Should Cyclists Pack Guns?

"Bill" wrote in message
t...
DI wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
t...
wrote:
Ummm,
Guys,
I meant to shoot a dog, not a person, and only then if it is in the
country, big, and about to take a chunk out of you. I don't even want to
know what the motorists around here are packing.
Everyone should own a gun, but keep it inside the house, not on the
bike.
I would rather a dog running away from getting shot again than have a
chunk of my leg chewed on, or worse.
Bill Baka

I read in your original post that you mentioned taking out the
windshield of a SUV, do dogs drive SUV's in your neighborhood?
Only the big ones.
That was only an off the cuff reply since some of the people around here
carry rocks in their pockets for the completely obnoxious drivers and
dogs.
No real guns that I know of.
Bill Baka

I knew what you meant, but still couldn't resist,

wrote:
On Apr 26, 7:22 am, "DI" wrote:
Point a CO2 BB gun at someone and you are likely to get your butt shot off
with the real thing, and they would be justified in doing so. Those
things are one of the most dangerous things you could ever carry.

Agreed. The most dangerous thing you can do with a gun is pull it out
and aim it at someone without the intent of using it, usually as a
scare tactic. To pull a gun without the _ability_ to use it is just
plain stupid. If the other guy has a gun, he now has both the law and
his survival instincts on the side of shooting you before you shoot
him. If you're waving your gun around, and he's properly trained,
you'll likely never see his firearm - though you'll feel it even if
just for a moment. Also, his buddy you didn't notice or know about
may be watching the altercation with great amusement, until you pull
out a gun. Now he's going to protect his friend and himself, and
you're going to get shot.

I am a cyclist by passion and a motorist for practical purposes.
Still, I have had confrontations with cyclists while driving. If one
of those cyclists ever pulled a gun, I would be in immedieate survival
mode. My first action, before even trying to shoot them, would be to
get low in the truck to lessen the chances of a round finding its mark
(me) and run them over. If they pulled a pellet gun, they'd still be
dead and I'd still be in the clear legally.

I'm not saying that there is no case to carry a firearm, I'm just
saying it's not something to bluff. If you're going to draw a weapon,
plan on taking down your target. If you can't safely and surely drop
your mark with said weapon (likely the case if the mark is human and
the weapon a pellet gun), don't draw it.

Ummm,
Guys,
I meant to shoot a dog, not a person, and only then if it is in the
country, big, and about to take a chunk out of you. I don't even want to
know what the motorists around here are packing.
Everyone should own a gun, but keep it inside the house, not on the bike.
I would rather a dog running away from getting shot again than have a
chunk of my leg chewed on, or worse.
Bill Baka

At 2.6 miles per minute, you don't really have time to get bored.
--- Pete Roehling on rec.motorcycles



At .26 miles per minute, You do not have time to get bored on a human
powered steed.----
====zen

"Brent P" wrote in message
...
In article , David Steuber wrote:

I've had **** thrown at me as well. Nothing injured me though,
fortunately. However, once the vehicle has passed you, shooting at it
would be revenge, not self defense. So you would be the one the cops
are putting in cuffs.

Did I say I would have shot at him? NO. He asked about me being attacked.
I am describing the situations.

OK, this guy was using his car as a weapon. But once you were on his
decklid, if you drew he could slam down on the gas, brake, and gas
again and then claim self defense. You would need to use the right
tactics to be justified here.

Again, I am describing the situation, not saying I would have used a gun.
Frank once again acted as if because it doesn't happen to him, it happens
to no one else thusly I am describing the events.

And then what happened? Did they kick your ass, or did you ride on
away? If the former, then brandishing would certainly have dissuaded
anyone not running for a darwin award.

I had to run away, which satisified the jollies they were looking for. I
think you've entirely missed the point. That point being some of us ride
in environments that contain hostile people behind the wheel of motor
vehicles.

Sounds like a gun wouldn't have helped here either. As for the angry
people, they don't seem to get that bicycles have all the same rights
and responsibilities of cars except on limited access highways.

