I train with 2 guns that are located between my forearms and shoulders.... They work great for self defense...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

Chris

Used to occasionally run or skate with a rifle. Looked a little fake with the blue kevlar stock but very real. Then I moved to a place where the definition of winter biathlon is a 5 km run and 1000 m no wetsuit ocean swim so no more rifle.

I have not and am not sure it would very effective with attackers anyway because you are likely to be surprised and not able to get it when you need it. A carry permit would be required depending on where you are. I am a proponent of armed citizens so don't think I am some anti gun person and dismissing it because of that.

I attended a training on self defense with a tactical flashlight that is perfect for running as it is small and water and sweat proof and always in your hand. The training was conducted by a retired Seal and was is very impressive. The flashlight has sharpened edges around the beam and is REALLY bright which makes it effective to blind your attacker and as a slashing weapon if they keep coming. Once I am able to run again I am going to put myself and my wife through the whole training and get the lights. I prefer to train at night so end up running in the dark other than in the summer so having a light source is helpful. I do not have music in my ears while running at night.

Surprise is a function of awareness. The more attention you pay, the less likely it is. Speed of access is a function of carry method. There are many secure methods that allow for quick access.

I carry frequently when running/biking (but not racing, so it's kinda an extra weight training aid), and I've never used it, nor do I ever want to.


One early AM, I got a large, aggressive dog to stop charging me by shining a surefire flashlight straight into his eyes. Every time I turned the light away from him, he advanced. So I kept it on him, and just kept running. He didn't know what to make of it, and didn't follow. Problem solved, luckily without resorting to lead.

All such implements are tools, and can change your odds for the better if you know how, and when, to use them. If you don't, they're pretty much as useful as any other talisman.

---

--------------
Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard.

I have on certain occasions. I work very odd hours in the hospital and sometimes run when I get out. Unfortunately my routes go through the "not so nice" areas of Providence and it is best to at least be as armed as the people around you. I've never been in a situation where I needed it and haven't drawn it on anyone. It's the whole "having and not needing/needing and not having" mentality.

---

_________________________
I got nothing.

i used to carry a gun when I went out running. But it was when i worked as a ranger in the bush back in South Africa. I ran in the heat of the day, with the full knowledge that the gun probably wouldn't help me if an animal came around the corner. And if they wanted to nail me, my pathetic human senses certainly wouldn't be "aware" enough to detect them.

Equally, if you run at night, it doesn't matter if you are a full-on ninja - if someone is out to get you a gun probably won't help.

p.s. I'm really glad I live in a place where the thought of a gun for self-defence is ludicrous.

p.p.s. that 357 hand cannon I used to carry in the bush was fucking heavy.

That's right. Guns don't kill people, the person holding your gun(s) kill people. Unfortunately as the bulk of gun related homicides show it's often not the owner holding the gun at the time. The most recent tragic event is a good case in point. And in a society where you have almost zero qualifications required to own and operate what would in most nations be considered in excess of general military requirements you are bound to have the vast majority of owners fitting into the category of not knowing how or when to use them.

Concealable (i.e. handgun), semi-automatic, automatic and large bore firearms have no place in a modern society. Until that is understood and acted upon the U.S. will continue to have innocent citizens killed needlessly. Statistics continue to show that your gun "laws" are a dismal failure at protecting your population and always will be. Take a look at the countries that surround you on this table. I hope you are all very proud of yourselves.

i use a hickory stick with a large nail in the end.

---

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, covered in scars, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming 'hell yeah', what a ride.

I used to have to fo most of my runs after 10pm, I carried a small 9mm, before the housing market crashed there were a lot of gang bangers living in the neiborhood, real pieces of shit. I actually got in fights with them on a few occasions. I started carrying the gun because of the pitbulls that these degenerate ass hats couldnt keep on their property. After awhile, these people got kicked out of their houses or lost their minimum wage jobs and couldnt pay rent and moved out, its much better now I hear.

"large bore" firearms are generally for hunting, very VERY few if anybody uses them for anything but hunting. Furthermore, "big bore" firearms are common in many many countries. hell, I have shot a 45-70 in Canada.

I carried a weapon in the military on operation. Thankfully never had to fire it in anger.

I am grateful that Australia has no real threat of violent gun related deaths. Most gun deaths seem to be from domestic violence and quite uncommon.

I have used a pair of 11mm running spikes on dog once (blue heeler). It didn't chase me again.

Yeah, gun violence sucks, no doubt. I think what so many people seem to miss is that for many many people guns are sort of a sport, not something owned out of desperation for safety. I own lots of guns, I didnt buy them because I was scared, Initially that may have been part of the reason, but it turned into a hobby itself. I would buy them because I liked them or wanted them, not because I felt I needed them.

Makes me think back to the first "running races" I did in the IDF I recall the obstacle course naturally, I think it was an 800 meter run, the course, and then another 800 meter run. I did quite well. Then , doing Sky Marshall training after the military and having to run 800 meters with an Uzi with 2 clips and see how many bullets you could get in the target. This was in the mid to late 70s and thankfully, save for a brief stint from 1986-1988 reserve duty, never touched these things again. Gun culture/worship sickens me. One reason I live in Canada.

---

Cervelo R3 and Cannondale Synapse, Argon18 Electron Track Bike

For fun, I went and read a bunch of posts on gun rights on several gun forums.

The number of individuals there who emphasize the protection aspect of guns is staggering. I wish I could say that I got a positive impression of these people, but honestly, the first thing that came into my mind from reading most of the posts from these pro gun defense people was that of a 6th grader who was intoxicated with the feeling of power it gave them. I'm probably being generous here as well. When you see numerous posts in a row of people claiming that they are so skilled with their hunting rifles that they could easily defend themselves from the US military if it came to that, and not a single person in the thread doubts them (they get reinforced with kudos actually), it starts sounding juvenile quickly - until you realize that these very people are very real people with very real guns.

Most of those same folks on the forums claim that their gun is a crucial part of self-defense for them several times per year. I'm not sure where they're living in where you NEED to draw a gun several times a year and be fully willing to fire on a human being to defend yourself, but I strongly suspect that their self-satisfied determination what constitutes a gun-worthy situation is highly skewed given that they say it happens so frequently to them.

I wish I could say these were fringe players making up <.1% of the population, but it's clearly way higher than that, and likely a significant percentage of the gun toting population in the US. Scary, actually.

I frequent a road cycling forum as well, and it was amazing to me there as well when a "packing heat on the ride" thread came up, that more than a few vigorously defended carrying a pistol with them on their training rides, and most of the logic was "well if you consider that a car is a potentially lethal weapon against cyclists, I'm going to respond with equally lethal force against that threat if I'm threatened on the road." WTFFF.

I agree, the mall ninja factor on lots of gun boards is through the roof, In defense of some gun forums though, that talk dosent really fly there and gets smacked down quicker than it does here on ST.

there are lots of amateur hour gun forums out there though. I can completely respect that a person dosent want to have a gun, I dont care if they do or they dont its their choice and honestly, If guns were banned, I would be pissed but it wouldnt be the end of the world ( I also wouldnt voluntarily turn my guns in though).

Sadly, on 4 of the gun forums I've frequented, there was no moderator smacking down those vigilantes. It was actually the norm of the culture there, to present arguments how Afghanistan was a great model of how a single person with a rifle could withstand the US military, and how that was relevant to living in the States with a gun. And a lot of macho talk about how bad the police are about defending anyone in the States and how anyone outside of a major city really needed a gun for protection.

I could count on one hand the number of reasonable, rational posts I saw about guns on the "gun advocacy" portion of those forums, and this was the one that stood out the most, and to the forum credit, was put forth by the moderator of the forum after a lot of people were creating a lot of noise about how the Connecticut shooting was akin to a clarion call for them to buy up guns and ammo ASAP before the gov't could take them away:

"If the first thing that went through your mind after hearing about the Connecticut shootings was 'Oh no they're going to take my guns away!', you have failed as a human being.'

Unfortunately that excellent quote went nearly completely ignored for the rest of the thread as I recall.

Concealable (i.e. handgun), semi-automatic, automatic and large bore firearms have no place in a modern society.

Mayor Bloomberg from NYC thinks 24oz Soft-drinks have no place in modern society either. Neither does salt, tobacco or fried food and he is advocating for these things to be restricted. I think when you go screwing around with the 2nd Amendment you open the doors for further intrusion of individual rights. Even A.G. Eric Holder was talking the other day about how we: 'need to have a discussion about the responsible use of our rights.' And he was not only talking about the 2nd Amendment.

So who is going to decide what rights are worth protecting and how our rights should be used? I hope it is not a bunch of people like you.

And since you are certainly doing something that I feel has no place in modern society you'd better hope it is not a bunch of people like me.

You should read the attached article: "Why Liberals Should Love the Second Amendment."

http://www.dailykos.com/...the-Second-Amendment#

---

**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**

To answer your question directly: When I am out riding around the backroads here, I typically carry a very compact LCP .380. I have had to pull it once to convince a driver to stop harassing Wife and I. It got the point across very quick. I also carry "Halt" and have used it several times on dogs.

Why carry a gun? I would rather produce a gun and scare the shit out of a person/people than try a fist fight. It's just the world we live in. People don't understand honor any more because we are have been impeded from understanding the difference between right and wrong. I expect a bunch of kids to make fun of each other. But adults proactively chasing down others out running and biking because it's fun? Yeah, fuck that. I never go to the parts of the city that don't like people like me. However, in the other more rural parts, you get your occasional asshole who wants to be funny with his buddies and hits you with a fucking shoe (yeah, happened to me). Would I shoot someone over that? A better question would be: what if that shoe hit me in the head and caused me to fall and cause severe brain trauma or death? At that point, what's the difference? A projectile is a projectile.

Oh, that's right, turn the other cheek. No. That's fine for rational people who understand that and become remorseful after they injure you. But the world does not operate like that anymore. You have to instill within them a sense of understanding of why they are idiots for picking on people. It's like the proverbial high-school bully. He or she keeps beating on you because you are small and week. Then one day, you have had enough, you pick up a stick, and knock some fear into them. Works like a charm. One of my drill instructors was found of saying "the body will comprehend what the mind does not."

Here is an example from Knoxville: http://www.wbir.com/...ter-sideswipe-attack This story is not about me, but a local guy really into biking. He was ran off the road and then had his face busted up. Just because.

what strike me the the most in those forums is that every member seem to be a well trained Navy Seal that has a killing ratio of 1:1 on real life situations /sacarsm

btw: would hard for me to run or bike with a shotgun lol

---

The entire event (IM) is like "death by 1000 cuts" and the best race is minimizing all those cuts and losing less blood than the other guy. - Dev

you need to move to a safer area to live in.

It is laughable people train whilst carrying guns.

Cmon man!

I can tell you now, the aussies are saying 'typical yanks'.

Really? Afghanistan is brought up as a positive example of anything? That makes sense. Western society has so much to learn from that hellhole. I'm not saying western, capitalist society is the absolute shiznit, but to to use Afghanistan as a counter example, especially where violence is concerned, is just so damned sad it's note even funny.

---

Citizen of the world, former drunkard. Resident Traumatic Brain Injury advocate.

If I lived in an area where I felt i needed to carry a gun to feel safe while training I'd either move or see a psychologist. I can barely tie my shoe proficiently while in the middle of a run let alone try to shoot a boogie man

Why should I move? I am the law abiding citizen. Life is not without risk, but why wear a helmet, or seatbelt, or any other type of safety device.

To say something is laughable is somewhat odd, considering that is of a personal opinion. I don't proclaim that something you are doing is laughable, so why attack me? Is it because of the ability to be anonymous or perhaps geographic separation? I'd give you nickle if you accused someone of a laughable act in person.

As to the aussies or anyone else in the world: I've been around long enough to understand that most, if not all, "western" countries have less than positive thoughts about the US. I don't care. When you start worry about yourself and not what others think, especially those who have no bearing on your life, then your days become better. And if some aussie or whoever wants to prove a point or enforce a thought, then by all means, let them do so. I laugh at them in return.

