Advocacy & Safety - DC biker attacked

Saw this on DC critical mass list-


Approx 6pm June 27th
Robbery, Columbia Rd., 1300 Blk.
A man in a group of five hit a bicyclist on the head with a rock.
The group then grabbed and punched the bicyclist.
The bicycle and a checkbook were taken.

Man, am I ever so glad I decided to leave the DC area when I did.

We have our troops deployed over in Iraq, and it's DC where they're needed. Figures.

And the irony of it all is that some of you around here get all self-righteous when others mention that they pack heat when they ride....

- it's not called the District of Confusion without reason...

(used to live in Arlington's Shirlington, had a house just off the bike trail but took the money and ran)

I thought that post-9/11, DC is like a Police State or "1984" with very heavily armed officers (who look more like an army unit than a civilian unit) at every corner. At least that's what all of the pictures that I see in the news from DC show.

I thought that post-9/11, DC is like a Police State or "1984" with very heavily armed officers (who look more like an army unit than a civilian unit) at every corner. At least that's what all of the pictures that I see in the news from DC show.

It was like that for about six months after 9/11. I used to live at 13th and Mass. Ave, which is appx. 7 blocks from the White House. There used to be armored hummers and MP's with weapons stationed in all the downtown parks. It's not as bad anymore, but presence is still heavy. It's been stepped up a bit after the London attacks.

As far as the cyclist robbing thing, the sad part is that Columbia Rd. is actually not THAT bad of a section of town. Don't get me wrong, 5 yrs ago you wouldn't walk through there alone, but I have a friend who recently bought a 2BR apt in that area for $600,000.

Aside from the rubber-necking points, I see nothing of value in reporting such an incident to us on a national forum.

Perhaps it would be worth it if there was some extraordinary detail, or comedic element-- but there was none. As described this was a run-of-the-mill assault and robbery. The end result on here will be that n posters will use this as an example of why all cyclists should be armed, and m posters will indicate that cities are violent dangerous places and that everyone should be living out in the 'burbs.

Got to agree with H23. Sounds like a common assault and robbery.

Got to agree with H23. Sounds like a common assault and robbery.

A common assault and robbery, in which a cyclist was targeted. That makes it a bicycling safety issue worthy of posting.

I do think the OPs should include as many of the details as possible prior to posting. (but those are sometimes limited by what the police are willing to put out).

This is the third posted assault and robbery of a cyclist in recent months in DC. The first was a female who was knock out. The second was a retired man who was murdered. Same person committed these 2 and was arrested. Maybe it is the same person out on bail or released for whatever lame reason.

These post serve as a reasonable heads up for both resident and visitor cyclist to be aware of your surroundings in DC. Details let us narrow down the paths or neighborhood of concern.

Hey, I think riders SHOULD pack heat if it's necessary. In DC it's necessary. And I know too much about Hawaii, it's VERY necessary there!

....
These post serve as a reasonable heads up for both resident and visitor cyclist to be aware of your surroundings in DC. Details let us narrow down the paths or neighborhood of concern.


People should be alert to their surroundings wherever they go. Its not like only certain streets are "zoned" for crime.

Anyway, if someone wants to get a useable picture of the crime situation in a city, it can be looked-up. Many cities have extensive crime stats (http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1239,q,543308,mpdcNav_GID,1523,mpdcNav,|.asp) available. Using a few sketchy data points from a bicycle forum does NOT paint a realistic picture.

Hey, I think riders SHOULD pack heat if it's necessary. In DC it's necessary.

In DC,it's illegal.

The mayor does not want people carrying guns. Except,of course,for his bodyguards. :rolleyes:

And the irony of it all is that some of you around here get all self-righteous when others mention that they pack heat when they ride....
So then the muggers would now have a bike, a checkbook, and a gun, instead of just the first two.

Shooting someone once you've been smashed on the head with a rock then knocked off a bike would be a bit challenging.

So then the muggers would now have a bike, a checkbook, and a gun, instead of just the first two.

