: F10 535i M-sport
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Back in teh so cal

Posts: 2,013
iTrader: (2)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl View Post
Would they? Is it really that inevitable? Is there an Australian equivalent, for example ? Why do the crazies down under not commit these mass murders? Is it something in the water ? In all seriousness, this is something we need to look at, IMHO, rather than just adopting some defeatist attitude, give up, and just say, well, I guess our kids will continue to be in danger, because I am a good gun owner so I dont want to give up my right to carry.

I wonder if everyone in Sydney walks down the street in terror everyday, because they cant pack a gun, so they cant shoot back if someone shoots at them?

Or, maybe they are content, not because they are exercising their right to carry a gun to defend themselves, but because they know they dont need that right to make it home in 1 piece.
Australia -
*Port Arthur massacre - In 1996, armed with two semi-automatic rifles, Martin Bryant killed 35 people around Port Arthur and wounded 21 before being caught by police the next day following an overnight siege.
*Childers Palace Fire - In June 2000, drifter and con-artist Robert Long started a fire at the Childers Palace backpackers hostel that killed 15 people.
*Monash University shooting - In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five.
Canada isn't all that innocent either.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/...nada-2011.html

We live in the states so we see the states issues more prominent than what happens in other countries.
RambleJ is offline   No_Country
0
Reply With Quote
      12-17-2012, 08:40 PM   #49
MiddleAgedAl
First Lieutenant
 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sitting down, facing the keyboard

Posts: 316
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by RambleJ View Post
Australia -
*Port Arthur massacre - In 1996, armed with two semi-automatic rifles, Martin Bryant killed 35 people around Port Arthur and wounded 21 before being caught by police the next day following an overnight siege.
*Childers Palace Fire - In June 2000, drifter and con-artist Robert Long started a fire at the Childers Palace backpackers hostel that killed 15 people.
*Monash University shooting - In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five.
Canada isn't all that innocent either.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/...nada-2011.html

We live in the states so we see the states issues more prominent than what happens in other countries.
Are those the only incidents that happened? If so, then they span a period of 16 years, and yet still fail to meet the American total for this calendar year alone (which isnt even over yet).

Of course utopia (zero incidents) is out of the question anywhere, but given the events of the last few months, there is a LOT of room for improvement between where we are today, and utopia. Hell, there's a lot of room between where we are today and most of the other G8 countries, let alone utopia.

Just read the link you provided. "The number of homocides in Canada rose to 598 in 2011, 44 more than the previous year". Thats in ALL OF CANADA. Not one city, the whole f'ing country. NYC alone had almost that many all by itself.

In response to the Port Arthur massacre, the Aussie government not only swiftly enacted a series of much more restrictive laws with respect to firearms, but they also instituted a buy-back program to get the existing weapons off the streets before they could be used. This was compulsory, not a voluntary thing. Instead of violently resisting against the authorities, which is the predicted response if that were to be tried here, this plan actually seemed to enjoy widespread support.

The whole "pry it from my cold dead hands" mentality was conspicuously absent. I guess their people didnt feel that such a restriction would legitimately impair their own safety. Isn't the ability to honestly say that a type of freedom in itself?
MiddleAgedAl is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-17-2012, 09:25 PM   #50
Eagle1oh7
Captain
 
Eagle1oh7's Avatar
 
Drives: '11 328i Sedan
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Chula Vista CA

Posts: 662
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl View Post
Are those the only incidents that happened? If so, then they span a period of 16 years, and yet still fail to meet the American total for this calendar year alone (which isnt even over yet).

Of course utopia (zero incidents) is out of the question anywhere, but given the events of the last few months, there is a LOT of room for improvement between where we are today, and utopia. Hell, there's a lot of room between where we are today and most of the other G8 countries, let alone utopia.

Just read the link you provided. "The number of homocides in Canada rose to 598 in 2011, 44 more than the previous year". Thats in ALL OF CANADA. Not one city, the whole f'ing country. NYC alone had almost that many all by itself.

In response to the Port Arthur massacre, the Aussie government not only swiftly enacted a series of much more restrictive laws with respect to firearms, but they also instituted a buy-back program to get the existing weapons off the streets before they could be used. This was compulsory, not a voluntary thing. Instead of violently resisting against the authorities, which is the predicted response if that were to be tried here, this plan actually seemed to enjoy widespread support.

