BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
BIMMERPOST Universal Forums Off-Topic Discussions Board Politics/Religion Workplace violence poll - would you rather

View Poll Results: Which would you rather have at your place of work
All weapons are banned - no one has any 30 29.70%
Private security unarmed - non lethal only 4 3.96%
Private security armed - firearms 20 19.80%
weapons allowed by all employees (cannot say who gets them or does not get them) 11 10.89%
weapons allowed by employees with certification class 36 35.64%
Voters: 101. You may not vote on this poll

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      08-28-2015, 12:10 PM   #45
C5driver
Major
C5driver's Avatar
3382
Rep
1,154
Posts

Drives: 55...just kidding.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: 33.6167 N, 117.8975 W

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
You and others here want to have your cake and eat it too. You want inexpensive firearms, you want wide leeway in how and when you use them, and you have no regard for human life other than your own and your family's. I'm not cottoning to that.
Tony...I'm not used to seeing such a simplistic statement like that from you! I meant that without disrespect.

There's a segment of the population that would sacrifice their lives for the innocent and put themselves in harms way. I don't think this is the selfish image you meant to portray, but it just came across like that.
Appreciate 0
      08-28-2015, 12:12 PM   #46
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
761
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by FenixMike View Post
It was stated multiple times.

I will always have equal to or greater force than my attacker. If someone wants to attack me, im not concerned about a fair fight, im concerned about winning and assuring myself and those around me arent harmed.

Youve been watching too many action movies, and in addition to it being an impossible shot under pressure, that doesnt stop someone from shooting back.

Again, too much TV for you. Not only is this not possible, but seeing as how weapons are generally steel or other hard metal, you could also ricochet into another direction, harming other people.

Getting shot in the back isnt a way I want to go down, especially if You are attacking ME/my family, or in my house.

Many decades ago these things called "flash lights" were invented. Id be willing to bet most predators in the night carry them. If they dont, all ive done is taken away my ability to see them while they hunt me down and I have no recourse... unless I get lucky and the bad guy is scared of the dark.

Thats not my duty. My duty is to protect myself and others around me. If someone has malicious intent and decides to either use a deadly weapon, or use deadly force against me, they will have the same force brought on to them. Bad guys typically arent just looking to shoot me in the leg, shoot the gun out of my hand, slightly wound me etc, otherwise the gun statistics would show many people wounded by gunfire and zero deaths.
Okay. You want to discuss the matter from an emotional stance and I refuse to do so. That means we're pretty much done.

Red:
Well that you see it that way goes directly to cultural problem of which we both wrote. One can be part of the problem and its perpetuation, or one can be part of the solution. Simply saying "it's not my duty" clearly shows you have no interest in being part of the latter.

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
      08-28-2015, 12:14 PM   #47
FenixMike
Captain
391
Rep
769
Posts

Drives: 2015 X5 50i
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Albuquerque, NM

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
Do you realize what you and a couple others are doing? You are making excuses for why, in an event that occurs for 5% of the population, someone should kill another human being, and you're doing so in refutation of the idea of finding a viable alternative that prevents one from having to do so. You are also arguing that the sole viable solution in that rarefied situation is to shoot to kill with a lethal weapon. Lastly, you are suggesting that what is right for law enforcement personnel and military personnel in, respectively, law enforcement and combat scenarios is what is also right for civilians.

Quite simply it is not. The exigent goals and objectives are not the same.

You wrote about a moral compass, and I agree that a felon's moral compass isn't that high normally. Their human nature and the concomitant instincts are exactly the same as yours and mine for 99.99% of them. The sameness that matters is that, regardless of what felonious act -- other than murder -- they intend to commit, they do not intend to kill someone. They may feel they have to; they may feel they have to maim someone. But they don't enter into the act, in nearly all cases, planning to kill. Neither should a defender enter the defensive situation planning to kill. As I wrote above, what one plans to do has a huge impact on what one actually accomplishes.

Also, what sort of moral compass is it that says "the only option I have is to shoot to kill?" When defenders have, collectively, some genuine high moral ground to stand on, I'll then consider the moral compass of offenders.

I want you and other readers here to understand. I'm not at all suggesting that Americans be denied access to their guns. I'm simply saying that if guns be easy to get and easy to use, then the price -- monetar, penal, social, etc. -- of using one lethally must be very, very high. That's the trade-off.

