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



6fhscjess

Member
Aug 7, 2003
180
18
18
stevebaby said:
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?
Bombs are thier prefered weapon since they know they would most likely lose a firefight with the troops.
Crime figures a sham, Say Police daily telegraph, april 1 1996 says that the British police have been caught falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism. Might Australia be doing the same thing?
 

6fhscjess

Member
Aug 7, 2003
180
18
18
stevebaby said:
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.

The Germans did not bother to invade Switzerland who were very well armed.
 

6fhscjess

Member
Aug 7, 2003
180
18
18
stevebaby said:
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.
Hey for once your actually partially right. He did have a trace of marijuana when tested but he was a known drug addict and also had a criminal record.
Also it was 3 children involved 2 killed. www.grnc.org/mary_carpenter_letter.htm
 

6fhscjess

Member
Aug 7, 2003
180
18
18
stevebaby said:
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'.
I did read Helter Skelter and the manson family were drug users. The Tates and Labianca's would probably still be here today if they were armed.
 

6fhscjess

Member
Aug 7, 2003
180
18
18
Joe West said:
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

Joe, SB will be one of the boot lickers that will turn his own countrymen in so he can survive. What he forgets is his usefullness to the enemy will come to an end and then it will be his turn.
 

6fhscjess

Member
Aug 7, 2003
180
18
18
stevebaby said:
How many Jews survived the Ghetto Uprising? How effective were their pistols, rifles and petrol bombs at saving their lives?
The answers are...
1) None.
2) Not at all.
It cost the Germans time, money, troops and equipment. The Jews and the others in the Ghetto were being sent to the death camps so they were brave enough to stand up for themselves instead of having the victim mentality like you and so many other anti-gun people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising
 

cbjesseeNH

Member
Jun 10, 2005
424
6
0
stevebaby said:
Is it 'socially responsible' to post an incomplete quote in a vain attempt to back up another spurious claim of yours...that more than 'a billion people can carry concealed weapons'?
That isn't social responsibility. That's called 'DISHONESTY'.
And what is it that 'bad guys' are guilty of?
DISHONESTY.

So what does that make you?

Sorry...no gun for you. You're dishonest and you shoot yourself in the foot. You're socially irresponsible.
:D :D :D
http://www.gunowners.org/opagn0301.htm
Op-Ed: Anti-Gun Nut of the Month Mar 2001
That's the link which you posted in support of your claim that '...1.3 billion and rising' Chinese were able to carry concealed weapons.
That isn't true...is it?
What's really really funny is that not only did that link not support your dishonest claim...it directly contradicted it!
I don't need to find links in support of the regulation of lethal weapons. You're doing it for me.
Please continue. :D :D :D
Such deductive logic! I'm the Devil incarnate.

I could point out that is not what I said (yet again) but rather, since you’ve taken the bait, hook, line and sinker, I guess I’ll reel you in now.

My statement was a near quote of a similar statement made by an NRA spokesperson to Rebecca Peters, former Australian gun-grabber turned International gun-grabber, in a debate on gun control. The cycling change was just my twist.

When Peters suggested that, while China did profess to permitting gun ownership by citizens, but has in actuality severely curtailed availability and ownership of guns by other than military and police, the NRA spokesperson followed on to note:

China established gun control in 1935 - from 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

And he continued:

In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control - from 1929 to 1953 approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were round up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 - from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964 - from 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970 - from 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956 - from 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

… and so on.

Peters was falling over herself, back-peddling and was left in a shambles. ISANA lost face (and some financial backing) and hasn't ventured into the light since.

So are there a billion gun-slinging Chinese cyclists? Nope. So if one can call a worm dangled before a fish a lie – you can call me a liar (oops – too late, you already have, several times).

Lesson: You can walk in the footsteps of the brilliant anti-gun activists that came before you, but take care not to step in the same ****.

[Now, over to SB for a double-ration of intolerance, insult and invective.]
 

Joe West

New Member
Sep 17, 2004
156
2
0
still waiting for someone to tell me how not having the option to defend yourself with a weapon (any weapon... in this case a gun) is better than having the option.

Anyone?

And please... let's assume that you are adequately trained in the use of the weapon... I don't want to hear that the badguy takes the weapon (in this case, a gun) away from you and uses it on you.

I'd like someone to explain how fewer defense options are better.
 

stevebaby

New Member
Jun 22, 2004
3,515
4
0
6fhscjess said:
The Germans did not bother to invade Switzerland who were very well armed.
Are you seriously suggesting that Germany, a country which had no hesitation in successfully attacking France, Russia, Britain, the United States, Poland Czechoslovakia, Greece and Italy...all of whom were vastly better armed than Switzerland (which had no navy and a tiny obsolete air force)...because of the bolt action rifles that the Swiss Army was mostly armed with?
Is that what you believe?
 

