Should Cyclists Pack Guns?

On Apr 19, 12:34 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:18:19 -0400, Just A User



wrote:
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:51:02 -0400, Just A User
wrote:

Upon mentioning VA Tech, I have to put in my two cents, Cho was a wack
job, but personally I think the right to bear arm part of the
constitution needs to be re thought. In countries, such as the U.K.
where gun control laws are very strict, they don't have incidents like
those at the campus on Monday.

Well, actually they do, but not in the quantity that the U.S. has, and
they seem to be somewhat less successful, even if the intent was
there. There have been incidents in Germany and Scotland and several
in Canada.

Starting this thread - often initiated by those who like to tell
everyone what they will do to this driver or another - is pretty much
stupid. Doing it today is what makes it tasteless to boot.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
I agree it's pretty tasteless, as I pointed out, until all guns are
banned and destroyed, these types of events will happen, but until that
time comes, control is the key.

Ken

Yeh, right. Let's only let the Government have them.

Where did you get that one, Mein Kampf ?

Don't you know any history? The Nazi introduced gun control about 5-6
years after attaining power. They were not particularally worried
about a few burgers with guns.

--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available onlinehttp://pmilligan.net/palm/

On Apr 19, 9:01 pm, jcr wrote:
Brent P wrote:
In article , Just A User wrote:

Upon mentioning VA Tech, I have to put in my two cents, Cho was a wack
job, but personally I think the right to bear arm part of the
constitution needs to be re thought. In countries, such as the U.K.
where gun control laws are very strict, they don't have incidents like
those at the campus on Monday.

1) They do.
2) Crime is up, as citizens cannot defend themselves. The criminals if
they don't have guns just use other weapons.
3) The UK government is becoming more controling. Recent legislative
activity in the UK includes having government employees busting into
people's homes to take items equal in value to any fines (such as parking
tickets) owed to the government.

Gun bans increase crime by making working conditions safe for criminals.
Allowing people to carry guns decreases crime by making working
conditions unsafe for criminals.

In the same part of the country there was another school shooting prior
to this one, except in that case students went and got their guns from
their cars and ended it at 3 dead. Relying on the police to do something
hours later is folly and bans will never keep the guns out of the hands
of someone bent on doing something.

I suppose one could make the case that if only a couple of the students
in those classrooms were packing heat (legally registered to carry a
concealed weapon), the outcome would likely have been quite different.
The fight would certainly have been more fair!

Certainly would have been. On the other hand do you really want a
bunch of 19 year old students, whooping it up in the local univ bars
and carrying all sorts of heavy weaponry when the males get into a
strutting contest? Hell, you'd probably lose more people on a normal
Saturday night.

Check the odds. Mad psyco vs. ****ed off adolescent.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

On Apr 19, 12:03 pm, wrote:
On 19 Apr 2007 08:34:20 -0700, donquijote1954



wrote:
Hey, we get screamed at, doored at, spitted upon, pushed around and
even killed, isn't it time we enjoy the same benefits as other
Americans? When is a cyclist going into a rage and mow down all those
careless SUV drivers who make us feel worthless?

Imagine this scenario: You get hit and as you roll down the pavement
you draw and...

I guess we cyclists are too pacific for that (or just that we aren't
Republicans), but in light of all that violence out there, shouldn't
we rethink our strategy (everyone to himself) and get together to
launch a good nonviolent campaign?

Here's a good identifying T-shirt...
http://www.cafepress.com/burncalories

Still Bush defends the right to bear arms

Still, it's the Constitution that affirms ( not 'gives' ) that
RIGHT, and he abides by the Constitution.



EVEN as President George Bush told the nation he was praying for the
victims, and that the killings in a place of learning would affect
"every American classroom and community", a White House official said
Mr Bush continued to believe in the "right to bear arms".

Excellent ! He supports the Constitution and fundamental
rights now matter HOW much the left-wing nutters would like to ignore
those things in their never ending drive to engineer a society more to
their own liking !

Of course, you do realise that most
people (other than USA citizens) view your Constitution as an
amusing
anachronism?

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available onlinehttp://pmilligan.net/palm/

"Wayne Pein" wrote:
.... bicyclists don't pay registration fees or need licenses because they
do little damage to other people, the roads, or the environment.

Oh really?

So how come you don't pay for your special little piece of tarmac? Should
it be free at the exclusion of vehicular traffic? Why should vehicular
taxes pay for your free asphalt that impedes their travel?

Many bicyclists don't want "exclusive lanes." We're usually OK with
generously sharing a part of OUR standard lane with faster motorists.