The whole "pry it from my cold dead hands" mentality was conspicuously absent. I guess their people didnt feel that such a restriction would legitimately impair their own safety. Isn't the ability to honestly say that a type of freedom in itself?

That's why people that try and say gun control doesn't work don't get it when they use their examples that span 10+ years and ignore the last 365 days here in the United States.
Eagle1oh7 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-17-2012, 10:38 PM   #51
RambleJ
Colonel
 
RambleJ's Avatar
 
Drives: F10 535i M-sport
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Back in teh so cal

Posts: 2,013
iTrader: (2)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl View Post
Are those the only incidents that happened? If so, then they span a period of 16 years, and yet still fail to meet the American total for this calendar year alone (which isnt even over yet).

Of course utopia (zero incidents) is out of the question anywhere, but given the events of the last few months, there is a LOT of room for improvement between where we are today, and utopia. Hell, there's a lot of room between where we are today and most of the other G8 countries, let alone utopia.

Just read the link you provided. "The number of homocides in Canada rose to 598 in 2011, 44 more than the previous year". Thats in ALL OF CANADA. Not one city, the whole f'ing country. NYC alone had almost that many all by itself.

In response to the Port Arthur massacre, the Aussie government not only swiftly enacted a series of much more restrictive laws with respect to firearms, but they also instituted a buy-back program to get the existing weapons off the streets before they could be used. This was compulsory, not a voluntary thing. Instead of violently resisting against the authorities, which is the predicted response if that were to be tried here, this plan actually seemed to enjoy widespread support.

The whole "pry it from my cold dead hands" mentality was conspicuously absent. I guess their people didnt feel that such a restriction would legitimately impair their own safety. Isn't the ability to honestly say that a type of freedom in itself?
I never stated they were on par with us. You were ranting on as if this only happens here in the states.
RambleJ is offline   No_Country
0
Reply With Quote
      12-17-2012, 10:40 PM   #52
Mr Tonka
Tonka.... Mr. Tonka
 
Drives: Exceptionally well :)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Tampa, FL

Posts: 1,147
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl View Post
Are those the only incidents that happened? If so, then they span a period of 16 years, and yet still fail to meet the American total for this calendar year alone (which isnt even over yet).

Of course utopia (zero incidents) is out of the question anywhere, but given the events of the last few months, there is a LOT of room for improvement between where we are today, and utopia. Hell, there's a lot of room between where we are today and most of the other G8 countries, let alone utopia.

Just read the link you provided. "The number of homocides in Canada rose to 598 in 2011, 44 more than the previous year". Thats in ALL OF CANADA. Not one city, the whole f'ing country. NYC alone had almost that many all by itself.

In response to the Port Arthur massacre, the Aussie government not only swiftly enacted a series of much more restrictive laws with respect to firearms, but they also instituted a buy-back program to get the existing weapons off the streets before they could be used. This was compulsory, not a voluntary thing. Instead of violently resisting against the authorities, which is the predicted response if that were to be tried here, this plan actually seemed to enjoy widespread support.

The whole "pry it from my cold dead hands" mentality was conspicuously absent. I guess their people didnt feel that such a restriction would legitimately impair their own safety. Isn't the ability to honestly say that a type of freedom in itself?
Do you think that the size and density of the two places have something to do with that?

If you live in Canada there is only 9 people per 1 square mile. If you live in Australia there are only 7.7 people per 1 square mile. In NYC there are 27,301 people per 1 square mile. I'm not saying it makes anything ok, but it might explain some things.

Just trying to inject some relativity with the comparisons of a country with 314,000,000 to countries with a fraction of that. NYC alone is 40% of Australia's population and is 25% of Canada's population. I understand that most statistics compare everything to per 100,000 residents but i can't help to think that there are some intangibles that have an effect on these statistics.

I don't know this for a fact, but i would imagine that everyday firearm homicides mostly occur in major metropolitan areas. But it seems that many of these mass shootings occur in small town america. Some what counter intuitive. I wonder what that could be attributed to?
__________________
-Joe


"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." — Frédéric Bastiat
Mr Tonka is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-18-2012, 03:17 AM   #53
Nate4641
Captain
 
Nate4641's Avatar
 
Drives: '07 M Roadster
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Africa

Posts: 783
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl View Post
Seriously, what exactly are you afraid of ?