You're missing the point. I've made no comment wether a gun could have
helped or not helped. I am describing what the 1 percenters are like
where I ride. That it's not the ideal world that Frank rides in.

However drivers can reasonably expect that a bicyclist is unarmed and
thusly someone they can attack. Change that assumption and these acts
would drop in occurance significantly.

5) almost the same location as the black audi driver... cept it was
before him. I move to the right edge to let a box truck by. Asshole
passes with about 2-3 inches space. In fighting not to be sucked under
I end up on the gravel and fall. This was in front of a cop who did
nothing, saying he didn't see it. This is why I never ride that far
right anymore, which of course makes for some more angry people....

Well you should have held your lane here.

Thank you captain obvious. I believe I made that clear above.

There
was only one time when the motorist stepped out of the car in a
menacing manner. When I stood my ground, he apparently decided he
wasn't as strong as I am. He got back into the car and left.

No gun here either?

I can't speak for Frank.

I've had at least two in memory get out. Both got back in. The last one
I remember was the guy in the dodge van that tried to crush me against
the tall square curb because he was so slow leaving a traffic light I
got tired of waiting for him and passed him using the left lane. This
caused him to find where the big pedal on the right is and then use his
vehicle as a weapon.

Did he even know you were there? I find it a little odd that you were
able to directly cause an action at a distance.

Yes he knew I was there. He was enraged that I passed him. He started
yelling at me when I passed by the driver's side window. He stopped, got
out and acted as if he was going to attack me physically.


and how could I forget the 'drive car' guy. This asian guy decides that
it's just wrong that I am ahead of him in a backup and preventing him
from kissing the bumper of the vehicle in front me. He start making
threats, nearly hits me in a passing attempt. I good 'I am not going to
take this sh*t and hold my ground' posture, worked momentarily, but
then he started it up again so I ended up gutter passing to get away
from him.

Keep in mind that a car is a more deadly weapon than a gun.

Of course it is. And the driver just says the magic words 'I didn't see
him' and they don't even get ticketed.

If it made people behave it might just be worth it to me.

Heinlein did say, "an armed society is a polite society." I believe
that to be true. In general. But I don't see using a gun to settle
trivial disputes as a practical use. I would rather save that level
of force for someone coming after me with a weapon or other
overwhelming physical force.

Did I say anything about a gun being used to settle trivial disputes? No.
If drivers had a reasonable expectation that a bicyclist was armed, they
would not behave in the manner that they do. The trivial disputes would
not occur in the first place. The drivers who do this seem to have a
common thread that because the bicyclist is 'weaker' they have command of
the road and are willing to use the size and power of their motor vehicle
to enforce it or merely to entertain themselves at someone else's
expense. Personally I wouldn't even have to carry a gun, drivers would
just need to know the possibility deadly force as self defense was
significant enough. Right now in the state I live it is aproximately
zero. And I wager 99+% of the exceptions, what makes it non-zero, being
uniformed cops riding bicycles. Make this a mere 5-10% and I think there
would be an improvement in behavior from the bullies behind the wheel.

It's not about using the gun or even having it, but the thought it might
be there.

I would just add that some countries the police do not even where guns and
their populations are all the less violent.
Proceed as per usual.

DI wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
t...
wrote:
Ummm,
Guys,
I meant to shoot a dog, not a person, and only then if it is in the
country, big, and about to take a chunk out of you. I don't even want to
know what the motorists around here are packing.
Everyone should own a gun, but keep it inside the house, not on the bike.
I would rather a dog running away from getting shot again than have a
chunk of my leg chewed on, or worse.
Bill Baka

I read in your original post that you mentioned taking out the windshield
of a SUV, do dogs drive SUV's in your neighborhood?


Only the big ones.
That was only an off the cuff reply since some of the people around here
carry rocks in their pockets for the completely obnoxious drivers and dogs.
No real guns that I know of.
Bill Baka

On Apr 26, 12:18 pm, (Brent P)
wrote:
In article .com, wrote:
It's not a question of paranoia. It's simply better to have a gun and
not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

Well, maybe not. IIRC, guns kept in the home for "protection" are
something like 40 times more likely to be used for killing a family
member than for defending against an intruder. That makes it not so
simple.

