E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > General Off-Topic

General Off-Topic
Everything not about BMWs. Posts must be "primetime" safe and in good taste. You must be logged in to see sub-forums.
Click here to browse all new posts.

View Poll Results: que?
<10% could do it 21 23.33%
10 - 50 % 24 26.67%
would def need to be greater than 50 % 36 40.00%
JONJON > 9 10.00%
Voters: 90. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Old 01-10-2013, 05:30 PM   #161
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 893
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by evolved View Post
I have yet to see any serious politician talk about banning ALL firearms.
Its a stepping stone. The next time someone blows away a theater full of people with a glock, semiautomatic pistols will be banned. People will be allowed to defend themselves (under the protection of the 2nd amendment) with flintlock rifles. Bloomberg and his butt buddy Rahm do just that.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 05:32 PM   #162
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 893
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by casino is no lie View Post
Background checks for starters. I would like for some level of training to be mandatory, but for it to be subsidized by the Government to avoid limiting those who are not financially able to receive said training. I would even be comfortable with a written test similar to a driver's license. If you fail, you can come back next week and take it again.

I think another form of gun control is strict penalties for those who use them in crimes or acquire them for illegal means. And while it may not be a deterrent to some, it will at least hold them accountable and keep them off the streets.

I am okay with gun free zones in certain places like court rooms and schools. I understand the inherent risks of people not being able to protect themselves, but when you take a step back and realize the statistical insignificance of the events and remove yourself from the sensationalism it's really not a big risk at all.


Many things we already have in place. Some simply need to be reformed. I don't think limiting people's right to a CCW benefits anyone. We simply need to hold deviants accountable.
Now, how is a law or a regulation going to hold those deviants accountable? We already do background checks. Fully automatic weapons are already banned. Many states require you to take a course to get a CCW.

Why do you believe laws will stop these events?
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 05:33 PM   #163
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 893
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by evolved View Post
I said serious politician. Not a radical wingnut.
Ummmm, she is writing the legislation, and the PRESIDENT OF THE COUNTRY will sign it into law...I think she qualifies as a "serious" politician.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 05:41 PM   #164
kaput
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Carlisle, PA
Posts: 748
My Ride: 2002 M3 SMG
Send a message via AIM to kaput
Quote:
Originally Posted by badfast View Post
How so? Kaput asked I provided. Perhaps he should have framed his question more specifically to get the result he wanted. But that wouldn't call for accurate results only desired ones.
You provided stats for a place that allows semiauto handguns, without magazine capacity limitations, with a LEGAL open carry law with limited restrictions.

Bravo. Monaco. Bring your gun, bring your ammo, carry it in plain view and no one gets hurt.

Thanks for the support.
__________________

2002 M3
kaput is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 05:42 PM   #165
evolved
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Saint Louis, MO
Posts: 815
My Ride: 2011 BMW 135i
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
Ummmm, she is writing the legislation, and the PRESIDENT OF THE COUNTRY will sign it into law...I think she qualifies as a "serious" politician.
She is one of many that are crafting various legislations. I doubt we'll see something as radical as what she is proposing.
__________________

Present
2011 BMW 135i - BSM
Past
2006 Mazdaspeed 6 GT, 2000 BMW 323ci, 2003 Evolution VIII, 1995 Nissan 240sx w/ SR20DET

E46Sig
evolved is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 05:50 PM   #166
badfast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Northern Korea
Posts: 541
My Ride: A Car
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaput View Post
You provided stats for a place that allows semiauto handguns, without magazine capacity limitations, with a LEGAL open carry law with limited restrictions.

Bravo. Monaco. Bring your gun, bring your ammo, carry it in plain view and no one gets hurt.

Thanks for the support.
Np, now lets bring Monaco's gun laws here.
badfast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 06:02 PM   #167
kaput
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Carlisle, PA
Posts: 748
My Ride: 2002 M3 SMG
Send a message via AIM to kaput
Quote:
Originally Posted by badfast View Post
Np, now lets bring Monaco's gun laws here.
We pretty much have them now, with some exceptions. Many of the factors you wish to make law won't fly, but many exist is some form.