Are you honestly afraid that your ability to defend yourself against the government will be impaired, because, you know, without such a ban, you and your rifle could easily fend off a bunch of troops who are equipped with body armor, night vision goggles, tanks, RPGs and helicopter gunships, when the "police state" lockdown inevitably comes? Back when the 2nd amendment was written, I suppose the premise of "the people" fighting back was not so crazy, but then all the gear listed above was not invented yet, so the field was more level. Still, last I checked, places like Australia, Canada, England have not oppressed their people, despite the lack of ability of their electorate to shoot back if they tried to do so.
Clearly you have not been reading my posts in the tone I intended them to be.

1. I do not own firearms and have not succumb to buying out of fear my freedoms will be tampered with.

2. I am one of those troops. And if you honestly think that the collective military will unconsciously flip a switch an obey all orders to start attacking Americans you need a reality check. We are people too, we are not the mindless, soulless, thoughtless drones the movies play us out to be. While we are taught to follow orders without question, turning guns on fellow Americans will not happen.

3. The taliban has been fending off troops with greater technology for quite awhile now. They are still on the losing side, but still causing enough damage that the people back home want it to end even though they have no real idea what is going on over there.

4. My argument about taking assault weapons away was about taking away someone's recreation, not personal defense. By claiming that you are uneducated about firearms I was referring to the fact that the majority of gun owners use them for sport and dont just keep them by the bed or on their belt in case of an emergency. Your question about what I am afraid of clearly shows you didn't actually read my post and that you really do not understand the stance of those trying to protect their firearm ownership. Its not about taking away one's method to protect themselves against the government, its about taking away someone's recreation and hobby because you do not understand it and do not agree with it.
__________________
2007 ///M Roadster Interlagos Blue & Dark Beige top over Light Sepang extended leather - 19in Morr VS8.2--RPI exhaust--AFE Intake--DKF Hangers--Vibra Technics Engine Mounts--Cosmos Firewall Braces--BMW Strut Brace--Tekarbon CF Engine Cover--Aero Side Skirts--F10 M5 Knob--LeatherZ Mk4 Armrest--SmartTOP Roof Controller--Zeckhausen Racing CDV--DansDecals Reflector Decals--Clutch Stop--LED Trunk Light--Stubby Antenna
Nate4641 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-18-2012, 03:08 PM   #54
MiddleAgedAl
First Lieutenant
 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sitting down, facing the keyboard

Posts: 316
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MP0WER View Post
Do you think that the size and density of the two places have something to do with that?
Actually, no I dont.

If you compare city to city, you'll see that Toronto is both more highly populated in raw people (more than double the head count), and more densely populated (people per square mile) than say, Detroit, only a couple hundred miles away. In 2011, Toronto had 45 murders, while Detroit had 346. If jamming more people into a small area is a recipe for violence, these stats would be reversed.

It's worth keeping in mind that comparing a density average of a city to a country is a bit misleading. Most of Canada and Australia are vast unpopulated wilderness, with probably 90% of the population compressed into a few major cities, not evenly spread out over 7 people per square mile. I would guess a very tiny percentage of Canadians or Australians only have 6 other people living within a 1 square mile radius of them.

I would agree there must be some intangibles, but if living close together were it, then Tokyo would be the most dangerous place on earth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MP0WER View Post
But it seems that many of these mass shootings occur in small town america. Some what counter intuitive. I wonder what that could be attributed to?
That is odd, I've noticed that pattern myself. Perhaps, since statistics show that someone living in a house in a rural area is more likely to own multiple guns than someone in a bachelor apartment downtown, and since the perpetrators of mass shootings tend to carry multiple weapons with them, that might explain the correlation a bit ?
MiddleAgedAl is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-18-2012, 03:20 PM   #55
MiddleAgedAl
First Lieutenant
 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sitting down, facing the keyboard

Posts: 316
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate4641 View Post
Its not about taking away one's method to protect themselves against the government, its about taking away someone's recreation and hobby because you do not understand it and do not agree with it.
Actually, I dont have a problem with recreational use. Someone made an analogy comparing guns to cars, or making them faster with turbos, and regulating that. (might have been you who originally did that, not sure, sorry).

Anyway, that is quite relevant I think. I have a good buddy who has a 9 second drag car. As one might guess, it's a monster, and in fact is not legal to drive on the street. He trailers it everywhere, and opens it up on the track only. Nobody NEEDS a 9 second quarter mile drag car with 700hp or whatever the hell it is, just like nobody needs an assault rifle. But, he wants one, can afford it, and is happy to endure regulations in order to get to play with it. The gov sez, if you want, you can go crazy fast if you want, just not in "public" where you could more easily hurt others.