stevebaby

New Member
Jun 22, 2004
3,515
4
0
6fhscjess said:
Bombs are thier prefered weapon since they know they would most likely lose a firefight with the troops.
Crime figures a sham, Say Police daily telegraph, april 1 1996 says that the British police have been caught falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism. Might Australia be doing the same thing?
They also use small arms such as rifles. The preference for IEDs is a matter of effectiveness.
The significance of the date of the Telegraph's article appears to have escaped you.
Yes...Australia has April Fool's Day jokes too!
April Fool!
:D :D :D
 

stevebaby

New Member
Jun 22, 2004
3,515
4
0
6fhscjess said:
Hey for once your actually partially right. He did have a trace of marijuana when tested but he was a known drug addict and also had a criminal record.
Also it was 3 children involved 2 killed.
If he was a drug addict he would have had more than a trace of marijuana or another drug of addiction. He did not.
Read the article. The father (who, presumably had passed all the criminal record checks, psychological tests and character assessments common to most police forces), killed his own child, his 3 stepchildren and then himself.
Read it again.
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
 

stevebaby

New Member
Jun 22, 2004
3,515
4
0
cbjesseeNH said:
Such deductive logic! I'm the Devil incarnate.

I could point out that is not what I said (yet again) but rather, since you’ve taken the bait, hook, line and sinker, I guess I’ll reel you in now.

My statement was a near quote of a similar statement made by an NRA spokesperson to Rebecca Peters, former Australian gun-grabber turned International gun-grabber, in a debate on gun control. The cycling change was just my twist.


So are there a billion gun-slinging Chinese cyclists? Nope. – you can call me a liar

Your quote had nothing to do with Rebecca Peters. Her name isn't even mentioned.
It's an interview by Larry Pratt with Yuan Yuan Zheng, a Chinese Government press spokesman. You used a couple of lines from that interview to support your dishonest claim that 1.3 billion Chinese could carry concealed weapons. The interview makes it quite clear that this is not the case.
An honest mistake may be forgiveable, but you didn't make an honest mistake...you told a deliberate lie.
http://www.gunowners.org/opagn0301.htm
Op-Ed: Anti-Gun Nut of the Month Mar 2001
The above link is the one which you posted.
You swallowed your own bait. Now try to wriggle off the hook. :D :D :D
 

cbjesseeNH

Member
Jun 10, 2005
424
6
0
stevebaby said:
Your quote had nothing to do with Rebecca Peters. Her name isn't even mentioned.
It's an interview by Larry Pratt with Yuan Yuan Zheng, a Chinese Government press spokesman. You used a couple of lines from that interview to support your dishonest claim that 1.3 billion Chinese could carry concealed weapons. The interview makes it quite clear that this is not the case.
An honest mistake may be forgiveable, but you didn't make an honest mistake...you told a deliberate lie.
http://www.gunowners.org/opagn0301.htm
Op-Ed: Anti-Gun Nut of the Month Mar 2001
The above link is the one which you posted.
You swallowed your own bait. Now try to wriggle off the hook. :D :D :D
"If the few dozen millions of people who could not legally carry a gun while cycling are not the minority, then you must be referring to the billion-odd who can?"

Perhaps you assumed that carry of a firearm is the same as concealed carry of a firearm? Maybe where you come from, but not in the US. In the late 1700s and early 1800s, when the US Constitution and State constitutions were being ratified, many states adopted text confirming the individual's right to keep and bear arms for defense of self and state - excepting, in some cases, the carry of concealed weapons. As open carry was routine, concealed carry was considered an illicit practice. Now, when open carry scares people, concealed carry is the norm in urban areas. But leave the big cities, and you will see people sit down in a diner with a sidearm - and nobody taking notice.

But why waste time clarifying this - you have no interest in anything other than insulting others - not discussing issues. Any attempt to communicate with you breaks down immediately as you lambast and belittle other posters.

I can only assume, since you are still able to type at the keyboard, that you must be a major dweeb, weenie and cybermachopunk, as anyone who dealt with others as you do in the real world would have been beaten to a pulp numerous times.

So carry out your egomaniac fantasy. I would suggest to others wishing to carry on this conversation to do so without addressing SB - cast not your pearls to swine.
 

missing

New Member
Aug 24, 2006
26
0
0
What the hell.


Since sb likes LTC Grossman how about this,

http://hobbes.ncsa.uiuc.edu/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html

It mainly deals with LEO off duty carry but many parts pertain to the armed citizen.





"If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools. "



"There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population. There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself. "

"Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs. ""Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground."

"If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die "

"It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up. "

"This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth. "

Too bad there are so many sheep in the world.
 

stevebaby

New Member
Jun 22, 2004
3,515
4
0
cbjesseeNH said:
"If the few dozen millions of people who could not legally carry a gun while cycling are not the minority, then you must be referring to the billion-odd who can?"

Any attempt to communicate with you breaks down immediately as you lambast and belittle other posters.

I can only assume, since you are still able to type at the keyboard, that you must be a major dweeb, weenie and cybermachopunk, as anyone who dealt with others as you do in the real world would have been beaten to a pulp numerous times.

So carry out your egomaniac fantasy. I would suggest to others wishing to carry on this conversation to do so without addressing SB - cast not your pearls to swine.
Too funny! Put me on your ignore list if you're afraid of the truth.
Now try to be some sort of a man...admit you lied.
 

tkehler

New Member
Feb 25, 2004
11
0
0
I ride through a bad bad neighbourhood in Canada. (The worst in urban Canada, meaning the worst in Canada, and considerably worse than many neighbourhoods in the US, and incomparably worse than ANY of the neighbourhoods I've lived in while living in Europe [6 years, 3 countries, plus about 20 month long visits].)

In my eastside neighbourhood, there are basically two dangerous types. A tiny minority of psychos who would just as soon kill you as look at you, no matter what you are riding (or carrying). And a disturbingly large group of crack and other drug addicts who would think nothing of pulling you off your bike at a red light, if there were enough of them and you looked weak/tired enough. The first bunch are a small percentage, and there's not much one can do about them; if one is unlucky, even though one is armed, it's over. The second group -- the junkies -- can be deterred by a gun, or a telescoping baton (or a fit cyclist, or a cyclist wielding a pump). Or they can be pepper sprayed. (Incidentally most of this latter group are frequently quite ****ed up, which can either make them reckless and more dangerous, or confused and inept, or all of the above simultaneously.)

I have a wife and children, and feel that I have a lot to live for, and therefore a lot to defend. I carry pepper spray, as we are not allowed to carry handguns -- which I'm licenced to own, incidentally -- in Canada, except to and from the shooting range. So, while I would probably carry a small light handgun, I don't ... because I cannot.

(Sadly, handguns are increasingly common in Canada, but that's because many criminals possess them. To this there are two answers: carry on persecuting legitimate gun owners, feeding the delusion that we are 'reducing' the number of guns on the streets, OR allow citizens to arm themselves against criminals. Canada has chosen the former approach.)

Probably the worst thing you can experience in Australia or New Zealand or wherever Stevebay is from, however, is to run into an argumentative drunk (fortunately that doesn't happen too often, just 7-8 times a day). Or you can run into an irritating, pedantic*, ill-informed windbag with little experience of life in N. America. But, hey, that can happen on a cyclists forum.

* Knowing a little bit about Douglas MacArthur, yet ignorant of Polish WWII history, as well as the history of the German occupation of Denmark when many hundreds of Danes fought a deadly war of resistance using bombs and sabotage techniques.
 

Akadat

Member
Sep 12, 2006
266
6
0
Well put missing, a very interesting article by Dave Grossman. What of a sheep who insists that being a sheep is the best thing, encourages others to be sheep, despises the sheepdog, and looks to the wolf for protection? I guess sheep need a herd around them, the bigger the herd the better - for the wolf!

Here is an article by James Williams titled 'virtue of the sword', http://www.bugei.com/virtue.html , different weapon but no different in the meaning of virtue and the warrior philosophy. How similar to Dave Grosman.

This is James Williams' closing paragraph:

"Virtue must be taught and practiced; it must be nurtured and passed to each generation. Freedom must be taught and practiced as well. If not, it easily perishes. Virtue and freedom go hand in hand. Not to cherish the one is not to cherish the other. A society that looses the warriors' virtues is the poorer for it and will soon be a society whose freedoms are lost. The male has a genetic prime directive-a service to life-to protect and defend. In this service he is historically more expendable than the female and the children. Every man is responsible for defending every woman and every child When the male no longer assumes this role, when he no longer has the courage or moral responsibility, society will cease to value honor and virtue. Neither laws nor government can replace this personal caring and commitment. In the absence of the warrior-protector, the only way that a government can protect a society is to remove the freedom of its people. And in such a society, the sons and daughters of lions become sheep."
 

matagi

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2006
8,260
328
83
Joe West said:
Here is your answer:

Let's say (and I'm making this number up) that the real risk is 1:10,000

Now... let's say that you or your family happens to be the 1 out of 10,000 individuals who is unlucky enough to encounter a criminal bent on doing you or your family harm.

Tell me... what number would cause YOU to carry a gun to protect yourself or your family? 1:1? 1:20?

You see my point? My point is... when it comes to protection, it really doesn't matter what the number is. If you simply refuse to be a victim no matter what the probability of an encounter is... then numbers don't mean anything.

Now... answer my question. What probability would it take for YOU to take up arms for defense? Give me a number.

Joe
There is no number that would prompt me to take up arms for defence to the extent that I would carry a gun to protect myself whilst going about my daily business UNLESS my country was in the process of being invaded by an external aggressor. I would then take up arms and vigorously defend my country, my rights and my freedom.

But that is quite different from routinely carrying a gun while going for a bike ride. If I feel I need to carry a gun to ensure my safety, then my freedoms have been curtailed. If I feel I need to keep a loaded weapon in my home then my safety and security have already been compromised and I have become as much a victim as those who suffer harm or death at the hands of criminals.

Does that mean I would roll over and play dead if threatened? Hell no.

As I said previously, there is obviously a basic philosophical difference at work here.
 

Similar threads