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, 10:16 PM   #89
1MOREMOD
2018 track days - 0 ridge 1:52:24 pacific 1:33:30
1MOREMOD's Avatar
United_States
10600
Rep
22,964
Posts

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

iTrader: (5)

Quote:
Originally Posted by essdb1 View Post
You would not say that if you were the one being stabbed or slashed to death.
Probably not but there is pretty good chance that 20 other people didn't just eat shit also.
Appreciate 0
      08-28-2015, 10:24 PM   #90
FenixMike
Captain
394
Rep
769
Posts

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

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1MOREMOD View Post
The thing a gun does for people is provide some separation to allow them to be slightly removed. With a hammer, rock, knife, chainsaw or fence post you have to get in close and do the work. Even crazy people don't often like that. It is interesting the points about multiple gunshots often living. I've seen it go both ways.
I agree a knife does require you to not only get up close and personal, but also "see" the death happening, which honestly requires a person with true issues as its nothing short of straight out of a horror film with the amount of blood and screaming... That being said decapitation is a common thing in the middle east and lately happening here with mentally ill people, so while not as common as gunshots, its a lot more common than it should be, and that is a TERRIBLE way to go.
__________________
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, 10:26 PM   #91
Flying Ace
Lieutenant General
Flying Ace's Avatar
United_States
3864
Rep
10,520
Posts

Drives: M6GC ZCP, X5d
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: SF, CA

iTrader: (5)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1MOREMOD View Post
The thing a gun does for people is provide some separation to allow them to be slightly removed. With a hammer, rock, knife, chainsaw or fence post you have to get in close and do the work. Even crazy people don't often like that. It is interesting the points about multiple gunshots often living. I've seen it go both ways.
I learned watching the Walking Dead, a pipe is the most entertaining way of killing zombies
__________________
12 AW/Cinnamon X5 Diesel Urban Assault Vehicle
14 AW M6GC ZCP, MPE, e-wheel, vorsteiner spoiler
08 SSII E90 M3 (Sold!)
Appreciate 0
      08-28-2015, 10:29 PM   #92
FenixMike
Captain
394
Rep
769
Posts

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

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1MOREMOD View Post
Probably not but there is pretty good chance that 20 other people didn't just eat shit also.
Keep in mind 4 planes (or 3 depending if youre a 9/11 truther) crashed with all 4 terrorists having nothing more than a box cutter, against hundreds of civilians on the plane. While a knife might not seem like a big deal to you talking about it, you (and just about anyone) would be very hesitant to engage anyone with a edged weapon, especially such as larger knife or fixed blade. Theres an old saying you never leave a knife fight without a few cuts... a sharp knife can filet a good portion of skin without any effort and seeing one person bleed out while screaming for mercy and help may be enough to keep the rest at bay. Would that work as well at a military base? Probably not, but in a bank, bakery, school, movie theater or other venue where you may not have prior LE, military or aggressive individuals, a lot of damage can occur in a short time, especially against a trained individual.
__________________
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, 10:30 PM   #93
1MOREMOD
2018 track days - 0 ridge 1:52:24 pacific 1:33:30
1MOREMOD's Avatar
United_States
10600
Rep
22,964
Posts

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

iTrader: (5)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying Ace View Post
I learned watching the Walking Dead, a pipe is the most entertaining way of killing zombies
Try zombieland and Shawn of the dead.
Appreciate 0
      08-28-2015, 10:36 PM   #94
1MOREMOD
2018 track days - 0 ridge 1:52:24 pacific 1:33:30
1MOREMOD's Avatar
United_States
10600
Rep
22,964
Posts

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

iTrader: (5)

Quote:
Originally Posted by FenixMike View Post
Keep in mind 4 planes (or 3 depending if youre a 9/11 truther) crashed with all 4 terrorists having nothing more than a box cutter, against hundreds of civilians on the plane. While a knife might not seem like a big deal to you talking about it, you (and just about anyone) would be very hesitant to engage anyone with a edged weapon, especially such as larger knife or fixed blade. Theres an old saying you never leave a knife fight without a few cuts... a sharp knife can filet a good portion of skin without any effort and seeing one person bleed out while screaming for mercy and help may be enough to keep the rest at bay. Would that work as well at a military base? Probably not, but in a bank, bakery, school, movie theater or other venue where you may not have prior LE, military or aggressive individuals, a lot of damage can occur in a short time, especially against a trained individual.
It can theoretically but rarely does I would guess because of reason we mentioned above and because those guns are just so damn easy.
Appreciate 0
      08-28-2015, 10:37 PM   #95
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 FenixMike View Post
Keep in mind 4 planes (or 3 depending if youre a 9/11 truther) crashed with all 4 terrorists having nothing more than a box cutter, against hundreds of civilians on the plane. While a knife might not seem like a big deal to you talking about it, you (and just about anyone) would be very hesitant to engage anyone with a edged weapon, especially such as larger knife or fixed blade. Theres an old saying you never leave a knife fight without a few cuts... a sharp knife can filet a good portion of skin without any effort and seeing one person bleed out while screaming for mercy and help may be enough to keep the rest at bay. Would that work as well at a military base? Probably not, but in a bank, bakery, school, movie theater or other venue where you may not have prior LE, military or aggressive individuals, a lot of damage can occur in a short time, especially against a trained individual.
Case in point when the guy had his head hacked off in the UK. Everybody just stood around watching, even going as far as engaging the killer in conversation.
Appreciate 0
      08-28-2015, 10:39 PM   #96
1MOREMOD
2018 track days - 0 ridge 1:52:24 pacific 1:33:30
1MOREMOD's Avatar
United_States
10600
Rep
22,964
Posts

