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

[gbhk]

Americans obviously have the country they deserve...

 

[manlyman]

This was so interesting that I decided to register and quickly comment on each point what I could in a few minutes. I'll be more than happy to discuss further...

40 Reasons to Ban Guns

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, Detroit & Chicago cops need guns.

I fail to understand your point. Carrying a sidearm is an integral part of cops' work regardless of the city or its attitude towards civilian arms. You are implying that if banning guns worked, cops in these cities would not need to carry guns? Thats pure fantasy: there's always the need for law enforcement to carry arms. Cops need them to enforce the law upon criminals in extreme situations. That is the point of law enforcement - to have superior and fully organised capability of action. Nobody in their right mind would claim that banning civilian arms means that criminals no longer have access to guns. It only means that there will be less armed citizens walking around which eventually - in the long run - should reduce the incidence of gun-related violence. However this is relatively unlikely as long as this is not a nationwide policy.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

It would make sense to examine the development of murder rates in these cities, not the absolute incidence. Just compiring the current rates give no evidence either way. You might as well compare ice cream sales and murder rate.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

This is a valid point. Anyone can misuse statistics if they feel so inclined. The logic behind either supporting or being against gun control creates different expectations for the end result. Having either bias will affect your view on the statistics. My personal opinion is that having strict gun control should eventually strongly reduce the incidence of gun related deaths. However the reality may be problematic in conditions where there is an abundance of guns available to criminals ie. the policy is not nationwide. This is a key subject which must continue to be discussed but I will not go further in this limited space.

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates,which have been declining since 1991.

I'm unfamiliar with these so I can't comment.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

This is true despite you seem to disagree. If the deranged lunatic has no access to guns he/she cannot go on a shooting killing spree. It is my impression that such killing sprees are more often done by regular citizens gone insane, not career criminals. Banning civilian guns would make such killing sprees more unlikely. Allowing ordinary civilians to have guns facilitates such deranged behavior. If you honestly believe that becoming the victim of such a killing spree is so likely that you must carry a gun for protection from such a event, I'd say you are indeed paranoid. You might as well choose to live in a bunker to protect yourself from being hit by lightning and never travel by airplane because airplanes crash.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

Eh? Fight fire with fire? A little gasoline on the flames to douse the flames? You imply that not having a gun makes you helpless. Quite a limited view of the human capability of self-defense.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

I again fail to understand how people in favor of guns see weapons as the only means of protecting themselves. You've probably watched too many movies and live in a constant fear of "intruders" be them communist spies, criminally insane rapist ghostrider nazis or crack-head ninja assasins or whatever. If you found yourself in a threatening situation, your first and only reaction seems to be to kill your opponent by shooting him dead with a magnum. That's hardly a realistic scenario. Why are gun supportes so afraid? In athreatening situation you will survive by either just running or walking away or giving the assailant what he needs. A truly life-threatening situation involving is extremely rare and not realistically worth building your life around in preparation of it.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

If you truly believe that becoming the victim of a rape murder in your society is so probable that every woman needs to carry a loaded gun for their protection, then I say that your society is well beyond any repair. I suggest you move to a civilized country.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense - give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

Usually this statement is true. When you are confronted by a violent criminal, that criminal already will have his weapon readied. Trying to pull your gun out in such a situation will get YOU killed. It's usually better to give them what they want or if possible, run.

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

Unlikely. You are probably implying a certain article in the journal. Regardless of where an article is publicised it may or may not contain valid points.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

I don't know this person but I doubt Sarah Brady is claiming expertise in technical matters related to guns?

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

I'm unable to comment since I'm not familiar with this subject.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

I'm unable to comment since I'm not familiar with this subject.

14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

Seems a false claim. But the question is not what is the current legislation but wether it should be changed to facilitate the needs of a 21st century society.

15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

I dont't know where this statement is made, but the world and the society does change and it should be possible for the constitution to change accordingly.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

Rifles and handguns are neccessary for national defense by the army and the police. I believe ordinary citizens have no need for them besides hunting and recreational purposes. A civilian walking around armed is not carrying out national defense.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons'', but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles'', because they are military weapons.

Now this is incomprihensible.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting,government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's,anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations,variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

Are you implying that the mentioned restrictions have caused the occurence of school shootings? Your example only proves the point that society has changed so that it no longer is safe for civilians to have guns available to them.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

They're both responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

Absolutely true. Anyone can shoot a gun, but it takes understanding and skill to use a gun properly.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

A gun is a simple tool but it requires intelligence and capability for responsible action to put one to good use. It's not just a technical skill.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

The first part is male chauvinism. The second part is in some cases very true.

