|
Originally Posted by tjspiel
(Post 8304426)
You should probably read some of the follow up reports like this one:
http://www.startribune.com/local/min.../11545356.html .... Thank you for posting the link to the follow-up story. |
Originally Posted by CliftonGK1
(Post 8304672)
"Should I carry a weapon when riding in a bad area?"
"Just don't ride there" "Don't tell me what to do" "Look at this non-related anecdotal evidence" "Look at this picture of a machine gun" "Crazy gun nut" "Wussy liberal" |
Originally Posted by z3px
(Post 8304824)
How rediculous. A little question like that would start all of this...
Kind of like asking if a cyclist has to come to a complete stop at a stop sign if there is no traffic around, eh? ;) |
Originally Posted by mjw16
(Post 8304710)
And there it is........It's funny how a debate such as this typically devolves into name calling and insults. Although I'm often labelled an "anti-gun, liberal sheep", the irony is that I'm not necassarily anti gun-I know that there are many, legitimate sporting uses for certan guns. I personall enjoy shooting, when I have the chance. I am, however, also anti-gun violance/death/proliferation, etc. I don't think that's an unreasonable stance or worthy of insult. In my experience, the gun advocates simply want their guns and imagine myriad scenarios where they are able to use them (usually involving the shooting of "perps" and defending damsels in distress) thereby justifying the carrying of said weapon (s). The statistics do not bear out those scenarios-not even close. A handgun in one's home or on one's person is many, many times more likely to be a liability to the owner, rather than a safety measure. They then turn to personal attacks when confronted with logic, reason, statistical evidence, etc. It seems that it's somehow threatening to their manhood when the main thrust of their fantasy is undermined through this debate. Another thing I've learned, is that they are so attached to the notion of guns as empowering, life-saving, testosterone pills that they will never concede any part of their perspective so, I reserve my advice for those who are on the fence about gun ownership/carrying. I hope the original poster makes the smart choice, it's obvious to the more informed among us: take a safer route, ride at safe times, leave the gun at home. I mean, carrying a gun while your riding your bike....think about how silly that sounds.
So those that take a realistic view of the practical limitations of using a gun are now "anti gun liberal sheep." lol... It's one thing to bluster about on a bike forum as to "what you would do" but the cold reality is that a gun quickly becomes a liability when confronted with that split second decision to take a life. And that split second decision is based on VERY limited information that will affect you the rest of your life. |
Originally Posted by z3px
(Post 8304824)
How rediculous. A little question like that would start all of this...
1. lycra vs regular clothes 2. which is better? road bike or... 3. Walmart 4. carrying a weapon 5. riding on sidewalks 6. running lights, stop signs, or Critical Mass is almost guaranteed to generate multiple pages of replies |
Oh Oh...I have an opinion.
1.) Avoid the bad areas, prevention is the best method, also don't smoke or partake in other behaviors with known consequences. 2.) If you still want to carry, get licensed and train your ass off. Practice at home drawing while laying in a heap on the floor. Avoid the less than lethal, most people who carry pepper spray have never used it, so their chances of hitting an attacked is rather limited (also do you know for a fact the spray will actually spray?) Carry on your body with a compact frame 9mm or larger, anything under that caliber could have problems with heavy clothing or multiple layers (if you think because it's warm this isn't an issue you should know that many baddies will wear several layers to remove if the cops are given a description by a victim). And of course avoid Lycra it prints like a b***h. :thumb: With all that being said, I am a firearm enthusiast, but I do not carry a piece. I live near a questionable (for Minnesota) neighborhood and avoid contact with people are also questionable. I do carry a large knife (for cutting fruit or opening boxes ;) ) and dress like a hardcore freak, so if the residents of my fine city try to roll me for the $0 I carry or the cheap looking bike I'm riding, go for it I do physical labor for my employment, workout and am handy with a blade. As for the OP, go for it I'll never see the business end of it because I leave people alone and enjoy a life of relative peace (I certainly wouldn't attack anyone without significant provocation). |
I own several guns. Enjoy the heck out of target shooting.
I would never consider carrying one while biking. Too cumbersome, in my opinion, and once you let loose the bullet you have no control over where it goes, should you miss your intended target. If I was riding in an area where I thought I needed some extra protection, I would probably buy a Taser and find a way to attach it to my bike where I could easily grab and use it. http://www.taser.com/products/consumers/Pages/C2.aspx My son is a brand new Seattle Police Officer, just got of of the academy about a month ago. As part of his training he got tased. I saw the video of him being tased - he was totally incapacitated for about ten seconds. He says it's not something he would want to go through again. |
Originally Posted by treebound
(Post 8304847)
Thank you for posting the link to the follow-up story.