And in reality, none of this stops the situations which got you all excited about this in the first place... Sandy Hook.

The shooter, was 20 which is not of legal age to carry, own, possess or use in an unsupervised situation. Both the pistols and the handguns were regulated in the state of CT.

the zone of attack, was a gun free zone, the car was not his or his mothers, and the crime of murder is still illegal.

So, even if you place a 21 year age limit on gun ownership, and require records to be kept (which even PA has to some degree in terms of transfer for Semi Auto Rifles, or new purchase with serial number, background check and signature all filed) a 20 year old child decided to break those laws put in place, and commit a crime. He was not worried of the penalty or the outcome. He went to the school to die.

Blame the rifle. When the congresswoman was shot, Glock was the evil gun of the hour. Aurora and Sandy Hook make the AR-15 the demon. Soon, an AK47 will kill some people, and that will be the demon.

I am seriously shocked that you cannot see that laws mean nothing to someone who is going to carry out a plan like this. It keeps already banned weapons out of the hands of those that cannot afford the tax stamp and NFA registration wait time to kill someone, but if it is not a rifle, it'll be a pistol. If not a pistol, then a shotgun (kinda like today), if not that a knife, or a bat, or a car, or bomb or fists, or fire. The tool is the tool, not the problem.

I agree on the mental health thing, however knowing this country, taking depression meds would make it impossible for you to pass the exam, and you would not be able to get one, which is ridiculous. Maybe I just think differently than you, but we go way overboard with definitions of crazy/terrorist... Why should I trust those same people to decide who is sane enough to have a CCW permit, and an AR-15?
__________________

2002 M3
kaput is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 06:10 PM   #168
MpoweredM
Wants to be Orange
 
MpoweredM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 13,302
My Ride: 1098S; RR Sport; CRZ
Quote:
Originally Posted by XKxRome0ox View Post
does the 3% still apply today? does it take into account that the present day US military is vastly superior in armament?
Who is to say the whole military would stand with the government.
__________________

Santa Hats thanks to Scott!
Click for pics of my bikes
Click for pics of my old 335
Click for pics of my old S4 avant
Click for pics of my old M3


Quote:
Originally Posted by v8 5 View Post
Constatine would of thrown his dildo at the kidnapper and proceed to cry in his closet after said kidnapper escaped.
MpoweredM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 06:20 PM   #169
badfast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Northern Korea
Posts: 541
My Ride: A Car
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaput View Post
We pretty much have them now, with some exceptions. Many of the factors you wish to make law won't fly, but many exist is some form.

And in reality, none of this stops the situations which got you all excited about this in the first place... Sandy Hook.

The shooter, was 20 which is not of legal age to carry, own, possess or use in an unsupervised situation. Both the pistols and the handguns were regulated in the state of CT.

the zone of attack, was a gun free zone, the car was not his or his mothers, and the crime of murder is still illegal.

So, even if you place a 21 year age limit on gun ownership, and require records to be kept (which even PA has to some degree in terms of transfer for Semi Auto Rifles, or new purchase with serial number, background check and signature all filed) a 20 year old child decided to break those laws put in place, and commit a crime. He was not worried of the penalty or the outcome. He went to the school to die.

Blame the rifle. When the congresswoman was shot, Glock was the evil gun of the hour. Aurora and Sandy Hook make the AR-15 the demon. Soon, an AK47 will kill some people, and that will be the demon.

I am seriously shocked that you cannot see that laws mean nothing to someone who is going to carry out a plan like this. It keeps already banned weapons out of the hands of those that cannot afford the tax stamp and NFA registration wait time to kill someone, but if it is not a rifle, it'll be a pistol. If not a pistol, then a shotgun (kinda like today), if not that a knife, or a bat, or a car, or bomb or fists, or fire. The tool is the tool, not the problem.