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

iTrader: (5)

Let's build bunkers and hide!
Appreciate 0
      08-29-2015, 12:51 AM   #97
bbbbmw
Major General
2387
Rep
6,083
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

I'm a little surprised at this thread - does no one remember what happened on the French train last week? Where did that guy get an AK-47, a pistol, and 8 magazines of ammo - a guy whose lawyer says is homeless?

Australia certainly seems to have a gun problem - see this article, despite a 1996 effort to cleanse the country of guns, it seems the only people who now don't have guns are the law-abiding citizens:

http://www.ballinaadvocate.com.au/ne...lence/1992835/

Remember when the Boston Marathon Bombers got loose in Cambridge, MA, which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country? There were robo-calls to all residents from the police, advising everyone to stay in their homes. While the bombers were armed, the citizens were apparently left to defend their families with coffee table books and wooden spoons.

The recent school and theater shootings - what do they have in common? They are areas where people gather who are unarmed. I don't think it's a bad idea for some of the teachers to have guns on campus, and for everyone to know they are not sitting ducks - it would likely discourage the cowards, or at least reduce their impact.

Remember the shooter in Norway, who killed 67 people and wounded 110? Despite being essentially unarmed, Europe has significant issues with gun violence, and especially mass shootings:

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/j...icle-1.2268490

Remember the Fort Hood shooter? He went to the gym area on base, where (incredibly) our Politically Correct military leaders do not allow members of the military to carry weapons. The coward knew that, and that's where he struck.

There's a reason we have the Second Amendment. You are free to not have a gun - it's a personal choice.
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 2
      08-29-2015, 04:43 AM   #98
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
776
Rep
5,666
Posts

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

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by essdb1 View Post
It is you who is assailing me. Some of us do not feel we have to insult other member's intelligence by writing a long, mind numbing retort. I am sure that at least 90% of people can understand exactly what i was saying. ...
I am not insulting your intelligence. I identified one aspect of its nature and extent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FenixMike View Post
... If I wanted low level intelligence...
The OP stated he doesn't want unintelligent discussion. The "just in case" argument is fallacious. You, the OP and others have cited "just in case" they need to protect themselves as the reason for civilians to have guns at the ready. (Why that is even part of the discussion with me is anybody's guess. I've stated I have no desire to repeal one's right to have a gun or use a gun.)

So you tell me, how intelligent is it to use a fallacious line of augment as the basis for one's assertions? Particularly when the circumstances that ostensibly militate for "just in case" manifest themselves to 3% of the citizenry.

Below in blue are several examples of different implementations in this thread of the "just in case" line of reasoning (blue text).
Quote:
Originally Posted by essdb1 View Post
You ... 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. ...
The red text is argumentum ad hominem. It essentially says/implies, "Tony20009, you are naive; therefore, what you've said makes no sense."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincz View Post
... if I have someone break into my home and there is potential harm to my wife and kids, I don't want to be standing there empty handed when this person is armed....
Quote:
Originally Posted by FenixMike View Post
Again, why just "guns"? And when it comes to "prevention", have you ever gone up against someone under the influence of anything, anyone involving a recent tragedy, or someone who just enjoys mayhem and violence etc? What can be prevented about pre-meditated and intentional murder? What could an unarmed person, or a person with a gun that isnt willing to use it because of your laws, do to someone who is ready to use their gun/knife/vehicle/other means of murder in an attempt to save their own life? The thought that every fight can be avoided by talking your way out of it is just wrong (much like the left thinks defacating will get you out of being raped), and removing the only defense for law abiding citizens will INCREASE the rate at which non law abiding citizens commit crimes, especially those harming others.

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
      08-29-2015, 09:02 AM   #99
David70
Colonel
United_States
866
Rep
2,047
Posts

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

iTrader: (1)

I believe between 200-400 people killed in homicides at work each year. 250,000,000 million go to work (please correct me if I am wrong). Then I think we can all agree that everyone taking our guns to work isn't going to eliminate all of these homicides and some additional homicides will happen (accidents, additional homicides from the person because he has a gun on him and might have cooled off if he had to go get one, accidents from not hitting the right person, etc).

Statistically not seeing enough of an issue that I want to deal with everyone at work allowed to carry one. Also not believing that with or without taking minimal training the person carrying the gun is capable and able to make a quick decision that might cost me my life. When Bob storms out of a meeting yelling and headed back to his office (where he has a gun), does everyone with a gun then stand up and get ready?

