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



teton explorer

New Member
Jul 25, 2005
40
0
0
MountainPro said:
If America is that dangerous that you have to carry a gun when you are out cycling, i suggest you move to a safer, more civilised country.

Why on earth would you need a gun? Who is going to attack you with such determination that you have to shoot them?
My gut reaction is to agree with you. But being an American (and proud to have Scotish roots dating back to the 1400s), I want to make it clear that America is NOT so dangerous that you have to carry a gun cycling. There is just a group of people whose motto is "you'll take my gun from me when you pry it from my cold dead hands." These people take guns to schools and churches. Apparently, some of them bought bikes.
 

zaskar

New Member
Aug 3, 2003
869
0
0
MountainPro said:
If America is that dangerous that you have to carry a gun when you are out cycling, i suggest you move to a safer, more civilised country.

Why on earth would you need a gun? Who is going to attack you with such determination that you have to shoot them?


Now it has to do with "America" nothing else. you are a stereo, and a JA.
 

cbjesseeNH

Member
Jun 10, 2005
424
6
0
teton explorer said:
If anyone disagrees with you, they aren't qualified to express an opinion on this issue. If we say that no one is as smart as you, that no one is as educated as you, and that only your opinion is correct (even though we don't believe it), will you stop wasting space on the forum trying to convince others of your superiority?
Glad to stop wasting my time, in any event.

This thread has been tracked by members of other very large pro-2nd Amendment and legal scholaship forums and mailing lists, and has served its purpose in educating others on just how pig-headed the losing side can be - avoiding at all costs defending thier own position with any data/expert opinions and only challenging the ones offerred to them. One of the USDOJ authors expressed dismay that people refuse to read their document and reject their expert legal opinion and 437 references as either too much or inadequate. Only three of the scholars chimed in, as those academic types like to lurk but not get mixed up in squabbles.

I'll have to thank you for acting as the example as we train new voluteers in those 13 states that deny Right to Carry on what they are up against.

Signing off this thread.
 

Arathald

New Member
Jul 27, 2005
94
2
0
33
cbjesseeNH said:
Glad to stop wasting my time, in any event.

This thread . . . has served its purpose in educating others on just how pig-headed the losing side can be - avoiding at all costs defending thier own position with any data/expert opinions and only challenging the ones offerred to them.
You do realize that you were arguing with two people who share a similar belief to you on gun control over their method of argument. You weren't arguing about gun control at all, you were arguing about our methods.

So, I don't see your point at all. I see that as far as you are concerned, all this thread has done is proved how condescending and "pig-headed" you yourself can be.
 

teton explorer

New Member
Jul 25, 2005
40
0
0
cbjesseeNH said:
Glad to stop wasting my time, in any event.

This thread has been tracked by members of other very large pro-2nd Amendment and legal scholaship forums and mailing lists, and has served its purpose in educating others on just how pig-headed the losing side can be - avoiding at all costs defending thier own position with any data/expert opinions and only challenging the ones offerred to them. One of the USDOJ authors expressed dismay that people refuse to read their document and reject their expert legal opinion and 437 references as either too much or inadequate. Only three of the scholars chimed in, as those academic types like to lurk but not get mixed up in squabbles.

I'll have to thank you for acting as the example as we train new voluteers in those 13 states that deny Right to Carry on what they are up against.

Signing off this thread.
You really are clueless. You never did cite the specific cases and articles supporting your position. Obviously, you never will. And now you have resorted to "supporting" your argument with hearsay regarding what one of the alleged USDOJ authors has said about this thread. Good thing you aren't an attorney. Arguments like "support for my position can be found in that website somewhere . . . you go find it" and "this one guy told me that I'm right" aren't very compelling with judges. Stick to what you do best . . . yammering on in a very condescending way and refusing to actually support your position.

By the way, if the USDOJ author really is monitoring this thread, he should give a refund to the taxpayers. We don't pay him to play on the internet. And if these people really are leading "scholars" in this area, they would have better things to do than monitor a post on an internet cyling forum. Perhaps they are simply wannabe scholars.

Finally, and for at least the third time, I'm not on the "losing side." I'm not an "anti-gunner" as you previously put it. If someone wants to carry a gun, let 'em. I've said that several times already. The problem is that people like you take it to an extreme.

Now go for a ride (if, in fact, you actually do cycle, or even own a bike). Be sure to take your gun (or most likely guns in your case). Obviously, you fear for your life where you (allegedly) ride.
 

teton explorer

New Member
Jul 25, 2005
40
0
0
Arathald said:
You do realize that you were arguing with two people who share a similar belief to you on gun control over their method of argument. You weren't arguing about gun control at all, you were arguing about our methods.

So, I don't see your point at all. I see that as far as you are concerned, all this thread has done is proved how condescending and "pig-headed" you yourself can be.
Well said.
 

MountainPro

New Member
Aug 11, 2004
3,071
2
38
mitosis said:
It seems a bit of overkill to move countries.

