You present some well-said points and, unlike many, don't rely on insults to justify your position. So maybe you will consider my points made in the same manner.
dhk2 said:Of all the dozens of cyclists I know, none carry a weapon while riding. This includes several with concealed carry permits, plus lots who enjoy sport shooting and hunting.
Many would marvel that, of dozens of cyclists you know, there are even several with CCW permits and lots who own and shoot guns. You couldn't hear that from a resident of Britian or Chicago, and likely wouldn't from a New Englander. The US South is unique in that regard. But your personal experience doesn't establish the standard, does it? With so few CCW holders and relatively few cyclists, would you expect to know enough people to be able to assess the frequency of cyclists who carry a gun? Infrequent does not mean abnormal.
dhk2 said:Believe statistics will bear out that a road cyclist is much, much more likely to be injured or killed by a distracted or enraged driver than he is to encounter a situation where displaying or using a handgun would help.
True. But oddly, people don't judge or respond to risks in a statistical manner, probably due to their individual beliefs and experiences. For instance, while accidental death from guns is way, way down the list from auto accidents, falls, drowning, poisening, etc., many make it their life's work to oppose gun ownership due to firearms accidents. Maybe cyclists say to themseleves - I'll ride knowing that I might be killed by an negligent/malicious diver. Some apparently say to themselves that, while they can't do much about random vehicular homicide, they can attempt to do something about random assault/violence by carry a gun. On or off a bike. A person can't choose not to be the target of a violent attacker - it's pretty much the attcker's choice. So riding a bike isn't a universally recognized off-limits sign.
dhk2 said:Even if the dog "deserved it", there's too much danger of shooting a fellow rider, or aggrievating the owner, who's likely to come out, chase and run us down with his truck.
I guess any of your buddies that have CCW permits and own/shoot guns that can shoot a target/deer and not other people in the range/field might be able to shoot a dog without shooting other riders. But then again, I don't know how many shots it takes a Bubba to hit a stop sign 😄
Pepper spray might be a real worry when riding in a group - it's hard enough to hit something and not yourself when alone.
But interestingly, you don't decide to give up cycling and stay home because of a threat to safety. You just don't know what choice to make. So why do you object to others who have made their choice to carry a gun cycling and otherwise?
But your real worry appears to be dog-owners and their trucks. Maybe a particularity of the South again. If you were a Brit telling this story, I'd predict that they would be banning private posession of trucks and heavy vehicles as potential offensive weapons.
dhk2 said:Still, it's got to be interesting for people in other countries to learn how addicted some of us americans are to [our] precious weapons, and how much false confidence we seem to gain from owning or carrying them.
It would seem the statistics support the opposite, with higher CCW rates associated with less crime. Many studies share in this conclusion. While some disagree, none of significance have shown the opposite effect. Since 1986, when only 9 states had "shall issue"/unrestricted CCW laws, that number has grown to 38 states, with almost 2/3 of the US population living in said states. Nobody says that crime has gone up - even the anti-gun crowd - as all statistics show otherwise. Each time they predict Wild West shootouts on every corner, but that hasn't happened. They still cling to the idea, as it evokes fear, uncertainty and doubt - at least in those that favor hand-wringing as a response to crime.
dhk2 said:Just last weekend, within two miles of my house, a city policeman was shot dead during a routine traffic stop. His killer was a 53 year old depressed drunk, who'd already had two DUI's on his record. The fact that the trained officer had his loaded pistol in a holster at his side didn't prevent him from being shot in the face and killed, leaving behind a wife and five kids.
While a tragedy, your story is a page out of the anti-gun textbook to show that even armed police are killed by others with guns, killed by others with their own gun, shoot innocents or other police, etc., concluding that this proves private citizens shouldn't be allowed to have guns for self-defense.
The next time you see a uniformed policeman in a crowd, try to spot the people with guns. The short list is the cop. No element of surprise.
Would the killer you mention above first try to confront and threaten the policeman with his fists, perhaps then escalating to a tire-iron or knife? Or maybe, knowing the cop had a holstered gun, he figured to get the jump on him first? The value of CCW is one retains the element of surprise, which police do not have.
Also note that while poice must move into situations of unknown/high risk as part of their job, private citizens don't.
Like they say, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Would you feel safer knowing that, other than criminal's gun, the only other guns around are in the holsters of police that might be minutes away, if you have the option of calling for help if needed?