From the numbers above, I believe I have about a .00016% overall chance at getting killed at work each year and also believe many places are pushing the overall odds up (reality is my odds are far less). If I worked at a liquor store, gold/jewelry store, convenience store, check into cash, pawn store, etc. I might feel differently.

The argument that you can also be killed by a pointy stick is true but not sure why this would change how I feel about Betty who can't seem to operate the toaster should now carry a gun on her hip while we are in a meeting talking about the next year's goals. Again, back to what the chances really are of the gun being needed.
__________________
2006 Z4M Coupe - Stromung exhaust, ZHP knob, stubby antenna, clutch delay delete
Appreciate 0
      08-29-2015, 12:19 PM   #100
FenixMike
Captain
394
Rep
769
Posts

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

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
The OP stated he doesn't want unintelligent discussion. The "just in case" argument is fallacious. You, the OP and others have cited "just in case" they need to protect themselves as the reason for civilians to have guns at the ready. (Why that is even part of the discussion with me is anybody's guess. I've stated I have no desire to repeal one's right to have a gun or use a gun.)

So you tell me, how intelligent is it to use a fallacious line of augment as the basis for one's assertions? Particularly when the circumstances that ostensibly militate for "just in case" manifest themselves to 3% of the citizenry.

All the best.
I would like you to go find the 3% who have been in a situation (if still alive) and ask them if they wished they had a firearm to defend themselves, then go ask all those who have had to shoot someone to defend their lives and ask them if they wished they had never bought a gun to defend themselves and instead were just victims. "Just in case" is the same as being prepared for anything. Do I need to have money in my bank account beyond paying bills? Not really, but its a great idea "just in case" I need it... Do I need to buy more food than necessary "just in case" there might be a natural disaster? probably not, but ask all those in Katrina and similar situations if they wished they had purchased more stuff before hand.

When it comes to my personal health, as well as ANYONE around me (I know you like to call me selfish, and as lost as you are, id still save your life, only to have you cry that I shot a guy instead of letting him kill you) I will ALWAYS choose self preservation up to and including lethal force. If youre willing to risk your life to assault, murder, rob me etc, then you need to accept the consequences of your actions. Its not that I dont value human life, its that I do value mine and any form of harm done to me with malicious intent is unacceptable. Fix the problem, not the solution. Take that super brain of yours and go find why people have gone crazy lately instead of focusing strictly on the emotional ties to firearms.

The "it will never happen to me" attitude will only assure you are unprepared for whatever may happen. I train many of those same thinkers regularly because after it did happen, their aspect on self preservation completely changed... some of the names you would likely even recognize, although im not at liberty to say.
__________________
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
      08-29-2015, 02:15 PM   #101
FenixMike
Captain
394
Rep
769
Posts

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

iTrader: (1)

Further pushing my reasoning, someone finally drew a correlation between mass shootings and drugs... things that these days are handed out like candy.
__________________
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
      08-29-2015, 02:31 PM   #102
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
776
Rep
5,666
Posts

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

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by FenixMike View Post
I would like you to go find the 3% who have been in a situation (if still alive) and ask them if they wished they had a firearm to defend themselves, then go ask all those who have had to shoot someone to defend their lives and ask them if they wished they had never bought a gun to defend themselves and instead were just victims.

"Just in case" is the same as being prepared for anything. Do I need to have money in my bank account beyond paying bills? Not really, but its a great idea "just in case" I need it... Do I need to buy more food than necessary "just in case" there might be a natural disaster? probably not, but ask all those in Katrina and similar situations if they wished they had purchased more stuff before hand.

When it comes to my personal health, as well as ANYONE around me (I know you like to call me selfish, and as lost as you are, id still save your life, only to have you cry that I shot a guy instead of letting him kill you) I will ALWAYS choose self preservation up to and including lethal force. If youre willing to risk your life to assault, murder, rob me etc, then you need to accept the consequences of your actions. Its not that I dont value human life, its that I do value mine and any form of harm done to me with malicious intent is unacceptable. Fix the problem, not the solution. Take that super brain of yours and go find why people have gone crazy lately instead of focusing strictly on the emotional ties to firearms.

The "it will never happen to me" attitude will only assure you are unprepared for whatever may happen. I train many of those same thinkers regularly because after it did happen, their aspect on self preservation completely changed... some of the names you would likely even recognize, although im not at liberty to say.
Red:
Mike, let's not go down that road. You and I both know damn well what the fallacies are that appear in inductive lines of argument (strictly called "informal" fallacies to distinguish them from "formal" fallacies that apply only to deductive arguments) and we both know that. (Just in case you aren't familiar with the JIC fallacy: http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamso.../fallacies.htm) We both also know that we are discussing/debating the merits and rationality of policy choices, decisions made by a few and that apply to millions of people collectively, even though the specific implications have individual level impacts. Therefore, as a matter of policy, the focus has to be on the polity not the person. And the line of argumentation for or against any given policy needs to be valid and not fallacious.

Blue:
Loosely speaking, yes, it is. Strictly speaking, people individuals prepare for things that are reasonably foreseeable. But there's a huge difference between taking a JIC action that affects oneself (and maybe one's family) and making policy for a whole damn nation on the basis of JIC.