If you believe the department of made up statistics and odds.

Kellermann, A. et. al. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm
Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol.
314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.) A gun kept in the home is 43
times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than
an intruder.

I don't know if it's precisely accurate, but It's not made up. What
have you got that says otherwise?


In real life, the guy with the gun isn't a tough athlete who can whip
out his piece and blow away the bad guys driving toward him at high
speed.

The bad guy is usually a cowardly bulley getting his kicks by harrassing
someone that appears weaker. This is why they don't get out of their cars
and the few that do end up backing down when they realize that they don't
have their armored protection and are now dealing with someone who is in
good physical shape one-on-one.

I'd hope that, after all these millions of years, we could invent ways
of dealing with cowardly bullies other than threatening to kill them.
It seems a bit crude to me.

Again, I don't have the problems you have, Maybe there's something
about your behavior that you could change?

- Frank Krygowski

In article .com, wrote:

Again, I don't have the problems you have, Maybe there's something
about your behavior that you could change?

I could ride on sidewalks. Perhaps that is what you do? Just avoid
interaction. Of course that's very slow and has it's own dangers.

I could stop riding, or ride a whole lot less so I encounter fewer one
percenters. Is that what you do Frank? just ride a hand full of miles a
year?

Or maybe I can take a submissive role and just let the motorist do what
ever he wants and turn my safety over to them? Just move over to the
side when one comes near? Is that what you do Frank? Just get off the
road each time one comes near?

I could just back down to whomever is aggressive towards me. Be
submissive, probably won't get far like that and if past experience
shows anything they'll just take more and more. Is that what you do,
Frank? Appease the aggressive motorists?

So long as I use a bicycle as vehicle and not a toy, there will people
who are angered just because I am there. There is nothing I can do
about them. Equally I am not going to become submissive, because that
only encourages and rewards the poor behavior. And I sure the hell am
not going to give up riding. Nor am I going to ride so slow that I
won't be passing motor vehicles fair and square either.

On 26 Apr 2007 14:14:18 -0700, wrote:

On Apr 26, 12:18 pm, (Brent P)
wrote:
In article .com, wrote:
It's not a question of paranoia. It's simply better to have a gun and
not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

Well, maybe not. IIRC, guns kept in the home for "protection" are
something like 40 times more likely to be used for killing a family
member than for defending against an intruder. That makes it not so
simple.

If you believe the department of made up statistics and odds.

Kellermann, A. et. al. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm
Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol.
314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.) A gun kept in the home is 43
times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than
an intruder.

Utter bull****. Often cited by anti-gunners, totally
meaningless fake statistics, thoroughly debunked and discredited.

"all the gunshot deaths that occurred in King County, Washington
(population 1,270,000), from 1978 through 1983" - a tiny little
micro-cosm, unrepresentative of anything. The classic case of three
bling men feeling the parts of an elephant and having no clue what it
is. It takes NO ACCOUNT of the differences in society, culture,
economics, etc etc in that small area vs the rest of the country.

"A total of 743 firearm-related deaths occurred during this six-year
period," - that's 123 / year, out of 30,000 / year in the country as a
whole.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel013101.shtml

"The Fallacy of '43 to 1'
The all-time favorite statistic of the gun-prohibition lobby.

By Dave Kopel, of the Independence Institute
January 31, 2001 11:10 a.m.

Perhaps the most enduring factoid of the gun prohibition movement is
that a person with a gun in the home is 43 times as likely to shoot
someone in the family as to shoot a criminal. This "43 times" figure
is the all-time favorite factoid of the gun-prohibition lobby. It's
not really true, but it does tell us a lot about the gun-prohibition
mindset"

"Notably, Japan, which prohibits handguns and rifles entirely, and
regulates long guns very severely, has a suicide rate of more than
twice the U.S. level."

