How many of you carry a gun as part of your cycling equipment?

You'll have to pry my AK-47, Rocket Launcher and mah Hummer from my cold, dead hands......

 

Why do you attack our way of doing things? Michael Moore is a sad case of American liberties misused. I do believe Belgium was invaded at one time and weapons allowed the underground movement to fight back... tell me there aren't people in this world who only understand force to keep them in check.
Columbine was lousy, but it was more than the use of weapons that we have to deal with as a society.

 

That's what I meant to say

 

so a few outspoken folks here clearly feel it isn't socially responsible to carry when riding, fine, it's a free country, but what about meta class plasma cannons and TMX neutron grenades (tactical of course). Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to instigate, but considering both are energy weapons, there is a lot less chance you will take out innocent bystanders. Just thought I would introduce another aspect to this discussion. And what of the argument of sniping cyclists that carry, for fun and profit? You could be on a bike when you do it (so as not to get off topic). I think this is certainly one variant of cycling that has been greatly overlooked.

Anyone ever see that movie Deathrace 2000, you know, with the Kung Fu guy? I do that sometimes too, like nuns are 50pts, cyclists are 10, children are 50 (smaller target). Dunno, things are different here in Texas, and to make matters worse, there are less and less places I can take my horse cause of these damn horseless carraiges. I can't even wear my Colt on my hip in public buildings anymore, it's like the days of the old west are fading. . . . . brings a tear to my eye. >sigh<


damn hippies and bleeding hearts!

 

Ahhhhh.... those are beautiful words you speak.

"How the hell can anyone expect to CONTROL the movement of 80 million guns?"

We in America don't need to be controlled; we are more than happy to control ourselves and those who don't exercise control end up in prison (as you may know... we have the worlds largest prison system) or dead.

Here in America, we cherish freedom (well... most of us do) and those who can't deal with their freedoms (such as bad guys who run around shooting people) in a wise manner end up where they belong. JUST because there are a few (small statistically) bad guys doing bad things with guns (and boxcutters) DOESN'T MEAN that you punish everyone by limiting access to guns. Punish the guilty... NOT the innocent.

I wish you were right about there being no hope for control here in America, but unfortunately, as long as there are people bent on trading freedom for thier own security (that IS what it boils down to... they are afraid of people who carry weapons so they are willing to trade the freedoms of OTHERS for their own security), we can never let down our guard.

By the way... the BEST way to ensure our freedoms in America is to raise your children with guns. Teach them safety and respect for guns and don't let them grow up fearing guns. Help them understand the importance of the second amendment. Gun owners who teach their children the importance of guns and the devistation that comes with gun control are ensuring our future freedoms.

Thank goodness I have 8 children to pass this legacy down to.


Joe West

 

First of all I know I said I wasn't going to post to this thread again but I wanted to submit this statistic. Secondly (just for the record), I'm definitely NOT a bleeding heart liberal or hippie, in fact I do own a gun. But in response to this post:

People killed in the McVeigh bombing incident: 168
Gun deaths in the United States in the year 2000: 28,000

 

I think that's what I meant to say, but this is more much succinct.

I've already shot my load on this topic; I'm all out of ammo

 

traffic fatalities in 2000 : 54,429






so I guess we need to ban cars too....

 

Yeah! Good point! A good reason that we should all ride our bikes.

I do think it's an interesting statistic though! The Oklahoma City bombing could've been repeated 100 times and still not have even come close to the number of firearm deaths!

 

yeeeaaah, except i am not buying that figure. 20k+ from firearms in the US alone? I just strongly doubt it, that sounds very spun to me, but as I don't have proof of otherwise, I shall stepdown till someone does.

 

As far as I know it's true, but it obviously includes accidents and suicide.

 

Yeah, as astounding as it is, it's a fact. Like Fat Hack already said it does include suicides, homicides, accidents and everything else.

If you'd like to see for yourself, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) has a pretty cool site where you can get the statistics for firearm or any other cause of death. You pick the criteria and it generates the report for you.

Here's a link:

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate9_fy.html

 

I guess it would've been an even more shocking comparison if I'd have used the firearm death statistic from 1995 (the year the Oklahoma City bombing took place) when the number of firearm deaths in the USA was over 35,000!

 

Quite a few of those 28,000 folks needed killing. Gun death numbers include justifiable homicide.

 

....
I´m glad I live in a country that enforces guncontrol.
The USA is a great country. But you guys really have issues with guns...
Dumb Europeans think that you are all gun toting dumb rednecks, luckily most of us know better.

 

actually...i live in michigan and only know 1 person that actually carries a gun. i have TONS of acquaintances that hunt and fish and own guns. 90%% of them have them locked away somewhere in the house. a small percentage of them have them in their vehicle or readily available in their house.

 

1st of all, it is a funny thing about the meaning of words... Aren't liberals supposed to oppose gun control? And to the point:

Being a liberal to me means that I oppose the use (actually abuse) of regulation unless absolutely necessary, *and* concensual. The 2nd requirement is based on my assumption that regulation will not change people. Only if most people agree that such regulation is legitimate and required, it could be effective. In the US the "right to bear arms", which sounds ridiculous to me (it is evidently inconsistent with the right to live), is a common belief shared by most people, therefore gun control is morally inappropriate and is not expected to be effective either.