Orange:
All of those things are reasonably foreseeable. Each event you noted -- your needing to eat, your wanting more than the things for which a bill arrives, etc. -- has a much higher than 3% likelihood of happening. So it makes sense that you'd minimally take JIC steps in preparation for them. Indeed, each of them is so likely to happen that it's a matter of when the even will occur within the next 31 or fewer days, not whether it might occur. So, of course, you'll have prepared for those events arrival.

There are even preparations one takes that are less clearly assured than eating or paying bills. I took calculus to prepare my mind to think logically. I damn sure didn't take it in anticipation of needing to use calculus because when I knew I'd have little no need to ever use it in my career.

I hope you read the post in which I listed the odds of various things, some of which are a good bit more likely to occur than needing a firearm for defensive purposes.

For example, if someone told me the earth has a 16% chance of "moving under my feet" (poetic license -- what is mean is where my home is) with a 6.7 Richter scale magnitude, I would most likely move before the damned earth does. On the other hand, when I see a dog sitting next to someone at the ATM machine, I'm going to approach saying "Oh, nice doggy," and reach to pet it. Yes, there's a 2% chance that I'll get bit, no matter what behavior the dog displays at that moment, but it still seems unlikely that I will actually get bit, so I almost certainly won't take any precautions to keep from getting bit. And yes, I'll be mad as a hornet and the dog and its owner will rue the day.

So, yes, I fully understand the emotions that the Katrina victims and the violent victimization sufferers faced. But I also know that what they feel now, and the angle from which you have been arguing is an emotional one, not a logical one.

The fact is that nobody in their right, rational mind is going to prepare for something that happens to 3% of the people in their nation. People in their emotional mind might very well prepare for such an occurrence. If a violent victimization happens to their next door neighbor, they may definitely feel like they should get a gun, even though logically speaking there may be no specific evidence they have a damn thing to worry about.

I use that as an illustration of the same principle that tells us that a coin coming up heads now has no bearing on whether it comes up head on the next toss, or on whether after 500 consecutive heads tosses the 501st toss will be heads or tails. It's not inconceivable to me that some study has shown that one's risk of being mugged in one's home is higher if one's neighbor has already been mugged in their home. I don't know if that's been shown or not shown. And yet, it's also possible that someone's on a "spree" in a given neighborhood, but it's not likely that's so.

It's not that I don't know what's possible and what's not. It's that I know when what is possible carries a remote enough likelihood that it's not sage to make policy based on that remote likelihood.

Green:
I do not like calling you selfish. That I did has nothing to do with liking to do so or not.

In fact, it's not you that I'm certain is selfish, but rather the ideas you've expressed as a basis for your arguments that I see as selfish. I see them as selfish because it's clear that they issue from your own emotional stance, perhaps even experiences, and perceptions rather than from something that is logically supportable.

What's selfish about the ideas you've been advocating is policy that puts few to no constraints on the possession and use of a easily operated, deadly, ranged weapon because any one of 310M+ might be among the 3% who in fact will need one. That's what you want, and want for yourself, just in case you are among that 3%.

Now the alternative I've proposed is that policy be written to dramatically reduce, not eliminate, the ease of access to a gun. And one aspect of what I've proposed that the extent to which access is made more difficult be driven by how many people die from gunshot wounds...fewer people die, access is easier; more people die, access becomes more limited. My intent isn't to deny access to guns, it's to alter behavior and attitudes.

I think that just like Pavlov's dog responded to environmental stimulii, people will too and they'll figure out that if they kill fewer folks, they can easily buy guns, and they'll behave accordingly. Now you've stated that the proposal I offered won't work. Part of my proposal is based on known psychological behavior patterns, yet you haven't offered one behavioral basis of refutation. You have offered your own emotional basis for not wanting to consider the proposal, one that is neither liberal nor conservative, but rather a compromise that provides some of what both camps want.

So, yes, I think the ideas you offered are selfish. They reflect your unwillingness to compromise on anything at all, and your desire to have the entirety of the conservative's policy position.

All the best.

P.S.
My posts aren't long to confuse people, you, or overwhelm them. They are long because I don't want folks (who bother to read the damn thing) to have any doubt about the scope, nature, extent and application of the ideas I'm sharing. As a result, I don't do sound bites.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
      08-29-2015, 02:52 PM   #103
FenixMike
Captain
394
Rep
769
Posts

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

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
Red:
Mike, let's not go down that road. You and I both know damn well what the fallacies are that appear in inductive lines of argument (strictly called "informal" fallacies to distinguish them from "formal" fallacies that apply only to deductive arguments) and we both know that. (Just in case you aren't familiar with the JIC fallacy: http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamso.../fallacies.htm) We both also know that we are discussing/debating the merits and rationality of policy choices, decisions made by a few and that apply to millions of people collectively, even though the specific implications have individual level impacts. Therefore, as a matter of policy, the focus has to be on the polity not the person. And the line of argumentation for or against any given policy needs to be valid and not fallacious.

Blue:
Loosely speaking, yes, it is. Strictly speaking, people individuals prepare for things that are reasonably foreseeable. But there's a huge difference between taking a JIC action that affects oneself (and maybe one's family) and making policy for a whole damn nation on the basis of JIC.

