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 SigBoi (Post 1117663)

My take is to each his own, my family came from one of the safest city-states in the world, where any single murder by any method is a huge deal. But here in the US, you are responsible for your own safety and that of your loved ones, thus why I carry. H&K USP 9 Compact btw.

But thanks for getting back on topic, those look nice for secure storage.

What I was trying to go for was more like the weapon box that fits the door like on the E70 Security Model. I always carry IWB at 5 o'clock and would like to not have to reveal and transfer the pistol to another location on the car when getting in and out. It would be much easier to have a dedicated pistol for the car.

I like the highway holster for quick deployment, when driving. I also am thinking about molding a slim compartment to the left side of the center console, near my right knee so it'd be easy to grab with my right hand. This is mainly for when I'm in the car.

Then I'd transfer the pistol to the door type, or other lockbox under the seat for when car is parked.

We can assume responsibility for our own safety but it is not a requirement. We have policemen that are armed and trained to determine when deadly force is necessary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowz (Post 1117647)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uacjxRzYPl0

This covers just how low our gun violence is compared to other countries actually.

We have the highest gun ownership rate at 90 guns per 100 people.

But were not even in the top 100 of the per capita murder rate.......

The link is an example being able to find something that endorses ones position on guns. The source is bias, strongly in favor of guns. As an example, to evaluate how the US rates as far as other countries you don't start at the worst case, you start and the best case and see how many more murders per capita the US has then the best case. for instance, how many more murders are there per capita in US than New Zealand.

PEW research is a non partisan, non profit, reputable, non biased research organization. If anyone is interested in looking at the extent of the US problem with guns objectively that is a great source.

Stats are stats. Where you start doesn't change the results of the factual data.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowz (Post 1117634)

Vast majority of us citizens do not want gun control. Thus the republicans control all branches of government right now.

Democrats are for gun control. The don't control anything right now.

So I think that clearly leans the usa in the non gun control sector at the moment. But that may change at some point. But as of right now the majority is not in favor of gun control.

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.

The problem is that everybody likes to group you as either Left or Right, no one in the middle. I would think that there are more people in the middle then there are right or left. Perhaps that is why there is no middle ground because people don't want to accept the other side outlook.

The Mass citizen of the United States did not vote for Donald J. Trump. Over 3 million more voters voted for Hillary. It is just the antiquated electoral college mean of choosing a winner is how Donald J. Trump got elected. If we intend to keep the electoral college for choosing our President there should be some change. Instead of a winner take all the electoral votes for that state, it should be base on the percentage of people voting for each candidate. Donald Trump only won Wisconsin by 0.77% not even by 1% but he got all the electoral votes for Wisconsin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewwynn (Post 1117650)

I'm just starting off with facts to get a baseline of discussion. I think for example not letting the average Joe have access to automatic guns is a perfectly acceptable trade off of freedom and civility. Taking the side of outlawing even semi automatic rifles is a non starter it's not going to happen so what else do ya got is what I'm saying.

My last post was saying that we collectively dodged a big bullet with this Vegas shooter because you can be sure he expected 10x the actual causalities. I was also saying that he did not choose an effective way to cause mass casualty on a crowd of 22,000 which worked out very good for just shy of 21,500 people who though terrified, were not directly hit. I contend that the hype of AR-15 caused him to choose a less effective option and say for example the gun control side had their way and forced him to use a dozen or two m1 collector rifles that more would have died, it's impossible to prevent madman and they will figure out whatever it takes to do their evil bidding. We can on only do our best to catch them in the act of getting ready or invent faster ways to respond such as pin point triangulation of a gun report, the technology which already exists and is installed on college campuses around the USA.

I can not think of a single law that would have stopped this guy, only change the exact particulars in which the assault was carried out. I'm not saying remotely that we should just give up, I already said a perfect example above: they dropped the ball with the bump stock but people can achieve the same effect with a belt loop: you can't stop "that sort of thing" you can impede it though.

A lock is designed to keep an honest person honest. That philosophy will go a long way to keep some guns out of the wrong hands but it's very limited in its power. Not to say we shouldn't try.

At least 100-200x as much lead is put down range for sport not hunting so it's a very ignorant argument to say what's the point of a semi auto gun for hunting: the point is I can save $700-1600 by using the same gun for both.

With 100,000,000 gun owners and 300,000,000 guns in America, the statistics are incredibly in favor of the law abiding owner causing very little harm. Similar to an airline crash: very rare but a lot of people will die at once when they crash. Regardless both are very very low risk, both are very sensational when they go badly.

A lot more people will die from infections at a hospital than a bullet every year, the media hypes gun violence because it sells. The song "dirty laundry" makes the perfect case.

"Assault rifle" is a made up term of the progressive left to demonize the other side. The most common rifle sold is a sporting semi automatic rifle that is perfect for both target and hunting. Painting a gun black does not change the function of the gun. The weapon also has a very small bullet that reduces it's range and stopping power, anybody using that term for a normal average gun is showing either their bias or ignorance. Just because the lie is told a lot by the media and leftists doesn't make it any more true.

You didn't include the 400-500 wounded. You really believe he could have done more devastation, having to find someone not moving, aim to kill each time in 10 minutes in was shooting?

It doesn't matter if we can't think of a way to solve the problem. We are not the experts that should look for solutions. Do you think the number of what are commonly called assault rifles purchased each year would drop if there were a $1,500 or more federal tax.

Infections in hospital are not a valid comparison. Even if it were that doesn't mean the number that die from gun violence is at a---whatever you think is acceptable amount. There is continuous research and advancements to reduce infections in hospitals. What research is in process to reduce gun violence. 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowz (Post 1117694)

Stats are stats. Where you start doesn't change the results of the factual data.

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by upallnight (Post 1117697)

Well said!

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.

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.

"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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Quote:

Originally Posted by upallnight (Post 1117697)

Ahh but that's why I was VEEERY careful to say all branches. I knew he didn't win the popular vote. Even if they don't do anything republican voters are pro gun and democrats are not was the point I was making.

The biggest problem with the republican party right now elected official wise is they talk the talk but don't walk the walk. That's about to change from what Ive been following. I think they might start getting more done soon.

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