Any Weapon Box for E53?

[Crowz]

Originally Posted by bcredliner

You are assuming the data is factual, look at the source--the opinionated patriot. Did you take note of the countries in the top 100? Are you sure they have more than 100 residents? Where was New Zealand or other countries that ban guns?

New Zealand was in the chart. Watch it again

[crystalworks]

Originally Posted by upallnight

They must control something or else Obamacare would have been repealed. After all, if you control the House and Senate and have a person in the executive office, but you can't repeal Obamacare, then you don't control anything at all...

Donald Trump only won Wisconsin by 0.77% not even by 1% but he got all the electoral votes for Wisconsin.

Agreed. We definitely need more moderates on both sides. And more importantly... more independents.

Originally Posted by bcredliner

You didn't include the 400-500 wounded. You really believe he could have done more devastation... What advancement has reduced gun violence.

That's all, back to the topic of finding a faster way to get to your gun. Surprised the usual who's got the best gun for killing discussion hasn't become the majority of the posts.

Originally Posted by bcredliner

You are assuming the data is factual, look at the source--the opinionated patriot. Did you take note of the countries in the top 100? Are you sure they have more than 100 residents? Where was New Zealand or other countries that ban guns?

Originally Posted by bcredliner

Well said!

Agree with what you saying. But man, you have got to start multi-quoting.

Gun "control" laws are a polarizing topic (much like global warming). You have one side and then you have the other. And they will fight and argue and not listen to one iota of compromise. People have lost the ability to think of others and only put themselves first. It's unfortunate, but that's the country we live in now. The days of common courtesy and thoughtfulness to the fellow/woman standing next to you are gone.

[Anhelenuk]

Gentlemen from my point of view it’s impossible to fix current situation with gun ownership. You either take them away from everybody or give them to everybody there’s no in between. There will always be those on far ends of this issue ready to kill for their beliefs. Back on the subject at hand your weapon is only good if you have immediate access to it in order to eliminate your threat. I don’t believe in storage compartments or leaving your weapon unsecured. Rates of death from firearms in USA are higher because we own most of the worlds guns but don’t forget that there’s a lot of aggression in society here from people that were never taught what’s it means to apologize or even realize they are in the wrong. I get to travel a lot to many diffferent parts of the world and it always strikes me how eager Americans are to throw hands over the most minor stuff.

[bcredliner]

Originally Posted by andrewwynn

I did in fact include the almost 500 wounded. I said they were the 90+ % that weren't mortality wounded and would have been a far higher % killed had the killer used a more effective weapon so thankfully he didn't. He would not have had to aim any better he already hit over 500.

Not my point. There is no way the shooter could have killed or wounded the total shot if he was using an M1 for 10 minutes. I doubt he could have killed 59 people during the time at that distance but I've never heard of someone that's done that.

An unconstitutional theoretical tax that doubles or triples the cost of a common hunting rifle that is often erroneously called an assault rifle to bias a viewpoint and demonize the opposite side would not have made a difference in any of the cases it had been used.

I didn't say a common hunting rifle and a tax doesn't restrict your right to own a taxed weapon. I don't have a clue if it would make a difference. My point is if there is no effort made to reduce gun violence nothing will change. When I hear someone adamantly support current gun laws it means to me the number of innocent people killed or wounded is fine, acceptable collateral damage.

"Shall not infringe". It is not possible to make it difficult to buy a gun that's just a fact and the baseline for rational debate. Changing the bill of rights is so difficult it just plain will not happen it's a non starter argument.
There is nothing stopping changes in gun laws other than a vote that passes. It is true that changes can be challenged as a violation of the 2nd amendment but a passed law would have to be repealed or judged to violate the constitution in the courts.

The examples of plane crashes or hospital infections are to show perspective.

Does not show perspective of the extent the US problem. Perspective would be to compare our numbers with countries with more strict laws or have banned guns.

A public outcry caused McDonald's to stop using styrofoam for the big Mac because of disinformation campaign that led the average man on the street to believe that styrofoam was 20% of our land fill when it was 1/2 of 1% (literal statistics not made up hypothetical).

McD used to recycle 80 % of the styrofoam do you think they recycle 80% of the new, improved paper wrap? You'd be in a fantasy world. Ignorant perception caused an increase in the landfill waste. FYI at the same time people were led to believe that 20% of landfill was disposable diapers which also were 0.5%.
The point of not using styrofoam that it doesn't degrade for a few thousand years. That would some percentage of the number not put in McDonald's trash. That would also be the 20% that you say wasn't recycled. Yes, I see no reason the recycled percentage would change.