So you have no problem riding in the middle of the road with traffic? So
we don't need bicycle lanes then. Give them back to those who did pay for
them and could use them. I hope by "generously sharing" you weren't
referring to bicyclists who ride side-by-side and take up the entire rural
byways.

Bicycle lanes reduce bicyclists' space, get filled with debris, and are
first a benefit to motorists for easier passing, and secondly a benefit to
some bicyclists who are fearful of overtaking traffic.

I don't have difficulty dealing with bicyclists when I drive my car or
motorcycle. But apparently inept drivers do. Are you inept?

Sorry, but you seem more inept at understanding your selfish demands on road
usage and encroach into the lanes of those who do pay for their use. As it
is, you pay nothing for something that costs a lot to maintain and build.

I agree that the debris problem comes from their lack of usage - which could
be put to better use for traffic flow and parking. If you want it clean, why
not pay for it? It shouldn't be paid out of the pockets of those who don't
or cannot use a bicycle.

I wouldn't have a problem with bicycles paying a license fee in states where
they wish to have exclusive lanes or paved trails. Might even serve to help
locate lost or stolen bikes as well. Would you be opposed to paying a $100
year for a license/sticker like dirt bikers who don't use the tarmac?

Dirt bikers pay a Green Sticker fee to ride off highways. No reason a
bicyclist should be immune from paying for something that cost more money to
maintain and build than a dirt biker's Green Sticker tax funds pay to
maintain. Mountain bikers do trail damage in forests as do dirt bikers and
want they want the same or more privileges of doing or using it for *free.*

B~

In article . com,
"Bill H." wrote:

On Apr 19, 9:03 am, wrote:
On 19 Apr 2007 08:34:20 -0700, donquijote1954

Excellent ! He supports the Constitution and fundamental
rights...

Just not civil liberties.

Question: Do you support the right for women to vote? The founding
fathers didn't. But we changed THAT to our liking, didn't we?

Interestingly, it didn't cause civilization to fall, as many predicted
it would. (News for them: In many frontier states, where women did an
awful lot of work just to stay alive, they had the vote in state and
local elections long before it became an issue nationwide.)

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!

"John Kane" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 19, 12:03 pm, wrote:
On 19 Apr 2007 08:34:20 -0700, donquijote1954


Of course, you do realise that most
people (other than USA citizens) view your Constitution as an
amusing
anachronism?

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

--

Why have so many countries copied the US Constitution in some form or
another in the past 200 years.

donquijote1954 wrote:
On Apr 19, 1:55 pm, Olebiker wrote:

On Apr 19, 12:52 pm, (Brent P)
wrote:


1) They do.
2) Crime is up, as citizens cannot defend themselves. The criminals if
they don't have guns just use other weapons.
3) The UK government is becoming more controling. Recent legislative
activity in the UK includes having government employees busting into
people's homes to take items equal in value to any fines (such as parking
tickets) owed to the government.

I rather appreciate a comment often attributed to Benjamin Franklin:
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves
neither liberty nor security"


I guess we should disband HOMELAND SECURITY then.

Yep

wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:08:32 GMT, Outback Jon
wrote:
Besides, anyone else remember the stories of how difficult it was to buy
a loaf of bread in the old Soviet Union?

I heard it was pretty easy, as long as you didn't mind
standing in line for 4 days for 1/4 loaf of week old bread, and your
sister was sleeping with the local Commisar :-)


Hehe - 4 day waiting period for bread. Guess it cut down on the crime
committed with said bread...


--
"Outback" Jon - KC2BNE

AMD Opteron 146 ) and 6.1 GHz of other AMD power...
http://folding.stanford.edu - got folding? Team 48435

2006 ZG1000A Concours "Blueline" COG# 7385 CDA# 0157
1980 CB750F SuperSport "CoolerKing"

On Apr 19, 10:15 pm, "B. Peg" wrote:
"Wayne Pein" wrote:
.... bicyclists don't pay registration fees or need licenses because they
do little damage to other people, the roads, or the environment.

Oh really?

So how come you don't pay for your special little piece of tarmac?

Actually, I do. I pay taxes and fees for my cars and motorcycle, plus
other taxes that end up used for construction and maintenance of
roads. When I ride my bicycle, I'm on roads I helped pay for.

And I'm causing far less damage and expense than I do when I'm using
my other vehicles.

Should it be free at the exclusion of vehicular traffic?