You and others here want to have your cake and eat it too. You want inexpensive firearms, you want wide leeway in how and when you use them, and you have no regard for human life other than your own and your family's. I'm not cottoning to that.

All the best.
Tony, this will be my last response to you. Ive come to the conclusion youve had far too much of the koolaid and there is just no coming back to reality for you. I hope one day you arent a victim of your own fantasy world and you are able to defend yourself, but generally it takes something such as a situation similar to what we are speaking of to snap you out of the altered liberal reality. I blame biased education for your poor and non-realistic views on the world, and the failure to accept that some people are just evil and not only cannot be reasoned with, but also cannot be talked out of their pre determined evil agenda. The sheltered life of education and textbook scenarios have blinded you to the reality many of us have experienced in real life and/or on the job where as the alternate endings to a skirmish dont end in talking a person out of it, wounding them at which point they just walk away and lose interest, or wont chase you if you run away.

As far as all us gun totin rednecks wanting to get our guns off, youre smarter than that (at least I hope so). If I wanted low level intelligence liberal talking points, I can turn on CNN or MSNBC and get more than I need... be smarter than that and think for yourself. No one wakes up in the morning wanting to go out and kill people, and the LAST thing anyone wants to do is HAVE to use lethal force. With that in mind, I leave you with this last statement you can mull over for a bit. When push comes to shove and you have a decision of letting someone take your life (as well as others around you), or you taking theirs, which are you going to choose? Thinking about that and referencing all your textbook scenarios will get you killed, attempting to wound them will get you killed, running away may get you killed, and worse off, if you choose not to use your gun against them and they take it, now they get to use your gun against others. If youre that afraid to defend yourself or use a firearm, I suggest you dont ever buy one as it will likely only end up in the hands of an evil person. Live the rest of your life as a victim and if/when that time comes where your life is on the line, look back at this day and realize at least if you had a firearm, you have a last resort before someone tries to take your life and the possibility of stopping them before they do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
Okay. You want to discuss the matter from an emotional stance and I refuse to do so. That means we're pretty much done.
Well that you see it that way goes directly to cultural problem of which we both wrote. One can be part of the problem and its perpetuation, or one can be part of the solution. Simply saying "it's not my duty" clearly shows you have no interest in being part of the latter.
I believe you are confusing the definiton of "emotion". My concern is for the further continuation of my existance and stating I will do anything and everything in my power to do so. You on the other hand are crying that its not ok to shoot a bad person who has malicious intent because it hurts your feelings, and if big bad people want to protect their own lives, they should be taxed for it until they listen. This shows me youre a pouty little child that doesnt understand reality and may need some intervention in your life to help you deal with your emotions.
__________________
2015 X5 M-Sport 50i - ESS Tuning Flash, VRSF Downpipes, x5m filters, Bavsound stage 1 complete

Gone but never forgotten... 2014 M5 Competition, 2015 M3, 2014 X5 50i M Sport, 2015 435i M Sport, 2011 550i, 2011 535i

Last edited by FenixMike; 08-28-2015 at 12:20 PM..
Appreciate 0
      08-28-2015, 12:15 PM   #48
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
761
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by C5driver View Post
Tony...I'm not used to seeing such a simplistic statement like that from you! I meant that without disrespect.

There's a segment of the population that would sacrifice their lives for the innocent and put themselves in harms way. I don't think this is the selfish image you meant to portray, but it just came across like that.
You lost me. Sorry.

The thematic intent I had in mind when I wrote the statement you quoted is that the life of the assailant matters also, in spite of their despicable actions. I guess that didn't come across very well.

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
      08-28-2015, 12:24 PM   #49
SoCal235
Private First Class
42
Rep
166
Posts

Drives: M235
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal

iTrader: (0)

The people at my work are the absolute top of their field, and are some of the smartest most talented people I have met. That being said, I have seen the irresponsible way they use appliances and various other things around the studio, that make me think none of them should bring a gun to work.
Appreciate 3
      08-28-2015, 12:26 PM   #50
C5driver
Major
C5driver's Avatar
3382
Rep
1,154
Posts

Drives: 55...just kidding.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: 33.6167 N, 117.8975 W

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
The thematic intent I had in mind when I wrote the statement you quoted is that the life of the assailant matters also, in spite of their despicable actions. I guess that didn't come across very well.
I jumped into the conversation half way...

