|
Quote:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0ca9f483a26b3 |
I still cant believe anyone waste their time protesting that guys speeches etc. I never heard of him till the nuts went to protest him. Seems kind of self defeating to make a celebrity out of the person your trying to silence or whatever.
|
Quote:
Except it was in the Fatherland were our beloved BMW X5 was conceived, but not built. |
Any Weapon Box for E53?
What Crowz said.
Also, it was very confusing, blkadmin interjected this spencer guy while talking about Leyonhjelm. I was very confused. I believe the 'nut job' comment was directed at Leyonhjelm, though clearly he was using Spencer in comparison was adding to his 'basket of loonies'. After watching a few videos of Leyonhjelm and reading a few articles on Spencer, they aren't in a same class of radical at all. Clearly Leyonhjelm has some solidly extreme viewpoints, oddly 'liberal democrat' means something very different in Australia. He is very pro gun, very pro assisted suicide. 'does not compute' from usa point of view. Is it not ok in Australia to have viewpoints that aren't mainstream? I saw no evidence to group Leyonhjelm with Spencer. Leyonhjelm is pro individual rights to extreme, Spencer is the opposite, Pro 'his way' rights at the expense of somebody that doesn't agree with him. I agree that using an obviously subjective term as an insult is pointless even counter productive to ones cause. (reduces the seriousness anybody else in the discussion can apply to the commentator using the derogatory terms). A fair term to use which is more objective would be 'extremist' or racial, perhaps. It is likely more accurate to say something like 'he represents a fringe element of the senate (or population)' or 'he is considered by many to be the 'crazy uncle' of our senate for example. Unless you actually have some authority to diagnose 'nutjobness', using a term like that will have an unintended consequence of getting the label shot right back on the person assigning the label. He makes his case very strongly that he is an NRA supporter that wishes that Australia would have had the same there to prevent the confiscation of law-abiding citizen's legal weapons at a great cost to taxpayer. The fact that gun violence wasn't charged over time lends credence to his argument that it was a waste of time, money. If you graph the already declining rate of gun homicide in australia for the decade before the infamous ban, you will see that the post-ban trend is basically the same downward trend, in other words, yes there is less gun homicide but that was already predicted. (Credit where due, it was already very low, still is very low, there are in-fact a lot of Guns in australia, just that the semi-automatic and pump-action are now only in the hands of criminals; the fact that with as many guns as there are yet a low gun homicide rate is noteworthy). As far as 'mass shootings'; there are no big mass shootings since the ban which people will say 'proves it worked', however there have been about 70 people killed in australia in mass killings since the ban. Mostly with fire or vehicle crashing into public places. The usa has 13x the population that means the equivalent of 910 people were mass-murdered 'lone gunman' style in australia since the gun ban. In that same period, there have been about 400 mass-murders in the usa, most of which of course using guns, but when ratioed to our populations, that means there were the Australian equivalent of 29 mass-killing deaths in the usa in the past 20 years. Another way to compare that; 2.4x as many australians per capita have been killed in the past 20 years by 'lone killer' events. (since the gun ban took effect). There is no way to equate that to gun control, e.g. "well it would have been much worse/better" picking one side or the other. I'm just trying to point out there is a lot of cherry picking when trying to use australia as an example of gun control, and once again, pointing out that with the 20 deaths per year due to mass-shooting events in the usa, that is a very low number in a population of 325,000,000, it just is. One out of 16.5 million is the yearly risk. 0.006 of 100k. With homicide risk being about 5 out of 100k, the 'epidemic of lone shooter' in the usa is borderline fairytale. Comparing to Australia; 5.8 people per year, but with 1/ 13th the population, that means One of 4.3 million yearly risk, or 0.02 of 100k risk, also really 'nonexistent', but almost four times the risk. I've pulled my numbers from wikipedia and there could be something missing but the science is sound. It's four times as likely to be mass-murdered in Australia than in the usa. (it's like a bazillion times more likely should you in the less likely change get mass-murdered in the usa, it will be at the dangerous end of a gun of course). Not exactly sure why it's 'so much more scary' to have the risk of being shot as opposed to burned to death. mass-murder did NOT go away post ban in australia. I am perpetually annoyed by all the forces that put so much effort to move the needle on something that is a 1 in 16 million risk. Heart disease is a 1 in 1 risk in the usa for crying out loud. There is a 50% chance you will die of heart disease in the usa (of course that's lifetime risk not per year yikes). If you average out 70 years in 16mil chance though it still is 230,000x as likely to die from heart disease than a mass shooting. Put effort where it will help the most people, stop trying to change 0.3% into 0.1%, change 60% into 30% and save millions of lives. |
Does it mean we 'should do nothing' no of course not. Mental health and single-mom-by-choice are probably the two biggest factors in gun deaths in the usa, we should put the majority of the effort toward those causes. Solutions that keep guns out of the hands of unstable people should be entertained and encouraged.
|
[QUOTE=andrewwynn;1118870]What Crowz said.
