How many of you carry a gun as part of your cycling equipment?
- Thread starter Joe West
- Start date
I`ve read all the posts, and I`m glad my vocabulary is limited.matagi said:Well Pogata has the dubious distinction of being the first person on my ignore list - it's amazing how much easier it is to read this thread now.
He seems to have a very limited vocabulary too.
Anyone other than me think we should ask the moderators to make this thread a sticky thread at the top of the forum? Almost 100,000 views may shortly put this thread as one of the most viewed (if it isn't at the top already) threads on this board. It CERTAINLY has produced an amazing number of responses (some more well thought-out than others).
I must admit; I've learned a great deal from this thread... and I'm glad the moderators didn't close it.
Joe
I must admit; I've learned a great deal from this thread... and I'm glad the moderators didn't close it.
Joe
When firearms are unavailable any other weapon will suffice for the criminal.DV1976 said:Sorry... I really don't care for that debate but that's just plain stupid... What the f...k has Rwanda to do with the US? Did U mean that to be an argument or U r just being sarcastic?
Will you be a victim or will you be able to defend yourself?
It isn't just your vocabulary that's limited.POGATA said:
Your stupid and infantile responses are one of the best arguments I have ever seen in support of the regulation of deadly weapons.
Is this satire or are you really as dumb as your posts suggest?
If you're scared to ride on the road without a gun to protect yourself from car drivers then you have proved that you are unfit to either ride or carry a deadly weapon.POGATA said:
Motor vehicle drivers do not usually try to kill cyclists deliberately, and if they did, having a deadly weapon would be absolutely useless in stopping them. Lack of attention, lack of awareness and poor cycling facilities are what cause cyclists to get killed or injured by motor vehicles. Threatening drivers with deadly weapons is a guaranteed way to get more cyclists killed.
If you're scared to ride on the road...stick to riding in car parks or cycle paths until you develop some skill.
stevebaby said:
Fr Jack - you're using too many syllables - you're only going to confuse him!
What joe hasn't volunteered is that he runs an anti gun control website which advocates the 'freedom' to own fully automatic weapons without regulation, while ignoring the right of the majority not to be threatened.Joe West said:
'Freedom' is a pretty elastic concept in the world of right-wing extremists like joe.
What joe also hasn't volunteered is that the overwhelming majority of posters to this thread are vehemently opposed to carrying deadly weapons while riding, or indeed, for personal protection at all.
Somewhere on this thread joe posted a link to his personal website. Anyone cruel enough to find humour in someone else's glaringly obvious self-esteem issues can do a search for it.
It's hilarious.
He's already pretty confused.limerickman said:
Anyone who thinks they can protect themselves from being hit by a car by waving a deadly weapon around has pretty much lost the plot.
Very obviously,pinata's first language is not English. Even so,there are plenty of other posters whose first language is not English who manage to express themselves without typing 'wow!' to every post.
It isn't the language that limits him...it's the lack of intellect.
I thought this thread had ended but I see that it is back and the same delusional people are here along with some new ones that want to blame inanimate objects instead of the people that commit the crimes using the inanimate objects.
The states with the lowest violent crime rates are the states that either do not restrict the use of firearms to the innocent or only slightly infringe on that right. When you disarm only the innocent it leaves guns only in the hands of the criminals, police and military and of course the elitists that are allowed to get away with whatever they want. All of these people have been known to abuse their power. What this does is cause an imbalance of power and the innocent are the ones that suffer.
Nowhere in the US and as far as I know in the world has gun control reduced violent crime. In fact in many instances violent crime has increased since the criminal has much less to fear.
To listen to some people on here you would think that every gun owner was going around shooting people. With an estimated 80 million gun owners in the US it should be obvious that this is not the case. They enjoy the sport and those that do choose to carry prefer that someone who would attack them or a loved one become the victim instead of them or their loved one.
Prohibition of any item or items has never been succesful and in fact it creates more money making opportunity for the criminals. So to the anti-gunners I say instead of living in your delusional world where you fear inanimate objects it is time to grow up and realize that criminals are the problem.
