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 > Political Talk

Political Talk
You may discuss anything regarding politics in this forum ONLY. If you cannot respect others opinions, your access to this forum will be removed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-31-2013, 12:36 PM   #61
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 915
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by casino is no lie View Post
I love firearms. I think they're beautiful pieces of engineering. They're fun to shoot at the range. They can be used for self defense. You can even go out into the wilderness and hunt your own food. Even the sound and feel along is amazing. I don't see the need for a ban on AR-15'esque firearms. I think the restrictions in Chicago are ineffective for what they're trying to accomplish.

Even with that said I still think you're an embarrassment to the voices of those who advocate gun rights and ownership. You do them a disservice by opening your mouth with your juvenile and empty comparisons to hammers.


Whether my jimmies are rustled or not does nothing to change that.


I didn't compare them to hammers. Your reading comprehension skills are as embarrasing as your feeble attempts of personal insults.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 12:41 PM   #62
casino is no lie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: CDT
Posts: 76
My Ride: M54B30
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
I didn't compare them to hammers. Your reading comprehension skills are as embarrasing as your feeble attempts of personal insults.
Please, enlighten everyone again on how a .45 out of your Glock is more destructive than a .223 out of an AR-15.

I don't need to insult you. Your posts do it for me.
__________________
casino is no lie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 12:43 PM   #63
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 casino is no lie View Post
Please, enlighten everyone again on how a .45 out of your Glock is more destructive than a .223 out of an AR-15.

I don't need to insult you. Your posts do it for me.
At close range, I would take the Glock over the .223

Just saying. It also makes a bigger hole, and moves slower, causing more tissue damage going in and coming out, especially if you use JHP rounds...

But you knew that.
__________________

2002 M3
kaput is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 12:51 PM   #64
casino is no lie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: CDT
Posts: 76
My Ride: M54B30
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaput View Post
It also makes a bigger hole, and moves slower, causing more tissue damage going in and coming out...
I can tell you have zero understanding of hydrostatic shock.
__________________
casino is no lie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 12:52 PM   #65
badfast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Northern Korea
Posts: 581
My Ride: A Car
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
I didn't compare them to hammers. Your reading comprehension skills are as embarrasing as your feeble attempts of personal insults.
Within your thread "Ban Hammers": http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthr...ht=ban+hammers

Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...an-With-Rifles
I wonder if the news will report this....holding my breath in 3,2,1....
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
I think the civilian public should only have rubber mallets on wooden handles. There is no reason for a civilian to own a pickaxe or even a curved claw hammer. I hope Harry Reid is in the process of writing down new legislation.
badfast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 12:53 PM   #66
casino is no lie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: CDT
Posts: 76
My Ride: M54B30
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
I didn't compare them to hammers...
Quote:
Originally Posted by badfast View Post
__________________
casino is no lie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 01:09 PM   #67
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 915
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaput View Post
At close range, I would take the Glock over the .223

Just saying. It also makes a bigger hole, and moves slower, causing more tissue damage going in and coming out, especially if you use JHP rounds...

But you knew that.
He took my post out of context. I said a 45 would be more lethal than a 223 in a mass shooting situation, rather than "a 45 is more lethal than a 223." I could explain it, but Im not even going to bother, there is no point.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 01:10 PM   #68
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 915
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by casino is no lie View Post
And you don't see how it's related? You don't see passing a ban/law based on a shooting is as dumb as passing a law that would ban weapons which cause more murders than "assault weapons"? Those two things bear no relation to you? I didn't compare ARs to hammers did I? I compared passing laws based on numbers.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 01:18 PM   #69
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 915
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by casino is no lie View Post
I can tell you have zero understanding of hydrostatic shock.
Hydrostatic shock is not the end all be all of lethality. Unless you hit a vital organ (or get very close to one) hydrostatic shock will cause slightly more tissue damage. Most of the 223 energy at close range will continue going. I was at the range, and shot a 22 caliber steel target with an AR at 50 rounds...the round went clean through. At close range, a 223 will plow right through. Yes it will cause harm, and yes, you will have tissue damage from hydrostatic shock, but you have a decent chance of walking away from that. A 45 on the other hand is slow moving. It will break up inside, causing tons of damage, including deadly infections ie sepsis. Most of the time (unless you hit a vital organ) death occurs from infection, not the direct gun shot wound. Furthermore, I have seen people get shot with a 223 numerous times, get up and run for cover. Again, I didn't say a 45 is more lethal than a 223 PERIOD...I said in a mass shooting situation, a 45 IMHO would get the job done easier.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 01:18 PM   #70
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 915
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by badfast View Post
Sarcasm eludes you I see.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 01:40 PM   #71
casino is no lie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: CDT
Posts: 76
My Ride: M54B30
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
I didn't compare them to hammers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badfast View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
And you don't see how it's related?
__________________
casino is no lie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 01:41 PM   #72
casino is no lie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: CDT
Posts: 76
My Ride: M54B30
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
Hydrostatic shock is not the end all be all of lethality. Unless you hit a vital organ (or get very close to one) hydrostatic shock will cause slightly more tissue damage. Most of the 223 energy at close range will continue going. I was at the range, and shot a 22 caliber steel target with an AR at 50 rounds...the round went clean through. At close range, a 223 will plow right through. Yes it will cause harm, and yes, you will have tissue damage from hydrostatic shock, but you have a decent chance of walking away from that. A 45 on the other hand is slow moving. It will break up inside, causing tons of damage, including deadly infections ie sepsis. Most of the time (unless you hit a vital organ) death occurs from infection, not the direct gun shot wound. Furthermore, I have seen people get shot with a 223 numerous times, get up and run for cover. Again, I didn't say a 45 is more lethal than a 223 PERIOD...I said in a mass shooting situation, a 45 IMHO would get the job done easier.
I'll keep that in mind next time I'm drifting around corners at high speeds while trying to escape from a van.
__________________
casino is no lie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 01:52 PM   #73
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 108
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
At least you understood that the analogy would be drunk drivers and liquor, not drunk drivers and drunk drivers. The point is you don't make liquor harder to get right? You don't make higher proof liquor harder/impossible to get right? No. What you do is simply enforce what's on the books, and punish those that abuse the substance, thats it. If we are not banning Bacardi 151, you cannot come up with a 1/2 rational argument for banning "assault weapons."
I don't see this as an either/or situation -- ban everything or ban nothing -- nor as a this OR that in terms of addressing gun availability and acquisition OR punishing after-the-fact misuse.