So someone who feels that they have a moral obligation to protecting life and property while in the legal confines of the law should either move or see a psychologist. I fail to see that logic. Turn the table and consider that I feel that training or racing with headphones/music is flat out foolish. Same with helmets. Perhaps I like to call out people like that and call them reckless and point them to the nearest psychologist.

In a land of over 300 million people, you are going to have some outliers in the statistical curve that are just plain dangerous. If I could carry a 2x4 while biking or running, I certainly would. But, a small firearm is more more practical and much more discrete.

And if I could not tie my shoe proficiently while in the middle of a run, then perhaps I would not be running.

Making commute conversation with the Wife this morning, I told her about this thread. Her first response was to laugh. Then she said that if we lived in a place where we felt obligated to carry a gun whilst training, we'd move. I agreed. It's certainly not the environment in which I want to live.

(Plus, I couldn't imagine carting around a weapon and running. I can't stand bringing the iPhone due to the weight and size. The Garmin is on the edge of acceptability.)

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

Where I live carrying a gun while training would probably create more risk than it would avert.

HOWEVER ---> If cyclists in general got a reputation for being armed, and out of their damn minds, I think pickups would run into us and harass us less.

So, I totally support other people being out of their minds and carrying guns while riding =)

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

If I was worried about statistical outliers ruining my life id be stuck in the house with fear. Getting into a situation where I need to shoot my way out is an outlier. Falling off my bike because I couldn't unclip fast enough and hitting my head is not

In the winter, my fingers get cold/stiff and I have trouble tying my shoes. I wouldn't have to have to kill someone proficiently under the same conditions

Racing/riding is foolish and should be a DQ.

Or we'd be seen as an easy source of guns and we'd be run down more and robbed

I dunno, did biker gangs ever have problems with that?

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Ha, I would rather just be left alone than be either. But that is not a option that I have for the most part.

The funny thing is that most of the people I work with know that I S/B/R as I keep a bike in my office for lunch rides. But, even still, they go absolutely bat shit crazy when they see a biker in the road. All manner of stuff about be a danger to the road and taking up lanes, they whole gamut. I try to explain to them that riding on a greenway is dangerous for several reasons (spastic kids, dogs off leashes, mtn bikes lurching left and right at 10 mph if lucky) and that riding on the road is typically safer. Now, I also know that asshole bikers blasting stoplights/signs don't do any of us favors.

Fact is, it's dangerous out there. It's one added piece of protection. It took several instances of being assaulted and harassed before I started to carry. To be sure, I only ride with my Wife or alone, so I don't have a huge group of people with me to help deter any morons out there. I also ride backroads or out in the country, so I stay out of downtown traffic and bipedal trash. But hey, if you want to make fun of some one for carrying a firearm, by all means do so. I'll just smile and walk away. That's how i get out of shit, by staying away or walking away. However, when push comes to shove, I'm going to do everything in my power to come out on top. No exceptions.

I will never own or carry a gun. Never. So the answer would not be no, but HELL NO.

---

Find out what it is in life that you don't do well, then don't
do that thing.

I'm glad that I live in a place where my biggest threats are slipping on ice and getting hurt or getting hit by a car. Like you, I have to carry a rifle during exercises (thankfully not on deployments) in the Armed Forces in Canada, and the only time I fired it was at the "IVAN" target (this was back in cold war days and the target was known as IVAN....sorry to my eastern Euro friends).

Anyway, it never occurred to me when I run in "not great neighbourhoods" in some parts of the world that this might be needed. I figure I can run faster than 99.99 of the population if I am attacked. I'm generally strong enough to get away. If I am attacked by a gun, I'm dead anyway, so no point carrying on even if I had one. I should be able to handle myself in a knife fight even if I don't have a knife, if not, what is the point of all this athletic training, if I can't get away from a loser wielding a knife at me.

We need to change our approach. Instead of the "actually sir we are required and legally allowed to ride on the roads, healthy lifestyle, bla bla bla"

we need to start a rep for being the mean crazy bastards we really are.

So next time someone says "omg that is so dangerous" reply with something crazy like:

"Cyclists aren't afraid to die motherf&@*#er, stay out of our way!"

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Helmets and seatbelts (and smoke detectors, etc.) are not in the same category as firearms. It's a silly comparison that people make.

---

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.

I have run in various places all over the world - down-towns of big cities, wild and rough places out in the bush and country, and I have never felt the need for this sort of thing.

I always loved it when I would go check-in with the concierge at a hotel where I was staying, and ask them about where a good place to run is and they would almost always suggest the treadmill in the hotel gym!

My only regret with all these runs all over the place is that I never took a camera with me on these typical first thing in the morning runs. Quite honestly they are some of the most vivid and lasting memories I have had from my time as an athlete. Not sure if I would have got that from looking at the wall while running on the treadmill in the hotel gym.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

It's a silly comparison that people make.

I think it's called "deflection"! :)

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

How is it silly?

Actually, you may be correct in that it's a different category, but risk mitigation is still the crux. Consider it an escalation of force or determent of injury. Riding down the road, so crazy ass dog is galloping aside me (were on a bike at this point), and is obviously trying to attack me. (I have three dogs, so don't even try to paint me as anti dog) The first thing I have tried to do is out pace the dog. Works fine, unless you are going up hill. Now I take out my can of halt and give the doggie a nice little bath in it. I have actually trained with this stuff while riding to make sure that i only hit what i am aiming at and that i dont get sprayed myself or blast my wife by accident.

Dog is still coming at me, now what? Sure, its a long shot of being attacked by dogs on a ride or run, but it does happen. Every day.

Just like all the other violence. One does not need an external physical weapon to cause harm. There are several cases where women are raped just by brute force. But a women out running or riding with a firearm has at least a chance of defending herself. Despite all the action movies, women are not physical equals of men. Besides, most rapists go after physically weaker women. So why not give them a chance? Is it because you hate women or that you wish women to be raped at will? No, that's absurd. But you do want them to be protected.

Carrying a firearm while out ridding or running may not be YOUR choice, but it is mine. Life is about choices we all make. Some people make bad ones (criminals) others want to be protected from those (me).

Oh and believe me I have no desire what-so-ever to have to use my firearm to take another persons life. That is why I stay out of populated areas when I train. But you just cannot live behind gated communities and turn off the flow of information and pretend that the area you live in is 100% crime free.

I'll just say that for some reason gun enthusiasts dream up scenarios that sound plausible to them, but to everyone else they usually sound totally insane.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Yes I carry (and tatical flashlight) when I run in the early mornings (before 0430) and when I go on solo bike rides. Is it comfortable running while carrying? No. But it is comforting to know that I can defend myself if I need to. I'm always in condition yellow (aware of my surroundings) and can usually avoid confrontation (i.e. cross the street to avoid a person) AND I always have a plan to flee.

Who said i was a gun enthusiast?

I'll just say that for some reason gun enthusiasts dream up scenarios that sound plausible to them, but to everyone else they usually sound totally insane.

Jack,

Agreed

As noted, I have run all over the world - these guys dream up scenarios that seem more suited to tactics and strategies needed in war-zones. Now, I know that we do have some active Service-men and women on the forum, so for them, I can kind of get it ( like Power being in CONDITION YELLOW when he goes running - whatever the heck that is!)

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Tac Flashlights are the way to go.

My bad: Condition Yellow

What I have heard all my life:

You are joining the Marines? You're insane!
You're not going to college? You're insane!
You are getting out of the Marines? You're insane!
You're going to college? You're insane!

I shit you not!!!

Along with:
You ride motorcycles? You're insane!
You 're getting married? You're insane!
You're not having kids? You're insane!
You have 3 dogs? awwwwwwww I love puppies! Can I hold one? She is sooooooo cute! giggle giggle! Oh, and you're insane!
You run? You're insane!
You run a marathon? You're insane!
You are doing roadbike now? You're insane!
You are doing tri's? You're insane!
You want to do an Ironman? You're insane!

So I carry a firearm and you call me or the idea of it insane? I'll just go ahead and put that in the folder with all the other shit people have said to me over my life.

If I am so insane, please show me my criminal record or body count. I don't sit around masturbating while reading slowtwitch on one computer while playing with my garmin on arm trying to get my stroke count up or down and in sync with my swolf score. Now that shits just crazy.

-----

Condition Yellow usually starts for me about an hour into an Ironman ride....


----

Maybe you should listen! lol

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

That reminds me that I really need to clean by cycling shoes! The smell of old piss is the worst!

Do you have a gun tattoo on your left arm?

---

Find out what it is in life that you don't do well, then don't
do that thing.

This would be a VERY realistic scenario if the US escalated the personal handgun arms race to the point where it was a NORM that cyclists packed heat for protection:

Driver pulls a bit too close to cyclist, likely unintentionally, but enough for the cyclist to feel his life was threatened. Cyclist shouts, screams, and stays up. Manages to pull up beside to the slowing driver who's wondering what all the screaming is about.

Cyclists shouts "WTF (etc) !!!!" and a big shouting match ensues (as it does already). Cyclist is prepared and busts out his true and trusted handgun, because he feels legitimately threatened now, since a guy in a big vehicle that can be used to run him over, is arguing with him.

Guy in the car seems the handgun, and instantly fears for his life. Because society's handgun carry rate has escalated to the point that even most cyclists are packing, of course Mr. driver is packing as well. He does what he (and many of us today) would consider reasonable when confronted by an angry guy brandishing a gun - he fires on that guy.

In the span of seconds, one or both guys are shot. Likely over nothing.

This is a good reality for us to support, right?

What about when swimming?

---

Speargun or a Bang-stick

---

My bad: Condition Yellow

Thank you. Who knew?

I'll have to work "Combat Readiness" into the warm-up for my next run or ride! :)

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

speargun?

---

Find out what it is in life that you don't do well, then don't
do that thing.

As a matter of fact I do. That pretty astute of you, however, that was a choice that I made while in the Marines, as it pertained to my MOS (job). Once is not indicative of the other. The rifle on the tattoo only tells a partial story. The words some of the rest. Either way, simple because possession of an item does not make it an enthusiasm. I only have a modest amount of tri gear, but I can assure you that I am very enthusiastic about it as sport.

??

what an f-ed up country you live in bro and I'm sorry :(

----

Oh God please no,it is bad enough that triathletes pretend they are fighter pilots by calling thier bar set-up a "cockpit" .Last thing we need is a bunch of "soldiers" getting ready for combat in every transition area..

---

I guess when you're trained to kill you are always looking for a situation to bust out your training.

I had thought about converting the bar ends of my clip ons into gun barrels but then I'd only be able to shoot people in the
back and that doesn't seem very sporting.

---

Find out what it is in life that you don't do well, then don't
do that thing.

I personally don't see that happening but that is interesting. I guess that most cyclists have no self control? Perhaps everyone is correct then and we should just stay off the road. Of course not. That's not what you are implying, now is it.

Funny thing is, I have had that happen to me and Wife. Guy forces me off the road at an intersection with a huge conversion van. I look at him though the window and tell him to watch out or be careful. Something like that. Wife and I turn into a parking lot to figure out the rest of our route. This fucker comes hauling ass into the parking lot and right at us. I jump off my bike when we stops and we getting into a shouting match. Where am I wrong here? Should I just cower and say sorry for getting in your way? Yeah, and then he keeps doing it to everyone else. People like that need a lesson taught. And when you have people standing up for their rights to life, then people start behaving a whole lot differently.

So go ahead and label me a gun nut. But I tell you what, I am the first person to open doors for women, men, kids, you name it. I answer with sir and ma'am, and clean up after myself. I chase people down in a race and then encourage them to pass me up. You would never pick me out of a crowd as someone who carries a firearm, as I do so discreetly.

But then again, if that biker is so unhinged in the first place, then maybe he needs to stay off the road.

Not saying you're a gun nut, and I clearly don't know the full details of your encounter, but again, I could easily imagine a situation whether you were in the right or not, where aforementioned crazy guy was packing a concealed carry as well, and then after you pull out your heat, he pulls out his heat. To me, that just made an already bad situation, 100x worse.

