What is it with people lately requesting "thread locks" when the conversation doesn't suit them?

haha, yeah. women and children safely go about their business day or night, but you won't even ride through my neighbourhood without a gun. chump.

Maybe if y'all weren't riding around escalating things it wouldn't be a "bad" neighbourhood.

Actually, you can fight if you cant see or breathe. When LEO and CO's go through certification to carry OC Pepper Spray, CS Spray, or Mace and Stun type weapons, they must first have it used on themselves and demonstrate a series of strikes and kicks through a gauntlet. In doing so, they realize the limitations and the effects of the non lethal weapons.

If somebody is trying to do you bodily harm and possibly end your life, why would you use the least resistance possible?

Better yet, if your that scared to be there, don't ride there.

If you are being held at gun point, it stands you reason that you were indeed attacked. Being subjec tot he threat of being shot IS an attack. You may not have been harmed, but you were attacked.

Okay, you win, thread lock request deleted, carry on

How do you know what neighborhoods I ride through, and how would you know if I do so with or without a gun?
Chump? Nah, not at all.

I was agreeing with your observation about the fact that it's all a matter of perception. I didn't mean YOU specifically!

I know, I just like using that smileycon dude thing

if I thought you meant me specifically I would have used this one

and if someone was coming at me with a gun or pepperspray it'd be this one

This is a misleading statement. In addition to being better trained in firearm proficiency/marksmanship than most of the general public, they are also more familiar with: firearm handling, defensive tactics, practical firearm defense, use of force procedure/legality, how to de-escalate use of force situations, non-lethal defense tactics, etc. Just the mere fact that the initial thread has been so thoroughly discussed/considered, would make it a hard position to defend should an actual shooting occur and charges and or trial follow. I would never want to be on the receiving end of a prosecuter saying something like: "you mean to say that you intentionally rode through a dangerous area and willfully and intentionally brought a firearm and discharged it in a public area, resulting in the injury or death of another person or bystander even though you could have simply chosen another route and avoided the likeliehood of said encounter entirely"? Nope, I don't need to run around shooting people or getting into gun fights to prove that I have the "right" to own a firearm.

Um ... how about just joining the local gangs?

Reminds me of an incident in Poland, years ago. A co-worker and I were sitting on the stoop of a business in the old Warsaw Ghetto when an agitated looking guy walked past. I barely noticed him and was looking in the other direction, however, my co-worker saw that he had stopped and was reaching into his waist band for something (we think it was a knife). He was about 12 feet away and coming toward us when he stopped dead in his tracks, put whatever it was away, and retreated. Nobody was hurt and nobody had to endure any legal entanglements or charges. You know how we defended againts this? We simply stood up and made eye contact. In addition, I've either defused countless situations through verbal means or, abley defended myself with my bare hands-I have never once felt the need to carry a firearm in any situation, even on my daily commute into DC.

Interesting topic. I used to ride through "bad" areas of Atlanta after getting out of work at 2 or 3AM. And then bike to my house in a "bad" area. My only weapon would have been sprinting, or my U-Lock. I rode in downtown Los Angeles after hours too. Worked at 9th and Gladys, a rather scary spot, and lived at 7th & Normandy. I've ridden through the Tenderloin and Mission district in SF many a late night/morning, etc. To me, it's all in people's heads (not a bad thing), i.e., their perception. Are you safer carrying a weapon like a pistol? I dunno. There are a lot of what-ifs involved here.

What if you pull your pistol in self-defense? Now the next time you ride through there you are "the guy on the bike with the pistol" ... a marked man, so to speak.
What if you ride through there 3 times a day for 10 years and never needed to carry it? Seems like a waste of energy to me. The resources that could have been used in the quest for personal protection could have been put towards a more selfless way.
What if .... What if .... What if ...
If you think you need one, and you really want one, and you can get one, and carry one legally, and it is one of your rights, then by all means make the choice. There's no one in here that can decide for you. Your world through your perception is just that.

As for me, a simple nod of the head or just keeping my eyes on the road always got me by. I was always another vehicle just passing through. I'll add my agreement that riding "around" an area is always an option. Those of you that think otherwise are, well, wrong. Good luck with your decision and your ride[s].

Good point. Just 'cause some smuck is great at target practice on the range doesn't mean he's prepared to win anything in a real life street situation.

I've been shot and beaten on South Park Avenue in Tucson.

Which places me in Arizona.

Which means he's got to be kidding when he states I have a "duty to retreat."

Um, no, they are not, as the poster stated. I grew up in a law enforcement family. I've shot with many police officers, and I can wholeheartedly agree with RugerBen. The vast majority of police officers only shoot when it's time for qualification. Most police officers are not firearms enthusiasts. My dad was a state trooper, and a firearms enthusiast---but he was into guns way before he became a cop. Studies have shown that armed citizens have a higher hit percentage in shootings than police officers do.

