Should Cyclists Pack Guns?

Mike Young wrote:

"Wayne Pein" wrote in message


For criminals, it's to impose personal will by threat or actual use of
deadly force. For law abiding citizens, its for self defense from
criminals. For you, it's to stuff in your mouth and remove yourself
from the gene pool.


Funny. Your earlier messages prompted me to ponder on how society
coddles the weak, and interferes with Darwinian natural selection. Have
a nice ride today. Be careful out there; the impatient poke behind you
could be me.

BTW, self defense *is* imposition of personal will.


Seems to me that those who have to rely on an engine are the weak.
Bicyclists are the strong. But, I'll be careful. BTW, if you are the
impatient poke behind me you should think twice about being an idiot. I
might be packing a gun and would hate to be forced to impose my personal
will.

Wayne

"evelyn" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 2, 4:55 pm, wrote:
On May 2, 2:12 pm, evelyn wrote:



I've taken self defense classes, karate
classes and finally a class to be certified to carry a fire arm. I'm
not living in the fairy tale world where nothing bad ever happens.
Even in rural, country communities, crime can occur.

Of course it _can_. We hear that sort of thinking all the time - the
fact that no, disaster is NOT literally impossible.

It's that kind of thinking that gets people driving 1000 miles because
they're afraid of flying, or never riding bikes because they're afraid
of getting hit by a car. Problem is, such thinking often puts people
into worse conditions than the one they fear. Don't fly, get in a car
crash instead (much more likely). Don't bike, die of heart disease
while sitting safe on your couch.

Just like crime, getting hit by a meteorite can occur. Having a tree
topple on you as you ride by can occur. So can having an earthquake
crack the road open and swallow you. But when the odds of a
particular danger get low enough, it's just not worth worrying about.

What do you suggest women do?

The first thing I'd suggest is simply not being afraid! It's not that
bad out there!

IMO, taking a self-defence class is fine. I believe the few bad guys
that are out there are influenced by a person's confidence, or lack of
same. Staying out of really sketchy neighborhoods makes sense to me
too (although I routinely ride through some that scare more timid
folk).

But I'm struck by the fact that I've never, ever, in 30+ years of
cycling, met a man or woman who felt the need to have a pistol ready
at their side. Somehow all those people are surviving. Maybe you
should observe what most cyclists do, and imitate that?

Why do I? Again, this is America and if I want to carry a weapon for
protection, I have that right. I don't have to be like others, I'm my
own person. I am fully capable of handling my weapon and I am
perfectly within the law to carry it. In
Virginia, I can carry a concealed weapon. Therefore, I will continue
to carry it, no matter what other people may say.
- Frank Krygowski


I would add that it may make you feel over confident.
Police can tell you. A person coming through your door with a knife while
you are sitting 12 feet away watching TV with a gun beside you will be able
to kill you before you can fire even once. That is why they killed so many
people with knives only I believe.
With no element of surprise it is alot harder I would say.
But like riding with a helmut you probably take chances you would not
because you feel safer when you are not.

Statements like "it only takes one time" indicate you're not
being realistic.


that I would find realistic. Just like whenever I am on the road

"Wayne Pein" wrote in message
...
Stephen! wrote:
Wayne Pein wrote in news:4638b259$0$9929
:


Hey Boy, "Sharing" by your and other's definition seems to mean,
"Bicyclists stay right in the lane so motorists can pass."


CVC 21202. Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed
less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction
at that time *shall* ride as close as practicable to the right-hand
curb or edge of the roadway

NC§20-146(b) “Upon all highways any vehicle proceeding at less than the
legal maximum speed limit shall be driven in the right-hand lane then
available for thru traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand
curb or edge of the highway...”

In NC bicyclists use the right lane, or if the lanes are not marked then,
like other vehicles, as far to the right as practicable.

Your state attempts to be discriminatory to bicyclists. However,
practicable means that the bicyclist chooses what that distance is. And,
the "normal" speed of traffic is subject to interpretation. If bicyclists
are traffic, which they are, then "normal" is bicyclist speed. Further,
your statute doesn't explicity say motorists can pass in the same lane. It
merely implies it. I doubt that statute would hold up in court.

Wayne

Yeah, I do not see any cyclists shaking their fists and honking because cars
are going faster than normal for him. Count your blessings.

On Thu, 03 May 2007 09:19:59 -0400, dgk wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 13:47:37 -0700, Turby
wrote:

On 2 May 2007 10:00:40 -0700, wrote:

On May 2, 12:10 pm, Turby wrote:
On 2 May 2007 07:23:29 -0700, wrote:


Again - so many fearful people in this country. It's kind of sad.

Yeah, it is. The statistics say that one out of three women in America
will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime.

Oh? Do you have a citation for that?