Rather, I could see an increased overall level of gun control regulations aimed both at the availability and purchase of guns themselves as well as increased strictures on the possession and (mis)use of guns along with more stringent enforcement of those rules and laws.

Perhaps rational and compelling argument for more strictly controlling assault weapons, even to the point of banning them outright, might, and I would think could, be made (though there's a lot of weak and bad arguments too), but that's a discussion worth having. We already essentially ban fully automatic weapons for presumably rational reasons, perhaps that line might be moved somewhat to include assault weapons too.

To use the (imperfect) booze analogy, booze is indeed significantly regulated in a wide range of ways (making it harder to get-typically on a graduated scale and some areas even outlaw all liquor outright). Also, the subsequent misuse of booze (D&D, DWI, underage drinking) is also punished by force of law.

There's no single nor perfect solution to gun violence, nor really to any other problem in the human condition, but that doesn't mean we throw our hands up and do nothing either. Booze is regulated in a number of ways yet we still have a range of alcohol related problems in society, though presumably far fewer than were we to do nothing altogether.

As in anything, striking the right balance is key and I would suggest that given the extraordinarily high rates of gun violence, crime, death and injury in our society, we are far from finding those balances and indeed, our more laissez-faire approaches do not point in the right direction. There's a lot of alarmism, ideological extremism and demagoguery on both sides, but I believe there is a wide, pragmatic and practical middle ground to diminish the toll our current approaches to guns and gun violence are taking on our society.
Rhumb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 02:09 PM   #74
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 casino is no lie View Post
I'll keep that in mind next time I'm drifting around corners at high speeds while trying to escape from a van.
You are a terrible troll, and your sig sucks.
__________________

2002 M3
kaput is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 02:24 PM   #75
NOVAbimmer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: VA
Posts: 12,629
My Ride: 14 Impala FXST M796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
True this. Whatever else one's thoughts on gun control might be, this is a very weak and disingenuous argument to make. The core purpose of guns is there extremely effective and efficient lethality, it is folly to try to argue around that. Were guns not so very lethal, then why even arguing for them as a means of personal/home protection versus, say, down feather pillows? The most basic raison d'etre for guns is ultimately their capability to kill and that should remain at the core of any gun control argument, pro or con. All other considerations (sports, collecting, object d'art, etc.) are secondary at most.
Agreed, guns are objects that can make their user more lethal.

If you want to somehow try to legislate making guns less lethal, argue that.

But explain how a collapsible stock, flash suppressor, pistol grip, barrel shroud, or "the thing that goes up" makes a firearm more lethal.
__________________
NOVAbimmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 02:30 PM   #76
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 915
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
I don't see this as an either/or situation -- ban everything or ban nothing -- nor as a this OR that in terms of addressing gun availability and acquisition OR punishing after-the-fact misuse.

Rather, I could see an increased overall level of gun control regulations aimed both at the availability and purchase of guns themselves as well as increased strictures on the possession and (mis)use of guns along with more stringent enforcement of those rules and laws.

Perhaps rational and compelling argument for more strictly controlling assault weapons, even to the point of banning them outright, might, and I would think could, be made (though there's a lot of weak and bad arguments too), but that's a discussion worth having. We already essentially ban fully automatic weapons for presumably rational reasons, perhaps that line might be moved somewhat to include assault weapons too.

