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

[zigoat]

the only gun I take on a ride is the one I was born with. I live in a bad area. I have a nice bike. never had a problem and have been commuting every weekday on the nice bike for about two years. It seems that the people who insist on carrying guns for self defence are the ones with the mouths and attitudes that would require it.

ps. a thwack on the nose with a pump seems to deter most canines.

 

[timinaz]

What a strange discussion. It never occured to me to carry a gun while riding through Golden Gate Park. I guess the herd of buffalo that live there are more dangerous than I thought. If someone is going to steal your bike, is it worth killing them? These are sad times we live in when the value of a bike is worth more than the value of a human life.

Here's a concept: Securing America through armed cycling.

My wife's brother was killed in Golden Gate Park. 2 other people I went to school with were hurt in the park.

I now live in Arizona where I can have a gun and do carry. There are areas here where I've seen potential problems from drug runners coming up out by Three Points.
When hunting I've seen armed smugglers out and about. Even when I'm armed, there is no way I would like to get into a shootout. (I'm usually carrying an AR15 with 500-1000 rounds when I hike down by the border) I find it is better to watch and report them to DHS/BP these days.

 

[Joe West]

Well said. I'm always surprised at the number of people who are simply unaware of their surroundings. I've actually found that carrying a gun causes me to have a heightened awareness of my surroundings because of the huge responsibility that comes with carrying a firearm.

Joe

I guess I don't jog with headphones, walk with my head down and take shortcuts down dark alleys. I know it seems like paranoia to those that do, but it's not hard at all to be aware of your surroundings. Being blind to ones surroundings is a learned habit, rather than the other way around.

Just sit and watch people walking by some day. See if you can spot the people who have spotted you first. They are not among the sheep.

 

[ProfTournesol]

Hey dude, lay off me. I have the right to carry barbells anywhere I go. You never know when you might want do a "one armed curl"!! the right to personal fitness is sacred and I object that you are making light of my physical fitness rights.

I wish that the guys I ride with rode with barbells:-(

 

[ProfTournesol]

My wife's brother was killed in Golden Gate Park. 2 other people I went to school with were hurt in the park.

I now live in Arizona where I can have a gun and do carry. There are areas here where I've seen potential problems from drug runners coming up out by Three Points.
When hunting I've seen armed smugglers out and about. Even when I'm armed, there is no way I would like to get into a shootout. (I'm usually carrying an AR15 with 500-1000 rounds when I hike down by the border) I find it is better to watch and report them to DHS/BP these days.

gee, you guys need to ride in Iraq where it sounds much safer

 

[cbjesseeNH]

If you are trying to prove a point, then you will quote statistics which support your contention - this is equally true for government agencies as it is for the NRA. We are all governed by self-interest to varying degrees.

Sorry if I buried my point, which was: we are frequently told that apparent increases in crime may not be so, as there have been changes in methology. This leaves the possibility that the figures should be comparably higher, lower, or are spot on.

Analysis shows that US firearms murders are often overestimated by some 10% in published data as the data do not reflect trial outcomes, where homicides are ruled justifiable http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg01003.html. Of course so-called "civilian legal defense homicides" (CLDHs) can exist only where use of a firearm in self-defense is a legally possible outcome.

The AIC report also notes that data are as initially reported, not after final investigation and judgement. AIC also notes that up to a 20% difference in homicide rates can be assessed depending on the data/methods used http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi261.pdf

The changes implemented after Port Arthur were designed to minimise the risk of another mass killing involving a firearm. Since the law was changed, there have been no other such events and this is taken as a sign that the change in law has been successful. Of course, one could also argue that the reason there have been no more events like Port Arthur is due to the fact that nobody has felt like grabbing a gun and heading down to the mall to take out a few fellow citizens.

I think we both acknowledge that the scarcity of a rare event is not a very good indicator of the success of measures enacted to further reduce a rare event. It would be quite extraordinary if laws could have been targeted to specifically address mass killings. Our Nat'l Acad of Sciences hasn't been able to find any effect of our thousands of gun laws (I present two 'spins' from either side of the issue below. One could argue that our laws have not been significant enough in scope to achieve any outcome, let alone targetting of specific ends.