Orange:
All of those things are reasonably foreseeable. Each event you noted -- your needing to eat, your wanting more than the things for which a bill arrives, etc. -- has a much higher than 3% likelihood of happening. So it makes sense that you'd minimally take JIC steps in preparation for them. Indeed, each of them is so likely to happen that it's a matter of when the even will occur within the next 31 or fewer days, not whether it might occur. So, of course, you'll have prepared for those events arrival.

There are even preparations one takes that are less clearly assured than eating or paying bills. I took calculus to prepare my mind to think logically. I damn sure didn't take it in anticipation of needing to use calculus because when I knew I'd have little no need to ever use it in my career.

I hope you read the post in which I listed the odds of various things, some of which are a good bit more likely to occur than needing a firearm for defensive purposes.

For example, if someone told me the earth has a 16% chance of "moving under my feet" (poetic license -- what is mean is where my home is) with a 6.7 Richter scale magnitude, I would most likely move before the damned earth does. On the other hand, when I see a dog sitting next to someone at the ATM machine, I'm going to approach saying "Oh, nice doggy," and reach to pet it. Yes, there's a 2% chance that I'll get bit, no matter what behavior the dog displays at that moment, but it still seems unlikely that I will actually get bit, so I almost certainly won't take any precautions to keep from getting bit. And yes, I'll be mad as a hornet and the dog and its owner will rue the day.

So, yes, I fully understand the emotions that the Katrina victims and the violent victimization sufferers faced. But I also know that what they feel now, and the angle from which you have been arguing is an emotional one, not a logical one.

The fact is that nobody in their right, rational mind is going to prepare for something that happens to 3% of the people in their nation. People in their emotional mind might very well prepare for such an occurrence. If a violent victimization happens to their next door neighbor, they may definitely feel like they should get a gun, even though logically speaking there may be no specific evidence they have a damn thing to worry about.

I use that as an illustration of the same principle that tells us that a coin coming up heads now has no bearing on whether it comes up head on the next toss, or on whether after 500 consecutive heads tosses the 501st toss will be heads or tails. It's not inconceivable to me that some study has shown that one's risk of being mugged in one's home is higher if one's neighbor has already been mugged in their home. I don't know if that's been shown or not shown. And yet, it's also possible that someone's on a "spree" in a given neighborhood, but it's not likely that's so.

It's not that I don't know what's possible and what's not. It's that I know when what is possible carries a remote enough likelihood that it's not sage to make policy based on that remote likelihood.

Green:
I do not like calling you selfish. That I did has nothing to do with liking to do so or not.

In fact, it's not you that I'm certain is selfish, but rather the ideas you've expressed as a basis for your arguments that I see as selfish. I see them as selfish because it's clear that they issue from your own emotional stance, perhaps even experiences, and perceptions rather than from something that is logically supportable.

What's selfish about the ideas you've been advocating is policy that puts few to no constraints on the possession and use of a easily operated, deadly, ranged weapon because any one of 310M+ might be among the 3% who in fact will need one. That's what you want, and want for yourself, just in case you are among that 3%.

Now the alternative I've proposed is that policy be written to dramatically reduce, not eliminate, the ease of access to a gun. And one aspect of what I've proposed that the extent to which access is made more difficult be driven by how many people die from gunshot wounds...fewer people die, access is easier; more people die, access becomes more limited. My intent isn't to deny access to guns, it's to alter behavior and attitudes.

I think that just like Pavlov's dog responded to environmental stimulii, people will too and they'll figure out that if they kill fewer folks, they can easily buy guns, and they'll behave accordingly. Now you've stated that the proposal I offered won't work. Part of my proposal is based on known psychological behavior patterns, yet you haven't offered one behavioral basis of refutation. You have offered your own emotional basis for not wanting to consider the proposal, one that is neither liberal nor conservative, but rather a compromise that provides some of what both camps want.

So, yes, I think the ideas you offered are selfish. They reflect your unwillingness to compromise on anything at all, and your desire to have the entirety of the conservative's policy position.

All the best.

P.S.
My posts aren't long to confuse people, you, or overwhelm them. They are long because I don't want folks (who bother to read the damn thing) to have any doubt about the scope, nature, extent and application of the ideas I'm sharing. As a result, I don't do sound bites.
I had a novel typed up, but I see a trend of completely ignoring anything I say... so with that in mind, I suggest you just stay away from firearms, hope the police will always be there to protect you, and stay in shape so you can run away from any threats in the future.
__________________
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
      08-30-2015, 12:20 PM   #104
3.0L
Lieutenant Colonel
3.0L's Avatar
United_States
1300
Rep
1,987
Posts

Drives: M235i
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: California

iTrader: (0)

I voted for number 1.

I realize that folks have the Constitutional right to own a firearm. The shortcoming is adequate training. And I'm not talking about going to a firing range and popping paper targets. I'm referring to close combat with an armed assailant in a wide variety of situations, included very crowded scenes.

