Self Defense?
09-05-12 | 10:51 AM
#126
Member
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: Arlen, TX
Bikes: Trek Cruiser Classic
If I was in that theater, I'd have wished many were armed but that's just me. People died regardless. You don't go into a war zone with a sack of Valencia oranges, and that's exactly what that theater was for a short time. A war zone. Some might have been killed by stray bullets from defenders but that doesn't change the fact that people were killed anyway.
09-05-12 | 11:09 AM
#127
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 720
Likes: 1
From: Atlanta, Georgia
Bikes: 2012 Cinelli Mystic Rat, Nashbar CX
Simply having a carry permit doesn't prepare you for a firefight. Only proper training in the use of your weapon and close-in training would prepare you for this.
The down side to too many people carrying, is that someone without adequate training may shoot a defender who could have taken out the bad guy. An untrained person may have had a hard time trying to figure out who the real shooter was, could have caught a innocent in crossfire or been open to being shot themselves.
I have had a carry permit since I was 21. My dad took me to get my first one on my birthday. Only time I really carry is when I travel by car or I'm going into a remote area caving or camping or something like that.
The down side to too many people carrying, is that someone without adequate training may shoot a defender who could have taken out the bad guy. An untrained person may have had a hard time trying to figure out who the real shooter was, could have caught a innocent in crossfire or been open to being shot themselves.
I have had a carry permit since I was 21. My dad took me to get my first one on my birthday. Only time I really carry is when I travel by car or I'm going into a remote area caving or camping or something like that.
09-05-12 | 12:16 PM
#128
You gonna eat that?
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 14,917
Likes: 543
From: Fort Worth, Texas Church of Hopeful Uncertainty
Bikes: 1966 Raleigh DL-1 Tourist, 1973 Schwinn Varsity, 1983 Raleigh Marathon, 1994 Nishiki Sport XRS
I don't. I live in a civil state of mind. I treat people civilly and going on 50 years, they respond in kind.
__________________
I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.
Originally Posted by bragi 
"However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."
I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.
Originally Posted by bragi "However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."
09-05-12 | 01:18 PM
#129
Señior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 13,748
Likes: 10
From: Michigan
Bikes: Windsor Fens, Giant Seek 0 (2014, Alfine 8 + discs)
Zooombie thread is back from the graaaave!
__________________
Work: the 8 hours that separates bike rides.
Work: the 8 hours that separates bike rides.
09-05-12 | 02:17 PM
#130
You gonna eat that?
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 14,917
Likes: 543
From: Fort Worth, Texas Church of Hopeful Uncertainty
Bikes: 1966 Raleigh DL-1 Tourist, 1973 Schwinn Varsity, 1983 Raleigh Marathon, 1994 Nishiki Sport XRS
Yeah, for several days now. :\
__________________
I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.
Originally Posted by bragi "However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."
I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.
Originally Posted by bragi "However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."
09-05-12 | 02:44 PM
#131
Descends like a rock
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,034
Likes: 16
From: Fort Worth, TX
Bikes: Scott Foil, Surly Pacer
Same here. I know there's crazy bad people out there that might do crazy things, but the odds of that kind of thing being the end of me ranks down way below getting hit by a car, hitting a pothole or big object that throws me from my bike, getting attacked by rabid dogs, contracting some nasty pneumonia, bad diet leading to obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and death, getting into a car accident, cancer from eating a bad diet, exposure to chemicals, etc... and numerous other things I could list. When I take care of eliminating all of those risks completely I might think about if I need to carry a gun.
09-05-12 | 02:55 PM
#132
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,869
Likes: 1,108
From: Tallahassee, FL
There is no annecdotal evidece for your scenario however...
No anecdotal evidence for "friendly fire" shootings? The incident at the Empire State building was similar. Although it was police who shot the innocent bystanders. Would untrained (or minimally trained) citizens have fared better?
Again there is ample annecdotal evidence that it does prove effective.
Anecdotal evidence does not prove anything. That's why it is qualified as being anecdotal.
No anecdotal evidence for "friendly fire" shootings? The incident at the Empire State building was similar. Although it was police who shot the innocent bystanders. Would untrained (or minimally trained) citizens have fared better?