If you read the posts of the pro gun cyclists, they don't shoot them and noone gets hurt. In fact they even get upset if you suggest that guns are devices for killing (asking for facts to back up such an outlandish suggestion). Guns are for protection. :rolleyes:

Quite simple really. Now why would you want to emmigrate from a place where people think with such logic?

Just on another matter. Was Hadrian's wall built to keep the Scots out of England?
Hadrians wall wasnt built to keep the Scots out of England....no, there were no such countries when the wall was contructed.

Hello America, i have something to tell you.

We have guns in other countries too...woah...crazy notion.

yep, we have them and they are not for protection....recently we had a 32 year old man kill a 2 year old toddler in Scotland by shooting him in the head with a rifle. He got life in prison for murder...that gun was not for protection.
 

artemidorus

New Member
Mar 10, 2004
2,307
0
36
mitosis said:
Just on another matter. Was Hadrian's wall built to keep the Scots out of England?
When the Romans built Hadrian's wall, the Scots were still in Ireland. The wall was built to keep out some of the tribes of the people that are now called the Welsh.
 

teton explorer

New Member
Jul 25, 2005
40
0
0
artemidorus said:
When the Romans built Hadrian's wall, the Scots were still in Ireland. The wall was built to keep out some of the tribes of the people that are now called the Welsh.
I feel a Monty Python skit coming on.
 

cbjesseeNH

Member
Jun 10, 2005
424
6
0
INTRODUCTION: Gun Facts is a free e-book that debunks common myths about gun control. It is intended as a reference guide for journalist, activists, politicians, and other people interested in restoring honesty to the debate about guns, crime, and the 2nd Amendment.

Gun Facts has over 80 pages of information. Divided into chapters based on gun control topics (assault weapons, ballistic finger printing, firearm availability, etc.), finding information is quick and easy.

Each chapter lists common gun control myths, then lists a number of documented and cited facts that directly dispute the gun control claim. Thus when a neighbor, editor, or politician repeats some slogan propagated by gun control advocacy groups, you can quickly find that myth, then rebuke.

http://www.gunfacts.info/
 

MountainPro

New Member
Aug 11, 2004
3,071
2
38
artemidorus said:
When the Romans built Hadrian's wall, the Scots were still in Ireland. The wall was built to keep out some of the tribes of the people that are now called the Welsh.
Correct...it was to keep the Caledoni and other Pictish tribes from raiding the Roman controled part of what was to become England. This was one tribe of warriors that the Romans couldnt defeat in open battle and besides, Scotland didnt agree with the lifestyle of the Romans who preferred the warm Italian weather. The Welsh were in a diferent part of the country.
 

PolishPaul

New Member
Aug 9, 2005
23
0
0
43
Argue all you want about guns, but a buddy of mine lives in a bad part of town, and yup.. he got mugged. With a gun. So all you hippies STFU, its still the wild west in America, and believe it or not, i'd rather have a ton of rednecks with guns so that WHEN the government tries to go to far, i have some line of defence.. call me an idealsit / constitutionalist, but look what happened to germany before ww2!

Learn history, don't let it repeat. Guns in the hands of citizens is the safest way to live. Think about that last sentence.
 

Hypnospin

New Member
Apr 10, 2005
823
0
0
does this include the myth of succesful home and personal defense statistics?
that they are much lower than accidental injuries and deaths?

how about the myth that most street guns were stolen from law abiding citizens and were originaly purchased legaly?

or the one about the number of firearems used in marital and domestic dispute?

that most gun owners are incapable of the marksmanship required to competently use a gun effectively?

there is always the one about how most self inflicted wounds and deaths are from accidental firearm discharge.

to top it of, juveniles lead both the accidental and intentional rate of injuries to themselves and others from guns...


just wondering.




cbjesseeNH said:
INTRODUCTION: Gun Facts is a free e-book that debunks common myths about gun control. It is intended as a reference guide for journalist, activists, politicians, and other people interested in restoring honesty to the debate about guns, crime, and the 2nd Amendment.

Gun Facts has over 80 pages of information. Divided into chapters based on gun control topics (assault weapons, ballistic finger printing, firearm availability, etc.), finding information is quick and easy.

Each chapter lists common gun control myths, then lists a number of documented and cited facts that directly dispute the gun control claim. Thus when a neighbor, editor, or politician repeats some slogan propagated by gun control advocacy groups, you can quickly find that myth, then rebuke.

http://www.gunfacts.info/
 

PolishPaul

New Member
Aug 9, 2005
23
0
0
43
Hypnospin said:
does this include the myth of succesful home and personal defense statistics?
that they are much lower than accidental injuries and deaths?

how about the myth that most street guns were stolen from law abiding citizens and were originaly purchased legaly?

or the one about the number of firearems used in marital and domestic dispute?

that most gun owners are incapable of the marksmanship required to competently use a gun effectively?

there is always the one about how most self inflicted wounds and deaths are from accidental firearm discharge.

to top it of, juveniles lead both the accidental and intentional rate of injuries to themselves and others from guns...


just wondering.
How many people get killed by cars ? how many teens have cars ?

just wondering.
Think.
 

Hypnospin

New Member
Apr 10, 2005
823
0
0
ah, when we look to discriminate against a segment of society, teens are always a safe hedge for which to the apply twisted logic of claiming apples and oranges are indeed the same fruit...


PolishPaul said:
How many people get killed by cars ? how many teens have cars ?

just wondering.
Think.
 

Arathald

New Member
Jul 27, 2005
94
2
0
33
MountainPro said:
Hello America, i have something to tell you.

We have guns in other countries too...woah...crazy notion.

yep, we have them and they are not for protection....recently we had a 32 year old man kill a 2 year old toddler in Scotland by shooting him in the head with a rifle. He got life in prison for murder...that gun was not for protection.
Hello, Europe (and anyone else not in the USA who wants to be included), I have something to tell YOU

We have bathtubs in America, believe it or not.

We have had quite a few young children drowned (often by their own mothers) in bathtubs. Those bathtubs were nto for their cleanliness.


We also have baseball bats.

We have had some children killed by being clubbed with a baseball bat. Those bats were not for sports.


And, worst of all, we have airplanes.

On Spetember 11, 2001, several terrorists used airplanes as devices to slaughter thousands of innocent people. These planes were certainly not being used by the terrorists for transportation.

I know it sounds like I'm bringing up old arguments (especially the last one), but I hope you see the point I'm making.

Maybe people like the aforementioned Scottish man should not be allowed to posess firearms. And maybe mothers should not be allowed to own bathtubs, and maybe children should be allowed to have basebal bats. While were at it, let's go all the way and not allow Arabs on public transportation anymore.
I know these provisions would be a little bit extreme, but they make my point persectly clear (If anyone is having trouble understanding my point, elt me know, and I will explain it in clear, concise, simplified English).
 

cbjesseeNH

Member
Jun 10, 2005
424
6
0
Hypnospin said:
does this include the myth of succesful home and personal defense statistics?
that they are much lower than accidental injuries and deaths?

how about the myth that most street guns were stolen from law abiding citizens and were originaly purchased legaly?

or the one about the number of firearems used in marital and domestic dispute?

that most gun owners are incapable of the marksmanship required to competently use a gun effectively?

there is always the one about how most self inflicted wounds and deaths are from accidental firearm discharge.

to top it of, juveniles lead both the accidental and intentional rate of injuries to themselves and others from guns...


just wondering.
Many of those myths are indeed addressed in the document, with published evidence demonstrating the falsehood of those myths.

One example is the use of gang-member shootings of other gang-members, including "children" up to 21 years of age, in compiling juvinile gun-related deaths. The data presented on the Bureau of Criminal Statistics site was misused by anti-gunners who consciously combined larger figures from the 18-21 year old gang-shooting catagory with other lesser magnitude data to create this myth.

Some anti-gunners are indeed skilled in data analysis, but they lack data supporting their position. So they manipulate good data to yield misleading statistics. It appears that they figure their ends justify their means. They always get caught, but the media still quote the original falsehoods. There is no news in statistics that show nothing.

Fortunately, the anti-gunners still bring this tripe to house/senate hearings, where their misleading tactics were long ago exposed. That's why they never try to encourage Joe Citizen to attend these public hearings and just bring along thier own lawyers/experts. When an honest citizen is embarrassed off the podium after quoting long discredited studies and data, they end up losing no matter what they do.

So yes, you can use this source to dispell those myths when somebody spouts off without any basis in fact.

A Google on "gun facts" will bring up lots of additional support.
 

MountainPro

New Member
Aug 11, 2004
3,071
2
38
Bathtubs, planes and basball bats were not designed to fire a high velocity projectile designed to kill or seriously injure others. Guns are.

This is why banning guns needs to be done with common sense so that we wont get the 'cars kill people' argument.

When you have people comparing a gun with the likes of bathtubs etc. you know they arent thinking rationally. A golf tee can kill if you bang it hard enough into a persons temple....stupid eh...yes some people are that stupid?
 

MountainPro

New Member
Aug 11, 2004
3,071
2
38
PolishPaul said:
Argue all you want about guns, but a buddy of mine lives in a bad part of town, and yup.. he got mugged. With a gun. So all you hippies STFU, its still the wild west in America, and believe it or not, i'd rather have a ton of rednecks with guns so that WHEN the government tries to go to far, i have some line of defence..
if you live in a gun ridden ghetto i only have one piece of advice...

the best chance of survival is to move out to a better neighbourhood...am i the only one that sees the logic in that?

dont arm yourself, a gun is no protection from a gun...get you and your family away from the danger. That is what any sensible person would do. The schools and facilties are bound to be better than in gangland USA.

dont say it is a deterrant...
 

Similar threads