Shooting someone once you've been smashed on the head with a rock then knocked off a bike would be a bit challenging.

That's why you shoot before they get the gun. If people like that want a gun, they have no trouble getting one illegally anyway.

So then the muggers would now have a bike, a checkbook, and a gun, instead of just the first two.

Shooting someone once you've been smashed on the head with a rock then knocked off a bike would be a bit challenging.

You can bet these punks were already intimidating the victim B4 the rock was thrown
It's just too bad that the cyclist couldn't go all Bernie Goetz (http://www.awesome80s.com/Awesome80s/News/1984/December/22-Subway_Vigilante_Goetz.asp) on their "gangsta" asses.

Unfortunately, Bernard Goetz found out how society feels about people that defend themselves against superior numbers that are robbing you and carrying shanks.

Great, and I was looking forward to starting bike commuting when I move to DC in 2 weeks for law school. Getting attacked while riding a bike is not something I thought of before, but I guess I have to be on the lookout for more than cars...

I didn't say a thing about legal or illegal. I said necessary.

Hey, I think riders SHOULD pack heat if it's necessary. In DC it's necessary.

Maybe from Sunnyvale, CA, it looks that way, but somehow I've managed to bike virtually every day for the past 12 years through DC and never felt the need for a gun.

DC's biggest problem is that everyone in the rest of the country seems to know what's best for us.

That's why you shoot before they get the gun. If people like that want a gun, they have no trouble getting one illegally anyway.
So, you're on a bike with a gun. Where do you keep it? Jersey? Sock? Backpack?

Regardless of where the gun is, you have to get to it, and during this time your assailants will most likely notice. Perhaps you can get it out and shoot one (or more) of them without a struggle for the gun ensuing, but it's probably more likely that it'll turn into one person straddling a bicycle versus five muggers, all wrestling for the gun.

Whether they can get a gun or not is irrelevant, because either way one has now been introduced into the situation. Given the circumstances, the cyclist is probably just as likely to get shot as the muggers, not to mention the stray bullets hitting someone else.

This is assuming there was even time to react to the situation. It could easily have been a surprise attack, in which case the muggers get the bike/gun/etc without a struggle. The only way that the gun makes this situation safer is if the muggers happen to give the cyclist the opportunity to pull the gun, and he manages to either scare them away with it, or shoot them before they can retaliate.

If the gun makes you safer, by all means carry it. I have yet to be convinced.

So, you've been surprised (no time to shoot, or you are you actually planning to squeeze off a couple rounds from your bike seat every time you're startled?) and knocked off your bike, possibly outnumbered. You get hurt,lose your bike and wallet. Or... you have your gun! Fumble fumble... who gets shot first- looks like he got your gun too! Now what? It's mostly kids doing the quick hit and run stuff. So you're gonna set up a situation to either kill a teenager, or be killed with your own gun? Dumb-azz cowboys...

Let me ask you Zen....

What would a police officer do if he came upon a robbery in action?

He would pull his weapon, sir.

Most of the responsible (Ohhh... and LEGAL) gun owners I know have had AT LEAST as much training with firearms as any police officer on a beat (you REALLY think that strapped city budgets have the ability to fund cops hitting the range as often as enthusiasts do?).

So basically, the real question I have for you is this:
Isn't it rather "Eloi Like (http://www.gradesaver.com/ClassicNotes/Titles/time/themes.html)" to expect others to be responsible for your safety and well being?

And don't forget, in many of these robberies, all the victim gets as a reward for complying with the teeny-boppin-thugster is a brick upside the head.

Private citizens successfully use firearms in self defense every day. There is nothing unique about a bicycle which reduces the effectiveness of a firearm for personal protection.

So, you're on a bike with a gun. Where do you keep it? Jersey? Sock? Backpack?

I carry a Kahr PM9 in a FIST K5 pocket holster. This necesitates that I not wear spandex.