Again there is ample annecdotal evidence that it does prove effective.
Anecdotal evidence does not prove anything. That's why it is qualified as being anecdotal.
09-05-12 | 03:18 PM
#133
Banned.
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Likes: 0
There is no annecdotal evidece for your scenario however...
No anecdotal evidence for "friendly fire" shootings? The incident at the Empire State building was similar. Although it was police who shot the innocent bystanders. Would untrained (or minimally trained) citizens have fared better?
No anecdotal evidence for "friendly fire" shootings? The incident at the Empire State building was similar. Although it was police who shot the innocent bystanders. Would untrained (or minimally trained) citizens have fared better?
Most gun enthusiasts (which is not the same group as concealed carry holders) have far more time firing their weapon than a typical police officer who only needs to qualify once a year...
No, you are correct, it is not proof, it is however indicitive, based upon real life evidence, which your hypotheticals are not.
09-05-12 | 03:25 PM
#134
Descends like a rock
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,034
Likes: 16
From: Fort Worth, TX
Bikes: Scott Foil, Surly Pacer
I have anecdotal evidence of a guy who talked to a girl that was crying one day, abusive boyfriend came out and saw him and started beating him up. He pulled his weapon in self-defense and killed the guy. He's now serving a long prison sentence because a zealous prosecutor told the jury he and the girl were cheating on the boyfriend and probably plotted to kill him. The story was fabricated, but everyone likes a juicy story, and the girlfriend refused to testify in his favor. Now he's in prison. That happened in gun-friendly Texas. If he hadn't carried the gun that day, he might have been beaten up pretty good, but would probably be alive, healed-up and free today.
09-05-12 | 03:40 PM
#135
Banned.
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Likes: 0
I have anecdotal evidence of a guy who talked to a girl that was crying one day, abusive boyfriend came out and saw him and started beating him up. He pulled his weapon in self-defense and killed the guy. He's now serving a long prison sentence because a zealous prosecutor told the jury he and the girl were cheating on the boyfriend and probably plotted to kill him. The story was fabricated, but everyone likes a juicy story, and the girlfriend refused to testify in his favor. Now he's in prison. That happened in gun-friendly Texas. If he hadn't carried the gun that day, he might have been beaten up pretty good, but would probably be alive, healed-up and free today.
So we believe you or the judgment of a jury who listened to the evidence the prosecutor provided?
While it is possible that a prosecutor would risk their license and immunity from prosecution to falsify evidence. And it is possible that 12 separate individuals would believe that falsified evidence after hearing the defendents attorney fail to refute that evidence. And then that no appeals court could detect the prosecutors fabrication? Well it is possible, but it is much more likely that your beliefs/statements about what happened are mistaken.
09-05-12 | 03:49 PM
#136
Descends like a rock
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,034
Likes: 16
From: Fort Worth, TX
Bikes: Scott Foil, Surly Pacer
So we believe you or the judgment of a jury who listened to the evidence the prosecutor provided?
While it is possible that a prosecutor would risk their license and immunity from prosecution to falsify evidence. And it is possible that 12 separate individuals would believe that falsified evidence after hearing the defendents attorney fail to refute that evidence. And then that no appeals court could detect the prosecutors fabrication? Well it is possible, but it is much more likely that your beliefs/statements about what happened are mistaken.
While it is possible that a prosecutor would risk their license and immunity from prosecution to falsify evidence. And it is possible that 12 separate individuals would believe that falsified evidence after hearing the defendents attorney fail to refute that evidence. And then that no appeals court could detect the prosecutors fabrication? Well it is possible, but it is much more likely that your beliefs/statements about what happened are mistaken.
09-05-12 | 03:53 PM
#137
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,826
Likes: 0
From: Zinj
Bikes: '93 911 Turbo 3.6
hey there everyone, i was wondering what you all do as far as self defense is concerned. I am sure that there comes a time that you may or may not fear for your safety in a given situation. I guess it all depends on your local laws, but i was wanting to know what you all do as a commuter to ensure your own self preservation.
09-05-12 | 04:14 PM
#138
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,826
Likes: 0
From: Zinj
Bikes: '93 911 Turbo 3.6
Ask some of those ppl who were in that movie theater when it got shot up if they wish they were armed. Bet you'd get an almost resounding yes.