Even though I think that driver's a D-bag, I highly doubt he was out to kill you specifically, both times, even after he came hauling into the parking lot after you. If he wanted you dead, he would have just run you over and been done with it. That should have stayed a simple argument, plain and simple, no physical altercation required. I know now you're going to say now that it was inevitable that the personal assault was coming, and I'm not going to argue with you, but for me, it's a bit farfetched to think that he's going to literally murder you in the middle of a parking lot. I would have busted out my phone cam, calmly explained that he's welcome to say what he's like, but I'm going to record as evidence, and then rode away. Heck, even if he pushed me down off my bike, the last thing I want is for a gun to appear in the middle of a fisticuff fight.

(You didn't even need the videocam - you have a witness right there, actually.)


Again, I'm not trying to single you out, but these anecdotes of "Wow I'm SO thankful I had a gun - it literally saved my life in this personal encounter after the other guy backed down quick!" abound on the gun forums, and almost always, it doesn't sound to me anything like a situation where I personally would want to involve a gun. Especially for ones in wide open public places. Yes that guy might back down 19 out 20 times, but then that 1 time, he either doesn't forcing you to fire on him, or he pulls out his own weapon firing on you. And no, I'm not going to disagree that you're so skilled and so fast that he would never pull that off (that's the main response to that line on those forums.)

I was also trained to defend the innocent, protect property, and preserve life.

Any fool can pull a trigger. But it takes a man to look a stranger in the eye and tell him you care for him and his family. I spent 4 months in Haiti with the Marines helping US doctors administer medical care along with food and water and enjoyed every minute of it. All the while having a rife slung across my back and a pistol on my hip. Good thing that killing did not get in the way.

But please, i have not ad hominem anyone on here, so don't do it with me.

Should I just cower and say sorry for getting in your way?

No.

Get the license plate number and file a report with the local police. Many car drivers are idiots they think they are anonymous but they are nothing but. They are driving around in a giant billboard with a name/ID-number on it!

We have a a service in Canada now Called Road Watch - you can file reports like this online. I did one this week, regarding a motorist who was obviously texting while driving. Police have already been back in contact with me to check out a few details. The person who files the report remains anonymous to the person they are reporting on.

Police will check into your report, then if it all checks out, they send a letter to the driver. Three letters, and you'll get a visit from the Police. More importantly, all those reports go on your record, so the next time that driver is pulled over for something else, up pops, "Harassing & Threatening Cyclist - 21/12/2012" shows up on their record.

Imagine the surprise of the motorist to get that letter in the mail - Hopefully it get's through to them that they need to respect all users of the road and that they are not anonymous out there and they are accountable for everything they do!

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Ok,then how about a bulletproof trisuit? Anyone wear one?

---

Find out what it is in life that you don't do well, then don't
do that thing.

Ok,then how about a bulletproof trisuit? Anyone wear one?

I think they use carbon fiber in those high-end bullet-proof vests these days. Could be big sellers to triathletes. You know if it has carbon fiber in it, it has to be better/faster, right? :-)

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

It's not ad hominem because your job history is going to taint your perspective. When you're trained to view everyone as a potential enemy it's easy to get lost in that view. It's like when a doctor says everyone is sick, it's because they only see sick people all day

these pro gun defense people was that of a 6th grader who was intoxicated with the feeling of power it gave them. I'm probably being generous here as well.

It's fear, basically. They are afraid of being in a situation where they will be weak and helpless. Paranoid.

When I started living in my truck (in the wilderness mostly... sometimes in "bad" parts of town), I took the .357 with me because I thought I might need it. I quickly realized that unless I greeted everyone I met with my gun out and loaded, it would be nearly useless. I didn't want to live that way. There was also something about being out there that made all my fear and anxiety disappear. So I got rid of the gun.

Of course I met many people who were packing and ready... some real freaks, too. I was always friendly and fearless, and if they ever had any ill intent they forgot about it.

their gun is a crucial part of self-defense for them several times per year.

Self fulfilling.

Because it sounds like you live in a shithole. Most people can't conceive of living in a place where it's necessary to carry a gun to feel safe. That's not a criticism of you or an ad hominem attack it's just a reflection of the desire of most people to feel comfortable in their surroundings without the need to have a gun close at hand.

Regarding risk mitigation, for most people, carrying a gun is like carrying around a grounded lightning rod while gardening. Sure it would afford you some additional protection in the event of a lightning strike but the probability of that occurring is so low that it's not worth it. If we lived in a place where lightning strikes, or violent encounters, were more frequent we'd probably move.

When will USAT start testing for gunshot residue to see if a triathlete has offed an age group competitor while out on the course?

This is something that needs to be addressed, I'm sure it happens a lot more than we may think.

---

Find out what it is in life that you don't do well, then don't
do that thing.

Like some of the people here, I have spent time in active military service as a conscripted infantry sergeant. I am liable to serve at least 1 week a year for remedial training as part of my national commitment.

for me, what is obvious is that people lack respect for what a gun can do. any hack can go into a store and buy a gun in the US (thankfully, not in my country). but not many actually appreciate what it can do.
but I think many ex military personnel have a very healthy respect for what weapons can do. participating in live fire manuever exercises ( and sometimes not entirely trusting the guy carrying a fully loaded automatic running beside you.) , having a machine gun fire over your head, watching what live rounds do to watermelons, walls, tree trunks and helmets ( we did it for fun; no that brick wall will not actually help you much against a military grade rifle, no matter what the movies say) handling live explosives quickly disabuses you of any sense of power that you might have with a weapon. instead, you learn, very tangibly to fear it. first and foremost you are taught the awesome sense of RESPONSIBILITY you have when you have a loaded weapon, a good thing given the amount of cock-ups that happen. this is emphasized every time you go near live ammo, you don't actually load and chamber until the last possible moment when you have to. the knowledge that the slightest mistake or carelessness on your part could end someones life, or at least, severely injure him, is very sobering and enough to make one think twice about owning a gun.

I am blessed to live in a very safe country that has very strict gun laws. but I also understand what guns can do. given the oppotunity to own a gun to protect myself, I think I'd pass. there are better, less dangerous ways to mitigate such unpleasant scenarios. I'd rather not go out every time knowing I had the very real power to kill someone if something went wrong. besides, it teaches self restraint and better human relations.

Honestly all this 2nd Amendment BS is just that..... right to bear arms? We Brits aren't going to come over and have another go I promise you. We had one incident in the UK, Hungerford Massacre, which was just a few miles from where I grew up and immediately changed the law. Yes, there have been one or two incidents since such as Dunblane but, there's no argument, if you impose stricter gun control, gun crime will be reduced... really, why does anyone need to own an assault weapon?

I heard on the news today that two guys were arguing about the Connecticut shootings and one went out, got a gun out of his car and shot the other... You're parodies of yourselves.

oops.

Well, It's to protect yourself against the tyranny of the government. Because my AR-15 is going to save me against Abram tanks, RC drones and 200 million dollar fighter jets. Once again it boils down to paranoia. Americans are skittish paranoid creatures that need deadly force by our side to feel safe in our homes watching TV with our families or when out walking our neighborhood

[..] shall not be infringed.

If its ok to ignore our second amendment rights, then I guess it is ok to ignore the fourth and the fifth amendments too?

---

Not ignore,change..

---

No, because the 4th and 5th are congruous with a civilised modern society, the 2nd isn't.

Kinda like how we changed it to get rid of slavery and to give women the right to vote and got rid of the poll tax. It was changed and updated to mesh with changes in societal thought.

So you use three examples of the expansion of rights to justify the restriction of another?

Abolishing slavery is the restriction of one person's right to own another. It's not an expansion of rights.

and restriction of prejudice/discrimination in the electoral system and restriction of an unjust tax.. please try harder.

Yes. Glock 19 depending on where I'm biking.

Haven't tried it running.

I use a belleyband holster. What do others use?

Never used it, no plans on using it. Follow the laws and everything will be ok. Super simple stuff.

I wish i could say you were facetious but go to the gun forums and there are plenty of people proudly thinking up possible scenarios where they think their lone gun can withstand a us military incursion. Its like a 3rd grader with a gun after watching action movies. I didnt believe it until i saw it myself.

(not saying youre one of those - ur clearly not!)

care to post a link?

Yes,

I work for a County Law Enforcment agency, and I live in the same city I work. I frequently run into bad guys on the street. Most of the time they don't recognize me, but I have had a couple of people do double takes. I know a lot of these clowns are armed and I have a duty to protect myself and others, so YES I almost always have a 9mm sub-compact on me.

What do you carry? What holster/how? Mine from above post is a bit combersome.

Why did I know this would turn into a discussion of gun ownership rights? Anyway here are a couple of interesting links as to the reality of gun ownership vs. the media's master narrative on the subject.

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html


http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2970854/posts


Reasonable people on both sides can debate the subject on facts if they choose to use them.

its a cheap uncle mikes belt clip holster. Cumbersome but it works. When I run I usually just carry a can of Freeze +P (aka Mace). Stuff is nasty

I'll carry when riding solo but not in a group. Seems people are more likely to target you when you are alone in my experience. I'm licensed and have done some light competitive pistol shooting so I feel reasonably confident I can handle my weapon. I also find myself much more willing to ignore real and perhaps perceived slights by motorists because I know the consequences of an escalating confrontation.
No, I've never produced my weapon and pray I never will but I'd rather have it and not need it than be dead but "righteous" like some of those who appear to be overreacting to the OP question.
If you don't believe in firearm ownership, by all means don't own one but don't infringe upon my rights. BTW I'm a physician at a tertiary care hospital with a level one trauma center and I get to see first hand the effects of a gun shot wound. This makes me both want to avoid ever using a firearm but also not to be an overly easy target out on a century ride in very isolated areas.

---

Primum Non Nocere, except to Kempy!

we need the 2nd so we can go into a civil war once the government takes us into the tyranny of the dark ages. i.e. we need guns to make sure we stay civilized. Hitler was for gun control, why? The first thing you do before setting up authoritarian gov. is disarm the citizens so you don't enter a civil war that is inevitable when you try to enslave the populous.

I used to think carrying weapon while running or cycling was being paranoid. That before a guy in a truck started following me during my early morning runs. He has also followed several other female runners in the area. We've called the police numerous times. I'm licensed and belong to women's competitive shooting league during the off season. I now run with a knife that attaches to the waist band of my shorts. My husband feels better knowing that I have something to protect myself. We know if someone wanted to harm me there is only so much that I could do to protect myself. Running with my gun really isn't an option at this point. I can barely stand to run wearing a fuel belt.

Yes, it seems women are more vulnerable and I personally know several women who have been abducted and killed. More common than you'd think or hope. My wife runs solo pre dawn and it makes me nuts but she refuses to take precautions like a buddy or running after work, etc. She is not familiar with weapons to the degree I feel she would benefit from carrying any type of weapon other than perhaps mace or equiv. She has gone to range w/ me and is a fair shot but is not someone I believe would be best served by carrying. I am glad you feel confident enough in your abilities and hope you stay safe and never have any confrontations. Be safe.
I don't carry while running as I run on trails and rarely see anyone plus I run with two weimaraners off leash under voice command and feel a lot safer in this situation than I do riding solo in the sticks w/ no witnesses around. Agree running with a gun would be very cumbersome.

---

Primum Non Nocere, except to Kempy!

^^^^ this

---

___________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/...eoesophageal_fistula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_palsy
2020 National Masters Champion - M40-44 - 400m IM
Canadian Record Holder 35-39M & 40-44M - 200 m Butterfly (LCM)

Let me say two things to you, in complete seriousness. First, can you name one conflict in the 20th century, where, once the citizens really decided - as a people - to rebel against the government, that obtaining weapons was a problem? Let me help you: Vietnam, Bosnia, Kosovo, Lebanon, Libya, Syria - all countries where the international gun dealers had a field day supplying national liberation armies. I notice that Germany is always the example - but it is probably not the one you intended - the fact is the vast majority of Germans supported the Nazi government in its heyday, just like the vast majority of Americans supported our last illegal war of choice. An opinion like yours only sounds reasonable in a country like America, with its fantasy creation myths and puff-chested self-image.

