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

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by Joe West, Oct 2, 2004.

  1. AceBruceGary

    AceBruceGary Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    11
    Quote: Originally Posted by BlithelyDoubt .

    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.



    The supreme court disagrees with you. The recent ruling of Heller vs DC held that owning a gun is an individual right regardless of a person being in a militia.
    It has been commonly argued (incorrectly as the Supreme Court has held) that this right was related to militias but the deliberate placement of a comma between "state" and "the right" has always forced it to be read as two separate thoughts.

    Here is the decision: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
    Here is the relevant section of the majority decision. Note that this is section 1 of the decision.
    Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–5
    The act of being in possession of an object does not show a lack of restraint, nor a lack of moderation. (how do you carry a gun in moderation?)
    I can go to the liquor store and buy 5 kegs to take home but it does not mean that I intend to drink it all by myself, nor drink and drive, nor serve it to underage tweens. Could I be stocking up for a 100 person concert? Halloween party? Having 1 beer a day for a long long time?

    I am a little confused about your self restraint argument. Is a person who carries a gun somehow displaying a lack of self restraint or moderation?
    I have carried a gun/guns every day for I don't know how many years and I don't believe anyone has ever told me that I need to restrain myself from doing so, or that I need to carry my gun more moderately. I would argue that the opposite is true...that history has shown that with the daily carry of my gun/guns I have never acted out of control and used it illegally and thus prove to be very well restrained with regard to the use of my gun/guns.

    You could carry a lance (I don't really know what that is) to work if you wanted to. So long as it is legal to do so, who are we to stop you? Plenty of people in this country do plenty of very stupid things. You may think that me carrying a gun is stupid but that's both my preference as well as my right.
     


  2. BlithelyDoubt

    BlithelyDoubt New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yes, I am aware of the DC case decision. It is worth noting that the supreme court is stacked on the conservative side. I'm not saying that makes the decision wrong, but it doesn't make it right either. It's safe to assume that If the court was stacked with liberals, than you would have had the opposite outcome. The supreme court also has decided that corporations are human beings (I wonder what evolutionary path they took to get there...perhaps corppopotamus then corporation then human being.) Anyway, I don't know anybody that agrees with that decision, conservative or liberal. As I said in the other post:
    Quote: Me 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...

    You are surely a very calm and collected person, so i don't doubt that you use your weapon carefully. The problem is that not all are as reasonable as you might be. If everybody starting carrying a gun, then that would include a lot of hot heads, idiots, clumsies, etc. So I argue for restraint. The vast majority of people can restrain themself from purchasing or carrying a gun. Also, the vast majority of gun owners can show moderation in when they decide to carry a weapon. Which was my point with the lance. Owning a lance does not require that I take in on bike rides to poke surly mutts.
     
  3. RichM76

    RichM76 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do agree we should be allowed to carry a weapon on a bike. I live in Florida and I feel it is worse than Texas. With all the drug addicts and people out of work it has become crazy, even just to go out for a short walk. All the criminals carry a gun. It's bad here with all the road rage, robberies, murders, muggings, drive by shootings, home invasions. I can go on and on. There have even be a few incidents of criminals shooting at cops. I am working on my concealed carry here but in the meantime I do carry mace and a stun gun. But around here I don't really feel safe with those. I just stay out of the bad areas of town. But that doesn't really help when the crime has spilled over to the nicer places.
     
  4. AceBruceGary

    AceBruceGary Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    11
    Quote: Originally Posted by BlithelyDoubt .

    Yes, I am aware of the DC case decision. It is worth noting that the supreme court is stacked on the conservative side. I'm not saying that makes the decision wrong, but it doesn't make it right either. It's safe to assume that If the court was stacked with liberals, than you would have had the opposite outcome. The supreme court also has decided that corporations are human beings (I wonder what evolutionary path they took to get there...perhaps corppopotamus then corporation then human being.) Anyway, I don't know anybody that agrees with that decision, conservative or liberal. As I said in the other post:

    You are surely a very calm and collected person, so i don't doubt that you use your weapon carefully. The problem is that not all are as reasonable as you might be. If everybody starting carrying a gun, then that would include a lot of hot heads, idiots, clumsies, etc. So I argue for restraint. The vast majority of people can restrain themself from purchasing or carrying a gun. Also, the vast majority of gun owners can show moderation in when they decide to carry a weapon. Which was my point with the lance. Owning a lance does not require that I take in on bike rides to poke surly mutts.



