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. martin_j001

    martin_j001 New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    0

    Actually, I believe the origin of guns had more to do with hunting and being able to eat than killing other people. A gun was designed as a tool, same as a sword, knife, axe, hammer, etc--those are specifically tools, designed with a purpose. Whether or not a tool is used for its intended purpose depends on whose hands its in.
     


  2. martin_j001

    martin_j001 New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course attempting to get away is the best you can do, it always is--avoiding confrontation is the best way to live a violence free life. And of course, if you live in a ghetto your best bet is to get out. These are almost irrelevant points, as even gun owners agree with you. But, as an American, I have the right to arm myself if I so choose, and to defend myself and my family if need be. If you don't like it that is wonderful--you live in another country and don't have to worry about it at all. Leave it at that....
     
  3. MountainPro

    MountainPro New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,071
    Likes Received:
    1
    ..this is true, my point exactly. Dont blame the bathtub, blame the person.
     
  4. MountainPro

    MountainPro New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,071
    Likes Received:
    1
    i know it is your right to bear arms, and i dont question that. I question the need for carrying a gun on your bike. Fair enough if you cycle near dangerous animals like aligators, bears or mountain lions...

    the way i see it (you will also think this is invalid sine i am not American) is that using extreme violence (firing a gun) in order to protect oneself makes you a thug....threatening someone with extreme violence (showing the gun as a deterrant) is just as bad.

    one punk shot dead in a street fight is one less gun-toting punk to worry about, in short, its good math.
     
  5. martin_j001

    martin_j001 New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can agree with you on most of your points. Although, as I've said before I would never threaten someone with a gun, and anyone properly trained in self defense wouldn't either--if you pull a gun to defend yourself you use it. In all states that have the right to carry, there are specific laws that apply to you as to when you can use a weapon to defend yourself--in almost every case, your life, or that of your family, needs to be directly threatened. A "mugger" asking for your wallet with no weapon visible is not a reason to use your gun, and in many states if you shot the "mugger" you may be brought up on charges yourself for use of deadly force. There is a very fine line that everyone who carries responsibly has to walk--not every situation you encounter can be seen as black vs. white when viewed by another person. As I've said before too, responsible, and legal carrying of a firearm does not give you the right to fire a warning shot, shoot to injure, threaten violence with a gun, or show off your weapon in order to stop an attack of any kind. It gives you the right to defend your life if you need to. In this situation, I find it very hard to see how defending yourself with a gun would be any different than defending yourself with whatever you have handy when your life is in immenent danger--whether you injure/kill/stop a threatening attacker with a gun, your frame pump, your wheel, your mace, your knife--all these have become tools in that instant that serve no other purpose then defending yourself.

    As I've also said before, that many people seem to ignore, is that America does have a problem with guns--there's too many that are accessible to criminals. New legislation has to be developed to try and prevent ways for criminals to get guns, without infringing on the rights of gun owners and collectors. If a gun is properly stored--in a safe or on your person--at all times, it is much harder for it to be stolen.
     
  6. Nein11

    Nein11 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2005
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    i am pretty sure that the majority of people who live in a ghetto dont live there because they want to.

    im happy with my right to bear arms. there could be worse things than living in the US...i could feel like this:

    "It's shite being Scottish! We're the lowest of the fucking low, the scum of the earth, the most wretched servile, miserable, pathetic trash that was ever shat into civilization. Some people hate the English, I don't. They're just wankers. We, on the other hand, are colonized by wankers. We cant even pick a decent culture to be colonized by. We are ruled by effete arseholes. It's a shite state of affairs and all the fresh air in the world won't make any f---ing difference!"
     
  7. MountainPro

    MountainPro New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,071
    Likes Received:
    1
    nice one...i know some Scots that would agree with you on that score..

    except of course Scotland was never an English Colony. I dont think England ever had any colonies did they? I suspect youre getting confused between England and the British Empire/Crown. Its a common misunderstanding, i dont hold it against you. Scotland wasnt a British colony either. Its like saying Texas is a Californian colony...very strange since they are part of the same country...

    a tip: dont use hollywood films to fill in blanks in your knowledge.
     
  8. gawnfishin

    gawnfishin New Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    I ride in New Orleans where the question should be:

    How many of you DON'T carry a gun as a part of your cycling equipment?
     
  9. wolfix

    wolfix New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,756
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't believe in judging others and their cultures without having ever been there. And I am not a person that gets caught up in "causes." However, if any Scots, Irish, or Welsh want to attack England and pillage I will join up. I wonder how many Bob Jackson's , Holdsworths, or Raleighs i could carry when I was running for the boats?????
     
  10. mitosis

    mitosis New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,539
    Likes Received:
    0

    Baths, baseball bats, cars, aeroplanes and just about anything else that has been mentioned on this thread have legitimate uses. They were not invented to kill people. Even knives have a uses.

    So can you think of any analogies that might help us understand your need to carry a gun.
     
  11. mitosis

    mitosis New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,539
    Likes Received:
    0
    agree....

    Thanks for the information on Hadrian's wall. You have helped settle a debate. :)
     
  12. Nein11

    Nein11 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2005
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mountain Pro,

    Hollywood film? This movie was only released by a "hollywood film" company. It first was a novel by a scottish author, then a play in scotland and finally a film, directed by a brit, which toured europe for quite a while before it came to the states.

    tip: Quit trying to make me look the "dumb american" by suggesting that "hollywood" is responsible for my knowledge of scotland. Get your facts straight or you look the fool.
     
  13. Arathald

    Arathald New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    1
    I believe he was referring to "Hollywood Film" in the figurative, idiomatic sense that most Americans, and many non-americans do. Most American (and otherwise) films nowadays are not written, shot, edited, and sometimes not even produced in Hollywood.

    And "Hollywood" (read: the media) is responsible for a vast majority of Americans' views on Scotland, and most other places for that matter. I'll even admit to this, and I don't by any means consider myself a "dumb American." In fact, on the contrary, I have been repeatedly placed in the top 1% of the population (go ahead, challenge me on this- not trying to toot my own horn, just showing the undeniable validity of my point), and I spent my early childhood in a foreign country, learning both Spanish and English at the same time, and my views are still heavily influenced by "Hollywood." Has nothing to do with how smart you are, it has to do with the fact that you are an American. Am I to believe that you are not affected by a phenomenon that virtually every American is affected by? One that I'm affected by? Unless there's some other major reason you shouldn't be, no, sorry, don't buy it.
     
  14. Arathald

    Arathald New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    1
    You're taking my point a bit further than I intended it-- I was just pointing out that many things that one person considers a tool (you can't argue with the fact that at least some people use a gun solely as a tool for hunting, etc.) another person can use as a deadly weapon. This isn't supposed to be an end-all and be-all argument, just something to give a gentle nudge to the argument.

    My point did come across a bit strong, and I apologize for that.
     
  15. Nein11

    Nein11 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2005
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I BELIEVE that he was using "hollywood" as another weak attempt to discredit americans/american society.

    I certainly do not deny that I am affected by the US media, however I have a degree in history and am certainly not limited to some stereotype about americans that only know what they see in a movie.
     
  16. Hypnospin

    Hypnospin New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    0
    so we have a vote in favor of collateral damage from drive by shootings as being an acceptable by product of the perceived right to pack?

    sounds like "gang related" shootings are not as viable for the purpose of statisical evidence in some sense then? this would seem a judgement call, that some victims are less human than others because of...

    not in my neighborhood, homes. and should you need a throwaway, it can come straight from the home that was burgled uptown, were mr. jones bought it legally.




     
  17. Joe West

    Joe West New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    1
    Collateral damage is unacceptable and killing an innocent bystander when you *meant* to kill the bad guy is manslaughter or murder period.

    This is the reason we carry hollow-point bullets that expand on contact (you don't want the bullet passing through someone and hitting someone else)

    This is the reason we practice at the range (you want to hit ONLY the target)

    This is the reason we spend time in a police situation simulator (to help ensure our decision on when to use deadly force is accurate).

    No... collateral damage is not acceptable.

    However, the right to carry on a bicycle is not a perceived right... it is a fundamental right (here in MOST places in America).

    Joe

     
  18. Arathald

    Arathald New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    1
    Well, he is Scottish, so I think maybe he knows just a little about Scotland.
    And it is true that the vast majority of Americans learn most of what they know through the media, so, as a whole, we Americans deserve a bit less credit than we give ourselves. Don't get me wrong, I'm by no means a self-hating American, I'm just a realist.

    And even a degree in history doesn't equate to real life experience in another country. And even that experience is no assurance of protection from the media. I spent my early childhood in Chile, and even now, a good part of what I know comes from the media. If someone from Chile told me that a view I held about that country was wrong, I would accept their correction, because I'm sure they would know a heck of a lot more than I do about Chile.

    You're making a little progress, but I'm still not nearly convinced that you're not susceptible to the "Hollywood Effect."
     
  19. cbjesseeNH

    cbjesseeNH New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2005
    Messages:
    424
    Likes Received:
    3
    Sorry - you misread my meaning.

    If you hear someone on TV say that X% of children either kill or are killed by guns, you picture innocent kids in gradeschool through highschool getting shot dead. The data as presented by Brady Campaigners has included 18-21yr old individuals as "children". Their data also include gang members killing other gang members in acts of gang retribution.

    Had they attempted to elicit sympathy for their cause by quoting the number of gang members 18yr or older killing other such gang members, I suspect the media would have given them less attention, and fewer people would rally to their cause. So they mislead with their abuse of statistics. They figure since one cannot buy alcohol in many states until age 21, then people 21 and under are still "children".

    I don't value gang member's lives less - they set their own standards and live or die by them on their own. Less human than others? Depends on what behavior you define as human or less than human.
     
  20. lyotard

    lyotard New Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    0
    hep, it's the po-lice!

    oops, i mean, i feel safer already.



     
Loading...
Loading...