I agree on the mental health thing, however knowing this country, taking depression meds would make it impossible for you to pass the exam, and you would not be able to get one, which is ridiculous. Maybe I just think differently than you, but we go way overboard with definitions of crazy/terrorist... Why should I trust those same people to decide who is sane enough to have a CCW permit, and an AR-15?
We certainly do not have what Monaco has. Stop pretending. Why do you also keep pretending you know where I stand on the issue? I am just tired of people touting the good aspect of guns but refuse to accept the uglier side.

What do guns do? They allow me to defend myself and my family. *cheers*
What else do guns do? They allow people to kill other people more efficiently. *here comes the boos and rate comparisons to those killed by knives and dildos and a downplay of gun lethality.*

Why do guns allow you to defend yourself better than a dildo or a knife? Because you can neutralize (kill or maim) your target with ease and efficiency.

And stop claiming people will resort to more destructive means if guns are restricted. That is you trying to predict human behavior from your own ideas on how humans behave.

As a responsible gun owner I am willing to accept both the good and the bad. Those that only believe the good and try to statistics their way out of the bad are only fooling themselves. I recognize that some people will acquire guns for bad purposes and others for the good.
badfast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 06:45 PM   #170
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 893
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by badfast View Post
We certainly do not have what Monaco has. Stop pretending. Why do you also keep pretending you know where I stand on the issue? I am just tired of people touting the good aspect of guns but refuse to accept the uglier side.

What do guns do? They allow me to defend myself and my family. *cheers*
What else do guns do? They allow people to kill other people more efficiently. *here comes the boos and rate comparisons to those killed by knives and dildos and a downplay of gun lethality.*

Why do guns allow you to defend yourself better than a dildo or a knife? Because you can neutralize (kill or maim) your target with ease and efficiency.

And stop claiming people will resort to more destructive means if guns are restricted. That is you trying to predict human behavior from your own ideas on how humans behave.

As a responsible gun owner I am willing to accept both the good and the bad. Those that only believe the good and try to statistics their way out of the bad are only fooling themselves. I recognize that some people will acquire guns for bad purposes and others for the good.
In the cities that have the highest crime, we do. Go figure. Try harder.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 06:47 PM   #171
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 893
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by badfast View Post
We certainly do not have what Monaco has. Stop pretending. Why do you also keep pretending you know where I stand on the issue? I am just tired of people touting the good aspect of guns but refuse to accept the uglier side.

What do guns do? They allow me to defend myself and my family. *cheers*
What else do guns do? They allow people to kill other people more efficiently. *here comes the boos and rate comparisons to those killed by knives and dildos and a downplay of gun lethality.*

Why do guns allow you to defend yourself better than a dildo or a knife? Because you can neutralize (kill or maim) your target with ease and efficiency.

And stop claiming people will resort to more destructive means if guns are restricted. That is you trying to predict human behavior from your own ideas on how humans behave.

As a responsible gun owner I am willing to accept both the good and the bad. Those that only believe the good and try to statistics their way out of the bad are only fooling themselves. I recognize that some people will acquire guns for bad purposes and others for the good.
He isn't trying to pass a law basely SOLELY on the assumption of prediction (of human behavior).....you and your posse are.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 06:52 PM   #172
badfast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Northern Korea
Posts: 541
My Ride: A Car
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
In the cities that have the highest crime, we do. Go figure. Try harder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
He isn't trying to pass a law basely SOLELY on the assumption of prediction (of human behavior).....you and your posse are.
Why don't you just stop posting. Your assumptions are....pointless and hinder any discussion.

also question: if we have the same gun laws as Monaco, why is our crime rate significantly higher than theirs? They have few guns and a low crime rate.

