Boy, are you gonna hate this.

[Freewheeling]

I'm curious enough about attitudes on this issue that I'm going to risk
being flamed. I have recently come to regard the attitude of "Armed
Liberal" on the issue of self defense as worth considering. If you wish to
read his thoughts go here:

http://windsofchange.net/archives/004180.html

It is a relatively nuanced argument that, in my view, has considerable merit. I realize that most
people here considere themselves "pacifists" which is a position quite different from that of
"passivists," but there is really a rather thoughtful consideration of this issue in some pro-
firearm forums, like Highroads. I suspect there are at least a few people sympathetic to the
perspective of being armed while riding (especially long distance and alone) so would like the
thoughts of those in that category. If you have some thoughts on the pacifist position I'd like to
hear those too. I'm basically concerned about the unique issues of bearing arms as it relates to
cycling, and whether anyone has thought about this. I'm attempting to think this through, but having
been convinced by Armed Liberal's basic logic I'm not sure I can simply forego bearing arms on a
bike without further consideration. Mutual respect is in order, and I know that 90% of the people
here will object. There are certainly practical considerations to take into account, such as the
additional weight and safety in event of a fall, etc.

But the bottom line for me is that if bearing arms is a value you believe in then some accomodation
must be found, at least for long non-group riding where protection in number (of witnesses to an
assault) is simply not in the cards.

God help me for raising the issue. Lets try to not crosspost, OK?

--
--Scott

 

[Asbestostux]

Pepper spray should take of any trouble you find on the road. Which has about a
0.000000000000000000001 probability of happening.

Oh I know, anecdotal this and anecdotal that. Blah blah blah...

Truth is you're more likely to shoot yourself or one of your traveling companions than an attacker
or scary wild animal.

How many long distance bike tourers (or anyone for that matter) are killed by pyschopaths or
gangbangers every year? Exactly.

My advice is don't cycle through the bad parts of big cities and you'll reduce your risk by another
fifty orders of magnitude.

I don't have any problem with gun ownership (except maybe assault rifles and over-the-top hardware
in that vein) but based on the statistics, carrying a gun is unnecessary unless you're dealing
drugs, working as a pimp, rob banks, are a member of a gang, or are a cop.

Feel free to indulge your paranoid fantasies, just realize you're being manipulated by the "if it
bleeds, it leads" liberal, commie, godless mass media.

But basing your decision on boring statistics wouldn't give you such a hard-on would it?

 

[Freewheeling]

Fair enough, but it doesn't really address the fundamental issue that was raised. The odds of
assault aren't really part of the obligation to keep those risks as low as possible, for everyone.
And I realize there's a tradeoff between the number and availability of guns and the likelihood that
they'll be used by nefarious or irresponsible people. But I simply can't square with the fundamental
liberal (in the classical sense) notion that one must be prepared to resisist predation, not for
one's own sake but for the sake of society. If one feels that the principle obligates one to "carry"
then how is that changed by the fact that you're on a bicycle?

You understand what I'm saying right? The very odds you quote are, to some extent, dependent on the
suppression of predation. And that must, from a purely economics perspective, involve some measure
of responsibility for self protection. (For references see Mancur Olson, who contends that absent
the cooperation of the population and responsibilty for their own defense a police force couldn't
possibly meet the obligation of public safety no matter how much is spent. And for a practical
demonstration consider the current rate of home invasions and burglaries in GB.)

As for mace, I simply don't see how that protects you from a determined attacker. Dogs, yes.
But people?

Anyway, I figured there'd be 95% opposition to this. Frankly, I never even thought about it until a
friend raised the issue. The fundamental liberal principle seems to have submerged for some reason,
in the last century.

But the "statistical argument" is noted, and acknowledged. It simply means that, to a certain
extent, if I choose not to carry I'm free-riding, in the same sense that I'm fee-riding if I choose
not to have an innoculation against a particulal disease. The more others assume that cost and risk
the less likely I'm going to suffer infection. Which may very well be a "wise" decision. I'm just
not sure it's an entirely ethical one.

Oh, and the assumption that carrying a weapon raises the odds that I'll shoot myself is probably
true by a smallish margin, again from a statistical standpoint. But that also simply speaks to the
price of carrying such a weapon, which I can mitigate with training and preparation. I mean, if that
were really the issue I'd be even safer not cycling on the highways at all. I can get plenty of
exercise indoor rowing, or running around the local track.

--
--Scott
"AsbestosTux" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Pepper spray should take of any trouble you find on the road. Which has
> about a 0.000000000000000000001 probability of happening.
>
> Oh I know, anecdotal this and anecdotal that. Blah blah blah...
>
> Truth is you're more likely to shoot yourself or one of your traveling
> companions than an attacker or scary wild animal.
>
> How many long distance bike tourers (or anyone for that matter) are
> killed by pyschopaths or gangbangers every year? Exactly.
>
> My advice is don't cycle through the bad parts of big cities and you'll
> reduce your risk by another fifty orders of magnitude.
>
> I don't have any problem with gun ownership (except maybe assault rifles
> and over-the-top hardware in that vein) but based on the statistics,
> carrying a gun is unnecessary unless you're dealing drugs, working as a
> pimp, rob banks, are a member of a gang, or are a cop.
>
> Feel free to indulge your paranoid fantasies, just realize you're being
> manipulated by the "if it bleeds, it leads" liberal, commie, godless
> mass media.
>
> But basing your decision on boring statistics wouldn't give you such a
> hard-on would it?

 

[Jim H]

There's a great article in this month's Scientific American about crime. It looks at several
theories that try to explain the big decrease in violent crime during the 90s - and the big increase
that preceded it. Although no one theory seems to explain everything, some are classic examples of
that inescapable principle, the "Law of Unintended Consequences". For example: much of the violence
accompanied the rapid increase in use of crack cocaine. As more and more adult crack sellers were
incarcerated, their places were taken by unstable kids with guns and the number of shootings only
increased.

That example sort of illustrates how I feel about conceal-and-carry laws. They might make some of us
feel safer, temporarily, but in the long run they decrease our security by putting more and more
guns in circulation. Who knows where all those handguns will be in 10 or 20 years.

My radar detects an incoming missle from Ed Dolan so I'll leave the area now....

 

[Freewheeling]

By the way, I once worked out the odds of experiencing and repelling a violent assault, based on the
assumption that it would happen once in a thousand years. The odds that carrying a weapon would keep
you unharmed, when you'd otherwise have been harmed, or seriously or fatally injured, are indeed
small, but they are not .0000000..., etc. Depending on the type of weapon, and your training and so
forth, the odds in any particular year are slightly less than .001, or about 0.1%. Small, but not
astronomically small. And the "once-in-a-thousand-years" is actually quite conservative. It could
easily be more, anecdotal nonsequiturs nothwithstanding.

--
--Scott
"Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Fair enough, but it doesn't really address the fundamental issue that was
> raised. The odds of assault aren't really part of the obligation to keep
> those risks as low as possible, for everyone. And I realize there's a
> tradeoff between the number and availability of guns and the likelihood
that
> they'll be used by nefarious or irresponsible people. But I simply can't
> square with the fundamental liberal (in the classical sense) notion that
one
> must be prepared to resisist predation, not for one's own sake but for the
> sake of society. If one feels that the principle obligates one to "carry"
> then how is that changed by the fact that you're on a bicycle?
>
> You understand what I'm saying right? The very odds you quote are, to
some
> extent, dependent on the suppression of predation. And that must, from a
> purely economics perspective, involve some measure of responsibility for
> self protection. (For references see Mancur Olson, who contends that
absent
> the cooperation of the population and responsibilty for their own defense
a
> police force couldn't possibly meet the obligation of public safety no
> matter how much is spent. And for a practical demonstration consider the
> current rate of home invasions and burglaries in GB.)
>
> As for mace, I simply don't see how that protects you from a determined
> attacker. Dogs, yes. But people?
>
> Anyway, I figured there'd be 95% opposition to this. Frankly, I never
even
> thought about it until a friend raised the issue. The fundamental liberal
> principle seems to have submerged for some reason, in the last century.
>
> But the "statistical argument" is noted, and acknowledged. It simply
means
> that, to a certain extent, if I choose not to carry I'm free-riding, in
the
> same sense that I'm fee-riding if I choose not to have an innoculation
> against a particulal disease. The more others assume that cost and risk
the
> less likely I'm going to suffer infection. Which may very well be a
"wise"
> decision. I'm just not sure it's an entirely ethical one.
>
> Oh, and the assumption that carrying a weapon raises the odds that I'll
> shoot myself is probably true by a smallish margin, again from a
statistical
> standpoint. But that also simply speaks to the price of carrying such a
> weapon, which I can mitigate with training and preparation. I mean, if
that
> were really the issue I'd be even safer not cycling on the highways at
all.
> I can get plenty of exercise indoor rowing, or running around the local
> track.
>
>
> --
> --Scott
> "AsbestosTux" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Pepper spray should take of any trouble you find on the road. Which has
> > about a 0.000000000000000000001 probability of happening.
> >
> > Oh I know, anecdotal this and anecdotal that. Blah blah blah...
> >
> > Truth is you're more likely to shoot yourself or one of your traveling
> > companions than an attacker or scary wild animal.
> >
> > How many long distance bike tourers (or anyone for that matter) are
> > killed by pyschopaths or gangbangers every year? Exactly.
> >
> > My advice is don't cycle through the bad parts of big cities and you'll
> > reduce your risk by another fifty orders of magnitude.
> >
> > I don't have any problem with gun ownership (except maybe assault rifles
> > and over-the-top hardware in that vein) but based on the statistics,
> > carrying a gun is unnecessary unless you're dealing drugs, working as a
> > pimp, rob banks, are a member of a gang, or are a cop.
> >
> > Feel free to indulge your paranoid fantasies, just realize you're being
> > manipulated by the "if it bleeds, it leads" liberal, commie, godless
> > mass media.
> >
> > But basing your decision on boring statistics wouldn't give you such a
> > hard-on would it?

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

[...]

> But the bottom line for me is that if bearing arms is a value you believe in then some
> accommodation must be found, at least for long non-group riding where protection in number (of
> witnesses to an assault) is simply not in the cards.

I was watching something on TV the other night about the criminals among us. What is the one thing
they fear the most? It is not the police, it is not going to jail. It is that their potential victim
may have a weapon and use it on them. This totally squares with my thinking on the subject too.

Yet, I have never carried any firearms in my life. But like you, I am starting to think it is
irresponsible not to carry a concealed firearm, both for your own protection and the protection of
everyone else in society. Criminals are fundamentally different than you and I. They have been
brought up to prey on others and are nothing but predators. To equate the rest of us with them is
one of the biggest mistakes that we can make (you know, that nonsense about there but for the grace
of God go I).

If we could be absolutely assured that no one, not even the criminals, were carrying any weapons,
that would be the ideal society in which to live. But that is not the case. I believe very many
states now permit conceal and carry firearms. I have always been against this for most of my life,
but I have come to realize that we would all be safer if we were all carrying weapons. 99% of us are
not criminals, but we need to protect ourselves from the 1% that are. The statistics are not where
you might think they would be on this issue. It is actually very safe for most all of us to be
carrying concealed weapons. Murder lies in the heart of man, not in a weapon.

The parting thought on that TV program I was watching is that women are arming themselves like
crazy. I say good! It is about time. Minnesota is one of the states that now permit conceal and
carry firearms. It is possible that if everyone were carrying concealed firearms that the violent
crime in this country could almost be eliminated. The biggest change that is needed to bring this
about is simply the acceptance that it is right and proper to be carrying a concealed firearm.

I would trust anyone on this newsgroup to be carrying a concealed firearm and I would feel safer for
it too. Forget the mace and other non weapons and forget the automatic military type weapons too.
All that is needed is just a little pistol. I guarantee you that that alone will scare the bejeesus
out of all the criminal predators among us. I can see where it could actually be made a requirement
by society that everyone (except children of course) be armed at all times.

Look at most primitive societies of a tribal nature (New Guinea for instance). The men would never
think of going anywhere without their weapons. The weapons have evolved from spears to firearms, but
a weapon is still just a weapon. Wasn't it Shane who explained to the pioneer mother in that movie
of the same name that a gun is just another tool - as good or bad as the person who uses it.

My advice, if your state will permit it, is to get yourself a firearm and carry it concealed on your
person when you are out there doing a bike tour all by yourself. You may never have to use it but
you will feel safer for having it. Your firearm can become as much a part of you as the clothing
that you wear. After awhile, you will even forget that you have it on you, but it will be there for
that once in lifetime when you will need it. Any woman who goes out on a cycle tour by herself
without being armed is just plain crazy. Trust me on this, God will NOT protect you!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Freewheeling]

Jim:

Hmm... I guess this is now a gun nut thread, huh? I basically acknowledge the fact that having more
guns in a society will make some of those guns available to violent offenders. Everything is a
tradeoff. What you haven't shown me is any connection between the data or findings of the study, and
your inferences about it. I'm trained in this sort of methodological stuff that irritates the hell
out of normal folk, but there are more guns per capita in rural areas, where crime is also next to
zero, so causal inference is more than a little problematic. I'm not arguing that rural areas are
safer because there are more guns. I would, however, note that Switzerland has one of the highest
per capita gun populations in the world, and one of the lowest crime rates, so again you could
easily be making a false causal inference.

Next, although I really doubt that any valid study is going to claim to have found the "cause of
crime" the rise in crime in the inner city was predicted long before it happened, by Patrick
Moynihan, as having to do with the decine of the family which had devastating consequences for
people on the margins of poverty. Why is it, for instance, that the use of crack and other drugs
soared in the first place? In fact, you can go all the way back to Claude Brown's *Manchild in the
Promised Land* to read an autobiagraphical account of the start of the story (which was to grow much
much worse).

And finally, I'd have no problem debating this stuff with people if they didn't simply come out of
the box without the slightest inkling of the liberal tradition associated with bearing arms. It
seems to be one of the legs of our own culture that has become almost completely obscured, like a
foundation stone that has become covered with earth and overgrown with foliage. Again, for a pretty
fair discussion of the topic I urge you to read this guy (Why Be an *Armed* Liberal?):

http://www.armedliberal.com/archives/000147.html#000147

But my reason for raising the issue was to discuss, with someone who isn't scared to death of the
topic, the unique circumstances associated with cycling. It may simply be that after having
dismissed all the hysteria about guns themselves, it may still be too unsafe to carry on a bicycle
(though I frankly doubt it).

By the way, I have serious doubts about the Second Amendment being an unconditional and
unmitigated right to bear arms. But there is a principle that goes beyond that of simply
maintaining a citizen militia (which would clearly be a joke against any modern army, even a
fairly anemic one). And arming militias with heavy weapons is something that's so far beyond the
clear intentions of the founders that it constitutes almost celestial hyperbole. (And it's
irrelevant to the principle anyway.)

--
--Scott

"jim h" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> There's a great article in this month's Scientific American about crime.
It
> looks at several theories that try to explain the big decrease in violent
> crime during the 90s - and the big increase that preceded it. Although no
> one theory seems to explain everything, some are classic examples of that
> inescapable principle, the "Law of Unintended Consequences". For example:
> much of the violence accompanied the rapid increase in use of crack
cocaine.
> As more and more adult crack sellers were incarcerated, their places were
> taken by unstable kids with guns and the number of shootings only
increased.
>
> That example sort of illustrates how I feel about conceal-and-carry laws.
> They might make some of us feel safer, temporarily, but in the long run
> they decrease our security by putting more and more guns in circulation.
> Who knows where all those handguns will be in 10 or 20 years.
>
> My radar detects an incoming missle from Ed Dolan so I'll leave the area
> now....
>
>
>
>

 

[Edward Dolan]

AsbestosTux <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Pepper spray should take of any trouble you find on the road. Which has about a
> 0.000000000000000000001 probability of happening.

You are surely being absurd to think that a pepper spray can substitute for a real weapon -
like a gun!

> Oh I know, anecdotal this and anecdotal that. Blah blah blah...

Anecdotal evidence is not as reliable as statistical evidence, but it should never be totally
discounted either.

> Truth is you're more likely to shoot yourself or one of your traveling companions than an attacker
> or scary wild animal.

That is not the truth at all! You would have to be an idiot to shoot yourself or to shoot someone
you are not intending to shoot. If most people are smart enough to drive a car down the highway at
75 miles per hour, they are smart enough to carry a weapon for Heaven's sake!

> How many long distance bike tourers (or anyone for that matter) are killed by psychopaths or
> gangbangers every year? Exactly.

Who knows? But being killed is not the be all and the end all. How many women cyclists get raped out
on the road? Have you never heard the case of the Central Park jogger who was viciously assaulted,
raped and left for dead?

> My advice is don't cycle through the bad parts of big cities and you'll reduce your risk by
> another fifty orders of magnitude.

Sure, run around in your life like a timid mouse. Why the hell can't I go anywhere I want in this
country - the land of the free and the home of the brave!

> I don't have any problem with gun ownership (except maybe assault rifles and over-the-top hardware
> in that vein) but based on the statistics, carrying a gun is unnecessary unless you're dealing
> drugs, working as a pimp, rob banks, are a member of a gang, or are a cop.

You obviously don't read newspapers at all. There are reports there daily of people getting
assaulted and robbed, women being assaulted and raped - it just goes on and on and never seems to
stop. A concealed weapon would cut down on this kind of senseless crime enormously. I don't know
what you are so scared of. Do you think if you have a weapon on you you are going to *****-nilly
kill someone? The way society is set up now, you are right though. Only the criminals have guns and
the rest of us are nothing but sitting ducks. Or do you think the police can protect you. That is
the ultimate absurdity!

> Feel free to indulge your paranoid fantasies, just realize you're being manipulated by the "if it
> bleeds, it leads" liberal, commie, godless mass media.

Most conservatives have been traditionally in favor of carrying firearms. It is the liberals who
have disarmed society so that only the criminals have guns. If you aren't paranoid about any of
this, I suggest you follow the news more carefully. You must be living in an ivory tower somewhere.

> But basing your decision on boring statistics wouldn't give you such a hard-on would it?

What a nut! The statistics are all against you. But hells bells! - I am not going to look them up
either! I don't need to when I can trust to my common sense. I will tell you one thing though. I
felt a lot safer in our society 50 years ago than I do now. Why do you think that is I wonder?

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Freewheeling]

Ed:

One of the best things about conceal/carry is the "conceal" part, which means that the predators are
never quite sure where they might encounter someone not-so-prey-worthy. That uncertainty amplifies
the effect of the law on the calculations of the predator. It raises his "costs" (hopefully to an
unacceptable level for many).

I'll tell you a brief story about a childhood friend of mine named "Gale." This guy taught me how to
play marbles when we were 8 years old, and we traded off as state marble champs for several years.
Somewhere along the line Gale turned into a drug dealer, and was killed during a bust in the early
'90s, leaving a wife and a couple of sons. I wish I knew what happened to the guy, but he wasn't
born a criminal. Nor would I hesitate to shoot him if he threatened me or anyone else during the
commission of a crime. I think he became a "cheater" because he reasoned that the costs were low and
opportunities high compared to other kinds of work. But I also hope that he wasn't a violent
criminal, just a dealer trying to make a dishonest buck.

--
--Scott
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> [...]
>
> > But the bottom line for me is that if bearing arms is a value you
believe in
> > then some accommodation must be found, at least for long non-group
riding
> > where protection in number (of witnesses to an assault) is simply not in
the
> > cards.
>
> I was watching something on TV the other night about the criminals
> among us. What is the one thing they fear the most? It is not the
> police, it is not going to jail. It is that their potential victim may
> have a weapon and use it on them. This totally squares with my
> thinking on the subject too.
>
> Yet, I have never carried any firearms in my life. But like you, I am
> starting to think it is irresponsible not to carry a concealed
> firearm, both for your own protection and the protection of everyone
> else in society. Criminals are fundamentally different than you and I.
> They have been brought up to prey on others and are nothing but
> predators. To equate the rest of us with them is one of the biggest
> mistakes that we can make (you know, that nonsense about there but for
> the grace of God go I).
>
> If we could be absolutely assured that no one, not even the criminals,
> were carrying any weapons, that would be the ideal society in which to
> live. But that is not the case. I believe very many states now permit
> conceal and carry firearms. I have always been against this for most
> of my life, but I have come to realize that we would all be safer if
> we were all carrying weapons. 99% of us are not criminals, but we need
> to protect ourselves from the 1% that are. The statistics are not
> where you might think they would be on this issue. It is actually very
> safe for most all of us to be carrying concealed weapons. Murder lies
> in the heart of man, not in a weapon.
>
> The parting thought on that TV program I was watching is that women
> are arming themselves like crazy. I say good! It is about time.
> Minnesota is one of the states that now permit conceal and carry
> firearms. It is possible that if everyone were carrying concealed
> firearms that the violent crime in this country could almost be
> eliminated. The biggest change that is needed to bring this about is
> simply the acceptance that it is right and proper to be carrying a
> concealed firearm.
>
> I would trust anyone on this newsgroup to be carrying a concealed
> firearm and I would feel safer for it too. Forget the mace and other
> non weapons and forget the automatic military type weapons too. All
> that is needed is just a little pistol. I guarantee you that that
> alone will scare the bejeesus out of all the criminal predators among
> us. I can see where it could actually be made a requirement by society
> that everyone (except children of course) be armed at all times.
>
> Look at most primitive societies of a tribal nature (New Guinea for
> instance). The men would never think of going anywhere without their
> weapons. The weapons have evolved from spears to firearms, but a
> weapon is still just a weapon. Wasn't it Shane who explained to the
> pioneer mother in that movie of the same name that a gun is just
> another tool - as good or bad as the person who uses it.
>
> My advice, if your state will permit it, is to get yourself a firearm
> and carry it concealed on your person when you are out there doing a
> bike tour all by yourself. You may never have to use it but you will
> feel safer for having it. Your firearm can become as much a part of
> you as the clothing that you wear. After awhile, you will even forget
> that you have it on you, but it will be there for that once in
> lifetime when you will need it. Any woman who goes out on a cycle tour
> by herself without being armed is just plain crazy. Trust me on this,
> God will NOT protect you!
>
> Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

[...]

> Anyway, I figured there'd be 95% opposition to this. Frankly, I never even thought about it until
> a friend raised the issue. The fundamental liberal principle seems to have submerged for some
> reason, in the last century.

No, I don't think there is anything like 95% opposition to carrying concealed firearms. Society
has changed drastically from when you and I were growing up. It is now much more dangerous for
all of us no matter where we live. We have open borders now and God only knows who is coming into
this country.

I was a liberal for most of my life and still am in many very important respects. Liberalism used
to be a very good word, but it has metamorphosed into something that I can hardly recognize
anymore. A liberal traditionally could make just as good a case for arming ourselves as any
conservative, maybe better. And liberals use to be strong on national defense and security issues
too. I think any old fashioned liberal could easily make the case that it is our responsibility and
duty to arm ourselves individually and collectively for the purposes of self defense and to insure
a more safe and orderly society.

I think the day is not too far off when we conservatives can welcome you into our ranks. It doesn't
mean that you have to give up all your liberal beliefs anymore than I have, but you just have to get
your head screwed on straight with regard to national defense and security issues. Zell Miller of
Georgia has got it about right as far as I am concerned. He is a "good" Democrat - one of the few.

> But the "statistical argument" is noted, and acknowledged. It simply means that, to a certain
> extent, if I choose not to carry I'm free-riding, in the same sense that I'm fee-riding if I
> choose not to have an inoculation against a particular disease. The more others assume that cost
> and risk the less likely I'm going to suffer infection. Which may very well be a "wise" decision.
> I'm just not sure it's an entirely ethical one.

This sort of thinking could be apply in innumerable other instances too. There will always be those
who society will have to carry, but the trick is to keep that number to an absolute minimum and not
to be trying to maximize it.

> Oh, and the assumption that carrying a weapon raises the odds that I'll shoot myself is probably
> true by a smallish margin, again from a statistical standpoint. But that also simply speaks to the
> price of carrying such a weapon, which I can mitigate with training and preparation. I mean, if
> that were really the issue I'd be even safer not cycling on the highways at all. I can get plenty
> of exercise indoor rowing, or running around the local track.

Yeah, and don't go anywhere in this country where it might be the least bit dangerous either! You
and I are free souls and we do not see any reason why we can't go anywhere we want to go. For 10
years back in the 1960's I hiked all over this country and felt safe. That would not be the case
today. I don't even recognize half the folks inhabiting my little town here on the high prairie of
Minnesota anymore. They seem to be from places like Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras. If you don't
feel safe, then you are not safe. It is really that simple.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Freewheeling]

Ed:

I need to 'splain something to head off potential misunderstandings. There are two meanings for the
word "liberal." The one you're familiar with corresponds fairly well to the European notion of
"Social Democracy" or the welfare state. However if you called someone in Europe who is in one of
those "Socialist leaning" parties a "liberal" they wouldn't know what you meant. Likewise, if you
called F.A. Hayek, the Austrian economist who was the real father of "Reaganomics" a "conservative"
he would definitely be insulted. To him a conservative is a pro-statist, pro-big-government, pro-
authority "royalist" who believes in noblesse oblige handouts to the poor and unfortunate that he
has helped to create. Hayek considered himself to be a liberal, as were Thatcher and Reagan,
essentially. (Sorry if this is a bit confusing, but it's true. It's not my fault.)

And what Hayek is refering to is actually a much older, and really much more valid, meaning for the
term liberal that goes back to the Scottish moral philosophers like John Locke and David Hume. And
it means just about the opposite of the current meaning. It means "keep government off our backs,"
essentially. Or more precisely it means "live and let live." It's a tall order.

Now, sometimes when I use the term I put it in quotes, and when I do that I'm talking about the
newer meaning: leftward leaning that most American use. If I don't use quotes I generally am
refering to the older meaning, or what some people now call classical liberalism.

And the reason I bring this up is that liberal is *still* a perfectly good word. In fact, I don't
think there's the slightest doubt that the US is the vanguard of liberalism and possibly its
saviour. The US is *the* liberal society, in that classic sense. The Scots invented it, but we gave
it substance. Don't let anyone tell you different. It's important to know your heritage.

And I really hope you're not a "classical conservative" either, because if you were you'd probably
be pinin' away for a king (or JFK).

Another name for classical liberal is "whig," but it's a term that's no longer used very much. There
was once a political party in the US called the "Whigs" but they ran afoul of the issue of slavery
and broke up, and were replaced by the Republican Party (I'm sure you remember this from the history
of the Civil War).

I don't know how the meaning of the word got turned on it's head like it has, but I strongly suspect
the complicity of FDR, who was about as "noblesse oblige" as you get.

Anyway, as I said, sorry about the confusion. It's not my fault.

--
--Scott
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> [...]
>
> > Anyway, I figured there'd be 95% opposition to this. Frankly, I never
even
> > thought about it until a friend raised the issue. The fundamental
liberal
> > principle seems to have submerged for some reason, in the last century.
>
> No, I don't think there is anything like 95% opposition to carrying
> concealed firearms. Society has changed drastically from when you and
> I were growing up. It is now much more dangerous for all of us no
> matter where we live. We have open borders now and God only knows who
> is coming into this country.
>
> I was a liberal for most of my life and still am in many very
> important respects. Liberalism used to be a very good word, but it has
> metamorphosed into something that I can hardly recognize anymore. A
> liberal traditionally could make just as good a case for arming
> ourselves as any conservative, maybe better. And liberals use to be
> strong on national defense and security issues too. I think any old
> fashioned liberal could easily make the case that it is our
> responsibility and duty to arm ourselves individually and collectively
> for the purposes of self defense and to insure a more safe and orderly
> society.
>
> I think the day is not too far off when we conservatives can welcome
> you into our ranks. It doesn't mean that you have to give up all your
> liberal beliefs anymore than I have, but you just have to get your
> head screwed on straight with regard to national defense and security
> issues. Zell Miller of Georgia has got it about right as far as I am
> concerned. He is a "good" Democrat - one of the few.
>
> > But the "statistical argument" is noted, and acknowledged. It simply
means
> > that, to a certain extent, if I choose not to carry I'm free-riding, in
the
> > same sense that I'm fee-riding if I choose not to have an inoculation
> > against a particular disease. The more others assume that cost and risk
the
> > less likely I'm going to suffer infection. Which may very well be a
"wise"
> > decision. I'm just not sure it's an entirely ethical one.
>
> This sort of thinking could be apply in innumerable other instances
> too. There will always be those who society will have to carry, but
> the trick is to keep that number to an absolute minimum and not to be
> trying to maximize it.
>
> > Oh, and the assumption that carrying a weapon raises the odds that I'll
> > shoot myself is probably true by a smallish margin, again from a
statistical
> > standpoint. But that also simply speaks to the price of carrying such a
> > weapon, which I can mitigate with training and preparation. I mean, if
that
> > were really the issue I'd be even safer not cycling on the highways at
all.
> > I can get plenty of exercise indoor rowing, or running around the local
> > track.
>
> Yeah, and don't go anywhere in this country where it might be the
> least bit dangerous either! You and I are free souls and we do not see
> any reason why we can't go anywhere we want to go. For 10 years back
> in the 1960's I hiked all over this country and felt safe. That would
> not be the case today. I don't even recognize half the folks
> inhabiting my little town here on the high prairie of Minnesota
> anymore. They seem to be from places like Mexico, Guatemala and
> Honduras. If you don't feel safe, then you are not safe. It is really
> that simple.
>
> Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Freewheeling]

"Zell Miller of Georgia has got it about right as far as I am concerned. He is a "good" Democrat -
one of the few."

I'd agree with that. Not that I don't consider nearly all Democrats "good" in the sense that if push
came to shove they'd be fighting on the line (most of them) along with the rest of us. They are part
of that older classical liberal tradition too. They just don't think this period in history is as
threatening to their way of life as it actually is.

So, this thread has nothing to do with bicycles?

I guess it's just not the place to discuss this issue. I can go to a pro-gun forum I guess, but it's
tough to explain to them why I like cycling around a hundred miles. Just seems stupid and foolish to
most of them (which it probably is, frankly). But I've just been corrupted, what can I say?

I think the new Sprinfield XD Subcompact 9mm might be the perfect cycling firearm. It's made mostly
of carbon fiber rather than metal, so it's light. It can be carried safely in single action mode
(without cocking the hammer) because it's similar to a Glock, and unlike the Glock, the Springfield
has an external safety for "double protection" in the event of a fall. I know motorcyclists who
carry Glocks though. (Not gangsters, either.) As long as they're holstered they can't go off even on
an impact. The whole hammer/firing pin assembly is internal.

--
--Scott

 

[Edward Dolan]

"jim h" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> There's a great article in this month's Scientific American about crime. It looks at several
> theories that try to explain the big decrease in violent crime during the 90s - and the big
> increase that preceded it. Although no one theory seems to explain everything, some are classic
> examples of that inescapable principle, the "Law of Unintended Consequences". For example: much of
> the violence accompanied the rapid increase in use of crack cocaine. As more and more adult crack
> sellers were incarcerated, their places were taken by unstable kids with guns and the number of
> shootings only increased.

Crime has been studied to death over the years and no one yet has ever come to any sensible
conclusions about what to do about it, other than to increase the police and build more prisons.
Also, longer sentences are very helpful too. Most young kids who are into violent crime need to be
put away for at least 20 years so that they will be too old and tired to continue in a criminal
lifestyle when they finally get out.

> That example sort of illustrates how I feel about conceal-and-carry laws. They might make some of
> us feel safer, temporarily, but in the long run they decrease our security by putting more and
> more guns in circulation. Who knows where all those handguns will be in 10 or 20 years.
>
> My radar detects an incoming missile from Ed Dolan so I'll leave the area now....

Jim, according to this TV program that I mentioned in my previous post, all the street criminals
said that you could get guns as easy as pie on the street if you had the money. I think this must be
true. In fact, these street thugs and gang members mentioned that they would never think of going to
a reputable dealer and buying their guns from them.

Alas, for most of us respectable law abiding types, we have no understanding of the underclass at
all. It may be that we as a society will end up putting some millions of criminals in prison (maybe
upward of 10% of the population of the country) for one reason or another. That is where I want
them to be since no one, but no one, has any better answers to the problem. So I am very much in
favor of spending more money on prisons and less on schools (since the schools have proven over and
over that they can't educate the underclass), because if you aren't safe you might as well be
living in Saddam's Iraq and be done with it. Why even pretend to be civilized if you can't insure
law and order.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Ed:
>
> One of the best things about conceal/carry is the "conceal" part, which means that the predators
> are never quite sure where they might encounter someone not-so-prey-worthy. That uncertainty
> amplifies the effect of the law on the calculations of the predator. It raises his "costs"
> (hopefully to an unacceptable level for many).

Yes, you have got that exactly right. Criminals are not stupid, they are just immoral and reckless.
But they value their own hides if nothing else.

> I'll tell you a brief story about a childhood friend of mine named "Gale." This guy taught me how
> to play marbles when we were 8 years old, and we traded off as state marble champs for several
> years. Somewhere along the line Gale turned into a drug dealer, and was killed during a bust in
> the early '90s, leaving a wife and a couple of sons. I wish I knew what happened to the guy, but
> he wasn't born a criminal. Nor would I hesitate to shoot him if he threatened me or anyone else
> during the commission of a crime. I think he became a "cheater" because he reasoned that the costs
> were low and opportunities high compared to other kinds of work. But I also hope that he wasn't a
> violent criminal, just a dealer trying to make a dishonest buck.

We all of us need to play the game of life according to the rules. We are all living in society and
so we must all abide by the rules of the society. Since we are living in a democracy, if we don't
like the rules we can always change them. I have absolutely no sympathy for criminals. And I will
not make any excuses for them - not ever. I have known plenty of poor folks and they were as law
abiding as you could wish. In short, they were moral agents who took responsibility not only for
themselves but for all of society.

That bit about the marbles brings back fond memories. I was the Minnesota state champion one year (I
came in 2nd and 3rd place in other years) and I went to the National Championships at Eaton Rapids,
Michigan that year. This was in the late 1940's I believe. I think the hobby of marbles went out of
favor soon thereafter and I thought it was dead as the proverbial door nail. Those marble contests
were mostly sponsored by the VFW back then. Do any kids play marbles anymore? Do they even know what
marbles are I wonder.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

[...]

> And finally, I'd have no problem debating this stuff with people if they didn't simply come out of
> the box without the slightest inkling of the liberal tradition associated with bearing arms. It
> seems to be one of the legs of our own culture that has become almost completely obscured, like a
> foundation stone that has become covered with earth and overgrown with foliage. Again, for a
> pretty fair discussion of the topic I urge you to read this guy (Why Be an *Armed* Liberal?):
>
> http://www.armedliberal.com/archives/000147.html#000147
>
> But my reason for raising the issue was to discuss, with someone who isn't scared to death of the
> topic, the unique circumstances associated with cycling. It may simply be that after having
> dismissed all the hysteria about guns themselves, it may still be too unsafe to carry on a bicycle
> (though I frankly doubt it).
>
> By the way, I have serious doubts about the Second Amendment being an unconditional and
> unmitigated right to bear arms. But there is a principle that goes beyond that of simply
> maintaining a citizen militia (which would clearly be a joke against any modern army, even a
> fairly anemic one). And arming militias with heavy weapons is something that's so far beyond the
> clear intentions of the founders that it constitutes almost celestial hyperbole. (And it's
> irrelevant to the principle anyway.)

Damn Scott! I don't understand why you and I don't get along better than we do. I like the way your
mind works on this issue of the right to bear arms. I agree with everything you have to say about
the Second Amendment.

I do not worship the Constitution. It is like the Bible - everyone can find what he wants in it and
interpret it his own way. The Constitution is becoming increasingly creaky with age and we need to
get on with our business as a 21st century super power nation and not get hung up on the now very
quaint 18th century.

We need to think clearly about what is required for the citizenry to be safe and secure in the world
we are presently living in. This can be accomplished via the route of law and order or there are
other less desirable ways to accomplish it. But people will be safe and they will give up their
liberties if necessary in order to achieve this. That is the one overpowering lesson that history
teaches us.

If everyone is required to carry a concealed weapon in order to achieve a certain minimum level of
safety, then so be it. I have watched innumerable TV programs which constantly declare how the
American pioneers who settled the West had their trusty guns at their side all the time. And it
wasn't just for protection against Indians and rattlesnakes either. It is even part of the Minnesota
state flag, a picture of a pioneer with his gun resting by his side.

The sad fact is that we are not as civilized as we like to think we are. If guns will keep us more
safe than we would otherwise be, then I am all for it. I am mostly a hermit and I do not therefore
know many people, but the few that I do know I would absolutely trust to be carrying a concealed
weapon without any question at all.

Also, I am greatly in favor of airline pilots carrying arms and of having armed air marshals on the
planes. Safety first, everything else a distant second. Especially at 30,000 feet!

When I was stationed in French Morocco while I was in the Navy I always marveled at all the armed
guards around every government building there. You did not fool with these guys unless you wanted to
be shot dead. Apparently it was all quite necessary or there would have been chaos otherwise. That
may be the way it will become in this country too the way things are going.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Markku Poysti]

>I would, however, note that Switzerland has one of the highest per capita gun populations in the
>world, and one of the lowest crime rates, so again you could easily be making a false causal
>inference.

In Swtzerland they have something called "personal military weapon". It is really not the same as
personal weapon.

 

[Freewheeling]

Ed:

"So I am very much in favor of spending more money on prisons and less on schools (since the schools
have proven over and over that they can't educate the underclass), because if you aren't safe you
might as well be living in Saddam's Iraq and be done with it."

If you transferred the proposed increases in school funding into programs of very early childhood
development (prior to age 3, which is long before Headstart kicks in now) there *would be no
underclass* in two generations. Believe me, this is my field and I know it's true. And having no
underclass we could simply close down most of the prisons to save money, since their primary
function is to catch the failures from an education system that tries to intervene far too late in
the process. What people don't realize is that it isn't the teachers that make a good school, it's
the students.

Now this thread isn't even about guns!

--
--Scott
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "jim h" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > There's a great article in this month's Scientific American about crime.
It
> > looks at several theories that try to explain the big decrease in
violent
> > crime during the 90s - and the big increase that preceded it. Although
no
> > one theory seems to explain everything, some are classic examples of
that
> > inescapable principle, the "Law of Unintended Consequences". For
example:
> > much of the violence accompanied the rapid increase in use of crack
cocaine.
> > As more and more adult crack sellers were incarcerated, their places
were
> > taken by unstable kids with guns and the number of shootings only
increased.
>
> Crime has been studied to death over the years and no one yet has ever
> come to any sensible conclusions about what to do about it, other than
> to increase the police and build more prisons. Also, longer sentences
> are very helpful too. Most young kids who are into violent crime need
> to be put away for at least 20 years so that they will be too old and
> tired to continue in a criminal lifestyle when they finally get out.
>
> > That example sort of illustrates how I feel about conceal-and-carry
laws.
> > They might make some of us feel safer, temporarily, but in the long run
> > they decrease our security by putting more and more guns in circulation.
> > Who knows where all those handguns will be in 10 or 20 years.
> >
> > My radar detects an incoming missile from Ed Dolan so I'll leave the
area
> > now....
>
> Jim, according to this TV program that I mentioned in my previous
> post, all the street criminals said that you could get guns as easy as
> pie on the street if you had the money. I think this must be true. In
> fact, these street thugs and gang members mentioned that they would
> never think of going to a reputable dealer and buying their guns from
> them.
>
> Alas, for most of us respectable law abiding types, we have no
> understanding of the underclass at all. It may be that we as a society
> will end up putting some millions of criminals in prison (maybe upward
> of 10% of the population of the country) for one reason or another.
> That is where I want them to be since no one, but no one, has any
> better answers to the problem. So I am very much in favor of spending
> more money on prisons and less on schools (since the schools have
> proven over and over that they can't educate the underclass), because
> if you aren't safe you might as well be living in Saddam's Iraq and be
> done with it. Why even pretend to be civilized if you can't insure law
> and order.
>
> Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Freewheeling]

Ed:

"I do not worship the Constitution. It is like the Bible - everyone can find what he wants in it and
interpret it his own way. The Constitution is becoming increasingly creaky with age and we need to
get on with our business as a 21st century super power nation and not get hung up on the now very
quaint 18th century."

I think we disagree on that one. Absent the Constitution there would be no nation. Period.

My point is that it's reasonable to argue a case for bearing arms as supported by the Second
Amendment, as long as one recognizes that (as least as regards a "well ordered militia") it has
mainly to do with the symbolism representing an attitude about the relationship between the
individual and the state, and what the citizen expects of the state. Moreover, regarding that
"militia clause," having a populace familiar with firearms from their youth also produces better
soldiers whenever the US transforms from its "Athenian phase" into its "Spartan phase." I think
the founders understood this very well. I just don't think they intended for everyone to have
tanks and RPGs.

--
--Scott
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> [...]
>
> > And finally, I'd have no problem debating this stuff with people if they
> > didn't simply come out of the box without the slightest inkling of the
> > liberal tradition associated with bearing arms. It seems to be one of
the
> > legs of our own culture that has become almost completely obscured, like
a
> > foundation stone that has become covered with earth and overgrown with
> > foliage. Again, for a pretty fair discussion of the topic I urge you to
> > read this guy (Why Be an *Armed* Liberal?):
> >
> > http://www.armedliberal.com/archives/000147.html#000147
> >
> > But my reason for raising the issue was to discuss, with someone who
isn't
> > scared to death of the topic, the unique circumstances associated with
> > cycling. It may simply be that after having dismissed all the hysteria
> > about guns themselves, it may still be too unsafe to carry on a bicycle
> > (though I frankly doubt it).
> >
> > By the way, I have serious doubts about the Second Amendment being an
> > unconditional and unmitigated right to bear arms. But there is a
principle
> > that goes beyond that of simply maintaining a citizen militia (which
would
> > clearly be a joke against any modern army, even a fairly anemic one).
And
> > arming militias with heavy weapons is something that's so far beyond the
> > clear intentions of the founders that it constitutes almost celestial
> > hyperbole. (And it's irrelevant to the principle anyway.)
>
> Damn Scott! I don't understand why you and I don't get along better
> than we do. I like the way your mind works on this issue of the right
> to bear arms. I agree with everything you have to say about the Second
> Amendment.
>
> I do not worship the Constitution. It is like the Bible - everyone can
> find what he wants in it and interpret it his own way. The
> Constitution is becoming increasingly creaky with age and we need to
> get on with our business as a 21st century super power nation and not
> get hung up on the now very quaint 18th century.
>
> We need to think clearly about what is required for the citizenry to
> be safe and secure in the world we are presently living in. This can
> be accomplished via the route of law and order or there are other less
> desirable ways to accomplish it. But people will be safe and they will
> give up their liberties if necessary in order to achieve this. That is
> the one overpowering lesson that history teaches us.
>
> If everyone is required to carry a concealed weapon in order to
> achieve a certain minimum level of safety, then so be it. I have
> watched innumerable TV programs which constantly declare how the
> American pioneers who settled the West had their trusty guns at their
> side all the time. And it wasn't just for protection against Indians
> and rattlesnakes either. It is even part of the Minnesota state flag,
> a picture of a pioneer with his gun resting by his side.
>
> The sad fact is that we are not as civilized as we like to think we
> are. If guns will keep us more safe than we would otherwise be, then I
> am all for it. I am mostly a hermit and I do not therefore know many
> people, but the few that I do know I would absolutely trust to be
> carrying a concealed weapon without any question at all.
>
> Also, I am greatly in favor of airline pilots carrying arms and of
> having armed air marshals on the planes. Safety first, everything else
> a distant second. Especially at 30,000 feet!
>
> When I was stationed in French Morocco while I was in the Navy I
> always marveled at all the armed guards around every government
> building there. You did not fool with these guys unless you wanted to
> be shot dead. Apparently it was all quite necessary or there would
> have been chaos otherwise. That may be the way it will become in this
> country too the way things are going.
>
> Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Freewheeling]

Markku:

"In Swtzerland they have something called "personal military weapon". It is really not the same as
personal weapon."

So what's the difference? Are they a different caliber? What company makes them?

--
--Scott
"Markku Poysti" <[email protected]_nospam> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >I would, however, note that Switzerland
> >has one of the highest per capita gun populations in the world, and one
of
> >the lowest crime rates, so again you could easily be making a false
causal
> >inference.
>
> In Swtzerland they have something called "personal military weapon". It is
> really not the same as personal weapon.

 

[Freewheeling]

Ed:

"That bit about the marbles brings back fond memories. I was the Minnesota state champion one year
(I came in 2nd and 3rd place in other years) and I went to the National Championships at Eaton
Rapids, Michigan that year. This was in the late 1940's I believe. I think the hobby of marbles went
out of favor soon thereafter and I thought it was dead as the proverbial door nail. Those marble
contests were mostly sponsored by the VFW back then. Do any kids play marbles anymore? Do they even
know what marbles are I wonder."

Just a word in remembrance of Gale. This was in the 1950s, so you're apparently about a decade
older than I, but we played avidly, and that was mostly because Gale showed us how, taught us
about "aggies," and which made the best "shooters," etc. There was one year where marbles became
an obsession. And he had one of the most powerful shots I've ever seen, like a bullet. But he
wasn't as accurate as I was, and I suspect that in that last gun battle someone was more accurate
than he. I feel very sorry about Gale, but he made his own choices and paid for them, so I don't
feel *that* sorry.

--
--Scott
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > Ed:
> >
> > One of the best things about conceal/carry is the "conceal" part, which
> > means that the predators are never quite sure where they might encounter
> > someone not-so-prey-worthy. That uncertainty amplifies the effect of
the
> > law on the calculations of the predator. It raises his "costs"
(hopefully
> > to an unacceptable level for many).
>
> Yes, you have got that exactly right. Criminals are not stupid, they
> are just immoral and reckless. But they value their own hides if
> nothing else.
>
> > I'll tell you a brief story about a childhood friend of mine named
"Gale."
> > This guy taught me how to play marbles when we were 8 years old, and we
> > traded off as state marble champs for several years. Somewhere along
the
> > line Gale turned into a drug dealer, and was killed during a bust in the
> > early '90s, leaving a wife and a couple of sons. I wish I knew what
> > happened to the guy, but he wasn't born a criminal. Nor would I
hesitate to
> > shoot him if he threatened me or anyone else during the commission of a
> > crime. I think he became a "cheater" because he reasoned that the costs
> > were low and opportunities high compared to other kinds of work. But I
also
> > hope that he wasn't a violent criminal, just a dealer trying to make a
> > dishonest buck.
>
> We all of us need to play the game of life according to the rules. We
> are all living in society and so we must all abide by the rules of the
> society. Since we are living in a democracy, if we don't like the
> rules we can always change them. I have absolutely no sympathy for
> criminals. And I will not make any excuses for them - not ever. I have
> known plenty of poor folks and they were as law abiding as you could
> wish. In short, they were moral agents who took responsibility not
> only for themselves but for all of society.
>
> That bit about the marbles brings back fond memories. I was the
> Minnesota state champion one year (I came in 2nd and 3rd place in
> other years) and I went to the National Championships at Eaton Rapids,
> Michigan that year. This was in the late 1940's I believe. I think the
> hobby of marbles went out of favor soon thereafter and I thought it
> was dead as the proverbial door nail. Those marble contests were
> mostly sponsored by the VFW back then. Do any kids play marbles
> anymore? Do they even know what marbles are I wonder.
>
> Ed Dolan - Minnesota