Second, do you really think the government is scared of you and your peashooter, and that it somehow prevents tyrnanny? Let me enlighten you. A gun might have been an effective deterrent in the 1700s, but, armed with a gun, here's how your theoretical anti-government rebellion would end. Scene: you, crouched, peering out the window clutching your AR-15, fantasies of glorious minutemen spinning in your head. A quarter second later, a hellfire missile, dropped by an unseen drone circling 20,000 feet above you and 10 miles away, pierces your roof and levels half your suburban block, turning you, your family, and some unlucky neighbors into human burger meat. I'm sure the government is terrified of you, Walter Mitty.

It's called pepper spray.

Honestly curious - when you carry on the bike, do you wear the gun in a very visible place, like a easy to be seen holster on your back, or do you keep it concealed? I would think that if avoiding confrontation was a primary motive for carrying on the bike, you'd want the gun to be very visible to any potential offenders, like in a nonconcealed holster strapped to your back.

I am only licensed to carry concealed and I don't want to broadcast I have a weapon. Invites more a holes w/ something to prove IMHO. I want it only as a last resort. And yes, I carry pepper spray too for dogs and also to try and allow me to escape a serious confrontation w/o brandishing a firearm. Deadly force is the absolute last thing I want to use. As a doc, I actually value life, mine more so than some sociopath, but I do not want to take a life. NEVER!
When a gun is brought into the equation, lives are forever altered. Everyone's lives involved. No thanks, don't want to be involved in that ever. But I know there are outliers who will harm you and yours and not feel a shred of remorse. I see them at work every day! At least I've got a chance to defend myself rather than be at their mercy.

---

Primum Non Nocere, except to Kempy!

No one is laughing at you Knox. Instead we cry for you and the 12,000 killed annually in gun violence in the US. With 300 million guns in circulation i can understand why one may contemplate having to carry a gun while out training. Very sad actually.

I'm glad that in Canada we don't have a right to bare arms, to carry semi automatics, or concealed weapons. The 2nd Amendment Right seems to trump so many other rights and freedoms...like the ability to run and ride in safety! Personally I'd be willing to give up that right in a heartbeat for the safety of my family, friends and neighbours.

Not sure whether the US has passed the point of no return with the staggering amount of weapons in circulation. I truly hope that that is not the case.

As someone who doesn't live in the US I'm absolutely astonished at this thread. I can't imagine going for a run and having to be armed. I'm sure any other European reading this thread will be just as staggered as I am.

they're all too expensive now anyways :)

prices have quadrupled in the past week.

As someone who doesn't live in the US I'm absolutely astonished at this thread. I can't imagine going for a run and having to be armed. I'm sure any other European reading this thread will be just as staggered as I am.

That's the thing - there is your opinion, that is shared by almost every person in every other democratic country on the planet( which I share as well), that this whole gun thing is absurd, and then there is the opinion of the pro-gun crowd in the U.S. and they are absolute polar opposites of one another! In their view we have this completely and totally wrong, and all the countries, and the billion+ people in them, and all the statistics, and all the evidence, are all wrong as well. It's one of those frustrating win/lose or lose/lose discussions.

As to the topic at hand - for some, being armed when they train, is something that they obviously, consciously think about or are concerned about, but for others, myself included, in 30 years of training in all sorts of strange places all over the world, it's, not even the last thing on my mind, it's something that I have never thought about!

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

I stopped at the local gun shop Sat AM. Inventory is demolished and he is not price gouging, really he's not. Nothing fit my budget since I'm saving for a wheelset. I'm happy with my duty pistol (9mm) and target rifle (22LR), no doomsday preppers in this house!


To the point of carry while training: I guess I'm fortunate to have lived, and presently live, in low (perceived) crime areas. We've all been called names because of spandex and what we do, however that's no reason to carry. Maybe if yo're in Dorchester or Mattapan, MA you have a different perspective! I'm in the burbs and just go ride & run.

Even if you carry sub-compact, where the heck to you conceal it? Belly band as noted above, inside waistband where it get sweaty and nasty? I can't thing of a practical method. Do you practice drawing from that location so you are proficient at it, especially under duress?

Hey, aren't we all Superman? Faster than a speeding bullet?

Merry Christmas, Everyone

---

*****
If you're going to kick a tiger in the @$$, you better have a plan to deal with his teeth.

Sounds reasonable, especially given you're only licensed to carry concealed.

I'm a bit surprised though about the "invites more aholes" bit, though. If a gun is supposed to reduce the amount of conflict on the road and de-escalate encounters, I'd think that most people (especially on bikes) would want that gun front and center so drivers would think twice about harassing or cutting them too close, as lethal encounters post-facto off the bike are so rare compared to getting killed by getting hit by the car or by an aggressive driver that you're essentially taking the gun factor out of the equation completely in terms of reducing the most likely (by far) situations where you'll get killed while on a bike.

I'm a bit surprised though about the "invites more aholes" bit, though. If a gun is supposed to reduce the amount of conflict on the road and de-escalate encounters, I'd think that most people (especially on bikes) would want that gun front and center so drivers would think twice about harassing or cutting them too close, as lethal encounters post-facto off the bike are so rare compared to getting killed by getting hit by the car or by an aggressive driver that you're essentially taking the gun factor out of the equation completely in terms of reducing the most likely (by far) situations where you'll get killed while on a bike.

I can see it now - X-Lab or Profile coming out with a carbon fiber gun mount for the handle bars. Perfect! :)

I guess it would be too much to ask for motorists to just respect the safety and lives of others who share the road with them, and abide by the rules of the road.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

x-lab 'cannon wing' has a ring to it. Light, carbon fibre, aero, can even mount between the sonic/turbo wing chimp cages. Has handy attachments on it for the air strykes and x-nut.

This is exactly my experience as a former serviceman. I don't want to go near weapons any more. No thanks.

Of course they're not scared, they're criminal thugs.

david,

In the US our military often carries firearms in a condition 1 state with a round chambered, safety on and ready to fire. It's not nearly the danger you make it sound in your military experience. I carried in condition 1 for years with no issues. Most firearms accidents are due to a lack of training and intelligence. The same lack of intelligence that can get you killed in any number of ways.

I've never even had to point a firearm at a human being much less use one to defend anything. I don't think being prepared to do so if necessary is such an evil thing though. Firearms are not evil, governments are evil. Look at what Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Polpot did right after they disarmed their populations.

---

--------------------------------------------------------

You will remain the same person, before, during and after the race. So the result, no matter how important, will not define you. The journey is what matters. ~ Chrissie W.

Couldn't Have Said It Better...

---

The entire event (IM) is like "death by 1000 cuts" and the best race is minimizing all those cuts and losing less blood than the other guy. - Dev

Aw, quit being such a killjoy! It feels so good to look down your nose at others, doesn't it? I'm better than you because you believe differently; my country's better than yours, blah, blah, blah. There has yet to be one iota of effort to understand what may not be one's point of view here. No surprises there.

Haters--feel free to live in a country/state/city that supports your worldview. And if someone asks a pragmatic question related to something you don't practice, feel free to leave it the frick alone.

Packers--On the occasions that I pack, I use a "Merlin Pack" with the gun inside a freezer bag to prevent sweat damage. If I needed it, which, thank God I almost undoubtedly won't, I could have it out in seconds. And the ONLY occasion for that would be an otherwise unavoidable threat of grave bodily harm to myself or another innocent. NOT to intimidate dangerous asshole drivers, or anyone, for that matter. ONLY TO SAVE A LIFE.


Me too, all of the above. And I worked with gang kids before med school. One of whom got ahold of my home address. . . That was the first time it crossed my mind that I might want to own a gun. Later, I was in med school in Cincinnati, OH during the riots, with my wife and then 15 month-old. I was glad I'd already thought the gun ownership thing through and purchased. Granted, this is not the reality of day to day life, but there are perfectly legit reasons why a rational person would conclude that CCW is both a viable and reasonable option. A friend of mine who was a SWAT MD concurred that not only was there danger afoot, but no help. A couple of funky interactions on early AM runs with late night gangsters and partyers made me contemplate carrying during some runs/bikes.
Hey, feel free NOT to carry. Doesn't matter to me.

---

--------------
Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard.

Not getting in the gun discussion BUT I would NEVER move because someone wanted to take my freedom away. You said move if you were not safe, when does the running from this problem stop.

Excellent post and I totally agree. To each his own choice. It's not only so called "shitholes" that one has to worry. People have been targeted by the white pickups both in Clermont FL and Madison, WI. While not looking for trouble, being naive is to invite issues.

I think it's sad that a school shooting by a madman has turned into a nationwide debate on guns, where the true issue on the lack of help for mental issues goes untouched.

I definitely agree that CC is a good thing when riding remote areas at times. Beretta Tomcat is a small but effective choice.

---

Gary Geiger
http://www.geigerphoto.com Professional photographer

TEAM KiWAMi NORTH AMERICA http://www.kiwamitri.com, Rudy Project http://www.rudyprojectusa.com, GU https://guenergy.com/shop/ ; Salming World Ambassador; https://www.shopsalming.com

My first post in this thread - amusing reading for sure.

Remember, this is a triathlon forum and the demographics of mostly white, middle to upper class individuals living in supposed "nice" areas.

The posters simply say "move" if you feel unsafe, yet most of the world from areas in the middle east, latin america, southern asia or most of central africa simply can not.

Yes, the US has an odd love affair with guns - most boys played with them as toys since birth, cowboys and indians, etc. Definitely part of our culture. Trying to rationalize it any other way sounds ridiculous to most non Americans, but that is what makes us unique and there is no place on earth I'd rather live and I've put my life on the line saying so (well, the Mrs. and I sure love the south of France) ;-)

---

____________________________________
Fatigue is biochemical, not biomechanical.
- Andrew Coggan, PhD

We have plenty of guns in circulation in Canada as well, about 1/3 as many per capita. In smaller towns where hunting is popular I'm sure the per capita ownership rate is similar to the US.

Most Canadians also have the right to bare arms and to bear arms. Bad guys shoot each other around here but they mostly keep it amongst themselves and leave the rest of us alone.

I've traveled to most US states and never recall feeling less safe than in Canada. Although I wouldn't go running though parts of Washington DC.

People that feel the need to run with guns in the US could use all the same justifications to carry in Canada.

I'm so glad I don't live in the US. What an Fd up country.

Arguing about how you shouldn't change an amendment to a constitution. An amendment. An outdated amendment designed as a check on the federal government by the states nothing to do with individuals rights. Why is it that Canadians better understand the US constitution than Americans?


Along the way the US "democracy" has deteriorated into even more of a joke where money and special interest runs everything. Yet people don't seem to notice or care. You can't have a proper debate about the merits of gun control because all the politicians have been bought and paid for by the NRA. There was an interesting article on Bloomberg last week on how the NRA had suppressed studies on the effectiveness of gun control because obviously it works. I'm not sure why you think you should be focusing on loosing your "right" to arms? Wake the fuck up. You can have all guns in the world (you almost do), it isn't going to make you safe or stop the people from loosing all control over the policies of "your" governments.


Governments don't have to be bad. But when they are sold to the highest bidder, you might not get the optimal results.


I think the Americans' love of their country is a bit like Whitney's love for Bobby Brown.

Wow, I think I just vomited a bit. Your (stikman) uninformed response (paragraph 2) is so typical of the anti-gunners. Can we get back to the OP's topic already?

OP: I have not carried while training, but if I lived in an area that I felt threatened I wouldn't hesitate to. And I suppose my only worry would be crashing on the bike...wouldn't want to risk scuffing one of my guns;-)

I knew several who carried because of the pit bulls in rural Tennessee. I went so far as to get a permit but I never purchased a gun. I have young children and was more frightened of my children being injured or worse than I was with the pit bulls.

I do carry pepper spray and have used it on more than one dog.

I support the 2nd amendment but for me personally a handgun is not the best solution.

That is an interesting opinion Mike. Thanks for your comments. Awesome how the "rest of the world" knows about Whitney/Brown, the NRA, lobbyists, and Bloomberg.

I'll be sure to make note of them.

---

____________________________________
Fatigue is biochemical, not biomechanical.
- Andrew Coggan, PhD

I love this idea. What city was the training in? Do you remember what brand of flashlight the instructor recommended?

Good grief, where do you live. I've read one or two stories about women being abducted, but thankfully I've never personally known anyone, male or female, who has been abducted and killed while running, biking, or anything else.

---

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.