To use the (imperfect) booze analogy, booze is indeed significantly regulated in a wide range of ways (making it harder to get-typically on a graduated scale and some areas even outlaw all liquor outright). Also, the subsequent misuse of booze (D&D, DWI, underage drinking) is also punished by force of law.

There's no single nor perfect solution to gun violence, nor really to any other problem in the human condition, but that doesn't mean we throw our hands up and do nothing either. Booze is regulated in a number of ways yet we still have a range of alcohol related problems in society, though presumably far fewer than were we to do nothing altogether.

As in anything, striking the right balance is key and I would suggest that given the extraordinarily high rates of gun violence, crime, death and injury in our society, we are far from finding those balances and indeed, our more laissez-faire approaches do not point in the right direction. There's a lot of alarmism, ideological extremism and demagoguery on both sides, but I believe there is a wide, pragmatic and practical middle ground to diminish the toll our current approaches to guns and gun violence are taking on our society.
But again, guns are a speck in a haystack (not even a needle) compared to crime related to alcohol. Domestic violence, disorderly conduct, fights, destruction of property, drunk driving, etc....alcohol causes FAR more deaths than guns. Alcohol is responsible for family breakup, and a slew of other things. We don't ban assault alcohol and leave only the weak wine coolers right? One can argue that Bacardi 151 is the AR and White Zin is a 22 pistol. The logic must be the same. You cannot apply two different standards when the problem you are trying to curb is the same. You want to stop DEATH correct? Gun violence is a stupid media term. We want to stop wrongful deaths, for which alcohol is FAR more potent....but yet we recognize the fact that banning alcohol was a stupid idea. We ban drugs, and what happens? The logic doesnt line up in my opinion.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 02:40 PM   #77
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 108
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Simply because there are other large aspects and elements of crime in our society does not then mean we should ignore the terrible toll on life and limb that gun-related crimes are wreaking on our country. As previously noted, we do try to address and regulate alcohol in numerous ways to mitigate its negative effects on society, however imperfectly. In the same light, I think we need to examine how we address and regulate guns, in their own respective and unique ways, to mitigate the large swath of harm they do to our society and citizens.

As with alcohol, I'm not arguing a total ban, didn't work for booze and I don't think it would work for guns either. However, not banning doesn't mean not regulating in some ways, perhaps more effectively than we now do.
Rhumb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 02:46 PM   #78
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 108
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer View Post
Agreed, guns are objects that can make their user more lethal.
Far, far more lethal and far, far more easily (heat of the moment, etc.).

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer View Post
If you want to somehow try to legislate making guns less lethal, argue that.
Smaller magazines, banned ammo types, restrict especially lethal weapons like we have with fully automatic machine guns...yes, that's a good discussion to have. Might work, might not, or maybe work a bit, but the discussion itself shouldn't be quashed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer View Post
But explain how a collapsible stock, flash suppressor, pistol grip, barrel shroud, or "the thing that goes up" makes a firearm more lethal.
I don't think they generally do and I'll be the first to say that the fixation on assault weapons is mostly symbolic, aesthetic and highly distractionary from the real questions regarding guns.
Rhumb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 02:48 PM   #79
evolved
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Saint Louis, MO
Posts: 826
My Ride: 2011 BMW 135i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
Far, far more lethal and far, far more easily (heat of the moment, etc.).

Smaller magazines, banned ammo types, restrict especially lethal weapons like we have with fully automatic machine guns...yes, that's a good discussion to have. Might work, might not, or maybe work a bit, but the discussion itself shouldn't be quashed.

I don't think they generally do and I'll be the first to say that the fixation on assault weapons is mostly symbolic, aesthetic and highly distractionary from the real questions regarding guns.
How would a smaller magazine make it less lethal when I can reload my handgun in about a second (eject empty magazine and put in new loaded magazine)?

Full auto machine guns are already heavily regulated. The murders that happen with a fully automatic firearm are typically owned illegally.
__________________

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

E46Sig

Last edited by evolved; 01-31-2013 at 02:49 PM.
evolved is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 02:49 PM   #80
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 915
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
Simply because there are other large aspects and elements of crime in our society does not then mean we should ignore the terrible toll on life and limb that gun-related crimes are wreaking on our country. As previously noted, we do try to address and regulate alcohol in numerous ways to mitigate its negative effects on society, however imperfectly. In the same light, I think we need to examine how we address and regulate guns, in their own respective and unique ways, to mitigate the large swath of harm they do to our society and citizens.

As with alcohol, I'm not arguing a total ban, didn't work for booze and I don't think it would work for guns either. However, not banning doesn't mean not regulating in some ways, perhaps more effectively than we now do.
Fair enough. However, of the 300MM+ firearms out there, and only 12K or so gun deaths...I'd say the problem is actually very small. I guess you and I differ in this regard....although these are so called "gun crimes" I do not believe it is guns that are the problem.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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 Off
Censor is ON





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:17 PM.


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