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

[AceBruceGary]

Originally Posted by davereo .

How about a cross shoulder harness with the holster on your chest?

I know a few people who ride their motorcycles this way but they are geared up and concealing under their jackets.
I have used a 5.11 holster shirt while riding before (which would be similar to the shoulder holster) before but in certain positions the gun tends to want to fall out.

 

[FlatTired]

Originally Posted by AceBruceGary .



It is easier to get bike related information from a cycling forum than a gun forum. Equipment is part of biking and I figured I'd find people who had creative ways of carrying, or were knowledgeable about which guns work best. I had thought that this would be a place where people could discuss things like carrying odd equipment (epipens, insulin pumps, wallets, cell phones etc).

You would be very surprised to know that many people around you are carrying concealed. At the grocery store, bank, mall, gas station etc. You are surrounded by lawful citizens that are carrying concealed. They have no reason to tell anyone. Why? Because there are people perhaps like you who might freak out at the thought. You wouldn't ride in a group if someone was carrying a gun? Please explain your reasoning why. Chances are you've sat next to, worked with, or been in the same room with many people who have been carrying.

Back on topic:
I am not your hard core road racer. I am just getting back into riding after a long hiatus. I've never really been a jersey type of guy but I did find one recently that I just had to have. I tried carrying 3 different guns in the rear pockets and found that most of what I have just doesn't cut it. There are a few concerns as far as jersey carry and the two most important to me are weight and size(fitment). After fitment and weight comes concealability and access.

1. Kahr MK9 - Even this gun is slightly too large. As a stainless frame it is way to heavy to be in either left or right pocket as the jersey tends to pull way too much to that side. Does not work.
2. Glock 26 - Too big for the jersey. The grip stuck out even with a flush magazine. Even heavier than the MK9. Does not work.
3. Smith and Wesson model 60 snub nose. Weight is definitely an issue but size was great. The outline prints pretty obviously but most people wouldn't stare at it, nor would they think it was a gun. I took it out today without a pocket holster and it did fine. I do want a lighter and smaller gun for the future so it looks like my search will tend to something in .380


The reason I "had" to get a jersey is that the moment I saw it, I thought about this thread.
So this picture is for tonyzackary: (Just a bit of humor so please don't take offense)
And no I don't carry that revolver with me on rides. It is way too much fun to ride with.
http://i52.tinypic.com/a3plzt.jpg

You might want to look at a ***** pack. I have an older one that holds two water bottles either side of the storage pouch. Unfortunately I don't remeber where I got it.

 

[FlatTired]

If anyone who reads this thread wonders why, read this;http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_8b63e7fc-bff0-51cb-8b97-36d60945f756.html?mode=story

 

[tonyzackery]

There are probably 100s of cyclists hit by cars everyday in the US. What do you suggest those (the survivors, of course) or any other cyclists do in the future - wear full-body armor with a football helmet for good measure? Rather extreme reaction to protect themselves, no? Is my point clear enough?
Paranoia will destroya...

edit - and just as there are VERY simple, common sense precautions that are easily employed to preclude being struck by a car, there are even simpler precautions that one can take to avoid being assaulted while bike riding - and toting around a concealed weapon will do nothing to assist in doing the SMART thing here - avoiding a potential incident altogether. 'Bernard Goetz mentality' is just wrong, IMO, on a number of levels...

 

[Moto700]

Originally Posted by tonyzackery .

There are probably 100s of cyclists hit by cars everyday in the US. What do you suggest those (the survivors, of course) or any other cyclists do in the future - wear full-body armor with a football helmet for good measure? Rather extreme reaction to protect themselves, no? Is my point clear enough?
Paranoia will destroya...

edit - and just as there are VERY simple, common sense precautions that are easily employed to preclude being struck by a car, there are even simpler precautions that one can take to avoid being assaulted while bike riding - and toting around a concealed weapon will do nothing to assist in doing the SMART thing here - avoiding a potential incident altogether. 'Bernard Goetz mentality' is just wrong, IMO, on a number of levels...

/img/vbsmilies/smilies/icon14.gif/img/vbsmilies/smilies/icon14.gif/img/vbsmilies/smilies/icon14.gif

 

[Moto700]

Originally Posted by FlatTired .