Regardless of where the gun is, you have to get to it, and during this time your assailants will most likely notice. Perhaps you can get it out and shoot one (or more) of them without a struggle for the gun ensuing, but it's probably more likely that it'll turn into one person straddling a bicycle versus five muggers, all wrestling for the gun.

Well, statistically it will turn into 5 people running away without any shots fired (FBI stats). Also, shooting someone is the #1 best was to STOP a violent attack (Armed by Kleck and Kates).


Whether they can get a gun or not is irrelevant, because either way one has now been introduced into the situation.

What's wrong with introducing a gun into a situation where you are being assaulted by FIVE individuals using DANGEROUR PHYSICAL FORCE (Oregon Revised Statute)?


Given the circumstances, the cyclist is probably just as likely to get shot as the muggers, not to mention the stray bullets hitting someone else.

Armed civilians are much better shots than police officers. If I shoot an innocent bystander, I get five to ten.



This is assuming there was even time to react to the situation. It could easily have been a surprise attack, in which case the muggers get the bike/gun/etc without a struggle.

How do they know I have a gun? Are they really going to search me, or are they just going to take my money and run? Again, this has not been a problem in a past.



The only way that the gun makes this situation safer is if the muggers happen to give the cyclist the opportunity to pull the gun, and he manages to either scare them away with it, or shoot them before they can retaliate.

How about this? I am on my way home and I find five guys beating some cyclist to death. At least in Oregon, I can shoot them.


If the gun makes you safer, by all means carry it. I have yet to be convinced.

Okay. But remember, muggings are not the only thing I carry a gun to defend myself against. Actually, I do not think the likelyhood of me using a gun while cycling is very great, but what if I stop at a convenience store/gas station for a snack? What if they get robbed while I am there? What if the whole thing turns into executing witnesses or a hostage situation? Obviously carrying a gun is not for everyone, but I beleive that every law abiding citizen should have the choice.

EDIT:

I am an avowed liberal, but I can never understand why so many liberals are anti-gun. If you are a liberal that would like the to learn more facts about gun ownership, gun use in self defense, and gun control you should read Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control by Gary Kleck and Don B. Kates (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1573928836/qid=1121909314/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-3015933-0880706?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). It is not anti-liberal nor pro-concervative in the slightest. There is also some discussion on what is and is not a resonable level of gun control.

So, you're on a bike with a gun. Where do you keep it? Jersey? Sock? Backpack?

Regardless of where the gun is, you have to get to it, and during this time your assailants will most likely notice. Perhaps you can get it out and shoot one (or more) of them without a struggle for the gun ensuing, but it's probably more likely that it'll turn into one person straddling a bicycle versus five muggers, all wrestling for the gun.

Whether they can get a gun or not is irrelevant, because either way one has now been introduced into the situation. Given the circumstances, the cyclist is probably just as likely to get shot as the muggers, not to mention the stray bullets hitting someone else.

This is assuming there was even time to react to the situation. It could easily have been a surprise attack, in which case the muggers get the bike/gun/etc without a struggle. The only way that the gun makes this situation safer is if the muggers happen to give the cyclist the opportunity to pull the gun, and he manages to either scare them away with it, or shoot them before they can retaliate.

If the gun makes you safer, by all means carry it. I have yet to be convinced.


What problems like that have you run into while carrying a firearm? From your paragraphs, it sounds like you have experience. Mine has only involved carrying in a holster while four wheeling, but there was no problem getting it out in a split second and firing.

It's mostly kids doing the quick hit and run stuff. So you're gonna set up a situation to either kill a teenager, or be killed with your own gun? Dumb-azz cowboys...

When people are trying to hit you in the head with rocks, they are trying to kill you, period. Also, five dudes beating you can quickly turn into you being dead. Does it make any difference if they are 15 or 35?


As for being "dumb-azz cowboys," everybody who legally carries a gun knows not to pull the trigger unless they absolutely have to. You WILL end up being araigned ($$$) and you may end up in a criminal trial ($$$$) and you will probably end up in civil court ($$$$$) no matter how cut and dry your case is.