Also, it was very confusing, blkadmin interjected this spencer guy while talking about Leyonhjelm. I was very confused. I believe the 'nut job' comment was directed at Leyonhjelm, though clearly he was using Spencer in comparison was adding to his 'basket of loonies'. After watching a few videos of Leyonhjelm and reading a few articles on Spencer, they aren't in a same class of radical at all. Clearly Leyonhjelm has some solidly extreme viewpoints, oddly 'liberal democrat' means something very different in Australia. He is very pro gun, very pro assisted suicide. 'does not compute' from usa point of view. Is it not ok in Australia to have viewpoints that aren't mainstream? I saw no evidence to group Leyonhjelm with Spencer. Leyonhjelm is pro individual rights to extreme, Spencer is the opposite, Pro 'his way' rights at the expense of somebody that doesn't agree with him. As has been mentioned many times--viewpoints are opinions whether mainstream or other. That means it is useless to use viewpoints as validation of ones beliefs. That is especially true when the opinion is biased. I agree that using an obviously subjective term as an insult is pointless even counter productive to ones cause. (reduces the seriousness anybody else in the discussion can apply to the commentator using the derogatory terms). A fair term to use which is more objective would be 'extremist' or racial, perhaps. It is likely more accurate to say something like 'he represents a fringe element of the senate (or population)' or 'he is considered by many to be the 'crazy uncle' of our senate for example. Unless you actually have some authority to diagnose 'nutjobness', using a term like that will have an unintended consequence of getting the label shot right back on the person assigning the label. He makes his case very strongly that he is an NRA supporter that wishes that Australia would have had the same there to prevent the confiscation of law-abiding citizen's legal weapons at a great cost to taxpayer. The fact that gun violence wasn't charged over time lends credence to his argument that it was a waste of time, money. Do you have a reputable study that is not outdated that shows what has happened to gun violence over just the last 10 years? BTW, when guns are removed, it doesn't remove criminals. I would expect assaults to increase. And, a study should show murders and wounded. How assaults are defined is imperative--are those the number that were wounded, assault means attacked. If you graph the already declining rate of gun homicide in australia for the decade before the infamous ban, you will see that the post-ban trend is basically the same downward trend, in other words, yes there is less gun homicide but that was already predicted. (Credit where due, it was already very low, still is very low, there are in-fact a lot of Guns in australia, just that the semi-automatic and pump-action are now only in the hands of criminals; the fact that with as many guns as there are yet a low gun homicide rate is noteworthy). A prediction is at best a calculated guess. Trends can change quickly for a myriad of reasons. Stating that if there is a gun ban, criminals will be the only ones with guns sounds logical but is dependent on how the ban is initiated and maintained. How do you know there are a lot of guns in Australia? If there are still a lot of guns in Australia and only criminals have guns, why is the gun violence down? As far as 'mass shootings'; there are no big mass shootings since the ban which people will say 'proves it worked', however there have been about 70 people killed in australia in mass killings since the ban. Mostly with fire or vehicle crashing into public places. The usa has 13x the population that means the equivalent of 910 people were mass-murdered 'lone gunman' style in australia since the gun ban. In that same period, there have been about 400 mass-murders in the usa, most of which of course using guns, but when ratioed to our populations, that means there were the Australian equivalent of 29 mass-killing deaths in the usa in the past 20 years. Another way to compare that; 2.4x as many australians per capita have been killed in the past 20 years by 'lone killer' events. (since the gun ban took effect). When comparing mass shootings, fire and vehicles can't be in the mix, just as you can't include 911. If you are trying to sell instead of killing with guns it is vehicles and fire. That is a completely separate problem and you have no clue if they would have used guns if they had been available. There is no way to equate that to gun control, e.g. "well it would have been much worse/better" picking one side or the other. I'm just trying to point out there is a lot of cherry picking when trying to use australia as an example of gun control, and once again, pointing out that with the 20 deaths per year due to mass-shooting events in the usa, that is a very low number in a population of 325,000,000, it just is. One out of 16.5 million is the yearly risk. 0.006 of 100k. With homicide risk being about 5 out of 100k, the 'epidemic of lone shooter' in the usa is borderline fairytale. Again, posted several times, mass shooting is just a part of the problem that gun control should address. Thus far, shooters have been stoped before they ran out of ammunition. Just to use Vegas as an example, the shooter had several guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition that he didn't use. And, when