And if several of them were, would they just start shooting in the general direction of the muzzle flashes in the dark and smoke filled room? Seems like an especially poor example of when private citizens with guns would actually be helpful rather than increasing the relative danger.
I support the right of citizens to be armed, but I don't see it as being terribly viable for self defense in many circumstances. There is often great potential danger to innocent bystanders. Where there are no other people around, there's a fair chance the criminal will use the element of surprise. The gun toter comes out ahead in those situations in the movies, but not so often in real life. There are a host of other scenarios where the concept just falls flat. Such as the group of menacing thugs 'talking' to you on the street corner. You're scared because they're trying to scare you. But is that all they're doing? You don't actually have legitimate cause to use force when you're merely being intimidated and such situations can turn from intimidation (when you can't even legally pull the weapon) to assault so quickly that when you're surrounded you may have no chance to get your piece out before being knocked out from behind. Or the situation never turns to assault - the thugs just wanted to get their jollies by intimidating someone. That's an extremely infuriating situation to be in, but it isn't justifiable cause for lethal force. Or even for brandishing the weapon.
The reality is that guns in private hands are not used to successfully thwart criminals very often. Sure, there are anecdotal cases, but the number of times where this really works is exceedingly small. As it is now, the number of people who legally carry concealed is not large. And licensing procedures tend to vet the carriers fairly well. But if it were to become commonplace, I would be much more worried about that than I am now about criminals.
And if several of them were, would they just start shooting in the general direction of the muzzle flashes in the dark and smoke filled room? Seems like an especially poor example of when private citizens with guns would actually be helpful rather than increasing the relative danger.
I support the right of citizens to be armed, but I don't see it as being terribly viable for self defense in many circumstances. There is often great potential danger to innocent bystanders. Where there are no other people around, there's a fair chance the criminal will use the element of surprise. The gun toter comes out ahead in those situations in the movies, but not so often in real life. There are a host of other scenarios where the concept just falls flat. Such as the group of menacing thugs 'talking' to you on the street corner. You're scared because they're trying to scare you. But is that all they're doing? You don't actually have legitimate cause to use force when you're merely being intimidated and such situations can turn from intimidation (when you can't even legally pull the weapon) to assault so quickly that when you're surrounded you may have no chance to get your piece out before being knocked out from behind. Or the situation never turns to assault - the thugs just wanted to get their jollies by intimidating someone. That's an extremely infuriating situation to be in, but it isn't justifiable cause for lethal force. Or even for brandishing the weapon.
The reality is that guns in private hands are not used to successfully thwart criminals very often. Sure, there are anecdotal cases, but the number of times where this really works is exceedingly small. As it is now, the number of people who legally carry concealed is not large. And licensing procedures tend to vet the carriers fairly well. But if it were to become commonplace, I would be much more worried about that than I am now about criminals.
Where is the statistic to support your claim about the ineffectiveness of guns in private hands? Yes, there are annecdotal cases, and there are also legitimate studies and inquiries, like the Perdue student who raised the obvious point about the Aurora shooting - Aurora's strict gun laws obviously did nothing to prevent the shooting.
See:
https://www.usatoday.com/news/comment.../09/ncoppf.htm
https://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...n-violence-ban
https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2...struck-down-2/
https://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...a-handgun-ban/
These pretty much all refute your claim about the ineffectiveness of handguns in private ownership at the municipal level. Hardly anecdotal, and hardly exceedingly small. Do you have a stat to show the number of carriers relative to the number of non-carriers? If you want to rant about personal politcal views, go to a pundit forum and hammer away.
Ah man...I said it was unecessary and you got me all worked up.
09-06-12 | 07:55 AM
#139
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
I love these threads, by bicyclists, about fighting. I often go over to martial arts and firearms sites to learn about bicycles.
Please, continue this useful thread, so I can hear more about this elephant that is very like a snake.
Please, continue this useful thread, so I can hear more about this elephant that is very like a snake.