    Of the 9 justices, 4 of them are very anti-gun. 4 of them are pro 2nd amendment and 1 of them was sort of in between. What most people don't know is that me and plenty of other people are carrying guns all the time. You don't hear about them because we don't use them improperly. The media paints a biased view of gun owners because they report accidents and murders. There's no point in reporting about someone who safely carries his gun with him every day yet a huge population does. If everyone started carrying a gun: No one is requiring everyone to carry a gun. I certainly would never push anyone to purchasing one and carrying one if they don't have a desire to. If everyone starting driving cars then we would have a lot of road rage, accidents, fender benders and clumsies. Wait a minute...we do. Someone could cross the median and hit you head on at any moment. Yet you still get on the road anyway (not knowing how qualified other people are). We live our lives having a basic trust in each other to be safe. Restraint: No matter how many laws we have that "restrain" drivers, there will always be idiots that drive drunk, drive carelessly and cause accidents. It is no different with a gun, a pocket knife, or a bicycle. Accidents to happen but it doesn't mean that plenty of other people/majority are safe in what they are doing. (let me make an important distinction that driving is a privilege and not a right). The media doesn't report on good drivers yet you may feel you are one of them. Imagine if a large population who have never driven a car tried to tell you that you shouldn't drive anymore because it's too dangerous? Recently there was a somewhat satirical article in a very liberal city that suggested an all-out ban on bicycles. They cited plenty of harmful statistics about accidents, assaults, traffic etc. How would you feel if cycling was banned where you live because a few people decided to ignore traffic laws? I'm not sure I made my point clear with moderation. I am having a hard time understanding your argument. If I carry my gun 100% of the time I don't believe it has anything to do with moderation. I won't come home feeling guilty like I had just binged on 4 gallons of ice cream and think that tomorrow I should cool it for a bit and not carry my gun. Does a police officer who has worked 4 shifts with all his equipment think that the next shift he takes he should relax a bit and skip the gun...that he's had too much of carrying it? And no one has said that if you own a gun you are required to carry. It's a personal choice.

    There are some people who believe they are perfectly safe where they are (and maybe they really are) but it's interesting that they think that others should feel or live as if they are as well. Once you do get your permit I suggest a small pocket gun if cycling. I am working through finding one at the moment. Currently I am carrying a S&W model 60 but it's heavy and awkward. I am going to get a Kel Tec P3AT as solely a cycling gun (Advice I received from a bike shop owner). I'll post my review once I do so. I have heard they are reliable after 100+ rounds have gone through to break them in.
     
  5. BlithelyDoubt

    BlithelyDoubt New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    1
    Quote:
    Of the 9 justices, 4 of them are very anti-gun. 4 of them are pro 2nd amendment and 1 of them was sort of in between.
    If by "sort of in between" you mean almost never in between, then I agree. Seriously though, look at his record.


    I don't want keep quoting myself, so i'll just say this one last time: I'm not proposing any laws.


    I'm only saying we don't have to do things just because we can. Of course we can, for example: protest a funeral while being protected by free speech, but should we. I understand that some people are in situations that require a weapon, but most of us are not. Maybe your neighborhood is bad enough that you don't feel safe without a gun, I don't know. In my experience though, people tend to have guns because they enjoy them, not because they need them. I have several friends that recreationally hunt, shoot targets at a range, enjoy a bit of gadget lust looking a gun magazines, etc.


    This is the very point I am trying to make. Wouldn't you argue with these drunk and inattentive drivers to show some self-restraint. You're right the laws probably won't help much that kind of driving. But if you tell your son, daughter, friend, or passing acquaintance that what they do is usually unnecessary and dangerous, they might just change there mind. I have had this conversation with people about driving. It does make a difference.


    I'm not morally judging people with guns; i'm just having discussion that may change there mind...or mine.
     
