Should Cyclists Pack Guns?

"Bill" wrote in message
news
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article , DI
wrote:
"donquijote1954" wrote in message
ups.com...



Come on.
Get real and carry a CO2 powered semi-auto bb or pellet gun.
A few shots in the nose, eye, or even down his throat is going to
discourage any dog without killing him.
Same for SUV's. Shoot out a windshield and then be prepared to ride like
all hell to get away.
OTOH, they might think you are totally nuts and leave on their own.
Bill Baka

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.

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.

DI wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
news
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article , DI
wrote:
"donquijote1954" wrote in message
ups.com...


Come on.
Get real and carry a CO2 powered semi-auto bb or pellet gun.
A few shots in the nose, eye, or even down his throat is going to
discourage any dog without killing him.
Same for SUV's. Shoot out a windshield and then be prepared to ride like
all hell to get away.
OTOH, they might think you are totally nuts and leave on their own.
Bill Baka

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.


Bow and arrow?
Bill

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 06:25:07 -0700, Bill wrote:

DI wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
news
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article , DI
wrote:
"donquijote1954" wrote in message
ups.com...


Come on.
Get real and carry a CO2 powered semi-auto bb or pellet gun.
A few shots in the nose, eye, or even down his throat is going to
discourage any dog without killing him.
Same for SUV's. Shoot out a windshield and then be prepared to ride like
all hell to get away.
OTOH, they might think you are totally nuts and leave on their own.
Bill Baka

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.


Bow and arrow?
Bill

Wrist rocket on a crotch rocket ?


--
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/

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.

On Apr 26, 7:04 am, David Steuber wrote:
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.

If riding away worked, that was likely the best option. Brandishing a
firearm when outnumbered will dissuade the Abercrombie punks, but will
get you shot if dealing with three legitimate thugs, or even three
armed rednecks with quick triggers and strong desires to stay alive.
I know a bit about the latter category. In this situation I'd have
tried for the ride away, and drawn if cornered. Remember, once you
pull it out the game changes, and you need to be ready to pull that
trigger.

On Apr 26, 6:37 am, David Steuber wrote:
writes:


Why are you so afraid? Why the paranoia??

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.


It would not bother me at all to haul around a three pound lump of
iron for forty years and never need to so much as show that I have
it. It would bother me to find myself in a situation where having
that three pound lump of iron could help me stay alive or hold onto my
property. I would be incensed if I did not have that three pound lump
of iron in that situation.

That justification might apply equally well to cycling in a kevlar
vest.

Sorry, but in my experience, and going by the data, the desire to
carry a gun is usually based on confusing life with movies. Real life
isn't much like an action flick.

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 guy with the gun is much more often a clumsy drunk who
gets aggressive toward his friends and family.

- Frank Krygowski

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...

"Likely"?

Got data?

- Frank Krygowski

Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,
"Bill Sornson" writes:
Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,
writes:

Yeh, that one coulda used a Rabbi, I admit :-(

I think you mean a Mohel.

Or a chainsaw.

Multi-tool?

There's an ancient story, told only by word-of-mouth,
of a retiring aged mohel who'd saved up over the years,
all the byproducts of his profession.

He took them in to his local leatherworker, and asked him
to make something out of them -- sort of a retirement gift
to himself.

When the mohel returned to the shop a couple of weeks later,
the tanner proudly plunked the product of his enginuity &
artistry down on the counter.

"A wallet?!" exclaimed the mohel. "All these years, and
all I've got to show for it is a lousy wallet?"

The leatherworker then calmly explained: "Yeah, but
stroke it a little, and it turns into a suitcase."

Definitely forward-worthy. Thanks, Tom!

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.

Sorry, but in my experience, and going by the data, the desire to
carry a gun is usually based on confusing life with movies. Real life
isn't much like an action flick.

I would simply prefer it to be legal to have the firearm such that law
abiding people weren't automatically safe targets. The criminals, the nut
cases, the drunks, etc, the people we have to worry about having guns
aren't obeying the restrictions of when and where and how they can have
one. But they know if they bring a gun somewhere illegally, they will
probably be the only one who has one.

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.

Because they are cowards, there just needs to be a credible threat. It's
not even pulling out a gun. A credible threat can be just giving them a
message that thousands of dollars of body damage can be done to their
vehicle by a bicyclist. I think that legally being able to carry a fire
arm is such a credible threat. It doesn't even require any particular
person having one, just the would be bullies thinking he might have one.

The guy with the gun is much more often a clumsy drunk who
gets aggressive toward his friends and family.

If we are to believe those that would have the population disarmed.

Then again, the clumsy abusive drunk knows how to get a gun illegally
from the guy he met at the bar.