There are places in America where there are lots of guns and virtually NO violent crime whatsoever. Wyoming, Montana, Utah, basically rural America.
Really? If that were the case, how can you defend the idea of guns as needed for self-protection?
People don't get killed by guns. They get killed by PEOPLE.
Really? How do you explain Columbine, Va. Tech? Do you think as many kids would have been killed by
any other means?
In order for the assertion that handguns are needed for bicycle commuting its proponents would simply have to show significant statistical evidence of actual cases where: a handgun was used to legally and effectively in the defense of one's life, while riding a bicycle, during a commute. So far, I've not seen this evidence. In addition, whereas they can offer a million scenarios (in theory) where someone may have wished they had a gun, it's far more statistically revealling to show actual, supportable cases. In the absence of this, this seems to me to be nothing more gun propaganda and fearmongoring.