09-06-12 | 08:03 AM
#140
2nd Amendment Cyclist
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,036
Likes: 1
From: Cary, NC
Bikes: Schwinn 2010 World Street, Handsome Speedy w/ SRAM Apex
09-06-12 | 08:20 AM
#141
2nd Amendment Cyclist
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,036
Likes: 1
From: Cary, NC
Bikes: Schwinn 2010 World Street, Handsome Speedy w/ SRAM Apex
If you want to learn more about cycling, I suggest a cycling-centric site like bikeforums.net
However, the number of people that concealed carry WHILE cycling is low. And, the fact is, there are specific concerns that you have to deal with while CCW on a bike that you don't have to deal with otherwise. There IS room for such a cross-interest discussion, but there is no forum that specifically deals with concealed carry cycling, nor is it likely that one would generate enough traffic to remain in operation. So, such conversations must need happen either on a bike forum or a gun forum.
The reality is, I've gotten more response on bikeforums.net from cyclists who carry than I have on glocktalk.com from carriers who cycle. And, after filtering out the responses from people who aren't part of the cross-interest group, the information is more useful.
09-06-12 | 02:04 PM
#142
Mostly harmless ™
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,462
Likes: 243
From: Novi Sad
Bikes: Heavy, with friction shifters
I think what you're describing won't meet regulations for a legal shotgun, commonly a barrel length greater than 18 inches and overall length greater than 26 inches. That means you'd be carrying a weapon illegally. That makes it problematic to claim self-defense. And this is before you meet all of the requirements for justifiable lethal force.
Before you even think of carrying a gun for self-defense and assuming you've already gone through all of the usual firearms safety courses it is worthwhile reviewing some wise commentary on the web:
No Nonsense Self-Defense
Before you even think of carrying a gun for self-defense and assuming you've already gone through all of the usual firearms safety courses it is worthwhile reviewing some wise commentary on the web:
No Nonsense Self-Defense
Just some of my thoughts, doubts:
I'm avoiding violence 99% of the time. Backing off etc. I almost never carry a firearm. I believe it can make more problems than it solves and the area I live in is not one where anyone will attack me (a 30sh year old male) unprovoked.
However, when I DO carry a gun (concealed), I am even more wary and trying to avoid conflict. Does that make me actually safer? My gut feeling is 9 out of 10 situatins, having a gun is a big responsibility and potential danger. But still... Makes me wonder. Would it be safer still to always carry. Just in case you can't avoid getting attacked?
09-06-12 | 02:30 PM
#143
2nd Amendment Cyclist
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,036
Likes: 1
From: Cary, NC
Bikes: Schwinn 2010 World Street, Handsome Speedy w/ SRAM Apex
However, when I DO carry a gun (concealed), I am even more wary and trying to avoid conflict. Does that make me actually safer? My gut feeling is 9 out of 10 situatins, having a gun is a big responsibility and potential danger. But still... Makes me wonder. Would it be safer still to always carry. Just in case you can't avoid getting attacked?
Will he grab for it? Have you had gun retention training? Do you practice it?
Carrying a gun doesn't mean you have to use it. Having it gives you options. But be aware that if you have it, you have to also consider what your options are if an attacker makes a grab for it. (and another reason that I'm not terribly fond of open carry except as a political statement).
09-06-12 | 02:52 PM
#144
Banned.
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Likes: 0
Carrying a gun doesn't mean you have to use it. Having it gives you options. But be aware that if you have it, you have to also consider what your options are if an attacker makes a grab for it. (and another reason that I'm not terribly fond of open carry except as a political statement).
09-06-12 | 03:16 PM
#145
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,869
Likes: 1,108
From: Tallahassee, FL
These pretty much all refute your claim about the ineffectiveness of handguns in private ownership at the municipal level. Hardly anecdotal, and hardly exceedingly small.
These are all op-ed pieces, so their un-cited stats are both immediately suspect and functionally worthless as proof of anything. You really should present unbiased peer reviewed scientific study if you're intending to support your opinion. These merely indicate that the authors feel the same way you do. In any case, even if we stipulate the veracity of the stats provided, they don't actually show that handguns effectively prevent crime. They show that crime has risen in some places that have passed gun bans, but that does not prove that gun bans cause an increase in violent crime. It's an unsupported leap of logic as correlation does not prove causation. One of the first rules of statistical analysis.