There are plenty of cites. It doesn't take much effort to find them.
As the CDC page points out, the stats are variable and difficult to
pin down, but the one thing that sticks out is that rapes are entirely
too common. I can't think of anyone I knew who was murdered, and
almost no one who was robbed at gunpoint, but I know numerous women
who were raped.

http://tinyurl.com/mnemk
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/svfacts.htm
http://tinyurl.com/eu2pu
http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html
http://www2.ucsc.edu/rape-prevention/statistics.html
http://www.feminist.com/antiviolence/facts.html


Let's look a closer at the stats:

"Around the world at least I women in 3 has been beaten, coerced into
sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime. Most often the abuser is a
member of her own family. (John Hopkins School of Public Health 2000)"

It does not say "one out of three women in America will be sexually
assaulted in her lifetime".

The first cite says,
"1 out of every 3 American women will be sexually assulted in her
lifetime."

Lumped into that figure are those who have
been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused. These are still
outrageous numbers by the way, I do not mean to minimize that.

Which is the whole point. We can quibble all day about the numbers,
but no matter which ones are right, they're all ridiculously high.

The final line is the breaker here though. Most often a member of her
own family.

Yeah, but - 1/3 are by strangers, and 1/4 are in a public place. Those
are still big numbers.

The odds of someone jumping out while you're on your bike and dragging
you off and raping or assaulting you are absurdly small. Sure, it can
happen. But please don't make it seem like there is any realistic
chance that it will happen.

But it does happen. 99.9% of men never have to even consider it, but
for women , it is a real concern.

In 59 years, only twice might I have used a gun in self-defense - once
in Morocco and once in Nigeria Carrying in both those places was out
of the question, and I found better ways to defuse the situation. Yet
many men feel it necessary to carry here in the US. I submit the
threat of sexual assault on women is far greater than the odds of any
man needing to use a gun for self-defense.

These women you know of who were raped, were they just hauled off the
street or was it someone they knew?

Both.

--
Turby the Turbosurfer

On 3 May 2007 05:33:08 -0700, evelyn wrote:

Whatever. I do believe being groped, penetrated by anything, or
sodomized is rape. Ladies, do you agree?

The government doesn't. Groping is not rape. Penetration is the key.
There is a _huge_ difference.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/rape.htm
Rape - Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion
as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means penetration
by the offender(s). Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female
victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape
includes verbal threats of rape.

--
Turby the Turbosurfer

wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 3, 8:02 am, evelyn wrote:
On May 2, 4:55 pm, wrote:



You're correct, it's permitted. I wasn't disputing that.

I was disputing the supposed need to carry it, and wondering about the
fearful mental state that makes one think a gun is needed. That's
all. Statements like "it only takes one time" indicate you're not
being realistic.

Watch out for those meteorites!

- Frank Krygowski


"Watch out for those meteorites", now that's being realistic.

"nash" wrote in message
news:Fgo_h.156287$DE1.6632@pd7urf2no...

"evelyn" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 2, 4:55 pm, wrote:

I would add that it may make you feel over confident.
Police can tell you. A person coming through your door with a knife while
you are sitting 12 feet away watching TV with a gun beside you will be
able to kill you before you can fire even once.

want to bet,

On May 3, 12:49 pm, Turby wrote:

The first cite says,
"1 out of every 3 American women will be sexually assulted in her
lifetime."

Really, that's not much of a citation. I see no source for the
number, and no clue as to how it was determined. It's impossible to
tell if it has any validity.

Those of us on the rec.bicycles.* groups are very familiar with
impressive-sounding numbers that have no validity. The most famous
(in our sphere) is an almost universal claim that a certain style of
hat will reduce certain injuries by "85%". Unfortunately, there was
only one tiny study that concluded that, and it's been shown to be
completely bogus. It's also been refuted by many other studies. Yet
the claim persists by those in the business of making such claims.

So, tracking down the original source of that claim may give us some
idea as to its validity. At the moment, it sounds very fishy -
unless, once again, the definition of "sexual assault" extends to
things even the most timid and shy 16-year-old guy tries on a first
date.

- Frank Krygowski

In article .com, wrote:
On May 3, 12:49 pm, Turby wrote:

The first cite says,
"1 out of every 3 American women will be sexually assulted in her
lifetime."

Really, that's not much of a citation. I see no source for the
number, and no clue as to how it was determined. It's impossible to
tell if it has any validity.

Those of us on the rec.bicycles.* groups are very familiar with
impressive-sounding numbers that have no validity. The most famous
(in our sphere) is an almost universal claim that a certain style of
hat will reduce certain injuries by "85%". Unfortunately, there was
only one tiny study that concluded that, and it's been shown to be
completely bogus. It's also been refuted by many other studies. Yet
the claim persists by those in the business of making such claims.

So, tracking down the original source of that claim may give us some
idea as to its validity. At the moment, it sounds very fishy -
unless, once again, the definition of "sexual assault" extends to
things even the most timid and shy 16-year-old guy tries on a first
date.

There was one 'date-rape' study that got impressive, shocking results by
defining buying a man buying a woman a drink as 'date-rape'. The thought
process being it was to get her drunk and have his way with her.