It is not even close to easy.
__________________
///M235i | Mineral Grey Metallic | Premium Package | Technology Package | Driver Assistance Package | Dakota Coral Red/Black Leather | Harman/Kardon Premium 360 watt sound system | 8-speed automatic

Want a Cookie?.
Appreciate 0
      08-30-2015, 04:46 PM   #105
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
776
Rep
5,666
Posts

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

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by FenixMike View Post
I would like you to go find the 3% who have been in a situation (if still alive) and ask them if they wished they had a firearm to defend themselves, then go ask all those who have had to shoot someone to defend their lives and ask them if they wished they had never bought a gun to defend themselves and instead were just victims.

"Just in case" is the same as being prepared for anything. Do I need to have money in my bank account beyond paying bills? Not really, but its a great idea "just in case" I need it... Do I need to buy more food than necessary "just in case" there might be a natural disaster? probably not, but ask all those in Katrina and similar situations if they wished they had purchased more stuff before hand.

When it comes to my personal health, as well as ANYONE around me (I know you like to call me selfish, and as lost as you are, id still save your life, only to have you cry that I shot a guy instead of letting him kill you) I will ALWAYS choose self preservation up to and including lethal force. If youre willing to risk your life to assault, murder, rob me etc, then you need to accept the consequences of your actions. Its not that I dont value human life, its that I do value mine and any form of harm done to me with malicious intent is unacceptable. Fix the problem, not the solution. Take that super brain of yours and go find why people have gone crazy lately instead of focusing strictly on the emotional ties to firearms.

The "it will never happen to me" attitude will only assure you are unprepared for whatever may happen. I train many of those same thinkers regularly because after it did happen, their aspect on self preservation completely changed... some of the names you would likely even recognize, although im not at liberty to say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FenixMike View Post
I had a novel typed up, but I see a trend of completely ignoring anything I say... so with that in mind, I suggest you just stay away from firearms, hope the police will always be there to protect you, and stay in shape so you can run away from any threats in the future.
??? What did you want me to discuss and in what context?

Write a well developed essay or a short post. I'll read it either way. I don't care if it's long. I care if it's cogent and has ample rational and support (not "peanut gallery" support) and is logically driven not emotionally driven.

I responded in this post -- http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...&postcount=103 -- in detail, re: the first of your two posts shown above, to every point you made and that wasn't clearly just rhetorical (pink) or an identification of what you would do (or would prefer to do) in the situation you noted (brown).

I'm sure you didn't expect me to actually interview victims of violence or hurricane Katrina. Also, you clearly wrote (in the indicative mood, not in the conditional) that "such and such" is what you'd do. What am I to have to say about that? It's what you'd do; I believe it's what you'd do.

You have real audacity chiding me for ignoring your comments, which is not at all what I've done. If anything you've shown yourself to be among the most artful of dodgers. (http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publicati...2ea8183e44.pdf) I observed that you did that, but I didn't gripe about it, but to make the point, here's what you've not addressed at all:
  • Post: http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...33&postcount=8
    This is the one question I asked that you answered.

    I thought it strange that you answered it by by stating that the problem with the Mother Jones scatter plot is (1) that the deaths noted include those resulting from legal and illegally owned/possessed guns, and (2) that it includes police officers fatally wounding people. The facts that led to my thinking it strange are:
    • Neither the gun, the bullet nor the loved ones of the person killed care whether the gun was owned or not.
    • Legally fired/owned gun kill no less effectively than do the same guns owned illegally. The issue isn't whether the gun is owned legally; it's whether it's possessed and used resulting in someone dying.
    • In 2014 police officers shot and killed 1100 people.
    • I used the figures and graph (http://www.e90post.com/forums/showth...6#post18490986) I could find that would be most favorable for your self-defense argument. The FBI's figures for violent crime and property-related arrests (realizing that only a portion of them result in convictions) are considerably lower at ~2M, which is more than three times lower than the figure I was using and would thus result in violent victimizations occurring for a far greater portion of the population.
    • The homicide rate for civilians is 5:100,000.
    • The "homicide" rate for cops is 145:100,000.
      (Sources for law enforcement related figures:
      -- http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/csllea08.pdf
      -- http://www.killedbypolice.net/kbp2014.html
      -- https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/201...-2013-released )
  • Post: http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...9&postcount=31