I don't think so. First, that Hell Fire missile would have to be launched by an American against an American. Sure, if I'm holed up with 100 loyal followers who look to me as a messiah in some place like, say Waco, then that might very well be the way that scenario ends (or something equally as fatalistic). But the government engaging in open warfare against its citizenry (as is currently taking place in Syria) is another story altogether. I would venture to guess most of our good and loyal troops would not engage in that behavior but would join the "resistance" in a civil war scenario.

Further, there are over 300 million people in the US. There are estimated to be at least 270 million guns in the US owned by private citizens. I'd say that probably makes for about 100 million armed homes(but that is a WAG estimate). For the most part, the government does not know where these guns are right now. Those numbers would make any tactician pause. The US military only has about 3 million guns and all the combined police forces have less than a million. There are only about 1.5 million active duty military out there.

I'm not suggesting that any of this is even conceivable to our modern way of thought. Civil war, in America, really? That is not the point. The point is that the intended purpose of the 2nd amendment was not to protect a man's right to defend his family from intruders. Of course, no one 200 years ago EVER questioned that right. The point was to place the ultimate check on civil authority in the hands of the people. If the 2nd amendment protected anything, it protected the right to right to own the same types of weapons as the government. In 1934, when the Feds passed the National Firearms Act requiring the registration of all machine guns they did so through a revenue measure ($200 transfer tax). That legislation and that $200 transfer tax still exist today. In 1934, EVERYBODY knew you could not simply BAN machine guns, you could only regulate them through a tax. Of course, by 1986 they figured, hell ya, you can ban a machine gun and they outlawed them all (except grandfathered the lawfully registered ones - today, a $700 M-16, which is lawfully registered and transferable is worth about $20,000 due to the laws of supply and demand).

Clearly, time effects how we view our protected liberties and what reasonable limitations may be placed on them. Whether the 2nd amendment was a wise inclusion into the Bill of Rights is a question which should be openly debated. It would be refreshing if the debate did not needlessly devolve into ad hominem attacks of those who have no particular love for or trust of government. Those people would have been well understood and well represented at the constitutional convention and, but for the inclusion of the 2nd amendment, there would be no constitution to ratify. It was something that the framers thought about pretty seriously and it was a deal breaker for them.

I think in light of any discussion on the reasonable limits of our 2nd amendment rights, we should look at the reasonable limits on our first amendment rights as it relates to violent messages. I'm not suggesting any causal connection here at all. Rather, I am suggesting there is a slippery slope and it may be easier to see when we discuss the issue of censorship to help insure our personal safety rather than when we discuss the issue of disarming the population.

What is unthinkable today is largely unthinkable because of the conditions that exist today, including the status of an armed population. If we were unarmed (and don't tell me about "sporting weapons, because that is not really what this discussion should be about) how many generations would it take before it would be concievable that the government could become tyrannical, only really controlled by a handful of wealthy families, and no longer accountable to "The People." I don't know, but if 'The People" are disarmed, the only thing keeping the government and whoever wields its power in check will be a piece of paper.

I sometimes run with a can of Pepper Spray. I have been bitten twice by dogs and it can be pretty spooky sometimes running at 5:00 am while it is still totally dark. I do not "carry" on my bike, even pepper spray. I am not paranoid about protecting myself and know I am most likely to be shot by one of my own firearms (for which I own more than my fair share to put it in the vernacular). That is why my firearms are well secured. That is also why, as my children grow, they are each learning to respect and use them. They are certainly much less dangerous (statistically speaking) than the automobiles they will be driving soon. OMG. I hope I can get them to respect the power of an automobile traveling at 50 MPH as easily as it is to get them to respect the power of a firearm.

(edited to actually answer the OP's question)

---

Panabax

We’ve heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know that is not true.—Robert Wilensky

Hahahahahahaha...love it.

I did not say abducted while training but rather while leaving work or home. I know two of them personally through their husbands and as a physician working at a large hospital, I have had to interact with families of the other victims although I would not say I know them personally. Still TWO dead women is sure as hell enough to get my attention. One was in Georgia and the other is South Carolina. One in town leaving a hair salon where she worked and the other leaving her semi rural home. Quite tragic.

---

Primum Non Nocere, except to Kempy!

Agree Fleck that everyone needs to respect each other and consider those on 20 lb bikes vs 4000 lb vehicles but as said above, there are more outliers than we are really aware of or want to acknowledge.
We also have a STUNNING amount of intoxicated driving that occurs near where I live and I suspect strongly nationwide. I don't want some drunk redneck thinking I'm a tough guy seeing a weapon and wanting to prove how tough he is to me. Kind of like how a large, muscular guy might get a lot of challenges from drunk idiots while out at a bar. I want to appear just like any guy out for a ride w/ bright colored jersey and blinky light but if you stop and try to attack or rob me b/c I'm out in the middle of nowhere on a bike and can't run away in bike shoes, you are in for a rude surprise.
ANd correct, most fatalities are from vehicle strikes, not confrontations. This is true and I can't do anything about this other to ride country roads and obey traffic laws and try to be visible and courteous. If this is something you can't stomach, try a stationary trainer.

---

Primum Non Nocere, except to Kempy!

The organization I got the training with is based in the Minneapolis area. Here is link to their class: http://www.sealedmindset.com/...efensive-flashlight/

I don't recall the brand of the light off hand. I am getting one next week so don't have it in hand.

I've never heard of a situation where a tough guy saw another guy with a gun and decided that HE was going to be the guy he'd pick on. Even drunk guys. They might pick on you because you're the spandex-lycra cyclist that looks like an easy target, but I can't even imagine Mr. drunk guy would want to pick on someone with a gun in ready display.

Again, I think it's destroying the whole point of carrying, especially in a hi-harassament area, if you're not going to display that weapon on the ride.

I'm not a gun owner and don't plan on being one, but from a rational basis, if I were to find the need to carry for safety concerns, you'd better be sure I'd have it front and center where you could see it if the whole point was to prevent harassment.

Some want to carry so that -in the event something gets out of control- they are not the looser. It is not to show off a gun.

In many high and not so high crime areas the bad guys know that those they want to intimidate or steal from do not have a weapon. Illinois is a good example. A lot of people - young, old, women and men just have to hope.

In concealed carry states (concealed being the important word) the bad guys don't know if the old lady has a gun (concealed) or not. Or if one of the guys in the peloton has gun or not.

This tends to keep bad guys and ass holes from doing and saying stupid things to people that want to be left alone. The fact that I may have a concealed weapon and you don't makes you safer. They don't know if you do or you don't.

That's why most gun owner want concealed carry vs open carry.

---

Dan Kennison

facebook: @triPremierBike
http://www.PremierBike.com
http://www.PositionOneSports.com

Carrying a gun probably saved my life twice and got me killed once. I used to close up a business in a large metro area a couple nights a week. We would walk a bank bag across the street to the night depository at the bank well after 10:00pm. It was the late 70s, but what the hell were the bosses thinking? They had been doing it that way since the 50s I was told.. So we walked across the street with the 357 mag in one hand and the bank bag in the other. Twice out of the nothingness a couple bad guys just appeared moving toward me with what I think was bad intents on their minds. The gun flash made them disappear like magic. I think 5 years later they would have presented Mac 10s and blown me away on the spot is how bad of neighborhood that place was. After the second time I flashed the gun the company changed their deposit policy.

I was a Swimming ref in a large metro area in the 70s and went to get a burger at Mickey Ds and forgot I had my starters pistol in the holster in the small of my back. One of Chicagos finest put a gun to my head and told me if I moved I would be shot. Lucky for me I had all whites on and told him it was a starters pistol that I just had walked over from the High School Swim Meet across the street for a quick break . He at first was pretty pissed, but actually sat down with me and shared a meal and a good laugh. We decided that the pistol went in the bag as soon as I got off the pool deck was a good policy.

I was riding once out in the country and caught up to a cyclotourist. Nice fella and he was riding across the US. A huge farm dog came running at us and the guy pulled a gun out of his handle bar bag and shot the dog dead. I was shocked and to this day can not believe he did that. Needless to say I sort of told him I needed to do somte TT intervals and rode away.

Each their own on what they think they need to do to protect themselves, but I do say if you own a gun, you should practice with it a couple times a month so you don't shoot yourself. And if you are prepared to pull a gun, you need to be committed to taking someones life with it. If you screw around you will probably have your gun used on you. I have been told that if you do shoot, a fatal wound is the best kind.

Exactly right as per Dkennison. Plus I am licensed for concealed carry and not open carry. I think some states like perhaps AZ allow open carry but not my state. I want to be innocuous and not draw any attention to myself. I am not a paranoid gun nut as many of our ST posters think gun owners are, but a realist.
I'm not in high harassment areas a whole lot but rather out in the sticks alone with no witnesses and few options to escape should the proverbial "outlier" present himself.
I hope it is one in a million but my experience at work suggests it is not. I actually agree many people do NOT need to own let alone carry a weapon of any sort UNLESS they are familiar with its use and trained and actually willing to use it. Otherwise they may be killed with their own weapon.
And all my firearms are under lock and key or in a safe. I do have a lockbox with a touchpad for quick access in the bedroom but I am the only one w/ the code, not even wife has it.
I think the whole point of carrying is to not bring attention to yourself. It is to defend yourself and loved ones as a very last resort.

---

Primum Non Nocere, except to Kempy!

Paranoid or prepared? Well worth the read.

http://www.rapidtrends.com/...c-collapse-part-1-3/

This post was ironic wasn't it?

I don't carry but found these articles interesting. Would a gun have prevented this? No but it might have put a stop to it.

http://www.katu.com/news/5184291.html
http://www.triathlontrainingblog.com/...n-chatham-county-nc/

Uninformed response? Please, enlighten me with the statistics you have that demonstrate that rampant gun ownership increases the safety of the individuals in your (or any) society. Then feel free to tell me I have an uninformed opinion. Australia has had this debate properly several years back. While there were very strongly expressed opinions on both sides of the argument it was for the most part an intelligent and well thought out discussion, held in the wake of a single U.S. style massacre (see Port Arthur if you're interested.) In the end the pro gun lobby found it impossible to argue successfully in such a reasoned environment.

Yes, most of these incidents are by mentally unstable people but many of them have had no significant reason to believe they were a danger and your gun lobby would not be happy with ownership requiring adequate mental health assessment (it could be manipulated to keep guns away from enemies of the government) and definitely not retrospective ones. They also bang on about illegal weapons but the fact of the matter is that most of these murderous rampages are conducted using legitimately owned guns, just not necessarily being used by the legitimate owners (another reason why "keeping the guns away from the crazies" won't do anything.) Add to that the fact that the majority of illegal arms are just stolen guns previously owned legally that argument falls down pretty quickly too.

You can't selectively keep weapons (or worse yet just certain weapons) away from the "wrong people" because you simply have no idea who they are and besides which, who judges where you draw the line? Personally I think that anyone who has the desire to own a gun without a real reason to use it such as target shooting, hunting for food or sport (i.e. not semi-automatic weapons) is clearly not of a fit state to own one. There is no legitimate reason to own a gun in an urban environment. The defence argument does not stand up to scrutiny for anyone with an open mind.

I'm not anti-guns at all. I was born on a farm where they are a necessity for pest control and humane animal destruction. I just understand the difference between need and want, legitimate requirement and a desire borne out of fear or irrationality.

Spot on, especially the red highlighted.

A gun would have made that cyclist attack (the one where they were assaulted by teens) far, far worse. That is a situation precisely where a gun would have been the absolute WORST answer, self-defense or not. It's a bad situation that you can't make a lot better. I know you think that the cyclists would have been able to calmly get up, draw the gun, and then the whole thing ends, but odds are just as good they'd feel their life threatened by the assault, and fire on their assailants, causing one or more deaths.

In that situation, I don't think anything could really make that situation better, but pepper spray or camera phone if you have the time would be far superior to busting out a gun where you just took a nonlethal situation and just make it lethal.

Good lord.

It's bad enough that every second thread is about guns in the lavendar room now this topic has made the jump to the tri forum?

Can we talk about something that hasn't been beaten to death? I hear Lance is training for a full Ironman distance race this year...

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

its a sad state of affairs where one has to carry a gun to train.
Lance for IM? Sounds teriff!