|
Originally Posted by mjw16
(Post 8304710)
And there it is........It's funny how a debate such as this typically devolves into name calling and insults. Although I'm often labelled an "anti-gun, liberal sheep", the irony is that I'm not necassarily anti gun-I know that there are many, legitimate sporting uses for certan guns. I personall enjoy shooting, when I have the chance. I am, however, also anti-gun violance/death/proliferation, etc. I don't think that's an unreasonable stance or worthy of insult. In my experience, the gun advocates simply want their guns and imagine myriad scenarios where they are able to use them (usually involving the shooting of "perps" and defending damsels in distress) thereby justifying the carrying of said weapon (s). The statistics do not bear out those scenarios-not even close. A handgun in one's home or on one's person is many, many times more likely to be a liability to the owner, rather than a safety measure. They then turn to personal attacks when confronted with logic, reason, statistical evidence, etc. It seems that it's somehow threatening to their manhood when the main thrust of their fantasy is undermined through this debate. Another thing I've learned, is that they are so attached to the notion of guns as empowering, life-saving, testosterone pills that they will never concede any part of their perspective so, I reserve my advice for those who are on the fence about gun ownership/carrying. I hope the original poster makes the smart choice, it's obvious to the more informed among us: take a safer route, ride at safe times, leave the gun at home. I mean, carrying a gun while your riding your bike....think about how silly that sounds.
FACT: Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 per day. * Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State Univ. Anti-gun Democrat Often the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminals) is shed. FACT: Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes per day are prevented just by showing a handgun. In less than 0.9% of the time is the gun ever actually ever fired. * Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State Univ. FACT: Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times- more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds. * Fall 1995, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology This means that, each year, firearms are used 65 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. FACT: 92.7% of law enforcement officials believe that citizens should be able to purchase firearms for self-defense and sporting purposes. * 1999 Police Survey, National Assoc. of Chiefs of Police FACT: Of the 2,500,000 annual self-defense cases using guns, more than 7.7% are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse. * U.S. Dept. of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, **** Victimization in 26 American Cities, 1979 Not meant as a personal attack. There are "many, many" more. Guns in responsible, trained, hands can and do save lives. IF YOU THINK YOU NEED A GUN TO GET THROUGH AN AREA, DO NOT GO!!!! IT IS YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HAVE AND CARRY FIREARMS. IF YOU DO NOT EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT THAN YOU STAND A CHANCE TO LOSE IT!!! |
There was on time when I wished I had a gun with me. I was riding on the San Gabriel river bike path. It's a closed, paved river path (the river is concrete not a regular river) when a pick-up truck got on the trail and hit me from behind - the skell got out with a tire iron and threw my Merckx into the back of the truck. I tried to get it from the back of the truck but he came at me with the tire iron so I backed off. He went to the end of the path to where the gate was locked for vehicle traffic, turned around and came back at me. It would have been perfect to shoot him through the windshield - but I'm glad I didn't have a gun - he'd be dead and I would have had years of legal trouble. And besides that, there are many times during a ride where I would shoot people.
***Edit - but I'm not saying that you shouldn't carry a gun; maybe you have more self-control than I do. I am not pro-gun but I'd rather see a dead skell than a dead cyclist.*** |
Originally Posted by VoodooTiger
(Post 8305780)
Knowing that you enjoy shooting, I would have hoped that you would have gotten your facts straight.
FACT: Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 per day. * Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State Univ. Anti-gun Democrat Often the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminals) is shed. FACT: Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes per day are prevented just by showing a handgun. In less than 0.9% of the time is the gun ever actually ever fired. * Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State Univ. FACT: Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times- more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds. * Fall 1995, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology This means that, each year, firearms are used 65 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. FACT: 92.7% of law enforcement officials believe that citizens should be able to purchase firearms for self-defense and sporting purposes. * 1999 Police Survey, National Assoc. of Chiefs of Police FACT: Of the 250,000,000 annual self-defense cases using guns, more than 7.7% are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse. * U.S. Dept. of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, **** Victimization in 26 American Cities, 1979 Not meant as a personal attack. There are "many, many" more. Guns in responsible, trained, hands can and does save lives. IF YOU THINK YOU NEED A GUN TO GET THROUGH AN AREA, DO NOT GO!!!! IT IS YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HAVE AND CARRY FIREARMS. IF YOU DO NOT EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT THAN YOU STAND A CHANCE TO LOSE IT!!! |
I just went on the Smith and Wesson site - who knew that guns were just as expensive as bikes?
|
Originally Posted by longbeachgary
(Post 8305916)
I just went on the Smith and Wesson site - who knew that guns were just as expensive as bikes?
My father still has his 1968 Perazzi side by side competition breech loader. I can only imagine what that's worth now. |
Originally Posted by longbeachgary
(Post 8305878)
I am anti-gun but stats like this make so much more sense than name calling. It's hard to agrue with facts. Thanks for posting VT.