  6. samspade73

    samspade73 New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2011
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    2
    “I don’t care what your statistics say.” It’s pretty obvious you don’t care what statistics or peer reviewed studies say or any source other than your own personal experiences. You're in law enforcement and you don't consult a wide range of hard data and critically evaluate it? How would you like to go to a physician who practiced medicine based ONLY on their own empirically gathered experience but disregarded all those statistics and studies and crap? (you have a rare genetic disorder than affects one out of 100,000, tough crap, looks like “Dr. I know it All” thinks it looks like all the other cases of hypertension he’s seen so he treats for that) What about an architect who’s only designed houses in Arizona and insists flat roofs are the way to go no matter how much rain and snow you get (He doesn’t care what your studies or analyze of data says, this is what he’s experienced building homes in AZ). It seems like you attended this “top 30 university” with the intent of merely having your own views affirmed....three cheers for leaving college with the same level of emotional intelligence as you had when you entered! (Also, a top 30 university is a tier one university and I only brought up education because you made a statement that I was uneducated because I didn’t share your exact interpretation of the 2nd amendment).

    You say I don’t “understand” the constitution so you felt the need to assist in my understanding. Let me ask you this: how do you “understand” a document that was purposefully written by our founding fathers using malleable verbiage, in an imprecise language (English) that is one of the most impractical in existence for composing treaties, compacts and governing documents? If you have a deeper understanding of the Constitution as you claim, then you would know that it was crafted, not to have one definitive “truth” or “understanding” or “reality” because then it would have become obsolete in a matter of decades. French was at the time, and still is, one of the primary languages of treaties because it is a more precise language when precision is important. Let me explain it in yet another way incase you spent all your time at your top 30 university merely memorizing the words of the Constitution (the rule of the law) without learning it’s historical and cultural context (the intent behind it is broader than you obviously realize): there is no single interpretation of any of the original amendments in the Constitution so it could be interpreted in a culturally and socially significant way by subsequent generations and not become obsolete (made obsolete by people who only think in literal, concrete terms…what an example of what an Amendment crafted by small minded people who only think in literal terms who believe in one “understanding.” If it served Americans well to have every man, woman and child armed at all times, the Constitution could be read to mean that, if it serves society better to have no one armed (it could be read that way as well) You’re arguing the “precise” meaning of several verbs with more connotations and synonyms than there are amendments. Want an example of an amendment written by people who were only concerned with the rule of the law and lost focus of a broader and flexible intent so it could stand the test of time? Glance at the 18th amendment and those who would put another blight on our constitution with an amendment defining marriage in terms that will become decreasingly significant as time goes on). The language of the Constitution is subjective, figurative and malleable. Arguing for one definitive Constitutional truth or reality (whether what is meant by give/grant or rights or mankind) is as achievable as arguing what a line in the bible or a poem means. You say you will always gladly “correct them” [those who don’t understand the constitution]? Anyone who truly “understands” or grasped what the Constitution is, would know better than to walk around believing “they get it.”
    “Statistics also say that pools are the leading killer of children across the country. What do you suggest we do about it?” I’m afraid any response I would come up with, would at least in part, be based on a wide range of solidly conducted studies, so there’s no point since you only trust empirically gathered evidence drawn from by your personal experience. I don’t believe for a second you’ll consider anything you read on this message board that you, yourself didn’t write…especially when considering you could go through four years of university education and come out the other end thumbing your nose at statistics, peer reviewed studies, and clinging tightly to the same knowledge, understanding and emotional intelligence you entered with.
    I never said that we should disarm off duty police officers or that any type of action should taken based on that statement. You said that simply because you carry, it doesn’t make you more violent. The study I linked to from the Department of Justice says otherwise (there’s a correlation between those who are drawn to carry a concealed weapon and those who are more likely to be arrested for a non-traffic offense…NOTE I said “MORE LIKELY” not guaranteed). You believe that statement is drawing a faulty correlation? Again, contact the authors at the Department of Justice.
    I’m almost afraid to ask but my curiosity has gotten the better of me….and since this topic has already covered more ground than a 5 hour Saturday ride….what top 30 university did you attend?
     
  7. SummerZest

    SummerZest New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    2
    you can get a dagger sock. Essential equippment i'd say...
     
  8. KD5NRH

    KD5NRH New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2010
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    2
    If someone made a set of that armor for under $300 that's as quick to put on and as comfortable to wear as dropping a 9oz pistol in my pocket, I'd most likely wear it all the time.


    I would suggest that even those with such a duty rarely seek it out; they simply do not retreat from it when duty requires them to remain.

    I don't recall who it was that pointed out "sure, guns don't solve problems, but they do allow you to exchange a life and death matter that must be decided right now for one that can be debated at length in court later."
     
  9. bahrnsMHE

    bahrnsMHE New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Only if we are cycling in a partially secluded area that I am not totally familiar with.
     
  10. Joe West

    Joe West New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    1
    I can't help but notice the recurring tendency to cite statistical evidence to support both sides of the argument. I'm currently a third year doctoral student at a tier 1 research institute and I teach a master's level statistics course. I can tell you as an expert on the subject; statistical models that are relatively complex in nature can be made to make a wide range of claims, even to the point of changing the sign on specific coefficients in the regression model (which in effect, reverses the meaning of the coefficient). There are so many elements to complex regression models... leave out a control variable here, an independent variable there... forget to adjust for heteroskedastic effects, use non-robest techniques... and there you have it; a regression model that says what you want it to say. Some may argue that manipulating regression models to tell the story you want to tell is unethical but in reality, the decision to modify a regression model sometimes breaks down to what you believe is true and one's decision to omit or add an independent or control variable or to throw out cases is more a function of the researcher's belief than it is a function of hard science. When you are dealing with social science issues such as the impact of gun control laws, there is no such thing as "Truth" that can be discovered by good science. There are only multiple stories that can be told and all one needs to do is choose the correct combination of model elements to tell the story one wants to tell.

    I think it is fair to say (and it has been mentioned before) that statistics aren't particularly useful in this debate. They tend to tell a biased story or at least a story that is framed in such a way as to produce the "desired" results.

    By the way... is this thread close to winning an award for longevity? :)

    Joe
     
  11. AceBruceGary

    AceBruceGary Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    11
    I agree 100%
    It's funny I was watching TV the other day and something came on that reminded me of why I try not to watch TV.
    The news anchor said "Researchers say if your child drinks a lot of soda they are more likely to carry weapons"

    It seems to me that statistics are manipulated on both sides of this gun control argument. All I can say is from my personal experience...and I have a need for it as well as a right to have it.
    No statistic will convince me otherwise.

    For what it's worth I picked up a Keltec P-3AT (380) and am using it in a pocket holster.
    I expected this little gun to be unreliable but it has been flawless thus far. It is confidence inspiring as I never expect pocket guns to work well. (unless revolver)
    It is by far my most unpleasant gun to shoot. It kicks like nothing else I own and leaves my hand raw and sore...but it does fit comfortably in a pocket.
    I shaved off the factory polymer grip so it's a bit more smooth and also rounded and shortened the trigger.

    This thing fits very well in a jersey with the appropriate pocket holster. Don't use an Uncle Mike's. I have one and it doesn't work well. I have a Desantis Nemesis and it works much better.
     
    KD5NRH likes this.
  12. BlithelyDoubt

    BlithelyDoubt New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joe,
    I do agree almost completely with your reasons, but I don't think you can conclude from those reasons that statistics are useless in the argument. You're basing your conclusion on the unstated premise that all statistics are done poorly. Your reasons suggest that studies can be done poorly and are done poorly. That does not mean that they are all done poorly. Yes data is cherry picked, files are left in drawers, bias is left unchecked, etc, that does not mean that we just stop trying to argue with science and logic. Lets say we stop using studies. Then what we are left with is anecdote and rhetoric to decide what is true...seems a bit scary to me. I assume that you are not suggesting that, but that is what your comments imply to some people.
     
  13. AceBruceGary

    AceBruceGary Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gun control is not a logical debate.
    Those who are pro gun-control are usually emotionally inspired and try and find statistical reasons to support their emotions. (How many anti-gun people believe guns (which are pieces of metal) are "evil"?)
    The opposite is also true as pro second amendment people defend the Constitution by doing the same (providing statistics to support their argument).

    Where statistics fail:
    You can't tell a person like me who has experienced the criminal element that I don't "need" a gun.
    You probably won't be able to convince someone who's family member was accidentally shot and killed in a drive-by shooting that guns can be used responsibly.

    Statistics would be useless in these scenarios.

    A hypothetical example:
    A state in the US has a big problem with homicide by firearm.
    Statistics may say that a person living in that state is 5 times more likely to be shot and killed by a gun.
    Is the state more dangerous? The study says so and one could logically come to that conclusion.
    However what if you found out that 95% of all the homicides occurred within a 4 block radius in the inner city. Does it change things? Is the statistic wrong?


    I'm not sure what the big deal is. You don't need to decide on what statistics are true or not.
    All you need to do is decide whether owning or carrying a gun makes sense for you to do. You have the right. You can exercise it if you so please. It is affirmed by our Constitution and protected by our Government. (supposedly)


     
  14. tonyzackery

    tonyzackery Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    46
    Like watching a dog chase its tail...
     
    samspade73 likes this.
  15. AceBruceGary

    AceBruceGary Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    11
    And just to throw some things into the fire.

    We haven't even talked about the effectiveness of so called "gun control".

    Here's a funny story that brings a smile to my face every time I tell it.

    I have a college buddy who lives in NYC. She hates guns and thinks they are evil.
    One day she said to me "There was another shooting this past weekend. Things are ridiculous! Why don't they just ban guns in NYC?"

    To which I replied "They are banned"

    She had a puzzled look on her face and said "Oh. So why do they have guns?"

    I didn't answer.

    I'm not sure if she "got it" then or even now but if you're reading that anecdote and are confused then you should ponder it just a little bit more.
    It speaks quite well to the illogical way of thinking that many people have gotten used to.
     
  16. tonyzackery

    tonyzackery Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    46
    Anecdotal evidence = oxymoron.
     
  17. AceBruceGary

    AceBruceGary Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    11
    I have been quite busy with work lately. Missed a bunch of posts.

    My neighborhood is not bad. In fact it's one of the top rated places to live in the country. There hasn't been a murder in probably over 20 years and before that maybe even longer.
    It also doesn't change the fact that bad things can still happen in nice places and the 4 people who attempted to make me and my family a victim are living proof of that. They are still serving the remaining 16 years of their 27 years in prison. (Note: this crime never made it into the paper along with many others that never come to public light)

    Many people use guns in recreation. They represent a large majority of gun owners in this country and are proof that guns are not evil objects. Whether or not they are prepared to use it in self defense is something completely different an often a topic of discussion during my trainings. There are quite a few people who shoot recreationally who have no intention of using their guns in self defense. There quite a lot that do and perhaps you aren't aware of this because it's somewhat taboo to talk about your intentions to take someone's life in the event that it will save the lives of you and your family.

    I know many people who are not gun fanatics but carry every day. I know many people who shoot every day but do not carry.
    It's great that we have the option to do both and that if the situation ever arises for the recreational shooter, they can change their thinking just a little bit and use their recreational toy as a life saving tool.


    I agree with you 100% about having conversations with people who are inattentive drivers. The same applies with firearms and you should teach your children/people to respect and use them properly. Have conversations with people who are being dangerous with them. I am a big believer in non-mandated non-govt education but that is where I draw the line. I do not believe laws are an effective means of making guns "safer", whether it be laws limiting equipment or mandating some sort of training. Some of you may have been to driver re-education training in your state...you have a great idea of how effective govt run adult-mandated-training is.

     
  18. BlithelyDoubt

    BlithelyDoubt New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    1
    I wouldn't go that far....lets just call it a out of context, poorly controlled, basically useless data point.
     
  19. BlithelyDoubt

    BlithelyDoubt New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    1
    *sigh*
     
  20. samspade73

    samspade73 New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2011
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    2
    I'd personally rather put more time and energy into making sure my bike is tuned and ready to rock, my training, diet, and race prep, etc. are good rather than worrying about how fast I can pull my gun from the back pocket of my jersey (or maybe I should keep it in my sock? or maybe one in my sock AND jersey) and all sorts of wild scenarios.

    AceBruceGary: I've said it no less than five times so maybe the sixth time is a charm: YOU DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO CARRY IF YOU WANT and very few, if anyone on here have said that you don't have that right. My point has and will always be that you should consider information beyond that which you have experienced, such as statistics, studies, etc. yes, yes, I know, you piss on those sources of information and considering anything beyond your reality unreliable (which is scary that you're in law enforcement, but ok). I've also never said anyone who wants to carry a gun is evil, nor has anyone else on here said that. Imaging that people who disagree with you are walking around calling you "evil" is a problem.

    So take a deep breath, no one is coming to take away your arsenal (not your shower gun, nor your under the pillow gun, not your other under the pillow gun, and not your mowing the front lawn "might need to defend against a drive" by gun....etc.) Take a deep breath....relax....or better yet get on your bike.
     
Loading...
Loading...