It ended without a death but do you think the victims knew that at the time? It could have turned lethal very easily. There are plenty of stories about people getting knocked down in a fight, hitting there head and dying from a brain bleed. If they were armed that situation would have been brought to an end very quickly. If they feared for there life and chose to pull a weapon and fire I would not blame them at all. Teenagers or not you don't know what there intentions are. Really a camera phone? That's not going to help you when they steal it. Pepper spray might have helped until you ran out or it got in your face too.

I totally do not buy the gun-loving argument - "it COULD have turned lethal!" for these on-bike encounters. In a military scenario, yes, and heck, I'll even give you that in favelas or Mexican druglord areas where yes, there are real odds of getting shot.

But in suburbia America, how many CYCLISTS actually get shot from getting confronted by a motorist? Even if the motorist gets out of their car? Close to zero. Cyclists get killed when they're HIT by cars, but guns have nothing to do with preventing this.

I think these two posts and their defense are a great example of how far along fearmongering by NRA has come in this country.

You might get into fisticuffs, yes, and even suffer broken bones, etc., but to bring a firearm into that is ridiculous and just turned a bad situation into a lethal one. That's what happens when you bring guns into confrontations. 9 times out of 10, the episode might escalate, but than 10th time, someone gets shot for something that totally didn't warrant lethal violence.

+1

---

Find out what it is in life that you don't do well, then don't
do that thing.

I agree with lightheir. A gun would have made matters worse. In this situation, the riders were caught off guard and tossed to the ground. At what point would they have had an opportunity to reach for a gun? It seems to me that if the teenagers would have been able to steal a camera phone (your idea), then they would have stolen a gun just as easily. Now, you have given enraged teenagers a weapon. Or you would have shot and killed at least 1 person, possibly others. Either way, a gun would not have helped anything. The cyclists would have still gotten hurt with or without a weapon. Any way you look at it, bringing in a gun leaves you with 2 injured cyclists with the addition of dead people.

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

It's not a gun loving argument. I own 1 handgun and it doesn't leave my nightstand unless I'm going to the range. I didn't say anything about motorist gunning down cyclists. I agree that a gun is not going to prevent us from being hit either. What I don't agree with is how do you know that a situation with you being attacked is only going to end with broken bones? How do you know the attackers intent? In case you live under a rock people are killed everyday for nonsense. Why would you fault somebody for wanting to protect themselves?

It's 2 injured cyclist because we know the outcome. Do you think they knew they would only be injured? Yes they still would have been knocked down but if they were properly trained gun owners (if you own one you better be) they could have drawn there weapon and ended the situation. I guarantee nobody would get close enough to take that gun away. I'm surprised by the number of people on here that live in a pussified world of rainbows and unicorns. Like I said before believe it or not there are people with bad intentions and unfortunately it might not be just to injure you.

"Yes they still would have been knocked down but if they were properly trained gun owners
(if you own one you better be) they could have drawn there (sic) weapon and ended the situation."

I think I saw something like that on Gunsmoke once. Only of course it was a horse that Marshall Matt Dillion
was knocked off, not a bike. It was so cool, he was able to shoot the bad guy while actually falling to the ground.
However in the TV show the bad guy also had a gun so it was all good.

---

Find out what it is in life that you don't do well, then don't
do that thing.

Dude, did you even read the article in question? Here's a recap. Tell me exactly when a gun could have been drawn and improved the situation.

1. Two women are biking in a properly marked bike lane.
2. Their wheels get kicked out by bystanders at a bus stop. Both fall to the ground.
3. They are immediately pounced upon without warning, 3 teenage girls have started hitting them.
4. A 4th person breaks up the fight.

Certainly #1 is not a place to draw your gun. There is no reason.
#2 is an option, however, it's completely unlikely that a trained gun owner would have been able to pull out their gun (from where it is stashed) on the way down from a surprise bike fall.
#3 is a possibility, but how does one pull a gun when being beaten at close range when the odds are stacked 2 against 3, after you have already suffered a bike fall, and are still surprised that you are now being beaten.
#4 would have easily happened, but the situation is over. The gun serves no purpose.

Conclusion, a gun would not have helped and could have only made matters worse.

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

It's the surprisingly large number of responses like these (which are very common any time anyone brings up the issue of guns) that leave me unconvinced that the majority of people packing guns in public situations are capable of making good decisions with the gun when it matters. Throw in a heated situation, and odds of that happening are even worse.

I'm preaching to the choir here, and I am well aware that arguing against gun owners is exactly the same as arguing against religion, which means that no amount of reasoning, or rational decisionmaking will sway them, but here's how I see it:
- Odds of a cyclist getting lethally attacked by a person on a bike ride are close to zero. If you're riding through Compton or parts of Mexico where druglords rule, you've got no one to blame for yourself for the bad decision to ride there.
- People are rarely rational when they get in heated arguments on or off the bike. Throwing a gun into that mix is the quickest way to guarantee senseless deaths, even if all the gun owners were very trained reponsible individuals. Misunderstandings inevitably occur but with a gun there's no takebacks.
- Even if you were packing, on a bike, the odds of you being able to draw it fast enough to stop a car is pretty much zero. Add to the fact you're in bike shoes, and you'll never chase down your assailant when they run away.
- If your assailant REALLY wanted to kill you, even after the argument, they'd just wait until you remounted your bike, and then run you over with their car. Just goes to show that in theses car-bike encounters, the odds that the assailant really is out to specifically kill you is essentially zero. It's the misunderstandings that escalate things.

But of course, that's all way too rational for our pussified society. (And weirdly enough - I actually enjoy shooting guns at the range even though I don't do it regularly, and I love violent video games and am a die-hard MMA fan and part-time practitioner. I'm pretty testoterone stereotyped in my interests, but when we're talking lethal force, I'm going to go with reason, and not macho.)

I'm surprised by the number of people on here that live in a pussified world of rainbows and unicorns.

Good heavens. Where do you live?

Where ever I have lived and where ever I have trained (and I have run literally all over the world in many strange and far-away places), I have never felt this way.

I am guessing you live in the U.S. - another place where I have trained and run all over the place.

As many have pointed out, a large portion of the blame for much of this attitude in the U.S. rests with the media, who make such a big deal about all the violent crime, to the point where I can see that you might think that there is some maniac lurking behind every bush. However, if you look at the stats, crime of all forms in the U.S. is down substantially, and criminologists have linked this with the massive change in demographics that is going on. Essentially the population is getting older, and older people are less inclined to be involved in criminal activity of any kind. Yet if you survey/poll people, they'll tell you right away, that crime is off-the-charts crazy . . . but they are wrong.

BTW - I enjoy living in a land of rainbows and unicorns. Feels good. I have the freedom and liberty to do anything I want! :)

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

True, Fleck. I once saw a show done by John Stossel, who addressed that fact. If the media does not create fear, they don't have a job. Whether it be guns, or plane crashes, or drug wars.....they have to bring up the sordid facts and be inflammatory about it so they keep their jobs. And most buy into it. It is much more safe now than in a long time, no matter what you theorize the cause; older population, more concealed carry, 911 spawning people who pay attention......

---

Gary Geiger
http://www.geigerphoto.com Professional photographer

TEAM KiWAMi NORTH AMERICA http://www.kiwamitri.com, Rudy Project http://www.rudyprojectusa.com, GU https://guenergy.com/shop/ ; Salming World Ambassador; https://www.shopsalming.com

True, Fleck. I once saw a show done by John Stossel, who addressed that fact. If the media does not create fear, they don't have a job. Whether it be guns, or plane crashes, or drug wars.....they have to bring up the sordid facts and be inflammatory about it so they keep their jobs. And most buy into it. It is much more safe now than in a long time, no matter what you theorize the cause; older population, more concealed carry, 911 spawning people who pay attention......

Gary,

We just went down this road in Canada. The current federal government, who leans right politically recently brought in legislation that increased substantially, the length of incarceration for a whole bunch of lower level crimes. It was to put a term to it a "get tough on crime" type of move. There where howls of protest to this, and rightly so. Every criminologist, and sociologist in the country was against it, as where, interestingly many police forces! Why? As I noted, crime in Canada, is down substantially. It's at the same levels that it was at 30 years ago, and the population is probably 15% more!! This "Tough on Crime" legislation, when you factor it all in was going to cost $billions . . but for what gain? If crime is down as noted, organically due to demographic changes, why do we have to get tough on it. I know, "Why", becuase when politicians stand on the doorsteps of their constituents, during elections, they are told, that the public's biggest fear is crime, that crime is "out of control". But these people/voters are wrong. They are being influenced, by the media - which again as noted, report relentlessly on the worst crimes. Where are the stories about crime levels being way down and the streets being the safest they have been in 30 years??

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

I took a class in college where we studied the effects of the media. It was a very interesting class, and one thing we studied was people's perceptions of crime. At the time, less than 1% of the population were victims of violent crime per year. When asked to guess what percentage of the population were victims of violent crime, people who watched a lot of TV guessed the number to be much, much higher than that.

At the time, there were some child abductions that made big news and the media jumped all over any abductions so it was one story after another and everyone was freaking out wondering why there was such a big increase in abductions suddenly. The truth was child abductions were down that year. It was just big news so stories that wouldn't have gotten much coverage got national coverage because that's where the ratings were.

I have a couple of friends who are NRA members and they seem to think they need tons of protection. They read a lot of stories about shootings.

While I don't think the world is all sunshine and rainbows, I think the odds of me getting shot on the side of the road while on a ride are so slim that it's not worth living in fear over. I find it funny (and ass backwards) that someone would say that people who don't want a gun for protection are living in a pussified world.

Yea, it's funny how people don't look at facts, but rely on media for information, without realizing their slant.

That said, I am of the opinion that gun control is not the issue in this recent outrage. No one addresses the mental health problems we have in this country; much like any connections between football players violence, early death and steroid use goes un addressed.

---

Gary Geiger
http://www.geigerphoto.com Professional photographer

TEAM KiWAMi NORTH AMERICA http://www.kiwamitri.com, Rudy Project http://www.rudyprojectusa.com, GU https://guenergy.com/shop/ ; Salming World Ambassador; https://www.shopsalming.com

I disagree. People are ALL OVER the mental health issues. The trouble is that there's no good solution for them. They are difficult, multifacted problems, and even top experts disagree on the best management and whether you can actually cure some of the illnesses that some of these crazy shooters have. Even identifying people with mental health issues can be impossibly difficult - to date no psychiatrist can accurately predict the profile of the next shooter and prevent it.

It's much easier to look at the gun access issue of it since that is eminently more controllable than the mental health issue. I wish the mental health issue could be solved - obviously by fixing that, you'd fix these shooting rampages, but it's doubtful that effective widespread mental health will completely address the issue given that we can barely even manage the cases we know about already.

I also think in the absence of psychiatric tools that effectively identify/prevent mass shooters, you really are forced to look hard at the gun issue, even if it's just a tool for the crazy person. You don't give crazy people weapons or positions of influence (unless you're North Korea and look what happened there.)

Yes, we all understand the mental side, but the media is only "all over" the gun control issue, and loving the fight between for and against to stir ratings.

---

Gary Geiger
http://www.geigerphoto.com Professional photographer

TEAM KiWAMi NORTH AMERICA http://www.kiwamitri.com, Rudy Project http://www.rudyprojectusa.com, GU https://guenergy.com/shop/ ; Salming World Ambassador; https://www.shopsalming.com

Or.......the stupid girl would not have kicked her wheel in the first place.... Thinking she might have a gun. Again if your on the side of " I'm against guns" you look at it one way. I look at it another.

---

Dan Kennison

facebook: @triPremierBike
http://www.PremierBike.com
http://www.PositionOneSports.com

If you've been following the thread, none of these people packing guns on the ride are willing to display the guns - they all want to conceal them because they think that drawing guns "attracts attention" and increases the risk of an incident. I don't happen to think that's true at all - if I was carrying myself with intent to avoid confrontation on the bike, I'd put that thing in a visible holster so nobody would dare approach. If I'm not going to do that, there's really no point in carrying on the ride, imo.