Well this could turn into pro gun vs anti gun banter real quickly, which is completely unnecessary.
Unnecessary indeed. And you'll hear no anti-gun banter from me, unless you consider anything short of endorsement of gun use to be anti-gun. I oppose laws banning private ownership of firearms. I own firearms myself. I simply think that anyone who believes that carrying on a bicycle is going to ensure their safety is misguided. And I think those who seem to believe that if everyone carried we'd all be safer needs to meet everyone first. I've met a lot of the general public and I can't say I have a whole lot of confidence in their ability to make correct decisions in a split second under great pressure. But if y'all believe that carrying will make you safe, by all means go for it. I'll just try and keep my distance.
These are all op-ed pieces, so their un-cited stats are both immediately suspect and functionally worthless as proof of anything. You really should present unbiased peer reviewed scientific study if you're intending to support your opinion. These merely indicate that the authors feel the same way you do. In any case, even if we stipulate the veracity of the stats provided, they don't actually show that handguns effectively prevent crime. They show that crime has risen in some places that have passed gun bans, but that does not prove that gun bans cause an increase in violent crime. It's an unsupported leap of logic as correlation does not prove causation. One of the first rules of statistical analysis.
Well this could turn into pro gun vs anti gun banter real quickly, which is completely unnecessary.
Unnecessary indeed. And you'll hear no anti-gun banter from me, unless you consider anything short of endorsement of gun use to be anti-gun. I oppose laws banning private ownership of firearms. I own firearms myself. I simply think that anyone who believes that carrying on a bicycle is going to ensure their safety is misguided. And I think those who seem to believe that if everyone carried we'd all be safer needs to meet everyone first. I've met a lot of the general public and I can't say I have a whole lot of confidence in their ability to make correct decisions in a split second under great pressure. But if y'all believe that carrying will make you safe, by all means go for it. I'll just try and keep my distance.
09-06-12 | 05:36 PM
#146
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 720
Likes: 1
From: Atlanta, Georgia
Bikes: 2012 Cinelli Mystic Rat, Nashbar CX
You good folks are correct and I apologize for adding to the gun banter.
I would hope to never to resort to violence in any form. Especially on my bike. I think pepper spray will keep the savages/dogs at bay, but I don't even carry that.
I have an amazing ability to put people on ignore. Just like on the internet!
I would hope to never to resort to violence in any form. Especially on my bike. I think pepper spray will keep the savages/dogs at bay, but I don't even carry that.
I have an amazing ability to put people on ignore. Just like on the internet!
09-06-12 | 05:38 PM
#147
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 720
Likes: 1
From: Atlanta, Georgia
Bikes: 2012 Cinelli Mystic Rat, Nashbar CX
09-06-12 | 09:47 PM
#148
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
If you want to learn more about concealed carry self-defense, I suggest a ccw-centric forum, like glocktalk.com's, concealed carry sub-forum. While a Glock-centric site, it is probably the best for any concealed-carry firearms question. Lots of active and retired law enforcement, lawyers, concealed carry citizens with decades of experience, and let's not forget Mas Ayoob is a frequent contributor (For those not in the know, that would be analogous to having Lance Armstrong regularly posting on bikeforums.net's '41').
If you want to learn more about cycling, I suggest a cycling-centric site like bikeforums.net
However, the number of people that concealed carry WHILE cycling is low. And, the fact is, there are specific concerns that you have to deal with while CCW on a bike that you don't have to deal with otherwise. There IS room for such a cross-interest discussion, but there is no forum that specifically deals with concealed carry cycling, nor is it likely that one would generate enough traffic to remain in operation. So, such conversations must need happen either on a bike forum or a gun forum.
The reality is, I've gotten more response on bikeforums.net from cyclists who carry than I have on glocktalk.com from carriers who cycle. And, after filtering out the responses from people who aren't part of the cross-interest group, the information is more useful.
If you want to learn more about cycling, I suggest a cycling-centric site like bikeforums.net
However, the number of people that concealed carry WHILE cycling is low. And, the fact is, there are specific concerns that you have to deal with while CCW on a bike that you don't have to deal with otherwise. There IS room for such a cross-interest discussion, but there is no forum that specifically deals with concealed carry cycling, nor is it likely that one would generate enough traffic to remain in operation. So, such conversations must need happen either on a bike forum or a gun forum.