Okay. But remember, muggings are not the only thing I carry a gun to defend myself against. Actually, I do not think the likelyhood of me using a gun while cycling is very great, but what if I stop at a convenience store/gas station for a snack? What if they get robbed while I am there? What if the whole thing turns into executing witnesses or a hostage situation? Obviously carrying a gun is not for everyone, but I beleive that every law abiding citizen should have the choice.
What if you draw your gun and the one guy you didn't notice who is behind you hits you over the head and takes your gun, using it to kill every remaining customer because he's pissed off because you just shot his buddy. Then he uses it to kill the first cop that arrives on the scene?

We can play "What if?" until the end of time. It's totally pointless. What if Martians come and zap us?



I am an avowed liberal, but I can never understand why so many liberals are anti-gun. If you are a liberal that would like the to learn more facts about gun ownership, gun use in self defense, and gun control you should read Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control by Gary Kleck and Don B. Kates (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1573928836/qid=1121909314/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-3015933-0880706?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). It is not anti-liberal nor pro-concervative in the slightest. There is also some discussion on what is and is not a resonable level of gun control.
I don't need to know anything about gun ownership, especially not by reading something written by people who have a vested interest in the propogation of firearms.

You can have as many guns as you want, but they're not for me. I'll never understand why pointing out a possible drawback to having a gun around automatically gets you labelled anti-gun. I've been to a shooting range, and I've shot guns. I know just enough about guns to know that I don't want to be carrying one around all day.

It's really easy to look at a situation and say, "If only they had a gun, everything would be ok", but without knowing exactly what went down, you just can't make that assumption. My point was not to say that guns were bad, but rather to point out that without knowing ALL the facts, we cannot assume that a gun would have saved the day. For you it might have, but for the person involved in the original post, we'll never know.

What problems like that have you run into while carrying a firearm? From your paragraphs, it sounds like you have experience. Mine has only involved carrying in a holster while four wheeling, but there was no problem getting it out in a split second and firing.
If I carried a firearm on a bike, it would be on my mountain bike, and it would be carried in case of bears or lions. I avoid riding in the city, but I can't imagine having to carry a gun somewhere on my person in my street kit. It would flop around in my jersey because of the weight, and it really wouldn't fit anywhere else on the bike, other than the waistband of the back of my shorts. Anywhere close to my body, and it's going to be soaked with sweat and salt.

I think I'll pass on that and let you keep the gun.

We can play "What if?" until the end of time. It's totally pointless.

I was merely responding to your "what if" scenario of the muggers getting the gun. There are thousands of crimes that are stopped by private citizens with guns everyday, I was merely enumerating a few. Also, statistically speaking, shooting an agressor in a violent crime is the #1 best way to get out unharmed or at least not dead.

I used to work in a convenience store. Sometimes complying with the robbers demands will be enough, sometimes it will get a female employee raped, and sometimes you will get executed. I don't want to be in a gunfight anymore than the next guy, but it beats being shot execution style in the back of the head.


I don't need to know anything about gun ownership, especially not by reading something written by people who have a vested interest in the propogation of firearms.

Kleck is a professor of Criminology at Florida State University and Kates is a lawyer. Could you please explain thier vested interest? Really, I am serious, I don't want the wool pulled over my eyes.


You can have as many guns as you want, but they're not for me. I'll never understand why pointing out a possible drawback to having a gun around automatically gets you labelled anti-gun. I've been to a shooting range, and I've shot guns. I know just enough about guns to know that I don't want to be carrying one around all day.

Well, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for supporting a right you do not plan to excercise. I beleive very strongly everybody in America should be more like you.


It's really easy to look at a situation and say, "If only they had a gun, everything would be ok", but without knowing exactly what went down, you just can't make that assumption. My point was not to say that guns were bad, but rather to point out that without knowing ALL the facts, we cannot assume that a gun would have saved the day. For you it might have, but for the person involved in the original post, we'll never know.

