Xoutpost.com - Any Weapon Box for E53?

Xoutpost.com (https://xoutpost.com/forums.php)

- X5 (E53) Forum (https://xoutpost.com/bmw-sav-forums/x5-e53-forum/)

- - Any Weapon Box for E53? (https://xoutpost.com/bmw-sav-forums/x5-e53-forum/107054-any-weapon-box-e53.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by crystalworks (Post 1118615)

Because, again, it is irrelevant to gun control. :stickpoke Truck rental is regulated under its own set of circumstances.

I don't want to have to carry around a weapon to defend myself. :troutslap
A bat or a knife I can either out run, or have a chance of over powering.

No gun control will ever take the guns away from criminals so you can "even the odds" to protect yourself or as you suggest "run".
Sorry, I choose to play on a level playing field.

Now can we get back to the E53 and the interest we all share?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Overboost (Post 1118619)

No gun control will ever take the guns away from criminals...

Other countries, and statistics, would disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crystalworks (Post 1118623)

Other countries, and statistics, would disagree.

That's because they were never as plentiful as they are here. The horse left the barn a long time ago on banning fire arms. Too many out there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fifty150hs (Post 1118625)

That's because they were never as plentiful as they are here. The horse left the barn a long time ago on banning fire arms. Too many out there.

I'm not for banning guns. Just pointing out that his statement was not correct. And banning them might not be the only way to keep them out of the hands of criminals. But if you aren't willing to try any kind of reform... we'll have no way of knowing what might and might not work short of a total ban. :dunno:

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewwynn (Post 1118614)

The odds of improving your safety via self defense vs self inflicted injury are statistically not great as opposed to the increased risk of somebody in the house being injured or killed which is why it's absolutely critical that anybody in the house is properly trained and all guns are locked in a safe when not in use.

This is my last word on this subject.

Bold is mine too...

HOW does that work when "self defense" or "home defense" are your excuse for having one in the first place?

"Oh, Hai! Mr criminal, stay where you are, I just have to go unlock my gun safe, then go to another safe to retrieve the magazine, and then go and get my ammo out of another box. I'll be with you short... wait, where's my car gone? HEY, HE GOT THE KEYS AND TOOK MY CAR!".

And possibly shot you for dicking around so much :rofl:

Just hand them you keys and valuables, and call the fuzz. :thumbup:

Yeah the whole gun safe part is kind of weird to me too.

Everyone I know and family members and myself included as a child KNEW not to touch our parents guns unless it was for hunting etc and with them being there for that too.

Again with the upbringing angle. Why didn't we ignore our parents and mess with the guns? Because we knew that we would get the immortal crap beat out of us if we did.

Messing with guns was NEVER something that entered our minds without permission.

You just didn't do it. But again we had parents that :

A: Cared.

B: Set an example and taught us how to act in life.

Our parents weren't our buddies or friends. They were our PARENTS aka mom and dad not some committee that could be reason with or ignore or bargained with to get around.

They were the LAW period.

Of course that's one thing that really amazes me now. When I hit the teenage years I was always thinking how things needed changing. How my generation could redo things and that we knew better than the ones that came before us. That my generation could show my parents generation how to do things.

Now? I pray to god that my parents and their parents way of life will return :)

I still find it hard to believe but after seeing how things have changed I realize I was sooooooo wrong then.

Ahh, that's where you got me wrong. A gun safe is a brilliant idea, guns for "self defense" aren't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewwynn (Post 1118614)

Many articles have covered the lack of correlation between gun carry laws and deaths. Here is an example:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.699e5262bf21

I was wrong earlier when I said half of the gun deaths are from suicide, apparently it's actually closer to 2/3.

Good to see you have started to verify your points. Yes, two thirds are suicides. If you want to eliminate suicides we need to know where they got the gun.We would also want to know how many suicides included an associated murder. And we would need to agree that one third is an insignificant number

I found a table that split out suicide vs homicide vs accident, I thought it was at wiki or CDC but I'm only finding the total deaths.

The total rate for USA is about 11/100k but homicide is about 4.5. That is high but will not be reduced by *any* kind of new law. Reducing the accessibility of handguns to the mentally disturbed and reduce the incentive to want guns by improving the family unit: children born into a married couple that stays married would reduce gun violence by a tremendous amount. Far more than any gun law. What infuriates me is that people choose to bury their head in the sand and think they can leave the inner city a family disaster and legislate morality from afar.

You just bounced back to unverified comments. You are assuming that folks that are married and stay married include an environment that reduces gun deaths. You are also assuming that when children leave the nest they will continue behavior that reduces gun problems. Divorce rates are very high and pro gun homes are more likely to promote the same which means the number of guns that can be misused could continue to increase

I scanned the list of states and didn't see any that seemed far off of the mean but I didn't actually make a spreadsheet to get the exact percentages.