The continuous research in hospitals has not slowed MRSA it's almost an epidemic.

Missing the point. Research intended to reduce gun violence put in place may not be successful. The point is there is ongoing research to reduce the infection problem rather than doing nothing or rejecting everything suggested without objective consideration. When reason to resist change is party affiliation that is ridiculous. Not everything any party comes up is wrong or right.

People combine statistics to try to take a ludicrously low risk scenario like perched lone gunman and try to make it look common or epidemic when off course almost all gun violence is same-race criminal activity with somebody that already was a criminal with an illegally obtained firearm.

I don't have any idea where you found confirmation of your assumption. I assume that is an assumption rather something coming from objective research.

There is a lot done every year from a gun safety perspective but when the focus is misplaced to the low low low risk scenarios like lone madmen with hunting rifles rather than the actual gun crime problems like revolving door jails that put perpetrator right back out into the likes of South Chicago.

Tons of gun safety efforts is meaningless unless there is a significant percentage of gun deaths related to gun accidents. That is not gun control.

A legal gun owner causing havoc is a unicorn. Keep the criminal from the gun because you will never be able to keep the gun from the criminal.

That means the Vegas shooter was a unicorn. I think you meant to say--take away guns and only criminals will have guns. Tightening gun control is not taking away guns. The intention is to reduce the number of guns in the hands of shooters that use them to shoot people. If there is a problem and you don't do something it won't go change and likely get worse.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

When innocent people are dying, doing nothing shouldn't be acceptable to anyone.

[andrewwynn]

Originally Posted by crystalworks

Agreed. We definitely need more moderates on both sides. And more importantly... more independents.

People have lost the ability to think of others and only put themselves first. It's unfortunate, but that's the country we live in now. The days of common courtesy and thoughtfulness to the fellow/woman standing next to you are gone.

This is the fundamental problem. Lost sight of the golden rule. We do have that instinct as shown by how many people did absolutely insane things contrary to self preservation during the Vegas event.

"Independents unite" or "individually is fine as long as we all do it together". Though said in jest I agree much with the independent.

They are who decides the fate of our elected leaders. It bothers me that the parties do there best to interject absolutes so that as an example a Democrat is not allowed to be pro life that's insanity. Somebody that is 99% aligned with the Democrat party will be shunned actually worse than a Republican. These sort of things are what keep "independent" the majority party in the usa and a good thing too.

There is a lot of pro safety with guns on the agenda and already in place or this thread wouldn't have started.

Studies show that many cases of hand gun fatality is from a gun having too easy of access to a non Owner. Quick access safes are a fantastic way to be proactive in the cause to reduce gun fatalities. Do you hear "the left" promoting them? If course not, that doesn't fit their narrative.

I would be very receptive of federal law requiring an at the ready firearm to be in a safe like these far more people are killed from household accidents than mass shootings which are not risky nor likely contrary to the 24 hour news cycle.

Historically, gun registration only leads to honest people's rights being infringed upon. 100% of the time. If "history" had a better track record, myself and 100 million others could trust the government and be behind a system to keep track of how many guns a person had to send up a red flag. That's like standing under a bigger tree during a rain to stay dry. It does nothing to change the situation. Reagan captured this thought the best when he said the scariest words you can ever hear is "I'm from the government and I'm here to help".

The primary point of the 2nd amendment is to make "we the people" a threat against a tyrannical government not to ensure we have a single shot gun that the government can be sure to over power. So: any limitation in the guise of "you don't need that for hunting" is a clear violation of the 2nd amendment. The purpose is to keep an invisible force as a balance against the possibility of the government turning against the people.

[Overboost]

Some interesting points of view here, much like the current pulse of the nation. As a registered gun owner I leave everyone with 2 words. μολὼν λαβέ

[bcredliner]

Originally Posted by Crowz

New Zealand was in the chart. Watch it again

Despite the pain I watched it again to check. Only after eliminating many of the major cities, that last I knew are still in the US, and saying it would be .4 if all cities were like Plano, TX can it get to where New Zealand has a bigger problem. In the beginning he says how accurate the source is. Taken as written the US comes in at 110. New Zealand is 197.

FYI, I have lived 10 miles from Plano for the last 14 years. It has grown dramatically. It is not the type of area where there would normally be a lot of gun violence. Far more restricted access to developments, apartments complexes etc. More than normal police presence in the places of higher risk due to lack of necessity to patrol many neighborhoods. There are security cameras on major roadways and an unusual amount of homeowner security systems with cameras. Many gated developments and apartment complexes have their own security and many developments have active neighborhood watch programs. The police department has a program where homeowners let them know they have security cameras and that they will provide footage if needed. Plano is not representative of a average city. And, I am positive that far less than 100% of homeowners are armed or have a lots of guns.