The reality is, I've gotten more response on bikeforums.net from cyclists who carry than I have on glocktalk.com from carriers who cycle. And, after filtering out the responses from people who aren't part of the cross-interest group, the information is more useful.
09-07-12 | 12:38 AM
#149
Mostly harmless ™
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,462
Likes: 243
From: Novi Sad
Bikes: Heavy, with friction shifters
I simply think that anyone who believes that carrying on a bicycle is going to ensure their safety is misguided. And I think those who seem to believe that if everyone carried we'd all be safer needs to meet everyone first. I've met a lot of the general public and I can't say I have a whole lot of confidence in their ability to make correct decisions in a split second under great pressure. But if y'all believe that carrying will make you safe, by all means go for it. I'll just try and keep my distance.
So while I'm more careful when carrying gun, I fear in case something bad happens, in all the adrenaline, would I be able to make a clean cut decision whether my life is really in danger, or just my property and teeth? Especially when attacked by more than one attacker. Law is very dim in those cases. It is written "you can use gun to defend yourself when attacked by more than one attacker and help is not to be expectet within any reasonable time". But that is very dim and people usualy can't proove their self defence in these situations.
In my town, there has been only one shooting during robbery when people were not ressisting. Accidental fire from the scared clumbsy robber. So from that statistics it turns out it is safer not to be armed.
09-07-12 | 01:19 PM
#150
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,826
Likes: 0
From: Zinj
Bikes: '93 911 Turbo 3.6
These pretty much all refute your claim about the ineffectiveness of handguns in private ownership at the municipal level. Hardly anecdotal, and hardly exceedingly small.
These are all op-ed pieces, so their un-cited stats are both immediately suspect and functionally worthless as proof of anything. You really should present unbiased peer reviewed scientific study if you're intending to support your opinion. These merely indicate that the authors feel the same way you do. In any case, even if we stipulate the veracity of the stats provided, they don't actually show that handguns effectively prevent crime. They show that crime has risen in some places that have passed gun bans, but that does not prove that gun bans cause an increase in violent crime. It's an unsupported leap of logic as correlation does not prove causation. One of the first rules of statistical analysis.
Well this could turn into pro gun vs anti gun banter real quickly, which is completely unnecessary.
Unnecessary indeed. And you'll hear no anti-gun banter from me, unless you consider anything short of endorsement of gun use to be anti-gun. I oppose laws banning private ownership of firearms. I own firearms myself. I simply think that anyone who believes that carrying on a bicycle is going to ensure their safety is misguided. And I think those who seem to believe that if everyone carried we'd all be safer needs to meet everyone first. I've met a lot of the general public and I can't say I have a whole lot of confidence in their ability to make correct decisions in a split second under great pressure. But if y'all believe that carrying will make you safe, by all means go for it. I'll just try and keep my distance.
These are all op-ed pieces, so their un-cited stats are both immediately suspect and functionally worthless as proof of anything. You really should present unbiased peer reviewed scientific study if you're intending to support your opinion. These merely indicate that the authors feel the same way you do. In any case, even if we stipulate the veracity of the stats provided, they don't actually show that handguns effectively prevent crime. They show that crime has risen in some places that have passed gun bans, but that does not prove that gun bans cause an increase in violent crime. It's an unsupported leap of logic as correlation does not prove causation. One of the first rules of statistical analysis.
Well this could turn into pro gun vs anti gun banter real quickly, which is completely unnecessary.
Unnecessary indeed. And you'll hear no anti-gun banter from me, unless you consider anything short of endorsement of gun use to be anti-gun. I oppose laws banning private ownership of firearms. I own firearms myself. I simply think that anyone who believes that carrying on a bicycle is going to ensure their safety is misguided. And I think those who seem to believe that if everyone carried we'd all be safer needs to meet everyone first. I've met a lot of the general public and I can't say I have a whole lot of confidence in their ability to make correct decisions in a split second under great pressure. But if y'all believe that carrying will make you safe, by all means go for it. I'll just try and keep my distance.