Be careful of "facts" found on the internet. Especially if they contradict each other: FACT: Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times- more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds. * Fall 1995, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology This means that, each year, firearms are used 65 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. FACT: Of the 250,000,000 annual self-defense cases using guns, more than 7.7% are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse. * U.S. Dept. of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, **** Victimization in 26 American Cities, 1979 Is it 2,500,000 or 250,000,000? The second number is 100 times higher than the first and you'll find this same exact quote in all kinds of places. Or maybe the number of self-defense cases using guns dropped by a factor of 100 between 1995 and 1979. if 250,000,000 is the real number and you also believe the stat that there are about 250,000,000 firearms in the U.S. then on average each firearm will be called upon once each year to defend its owner. Right. |
Originally Posted by tjspiel
(Post 8306116)
Be careful of "facts" found on the internet. Especially if they contradict each other:
FACT: Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times- more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds. * Fall 1995, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology This means that, each year, firearms are used 65 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. FACT: Of the 250,000,000 annual self-defense cases using guns, more than 7.7% are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse. * U.S. Dept. of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, **** Victimization in 26 American Cities, 1979 Is it 2,500,000 or 250,000,000? The second number is 100 times higher than the first and you'll find this same exact quote in all kinds of places. Or maybe the number of self-defense cases using guns dropped by a factor of 100 between 1995 and 1979. if 250,000,000 is the real number and you also believe the stat that there are about 250,000,000 firearms in the U.S. then on average each firearm will be called upon once each year to defend its owner. Right. |
Originally Posted by AlmostTrick
(Post 8304590)
You mean like the one calling forum members liberal sheep just because they question the benefits of gun carrying while riding? :rolleyes:
Yes, pretty much. The response when someone asks "should I carry a weapon", the only response, should be---"Do you have a concealed carry permit? Do you feel confident in doing so? Then let your conscience be your guide." Nobody will ever tell someone who doesn't want to carry one to do so---ever. But liberal pansies always feel obligated to tell people what NOT to do. They can be given instance after instance where carrying a firearm is a good idea and still they cling to their ill-informed mythology. |
Originally Posted by VoodooTiger
(Post 8306212)
You sir found my error. It is 2.5 million, as in the first fact you posted. I will edit my post. Thanks
|
Originally Posted by mjw16
(Post 8304710)
And there it is........It's funny how a debate such as this typically devolves into name calling and insults. Although I'm often labelled an "anti-gun, liberal sheep", the irony is that I'm not necassarily anti gun-I know that there are many, legitimate sporting uses for certan guns. I personall enjoy shooting, when I have the chance. I am, however, also anti-gun violance/death/proliferation, etc. I don't think that's an unreasonable stance or worthy of insult. In my experience, the gun advocates simply want their guns and imagine myriad scenarios where they are able to use them (usually involving the shooting of "perps" and defending damsels in distress) thereby justifying the carrying of said weapon (s). The statistics do not bear out those scenarios-not even close. A handgun in one's home or on one's person is many, many times more likely to be a liability to the owner, rather than a safety measure. They then turn to personal attacks when confronted with logic, reason, statistical evidence, etc. It seems that it's somehow threatening to their manhood when the main thrust of their fantasy is undermined through this debate. Another thing I've learned, is that they are so attached to the notion of guns as empowering, life-saving, testosterone pills that they will never concede any part of their perspective so, I reserve my advice for those who are on the fence about gun ownership/carrying. I hope the original poster makes the smart choice, it's obvious to the more informed among us: take a safer route, ride at safe times, leave the gun at home. I mean, carrying a gun while your riding your bike....think about how silly that sounds.
And that, sir, is your problem. You "know there are legitmate sporting uses...". That's the same nonsense people who think firearm ownership is about hunting always parrot. Then you use the false stats about handguns. Another poster in this thread posted the Kleck statistics. The NRA magazines have a column titled "The Armed Citizen" which is full EVERY MONTH of stories where armed citizens WITH HANDGUNS defend themselves. But still you cling to your elitist beliefs. And then you go on your "I know better", paternalistic rant about testosterone pills and such. You did everything short of calling them phallic symbols. Very nice. |
Originally Posted by tjspiel
(Post 8305134)
Sure thing. It's hard to know exactly what happened. Certainly it was a brutal crime. It was a robbery however and not just a random beating. 38th and Chicago is known for a certain amount of illegal commerce and the victim probably knew that. Even if he wasn't trying to buy drugs, he was in an area best avoided after dark.