    You wrote:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FenixMike
    In addition, going to firearm deaths by state and factoring deaths related to that doesnt paint the entire picture, especially in places such as new york, california etc where the mass legal collection of firearms in a conservative area is far from the mass murder areas associated with gang and poverty stricken areas.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FenixMike
    As it currently sits in most areas, when you feel your life is threatened and/or you are unable to defend yourself.
    In both cases I asked for clarification and you provided none.
  • In multiple posts I've noted that the self defense argument is fallacious and so far, neither you nor anyone else has come up with anything that is at not a rationally fallacious basis for support for your gun advocacy. You and your cohorts have completely ignored the fact that the "just in case" basis for an inductive argument is fallacious.
  • You and others here have essentially asserted that on the basis of your person experiences it's "impossible" to accurately fire a gun in a stressful situation, yet I provided two gun advocacy website references that assert exactly the opposite is so provided people get the requisite training on how to handle themselves and their weapons in stressful situations.
  • You asserted that my "sin tax" idea won't work as a means of behavior modification/control with regard to fatal gun use, yet you've provided not one bit of third party evidence to show that the tax code is an ineffective tool in directing behavior. This even as every single taxpayer here can identify at least one behavior they've elected because, in part or entirely, of the tax preferences associated with their action(s). And it's not just individuals for whom tax codes motivate behavior, business managers make lots of decisions due to the tax benefits thereof.
  • You continue to respond to my comments as though I'm trying to prohibit gun ownership, even though I've repeatedly said I have no interest in doing so. Talk about ignoring the remarks of the other person with whom one is discussing a topic....
  • Moving away from ignoring the points I've expressly raised, let's consider the situational exigencies that you have ignored throughout this discussion.
    • Foremost among them is the nature and scope of factors that matter in individual decision making vs. the nature and scope of factors that are relevant at a national policy making level. You keep expressing what you would do and what you want, and the implication is that what's best for you (based on how you want to live and conduct your life, and within the constraints of your cognitive processing ability) is best for everyone.
    • You have failed to even once provide any evidence -- aside again from your own assertions -- that there is a causal relationship between gun ownership/possession and the observed decline in criminal activity in U.S. over the past lustrum and a half. (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-crime/385364/)

      I didn't bother to early cite The Atlantic article linked just above because the fallacy associated with your basis for argument (JIC) is more than adequate. The fact is that a team of economic and criminal justice researchers expressly looked for and could not find a causal correspondence between declining crime rates and gun ownership (right to carry laws).
So you dare deign to tell me I've ignored your puerile in substance and poorly developed points. Nothing could be farther from the truth.


All the best.


__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 1
      08-30-2015, 05:04 PM   #106
FenixMike
Captain
394
Rep
769
Posts

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

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
??? What did you want me to discuss and in what context?

Write a well developed essay or a short post. I'll read it either way. I don't care if it's long. I care if it's cogent and has ample rational and support (not "peanut gallery" support) and is logically driven not emotionally driven.

I responded in this post -- http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...&postcount=103 -- in detail, re: the first of your two posts shown above, to every point you made and that wasn't clearly just rhetorical (pink) or an identification of what you would do (or would prefer to do) in the situation you noted (brown).

I'm sure you didn't expect me to actually interview victims of violence or hurricane Katrina. Also, you clearly wrote (in the indicative mood, not in the conditional) that "such and such" is what you'd do. What am I to have to say about that? It's what you'd do; I believe it's what you'd do.

You have real audacity chiding me for ignoring your comments, which is not at all what I've done. If anything you've shown yourself to be among the most artful of dodgers. (http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publicati...2ea8183e44.pdf) I observed that you did that, but I didn't gripe about it, but to make the point, here's what you've not addressed at all:
  • Post: http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...33&postcount=8
    This is the one question I asked that you answered.

    I thought it strange that you answered it by by stating that the problem with the Mother Jones scatter plot is (1) that the deaths noted include those resulting from legal and illegally owned/possessed guns, and (2) that it includes police officers fatally wounding people. The facts that led to my thinking it strange are:
    • Neither the gun, the bullet nor the loved ones of the person killed care whether the gun was owned or not.
    • Legally fired/owned gun kill no less effectively than do the same guns owned illegally. The issue isn't whether the gun is owned legally; it's whether it's possessed and used resulting in someone dying.
    • In 2014 police officers shot and killed 1100 people.
    • I used the figures and graph (http://www.e90post.com/forums/showth...6#post18490986) I could find that would be most favorable for your self-defense argument. The FBI's figures for violent crime and property-related arrests (realizing that only a portion of them result in convictions) are considerably lower at ~2M, which is more than three times lower than the figure I was using and would thus result in violent victimizations occurring for a far greater portion of the population.
    • The homicide rate for civilians is 5:100,000.
    • The "homicide" rate for cops is 145:100,000.
      (Sources for law enforcement related figures:
      -- http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/csllea08.pdf
      -- http://www.killedbypolice.net/kbp2014.html
      -- https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/201...-2013-released )
  • Post: http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...9&postcount=31

    You wrote:




    In both cases I asked for clarification and you provided none.
  • In multiple posts I've noted that the self defense argument is fallacious and so far, neither you nor anyone else has come up with anything that is at not a rationally fallacious basis for support for your gun advocacy. You and your cohorts have completely ignored the fact that the "just in case" basis for an inductive argument is fallacious.
  • You and others here have essentially asserted that on the basis of your person experiences it's "impossible" to accurately fire a gun in a stressful situation, yet I provided two gun advocacy website references that assert exactly the opposite is so provided people get the requisite training on how to handle themselves and their weapons in stressful situations.
  • You asserted that my "sin tax" idea won't work as a means of behavior modification/control with regard to fatal gun use, yet you've provided not one bit of third party evidence to show that the tax code is an ineffective tool in directing behavior. This even as every single taxpayer here can identify at least one behavior they've elected because, in part or entirely, of the tax preferences associated with their action(s). And it's not just individuals for whom tax codes motivate behavior, business managers make lots of decisions due to the tax benefits thereof.
  • You continue to respond to my comments as though I'm trying to prohibit gun ownership, even though I've repeatedly said I have no interest in doing so. Talk about ignoring the remarks of the other person with whom one is discussing a topic....
  • Moving away from ignoring the points I've expressly raised, let's consider the situational exigencies that you have ignored throughout this discussion.
    • Foremost among them is the nature and scope of factors that matter in individual decision making vs. the nature and scope of factors that are relevant at a national policy making level. You keep expressing what you would do and what you want, and the implication is that what's best for you (based on how you want to live and conduct your life, and within the constraints of your cognitive processing ability) is best for everyone.
    • You have failed to even once provide any evidence -- aside again from your own assertions -- that there is a causal relationship between gun ownership/possession and the observed decline in criminal activity in U.S. over the past lustrum and a half. (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-crime/385364/)

      I didn't bother to early cite The Atlantic article linked just above because the fallacy associated with your basis for argument (JIC) is more than adequate. The fact is that a team of economic and criminal justice researchers expressly looked for and could not find a causal correspondence between declining crime rates and gun ownership (right to carry laws).
So you dare deign to tell me I've ignored your puerile in substance and poorly developed points. Nothing could be farther from the truth.


All the best.


I just value you as entertainment at this point... Regardless of what proof I could offer, you arent ever going to see my views, and your lack of real world experience pertaining to anything you argue with me about makes every one of your arguments baseless (that is not a hit on your education or intelligence, I am sure you are quite smart, but in this particular argument I feel my statement is correct). Thankfully in this wonderful country, you and I both have the freedom to make our own decisions and choose our own lifestyle... lets hope it stays that way.
__________________
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
      08-30-2015, 05:25 PM   #107
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
776
Rep
5,666
Posts

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

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by FenixMike View Post
I just value you as entertainment at this point... Regardless of what proof I could offer, you arent ever going to see my views, and your lack of real world experience pertaining to anything you argue with me about makes every one of your arguments baseless (that is not a hit on your education or intelligence, I am sure you are quite smart, but in this particular argument I feel my statement is correct). Thankfully in this wonderful country, you and I both have the freedom to make our own decisions and choose our own lifestyle... lets hope it stays that way.
The fact is you DON'Toffer any so how could and why should I?

Believe me, I've seen your views. I simply haven't also seen anything credible from you militating for my concurring with their rational viability.

As far as your views and remarks expressing what choices you want to make and want to be able to make, I have no problem with them. My dissent arises from your also wanting to define policy based on your personal preferences rather than considering whether some other choice might be better for the citizenry on the whole.

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
      08-31-2015, 01:14 AM   #108
david in germany
Lieutenant Colonel
557
Rep
1,582
Posts

Drives: 118i
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Mannheim Germany

iTrader: (2)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuidoK View Post
But I think you have a Waffenschein for those?
In the netherlands you can only (legally) get a permit buy a gun for hunting or sportsshooting.
In case of sportsshooting you have to be a member of a club for at least a year, for hunting you have to be a member of the hunting guild (with all the permits). In both cases the permit to buy a gun is issued by the chief of police where motivation and psych evaluation play a part. (automatic guns are completely forbidden)

So for most Americans this should be an eyeopener...


Sure real criminals have illegal guns over here, but that are mostly the real heavy criminals that are connected to heavy gang violence and heavy drug trafficing, or persons that mingle in terrorist activities. These are not the type of people that are a threat to me, as they ususally lay low not to draw attention and mostly use guns in intercriminal violence (payback killings etc).
I'm not a target for those kind of people, I have nothing to fear from them.

For me the biggest threat is the nut in the street or an angry acquaintance. In the US it is no problem for such a guy to get a gun (like the shooting of the reporter), but here something like that doesn't happen.
I have a WBK.
I disagree with your usage of "Heavy Criminal" even many small time criminals think they need to protect themselves from competition. You are just not aware of it and it is not publicized EU countries want the outside world to think all is well and perfect and the press is not allowed to publish actual facts on gun violence. I have worked with law enforcement here in Germany for quite some time and now that the EU pushed for open boarders it is only getting worse.
Did you here about the guy driving around Germany a couple of months ago that killed the two people and shot at a few others?
__________________
2009 118i Monaco Blue "Maximillion"
2009 335i Saphire Black M Sport "Leopold" Cobb tune, Mishimoto FMIC, Cobb charge pipe, Forge diverter valves, Cyba scoops and M Individual Audio retrofit.
2011 328i Titan Silver M Sport "Franzel" <--Wife's car
Appreciate 0
      08-31-2015, 04:15 PM   #109
bbbbmw
Major General
2387
Rep
6,083
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Looks like some folks in Sweden ought to get a gun:

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/51...en-rape?anid=7
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 0
      08-31-2015, 06:13 PM   #110
claasmi
Private
30
Rep
56
Posts

Drives: 2011 128i 6MT
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Toronto

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2011 128i  [0.00]
As a Canadian this whole discussion just sounds bat-shit crazy.
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 07:16 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