In my state, bikes _are_ vehicular traffic. They're defined that way
in state law. But no, I don't care to exclude motor vehicle traffic
(assuming that's what you mean). I'm competent at sharing the road,
and most drivers are. Some yahoos in cars are not, but you can't
prevent a bell curve from having a bottom tail.

Why should vehicular
taxes pay for your free asphalt that impedes their travel?

'Taint free. I help pay for it. And if my presence impedes your
travel, it's likely because you're not as competent at driving as one
would hope. But again, there's that bell curve...


Many bicyclists don't want "exclusive lanes." We're usually OK with
generously sharing a part of OUR standard lane with faster motorists.

So you have no problem riding in the middle of the road with traffic?

I certainly don't. Like Wayne, I'm no fan of bike lanes.

So we don't need bicycle lanes then.

Many, many cyclists are of that opinion.

Give them back to those who did pay for them and could use them.

You're misinformed about the issue of paying for them, but I'm willing
to give them up.

I hope by "generously sharing" you weren't
referring to bicyclists who ride side-by-side and take up the entire rural
byways.

In actual fact, that is generally legal. Read the state laws, or the
Uniform Vehicle Code. Most states specifically permit two-abreast
riding. And it is sometimes necessary for a cyclist to take a lane,
for reasons many motorists don't comprehend.

One difficulty cyclists have is that there are too many people who
think they know all about how it should be done, but who actually are
- well, the bottom of yet another bell curve. Cyclists you think of
as rude may simply be careful, and reacting to situations you're not
even dimly aware of.

Of course, it _is_ possible some cyclists are just rude. But
motorists are hardly innocent of that!

Sorry, but you seem more inept at understanding your selfish demands on road
usage and encroach into the lanes of those who do pay for their use. As it
is, you pay nothing for something that costs a lot to maintain and build.

Sorry, but you seem to be inept at understanding the relevant laws,
and the reasons cyclist sometimes must be in your precious way, as
well as the economics of road and traffic expense.

I agree that the debris problem comes from their lack of usage - which could
be put to better use for traffic flow and parking. If you want it clean, why
not pay for it? It shouldn't be paid out of the pockets of those who don't
or cannot use a bicycle.

If you're talking about debris in bike lanes, I don't want to clean
them, because I don't want bike lanes at all, at least in any
situation I've encountered. Take that issue up with a bike lane fan.

I wouldn't have a problem with bicycles paying a license fee in states where
they wish to have exclusive lanes or paved trails. Might even serve to help
locate lost or stolen bikes as well. Would you be opposed to paying a $100
year for a license/sticker like dirt bikers who don't use the tarmac?

Hell yes. It would be like paying a $100 fee for a walking license.

Cyclists cause zero road damage. They require zero police enforcement
expense. They don't generate the need for expensive infrastructure
like freeways, heavy-duty bridges, or even traffic lights. They
generate zero pollution, zero health problems. They cause nearly zero
injuries to any other road user.

If you accurately figured the true costs of your motoring, you'd
probably find you're paying a tiny fraction of it. Non-drivers are
subsidizing you.

- Frank Krygowski

On 19 Apr 2007 18:51:46 -0700, John Kane wrote:

On Apr 19, 7:45 pm, Larry Bud wrote:
"The U.S. is not the only country in which random acts of gun violence
have erupted in seemingly everyday circumstances to destroy lives,
families and communities," said Britain's Guardian newspaper. "But the
U.S. is one of the few countries that seems collectively unwilling and
politically incapable of doing anything serious to stop such things
happening again."The slayings Monday at Virginia Tech reinforced a
perception that in the U.S., it is "as easy to buy weapons as a loaf
of bread," in the words of one Russian woman on a Moscow street. "Any
madman can get hold of a gun," said Natalya Ivanova, a 22-year-old
secretary.

The murder rate outside of the inner cities in the US is very close to
the murder rate in Britain, and the inner cities are usually the areas
with the most constrictive gun laws.
^ restrictive ?

Good. Quarantine the inner cities , have custom checks and body
searches on everyone entering or leaving the inner cities and get back
to us. The arguement is idiotic. If I can buy a gun in Virginia or
Maryland and take the Metro back to DC. then the law is useless.

Predictably, you miss the point.

The point is, the vast majority of law-abiding people in this
country should not have their rights taken away in some vain attempt
to control the behavior of the monkeys in our ghettos.

By definition, only the criminals in DC have guns. Where /
how they got them is not the issue. The issue is that law-abiding
peole have been defacto unilaterally disarmed. Thus, the little
gang-bangers and other deviants have free reign, knowing that no
law-abiding person has the ability to shoot back, which makes them
safer targets.



John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/