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



stevebaby

New Member
Jun 22, 2004
3,515
4
0
tkehler said:
I ride through a bad bad neighbourhood in Canada.

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.)
If you choose to ride through an area full of crackheads and psychos "...who would just as soon kill you as look at you' or "... think nothing of pulling you off your bike at a red light, if there were enough of them and you looked weak/tired enough." then you are deliberately looking for trouble.There are plenty of choices if you are afraid...you can drive a car, ride elsewhere, ride in a group etc. Another option is to visit the local police and inform them that you can read minds and that people are out to get you. They will know exactly what to do about it.
 

stevebaby

New Member
Jun 22, 2004
3,515
4
0
Akadat said:
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."
Great. A "warrior" with a fake Japanese sword.
Cops just love the sort of nutter who buys fake japanese swords.
What sort of warrior are you?


BTW...Japan used to have the largest number of firearms in the world.
Now they have the lowest private gun ownership in the world.
The samurai 'warriors' thought they were for weaklings and cowards. The Tokugawa shogunate banned them.
 

stevebaby

New Member
Jun 22, 2004
3,515
4
0
tkehler said:
I ride through a bad bad neighbourhood in Canada.

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).

* 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.
The nazi invasion of Denmark has been described as the invasion by telegram. The Danish Government put up no more than a token resistance and surrendered within a couple of hours. The Danes didn't save 7-8000 Danish Jews through armed resistance. They saved them through the infinitely more courageous policy of cooperating as little as possible with the deportation, warning and hiding their Jews and when the nazis eventually tired of the delays they smuggled them to neutral Sweden.
Only 51 Danish Jews died in concentration camps.
Armed resistance barely existed until the Soviet Union was invaded and then by a small group of Danish communists...many of whom died at the hands of the nazis. Armed resistance didn't gather momentum until relatively late in the war and it saved no Jewish lives. They had been smuggled to safety by then.

I presume you have lived in Australia...or New Zealand...or Ireland? Perhaps you should visit. The worst that can happen is that in any of those countries you may run into an argumentative drunk (like me!).
It's very unlikely that you will get shot though. :D :D :D
 

stevebaby

New Member
Jun 22, 2004
3,515
4
0
I visited Denmark many years ago and for a while I considered moving there. They are very sensible people and per capita the most generous with foreign aid.
Noone could doubt the courage it took to simply say no to the nazis and expose them for the bullies that they were. A pity that more people didn't do the same.
 

Tim Lamkin

New Member
Oct 17, 2005
646
0
0
A pity that more people didn't do the same.
Would be in interesting exercise to talk about how the world would be now if the war only lasted a year in Europe…..I do believe it would have evolved much different.
 

stevebaby

New Member
Jun 22, 2004
3,515
4
0
Tim Lamkin said:
Would be in interesting exercise to talk about how the world would be now if the war only lasted a year in Europe…..I do believe it would have evolved much different.
I think that something like the EU would have eventually come to exist. The Soviet Union and The USA would not have become involved in the Cold War and the USA would not have become the military power that it did.
I just finished reading Niall Fergusson's 'The War of the World'. He advances the proposition that WWll was a continuation of WWl and that the history of the twentieth century was one large war between all the Western Powers and the rest of the world...which the West lost. For example, prior to WWll all of Asia, the most populous part of the world, was under foreign (largely Western) domination, as was Africa and the Middle East.The West no longer has that sort of sway over the rest of the world and Western influence is declining, current events in the ME not withstanding.
China would probably have been carved up after another World War though.
As you say, it's interesting to speculate. What do you think?
 

Joe West

New Member
Sep 17, 2004
156
2
0
If there is no probability number that would make you want to defend yourself with a gun... then I must assume even if you knew with 100% certainty that you would be attacked by someone who intended to kill you and you still would not use a gun (even if you had one available to use for defense)... then indeed we have some serious differences. I somehow believe however, you are mistaken...

You say you would use a gun to defend your country but not yourself?

You would choose to die rather than pick up a gun and shoot your attacker (who by the way... aims to kill you).

Really?

I'm not being sarcastic here... I am really trying to understand if you are saying what I think you are.