If they had gun ranges or parks such that you show up, and retrieve your fully automatic UZI from their on-site locker, then you can burn thru 10,000 rounds if you want, even aiming at targets that have my face on them ! I got no problem with that.

When you are done, it gets locked back up so that it cannot be used on the street. If the joy of shooting is motivating you, not the fear of needing to return fire with a hypothetical bad guy, then I suppose youd have no problem with that scenario either.
MiddleAgedAl is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-18-2012, 05:09 PM   #56
Nate4641
Captain
 
Nate4641's Avatar
 
Drives: '07 M Roadster
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Africa

Posts: 783
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl View Post
Actually, I dont have a problem with recreational use. Someone made an analogy comparing guns to cars, or making them faster with turbos, and regulating that. (might have been you who originally did that, not sure, sorry).

Anyway, that is quite relevant I think. I have a good buddy who has a 9 second drag car. As one might guess, it's a monster, and in fact is not legal to drive on the street. He trailers it everywhere, and opens it up on the track only. Nobody NEEDS a 9 second quarter mile drag car with 700hp or whatever the hell it is, just like nobody needs an assault rifle. But, he wants one, can afford it, and is happy to endure regulations in order to get to play with it. The gov sez, if you want, you can go crazy fast if you want, just not in "public" where you could more easily hurt others.

If they had gun ranges or parks such that you show up, and retrieve your fully automatic UZI from their on-site locker, then you can burn thru 10,000 rounds if you want, even aiming at targets that have my face on them ! I got no problem with that.

When you are done, it gets locked back up so that it cannot be used on the street. If the joy of shooting is motivating you, not the fear of needing to return fire with a hypothetical bad guy, then I suppose youd have no problem with that scenario either.
That isnt a bad idea honestly. However, I'm sure your friend with the 9 second drag car enjoys bringing it home, looking at it in the garage and working on whatever needs to be worked on. People who are really into guns arent just done with their hobby when the last round is through the barrel and the safety is on. When I used to go shooting with a friend of mine in Hawaii we made it a weekend event. We would spend a night hand loading a few hundred rounds, go to the range the next morning, then come back home and clean the guns. Thats the difference between owning a gun because you're scared and having a passion for it.
__________________
2007 ///M Roadster Interlagos Blue & Dark Beige top over Light Sepang extended leather - 19in Morr VS8.2--RPI exhaust--AFE Intake--DKF Hangers--Vibra Technics Engine Mounts--Cosmos Firewall Braces--BMW Strut Brace--Tekarbon CF Engine Cover--Aero Side Skirts--F10 M5 Knob--LeatherZ Mk4 Armrest--SmartTOP Roof Controller--Zeckhausen Racing CDV--DansDecals Reflector Decals--Clutch Stop--LED Trunk Light--Stubby Antenna
Nate4641 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-18-2012, 05:51 PM   #57
MiddleAgedAl
First Lieutenant
 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sitting down, facing the keyboard

Posts: 316
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate4641 View Post
That isnt a bad idea honestly. However, I'm sure your friend with the 9 second drag car enjoys bringing it home, looking at it in the garage and working on whatever needs to be worked on. People who are really into guns arent just done with their hobby when the last round is through the barrel and the safety is on. When I used to go shooting with a friend of mine in Hawaii we made it a weekend event. We would spend a night hand loading a few hundred rounds, go to the range the next morning, then come back home and clean the guns. Thats the difference between owning a gun because you're scared and having a passion for it.
Believe it or not, I do get that aspect of it too. Maybe then these controlled facilities could provide an on-site lounge or something where you and your friend could sit and clean your guns afterwards, while some hot young blonde keeps your beer glass topped up, or bring you hot wings or something, while your favorite NFL game is on the 60" HD flatsceen on the wall. It doesnt have to represent a huge sacrifice compared to doing it in your kitchen.

Remember, people whose passion is flying cessna's, or riding horses, etc, dont get to see or touch their prized possessions in the comfort of their own home either. I'm not sure they would say they are enduring some great hardship because of it. There are guys with track cars who live in apartments or dont have a proper garage, and keep the car in some offsite storage facility too, they can still go polish it, or work on it when they want.