You are very right. Actually, even knowing all of the facts would not let us know how it would have ended.

PS - Thanks for riding the MS Society's Bike Tour. I had a fiend die from MS, it is truely aweful. I would have registered for the event, but I am not in good enough shape this year (hopefully next year).

I used to work in a convenience store. Sometimes complying with the robbers demands will be enough, sometimes it will get a female employee raped, and sometimes you will get executed. I don't want to be in a gunfight anymore than the next guy, but it beats being shot execution style in the back of the head.
Perhaps if I worked in a similar industry I would also see the need to arm myself. But I'm not going to have a pistol flopping around in one of my jersey pockets.



Kleck is a professor of Criminology at Florida State University and Kates is a lawyer. Could you please explain thier vested interest? Really, I am serious, I don't want the wool pulled over my eyes.
Believe me, if they've written a book on the merits of carring a gun around, they're most likely gun aficionados. If you enjoy something, you have a vested interest in being allowed to do it, whether it's guns, bikes, or porn. I'm sure those two guys have many interesting things to say, just as I'm sure that people on the other side of the aisle do as well.



Well, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for supporting a right you do not plan to excercise. I beleive very strongly everybody in America should be more like you.
Well it's in the Constitution, at least if you live in the US it is. But like I said, my original reply had nothing to do with whether guns should be available or not, but rather the rush to apply the "a gun would have prevented that" conclusion. I used to work in an office next to two gun enthusiasts, and they used to claim that a gun was always the solution to any problem. When Columbine happened, one of them said, "That never would have happened if every student had been armed". Sorry, but I just can't agree with an entire high school full of gun-packing teenagers.



PS - Thanks for riding the MS Society's Bike Tour. I had a fiend die from MS, it is truely aweful. I would have registered for the event, but I am not in good enough shape this year (hopefully next year).
I also have a family member who is suffering. It's the least I can do.

You can have as many guns as you want


Thank you for your permission....



The cop cars must be much faster where you are from....

The cop cars must be much faster where you are from....
I live in a county that has SO many police officers, if you call to report a cat stuck in a tree you get a dozen squad cars lining the streets. It's a running joke around here.

What does this have to do with anything?

I thought that post-9/11, DC is like a Police State or "1984" with very heavily armed officers (who look more like an army unit than a civilian unit) at every corner. At least that's what all of the pictures that I see in the news from DC show.

Downtown there are lots of guys with badges, but they're usually just standing around shooting the ***** with each other. There are a ton of "Bureau of Printing/Engraving" cops, Capitol Police, Metro boobs, and many others. There's also the "Transit Police" who tromp around in combat boots and look very bad-ass, but all I've ever seen them do is shoo away bums from sleeping in Metro stations.

Downtown you have a bunch of these federal guys, but once you get into the residential parts of the city (where this attack occured, if I'm thinking od the right place) you just have a few Metropolitan cops on patrol here and there. What most people not from here don't realize is that there is so much more to the city than just around the monuments.

There's also the "Transit Police" who tromp around in combat boots and look very bad-ass, but all I've ever seen them do is shoo away bums from sleeping in Metro stations.
Just don't try eating a candy bar around one. You'll be cuffed and stuffed. ;)