Anyways, I'm of the camp that if you try to harm an innocent, then regardless of mental state, well thought out reasons, caffeinated levels, whatever...then you must accept the consequences, up to and including lethal force.
Appreciate 0
      08-28-2015, 01:13 PM   #51
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
761
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by FenixMike View Post
Tony, this will be my last response to you. Ive come to the conclusion youve had far too much of the koolaid and there is just no coming back to reality for you. I hope [you never become] a victim of your own fantasy world and you are able to defend yourself, but generally it takes something such as a situation similar to what we are speaking of to snap you out of the altered liberal reality.

I blame biased education for your poor and non-realistic views on the world, and the failure to accept that some people are just evil and not only cannot be reasoned with, but also cannot be talked out of their pre determined evil agenda. The sheltered life of education and textbook scenarios have blinded you to the reality many of us have experienced in real life and/or on the job where as the alternate endings to a skirmish dont end in talking a person out of it, wounding them at which point they just walk away and lose interest, or wont chase you if you run away.

As far as all us gun totin rednecks wanting to get our guns off, youre smarter than that (at least I hope so). If I wanted low level intelligence liberal talking points, I can turn on CNN or MSNBC and get more than I need... be smarter than that and think for yourself. No one wakes up in the morning wanting to go out and kill people, and the LAST thing anyone wants to do is HAVE to use lethal force.

With that in mind, I leave you with this last statement you can mull over for a bit. When push comes to shove and you have a decision of letting someone take your life (as well as others around you), or you taking theirs, which are you going to choose? Thinking about that and referencing all your textbook scenarios will get you killed, attempting to wound them will get you killed, running away may get you killed, and worse off, if you choose not to use your gun against them and they take it, now they get to use your gun against others.

If youre that afraid to defend yourself or use a firearm, I suggest you dont ever buy one as it will likely only end up in the hands of an evil person. Live the rest of your life as a victim and if/when that time comes where your life is on the line, look back at this day and realize at least if you had a firearm, you have a last resort before someone tries to take your life and the possibility of stopping them before they do.
Red:
I'm sure I will not become such a victim. If you looked at the data I provided, you'd know the odds of that happening are very slim. Because they are so slim, I know there's no reason to use the self defense argument over what might happen. It's unlikely to happen, not just to me, but to anyone. Apparently, insofar as you've not done so, you cannot show that that "life or death" self defense situation, involving guns or not, is indeed likely to happen to anything remotely resembling "most people."

Blue:
That then is but another instance of misplaced blame. My life is anything but sheltered. If there's anything to blame for my views, it's that I've traveled all over the world and among the first-world countries I've been to, only found murderous assaults to be high in U.S. and to some extent Russia, although I'd hardly call Russia a first world nation The European part of it is, but the rest of it is as provincial as China. (Not a judgment call; just a statement of reality.)

Go to one of the densest cities on the planet, Tokyo, and odds are nobody will be murdered. (http://nbakki.hatenablog.com/entry/2013/12/03/000000) Pick a nation and city in it comparable to a U.S. city and then look at the State Department's report on Crime and Safety for that locale. Then look at the crime rate in those places.

Orange:
You know damn well I don't think that.

Lime Green:
Perhaps, but based on your rhetoric, it seems the first thing gun advocates are willing to consider is actually using lethal force. I have seen nothing from any gun advocates that speaks to alternative options. All I have seen is platitude about Nth degree extreme situations and how to deal with them.

Not one single proposal have I seen (roughly outlined as the ones I offered) from any gun advocate posting on here or elsewhere. Not one. So if "not wanting to" and "not having to" use lethal force is what's in people's minds, then where are the ideas for how not to have to do so? What proposals, other than "carry a bigger stick," have gun advocates put forth to effect change so that lethal force is at least less frequently called for?

Purple:
The two sentences here go directly to my point above. What are you doing, proposing, to greatly reduce the odds of "push coming to shove?"