Can't grab something and trust it need to verify the source and content.

[Crowz]

Originally Posted by bcredliner

Despite the pain I watched it again to check. Only after eliminating many of the major cities, that last I knew are still in the US, and saying it would be .4 if all cities were like Plano, TX can it get to where New Zealand has a bigger problem. In the beginning he says how accurate the source is. Taken as written the US comes in at 110. New Zealand is 197.

FYI, I have lived 10 miles from Plano for the last 14 years. It has grown dramatically. It is not the type of area where there would normally be a lot of gun violence. Far more restricted access to developments, apartments complexes etc. More than normal police presence in the places of higher risk due to lack of necessity to patrol many neighborhoods. There are security cameras on major roadways and an unusual amount of homeowner security systems with cameras. Many gated developments and apartment complexes have their own security and many developments have active neighborhood watch programs. The police department has a program where homeowners let them know they have security cameras and that they will provide footage if needed. Plano is not representative of a average city. And, I am positive that far less than 100% of homeowners are armed or have a lots of guns.

Can't grab something and trust it need to verify the source and content.

When I first ran across that video it was years ago not some recent find. At the time I double checked most of the facts given and they were accurate from what I found. I don't take ANY news agencies info or general info as fact without weighing it against other sources. All have an agenda.

I have lived in major cities and rural areas like I live in now.

Guns in general are not the key to murder in the big cites. In a large city people will kill people daily. In Montgomery for instance YEARS ago the death rate was a minimum of one a day to two a day every day. Guns were not involved in that murder rate always. Sometimes but not always. Knives were involved a good bit. Also the murders happened in the same area every day. You would figure with 365 people being murdered at that rate a year it would taper off. It didn't.

Point being people will kill people in given environments if it takes a rubber mallet to do it. If the nut in question in the vegas shooting couldn't of found the gun he used I imagine he would of just bombed them. He had explosives from what I read in the news. I also imagine explosives would of killed more too.

The bump stop and or auto weapons have no use in American culture. Im quite surprised that the Obama administrations atf folks approved the bump stop devices. I wouldn't of. They prohibit most from having auto weapons yet they approved a gadget to simulate it????

A nut is going to do whatever a nut needs to do to accomplish what they are after unless normal people get lucky and catch them before hand. That's just a fact of life. Look at the crazies using trucks to run over people.

Here in the rural south of Alabama we just don't have the gun issues they have in other areas. Everyone is armed and we in general all get along.

No place is murder free but our ratio and rate of deaths from violence is pretty low here.

[SigBoi]

Originally Posted by andrewwynn

https://jet.com/product/detail/8a338...caAk2GEALw_wcB

I found the style I was talking about. I think this would fit in the foot well or on the back of passenger seat.

I will point out the point of this thread was and is to promote gun SAFETY. A person with safety first principles wants to figure out how to safely utilise his right to transport a firearm. This is the way real gun owners think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Thanks, I've seen those and they're nice as well. Your last sentences are what I'm trying to go for, a secure lockbox for when the vehicle is unattended, and a fast draw rig to switch vehicle weapon to when I'm driving.

And the gun debate is almost exactly like the pro life/pro choice debate. Nobody will win this as neither side can compromise fully. We either have to be like Japan with no guns, or Switzerland with required guns. However both countries are very culturally homogeneous, which the US will never be.

[andrewwynn]

Originally Posted by SigBoi

Thanks, I've seen those and they're nice as well. Your last sentences are what I'm trying to go for, a secure lockbox for when the vehicle is unattended, and a fast draw rig to switch vehicle weapon to when I'm driving.



And the gun debate is almost exactly like the pro life/pro choice debate. Nobody will win this as neither side can compromise fully. We either have to be like Japan with no guns, or Switzerland with required guns. However both countries are very culturally homogeneous, which the US will never be.

I think the vertical design just makes sense. I think this one however uses a battery compared with the mechanical lock.

I hang out with family in a rural area where likely 1 in 6 adults carry and just like in the old West where you would expect to see a side arm it's just normal and their is no feeling of risk. There is no real feeling of security either but I would feel sorry for a bad guy that would try to cause trouble when our family camp has 70 people and 5 are armed.

I'm glad the thread was started I was going to just use my belt holster in the car but this is so much better.

Wisconsin has a really messed up law regarding school grounds making picking up a kid a felony. It looks like after a mere 4 years there is some traction on a bill to fix that.