1. Killing a teenager would be tragic, but it would be infinitely better than being killed by a teenager.

2. Where one would carry the gun doesn't matter much to a hoplophobe. No matter how many good ways of carrying the gun are mentioned, you'll dismiss them all, because it's not finding a location for carry that really bothers you. It's your emotional objection to guns in and of themselves that matters.
You could carry a gun on a belt like the rest of the world, by the way, or you could put it in a shoulder holster under a shirt, or in a fanny pack or, indeed, in a backpack. A cross-draw holster would probably work well and would blend in with shorts and jersey of a similar color, though that would be open carry. Anyway, with the number of cyclists here who DO carry concealed handguns on bikes, it should be blindingly obvious that it's practical to do so.
I personally carry my pistol unloaded in a fanny pack because that's the only legal way to do it in Illinois. (Motto: "It's like New Jersey, but with CORN!") Obviously that's slow and awkward to access, and it wouldn't be my first choice. But just because I couldn't beat every possible situation with it doesn't mean it's not a useful thing to have around, believe me. You will always be able, if you take an entire paragraph of listing out your own assumptions to write a question the way ZenNMotion did, to come up with a scenario where having the gun wouldn't help. You can do the same thing seat belts, fire extinguishers, life insurance, and bike helmets, to name a few, but I use all of those too. I don't throw them out because they're not magic talismans that solve all life's problems.

Almost forgot:

Kates, I believe, is an avid shooter. Kleck and Mustard (another big name) are emphatically NOT.

You may also have heard of Laurence Tribe--uber liberal law professor? He hates guns and doesn't like the people who own them much more, but he was finally forced to admit that the Constitution bestows an individual right to be armed. Of course, he then said that none of the current gun control laws infringe that right, which begs the question of whether he could think of any law besides a total ban and confiscation of every weapon in the nation that WOULD represent an infringement.

There's also the "Transit Police" who tromp around in combat boots and look very bad-ass, but all I've ever seen them do is shoo away bums from sleeping in Metro stations.


Just don't try eating a candy bar around one. You'll be cuffed and stuffed. ;)

Only if you are a defenseless young girl.

2. Where one would carry the gun doesn't matter much to a hoplophobe. No matter how many good ways of carrying the gun are mentioned, you'll dismiss them all, because it's not finding a location for carry that really bothers you. It's your emotional objection to guns in and of themselves that matters.
As you've mentioned, there are dozens of good places to carry your gun, but I don't have any emotional objection to guns. However, you seem to have an emotional objection to anyone who doesn't share your fascination for guns. This is probably the single biggest problem for gun enthusiasts. The whole "with us or against us" thing. You guys have just as much (or more) intolerance for non-gun-enthusiasts as anti-gun zealots have for you. To us apathetic gun types, it paints an image of crazy people waving guns around and screaming "yee-haw".

It's amusing that a simple suggestion that a gun may not have helped in a certain situation has brought a tidal wave of gun apologists down on this thread. It's like, "Oh no!! Someone saying something non-positive about guns!! QUICK! Squash it before it spreads!!!"

I've accepted the fact that many people enjoy (and feel safer with) their guns. But one of these days you're going to have to accept the fact that not everyone wants one. It's one thing to educate people about guns. It's quite another to ram them down their throats.

Downtown you have a bunch of these federal guys, but once you get into the residential parts of the city (where this attack occured, if I'm thinking od the right place) you just have a few Metropolitan cops on patrol here and there. What most people not from here don't realize is that there is so much more to the city than just around the monuments.

You pretty much hit it on the head. There are actually a lot fewer cops in the residential parts of the city since 9/11, they're all out guarding the monuments. It's now SOP for neighborhood assignments to be at 40% of authorized strength.

If I had the option, I'd carry a Walther P99 in a heart beat. There isn't a single thing wrong with protecting yourself. If I'm cornered by multiple people, and I have no way of getting out other then my gun, I am gonna damn well use it! Which is why as soon as I am legal, I am getting a Carry Conceal license and buying a P99.

You pretty much hit it on the head. There are actually a lot fewer cops in the residential parts of the city since 9/11, they're all out guarding the monuments. It's now SOP for neighborhood assignments to be at 40% of authorized strength.

Yeah, the only Metropolitan cops I ever see out and about are in G'town rounding up drunks. I can (and have) drive(n) all around residential DC late at night and not seen one cop out on patrol. As soon as I would pass into Montgomery Co. they're everywhere. There's a noticable difference on say Mass. Ave. b/t the MD and DC sides.

I live in suburban MD and our cops are pretty much useless. I've had a couple dealings with them in the past (only one was for any misdeed of my own :D ) and in every case they've been less than professional/helpful.