Other:
The other thing I see is that whereas concerning this self defense line, I offered my points of view and supported them with facts that show just how rarefied that scenario actually is in U.S.
  • You have not refuted those facts.
  • You sought to discredit the ideas I shared by attacking me, calling me naive essentially.
  • You've sought to keep the focus of the discussion in the emotional sphere rather than the rational one. In fact you've all but ignored everything that is rational, with the sole exception of people having poor aim and not being able to think quickly on their feet. And I responded to both those points by referencing the thoughts and words of gun advocates.
  • You refuse to accept that with appropriate training, civilians can learn how to behave calmly under pressure.
  • You sought to discredit my and my ideas by calling them liberal when nothing about the proposal I offered is liberal at all.
  • You fail to recognize that the matter of one's being shot to death has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. It has everything to do with respect for human without regard to what they do (attempt to do) to oneself.
  • You are quick and ready to harp about matters of whom to blame, but you have nothing to offer that goes to dealing with effecting change in people's attitudes, this even as you're keenly aware that such a thing can be accomplished
And for what? All so that you can keep a gun on your hip or glovebox or nightstand so that in the less-than-5%-chance that you one day/night in your life are assaulted you can respond with deadly force if you believe it's necessary and haven't had the training to be able to identify and implement a better, non-lethal solution. That's the logic behind what you are asking the rest of us to accept. And for every one of those things you refuse to accept or that you deny the merit of in my argument, you've not put forth one bit of scholarly or liberally sourced evidence showing there's any cogent, rational basis for the rest of us to accept your line.


As we clearly agree. Our discussion together has reached its end.


All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 1
      08-28-2015, 01:29 PM   #52
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
761
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by C5driver View Post
I jumped into the conversation half way...

Anyways, I'm of the camp that if you try to harm an innocent, then regardless of mental state, well thought out reasons, caffeinated levels, whatever...then you must accept the consequences, up to and including lethal force.
I agree with that. It's not what I'm arguing, but I do agree with it.

The offender absolutely must accept the risk they might die trying to "whatever." That the assailant must accept that risk is unrelated to the victim's burden of doing everything possible not to kill their attacker. And being attacked certainly doesn't give the defender the "all clear" to use lethal force.

Now that's my view re: ranged weapons. In hand-to-hand combat, it's a different matter. In that scenario, it's "kill or be killed." At twenty feet distant, there are plenty of options other than shoot to kill.

And let's not forget what the actual scenarios are. If someone accosts you, what do they want? Usually it's one's wallet/money. If they break into one's house, what do they want? Property, perhaps money again. Does one really need to kill another person over theft?

People generally speaking don't assault another person for sh*ts and grins. But that's a subset of the 3% I mentioned earlier.

What I'm arguing is that there simply isn't a credible case that holds water and that shows there is a clear and present need for (1) having a gun (although I'm not going so far as to say "ban gun ownership") and (2) using it in a lethal way. I'm arguing that the only time there is a clear and present need for one is in the hypothetical self defense situation that arises for just 3% of the U.S. population. I'm saying that there are some 100M gun owners in U.S. and at the most, 930K people are likely to have a clear and present need for one to defend themselves.

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
      08-28-2015, 01:52 PM   #53
C5driver
Major
C5driver's Avatar
3382
Rep
1,154
Posts

Drives: 55...just kidding.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: 33.6167 N, 117.8975 W

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
And being attacked certainly doesn't give the defender the "all clear" to use lethal force.
Well in my state, I have a legal right to employ deadly force in the defense of self or others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
At twenty feet distant, there are plenty of options other than shoot to kill.
Did you pick 20 feet for any particular reason?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
Does one really need to kill another person over theft?
Nope and if you do, you're going to jail.
Appreciate 0
      08-28-2015, 02:14 PM   #54
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
761
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by C5driver View Post
Well in my state, I have a legal right to employ deadly force in the defense of self or others.

Did you pick 20 feet for any particular reason?

Nope and if you do, you're going to jail.
For several:
  • It's close enough for a reasonably accurate pistol shot.
  • It's distant enough that other options can present themselves if one looks for them.
  • It's too distant for one consider a non-gun wielding assailant as a life threat.
  • It's clearly not within hand-to-hand combat range.
  • It's distant enough that one can parry or dodge an object thrown at oneself.
  • It's close enough to throw something at an assailant to distract them or take them off guard/balance and create an opportunity for disabling, non-lethal action or flight if appropriate.
Red:
The disparity among jurisdictional laws is part of the overall problem. Nobody likes having a right or privilege and then losing it.