I also don't agree with the escalation of carry to the point where it can be assumed that even cyclists are packing heat on training rides. That would be a militarized society if I've ever heard of one.

If you look back- I'm the one that made that point.

Not knowing keeps assholes on their best behavior.

---

Dan Kennison

facebook: @triPremierBike
http://www.PremierBike.com
http://www.PositionOneSports.com

Around where I live brandishing a gun most certainly will attract attention.

We're not talking brandishing like waving it around like a crazy person in a mall - we're talking it strapped in a holster on your back while on a bicycle, likely on an isolated back road since this is the exact scenario everyone keeps bringing up about 'being prepared on the bike.'

Even though it might tick off some lowlifes in cars that they can't harass/intimidate you with their cars because you've got a gun, I'd be willing to bet that it would greatly reduce the number of bicycle harassments, both on or off the bike if you had it holstered as such. I can't imagine even a cyclist-hating person going out of their way to pick on a cyclist who clearly has a gun strapped to his/her back in a visible location.

In public places off the bike, concealed carry makes more sense to me, with all the children and others running around. But on a back road, where you're isolated, different story.

A few times I wish I had a sign on my back saying "Protected by Glock." I've carried a few times on the bike. Pocket holster in a jersey pocket. I've carried responsibly and legally for many years so it was no big deal at all.

The world around you is proof that your gun laws are a failure though.
Your gun homicide rate alone per 100,000 people (3.7), as of a few years ago, was the same as the combined firearm homicide total of all these relatively equivalent countries:
Australia (0.09); Britain (0.04); New Zealand (0.17); Germany (0.06); Ireland (0.36); France (0.22) Japan (0.02); Italy (0.36); Poland (0.02); Hong Kong (0.12); Finland (0.26); Switzerland (0.52); Belgium (0.29); Sweden (0.19); Denmark (0.22); and Israel (0.94). Bear in mind that Israel is in a fair state of war which will be causing that number... And lets not look at your firearm-related suicides and

Yes, there are a lot of nutters with guns out there in the USA. Is leaving wide open access for all to concealed weapons, assault rifles, high capacity pistol magazines, gun show weapons that can be bought and taken home the same day without any checks, etc etc going to stop that or keep you safe from them? You've already seen the outcome. When Australia saw a nearby country having problems with high gun ownership, corruption, gang warfare, political instability etc, we went in, became a functional police force and removed the guns from the gangs. Solomon Islands, Operation Anode for those of you who want to look it up. The killing stopped. Now people can hate each other all they like, its just a hell of a lot harder to kill anyone.

I can run anywhere in Australia at a moments notice, any time of day or night, without fear. Ok, the folk in bad neighbourhoods might throw a few jokes at me as I go past, but that is as bad as it gets.

Your country has many years of psychological retraining needed to deal with the obsession with firearms, violence, the paranoia etc. There's also years worth of policing and political redevelopment required to remove the weapons from the undesirable elements of society, so that there is less cause for that paranoia. Unfortunately, all that is unlikely to happen. But maybe if it does, in 10 or 20 years time, those of you who have proven you can play nicely with each other and the rest of the world can be allowed your shiny toys back again.

WTF - seriously?

---

____________________________________
Fatigue is biochemical, not biomechanical.
- Andrew Coggan, PhD

I agree. The whole post was so stupid and sanctimonious - I didn't waste the energy to comment.

---

Dan Kennison

facebook: @triPremierBike
http://www.PremierBike.com
http://www.PositionOneSports.com

"That's right. Guns don't kill people, the person holding your gun(s) kill people. Unfortunately as the bulk of gun related homicides show it's often not the owner holding the gun at the time. The most recent tragic event is a good case in point. And in a society where you have almost zero qualifications required to own and operate what would in most nations be considered in excess of general military requirements you are bound to have the vast majority of owners fitting into the category of not knowing how or when to use them.

Concealable (i.e. handgun), semi-automatic, automatic and large bore firearms have no place in a modern society. Until that is understood and acted upon the U.S. will continue to have innocent citizens killed needlessly. Statistics continue to show that your gun "laws" are a dismal failure at protecting your population and always will be. Take a look at the countries that surround you on this table. I hope you are all very proud of yourselves.

Uninformed response? Please, enlighten me with the statistics you have that demonstrate that rampant gun ownership increases the safety of the individuals in your (or any) society. Then feel free to tell me I have an uninformed opinion. Australia has had this debate properly several years back. While there were very strongly expressed opinions on both sides of the argument it was for the most part an intelligent and well thought out discussion, held in the wake of a single U.S. style massacre (see Port Arthur if you're interested.) In the end the pro gun lobby found it impossible to argue successfully in such a reasoned environment.

Yes, most of these incidents are by mentally unstable people but many of them have had no significant reason to believe they were a danger and your gun lobby would not be happy with ownership requiring adequate mental health assessment (it could be manipulated to keep guns away from enemies of the government) and definitely not retrospective ones. They also bang on about illegal weapons but the fact of the matter is that most of these murderous rampages are conducted using legitimately owned guns, just not necessarily being used by the legitimate owners (another reason why "keeping the guns away from the crazies" won't do anything.) Add to that the fact that the majority of illegal arms are just stolen guns previously owned legally that argument falls down pretty quickly too.

You can't selectively keep weapons (or worse yet just certain weapons) away from the "wrong people" because you simply have no idea who they are and besides which, who judges where you draw the line? Personally I think that anyone who has the desire to own a gun without a real reason to use it such as target shooting, hunting for food or sport (i.e. not semi-automatic weapons) is clearly not of a fit state to own one. There is no legitimate reason to own a gun in an urban environment. The defence argument does not stand up to scrutiny for anyone with an open mind.

I'm not anti-guns at all. I was born on a farm where they are a necessity for pest control and humane animal destruction. I just understand the difference between need and want, legitimate requirement and a desire borne out of fear or irrationality."


Like the previous response to you by wildman1, this thread is about guns and training.....not your fucking uninformed opinion about OUR laws in OUR country. To answer your question at the end of your second paragraph above,,,,"Yeah, we are very proud of ourselves!" Why? Because we happen to think we live in the best country in the world in spite of some of our issues. So,go away douche bag unless....you can stay on the OP topic. FYI, we don't really give a shit about your opinion on our guns laws or the condition of our country.

-By the way, from time to time I do carry a gun while training, but it's obviously of no use to explain when and why to you, so I won't.

better check out the facts.....

“A 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides “continued a modest decline” since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was “relatively small,” with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%.”

from this article http://www.theblaze.com/...-and-australia-show/

---

Gary Geiger
http://www.geigerphoto.com Professional photographer

TEAM KiWAMi NORTH AMERICA http://www.kiwamitri.com, Rudy Project http://www.rudyprojectusa.com, GU https://guenergy.com/shop/ ; Salming World Ambassador; https://www.shopsalming.com

you can have your second amendment as long as that means you carry a musket.

From an european view: The very idea, to carry a gun on a bike ride is insane.

We might carry a gel, a pump and a bit of money for a coffee, but never in my wildest immagination I would carry a weapon.

Gun arguments aside, if you do carry while biking/running where do you put it? I carry while riding to and from work in a tech shirt w/ a holster like breast pocket. (occupational hazard) However its not very practical for training as the pocket is kind of loose. I agree that it is your right to carry a gun if you choose. However keep in mind that you may be able to shoot a gnat off a bulls ass at 200yds, but its nothing compared to the real thing. Unless you are used to dealing w/ a situation like that on a regular basis your adrenline will be through the roof and could cause a total panic to set in. You are a triathlete who is being threatened by some crumb who likely hasn't worked out in yrs and could probably chase you all of 50 yds b/f quitting. Run like hell!!! That is what you are trained to do, no shame in that at all. No one is worth it for you to risk your life. I love the idea of the tactical flashlight course, that is def a good tool. Blind the bastard and you will have a brief advantage to get the hell out of there. Always try to practice situational awareness and be safe out there.

cool story brah...never heard that one before.....

The problem with that is "you can have your first amendment as long as that means speech and letters only". Just as automatic weapons were not envisioned with the second amendment, twitter, email, skype, and so on were not with the first. That's a bad line of logic to open up.

---

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that speed, for lack of a better word, is good. Speed is right, Speed works. Speed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

And we Americans relish and vehemently protect others points of views, thanks. Hopefully you can do the same.

---

____________________________________
Fatigue is biochemical, not biomechanical.
- Andrew Coggan, PhD

Quoting Stickman: Concealable (i.e. handgun), semi-automatic, automatic and large bore firearms have no place in a modern society. Until that is understood and acted upon the U.S. will continue to have innocent citizens killed needlessly. Statistics continue to show that your gun "laws" are a dismal failure at protecting your population and always will be. Take a look at the countries that surround you on this table. I hope you are all very proud of yourselves.


Look at your first sentence..."no place in modern society." Really? There is nothing to support that. You are implying that I shouldn't be able to own a handgun (99.9% of handguns are concealable). And why not? I've never committed a crime. I am responsible and well trained/experienced with guns. Also modern society would include everyone, so I guess police and military fall under that as well. Let's be realistic here.

Secondly, according to your statement we should only be able to have long guns that aren't 'large bore.' Bore (diameter of the barrel - different than caliber) really has little to do with how deadly a gun is. My 30-06, which has a significantly smaller 'bore' has far more reach and accuracy than my larger 'bore'.50 caliber muzzle-loader. In addition many standard hunting rifles are larger 'bore' than AR platform rifles.

Quoting Stickman: Uninformed response? Please, enlighten me with the statistics you have that demonstrate that rampant gun ownership increases the safety of the individuals in your (or any) society. Then feel free to tell me I have an uninformed opinion.

I don't need statistics. If you want to do research to defend your original opinion go ahead. My point is made. My point was/is that you clearly don't know as much as you think about guns.

Our gun laws protect us as much as any law can. There will always be people who break the law. Fortunately those people are a tiny minority of the population. Restricting guns like other countries is not a remedy. It will only ensure that the criminals are the only ones left with the guns. The root of the problem is the people committing the crimes. And that is what needs to be addressed. I am very proud of the country I live in and the rights I enjoy. Enough said.

And we Americans relish and vehemently protect others points of views, thanks. Hopefully you can do the same.

Rod,

Well said.

The thing to understand about this is that this is an extraordinarily polarizing issue. The vast majority of people in all of Europe, Scandinavia, Australia, NZ, Canada and a number of other countries( maybe a billion+ people) all have one view, and a considerable number of Americans have a completely different view. No amount of discussion, debate, argument, statistics, criminology or sociology research or anything else will move other side from their view.

Americans, feel that a society is safer with more guns. The thought and the assumption here, based on what I hear people saying is that knowing that someone else might have a gun, I would be a fool to violently assault them in some way - so more guns acts as a form of brake on violent crime. Whereas, the view in the rest of the places mentioned above is that a society is safer, with simply, less guns.

I leave it at that, and leave it at agreeing to disagree, on the issue with people. I live in Canada. I am sure that, many in the U.S. think I am a loony liberal, living in a land of "unicorns and rainbows", as some oneone over in the Lavender Room characterized Canadians. Maybe we are, but I will not stoop to those sorts of characterizations of Americans - it's a complicated issue. The U.S. is way beyond the tipping point on this.The feelings and the thoughts too entrenched ( and then there's the Constitution). If there was ever to be change that mattered it would take multiple generations, perhaps longer - like 50 - 100 years. But yes, survey anyone from those countries mentioned above, and they would think needing or wanting to carry a gun on a run or a ride would be absurd!

What is ironic, is that crime everywhere, across the developed world ( the U.S. included) is down - down to levels it was at 30 years ago despite large population growth. And it has nothing to do with gun laws or other laws, rates of incarceration, more police or less police etc . . . crime is down organically, because, western countries populations are aging, and older people commit less crime. And as the Baby Boomers continue to get older, crime rates will continue to fall for the next 20+ years.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

There are a range of possible solutions to the US's violence problems, and gun restriction is only one possibility, unproven within the context of the US of A, which is what we're talking about. Some get unreasoningly fixated on this as the only possible solution without a whit of evidence: as much as those at whom they scoff appear to be "fixated" on guns as the only possible means of dealing with the possibility of violence.

Almost makes you want to think.