A near-complete ban on semi-automatic firearms after Port Authur may seem like a minor change in laws along the 80yr course of gun-control in AUS, but is seen as a major change in laws by US observers - and hardly specifically targetting mass killings. In the US, that would be akin to the "nuke them all and let Allah sort them out" concept of Middle-East peace negotiations.


http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi261.pdf
http://www.joycefdn.org/programs/gunviolence/gunviolence-fs.html?content=/programs/gunviolence/content/zspots/dec04nasguns.html

I have no idea how much detail the FBI and AIC get when the various law enforcement agencies provide their raw data. If you analyse the data with respect to location, demographic etc. etc. then things may well be getting better except for certain subgroups who are disproportionately represented in the statistics - I am speculating here, because I really don't know and I don't think that sort of information is widely publicised.

I see your point and think it valid. Still, the public and lawmakers see the summary charts on page one and primetime TV, but the caveats offerred thereafter on page 25 and talkshow radio don't much correct interpretations. Those who publish these charts and tables would be fools if they think they can qualify the data as not reflecting reality after the fact, or lairs if they biased the charts and tables with obscure footnotes to be added thereafter.

 

[6fhscjess]

Societies generally agree that children do not have the judgement to make their own decisions about alcohol use, sex, driving....and many other issues.
You think they can make decisions about using a gun to kill someone?

I believe she was 14 at the time and yes when someone is trying to kill you and your family she very well could have made that decison.
By the way your friend really old punk is still drooling you better put a bib on him.
Also you were not paying attention again to the prior posts. I said the Warsaw Ghetto uprising not the Warsaw uprising. They are 2 different events.

 

[6fhscjess]

You assume the child would have been able to get to the weapon in time to save herself and her siblings - maybe she could have but maybe not. The mere fact of gun possession does not convey some magical protection against being a victim of violent crime. If you believe that, then quite frankly, you should not own a gun.

Edit: There would seem to be more to this story than immediately meets the eye - intruders do not routinely enter homes armed with pitchforks, which hardly qualifies as a subtle weapon. There was something else going on here I think.

She certainly would of had the opportunity too. Even if your ammo and guns are stored seperately if someone breaks into the downstairs or an area far away from you or is busy attacking the other members of your family it gives you time to get them. He was high on drugs.

I don't delude myself into thinking there is anything magical about a gun but it is the best means of self defence especially if you are smaller in stature, a woman or elderly.
If you go to Gun Facts 4.1 it gives the #'s and sources. Resisting with a gun gives you the best chance of avoiding injury and surviving.

 

[stevebaby]

Yuan Yuan Zhang, press spokesman, Chinese Embassy, Washington DC
Q: Is there a constitutional right to keep and bear arms for private citizens in your country?
A: Certainly not.
Q: Is it illegal in your country for private citizens to keep and bear arms?
A: It is not -- one has to get a permit to carry weapons. Of course some people carry weapons because of their official duties such as policemen or soldiers.

1.3 billion and growing

Oh yeah, you keep narrowing your box for acceptable proof from OECD countries, to Western countries, to Western democracies, ....

http://www.gunowners.org/opagn0301.htm
Op-Ed: Anti-Gun Nut of the Month Mar 2001
Still looking for those billion people?
Oh where oh where can they be...

 

[stevebaby]

Resisting tyrants is not futile also any resistance is effective against the enemy. They were leaving families with at least one gun for the families self defence.

Yeah? They have special guns that won't fire when used for anything else but self-defence?
How many of these special 'self-defence guns have been used against US troops?

 

[stevebaby]

She certainly would of had the opportunity too. Even if your ammo and guns are stored seperately if someone breaks into the downstairs or an area far away from you or is busy attacking the other members of your family it gives you time to get them. He was high on drugs.

I don't delude myself into thinking there is anything magical about a gun but it is the best means of self defence especially if you are smaller in stature, a woman or elderly.
If you go to Gun Facts 4.1 it gives the #'s and sources. Resisting with a gun gives you the best chance of avoiding injury and surviving.

He wasn't high on drugs at all.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20000902/ai_n10633202
Killer with pitchfork wasn't high Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The - Find Articles
Merced county seems to be a violent place.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/03/27/MN11348.DTL
Merced massacre -- dad kills 4 kids, self / Ex-wife finds grisly scene on return from walk
Maybe if this guy's four kids had been armed with guns they could have saved themselves by killing their father?
Unlikely though...they would hardly have expected their own father/step-father to go on a shooting rampage and would have had no warning.