If anyone who reads this thread wonders why, read this;http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_8b63e7fc-bff0-51cb-8b97-36d60945f756.html?mode=story

Seems this has nothing to do with cycling. The same thing could have happened if he was on foot.

 

[samspade73]

AceBruceGary, you said "A firearm is a tool. It doesn't make me a violent person nor any more prone to crazy actions." You're right in that it doesn't automatically make you a violent person, but you're more likely to be statistically:

According to the National Institute of Justice, males who legally carried were 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for a non-traffic offense (15% versus 6%, Page 8).

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811386.pdf

Don't believe it? Take it up with the Department of Justice research team and tell them their study is flawed and explain to them why.

When I go for a ride, I make a decision on what to carry based on how likely I am to need that item and I'm sure everyone on here does.

Why would I choose to carry a flat repair kit, extra tube, cell phone, and wear a helmet when I ride? Because I've used all of these items to keep myself safe or get home (and these events are statistically more likely than being attacked and needing a gun while riding) Why would I decide to carry a first aid bag in my trunk and a spare tire? Because I'm way more likely to need these items both statistically and in my personal experience. If someone has never had a flat on a bike and they ride regularly but they've needed their firearm while riding a bike (because this thread is about carrying a firearm while riding) more power to them. I make decisions based on reliable information, using critical thought and experience. If someone else has a different process more power to them. That's their right.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811386.pdf

Why did I bring up seeing people on a regular basis with things stuck in places the items weren't designed to go? Because this is a reality I see while on the JOB, NOT while riding a bike, at the grocery store, commuting. I don't take that reality home with me when I clock out. I've looked at the information I have and said it's not logical to carry tools for this when the odds are astronomical that I'll need them. If I was in law enforcement, I would absolutely carry a firearm at all times because of the nature of what you do and that you are required to intervene if you witness a crime. It makes perfect sense. Your on the job reality is one with more danger than the average person, by far. Carrying a handgun on a bike ride, doesn't for the vast majority of people (those who ride in the outback, great, those who are participating in the Tour De Pakistan, great....btw, that's not a knock, they use armed escorts because an attack is a reality there). Note: I didn't say you CAN'T choose to carry a gun as long as you're doing so legally, practice good judgment that doesn't put other riders or people in danger, you secure it properly so kids aren't killing themselves with it just as I can carry a spare tube on the train to commute. It's my right to do so regardless of whether it makes sense or not.

You said to me "I don't want to be offensive but I think you have missed something in school (or maybe you didn't go to a US school)." Not sure what gave you the impression that I'm not a native born US citizen or maybe it just makes you feel better to resort to cheat shots when you don't have solid information to back up your arguments. I'm not going to get into a pissing match over who's a better American. Sorry, there are other forums out there for that, one's that I don't belong to.

Maybe we took different classes, went to different schools, etc. but all the universities I attended (all very selective tier 1 institutions) for undergrad and graduate school taught us to be critical of our sources, to do our due diligence when researching, and to use critical and rational thought to the best of our ability before making a decision. If the institutions you attended taught other schools of though or processes, great. I'm not going to debate constitutional law with you because people who have devoted their entire lives to the subject can't come to a consensus on this issue for many reasons, one of them being the Constitution was written to be flexible to withstand the tests of time. I have an opinion on the matter, but it's no more valid than yours. Or is this where I question who is more of an American based on something arbitrary? So, if you want to debate conditional law on a cycling forum, go for it, but it would be more ideal if you took your arguments to a forum that focuses on that.

If you believe you understand the Constitution better than anyone you'll find on any amateur message board let alone a cycling forum, then take your arguments to a peer reviewed journal on constitutional law....here's two to get you started.

http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/djclpp/
http://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/conlaw/

Originally Posted by AceBruceGary .



Rights are not enacted. Rights are affirmed by our Constitution and protected by our govt. I see in your signature that you may be in Canada so you might not be aware of how our Constitutional Republic is defined.

I'm not sure why you keep thinking about "scared or prepared". I'm not sure why it matters. Do you wear a seatbelt because you are scared or prepared. Why do you care?d
Before going into law enforcement I worked as an EMT for quite some time and I did see a few cases of the "stuck up the butt". Once was a vibrator which was stuck in the on position but seemed to make a turn in the lower intestine. No one is asking you to carry tools to remove objects from people's butts. Perhaps if you were inserting them in your own butt you might take some precautions and carry those tools around. Your analogy really doesn't make any sense at all.