Further, it counts only DEAD criminals as 'self defenseive use of a
gun'. Those merely wounded ? Not counted. Those scared away ? Not
counted. Non-firing dfenseive display ? Not counted. Only if you no
only SHOT the bad guy, but KILLED him, do they count it as a
'defensive use of a gun'. IOW - utter bull****.

http://www.guncite.com/gun-control-k...ility%3A&ty2=w

aka http://tinyurl.com/y2mcd2

"Additional analysis of Kellermann's ICPSR dataset shows that just
over 4½ percent of all homicides, in the three counties Kellermann
chose to study, involved victims being killed with a gun kept in their
own home (see derivation). This supports the conclusion that people
murdered with a gun kept in their own home are a small minority of all
homicides, precisely the opposite of what an uncritical reader of
Kellermann's study would likely conclude."


I don't know if it's precisely accurate, but It's not made up. What
have you got that says otherwise?

Read the above.


I'd hope that, after all these millions of years, we could invent ways
of dealing with cowardly bullies other than threatening to kill them.
It seems a bit crude to me.

When they are threatening to kill you or seriously injure you
or others ( which is the only time shooting them is justified ), you
deal with them as needed. If they happen to be younger, stronger,
more numerous, armed, etc, that does not obligate you to give in to
them, nor to die.


Again, I don't have the problems you have, Maybe there's something
about your behavior that you could change?

- Frank Krygowski

--
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/

[leaving group distribution intact]

Brent P wrote:

So long as I use a bicycle as vehicle and not a toy, there will people
who are angered just because I am there. There is nothing I can do
about them. Equally I am not going to become submissive, because that
only encourages and rewards the poor behavior. And I sure the hell am
not going to give up riding. Nor am I going to ride so slow that I
won't be passing motor vehicles fair and square either.

I believe a lot of the problems you encounter has to do with where you
ride. Since you're in (or near) a major metropolitan area, you're bound
to encounter more problems than I would given that I ride in a rather
small town where lots of people ride probably due to population and
traffic volume alone.

I have had drivers shout at me and brush-pass me, but I haven't had
anything thrown at me as of yet. And I certainly am not submissive (e.
g., if I hear a car horn behind me while I'm riding in the right tire
track, I immediately take the lane.).

On Apr 26, 6:22 pm, (Brent P)
wrote:
In article .com, wrote:
Again, I don't have the problems you have, Maybe there's something
about your behavior that you could change?

I could ride on sidewalks. Perhaps that is what you do?

Nope. I ride roads.

I could stop riding, or ride a whole lot less so I encounter fewer one
percenters. Is that what you do Frank? just ride a hand full of miles a
year?

Nope. My typical year is 2000 to 2500 miles, admittedly decreasing
somewhat as I age. I hit 5000 in 2003. Not as many as some, of
course, but fairly respectable, I think, for my age.

Or maybe I can take a submissive role and just let the motorist do what
ever he wants and turn my safety over to them? Just move over to the
side when one comes near? Is that what you do Frank?

Nope. I take the lane anytime I judge it's too narrow to share.

I could just back down to whomever is aggressive towards me. Be
submissive, probably won't get far like that and if past experience
shows anything they'll just take more and more. Is that what you do,
Frank?

Nope. In fact, I've given quick lectures to quite a few motorists
over the years - and they weren't friendly lectures. Admittedly, I
doubt most had much lasting educational effect, but trust me, I've got
no reputation for submissiveness.

So long as I use a bicycle as vehicle and not a toy, there will people
who are angered just because I am there.

Oh, I don't doubt that. But I am curious what it is that triggers the
near-attacks you claim to have.

I know that the reaction I use for verbally abusive motorists is
usually something like just slowly shaking my head. The body language
conveys "I can't believe you're that dumb." The reaction I use when
I'm taking a lane and someone blows a horn is either the same, or to
sit up, look back, and give a one-hand, palm up expression of "What??
What do you want me to do?? I'm riding where I'm supposed to!" With
both of those, I'm trying to maintain an image of superiority. It
seems to work.

I can see that someone who instead waved single fingers, yelled
curses, etc. would get a different reaction. I'm not saying that's
what you do, but I wonder what the difference is.

- Frank Krygowski