So it seems the most significant factor by a factor of 35:1 is suicide over mass shooting.

For clarity: the death by suicide problem is as much as 35-40x as much as the effectively non existent mass shooting hype. Drug war related crime is approximately 15-20x

Verification means that you post the study so others can go through the numbers and determine on their own that the study was done by an unbiased reputable organization and that it is a recent study

People that are derailed by the "legacy" outdated disinformation networks they believe that mass shootings are a significant even epidemic problem but it's less than 1% of the problem.

Mass shootings are not the base of the problem but the continued increase is part of gun problems. And, they draw attention because of the weapons often used and the perpetrator is unbalanced and should not have been able to purchase a gun.

It is apparent that the anti gun crowd will use extremely disingenuous arguments to get people to back them and they do it because honesty won't work. If everybody was honest the public opinion would be a lot different! The "80%" that want more gun laws base that option on absolute nonsense they are told to believe rather than given facts and allow them to make informed decisions.

Disinformation comes from both sides. Many of my posts have been correcting incorrect information

The "cold dead hands" crowd are not without blame either often using cherry picked info to make their cause look better. Eg. cite cases where CCW saved the day but refuse to believe simple facts that a household with a gun is (duh) like 10x as likely to have an accidental death related to a gun because it exists. Similar problem for suicide: people are far more successful at suicide with a gun then any other method (duh), so of course people are far more likely to die from a gun if the house has a gun. Simple facts.

Was it fathers easily accessible gun. Was the legal penalty a deterrent lock up the gun?

The odds of improving your safety via self defense vs self inflicted injury are statistically not great as opposed to the increased risk of somebody in the house being injured or killed which is why it's absolutely critical that anybody in the house is properly trained and all guns are locked in a safe when not in use.

Statistically not not great? based on what reputable study. How do you know that is true?

We need better laws, but not laws like these:

Creates the Illinois 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games Shooting Competition Exemption Law. Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act and the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that Olympic and Paralympic athletes are not required to obtain Firearm Owner's Identification Cards in order to possess firearms in connection with the athletes' training for and participation in the Games. Also exempts such athletes in such matters from the statutes concerning the unlawful use of weapons, aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, and unlawful possession of firearms and firearm ammunition. Effective immediately.

So base on this law athletes who are training for a shooting competition are exempt from unlawful use of weapons, aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, and unlawful possession of firearms and firearm ammunition. Effective immediately.

Who's main goal is preventing a person from shooting/killing 60 people? It's a distraction and in the big picture a fruitless effort. You are literally saying that 1% of people are more important than the other 99%.

My contention is if you care about people do that which helps people. No attempt to do anything to help that 1% will help human kind as a whole. Do literally just about anything else and you will do more good.

I'm not missing the point I've covered it and moved on. Point is: mass shootings happen and kill a very small part of the population on rare occasion. Fact. Will not change just a fact.

Related point: firearms are used to kill people, accept that is bad, so using a mass shooting as an eye opener maybe divert that attention to a cause that *can* do good and logically that would mean some firearm related injury. Hence, look where the highest percentage of firearm deaths are: suicide, then drug/gang related deaths. These are causes that anybody can get behind and that actually could save 1000s or 10s of 1000s of lives per year.

In a theoretical case of eliminating all mass shootings you will reduce gun homicide by less than 1/2 of 1% while likely not reducing homicide at all. Removing the gun from the equation will just make the homicidal person to find another solution.

In the USA it has to be assumed you must start with the "given" that free people will always have guns so it's pointless to use an example of other countries that have decided (or had decided for them) they wanted to give away (or was stolen from them) one of their most awe inspiring freedoms. It's a right to trade freedom for civility but by a strong margin the USA draws the line at firearms. Will more people die from firearms because of this choice? Duh.

There is not nothing being done, example of laws added in my lifetime: in 1981, Wisconsin enacted a law that makes it illegal for anybody with a felony on their record to posses a firearm.

(A fairly clear violation of 2nd amendment since there are plenty of non violent felonies that make it illegal to hunt for the rest of your life). Did that law help reduce gun violence? Perhaps, but not a lot since virtually nobody even knows about this law. It will prevent an ex felon from buying a handgun because of a background check but it unfairly removes rights do to unrelated situations.

Firearm laws will keep good people from randomly flipping out it's the entire premise behind a waiting period for a handgun to make revenge shooting more difficult but will never help reduce criminal use of firearms. It's the symptom not the cause. Want to improve the symptom do something about the cause.