Joe



matagi said:
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.
 

stevebaby

New Member
Jun 22, 2004
3,515
4
0
The number of cyclists murdered each year in Australia is...zero.
Why do you assume that there will be an attacker trying to kill you?
The world is far less dangerous than you think and there is no need to be frightened of living.
 

Joe West

New Member
Sep 17, 2004
156
2
0
because those who assume it won't happen are more likely to end up being victims


stevebaby said:
The number of cyclists murdered each year in Australia is...zero.
Why do you assume that there will be an attacker trying to kill you?
The world is far less dangerous than you think and there is no need to be frightened of living.
 

stevebaby

New Member
Jun 22, 2004
3,515
4
0
Joe West said:
because those who assume it won't happen are more likely to end up being victims
In any given year,more than 20 million people in Australia assumed that they weren't going to be murdered. In any given year, around 300 of them got it wrong.
More than 20 million of them got it right.
 

Akadat

Member
Sep 12, 2006
266
6
0
stevebaby said:
In any given year,more than 20 million people in Australia assumed that they weren't going to be murdered. In any given year, around 300 of them got it wrong.
stevebaby said:
More than 20 million of them got it right.


300 Get it wrong every year; what did they do wrong in order to die?

The 20 million, what did they do right? Denial is not right. Giving up your freedom, courage, and virtue in exchange for government ‘protection’ is not right. It is not right to assume that all those 20 million are of one mind in praising the government for providing ‘good protection’.

And those are not fake swords. Do not underestimate the effectiveness of even a wooden sword, or wood staff, or bare hands and feet. These are the weapons of last resort to people who are dispossessed of any means of defence. Australia is advancing perilously towards that condition. As an Australian, if you prefer not to be a sheep, get familiar with those weapons :mad: .
 

ProfTournesol

New Member
Aug 22, 2003
485
0
0
Akadat said:


300 Get it wrong every year; what did they do wrong in order to die?

The 20 million, what did they do right? Denial is not right. Giving up your freedom, courage, and virtue in exchange for government ‘protection’ is not right. It is not right to assume that all those 20 million are of one mind in praising the government for providing ‘good protection’.

And those are not fake swords. Do not underestimate the effectiveness of even a wooden sword, or wood staff, or bare hands and feet. These are the weapons of last resort to people who are dispossessed of any means of defence. Australia is advancing perilously towards that condition. As an Australian, if you prefer not to be a sheep, get familiar with those weapons :mad: .
watch out, everyone is out to get you, even on your bike!!
 

Stu07

New Member
Dec 13, 2006
24
0
0
Akadat said:
300 Get it wrong every year; what did they do wrong in order to die?

A sizable portion of murders in Australia are committed by someone known by the victim - ie. domestic violence situations. A good chunk of the rest of them involve violence between criminals, rather than criminal versus law abiding citizen.

For domestic violence, thank god households don't have guns - there would be more gun killings at home if a drunk, wife beating husband could just go to his drawer (or saddlebag) and pull out his gun.

For gangs/organised crime members shooting each other, go for it?

Maybe criminals looking to steal something from us don't tend to shoot us because they don't expect us to be armed. By carrying guns, surely all we are doing is ensuring that the criminal classes learn to shoot first to ensure you don't get the drop on them.

In Australia, we are not sheep for not arming ourselves to the teeth. We are just enjoying the benefits or a sane, happy society, possible because we never allowed firearms to proliferate in the first place.

I'm sure all the gun-toting Americans out there will shout me down, but my only response is, what is more sane - the situation you have where you feel you need to arm yourselves just to ride a bike ffs or what we have?
 

1id10t

New Member
Apr 11, 2005
343
0
0
Akadat said:
And those are not fake swords. Do not underestimate the effectiveness of even a wooden sword, or wood staff, or bare hands and feet. These are the weapons of last resort to people who are dispossessed of any means of defence. Australia is advancing perilously towards that condition. As an Australian, if you prefer not to be a sheep, get familiar with those weapons [/color]:mad: .