Last edited by badfast; 01-10-2013 at 06:58 PM.
badfast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 07:02 PM   #173
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 893
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by badfast View Post
Why don't you just stop posting. Your assumptions are....pointless and hinder any discussion.

also question: if we have the same gun laws as Monaco, why is our crime rate significantly higher than theirs? They have few guns and a low crime rate.
Because the amount of guns available is the SOLE factor in gun violence. Im amazed you have a job that requires something other than a mop.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 07:04 PM   #174
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 893
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Put the mop down for a second and check the numbers....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_...ita_by_country

Maybe this will light a fuse in a brain cell and you can understand that the number of guns held by legal citizens has very little to do with gun violence, and that gun LAWS have little to do with gun violence.

For some reason, Finland, Switzerland and Luxomberg has high gun ownership, but FAR less crime than Mexico, Russia, England, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate
__________________

Last edited by NFRs2000nyc; 01-10-2013 at 07:06 PM.
NFRs2000nyc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 07:09 PM   #175
badfast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Northern Korea
Posts: 541
My Ride: A Car
Mexico is in the middle of drug war. Comparing any country to Mexico is bust. Yet Japan, Monaco, Lux, Switzerland, and Finland ALL have significantly lower gun ownership (and over all guns) rates than the US and lower crime. You cant explain that!

Last edited by badfast; 01-10-2013 at 07:10 PM.
badfast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 07:10 PM   #176
pancakes
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: awesomeville
Posts: 86
My Ride: BMW M, VW GTI, BIKE
take it to the bedroom, you two.
pancakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 07:11 PM   #177
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 893
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by badfast View Post
Mexico is in the middle of drug war. Comparing any country to Mexico is bust. Yet Japan, Monaco, Lux, Switzerland, and Finland ALL have lower gun ownership (and over all guns) rates than the US and lower crime. You cant explain that!
Did you ever think that those countries don't have the immigration problem, the drug problems, the gang problems, the border problems, etc? Did you ever think those are largely one race homogenous nations? Did you ever think that they are largely homogenous in socioeconomic terms....or is the fact that "guns are everywhere" the only aspect in your cherrypicking adventure?
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 07:15 PM   #178
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 958
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by bimmerfan08 View Post
I'm not disagreeing with you here but there are 2 sides to the story. Both sides use facts sparingly and fear and emotion prodigiously.
Fixed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k2pilot View Post
This is where I think the pro-gun people start to falter, some compromise has to be made. The smartest thing to me would be a licensing system, like most things in life people should be allowed to do most anything, so long as they've been found competent and a non-hazard. In aviation we have a very difficult licensing processing, and in the end it places a great deal of faith and freedom in those deemed qualified. Then compare that to driving, licenses are easy as sin to get and we end up with a number of idiots behind the wheel. The same should be true for firearms, if we put in place a more aggressive licensing systems, it could be a compromise of increased gun safety and control, while also enabling more gun-freedoms for those of adequate competence.
The practical side of me agrees with you regarding the compromise.

But here's one thing I'm sure of: the govt is better at chipping away at liberties, curtailing freedoms, and infringing rights than it is at doing the opposite.

There are certainly examples of deregulation, repeals of laws and easing of restrictions. But the general trend for govt is the other direction. Steadily increasing restrictions in small steps, each of them sounding reasonable and common sensical at the time, that eventually total up to fairly dramatic confinement of a right or freedom. Sort of a "death by 1000 cuts" kinda thing.

So while I'm happy to consider any reasonable steps that will dramatically lessen the probability of gun violence, I'm also very wary of instituting a curtailment that's just another chip taken out of 2A rights. Once those chips get knocked off the stone, they're very difficult to glue back on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by evolved View Post
I don't think anyone is discussing a national disarming of citizens.....do you really think the government could pull that off?
All at once, no. A bit at a time? See above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stankia View Post
Why has this turned once again into a pointless gun debate, we had such a great start at the beginning of the thread...
Because E46OT was running low on those. There must be some kind of quota.
__________________
----------------------------------------------
Quote:
As a juror, do you think the trial was a publicity stunt?