Now, you're incorrect in your assumption rerosecution. If the poster lives in a state with a shall-issue CCW permit and shoots someone in defense of his life, he likely will not be charged---if it's a case of him just pedaling along and getting jumped. Your straw man argument about "being in the wrong place and looking for trouble" doesn't wash. Now, if he was in a bar and escalated a fight while carrying a firearm he would be in trouble.

Being in a shady neighborhood isn't "looking for trouble", either in the real world or in a legal sense. We don't all live in upper class suburbs. Some people live in rough places with rough people.

had the OP said that he lived in a rough neighborhood rather than rides through one, the argument of finding a different route wouldn't wash. what if you can't afford anything but "rough neighborhoods", do you have a right to protect yourself? the law and common sense says yes.

i carry and i have common sense. they're not mutually exclusive.

A gun writer Mas Ayoob gives the wise advice that if you wouldn't go into an area unarmed, you shouldn't go in armed.

Thanks for backing me up there. I was at work the rest of the day and couldn't get back to the comp to reply.

And wow, someone quoted Masad Ayoob on BF? That's a first.

I am editing to add that I did not mean this to insult police officers. I have seen some spectacularly good shooters who were/are LEOs. But for MOST cops, the gun is just a tool that they have to put up with. not something with which they train regularly because their lives depend on it.

But he doesn't, so it does. What's your point? Are you seriously saying that carrying a weapon and going into a situation where you believe you will have to use it is smarter than riding a few blocks out of your way?

I'm reluctant to enter this debate, although I do have my point of view.

That said, I'd just like to note how glad I am that there aren't more bike-jackings, given that it's easier to see who's riding a bike worth something than to determine if someone is carrying anything of value on their person.

I'm trying to wrap my head around your statement, and am getting a headache.
If someone "shoots someone in defense of his life", (why not just call it killing someone) how do you then argue a "case of him just pedaling along and getting jumped."
You then say he "likely will not be charged." Likely??
Are you willing to be charged with manslaughter for killing someone just interested in your backpack?
Are you able to prove your life was in danger?
Is it worth the risk?

The testosterone increases exponentially on this subject as the thread lengthens. The recommendations for automatic rifles clipped to your frame usually starts around page 5. By then, it's shoot any bas**rd that gets in your way!

The best advice here has been post #2.

It seems like a redundancy of tubing...

Just wanted to throw in my 2 cents. I like guns, have several, and beleive in my right to defend my home and family...but im going to work. If my glock 17 falls out of my pack and lands on the floor while Im chatting with somebody in the morning in the lobby, well that could be a problem. Probably going to get some peper spray though. Couple spots on the route are dark trails where a crackhead with two by four could un-horse me.

No, I'm not saying that at all, that's where "common sense" comes into play. What I'm suggesting is that avoiding the situation is the easy solution (and the correct one), but it doesn't make for very compelling discussion. The more interesting question is what happens if the difficult situation, the "rough neighborhood" can't be avoided?

That's not a good idea at all.

You live in Murderapolis. Why don't you Google the name "Mark Loesch" and get back to me? Wait, let me do it for you.
https://www.startribune.com/local/11557486.html

Police continued their investigation Saturday into the violent death of a man who had been riding his bicycle in south Minneapolis.

Mark Loesch, 41, of Minneapolis, died of multiple blunt-force head impacts, the Hennepin County Medical Examiner's office said Saturday. His death was ruled a homicide.

Loesch went for a ride after the 10 p.m. news Wednesday but never returned.

He was found barely breathing on a lawn on the 3700 block of Elliot Avenue S. -- less than 1.5 miles from his home -- about 7 a.m. Thursday. He died before paramedics arrived. His bike was nearby; his wallet and cell phone had been left at home.

Loesch, married 16 years, was a father of four. He worked as an information-technology consultant and was an avid cyclist. He might have been going to show a new tire he put on his rebuilt bicycle to a friend.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just what makes you think all crime is non-violent? The cyclist in the above story---IN YOUR TOWN---was attacked and murdered for no good reason. They didn't steal his bike. They didn't take his wallet. They just killed him. Beat him to death. I'm sure you'll respond with the same BS line---"Oh, they probably attacked him from the side and knocked him off his bike." But what if they didn't? What if his assailants just cornered him and THEN beat him to death? Should he have been riding through a bad neighborhood in the middle of the night? Absolutely not. But sometimes people don't have good sense. Sometimes people are naive. But just because someone does something naive doesn't mean he should be beaten to death for it, or robbed of his possessions.

Why do you think all robbery crimes are just simple stickups? You think today's class of criminal is just going to walk up. say "Give me your bike/backpack!" and run away? No. The trend now is to beat the hell out of you even if you meekly comply. Seriously. I know you've heard of the Mark Loesch case but still you insist on clinging to your Pollyannaish ideas. Why? I'm not telling you to carry a weapon. I'm just don't understand how something horrible can happen in YOUR TOWN and you still refuse to believe it CAN happen?