In part I have to disagree with your sentiment. I have been studying/practicing japanese swordsmanship for many years in a variety of styles (shinkendo, muso jikiden, toyama primarily) and have also practiced Aikido, Ju Jitsu and Judo for a number of years. I will also encourage my two children (when they are older) to study a form of martial arts; but not because I want them to not be sheep as you put it but for various reasons, one of which is to be able to defend themselves. There are other factors though such as discipline and awareness of self and surroundings that can be learned through martial arts teachings. For all of the knowledge I have gained with the katana, bokken and jo I would not say I am not going to become a victim. That would be fooling yourself considerably to think that such knowledge and ability would ensure your safety. I could just as easily be killed falling off the roof of my house installing an antenna.
Yes, I would encourage people I know to learn a form of self defence but never, ever fall to into the belief that it will prevent injury to you. You are denegrating others just because they don't wish to learn how to use a weapon. Those people are not sheep; they have different priorities, values or don't feel the need because they don't live with the same fears as you. Are you also not acting in some ways like a sheep by wanting to follow the advocates of weapons training? And in instances of multiple attackers what do you suggest? Best to avoid being in those sitautions where possible.
I am a keen reader of military history and confess an interest in weapons, but I don't hold the same belief of gun ownership that exists in the US. Nor do I believe Australia should follow this path. Their laws exist for their society born from a different set of beliefs and nurtured through a different history. We cannot impose the same on our nation as we grew differently. Just like we don't cut the hands of thieves and the tongues of liars. Whether it is a law that should be revised should be debated among the people of their nation. However, while crime does exist in this country I still don't see the necessity for having the same kind of firearms laws nor would I wish to be alarmist and tell everyone to arm themselves.
 

missing

New Member
Aug 24, 2006
26
0
0
I would like to say I am sorry to members of this forum for being "less than civil" in some of my past post in this thread. Some of the things I said were uncalled for.

I would like to ask a question of the more vocal "anti" members.

If it is legal, what is wrong with a cyclist carring a handgun concealed. It is their choice what matter is it of anyone else?
 

CAMPYBOB

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
11,945
2,086
113
http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_043173112.html

clock2.gif
Feb 12, 2007 7:02 pm US/Pacific
S.F. Bicyclist Shot In Head 2 Weeks Ago Has Died

San Francisco Police Tip Line: 415-575-4444


i'll bet she wishes she had "got it right".
 

Joe West

New Member
Sep 17, 2004
156
2
0
I bet if you or your family were one of the 300, you'd likely think differently than you do now.

Steve... it's simply a matter of perspective. You likely view me as over-cautious and I view you as under-cautious... both viewpoints are valid and appropriate given our different backgrounds. Were you to have grown up in the US and I to have grown up in Australia... we would likely be switching positions on this topic.

Joe

stevebaby said:
In any given year,more than 20 million people in Australia assumed that they weren't going to be murdered. In any given year, around 300 of them got it wrong.
More than 20 million of them got it right.
 

stevebaby

New Member
Jun 22, 2004
3,515
4
0
CAMPYBOB said:
http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_043173112.html

clock2.gif
Feb 12, 2007 7:02 pm US/Pacific
S.F. Bicyclist Shot In Head 2 Weeks Ago Has Died

San Francisco Police Tip Line: 415-575-4444


i'll bet she wishes she had "got it right".
Obviously she had no knowledge that she was going to be murdered. Very few murder victims do. Very few if any of the victims of any of the many ways that people die accidentally have any prior knowledge of their deaths either.
The obvious questions are 'What made it possible for her to be shot from behind?'. How did the killer get access to the means of killing her? How would carrying a gun herself have saved her from being shot from behind without warning? Why did the killer shoot her rather than run her down with a motor vehicle?
I'm sure that the cyclists who get killed by vehicles each year (approximately 40 in Australia) would have wished that there were dedicated cycleways surrounded by shock absorbing barriers from their homes to whatever destination they chose on the day they died. I'm sure that everyone who dies in a plane crash would wish that they had a parachute.
But they don't, and the reason is that there is a price attached to all safety measures, and on the balance of probabilities, the likelihood of being killed does not justify the cost to the rest of society. Societies do not exist for the good of the individual. They exist for the good of society overall.
The cost of allowing handguns for self-defence is that other the members of that society are endangered by those guns.
 

Similar threads