The states with the lowest violent crime rates are the states that either do not restrict the use of firearms to the innocent or only slightly infringe on that right. When you disarm only the innocent it leaves guns only in the hands of the criminals, police and military and of course the elitists that are allowed to get away with whatever they want. All of these people have been known to abuse their power. What this does is cause an imbalance of power and the innocent are the ones that suffer.
Nowhere in the US and as far as I know in the world has gun control reduced violent crime. In fact in many instances violent crime has increased since the criminal has much less to fear.
To listen to some people on here you would think that every gun owner was going around shooting people. With an estimated 80 million gun owners in the US it should be obvious that this is not the case. They enjoy the sport and those that do choose to carry prefer that someone who would attack them or a loved one become the victim instead of them or their loved one.
Prohibition of any item or items has never been succesful and in fact it creates more money making opportunity for the criminals. So to the anti-gunners I say instead of living in your delusional world where you fear inanimate objects it is time to grow up and realize that criminals are the problem.
Logically, you can't argue against WMD's in the hands of anyone who wants them either. After all...nuclear weapons don't kill people (people kill people) and as there have only been two incidents in history of nuclear weapons being used to kill people,why not allow unrestricted access to them?6fhscjess said:
Yesterday in Sydney a licenced gun dealer was convicted of supplying 700 illegal weapons to criminals...every one of those guns started as a legal,licenced weapon. The overwhelming majority of illegal guns in Australia are supplied to criminals by licenced gun dealers,police officers and armed forces personnel.
So...should Iran and North Korea be allowed to have WMDs?
Only if the USA sells the WMDs to them--as we did we Iraq.
And btw: any oil reserves or natural resources belong to the USA---we have the might to make it right and the media to lie about it.
And btw: any oil reserves or natural resources belong to the USA---we have the might to make it right and the media to lie about it.
No,nor should Israel, the country most likely to use them.wolfix said:
Where I think we differ on this issue,Wolfie, is the method used to prevent the proliferation of WMDs.
Jessie's logic would have it it that,as banning the possession of explosives in Iran hasn't stopped the proliferation of IEDs killing American soldiers, then the policy of banning explosives obviously does no good..and therefore no restrictions should be placed on them. In the interest of Iraqi 'Freedom'. of course. Why should they trade their liberty to own weapons for security?
BTW...a book you would probably enjoy...'The Rites of Autumn',by Dan O'Brien.
A falconer's journey across the American west. A beautifully written account of a journey accompanying an endangered peregrine falcon across the states,hunting only to feed himself and his gun-dogs.O'Brien has a wonderful appreciation and respect for the natural world and is well qualified to write about it. He's a biologist, a rancher,a writer and a hunter who only hunts for food and eats every thing he kills. I think you'll like it a lot...Amazon will probably have a cheap copy somewhere. Published 1990, Fontana P/B.
Now...which gun nut wants to repeat the NRA's deceptive quote about "Violent crime increasing 300% in Australia since guns were supposedly banned"?
Bring it on, dunces.
Thanks...I will check out that book.
The "Gun Rights" issue here in America is difficult. First of all, anyone who thinks a gun is needed to ride a bike in America needs to either come to America and ride or if he is American..... Get out of that neighborhood where he needs a gun...
The NRA is another difficult issue. As a outdoor sportsman, the gun usage by myself and friends is not what is being discussed in this forum. A European could come to my area during the hunting season and see that guns are not a item used for aggressive behavior. And most hunters do not condone handgun usage, machine gun shooting, or even even military style guns. I know some guys who collect older vintage style military guns, but they too are not the type of gun user this forum is discussing.
The NRA.... I find many issues they back not to be something I would back. However, if it wasn't for the NRA, the anti-gun individuals would want elimination of all guns. And that would affect the higher percentage of gun owners who are sportsmen....Totally non-violent individuals.
If handguns were banned, violent crime with a gun would decrease dramatically. I know it is true some crimes can be committed with sportsman type firearms, but I doubt it would be an issue.
Hollywood sends a distorted message to the rest of the world. We are not all J.R. Ewings who live on a ranch in Texas and carry a gun everywhere we go..... But it is true we are all millionaires with hot wives. Real hot wives and girlfriends. So I guess we do need our guns to protect us from "hot wife and girlfriend thieves."
There is a disturbing trend in America. That is the glorification of the "gangsta rap" and the use of guns to get respect. You can see it on MTV all the time. The ghetto is where you see the largest percentage of gun violence. And it is the ghetto that is glorifing violence with firearms. Many black leaders are speaking out against this disturbing trend, but their voices get drowned out by MTV and the like.
Statistics are misleading too...... Canada has it's problems with guns. As much as they like to claim being very gun free, they are deluded. I think the violence in western Ontario and western Canada is greater per individual then it is in America ,if you eliminate the ghetto blasters.
The gun issues here in America are being fought by the gun nuts and the anti gun nuts........ both radicals on opposite ends of the spectrum......
The "Gun Rights" issue here in America is difficult. First of all, anyone who thinks a gun is needed to ride a bike in America needs to either come to America and ride or if he is American..... Get out of that neighborhood where he needs a gun...
The NRA is another difficult issue. As a outdoor sportsman, the gun usage by myself and friends is not what is being discussed in this forum. A European could come to my area during the hunting season and see that guns are not a item used for aggressive behavior. And most hunters do not condone handgun usage, machine gun shooting, or even even military style guns. I know some guys who collect older vintage style military guns, but they too are not the type of gun user this forum is discussing.
The NRA.... I find many issues they back not to be something I would back. However, if it wasn't for the NRA, the anti-gun individuals would want elimination of all guns. And that would affect the higher percentage of gun owners who are sportsmen....Totally non-violent individuals.
If handguns were banned, violent crime with a gun would decrease dramatically. I know it is true some crimes can be committed with sportsman type firearms, but I doubt it would be an issue.
Hollywood sends a distorted message to the rest of the world. We are not all J.R. Ewings who live on a ranch in Texas and carry a gun everywhere we go..... But it is true we are all millionaires with hot wives. Real hot wives and girlfriends. So I guess we do need our guns to protect us from "hot wife and girlfriend thieves."
There is a disturbing trend in America. That is the glorification of the "gangsta rap" and the use of guns to get respect. You can see it on MTV all the time. The ghetto is where you see the largest percentage of gun violence. And it is the ghetto that is glorifing violence with firearms. Many black leaders are speaking out against this disturbing trend, but their voices get drowned out by MTV and the like.
Statistics are misleading too...... Canada has it's problems with guns. As much as they like to claim being very gun free, they are deluded. I think the violence in western Ontario and western Canada is greater per individual then it is in America ,if you eliminate the ghetto blasters.
The gun issues here in America are being fought by the gun nuts and the anti gun nuts........ both radicals on opposite ends of the spectrum......
The situation in Australia is a bit different to that in the US. There has never been a culture of handguns for personal protection like that in America. Despite some of the nonsense being peddled around the Net, guns are not banned in Australia. They are registered and regulated,just like motor vehicles,boats,poisons and certain fertilisers. It's interesting to note that those who insist on the unlimited right to carry lethal weapons accept without question that their freedom of movement is restricted by the very strictly controlled limits on where and how they may drive a car, the type of vehicle that they may drive and who may drive them.
The restrictions on gun ownership were increased after a few horrific massacres here. There have been no mass killings of that kind since and most Australians are in agreement with the laws which restricted semi-automatic long arms to those who can actually demonstrate a need for them, rather than those who simply want them. Handguns have been restricted as long as I can remember and most Australians would regard someone who wanted to carry a pistol (or knife) for personal protection as a bit cowardly. Obviously, we are made of tougher stuff than Yanks...which is probably why American wives and girlfriends find Aussie men so hot.
Recently I read an in depth newspaper article about allowing hunting in National Parks here. Two of the hunters were interviewed and they demonstrated a very high level of responsibility with regard to firearms and the environment. Hunters here don't have the same sort of game that exists in the US. Most hunting is for feral animals...goats,pigs,foxes and hunting is a useful adjunct to other methods of controlling vermin. Personally I have no problem with that,providing that adequate safeguards are in place and satisfied. It isn't as common as the Sporting Shooters Association claims...very few farmers will allow shooters on their properties due to their bitter experience with having stock killed and machinery damaged. Anyone who travels through rural Australia will see the damage caused to roadsigns by irresponsible shooters. I believe that the tightening of our gun laws has weeded them out, and few responsible hunters could argue against the restrictions on semi-automatic weapons,many of which are easily convertible to fully automatic. IMO, if you aren't a good enough marksman to kill an animal with a bolt action rifle and a telescopic sight ( which is what most serious hunters would choose anyway) then you are best kept away from weapons.
The 'gangsta rap' phenomenon occurs here too, although not to anywhere near the same extent as the US. In the US it seems pretty well entrenched but eventually young people will find something else to shock their elders and it will disappear (and not before time). That may take a little longer in the US, where there is a greater level of inequality of wealth and, of course, a rampant culture surrounding the use of weapons.
From what I have seen of the pro-gun sites on the web, there is a hell of a lot of misinformation, distorted statistics and deliberate lies being peddled by them. Ultimately this does their cause no good and many of them are clearly too stupid to see that. Many are quite infantile...all 'I should have anything I want regardless of the cost to others'. Many are also pretty gullible people who have fallen for the sales spiel of the gun manufacturers who have deliberately and cynically preyed on the fearful and frightened to increase sales. In that respect...not too different to the cigarette manufacturers when it comes to ethics.
The restrictions on gun ownership were increased after a few horrific massacres here. There have been no mass killings of that kind since and most Australians are in agreement with the laws which restricted semi-automatic long arms to those who can actually demonstrate a need for them, rather than those who simply want them. Handguns have been restricted as long as I can remember and most Australians would regard someone who wanted to carry a pistol (or knife) for personal protection as a bit cowardly. Obviously, we are made of tougher stuff than Yanks...which is probably why American wives and girlfriends find Aussie men so hot.
Recently I read an in depth newspaper article about allowing hunting in National Parks here. Two of the hunters were interviewed and they demonstrated a very high level of responsibility with regard to firearms and the environment. Hunters here don't have the same sort of game that exists in the US. Most hunting is for feral animals...goats,pigs,foxes and hunting is a useful adjunct to other methods of controlling vermin. Personally I have no problem with that,providing that adequate safeguards are in place and satisfied. It isn't as common as the Sporting Shooters Association claims...very few farmers will allow shooters on their properties due to their bitter experience with having stock killed and machinery damaged. Anyone who travels through rural Australia will see the damage caused to roadsigns by irresponsible shooters. I believe that the tightening of our gun laws has weeded them out, and few responsible hunters could argue against the restrictions on semi-automatic weapons,many of which are easily convertible to fully automatic. IMO, if you aren't a good enough marksman to kill an animal with a bolt action rifle and a telescopic sight ( which is what most serious hunters would choose anyway) then you are best kept away from weapons.
The 'gangsta rap' phenomenon occurs here too, although not to anywhere near the same extent as the US. In the US it seems pretty well entrenched but eventually young people will find something else to shock their elders and it will disappear (and not before time). That may take a little longer in the US, where there is a greater level of inequality of wealth and, of course, a rampant culture surrounding the use of weapons.
From what I have seen of the pro-gun sites on the web, there is a hell of a lot of misinformation, distorted statistics and deliberate lies being peddled by them. Ultimately this does their cause no good and many of them are clearly too stupid to see that. Many are quite infantile...all 'I should have anything I want regardless of the cost to others'. Many are also pretty gullible people who have fallen for the sales spiel of the gun manufacturers who have deliberately and cynically preyed on the fearful and frightened to increase sales. In that respect...not too different to the cigarette manufacturers when it comes to ethics.
Similar threads