I don't carry a gun so I can go around "helping" people. I carry a gun for myself.

Plenty of people here have suggested ridiculous situations that they seem to think may happen including yourself.
Shark attack..bike race competitors etc.

Plenty of douchebags carry pocket knives but it doesn't mean that they will stab the next person who steals their parking space. Plenty of people have weapons ready at hand (flashlight, pocketknife, keys, mace) and they don't spontaneously erupt into violence because of them.

Yes you have seen gun accidents. So have I. I have also seen stabbings, vehicular homicide, people being killed by rocks, kids drowned in pools. I'm not sure what your point is.
Is an accidental shooting any worse than a purposeful stabbing? Is a purposeful shooting any different than an accidental vehicular homicide?

A firearm is a tool. It doesn't make me a violent person nor any more prone to crazy actions. No more so than having a 6 pack of beer in your trunk will make you more likely to drive under the influence.





I don't want to be offensive but I think you have missed something in school (or maybe you didn't go to a US school).
Our founding fathers created the Constitution to protect our rights, not give us them. They believed our rights were inherent, not granted to us by any sort of power.
It is a major distinction and what sets us apart from other forms of govt.

 

[tonyzackery]

@Samspade - FYI, I believe you mistook some of the ABG person's comments as being directed to you when in actuality they were directed to me. Nonetheless, your common sense concern to this matter is admirable.

 

[CAMPYBOB]

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2011/08/29/alert-for-swarm-and-slug-mobs/

Free-fire zone in St. Loo!

Tactical draws and reloads earn extra style points.

Points deducted for any perps that make it to trial and cost law-abiding taxpayers additional funds.

They love to fight in large groups...not so much when the bodies hit the floor.

 

[AceBruceGary]

Originally Posted by FlatTired .

You might want to look at a ***** pack. I have an older one that holds two water bottles either side of the storage pouch. Unfortunately I don't remeber where I got it.

Thanks. I actually have one made by KA Bar that I take hiking for me. It's a tad uncomfortable for riding. It will fit my Glock 20 in there.

Originally Posted by tonyzackery .

There are probably 100s of cyclists hit by cars everyday in the US. What do you suggest those (the survivors, of course) or any other cyclists do in the future - wear full-body armor with a football helmet for good measure? Rather extreme reaction to protect themselves, no? Is my point clear enough?
Paranoia will destroya...

edit - and just as there are VERY simple, common sense precautions that are easily employed to preclude being struck by a car, there are even simpler precautions that one can take to avoid being assaulted while bike riding - and toting around a concealed weapon will do nothing to assist in doing the SMART thing here - avoiding a potential incident altogether. 'Bernard Goetz mentality' is just wrong, IMO, on a number of levels...

I have been hit by a car cycling. I was on a long downhill and he turned in front of me, not expecting me to be going as fast as I was. Wearing more protection is risk vs benefit. I chose not to as I don't believe the hassle of wearing armor is worth the risk. (Here is where personal judgement comes into play). There are downhill mountain bikers that do wear armor and obviously they believe that the hassle of biking with armor is worth the risk. (Again a personal judgement call)

While there is some consideration that one should probably take in cycling in certain areas and in certain times, it is certainly not a foolproof precautionary method to avoid being assaulted.
Do whatever you want, you can still be a victim of an assault and the notion that you can take precautions (other than being somewhat street saavy) is quite ridiculous. Very few people ask to be assaulted in broad daylight. Very few people ask to be carjacked in the middle of the day in the middle of an intersection. Criminals prey on people. That is a fact of life. As I said before I'm not trying to tell you to carry a gun. If you feel that the precautions you have taken are going to prevent you from being injured then that's your choice. I disagree with your opinion that my choice is crazy.

I am not sure why you are assuming that if one "totes" a concealed weapon that they would go headstrong into potential incidents. That is a very common misconception by many people I have encountered. All the people I have trained are all taught to avoid confrontation at all costs. The NRA teaches this as well as every school and instructor I have ever encountered. Any gunfight is a situation turned bad. I don't know anyone who would voluntarily seek this out aside from those who are charged with the duty to do so.

Originally Posted by samspade73 .

According to the National Institute of Justice, males who legally carried were 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for a non-traffic offense (15% versus 6%, Page 8).

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811386.pdf

When I go for a ride, I make a decision on what to carry based on how likely I am to need that item and I'm sure everyone on here does.

Why would I choose to carry a flat repair kit, extra tube, cell phone, and wear a helmet when I ride? Because I've used all of these items to keep myself safe or get home (and these events are statistically more likely than being attacked and needing a gun while riding) Why would I decide to carry a first aid bag in my trunk and a spare tire? Because I'm way more likely to need these items both statistically and in my personal experience. If someone has never had a flat on a bike and they ride regularly but they've needed their firearm while riding a bike (because this thread is about carrying a firearm while riding) more power to them. I make decisions based on reliable information, using critical thought and experience. If someone else has a different process more power to them. That's their right.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811386.pdf

Why did I bring up seeing people on a regular basis with things stuck in places the items weren't designed to go? Because this is a reality I see while on the JOB, NOT while riding a bike, at the grocery store, commuting. I don't take that reality home with me when I clock out. I've looked at the information I have and said it's not logical to carry tools for this when the odds are astronomical that I'll need them. If I was in law enforcement, I would absolutely carry a firearm at all times because of the nature of what you do and that you are required to intervene if you witness a crime. It makes perfect sense. Your on the job reality is one with more danger than the average person, by far. Carrying a handgun on a bike ride, doesn't for the vast majority of people (those who ride in the outback, great, those who are participating in the Tour De Pakistan, great....btw, that's not a knock, they use armed escorts because an attack is a reality there). Note: I didn't say you CAN'T choose to carry a gun as long as you're doing so legally, practice good judgment that doesn't put other riders or people in danger, you secure it properly so kids aren't killing themselves with it just as I can carry a spare tube on the train to commute. It's my right to do so regardless of whether it makes sense or not.

You said to me "I don't want to be offensive but I think you have missed something in school (or maybe you didn't go to a US school)." Not sure what gave you the impression that I'm not a native born US citizen or maybe it just makes you feel better to resort to cheat shots when you don't have solid information to back up your arguments. I'm not going to get into a pissing match over who's a better American. Sorry, there are other forums out there for that, one's that I don't belong to.

Maybe we took different classes, went to different schools, etc. but all the universities I attended (all very selective tier 1 institutions) for undergrad and graduate school taught us to be critical of our sources, to do our due diligence when researching, and to use critical and rational thought to the best of our ability before making a decision. If the institutions you attended taught other schools of though or processes, great. I'm not going to debate constitutional law with you because people who have devoted their entire lives to the subject can't come to a consensus on this issue for many reasons, one of them being the Constitution was written to be flexible to withstand the tests of time. I have an opinion on the matter, but it's no more valid than yours. Or is this where I question who is more of an American based on something arbitrary? So, if you want to debate conditional law on a cycling forum, go for it, but it would be more ideal if you took your arguments to a forum that focuses on that.

If you believe you understand the Constitution better than anyone you'll find on any amateur message board let alone a cycling forum, then take your arguments to a peer reviewed journal on constitutional law....here's two to get you started.

http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/djclpp/
http://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/conlaw/

samspade73:
I don't care what your statistics say. Statistics also say that pools are leading killer of children across the country. What do you suggest we as a nation do about that?
Feel free to start a campaign to disarm all concealing police officers across the country. Clearly they are putting themselves at risk for non-traffic arrests.

Your argument that there are some who do have a "need" to carry is something I agree with. I just don't believe they should have to justify it to people on this forum. I came here for information about carry and instead I get a lot of babble about the Second Amendment. My gun has saved my life on countless occasions and I'll protect that right so others can make use of it as I have, law enforcement or not.

I don't think we need to get into academic prowess here. I scored a 1430 on my SAT's and went to a private school in the top 30 according to US News. While I didn't go to a "selective tier 1 institution" I don't think it matters.
I don't think you need a post-graduate degree to understand the Constitution. I will reiterate again that the Constitution does not "give" you any rights, but exists to affirm and protect them. I am not here to argue Constitutional law but when someone (my earlier comments weren't directed at you) doesn't understand them I will gladly correct them. You speak about being critical of our sources. I challenge you to find 3 qualified sources that argue the Constitution gives/grants us rights.

 

[tonyzackery]

That Kool-Aid is tasty, ain't it?
The inherency of the right to keep and bear arms? Please enlighten, oh mighty 1430 SAT. I scored higher than that, by the way, and went to a public school. So now what?
Still waiting for you to expound on the inherency of the content of the 2nd amendment - you know, to clear up my misunderstanding on the matter. LOL!
Your opinions are duly noted. Thanks for playing. LOL.

 

[AceBruceGary]

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyzackery .

That Kool-Aid is tasty, ain't it?
The inherency of the right to keep and bear arms? Please enlighten, oh mighty 1430 SAT. I scored higher than that, by the way, and went to a public school. So now what?
Still waiting for you to expound on the inherency of the content of the 2nd amendment - you know, to clear up my misunderstanding on the matter. LOL!
Your opinions are duly noted. Thanks for playing. LOL.


My argument was that academics didn't matter. It's nice you scored higher on the SAT than me. Congratulations.

Sorry. I'm not going to attempt to explain the second amendment to you. As I said before, for you it's a lost cause. If you can't understand that the Constitution of the US protects that inherent right, then it's like arguing about the inherency of free speech.

"Thanks for playing. LOL" - How old are you?

xoxo

 

[tonyzackery]

^^ Weren't you supposed to be "correcting" me on this inherent matter of the 2nd Amendment? Heck, didn't you bring up the matter in the first place? And now you're giving up? Not so "red-blooded American" to me...LOL!

 

[AceBruceGary]

Quote: Originally Posted by tonyzackery .

^^ Weren't you supposed to be "correcting" me on this inherent matter of the 2nd Amendment? Heck, didn't you bring up the matter in the first place? And now you're giving up? Not so "red-blooded American" to me...LOL!



Arguing with idiots on the internet does not make me a red blooded American.

xoxo

 

[tonyzackery]

Originally Posted by AceBruceGary .


Arguing with idiots on the internet does not make me a red blooded American.

xoxo

LOL! Pipe down, my gun-toting, anonomous internet, tough-guy friend.

"Arguing" is now synonomous with "correcting"? No matter, I already knew this dialogue was a losing proposition...

You feel "safe" with your gun. More power to you.../img/vbsmilies/smilies/wink.gif

 

[BlithelyDoubt]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What do either of these things have to do with cycling or any of the other things people tend to use guns for?

 

[kdelong]

Originally Posted by BlithelyDoubt .

[COLOR= #000000]"A well regulated militia [/COLOR]being necessary to the security of a free State, [COLOR= #ff0000]the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed[/COLOR]."

What do either of these things have to do with cycling or any of the other things people tend to use guns for?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[BlithelyDoubt]

Originally Posted by kdelong .




Sorry, couldn't resist.

lol...don't resist.

That's the part everybody already quotes - there is no need to highlight it. I was trying to bring some light to the other part... were it says that the point of the amendment was to allow for well regulated militias to secure the state. I don't think the average gun toting cyclist is out on a militia appointed security run. So, it doesn't seem like a very well regulated use of the weapon. Just sayin.

 

[jpr95]

Originally Posted by BlithelyDoubt .

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What do either of these things have to do with cycling or any of the other things people tend to use guns for?

"Well-regulated", did not mean "under many laws" when it was written. It meant "well-disciplined" or "well-trained".

"Militia" did not mean "National Guard" (an agency of the state). It was a volunteer group of able-bodied men coming together for a common cause then disbanding when the cause was won.

"Free State" means...oh, heck, if you don't get it by now...

 

[BlithelyDoubt]

It also says the right shall not be infringed (presumably by legislation) ; I'm not advocating taking away anybody's rights by law. But it's not unreasonable to expect self restraint and moderation in light of the intent of the amendment. I could probably legally carry a lance on my ride to work, but, even if it was practical, it is unnecessary. I have been chased by a dog btw, so i understand the impulse to carry a gun (or lance.) I chose to use less dangerous methods.