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
      08-28-2015, 02:35 PM   #55
lowbudgethero
Captain
lowbudgethero's Avatar
119
Rep
744
Posts

Drives: '98 Z3M (gone), '09 135i
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 908

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2009 BMW 135i  [4.25]
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
For several:
  • It's close enough for a reasonably accurate pistol shot.
  • It's distant enough that other options can present themselves if one looks for them.
  • It's too distant for one consider a non-gun wielding assailant as a life threat.
  • It's clearly not within hand-to-hand combat range.
  • It's distant enough that one can parry or dodge an object thrown at oneself.
  • It's close enough to throw something at an assailant to distract them or take them off guard/balance and create an opportunity for disabling, non-lethal action or flight if appropriate.
Red:
The disparity among jurisdictional laws is part of the overall problem. Nobody likes having a right or privilege and then losing it.

All the best.
most of these assumptions are false , it was on mythbusters


people don't drop what they are doing when shot in a minor area, most likely they could continue their assault temporarily even if lethally shot center mass

if someone unarmed is stronger than you within 20ft you're going to be screwed unless you're armed

a more reasonable approach would be taser, and even then you have 1 shot and it has to pierce though clothing and its effect is temporary
Appreciate 0
      08-28-2015, 02:48 PM   #56
C5driver
Major
C5driver's Avatar
3382
Rep
1,154
Posts

Drives: 55...just kidding.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: 33.6167 N, 117.8975 W

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
For several:
  • It's close enough for a reasonably accurate pistol shot.
  • It's distant enough that other options can present themselves if one looks for them.
  • It's too distant for one consider a non-gun wielding assailant as a life threat.
  • It's clearly not within hand-to-hand combat range.
  • It's distant enough that one can parry or dodge an object thrown at oneself.
  • It's close enough to throw something at an assailant to distract them or take them off guard/balance and create an opportunity for disabling, non-lethal action or flight if appropriate.
Red:
The disparity among jurisdictional laws is part of the overall problem. Nobody likes having a right or privilege and then losing it.

All the best.
The reason I asked about 20 feet is that there is a 21 foot rule that has long been the standard for action. Like most things in life, it's not as simple as it may seem in principle.
Appreciate 0
      08-28-2015, 02:50 PM   #57
C5driver
Major
C5driver's Avatar
3382
Rep
1,154
Posts

Drives: 55...just kidding.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: 33.6167 N, 117.8975 W

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowbudgethero View Post
if someone unarmed is stronger than you within 20ft you're going to be screwed unless you're armed

a more reasonable approach would be taser, and even then you have 1 shot and it has to pierce though clothing and its effect is temporary
Not only armed, but the weapon at low ready or close to it. A handgun or taser from a holster...you better be very good.
Appreciate 1
      08-28-2015, 03:12 PM   #58
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
761
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by C5driver View Post
The reason I asked about 20 feet is that there is a 21 foot rule that has long been the standard for action. Like most things in life, it's not as simple as it may seem in principle.
I wasn't thinking of that. I was just using reasonable judgment to come up with a "close" distance that was neither too close nor too far.

I've heard about the 21 foot thing, but I thought/think it applicable to law enforcement situations and I definitely have nothing to say re: gun use and on-duty law enforcement officials. That's a whole different ball game.

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
      08-28-2015, 03:39 PM   #59
Lone Star M3
Lieutenant
United_States
87
Rep
536
Posts

Drives: e92 M3
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Texas

iTrader: (33)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
Do you realize what you and a couple others are doing? You are making excuses for why, in an event that occurs for 5% of the population, someone should kill another human being, and you're doing so in refutation of the idea of finding a viable alternative that prevents one from having to do so. You are also arguing that the sole viable solution in that rarefied situation is to shoot to kill with a lethal weapon. Lastly, you are suggesting that what is right for law enforcement personnel and military personnel in, respectively, law enforcement and combat scenarios is what is also right for civilians.

Quite simply it is not. The exigent goals and objectives are not the same.

You wrote about a moral compass, and I agree that a felon's moral compass isn't that high normally. Their human nature and the concomitant instincts are exactly the same as yours and mine for 99.99% of them. The sameness that matters is that, regardless of what felonious act -- other than murder -- they intend to commit, they do not intend to kill someone. They may feel they have to; they may feel they have to maim someone. But they don't enter into the act, in nearly all cases, planning to kill. Neither should a defender enter the defensive situation planning to kill. As I wrote above, what one plans to do has a huge impact on what one actually accomplishes.