It's all about managing risk. My buddy with the 9 second drag car doesnt need to worry that the mentally unbalanced kid next door might break into his garage, conceal the car in his jacket, and then carry it into a grade 1 classroom, or shopping mall food court, or movie theatre, and then unleash it's power on some unsuspecting innocent people.
MiddleAgedAl is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-18-2012, 09:37 PM   #58
Mr Tonka
Tonka.... Mr. Tonka
 
Drives: Exceptionally well :)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Tampa, FL

Posts: 1,147
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl View Post
Actually, I dont have a problem with recreational use. Someone made an analogy comparing guns to cars, or making them faster with turbos, and regulating that. (might have been you who originally did that, not sure, sorry).

Anyway, that is quite relevant I think. I have a good buddy who has a 9 second drag car. As one might guess, it's a monster, and in fact is not legal to drive on the street. He trailers it everywhere, and opens it up on the track only. Nobody NEEDS a 9 second quarter mile drag car with 700hp or whatever the hell it is, just like nobody needs an assault rifle. But, he wants one, can afford it, and is happy to endure regulations in order to get to play with it. The gov sez, if you want, you can go crazy fast if you want, just not in "public" where you could more easily hurt others.

If they had gun ranges or parks such that you show up, and retrieve your fully automatic UZI from their on-site locker, then you can burn thru 10,000 rounds if you want, even aiming at targets that have my face on them ! I got no problem with that.

When you are done, it gets locked back up so that it cannot be used on the street. If the joy of shooting is motivating you, not the fear of needing to return fire with a hypothetical bad guy, then I suppose youd have no problem with that scenario either.
What about cars like mine, completely street legal, that are capable of doubling any speed limit in the country? Or the ability to have the computer flashed to remove the top speed limiter?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl View Post
Believe it or not, I do get that aspect of it too. Maybe then these controlled facilities could provide an on-site lounge or something where you and your friend could sit and clean your guns afterwards, while some hot young blonde keeps your beer glass topped up, or bring you hot wings or something, while your favorite NFL game is on the 60" HD flatsceen on the wall. It doesnt have to represent a huge sacrifice compared to doing it in your kitchen.

Remember, people whose passion is flying cessna's, or riding horses, etc, dont get to see or touch their prized possessions in the comfort of their own home either. I'm not sure they would say they are enduring some great hardship because of it. There are guys with track cars who live in apartments or dont have a proper garage, and keep the car in some offsite storage facility too, they can still go polish it, or work on it when they want.

It's all about managing risk. My buddy with the 9 second drag car doesnt need to worry that the mentally unbalanced kid next door might break into his garage, conceal the car in his jacket, and then carry it into a grade 1 classroom, or shopping mall food court, or movie theatre, and then unleash it's power on some unsuspecting innocent people.
That sounds like my kind of place!!

Those people who chose flying and horses as their passion knew going into it. It's not like the government decided to disallow them the ability to keep their plane at their house because a, what was it.... "infinitesimally small" number of pilots break the FAA rules.

People who have proper storage for their firearms don't have to worry about this either. Unfortunately, this doesn't apply to all gun owners.
__________________
-Joe


"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." — Frédéric Bastiat
Mr Tonka is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-19-2012, 01:10 AM   #59
ken1137
Brigadier General
 
ken1137's Avatar
 
Drives: a slow 2009 e90 335i
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Chicago

Posts: 3,678
iTrader: (7)

Garage List
2009 e90 335i  [3.20]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate4641 View Post
4. My argument about taking assault weapons away was about taking away someone's recreation, not personal defense. By claiming that you are uneducated about firearms I was referring to the fact that the majority of gun owners use them for sport and dont just keep them by the bed or on their belt in case of an emergency. Your question about what I am afraid of clearly shows you didn't actually read my post and that you really do not understand the stance of those trying to protect their firearm ownership. Its not about taking away one's method to protect themselves against the government, its about taking away someone's recreation and hobby because you do not understand it and do not agree with it.
+1...I own a Mini 14 and AR 15 and shoot at the range on a regular basis. This is one of my hobbies just like modding my BMWs. At one point I was considering entering amateur 9 mm shootings contests. Next season I would like to play more golf so I will probably go to the range less or spend less time modding my car. I started shooting when I was 9 on my grandfather's farm and yes, I do have specific weapons for home Defense but not the Mini 14 or AR 15. They are in a fire & water proof safe w/other weapons & ammo which is bolted to the basement floor. My kids will never have access to my safe.
__________________

BMWCCA member
ken1137 is online now   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-19-2012, 09:43 AM   #60
Mr Tonka
Tonka.... Mr. Tonka
 
Drives: Exceptionally well :)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Tampa, FL

Posts: 1,147
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ken1137 View Post
+1...I own a Mini 14 and AR 15 and shoot at the range on a regular basis. This is one of my hobbies just like modding my BMWs. At one point I was considering entering amateur 9 mm shootings contests. Next season I would like to play more golf so I will probably go to the range less or spend less time modding my car. I started shooting when I was 9 on my grandfather's farm and yes, I do have specific weapons for home Defense but not the Mini 14 or AR 15. They are in a fire & water proof safe w/other weapons & ammo which is bolted to the basement floor. My kids will never have access to my safe.


Good job on the safe. People should realize that lockable security cabinets can be had for around $200. Not everyone has the means to get a $1000 safe or has the space for it. But a security cabinet can be a relatively small and inexpensive way to keep our firearms out of the hands of those who have no business handling them.

Not to mention that every firearm purchased new comes with a locking mechanism for additional protection.
__________________
-Joe


"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." — Frédéric Bastiat
Mr Tonka is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-19-2012, 09:49 AM   #61
Templar
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Templar's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 E92 M3
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: One of the coasts...

Posts: 1,816
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2011 BMW M3  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by MP0WER View Post


Good job on the safe. People should realize that lockable security cabinets can be had for around $200. Not everyone has the means to get a $1000 safe or has the space for it. But a security cabinet can be a relatively small and inexpensive way to keep our firearms out of the hands of those who have no business handling them.

Not to mention that every firearm purchased new comes with a locking mechanism for additional protection.
True.

My hunting rifles and my shotgun are locked securely in my safe in my bedroom closet. Two keys, one currently in my pocket and the other on my soon-to-be wife's keyring. I'm proud to say, she's quite the shot
__________________
'11 BMW E92 ///M3 - ZCP and DCT
'13 Toyota Tundra - 4x4 Platinum CrewMax, 5.7l iForce V8
Templar is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-19-2012, 03:21 PM   #62
MiddleAgedAl
First Lieutenant
 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sitting down, facing the keyboard

Posts: 316
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MP0WER View Post
What about cars like mine, completely street legal, that are capable of doubling any speed limit in the country? Or the ability to have the computer flashed to remove the top speed limiter?
OK, what about such cars? You car is capable of easily going > 120mph. So is mine. If you choose to exercise that ability in an unwise manner (ie: on the street instead of the track), you could be charged with a variety of things depending on where you are, it's not as if you are unregulated. Personally, I think track days are the most fun you can have with your clothes on, but I would never call for allowing everyone, regardless of training, to be allowed to drive their car as fast as they want on the street.

The old line that since more die in cars than from guns, that cars should be more regulated than guns, is a specious argument at best.

You dont even need a street legal car capable of 120 to harm others; a worn out 1963 Volkswagen Beetle which strains to hit 50mph could easily kill a 10 year old boy, but nobody is calling for banning of cars (even such slow ones) because of the net societal benefit they provide. Thousands a year die in a car, yes, but hundreds of millions a year enjoy the benefits of all forms of "horseless carriage", in many direct ways. Getting dad to work so he can pay the mortgage, getting mom to the store to buy food so we dont starve, getting grandma to her chemotherapy appointment so she can see her grandkids graduate. Hell, even getting a gunshot victim to a hospital quickly to save their life.

I dont know anyone who has not at least ridden in a car in the last 12 months and thus has personally experienced the benefit.

I also don't know anyone who has personally used their gun in the last 12 months to successfully fend off a bad guy (crazy loner gunman, rapist or tyrannical government oppressor implementing a police state). So, getting some to agree that assault weapons provide more of a net benefit to society than cars do, considering all risks, well, that might be a challenging task.
MiddleAgedAl is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-19-2012, 04:08 PM   #63
Seminole
Colonel
 
Seminole's Avatar
 
Drives: Red Flyer
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: 38.8977° N, 77.0366° W

Posts: 2,030
iTrader: (2)

Garage List
2008 E90 328i  [3.50]
Good points all around. Glad to see this hasn't turned into what seems to be the normal name calling pissing matches that go on here.

I think the culture of our country to ignore mental illnesses plays a large part in all of this (mass killings). We see homeless people and think of them as lazy or unmotivated, but a shockingly high percentage of the homeless population is mentally ill, and that illness has led to their homelessness. But when we see someone that's not what we think.

Another thing I haven't yet seen addressed in this thread so far is the influence of drugs and gangs on gun violence. I keep hearing people (friends on FB and other places) throwing out the 12,000 Americans making it seem like all we do is go around offing each other. How much of that number is related to drugs/gangs? Look at Mexico for instance. Nearly all the violence in that country is purely because of the drug trade. You have the occasional outlier such as the Aurora and Newtown cases, but I'm willing to bet the large portion of gun deaths are related to gangs and drugs.

One other thing to think of relating to that is the fact a portion of the people committing gang and gun violence have already been arrested and served time for crimes in the past and can't legally own a gun. Yet they still find ways to obtain them and commit their crimes.

I think this is the X factor for the US compared to the other countries listed (UK, AUS, etc). The US is the single largest drug market in the entire world and supports a multi-billion dollar industry. These people will do whatever it takes to protect their money and inventory. The UK, Australia and other countries also have drug problems, but not anywhere near the level we have in the US.

One more random food for thought that popped into my head. I know there are some flaws with the numbers because some people own multiple guns, but hear me out. Lets say we use 230,000,000 as the number of guns in the United States that are owned legally (I think MPower gave that number earlier). If we for arguments sake say that each of the 12,000 people killed by guns in the US were killed by a different weapon (so 12,000 weapons used), that means that only 0.004% of the guns in the US are used to commit a crime (assuming all 12,000 deaths are criminal and not accidental). So 99.996% of the gun owners in the US are lawful owners. Why should they be punished for the few who refuse to follow the laws?
__________________
Seminole is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-19-2012, 04:57 PM   #64
UncleWede
Long Time Admirer, First Time Owner
 
UncleWede's Avatar
 
Drives: E90 325i Arctic
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxnard, CA

Posts: 2,284
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Templar View Post
I'm proud to say, she's quite the shot
KEEPER!!!
UncleWede is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-19-2012, 05:25 PM   #65
ken1137
Brigadier General
 
ken1137's Avatar
 
Drives: a slow 2009 e90 335i
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Chicago

Posts: 3,678
iTrader: (7)

Garage List
2009 e90 335i  [3.20]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seminole View Post
Good points all around. Glad to see this hasn't turned into what seems to be the normal name calling pissing matches that go on here.

I think the culture of our country to ignore mental illnesses plays a large part in all of this (mass killings).

Another thing I haven't yet seen addressed in this thread so far is the influence of drugs and gangs on gun violence.
+1 Post #36 brother. The biggest problem we have in Chicago. The mayor is attempting to address this by longer school hrs, prohibiting law abiding citizens from purchasing guns, placing more police on the streets (although he has reduced the police force), establishing an elite gang tactical squad, and taxing rounds to name a few. The problem is these kids dont have much of a chance growing up where they live and they learn from their parents. It's a social issue.

Yes, mental illness is an enormous factor. To put it simple...there is something wrong mentally if you commit a homicide.
__________________

BMWCCA member
ken1137 is online now   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-19-2012, 05:53 PM   #66
Mr Tonka
Tonka.... Mr. Tonka
 
Drives: Exceptionally well :)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Tampa, FL

Posts: 1,147
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl View Post
OK, what about such cars? You car is capable of easily going > 120mph. So is mine. If you choose to exercise that ability in an unwise manner (ie: on the street instead of the track), you could be charged with a variety of things depending on where you are, it's not as if you are unregulated. Personally, I think track days are the most fun you can have with your clothes on, but I would never call for allowing everyone, regardless of training, to be allowed to drive their car as fast as they want on the street.

The old line that since more die in cars than from guns, that cars should be more regulated than guns, is a specious argument at best.

You dont even need a street legal car capable of 120 to harm others; a worn out 1963 Volkswagen Beetle which strains to hit 50mph could easily kill a 10 year old boy, but nobody is calling for banning of cars (even such slow ones) because of the net societal benefit they provide. Thousands a year die in a car, yes, but hundreds of millions a year enjoy the benefits of all forms of "horseless carriage", in many direct ways. Getting dad to work so he can pay the mortgage, getting mom to the store to buy food so we dont starve, getting grandma to her chemotherapy appointment so she can see her grandkids graduate. Hell, even getting a gunshot victim to a hospital quickly to save their life.

I dont know anyone who has not at least ridden in a car in the last 12 months and thus has personally experienced the benefit.