 

[stevebaby]

Well said. I'm always surprised at the number of people who are simply unaware of their surroundings. I've actually found that carrying a gun causes me to have a heightened awareness of my surroundings because of the huge responsibility that comes with carrying a firearm.

Joe

Read 'Helter Skelter' the Vincent Bugliosi book about the Manson Family. A couple of the members of the Manson Family spoke of having 'heightened awareness' when shooting at their farm.
'Heightened awareness'...that phrase worries me. It makes me think...'Drugs'.

 

[stevebaby]

I believe she was 14 at the time and yes when someone is trying to kill you and your family she very well could have made that decison.
By the way your friend really old punk is still drooling you better put a bib on him.
Also you were not paying attention again to the prior posts. I said the Warsaw Ghetto uprising not the Warsaw uprising. They are 2 different events.

How effective were the pistols, rifles and petrol bombs against the modern war machine of the Nazis?
On the other hand...the Danes realised the futility of armed resistance against a vastly superior military force. They surrendered, delayed the Nazis as best they could (by civil disobedience and non cooperation ) and smuggled as many Jews as possible across to Sweden, a less 'heroic' but eminently more sensible approach.

 

[Joe West]

This is an interesting concept... and appears to be consistent with your other posts. If you are weak, recognize your weakness, throw yourself on the mercy of your attacker and (assuming your attacker allows you to live); resist as best you can in a passive sense.

I personally would prefer to be strong in the first place (carry a gun) and then when someone attacks, rather than depending on the mercy of my attacker, I'll fight back with everything I have.

Please... someone... anyone... explain to me how NOT having the option of using a weapon (a gun in this case) is a BETTER choice HAVING the option of using a weapon. If someone is attacking you or your family... wouldn't you always at least like to have the option of defending yourself with a gun or some other weapon?

Honestly... steve's post cuts right to the heart of the issue... weakness leads to surrender and your attackers are free to do whatever they want. Strength (which many people will recognize is reinforced by carrying a gun) leads to your ability to defend yourself with force and stop the attack.

I choose to give myself the option to use a gun... and I choose strength over weakness.

Others choose to not give themselves the option to use a gun and pick a slightly weaker position (or perhaps their governments choose not to give them the option to carry a gun so that they are forced into a weaker position).

Joe

How effective were the pistols, rifles and petrol bombs against the modern war machine of the Nazis?
On the other hand...the Danes realised the futility of armed resistance against a vastly superior military force. They surrendered, delayed the Nazis as best they could (by civil disobedience and non cooperation ) and smuggled as many Jews as possible across to Sweden, a less 'heroic' but eminently more sensible approach.

 

[Joe West]

Trust me... I don't use drugs

Read 'Helter Skelter' the Vincent Bugliosi book about the Manson Family. A couple of the members of the Manson Family spoke of having 'heightened awareness' when shooting at their farm.
'Heightened awareness'...that phrase worries me. It makes me think...'Drugs'.

 

[CAMPYBOB]

"Man! Am i glad i didn't resist those nazis!"

"It's much better to trust my masters...stevebaby said it's so!"

 

[CAMPYBOB]

"better to die on your feet than to live on your knees."

 

[CAMPYBOB]

"Give in to thugs? Only a coward would!"

You can be a victim.

or...

You can choose to defend yourself, your family and your freedom.

 

[cbjesseeNH]

Please... someone... anyone... explain to me how NOT having the option of using a weapon (a gun in this case) is a BETTER choice HAVING the option of using a weapon. Joe

Rebecca Peters, presently the Director of the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) and formerly chair of the (Australian) National Coalition for Gun Control at the time of the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996, and who played a key role in the introduction of stricter gun control and gun confiscation, in Australia, has indeed argued that individuals have no inherent right to self-defense. Given that this 'lie-down-and-take-it' attitude has had a decade to mature, it's not surprising to see the position has flourished in isolated quarters of the world.

 

[stevebaby]

Rebecca Peters, presently the Director of the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) and formerly chair of the (Australian) National Coalition for Gun Control at the time of the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996, and who played a key role in the introduction of stricter gun control and gun confiscation, in Australia, has indeed argued that individuals have no inherent right to self-defense. Given that this 'lie-down-and-take-it' attitude has had a decade to mature, it's not surprising to see the position has flourished in isolated quarters of the world.

Found that 'billion' yet?
Admit it. You lied about them, didn't you?