you evaluate gun violence murders is one category. To be accurate for comparison to anything it must be killed and wounded. Comparing to Australia; 5.8 people per year, but with 1/ 13th the population, that means One of 4.3 million yearly risk, or 0.02 of 100k risk, also really 'nonexistent', but almost four times the risk. I've pulled my numbers from wikipedia and there could be something missing but the science is sound. It's four times as likely to be mass-murdered in Australia than in the usa. (it's like a bazillion times more likely should you in the less likely change get mass-murdered in the usa, it will be at the dangerous end of a gun of course). Not exactly sure why it's 'so much more scary' to have the risk of being shot as opposed to burned to death. mass-murder did NOT go away post ban in australia. Even when we search out a reliable study source it is worthless if our interpretation is inaccurate or we add comparisons to another source. Even if deaths by fire and vehicles is accurate it is ridiculous to bring it in evidence a gun problem has not gone away. I am perpetually annoyed by all the forces that put so much effort to move the needle on something that is a 1 in 16 million risk. Heart disease is a 1 in 1 risk in the usa for crying out loud. There is a 50% chance you will die of heart disease in the usa (of course that's lifetime risk not per year yikes). If you average out 70 years in 16mil chance though it still is 230,000x as likely to die from heart disease than a mass shooting. Put effort where it will help the most people, stop trying to change 0.3% into 0.1%, change 60% into 30% and save millions of lives.[/QUOTE Heart disease doesn't have anything to do with this. New drugs and procedures are introduced frequently that reduce the chance of a heart attacks or the damage they can do. Certainly mass shooting put gun control in the headlines. They should. I've asked you why you NEED a gun that is a semi or automatic and has a 40 or more rounds at a time. Your only answer has been that you WANT one to play kick the can. Some of the assault weapons are war weapons. Are you expecting a domestic ground war? |
Quote:
|
Guns in America: Attitudes and Experiences of Americans | Pew Research Center
The above study is quite long but it is very worthwhile to read a couple of times. Whether you are for or against gun control the discussion must start with a common base of understanding. Those against stricter gun control largely base their position on second amendment rights rather than the facts that measure what the majority of Americans believe should be done, where there is already bipartisan support for changes and factual, current and supportive studies. IMO pro gun believers retreat to 2nd amendment rights when their opinions are dispelled by the facts. Those that want more gun control are very willing to have a non partisan discussion about issues. It is clearly the pro gun folks that adamantly refuse to consider working together. I certainly respect those that believe the constitution should never be changed but the foundation of a democracy is the will of the people. One statistic that I haven't mention should be mentioned: 89% of gun owners are willing to admit that owning a gun is very or somewhat important to their overall identity. When combined with protection as the primary reason to own a gun and that a very high percentage of gun owned are revolvers, IMO it doesn't paint a pretty picture for our children. I applaud countries that have rationally made changes based on current gun violence as intelligently adapting and focusing on a better future than protecting an 'ancient' past. |
Wow this thread is still ongoing? Been away for a while, but I see you guys are still at it. Have fun ;)
But no luck finding any part numbers for the oem weapon door unfortunately. |
Here's a nifty solution i found:
http://www.e90post.com/forums/attach...4&d=1394134432 Would have to add a lock to the center console. I found some very nice holsters for under the steering wheel, but non-locking; a combination of that solution and a flat lock-box that would fit under the passenger seat may work wonders. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/w...10/HK-door.jpg Amazing solution i think police i germany use. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/w...tplaats-14.jpg Another related german cop accessory. I'm thinking this is along the lines of the original interest, correct? https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon....L._SL1500_.jpg A generic safe but i like this one it has a gas-strut to open the thing gives you a lot of options for mounting. I'm thinking of doing something like this; it could be mounted on the back of the passenger seat for reasonable access from driver. A gun-magnet is used to hold in place in the safe. I did a bunch of searching for any door-mounted solution like the two cop options above saw nothing OEM direct-fit. I keep a socket set under my passenger seat but it's pretty thin, i don't think there is room for one of these safes under. I think there is enough extra padding in the seat, that the last example could be 'built in' flush; you could use some magnets to hold the pleather flap over the safe and it would be invisible. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:31 PM. |
vBulletin, Copyright 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0
© 2017 Xoutpost.com. All rights reserved.