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

The claim is insane.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings Thereat gun shows.

Having a gun makes lethal violence much easier. Just pull the trigger. This has nothing to do with gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

I fail to see the point of this claim.

26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

It's my impression that self-loading (repeating) guns are indeed designed for assault purposes, excluding very low caliber sporting guns.

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

There's no point in having only legislation that people can be trusted to comply. With the above logic there would be no point in having any legislation because there always will be a great bunch of people who just don't give a damn,

28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

You're mixing apples with oranges. We're talking about guns. Pornography is a separate discussion topic.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare hands.

There are limits to what is considered freedom of self defense. This is a question of legislation and ethics. I'd say freedom of self defense goes beyond using your bare hands. There are other ways of defending yourself than bearing guns. You can for example build a society in which criminals have minimal availability to weapons and in which it is widely considered inhuman and cowardly to use a weapon against another person.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

I have no comment because this claim is childish. Don't fight propaganda with propaganda.

31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

See above.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

If there honestly ever has occured a situation where a civilian has faced such a large group of criminals that he kept shooting until his clip was empty, I would say that the society in which this happened truly is beyond all repair.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

However politically incorrect it may be, the fact is that the incidence of violent crimes is higher among the poor. It makes no sense to facilitate this by providing easy access to cheap handguns.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

Not true, but the police are organised and use their weapons in a more systematic, controlled and tactical manner than most civilians ever will.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self- protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

In a modern democratic society the purpose of the police is to protect civilians against crime. It is the responsibility of the society to ensure that this actually happens by providing sufficient resources to the police and using various preventive measures to build a society with minimal crime. If the supreme court states otherwise, then the society is truly beyond repair.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

This is true.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

True, but the Police need assault weapons for their fear effect: to have and convey the impression of superior power and formidability in extreme situations. Not to kill large numbers of people.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

Now this is just plain weird.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

If you know what you are doing, a trigger lock is just another safety measure for stored guns. This has nothing to do with the duty weapons of police officers.

40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.

Yet more propaganda drivel.

 

[artemidorus]

Yet more propaganda drivel.

It is true. Americans do not understand sarcasm.
(Apologies to manlyman if you are not American).

 

[manlyman]

It is true. Americans do not understand sarcasm.
(Apologies to manlyman if you are not American).

Eh?? All of those 40 "reasons" above are sarcastic claims that support the right to bear arms. I just tried to give some straight answers - straight-forward and without joking - from the viewpoint of a person who doesnt.

There are many people who actually think that those "40 reasons" punch holes into anti-gun argumentation, just google it or check out these:

http://armed-and-christian.blogspot.com/2007/03/40-reasons-to-ban-guns-now.html
http://militiajim.livejournal.com/259845.html
http://2valuable.blogspot.com/

If you think the person who originally wrote that list wasn't dead serious about his right to bear arms and doesn't believe these arguments are valid, you should check out some militia websites. Some people are very intense about their right to walk around armed to protect themselves from criminals.

(edited typos)

 

[artemidorus]

Eh?? All of those 40 "reasons" above are sarcastic claims that support the right to bear arms. I just tried to give some straight answers - straight-forward and without joking - from the viewpoint of a person who doesnt.

There are many people who actually think that those "40 reasons" punch holes into anti-gun argumentation, just google it or check out these:

http://armed-and-christian.blogspot.com/2007/03/40-reasons-to-ban-guns-now.html
http://militiajim.livejournal.com/259845.html
http://2valuable.blogspot.com/

If you think the person who originally wrote that list wasn't dead serious about his right to bear arms and doesn't believe these arguments are valid, you should check out some militia websites. Some people are very intense about their right to walk around armed to protect themselves from criminals.

(edited typos)

I'm been contributing to this thread (occasionally now - I can't cope with the vitriol) for more than a year, and I know the posters on both sides are very intense.
I don't think that the "40 reasons" is written in a manner that deserves a reasoned response, or a response that takes it seriously.

 

[bigpedaler]

i just found this page, and it took me until #2 to figure it out.


PARODY -- SARCASM -- SATIRE -- COMEDY!

I know there are stupid people out there, but you have to remember -- there's no limit to how stupid someone can be. ( Just look at Rosie O'Donnell -- admitted having no knowledge of the subject, but publicly spoke out vs. guns @ KMart WHILE SHE HAD A COMMERCIAL ENDORESEMENT CONTRACT W/ THEM!) If stupid people take satire seriously, they just become funnier than the satire.

That's why so many employers bypass IQ tests -- they're funny to watch.

 

[LONGPATH]

Well, this is one very long thread. If you don't want to carry a firearm that is your choice in most of America. If you don't care to carry that is your choice as well. The Constitution does not "give" me that right it merely staes in writing that the Federal Government will not abridge that right. Those British Troops marching to Lexington and Concord were on their way to sieze the arms of the colonists. Guess what happened then and would happen now?

I don't carry a firearm when I ride as that is my choice. I can if I wish to though. Many people live in countries where the government does not allow them to make that choice. I am sure they all leave their doors unlocked at night because it is so safe. God Bless!


A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." --Sigmund Freud in "General Introduction to Psychoanalysis""

 

[stevebaby]

I am sure they all leave their doors unlocked at night because it is so safe.

Actually...yes.

 

[EoinC]

Actually...yes.

Me, too. Although over here in West Africa, I leave it unlocked as I don't want them to damage the door as they kick it open. Thus far I have found dry humour and a wet whistle to be more effective than advanced weaponry in keeping the peace.

 

[LONGPATH]

Well, Steve I must say good for you. I lock my door. There was a time in this fair land when that was not the case. Remember Steven that a problem need only occur once. Sleep tight.

 

[6fhscjess]

www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=home&sid=a_gP7Pj2387g
I'm sure the parents love picking out their kids vests and the kids must love wearing them. Gun control really has helped to make people safer. That is if your a criminal.

 

[stevebaby]

www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=home&sid=a_gP7Pj2387g
I'm sure the parents love picking out their kids vests and the kids must love wearing them. Gun control really has helped to make people safer. That is if your a criminal.

Then why is Britain so much safer than the USA?

 

[stevebaby]

Well, Steve I must say good for you. I lock my door. There was a time in this fair land when that was not the case. Remember Steven that a problem need only occur once. Sleep tight.

I suppose you carry a parachute whenever you travel by plane?
The plane only has to crash once.
And carry a speargun and powerhead whenever you go to the beach?
Sharks only have to attack once.
Of course, you would have to wear a helmet everywhere ...because the sky only has to fall once.
What a fearful lot you are.

 

[Akadat]

Stevebaby escaped Craggy Island to visit the mainland for a binge......left the doors open.

Welcome baaaack!

 

[stevebaby]

Stevebaby escaped Craggy Island to visit the mainland for a binge......left the doors open.

Welcome baaaack!

Don't forget your invisibility cloak.
Your shadow only has to bite you once.

 

[Akadat]

Don't forget your invisibility cloak.
Your shadow only has to bite you once.

Ah, the comfort of invisibility; and the fear of the shadow. But welcome back Stevebaby, and I want to say that the last few of your posts before your departure struck a chord, restored a bit of balance to my perception of what is to be feared, and the perceived need to carry a gun.

There are many examples where somebody has used a gun to successfully escape death or injury; and just as many examples where somebody has not needed a gun, but has caused death or injury with the gun none the less. By quoting examples from one or the other we can manipulate perceived needs and fears.

Comparing the risks of flying/cycling/driving with the risk of getting mugged/assaulted/assassinated does restore some balance. How we deal with those risks varies wildly from complete denial to total paranoia. Some balance is forced on us by legislation, and the rest is up to each individual.

 

[EoinC]

I have taken to carrying a small rack when I cycle, just in case I feel the need to torture a would-be assailant. Remember, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition (with thanks to Monty Python).

 

[artemidorus]

I have taken to carrying a small rack when I cycle, just in case I feel the need to torture a would-be assailant. Remember, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition (with thanks to Monty Python).

Is it pedal powered?

 

[lyotard]

this then, the official saddle of the spanish inquisition, is for you:

actually i was told this is quite comfortable by someone who rides the front range of the colorado rockies at 14000 ft el but that is beside the point...

I have taken to carrying a small rack when I cycle, just in case I feel the need to torture a would-be assailant. Remember, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition (with thanks to Monty Python).

 

[Lionfish]

I keep mace on me. If I get caught alone on a backroad I'd avoid a confrontation at all cost. I'm a 230 powerlifter so it's not that I can't defend myself it's just so he'll have a tough time chasing me with temporary blindness.