Yes
----------------------------------------------
Xcelratr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 09:40 PM   #179
kaput
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Carlisle, PA
Posts: 748
My Ride: 2002 M3 SMG
Send a message via AIM to kaput
Quote:
Originally Posted by badfast View Post
Mexico is in the middle of drug war that also brought on a ban of all guns to citizens. I don't count drug lord on drug lord violence when it comes to statistics, because in the end we cannot control what a criminal does, regardless of the laws we write.
Fixed that for you.

Seriously, get off your high horse. Throwing around the terms like "responsible gun owner" to prove your point is hilarious. I too, am a responsible gun owner. I have many guns. Some big, some little. Some built specifically to kill your ancestors, some built to outfit the police with a reliable side arm. All are deadly, but one one has ever killed a person, and that happened long before I was born.

Gun owners are aware that the tool they use for defense is an instrument of death. That is why we treat the weapon with respect. Your frustrations about my points, and the things I say is the exact thing I feel when you bring up laws and statutes that CRIMINALS have to follow. My guns will not kill someone in a mass shooting, unless it is for defense. I know this to be a fact. My guns are well taken care of, maintained properly and always treated with respect. This does not change how a person who does not care for the law thinks. They don't care about the outcome. You have still not answered how a person who should not have legally had those weapons shot those children, regardless of the gun case, or shoebox he found them in. His intent was to break the law, kill some people and die in the process. Where or how he got the weapons should not be the issue. The issue is that he was left alone, unchecked for mental problems which resulted in this tragedy.

With this, comes the persons choice to not get treated. You cannot mandate someone get treated for a medical condition. You cannot predict when or if the person will decide that "today is the day". This is a slippery slope you are traveling on. You start locking people up for depression and mild psychological issues, you are infringing on their rights as well. You over step the 2nd amendment, and you are doing the same.

There is no real quick, easy solution to the problem. Banning guns of any kind will not fix this, no matter how hard you hope and pray.
__________________

2002 M3
kaput is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 09:53 PM   #180
badfast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Northern Korea
Posts: 541
My Ride: A Car
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaput View Post
Fixed that for you.

Seriously, get off your high horse. Throwing around the terms like "responsible gun owner" to prove your point is hilarious. I too, am a responsible gun owner. I have many guns. Some big, some little. Some built specifically to kill your ancestors, some built to outfit the police with a reliable side arm. All are deadly, but one one has ever killed a person, and that happened long before I was born.

Gun owners are aware that the tool they use for defense is an instrument of death. That is why we treat the weapon with respect. Your frustrations about my points, and the things I say is the exact thing I feel when you bring up laws and statutes that CRIMINALS have to follow. My guns will not kill someone in a mass shooting, unless it is for defense. I know this to be a fact. My guns are well taken care of, maintained properly and always treated with respect. This does not change how a person who does not care for the law thinks. They don't care about the outcome. You have still not answered how a person who should not have legally had those weapons shot those children, regardless of the gun case, or shoebox he found them in. His intent was to break the law, kill some people and die in the process. Where or how he got the weapons should not be the issue. The issue is that he was left alone, unchecked for mental problems which resulted in this tragedy.

With this, comes the persons choice to not get treated. You cannot mandate someone get treated for a medical condition. You cannot predict when or if the person will decide that "today is the day". This is a slippery slope you are traveling on. You start locking people up for depression and mild psychological issues, you are infringing on their rights as well. You over step the 2nd amendment, and you are doing the same.

There is no real quick, easy solution to the problem. Banning guns of any kind will not fix this, no matter how hard you hope and pray.


you are impossible. and it is not only because of the failed ways you frame arguments and abide by false correlations. And you constantly prove this by approaching me as some die hard gun grabber--when I am not. It is no surprise than that everything you read from starts with a negative perception of what I will say. I don't take you as an open minded individual just someone that is widely susceptible to misinformation and whatever conforms to his preconceived views. You not only prove it here, but in the conspiracy theories that you believe in and defend.
badfast is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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 On
Censor is ON





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 1999 - 2011 performanceIX Inc - privacy policy - terms of use