I used to work in an office next to two gun enthusiasts, and they used to claim that a gun was always the solution to any problem.

It is true that running around with hammers can make all of your problems look like nail if you are not careful. However, the enormous ethical and legal implications help.


If I had the option, I'd carry a Walther P99 in a heart beat. There isn't a single thing wrong with protecting yourself. If I'm cornered by multiple people, and I have no way of getting out other then my gun, I am gonna damn well use it! Which is why as soon as I am legal, I am getting a Carry Conceal license and buying a P99.

I happen to own two pistols. One is a Kahr PM9 and one is the Walther P99. Just to let you know the Walther is on the large side for carrying in the summer. It is also not small enough to slip in your pocket. I have been carrying my Kahr exclusively for riding and most days durring the summer (sometimes at night if I drive somewhere I will carry the Walther). Probably the most popular smaller firearm is a S&W J-frame revolver, but I prefer the Kahr.

Don,

I think in this fairly unique instance, cydewaze might be a truely second ammendment neutral person. Her original post did come off as anti-gun, but I am not sure that cydewaze actually is.

Yeah, but I happen to like the way it shoots. I also wouldn't mind a Glock 36, even though it's range isn't great I doubt I'd need to use it much, hopefully never and definitely not at long ranges. I dunno, still got a few years and by that time something new and more awesome will be out :)

Don,

I think in this fairly unique instance, cydewaze might be a truely second ammendment neutral person. Her original post did come off as anti-gun, but I am not sure that cydewaze actually is.
Thanks Tabor. I don't think I'm anti-gun, but I do think my right not to own one is just as legitimate as your right to own one. Why would anyone want someone (like me) who is uncomfortable around a gun to carry one?

You're dead-on with the hammer analogy though. I get just as annoyed at people who assume that every single traffic accident can be blamed on speed, when usually there were numerous other contributing factors that were equally responsible. I work for the Dept of Trans, so I have access to LOTS of traffic data, thus there's a lot of BS I can't be sold.

This brings us to the reading material you mentioned. While I'm sure those guys make great points, I'm always skeptical of research that's done by people who are already advocates of the subject material, because you can take almost any statistics and use them in a manner that proves your point. Example (and this kind relates to the previous paragraph): There were radio ads (in my area at least) that claimed that some incredibly high percentage of traffic accidents/fatalities involved marijuana, supposedly proving how dangerous it is. As cut and dry as that sounds, it was actually a case of selective interpretation of data. What they left out was that 1) almost all of those people were also intoxicated to the point of not being able to operate a vehicle regardless of the pot, and 2) the few who happened to not be drunk had some other debilitating factor that made them unable to drive safely, again regardless of the pot.

So it's easy to make numbers say pretty much anything you want.

A common assault and robbery, in which a cyclist was targeted. That makes it a bicycling safety issue worthy of posting.



"third posted assault and robbery of a cyclist in recent months"

So what information do you have that cyclist were really targeted and what information do you have which shows how many people who were not riding bikes were victims of common assault and robbery?

Was it more then 3 in recent months in DC"?

In other words you have to explain why you think a "third posted assault and robbery of a cyclist in recent months" means cyclists are being targeted?

Yeah, the only Metropolitan cops I ever see out and about are in G'town rounding up drunks. I can (and have) drive(n) all around residential DC late at night and not seen one cop out on patrol. As soon as I would pass into Montgomery Co. they're everywhere. There's a noticable difference on say Mass. Ave. b/t the MD and DC sides.

I live in suburban MD and our cops are pretty much useless. I've had a couple dealings with them in the past (only one was for any misdeed of my own :D ) and in every case they've been less than professional/helpful.

And I would say it is the same in all areas you don't see them much in one area in Brisbane but in other areas they are just about everywhere.

And the excuse I get is we cannot be everywhere because of the expense but if they come to the area where they are I say are more needed then they can make up the expense with help from dangerous drivers who speed, don't use blinkers etc etc.