Also, what sort of moral compass is it that says "the only option I have is to shoot to kill?" When defenders have, collectively, some genuine high moral ground to stand on, I'll then consider the moral compass of offenders.

I want you and other readers here to understand. I'm not at all suggesting that Americans be denied access to their guns. I'm simply saying that if guns be easy to get and easy to use, then the price -- monetar, penal, social, etc. -- of using one lethally must be very, very high. That's the trade-off.

You and others here want to have your cake and eat it too. You want inexpensive firearms, you want wide leeway in how and when you use them, and you have no regard for human life other than your own and your family's. I'm not cottoning to that.

All the best.
You my friend live in a dream world. God forbid (and i hope it never does) if any of the situations happen to you please report back and let us know what happened, if you are still alive. You would open yourself up to massive civil liability if you were ever found to be trying to "wound" someone.
Appreciate 0
      08-28-2015, 04:16 PM   #60
Killramos
Captain
Killramos's Avatar
Canada
146
Rep
718
Posts

Drives: M235i
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Calgary

iTrader: (0)

I think we should start a new poll.

How many people would be in favour of a company banning people from keeping cars with more than 100HP in their parkade?

Fast cars kill.
Appreciate 2
      08-28-2015, 04:30 PM   #61
Tonybest
Enrollment Officer
Tonybest's Avatar
Canada
99
Rep
5,014
Posts

Drives: 997.2 Porsche C4S
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Montreal, Qc.

iTrader: (2)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killramos View Post
I think we should start a new poll.

How many people would be in favour of a company banning people from keeping cars with more than 100HP in their parkade?

Fast cars kill.
Cars weren't invented and fabricated to kill people.
Appreciate 3
      08-28-2015, 04:43 PM   #62
C5driver
Major
C5driver's Avatar
3382
Rep
1,154
Posts

Drives: 55...just kidding.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: 33.6167 N, 117.8975 W

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonybest View Post
Cars weren't invented and fabricated to kill people.
Knives were. How about pointy sticks?
Appreciate 1
      08-28-2015, 04:48 PM   #63
David70
Colonel
United_States
839
Rep
2,020
Posts

Drives: 06 Z4M Coupe - 13 Cadillac ATS
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killramos View Post
I think we should start a new poll.

How many people would be in favour of a company banning people from keeping cars with more than 100HP in their parkade?

Fast cars kill.
When people are buying a type of car or high hp cars for the sole purpose of killing people I think we will need to look into it.
__________________
2006 Z4M Coupe - Stromung exhaust, ZHP knob, stubby antenna, clutch delay delete
Appreciate 3
      08-28-2015, 04:53 PM   #64
bmw1racer
bimmerphile, technogeek
bmw1racer's Avatar
United_States
723
Rep
3,551
Posts

Drives: 2012 128i E82 6MT Sport
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: SoCal

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by C5driver View Post
Knives were. How about pointy sticks?
I've never used a gun to cut a steak or spread butter on toast... And I've never used a gun to skewer food for grilling.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      08-28-2015, 05:42 PM   #65
FenixMike
Captain
391
Rep
769
Posts

Drives: 2015 X5 50i
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Albuquerque, NM

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw1racer View Post
I've never used a gun to cut a steak or spread butter on toast... And I've never used a gun to skewer food for grilling.
I bet someone used a gun to get that Cow so you could have the meat
__________________
2015 X5 M-Sport 50i - ESS Tuning Flash, VRSF Downpipes, x5m filters, Bavsound stage 1 complete

Gone but never forgotten... 2014 M5 Competition, 2015 M3, 2014 X5 50i M Sport, 2015 435i M Sport, 2011 550i, 2011 535i
Appreciate 0
      08-28-2015, 06:14 PM   #66
1MOREMOD
2018 track days - 0 ridge 1:52:24 pacific 1:33:30
1MOREMOD's Avatar
United_States
9962
Rep
22,629
Posts

Drives: Race car->
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: check your mirrors

iTrader: (5)

Quote:
Originally Posted by FenixMike View Post
I bet someone used a gun to get that Cow so you could have the meat
We don't hint cows or kill them in that manner?
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:51 AM.




bmw
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST