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



wolfix

New Member
Mar 11, 2005
2,756
0
0
missing said:
I'm not sure where you get your info but unless you have a source you can refer to I call BS.

Just for your info when I've seen an awful lot of "sporting arms" chopped and blocked by criminals. I've also seen an awful lot of them unaltered used by criminals.
Reading the newspaper and common sense tells us handguns produce the majority of violent "crime with guns" in this country. Even if someone sawed off a shotgun, the odds of a individual carrying it around is slim. The simple fact of the size of a sporting arm being used when concealment is needed eliminates it's use most of the time....
 

missing

New Member
Aug 24, 2006
26
0
0
wolfix said:
Reading the newspaper and common sense tells us handguns produce the majority of violent "crime with guns" in this country. Even if someone sawed off a shotgun, the odds of a individual carrying it around is slim. The simple fact of the size of a sporting arm being used when concealment is needed eliminates it's use most of the time....
I should have been more clear, even if handguns were outlawed today (in the US) the sfb who use them to commit crimes will still get them, there's an awful lot of them out there. If they couldn't get one it's not all that hard to chop and block a "sporting firearm". My point being criminals will commit crimes, and there is no way you can prove by eliminating handguns violent crime will drop.

I do know what has caused violent crime to drop.
In every single State that has passed shall issue permits for concealed carry, violent crime has went down, and non violent crime has gone up. Which means that criminals will still commit crimes but they are afraid of their victims, so they choose non violent crimes.
 

Bro Deal

New Member
Jun 26, 2006
6,698
4
0
missing said:
As to the anti American feelings here, I guess when your the big boy on the block it's to be expected, just ask Lance.
What are we going to ask him? Why he didn't follow the regulations of the sport and used EPO? Are we supposed to draw some kind of parallel between that and the U.S. not following international law?
 

Bro Deal

New Member
Jun 26, 2006
6,698
4
0
wolfix said:
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.
Only some sorts of crimes would decrease. The domestic murders that occur in the midst of arguments would instead turn into knifings or beatings, but more people would survive. I don't care so much about this kind of stuff because it rarely occurs in a vacuum. 99% of the time the people are incompatible and have been at each other's throats for a long time. If my neighbor shoots his wife during a fight it doesn't really pose a danger to me or anyone else in the society,

I am skeptical that violent crime would decrease much. Unlike Britain and Australia, the U.S. is not an island. We have a long southern border where hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants cross every year, along with drugs, and all sorts of smuggled goods. Guns would just become a new smuggled good. The street price of guns would eventually go up, so maybe the poorer criminals would have a harder time geting them.

Most gun crime in the U.S. is tied to the drug trade. That is so profitable that the people involved in it will never have problems getting weapons.

People who carry guns while in the suburbs are just paranoid whackos, the last type of people you want to be gun owners.
 

POGATA

Member
Oct 8, 2006
337
8
16
lumpy said:
POGATA said:
I`ve been shot at with an air rifle from a passing car(other cyclists in the city I live, have been shot at from houses along the roads). Car drivers and truckers deliberately pass only inches away. I`ve been passed by car drivers who when in front of me deliberately hit the brakes so I crash into their cars.
So when a kid shoots a BB gun at you, you'll shoot back?
you'll get into a firefight with people in a house?
A car or truck who you've decided has passed too closely will get shot at?
And someone who slams on their brakes in front of you ............ you'll shoot them?

You live in a dangerous neighborhood. Dangerous because you're so ready to pull a trigger. You should be sure to let everyone know where you live how ready you are to shoot to protect yourself. Maybe a letter to the editor of your local paper?
I'm sure everyone will all back off and give you plenty of space once they know.

Of course you're not a law breaker so you certainly have a concealed weapon permit right?
Where I live, you have to be 18 years or older to drive a car and vote in elections etc, and one gets trialed as an adult from the age of 16, which means you`re an adult not a kid.
lumpy said:
So when a kid shoots a BB gun at you, you'll shoot back?
Why shouldn`t I be able to defend myself?
lumpy said:
you'll get into a firefight with people in a house?
Why shouldn`t I be able to defend myself?
lumpy said:
A car or truck who you've decided has passed too closely will get shot at?
When car drivers and truckers deliberately pass only inches away, with the hope/the intention of causing me bodily harm, why shouldn`t I be able to defend myself?
lumpy said:
And someone who slams on their brakes in front of you ............ you'll shoot them?
When car drivers deliberately slams on their brakes in front of me with the hope/the intention of causing me bodily harm, why shouldn`t I be able to defend myself?
lumpy said:
You live in a dangerous neighborhood.
No, it`s considered to be quite safe.
lumpy said:
Dangerous because you're so ready to pull a trigger. You should be sure to let everyone know where you live how ready you are to shoot to protect yourself. Maybe a letter to the editor of your local paper?
No, I don`t own a gun.
lumpy said:
I'm sure everyone will all back off and give you plenty of space once they know.
Maybe they would if I had a gun.
lumpy said:
Of course you're not a law breaker so you certainly have a concealed weapon permit right?
No, I`m not law breaker and of course I don`t have a concealed weapon permit, I don`t own a gun.
 

POGATA

Member
Oct 8, 2006
337
8
16
wolfix said:
missing said:
I'm not sure where you get your info but unless you have a source you can refer to I call BS.

Just for your info when I've seen an awful lot of "sporting arms" chopped and blocked by criminals. I've also seen an awful lot of them unaltered used by criminals.
Reading the newspaper and common sense tells us handguns produce the majority of violent "crime with guns" in this country. Even if someone sawed off a shotgun, the odds of a individual carrying it around is slim. The simple fact of the size of a sporting arm being used when concealment is needed eliminates it's use most of the time....
Not all competitive shooting requires a large gun.
 

POGATA

Member
Oct 8, 2006
337
8
16
Bro Deal said:
missing said:
As to the anti American feelings here, I guess when your the big boy on the block it's to be expected, just ask Lance.
What are we going to ask him? Why he didn't follow the regulations of the sport and used EPO? Are we supposed to draw some kind of parallel between that and the U.S. not following international law?
Can you prove that he did that in order to win the Tour de France?
 

6fhscjess

Member
Aug 7, 2003
180
18
18
Lets see now we have laws against murder, rape, assault and battery, robbery etc. In the US there are more than 22,000 gun laws at the city, county, state and federal level. If laws were effective in stopping criminals than we would have no crime or very little. We don't because criminals ignore the law. Yet the anti-gunners would have us believe that more laws are the answer. The answer is getting criminals off the street and locking them up until they have paid their debt to society and if they have commited violent crimes no matter what weapon they used they should be put away for life.

Bro Deal for your information crime does occur too in the suburbs. Although in the suberbs are where people are more likely to be legally allowed to carry and crime is lower.

Gun control does very little to nothing to stop the criminals and only disarms those who are not inclined towards criminal activity. Thereby giving the criminals the advantage. Sorry but I don't want to give criminals any advantage.

Wolfix, Common sense tells us that people commit crimes. Some use guns some knives some bats, a shod foot their hands etc. Guns which are inanimate objects are incapable of producing anything. The main stream media is not very accurate when it comes to reporting on firearms. Just recently on the news they talked about a stabbing but instead of showing a knife they showed a bullet. They tend to be very biased.

Anyone who blames inanimate objects for the ills of the world instead of holding the people that use them for criminal purposes accountable is not going to solve the worlds ills in fact they will most likely create more.
 

stevebaby

New Member
Jun 22, 2004
3,515
4
0
missing said:
I should have been more clear, even if handguns were outlawed today (in the US) the sfb who use them to commit crimes will still get them, there's an awful lot of them out there. If they couldn't get one it's not all that hard to chop and block a "sporting firearm". My point being criminals will commit crimes, and there is no way you can prove by eliminating handguns violent crime will drop.

I do know what has caused violent crime to drop.
In every single State that has passed shall issue permits for concealed carry, violent crime has went down, and non violent crime has gone up. Which means that criminals will still commit crimes but they are afraid of their victims, so they choose non violent crimes.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/prelim06/table2.htm
Table 2, Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report, January-June 2006
Figures from the FBI report on crime in the USA.
An increase in violent crime,decrease in property crime for US overall.
Despite the increase in states allowing "concealed carry of lethal weapons"
 

missing

New Member
Aug 24, 2006
26
0
0
Sorry but thats a compilation of stats, not a State by State comparison. The reason why so many states are going to shall issue is the drop of violent crime.
 

Bro Deal

New Member
Jun 26, 2006
6,698
4
0
6fhscjess said:
Anyone who blames inanimate objects for the ills of the world instead of holding the people that use them for criminal purposes accountable is not going to solve the worlds ills in fact they will most likely create more.
Sorry, dude, but gun crime is a combination of a person and an inanimate object. If either one is missing then gun crime doesn't happen. While most gun owners are perfectly safe with their weapons, there are always whackos like POGATA, who thinks he needs to carry a gun to shoot kids with BB guns.

6fhscjess, so you are a big pro gunner. What do you think of our resident loon, POGATA? Do you think this type of unbalanced nutter should be allowed to carry a weapon?
 

stevebaby

New Member
Jun 22, 2004
3,515
4
0
missing said:
Sorry but thats a compilation of stats, not a State by State comparison. The reason why so many states are going to shall issue is the drop of violent crime.
The number of states in the US which issue "shall issue" permits for handguns has increased.
So has the violent crime rate...not in raw numbers,but in numbers per 100,000 of population.
Australia has had around 85 years to test the effect of strict controls on handguns. The rate of homicide with a firearm has dropped steadily over that period. There are around 50 murders with a firearm per year in Australia. The USA has 15 times the population of Australia.15 X 50 = 750 murders, but the US does not have 750 firearms homicides...it has 13,000 firearms homicides per year.
Tell me that controls don't work.
Either the ready availability of handguns is a contributing factor...or Americans are 15 times more homicidal than Australians.
Despite what jess believes..I do have experience with firearms. My father was a military armourer and firearms instructor and he taught me to shoot on a military range when I was 13. I shot regularly on a range throughout my teen years and I was a cop for 4 1/2 years. When I did initial firearms training in the NSW police we were told by one of our instructors to forget whatever we had seen in 'cops and robbers' or 'cowboy' shows on TV...we were highly unlikely to face an armed robber in a shootout. The greatest risk to police officers was an armed householder with no criminal record, affected by alcohol or drugs and in the midst of a family dispute.
The only fatality suffered by the Australian Army in Iraq to date is Pte. Jake Kovco,a skilled small arms specialist with sniper training ,who accidently shot himself in the head while fooling around with his pistol.
Anyone who thinks they can make cool and rational decisions with a firearm while they are flooded with adrenaline and their heart is beating at 200 bpm is kidding themselves. I know a former Royal Marine,NI police officer and member of the Royal Protection Squad who was extremely skilled in the use of handguns. To get that way he trained 8 hours a day for months and had to undergo frequent refresher training. They had to run for 5 miles before they went on to the pistol range so that their heart rate would more closely simulate operational conditions. It took months of intensive training to learn to control the shaking of his hand, even though he was already skilled in the use of weapons. My father served in the Korean War,Malaya and Vietnam and never carried a handgun. His opinion was that they were virtually useless and like all Australian officers who fought in the jungles, he carried a rifle.
The Australian SAS Counter-Terrorism teams train extensively with live ammo in simulated hostage rescue situations, where they have to differentiate between friend and foe. Despite their high level of skill and all the precautions taken, several troopers have died in training in live firing exercises.

Why do idiot civilians think they can ever approach that level of skill with weapons...with just a few hours a week at best on a static range with no threat?
 

stevebaby

New Member
Jun 22, 2004
3,515
4
0
6fhscjess said:
Well tell me how the laws stopped that gun dealer from commiting the crimes he did? Laws are totally ineffective against people that have chosen to commit a crime but they do serve to make people in the criminal justice system lots of money and they are used in sentencing.

I am not deluded into thinking I can use firearms in self defence because up to 2.5 million have.
Since Australia's gun control and the UK's gun control violent crime has gone up not down but you and people like you think thats okay as long as guns are not involved. You go right ahead and choose to be a victim.

You are brainwashed Steve baby by the Anti-gun groups. I have been around firearms all my life and they are not the problem people with criminal intent are.
The law has proven to be quite effective...the gun dealer has been convicted and faces sentence on Friday. He will get a long prison sentence and won't be selling any guns for quite a while. The prison sentence will certainly deter many others, not all, but many.So will the knowledge that the police take this sort of crime seriously enough to increase the resources to combat it.
If you think that the law doesn't deter people from crime, perhaps you should look at what happened in Montreal when their police went on strike. Or perhaps just abolish all laws altogether, since they clearly don't work.

The NRA has been using the figures about violent crime in Australia, fraudulently, for quite a while now. What they never show is the text accompanying the graph...which explains that the method of classifying 'violent crime' changed at roughly the same time. The Director of the Australian Bureau of Statistics which published the figures has gone to some pains to publicly refute the gross distortions disseminated by the NRA. Using the previous method of classification shows a slight, statistically insignificant decrease. Since the increased restrictions there have been no mass shootings of the type which prompted the restrictions, apart from the licenced pistol-club member who killed 2 fellow students at university.
 

wolfix

New Member
Mar 11, 2005
2,756
0
0
A subject not mentioned here about American violence concerning guns is how the statistics shown on this forum do not show where a high percentage of violence occurs. About half of the gun related homicides in America occur in the African -American community. And yet they are only about 12% of the American society. A black male is 6x more likely to be shot then a white male... And most of these guns are purchased illegally or stolen.
When you get away from the inter-city violence, then our gun related violence stats are more in line with Australia's. And yet, when you get away from the inter-city violence, gun ownership in the rural and suburbia areas is high.... [mostly sporting]
So unless you are hanging out in an African-American community, you are as safe here as you are in Australia.
 

missing

New Member
Aug 24, 2006
26
0
0
stevebaby said:
Why do idiot civilians think they can ever approach that level of skill with weapons...with just a few hours a week at best on a static range with no threat?
A lot of "civilians" who have a ccw in the US spend more time and effort becoming proficent with a handgun than most LEO's.

If you don't think a "civilian" can be proficent under stress attend an IDPA match. I'll grant you it's not the same level as an actual armed confrontation, but the moving, shooting, and competion get the "blood up" pretty well. Although I've never seen a shoot from a bicycle stage.

"Civilians" don't need to be at SAS level, they just need to be proficent enough for if the **** hits the fan they can take care of the situation.
 

Similar threads