Should he have been there at that time of night? Hey, I ride my bike at that time of night sometimes, but I live in a small town that's deserted then. If I lived in Murderapolis and wanted to ride to a buddy's house at 1AM I think I would put my pistol in my fanny pack. |
Originally Posted by longbeachgary
(Post 8305878)
I am anti-gun but stats like this make so much more sense than name calling. It's hard to agrue with facts. Thanks for posting VT.
|
Originally Posted by lil brown bat
(Post 8306326)
Except that they're not "stats" and they're not "facts". They're soundbite conclusions drawn from sources that aren't fully referenced. Not stats...not facts.
What about the Bureau of Justice?: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ or the FBI?: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/index.html more surveys: http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html Government findings: http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/lott.pdf http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/165476.pdf |
Originally Posted by wgaynor
(Post 8303197)
Plus, with the ammunition for the AR15 being expensive and non existant right now, it's probably not loaded.
|
Originally Posted by Schwinnrider
(Post 8306296)
The NRA magazines have a column titled "The Armed Citizen" which is full EVERY MONTH of stories where armed citizens WITH HANDGUNS defend themselves.
|
Originally Posted by Schwinnrider
(Post 8306316)
I seriously doubt that father of four IT specialist was buying drugs. He either gave them his money and then got beaten to death, or he got beaten then they took his money. However, the fact that the wallet was found at the scene leads me to believe the former is more likely. What criminal is going to pick through the guy's wallet, LEAVING FINGERPRINTS? A criminal would have taken the entire wallet and ditched it somewhere far away from the crime scene. No, I suspect the victim meekly handed over his money and then was killed. So, yes, having a firearm in that instance would have been beneficial. Having pepper spray would have been. Or a Taser.
Should he have been there at that time of night? Hey, I ride my bike at that time of night sometimes, but I live in a small town that's deserted then. If I lived in Murderapolis and wanted to ride to a buddy's house at 1AM I think I would put my pistol in my fanny pack. Nobody deserves to die like this, but the family is in some denial, IMO. Going to a friend's house to "show him a tire" doesn't pass the smell test. |
Local and national drug laws may be to blame, BTW. People should be able to buy a half-ounce of weed without having to come into contact with the criminal element. Michael Phelps rips the occasional bong hit and has won only 14 Olympic medals (to date). What a crippling scourge!
|
Originally Posted by tjspiel
(Post 8304915)
Any question involving:
1. lycra vs regular clothes 2. which is better? road bike or... 3. Walmart 4. carrying a weapon 5. riding on sidewalks 6. running lights, stop signs, or Critical Mass is almost guaranteed to generate multiple pages of replies |
Originally Posted by VoodooTiger
(Post 8306636)
But they are facts and stats. How would you like me to reference them? Gary Kleck, a criminologist who was studying to prove that guns were dangerous found this stat and fact that 2.5 million people defended themselves with a gun. He found that number by his own research and citing the National Crime Victim Survey. His book was cited in a Supreme Court case. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck) Would you like me to read you the book? Here is a website http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html or http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html
What about the Bureau of Justice?: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ or the FBI?: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/index.html more surveys: http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html Government findings: http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/lott.pdf http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/165476.pdf Some might be mostly true, others will be distorted or misleading and some will probably be out and out wrong. |
Originally Posted by Schwinnrider
(Post 8306266)
Yes, pretty much. The response when someone asks "should I carry a weapon", the only response, should be---"Do you have a concealed carry permit? Do you feel confident in doing so? Then let your conscience be your guide." Nobody will ever tell someone who doesn't want to carry one to do so---ever. But liberal pansies always feel obligated to tell people what NOT to do. They can be given instance after instance where carrying a firearm is a good idea and still they cling to their ill-informed mythology.
|
Don't taze me, bro.
This thread has gone, as expected, in a meandering downward spiral.
For those who are reading it to seek real options to the OP's question and their similar situations, I'd like to suggest NOT using a Taser. Primarily because range is limited, skill level is higher than you think, and you only get one round. Pepper spray is much better if you get confronted by a group and are not a trained professional. Not as good, of course, as all the other grand options presented by those who feel entitled to their own facts, opinions, and presumptions. And I don't actually recommend pepper spray, I just recommend Tasers even less. Even before considering that there are micro-ids in Taser discharge that allow rounds to be traced, since no one here would really be interested in a stealth untraceable discharge. |
Originally Posted by tjspiel
(Post 8306995)
You don't think the pro-guncontrol folks have their own facts and statistics? I'm sure that if you find a pro gun control website you'll find a bunch of stats that are just as cherry picked to prove their point as the stats above are.
Some might be mostly true, others will be distorted or misleading and some will probably be out and out wrong. I hated...HATED statistics class in college. It was miserable, and I still couldn't tell you what the hell a Z-test or an ANOVA is. BUT, the one thing I do remember from that class was that on the first day, the prof told us to never trust statistics because they can be manipulated to say whatever you want. As a demonstration, he offered that statistically, the average person in the world has one testicle and one ovary. Made things crystal clear. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:17 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.