I also don't know anyone who has personally used their gun in the last 12 months to successfully fend off a bad guy (crazy loner gunman, rapist or tyrannical government oppressor implementing a police state). So, getting some to agree that assault weapons provide more of a net benefit to society than cars do, considering all risks, well, that might be a challenging task.
my response was directly pointed at your example of your buddy's drag car which wasn't street legal. I'm just wondering about all the high powered cars that are. From cars that come with 400 - 500hp from the factory to the 800 - 1000hp modded cars that are still street legal.... anyway, I posted this in the other thread...

Quote:
Originally Posted by MP0WER View Post
Guns are designed to kill.
Cars are designed for conveyance.

Gun related fatalities are roughly 10,000 per year
Car related fatalities are roughly 40,000 per year

40,000 dead people are acceptable because the car wasn't designed for killing.
10,000 dead people is unacceptable because the gun was designed for killing.

So an item NOT designed to kill actually kills many more than the item that is designed for killing.

If dead civilians, who didn't expect to be dead are what we're talking about, i fail to see how the two items are not a fair comparison.

So, obviously there is a psychological reason that people don't call for banning cars when their loved one dying in a car accident. i guess it has a lot to do with the word accident. Because an accident implies no intent. It's funny how the word "accident" has taken the place of the word collision when describing a car crash. I think this was introduced early on to make people OK with car related deaths.... "it was an accident". When the fact of the matter is, if someone runs into your car they were either: following too closely to physically stop in time, not paying attention to traffic control devices, driving while impaired, driving while too drowsy, or being reckless by driving too fast for conditions, racing, showing off, etc... These are all choices we as drivers make every time we get into the car. These choices cause collisions, not accidents.

At any rate, take that accident where you wife just died and replace the driver of the car who hit her with someone who was driving drunk. It seems that when this happens, the outrage is quite apparent. Most of the time much hate brews within the spouse, children, parents of the departed even though this drunk driver had no intent to kill. We as a society chastise the drivers who are drunk when causing an accident, but when someone causes the same accident simply by being careless; much of society actually feels sorry for the driver at fault. In these cases, society looks at the incident and thinks; this is horrible, so sad, what can we do to prevent this from happening again? Well, we can't ban people, we can't ban cars, we don't want to revamp drivers education, so about the only thing we can do is ban drinking and driving.

Now we have someone who walks into a business, mall or school with a gun and kills 2, 4, 8, 26 people. Make no mistake, the gunman had intent to kill. He is the bad guy, hated by all, but even more hated than him was his tool of choice. Sure, the gun was designed to kill, but it had no intent to do so. In these cases, society looks at the incident and thinks; this is horrible, so sad, what can we do to prevent this from happening again? Well, we can't ban people, we can't ban mental illness, we can't ban mental instability, so about the only thing we can do is ban guns.

I'm sorry, but if my wife dies in a car crash, a mugging, a bike accident or a mass shooting, the result is the same, she's dead and had no intentions to be. Anything that causes an unplanned death is the same in my book because the result is the same, and unplanned death.

Many people think that this argument is comparing cars and guns. It's not, it's comparing causes of death. In these situations, death is the topic. First reports are always about how many dead, not how many survived. Someone brought up the Chinaman who went on a slashing spree with a knife. Few shits are given because no one died. Huge, terrible car collisions take place all the time, everyone gets away with minor injuries, so it's all cool. But all these things change when they cause death to innocent people.

When the worst school killing in US history was committed in 1927 where 38 people died no one called for a ban of cars or explosives. Same holds true for 9-11, no one banned air travel after 4 planes were hijacked in the same day causing the unplanned death of thousands of people. Why, because we can't ban people, we can't ban planes, etc.... In mass killings not involving firearms, there is no one "thing" involved that a large part of citizens can do with out; make the killing tool a firearm and most people have witch to hunt.
My point is that the reason people call out for gun bans / restrictions is because there is an emotional connection due to the intent of the gunman. The same emotional connection can be found in people who recently lost someone to a drunk driver, but not so much if it's just a normal "accident". If there is someone or something to blame people will jump on it. If this person ran in this school with a samurai sword and killed as many people there wouldn't be anyone calling for a ban on samurai swords. But because many people don't care to have or use firearms; they don't care that their argument is illogical. They just have something to focus their anger on and do so without looking at it objectively.
__________________
-Joe


"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." — Frédéric Bastiat

Last edited by Mr Tonka; 12-19-2012 at 06:10 PM.
Mr Tonka is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:03 PM.




e90post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST