Boy, are you gonna hate this.



I don't think anyone in the civilized world will ever forget the American 9/11.

If you are America then you think that America is the centre of the universe. America isn't the only place that has suffered from terrorist attacks.

It wasn't that long ago that the IRA bombed the centre of Manchester(UK), or left a nail bomb in a kids toy in Hyde park, or killed those two kids in Warrington with their bombs...etc.

In the case of Manchester, in typical British fashion, once the dust had settled the attitude was "great, a chance to build something better".

The point is that, horrific though these acts are they are perpetuated by a small vicious minority. Because these parasites aren't a nation state it takes brains, not brawn to deal with them, and yes, occassionaly a dose of high velocity lead poisoning.

As for being a coward for not cycling in known trouble spots. Jeezus!!!!!

Where the hell would you store a weapon on a bike anyway?

Having spent a quite a bit on getting the lightest bike I can afford, why would I want to carry additional weight?

From personal experience the biggest threat to cyclists is surviving brain donors in charge of motor vehicles.

There are only two other risky situations I've been in whilst cycling and a weapon wouldn't do me much good in either case.
1. Cycling through Manchester(UK) on match Saturday wearing a blue and white scarf in the Manchester United area when Man U have lost.
2. Being chased by a wild boar. Great if you want to break you previous best speed record. Not so great if your shorts were clean on!
 
David:

Carrying a weapon is not entirely a self-defensive position, and that may not even be the dominant
consideration. Much more important (at least for me) is the idea of being responsible for your own
defense and the defense of others who are threatened.

My take on the case John posted. I would not condemn the cyclist for "giving the finger" because we
can all get ****** off, but because he was armed he had an over-riding duty to remain aloof from
such displays. In terms of the law, the fact that he contributed to the escalation plays a very
significant role in his culpability. It's up to a jury, of course, but although I'd be influenced by
those considerations (and state laws differ on whether you're required to "retreat to the wall"
before using deadly force) the fact that the pickup driver used deadly force first, and that he
reacted inapprorpriately to a mere "gesture" would give the preponderance of evidence to the
cyclist. I'd acquit him. Again YMMV.

If it were me, I'd have just smiled at the guy. Maybe given him a friendly wave.

--
--Scott
"david.poole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I don't think anyone in the civilized world will ever forget the
> American 9/11.
>
> If you are America then you think that America is the centre of the
> universe. America isn't the only place that has suffered from
> terrorist attacks.
>
> It wasn't that long ago that the IRA bombed the centre of
> Manchester(UK), or left a nail bomb in a kids toy in Hyde park, or
> killed those two kids in Warrington with their bombs...etc.
>
> In the case of Manchester, in typical British fashion, once the dust had
> settled the attitude was "great, a chance to build something better".
>
> The point is that, horrific though these acts are they are perpetuated
> by a small vicious minority. Because these parasites aren't a nation
> state it takes brains, not brawn to deal with them, and yes,
> occassionaly a dose of high velocity lead poisoning.
>
> As for being a coward for not cycling in known trouble spots.
> Jeezus!!!!!
>
> Where the hell would you store a weapon on a bike anyway?
>
> Having spent a quite a bit on getting the lightest bike I can afford,
> why would I want to carry additional weight?
>
> From personal experience the biggest threat to cyclists is surviving
> brain donors in charge of motor vehicles.
>
> There are only two other risky situations I've been in whilst cycling
> and a weapon wouldn't do me much good in either case.
> 1. Cycling through Manchester(UK) on match Saturday wearing a blue and
> white scarf in the Manchester United area when Man U have lost.
> 2. Being chased by a wild boar. Great if you want to break you previous
> best speed record. Not so great if your shorts were clean on!
>
>
>
> --
 
If you are America then you think that America is the centre of the universe. >>>

That is completely untrue.


In the case of Manchester, in typical British fashion, once the dust had settled the attitude was "great, a chance to build something better".>>

Come on!
 
[email protected] (john riley) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Relevant story:
>
> http://cbsnewyork.com/water/watercooler_story_040111017.html

MONROEVILLE, Pa. (AP) A bicyclist shot a truck driver in the arm during a confrontation that began
when the man pedaling the bike made an obscene gesture, police said.

Robert Urick, 41, was charged with attempted homicide, aggravated assault and weapons offenses.

William Nicoletti, 51, told police that when he drove past Urick in his pickup truck Saturday, Urick
made an obscene gesture.

Nicoletti said he turned around and drove toward Urick, who pulled out a pistol and threatened to
shoot, police said. Officers said Urick then reached into the truck and shot Nicoletti once in the
arm, and rode away on his bike.

Nicoletti rammed Urick off his bike and they fought briefly until Urick fled again, police said.

Police said they arrested Urick, of Monroeville, later that day, and he told them he made the
gesture because Nicoletti had told him to get off the road.

Urick remained in jail Monday in lieu of $100,000 bail. A hearing was set for Feb. 17.

Yes, I know what you are getting at John but finally it comes down to what we are going to put up
with. I do not think any jury is going to convict him. We need to act to defend ourselves against
hostile drivers come what may. There are ever so many people who only understand deadly force. I am
at the point myself where I will kill if that is what it takes to get though to all the numbskulls
in this world. In the last analysis courage counts.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
david.poole <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

[...]

> As for being a coward for not cycling in known trouble spots. Jeezus!!!!!

I am in total agreement with Freewheeling. If you are not carrying a weapon to make your country
safer for one and all then you are in dereliction of your duty as a citizen. You have a
responsibility to not only ensure your own safety but of everyone one else also. It is what is known
as being a responsible member of society.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
"Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> David:
>
> Carrying a weapon is not entirely a self-defensive position, and that may not even be the dominant
> consideration. Much more important (at least for me) is the idea of being responsible for your own
> defense and the defense of others who are threatened.
>
> My take on the case John posted. I would not condemn the cyclist for "giving the finger" because
> we can all get ****** off, but because he was armed he had an over-riding duty to remain aloof
> from such displays. In terms of the law, the fact that he contributed to the escalation plays a
> very significant role in his culpability. It's up to a jury, of course, but although I'd be
> influenced by those considerations (and state laws differ on whether you're required to "retreat
> to the wall" before using deadly force) the fact that the pickup driver used deadly force first,
> and that he reacted inappropriately to a mere "gesture" would give the preponderance of evidence
> to the cyclist. I'd acquit him. Again YMMV.
>
> If it were me, I'd have just smiled at the guy. Maybe given him a friendly wave.

I agree with you 100% Freewheeling. I can't recount the number of times I have gotten extremely
****** off at motorists who think I should not be on the roadway with them. But I do restrain myself
from any displays of pique, and that is because I have a handgun on my person and I am more than
willing to use it if and when things escalate to the point of no return. I will shoot to kill if
necessary if I feel my life and limb are threatened. We cyclists are very vulnerable on the road and
it is just common sense to take a few precautions.

>Much more important (at least for me) is the idea of being responsible for your own defense and the
>defense of others who are threatened.

Amen to that! I think it is actually quite irresponsible of law abiding citizens to not take on this
duty for the safety of all in society. I would make it mandatory for all citizens to go about armed
at all times and places. I think this would have the effect of practically eliminating crime in the
public square.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
On 10 Feb 2004 18:28:56 -0800, [email protected] (Edward Dolan) wrote:

>I am at the point myself where I will kill if that is what it takes to get though to all the
>numbskulls in this world. In the last analysis courage counts.

You have just foreclosed, or at least severely hindered, any self-defense case a criminal defense
lawyer could have made for you. Absent your shooting someone getting the drop on you in front of
many reliable, knowledgeable and sympathetic eyewitnesses, in a situation from which you clearly
couldn't retreat, in which you are an unwilling participant, in which no lesser use of force would
have sufficed to stop the encounter, and in which you were in such a state fear of death or serious
bodily harm that any reasonable man would have thought likewise, your statement is pre-emptively self-
incriminating.

But then there'd be the wrongful death civil lawsuit...
 
And still on the same theme, I checked out some 5 shot .357 revolvers made of exotic metals. An all
titanium weapon by Taurus looked interesting, but it apparently malfunctions frequently due to the
high pressures generated. Taurus also makes an aluminum frame/titanium cylinder .357 that weighs
about 19 ounces, and can take the pressures better. But Smith & Wesson makes a high performing .357
that has a scandium alloy frame, barrel shroud and yoke, with a titanium cylinder, and stainless
steel barrel liner that weighs only 12 ounces! It won't corrode, and it WEIGHS ONLY 12 OUNCES! The
downside is that it costs as much as a low end recumbent bike (around $700).

Does anyone make bikes out of scandium alloy yet, I wonder?

--
--Scott
"Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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
 
Freewheeling wrote:
> Does anyone make bikes out of scandium alloy yet, I wonder?

Yep. Googling for "Easton Sc 7000", for example, will get a shedload of hits. Easton introduced scandium-
enhanced alloys in 1998; their tubesets are used by, among others Eddy Merckx.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================
 
Zippy the Pinhead <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> On 10 Feb 2004 18:28:56 -0800, [email protected] (Edward Dolan) wrote:
>
> >I am at the point myself where I will kill if that is what it takes to get though to all the
> >numbskulls in this world. In the last analysis courage counts.
>
> You have just foreclosed, or at least severely hindered, any self-defense case a criminal defense
> lawyer could have made for you. Absent your shooting someone getting the drop on you in front of
> many reliable, knowledgeable and sympathetic eyewitnesses, in a situation from which you clearly
> couldn't retreat, in which you are an unwilling participant, in which no lesser use of force would
> have sufficed to stop the encounter, and in which you were in such a state fear of death or
> serious bodily harm that any reasonable man would have thought likewise, your statement is pre-
> emptively self-incriminating.
>
> But then there'd be the wrongful death civil lawsuit...

I always think a jury of my peers are going to think pretty much how I think about things. A
motorist who is trying to run me off the road with his vehicle is committing an assault. If he then
gets out of his vehicle to confront me further I believe I would be safe in assuming a threat to my
life and limb. It would be nothing but self defense in my view to use a weapon at that point. I will
take my chances with a jury.

There was an interesting case down in Missouri a few years ago about how some locals literally
killed the town bully in cold blood and everyone in the community said good riddance to the bully.
They were not even prosecuted. Only the bully's wife stood by her man apparently.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
On 11 Feb 2004 13:07:59 -0800, [email protected] (Edward Dolan) wrote:

>There was an interesting case down in Missouri a few years ago about how some locals literally
>killed the town bully in cold blood and everyone in the community said good riddance to the bully.

One important difference here is that these locals didn't post a signed message to Usenet, there to
be archived in perpuity, announcing their intention to do so. Not even in the abstract.

One of the things I learned at my class which was mandated for my carry permit was that life would
be much easier, should self-defense become necessary, if one didn't have signs on the front gate
saying "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again".

Oh -- and, by the way, you don't shoot to kill. You shoot to stop the threat. If they die from their
wounds that is an unfortunate but unintended if predictable consequence.
 
Zippy the Pinhead <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> On 11 Feb 2004 13:07:59 -0800, [email protected] (Edward Dolan) wrote:
>
> >There was an interesting case down in Missouri a few years ago about how some locals
> >literally killed the town bully in cold blood and everyone in the community said good
> >riddance to the bully.
>
> One important difference here is that these locals didn't post a signed message to Usenet, there
> to be archived in perpetuity, announcing their intention to do so. Not even in the abstract.

Holy Catfish Zippy! You mean to tell me that all this **** we are doing here on ARBR is going to be
preserved indefinitely? Surely every two years or so someone comes in with a cleaning crew and
throws out all this trash. Hells Bells, even we librarians go through our collections every few
years and throw out out all the crappy books and magazines we have boughten from previous years.

> One of the things I learned at my class which was mandated for my carry permit was that life would
> be much easier, should self-defense become necessary, if one didn't have signs on the front gate
> saying "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again".
>
> Oh -- and, by the way, you don't shoot to kill. You shoot to stop the threat. If they die from
> their wounds that is an unfortunate but unintended if predictable consequence.

I have always read that the perfect weapon for defense of your home is a shot gun. They say you
can't miss with a shot gun and further that the sound of one being cocked has a very sobering effect
on anyone skulking about your premises.

I have read recently that there are lots of older people now arming themselves including quite
elderly women. Maybe the young hoodlum element won't be so eager to mess with older folks if they
know they might be armed.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
On 12 Feb 2004 10:12:18 -0800, [email protected] (Edward Dolan) wrote:

>Maybe the young hoodlum element won't be so eager to mess with older folks if they know they might
>be armed.

Damn skippy. That's the whole idea of a "shall issue" environment for carry permits. The bad guys
don't know who is and who isn't. If the Euphorians had their way, there'd be a legal guarantee of
unarmed victims. Such is the case in several states now.
 
I can confirm that a shotgun is a very effective detterent, just be very careful where you fire it.

Fire it in an enclosed space and you can kiss your eardrums goodbye.

My wife's uncle used to load his with rock salt for when youths used to scrump apples from his orchard.

Of course when I was a lad scrumping apples was simply high spirits, these days it juvenile deliquency.

I think a lot of the problems with juvenile crime today is that there are too many lawyers involved.

To give a specific example, I lit a bonfire where I shouldn't have when I was young.
I was walloped by the land-owner.
I was walloped by the policeman to whom he reported it.
When the headmaster of my school found out about it I he walloped me in front of the whole school and when I was stupid enough to go crying to my mother she said "you must have deserved it" and walloped me for getting myself into a situation that got me walloped. Guess who never did it again.

I'll tell you how it is today. My wife was a teacher. She stopped some kids bullying a younger kid. They told her to F off knowing that if she did anything she would be sued.
They told their parents, who came in and gave her a dressing down in front of the whole class, thus undermiming her authority.
The education authority got involved and warned her that she could be sued etc etc etc.

Kids aren't any better or worse than they were 30 years ago but what has happened is that they have been given a fantastic amount of power and no responsibility for wielding it.
 
Originally posted by david.poole


(snip)...
I think a lot of the problems with juvenile crime today is that there are too many lawyers involved.

Kids aren't any better or worse than they were 30 years ago but what has happened is that they have been given a fantastic amount of power and no responsibility for wielding it.


Agreed that lawyers, and irresponsible judges are a big part of many problems today. And that's something people need to consider when they decide that a jury of their peers will think the same way they do. Speaking in terms of "American Justice", which is admittedly badly broken, there are two sides in a court room. More specifically, two attorneys. One is paid to prove innocence and has no interest in truth. The other is paid to prove guilt and has no interest in the truth. Criminal defense attorneys are often represented as being ruthless people with no sense of ethics. This is probably quite accurate of the vast majority. Prosecuting attorneys are no better. In fact, they're often worse. Their career relies upon the successful career of their boss - usually a county or district attorney who gave up law long ago in favor of being a politician. The politician's only interest is staying in politics and the only way they can do that is to show a high conviction rate.

These are the two sides that will be responsible for selecting the "jury of peers", which, of course in the end, is nothing of the sort. They are 6 to 12 puppets to be played by the two story tellers paid to render completely different forms of fiction, loosely based on the same incident. The defendent is only a pawn and I don't think anyone can fully appreciate how little anyone cares what that accused did or didn't do until they've had the unfortunate experience of being there. You're but the ball in a game from which one attorney will emerge the winner and the other will be the loser. Other than the fact that the accused will pay the final price regardless of the outcome, they're not seen as pertinent to the proceedings.

If you, (speaking specifically of Mr. Dolen), believe that a person maliciously aiming a 3,000 pound bullet in your direction will be presented as homicidal, I'm afraid you're in for a rude awakening. If you feel that this hand-picked jury will see your actions as purely defensive when you aim and fire a gun at your attacker, you are likely to be left bewildered, confused and headed to prison. The case involving use of a firearm against anyone not using a firearm was tried in the media and the eyes of political correctness many years ago. It's sad but this is the outcome in most every case.

[END RANT ON LAYWERS AND JUSTICELESS JUSTICE SYSTEM]

:D
 
Zippy the Pinhead <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> On 12 Feb 2004 10:12:18 -0800, [email protected] (Edward Dolan) wrote:
>
> >Maybe the young hoodlum element won't be so eager to mess with older folks if they know they
> >might be armed.
>
> Damn skippy. That's the whole idea of a "shall issue" environment for carry permits. The bad guys
> don't know who is and who isn't. If the Euphorians had their way, there'd be a legal guarantee of
> unarmed victims. Such is the case in several states now.

No skippy here - just me, Ed Dolan. You and I are on the same page. It is precisely not knowing for
sure who is armed and who is not armed that gives the bad guys pause. The way things are now in most
places, the bad guys know that their prospective victims are not armed. That has got to change. In a
perfectly civilized society where everyone was law abiding it would not matter at all, but we all of
us know that that is not the kind of society we are living in today.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
On 13 Feb 2004 15:19:17 -0800, [email protected] (Edward Dolan) wrote:

>
>No skippy here - just me, Ed Dolan. You and I are on the same page.

Well --- yeah...

"Damn Skippy" is a bit of slanguage I picked up from Marines. (I too was a Corpsman but the Navy
attached me to the Gyrenes).

It means basically "damn right". Or as I suppose you say in Minnesota, "Yahh, shooor. You betcha".
 
david.poole <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> I can confirm that a shotgun is a very effective detterent, just be very careful where you
> fire it.
>
> Fire it in an enclosed space and you can kiss your eardrums goodbye.

No way am I going to do that Dave. If I can't listen to my classical music with my eardrums
unimpaired then I would just as soon be dead myself.

> My wife's uncle used to load his with rock salt for when youths used to scrump apples from his
> orchard.
>
> Of course when I was a lad scrumping apples was simply high spirits, these days it juvenile
> deliquency.
>
> I think a lot of the problems with juvenile crime today is that there are too many lawyers
> involved.
>
> To give a specific example, I lit a bonfire where I shouldn't have when I was young. I was
> walloped by the land-owner. I was walloped by the policeman to whom he reported it. When the
> headmaster of my school found out about it I he walloped me in front of the whole school and when
> I was stupid enough to go crying to my mother she said "you must have deserved it" and walloped me
> for getting myself into a situation that got me walloped. Guess who never did it again.

This is the highest example of a high civilization that I can think of. That is the way it was for
me too. Why were are forefathers so damn smart and why are the fathers of today so damn stupid!

> I'll tell you how it is today. My wife was a teacher. She stopped some kids bullying a younger
> kid. They told her to F off knowing that if she did anything she would be sued. They told their
> parents, who came in and gave her a dressing down in front of the whole class, thus undermiming
> her authority. The education authority got involved and warned her that she could be sued etc
> etc etc.
>
> Kids aren't any better or worse than they were 30 years ago but what has happened is that they
> have been given a fantastic amount of power and no responsibility for wielding it.

All kids are incredibly stupid but it is the liberal mantra of today that kids are actually quite
wise and that they have all kinds of rights which we didn't know existed when we were kids. A good
horse whipping in the public square for miscreant kids would set everything right.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
Beastt <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<%[email protected]>...

> david.poole wrote:

> > (snip)... I think a lot of the problems with juvenile crime today is that there are too many
> > lawyers involved. Kids aren't any better or worse than they were 30 years ago but what has
> > happened is that they have been given a fantastic amount of power and no responsibility for
> > wielding it.
>
>
>
>
> Agreed that lawyers, and irresponsible judges are a big part of many problems today. And that's
> something people need to consider when they decide that a jury of their peers will think the
> same way they do. Speaking in terms of "American Justice", which is admittedly badly broken,
> there are two sides in a court room. More specifically, two attorneys. One is paid to prove
> innocence and has no interest in truth. The other is paid to prove guilt and has no interest in
> the truth. Criminal defense attorneys are often represented as being ruthless people with no
> sense of ethics. This is probably quite accurate of the vast majority. Prosecuting attorneys are
> no better. In fact, they're often worse. Their career relies upon the successful career of their
> boss - usually a county or district attorney who gave up law long ago in favor of being a
> politician. The politician's only interest is staying in politics and the only way they can do
> that is to show a high conviction rate.
>
> These are the two sides that will be responsible for selecting the "jury of peers", which, of
> course in the end, is nothing of the sort. They are 6 to 12 puppets to be played by the two
> story tellers paid to render completely different forms of fiction, loosely based on the same
> incident. The defendent is only a pawn and I don't think anyone can fully appreciate how little
> anyone cares what that accused did or didn't do until they've had the unfortunate experience of
> being there. You're but the ball in a game from which one attorney will emerge the winner and
> the other will be the loser. Other than the fact that the accused will pay the final price
> regardless of the outcome, they're not seen as pertinent to the proceedings.
>
> If you, (speaking specifically of Mr. Dolan), believe that a person maliciously aiming a 3,000
> pound bullet in your direction will be presented as homicidal, I'm afraid you're in for a rude
> awakening. If you feel that this hand-picked jury will see your actions as purely defensive when
> you aim and fire a gun at your attacker, you are likely to be left bewildered, confused and
> headed to prison. The case involving use of a firearm against anyone not using a firearm was
> tried in the media and the eyes of political correctness many years ago. It's sad but this is
> the outcome in most every case.
>
> [END RANT ON LAYWERS AND JUSTICELESS JUSTICE SYSTEM]

This is too depressing to even think about. In as much as I survived 4 years in the U.S. Navy I
think I could probably survive a few years in prison for trying to defend myself regardless of what
a jury of my peers might think of my humble efforts. It is what I think in my own mind that counts
in the end.

But the fact is that there is a stratum of basic masculine understanding which we all depend upon
when confronted with matters of life and death. Yes, damn all the lawyers to hell and back, but the
jury is our ultimate recourse and safeguard.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 

Similar threads