Naah. It's the other guy's fault.

Given that this is an American problem we're discussing, I'm only interested in what has worked in other countries to the extent that it informs a realistic and EFFECTIVE solution in the US. The demographics, legal structure, and economic structure of your typical Nice Lilttle European Socialist Democracy are different enough that it is not reasonable to assume that what succeeds there will also bear fruit here in the good ol' US of A. A homogeneous society of ten-ish million people is just not as complicated as a heterogeneous country of 300 million in so many ways. Thanks for your sneers, though; we didn't know that you think you're better than us.

I'd given this thread a rest for several days, and I see that I was right to do so--it's a repetitive, broken record.

TFS.

Toodleoo.

---

--------------
Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard.

Given that this is an American problem we're discussing, I'm only interested in what has worked in other countries to the extent that it informs a realistic and EFFECTIVE solution in the US. The demographics, legal structure, and economic structure of your typical Nice Lilttle European Socialist Democracy are different enough that it is not reasonable to assume that what succeeds there will also bear fruit here in the good ol' US of A. A homogeneous society of ten-ish million people is just not as complicated as a heterogeneous country of 300 million in so many ways. Thanks for your sneers, though; we didn't know that you think you're better than us.

Well said.

Of course the ultimate "solution" here would be Japan - no guns at all around and guess what, no one dying of gun-shots, and almost no violent crime of any kind either.

Of course the Swiss & Israelis always come up in this debate as well - often trotted out by the pro-gun crowd, as an example. Indeed, there is a gun in every home/house. But the difference in these countries is like Japan, violent crime and crime with guns is barely registrable (of course taking out terrorist activities in Israel)

Despite high gun ownership, and gun possession in the U.S. legal and otherwise, the U.S. still struggles with a very high rate of violent crime and crime with guns used, and a overall high death-rate from gunshots of all kinds( criminal and otherwise), so clearly in the U.S. other forces are at work, and the Switzerland and Israel comparison, is not valid.

But I agree with you that it's complicated, and it's not something that will easily be "solved", because, perhaps at it's roots, many don't think of it as being a problem.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

It is important to note that, even in a typical Nice Lilttle European Socialist Democracy such as the UK, gun banning is ineffective enough a method of combatting violence that kitchen knife restrictions are being discussed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm). The actual problem, in my opinion, is that there are as many people as there are emotionally damaged enough to go to violence. Cars can be used to kill as many people as are killed in some shootings. Someone could walk into a Walmart and mix as much ammonia and bleach as they can and send a number of people to the hospital. You can't people-proof the world. You need to address the deep causes of people's desire to hurt each other.

There's no reason an emotionally stable person can't have a stack of assault rifles and never hurt anyone. There's no reason an emotionally unstable person would be unable to harm others, no matter how many things are restricted.

---

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that speed, for lack of a better word, is good. Speed is right, Speed works. Speed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

Why would an emotionally stable person want an assault rifle?

They're nifty mechanical things. Same reason I like cameras, even though I have not a whit of photographic talent. Or why people want Corvettes and Ferraris to do nothing except cruise the neighborhood at 30mph on Saturday afternoons. This is America. Freedoms are supposed to exist by default and be restricted only when necessary, not the reverse.

Please note I don't actually have an assault rifle, or a firearm of any kind, but I don't believe the right to own them should be restricted.

---

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that speed, for lack of a better word, is good. Speed is right, Speed works. Speed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

There's no reason an emotionally stable person can't have a stack of assault rifles and never hurt anyone.///


IF she could answer you, i wonder if adam's mother would agree with this now?

Last time I checked the right to drive a car is restricted. You are correct, though that if you have cash, you can own as many cars are you want, even though your driver license may be suspended.....nevertheless, the cars are registered in your name on a government document of some sort. Funny how the government wants us to register our cars. Is this restriction necessary, or is it just a massive money grab? (I can't say, because I am not an American, only an outside observer with respect to one category of tool that you guys restrict usage on ).

You don't know what you are talking about. Driving a car in the US is not a right. And all cars do not need to be registered, for example track cars.

I don't have much patience for facile emotional appeals. Frankly, I expected better from you. The real question is, would Adam have done nothing without access to guns, or would we have heard about a different sort of tragedy? Further, why are we, as a society, not doing a better job of recognizing, treating, and preventing the sort of mental illness that causes people to do these sorts of things? Is the goal really to have people desiring to go on killing sprees, but make it less convenient to do so?

---

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that speed, for lack of a better word, is good. Speed is right, Speed works. Speed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

Yes, the right to drive is restricted, though frankly it's mostly a matter of paperwork; practically anyone able to breath can pass the test. Yes, the cars are registered with the state in your name. I'm completely fine with weapons being registered and owners needing to go through a safety and handling course before legally owning them. The comparison with cars is one I love to make - they kill far more people than guns owned by civilians, yet we hardly make any noise about it. More people die (let alone are seriously injured) from car crashes every day than were shot at Sandy Hook, but it's less shocking.

---

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that speed, for lack of a better word, is good. Speed is right, Speed works. Speed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

I honestly find these "it's the mental health" arguments a smoke screen to divert attention away from the gun ownership issue.

Even if the 'crazies' were completely cured, you'd better believe the US would continue to lead the world (combined) in gun deaths.

To qoute you "Not knowing keeps assholes on their best behavior. " /////
You are absolutlty 100% incorrect. I run/live in a transitional home for guys out of prison. I live with 3 registered violent offenders right now. I will not even get into my past post Marine Corps of what I did. I am in prisons reguraly. I have not met one person, not one ever, that thought "Hmm does he have a gun or not" before commiting there spontaneous crime of violence. Statistical fact is that me (one of those assholes) would have had a much more likely chance than you of taking your gun from you when I commited my crime. ..There are many logical reasons to argue to carry a weapon, that is not one of them

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/


This is an article by a self labeled liberal that discusses in detail the folly of the current race to ban weapons of this type or that.

I absolutely hate this analogy of cars and guns.

What is the main purpose of a gun? To kill
What is the main purpose of an assault rifle? To kill people.

What is the purpose of a car? Transport people/things. Killing is an unfortunate side effect, and because it still happens, there are a lot of regulations that have dramatically improved car safety.

You might as well compare McDonalds and fast food consumption in general to guns by your analog. Far more people will die from obesity and heart disease from over-consuming fast food than cars or guns. So by your argument, we should ignore gun mortalities and car mortalities completely, not regulate them, and instead go after fast food. I actually happen to think fast food needs a lot stricter regulation, but it doesn't in any means reduce the need to regulate cars or guns. I frankly find it totally ridiculous that it's far easier for me to purchase an assault rifle than it is a pair of nunchucks (which are outright banned in most states.)

I absolutely hate this analogy of cars and guns.

Agreed.

And I know you and I are on opposite sides of this issue. Glad to see there is common ground.

My sense is that stuff like this is brought up by the pro-gun crowd as a means of deflection. They point to something else that is everyday( driving a car) and try and draw comparisons to it.

Personally I see no connection at all, and for those pro-gun folks using it as a discussion point, they look rather silly in my view.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

I run with my gun all the time.

Ordered a tactical flashlight tonight due to this thread.

Of course if I did that after reading every thread on new bikes I'd be in a lot of trouble with my wife =)

I love tactical flashlights - although in reality they're more accurately 'great flashlights' since there's nothing so special about them now that CREE Leds are commonplace.

One blast with my Magicshine in the dark and you'll be blind for awhile!

You must not be from Oklahoma or remember the damage one Ryder truck caused.

---

Randy Sadler
randysadler.com

Rick Perry carries one while running to shoot coyotes that threaten his dog.....

Most of you are pathetic. That said, my doors are unlocked, try to enter !

I don't begrudge anyone that does carry, I've lived in some bad areas and seen some really depressing things so anyone out there responsibly armed is a welcome sight. I do own a handgun and use it for home defense. Our area has had a rash of home invasions which has led to at least one murder. We've also had eight homicides within a 2 mile radius of my house. Its not a bad area, just near one. My wife getting raped in my house while I am tied up or dead is an irrational fear but unfortunately it does happen.

I wouldn't run and carry because I have nothing of value, run smart, and avoid upcoming groups. The average crook is not going to attack a male runner. A pack of kids or a crazy person may, but I can typically see them before they see me and go the other way. If I'm cycling and attacked, more than likely their target is my bike and if they are smart I will not have a chance to defend myself.

The thing to bear in mind is shooting someone with a handgun is treated as a homicide. Your best case scenario for killing an attacker is $10,000 in legal fees, and a huge microscope on your family. Worst case is spending the rest of your life in prison with your family losing everything. Most situations where a gun would be drawn in defense would be better served not. Most people who draw a weapon do not intend on firing it or harming others, and if they do there's the risk of bystanders, and drawing attention to yourself.

Of course all the reasons I pointed out above for not carrying could be countered. It only takes one person to justify carrying, hopefully I never cross anyone like that.

The average crook is not going to attack a male runner. A pack of kids or a crazy person may, but I can typically see them before they see me and go the other way.

I've run in some far away places through small remote villages, and bigger city areas, in Kenya, Tanzania, Vietnam, Jamaica, Cambodia, Nepal, India, Malaysia etc . . . through some areas that I am sure many would call "sketchy". What's always been amazing is the kids. They always, regardless of the country would, spontaneously come out and run along with me for a couple hundred meters, shout, cheer, sing and want to high-five me or touch my hand. I've done some modestly "successful" things as an athlete, but it's these runs that I have gone on and these spontaneous interactions with kids like this all over the world that I remember vividly and with a huge sense of fun and pride.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Before getting too satisfied with your country, you should 1st look at the rape rates of Australia. Looks like a few women in the AU would have liked to have a gun handy.

I live in a safe community with the average house price running 1M and my wife now needs to run with the dogs due to some nut job stalking her on a run one pleasant morning. We also have a problem with home burlaries because crooks like to steal from people that have good things to steal.

Yes, crooks do have cars and will travel outside the "shit hole" places they live and cause trouble for the law abiding folks.

But swinging around to the other side of the coin, I had to do some work in the ghetto of Chicago and even though I'm 6' 2" and 215, I had to hire 300+ pound football linemen as body guards and this was for daylight hours.

For all the supermen that train all over the world without fear, I guarantee that you would not train in these rat holes even if guns never existed. It's like entering a whole different world.

And keep in mind that Chicago already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation... But I guess those folks didn't get the memo.

So until we see headlines reading "Midldle aged suburban father of 2 goes crazy half way through his fartlek and guns down....", I can't see a single reason why they should not be able to carry for self protection.

I live in oz. I have been to chicago twice for 2 month stints. Oz is a shit-tonne safer than chicago. You can argue rape stats etc all you like. BTW some countries actually have a different 'definition' of what rape is, thus stats are skewed. I think that was mentioned earlier in this thread.

Real safe community you live in if your wife has a nutter chasing her and theft problems.

This graph is all you need to see that something is seriously wrong in the US https://www.facebook.com/...p;type=3&theater

Can we stop nation bashing please? We know already that Americans are crazy, Canadians are crazy, Australians are crazy, Germans are crazy and Norwegians are crazy (I mean, who invents Norseman, really?). Just add something helping to the thread or discuss in the lavender room.
The only time I train with a gun is for biathlon, too. And I think I wouldn't do running with a gun as it is much too heavy and I would get sore/back problems for sure. Even on skate/xc skis I know what I did to my body after some training and that is much less impact. Downtown Copenhagen is obviously not downtown *US metropole*, so I don't have to be afraid that I get robbed/attacked. And if running in the US in certain places is such a problem, I wouldn't go running in that areas, too.

Its always the same EXACT shit here, every time.

Pro gun crowd: "well if guns are illegal, ou should just make cars illegal..."

Anti gun crowd: "If I lived somewhere where I thought I needed a gun I would move..."

blah

blah

fucking blah


And yeah, the nation bashing is pretty lame, people that bust on America are weak ass bitches, Its so annoying to hear a bunch of High horse Canadians and Whoever else talk trash.

Not nation bashing, all countries have their quirks and flaws. We fork out millions of pounds every year to keep a bunch of odd inbreds in big houses. However, it just seems blindingly obvious to me that there is a problem with gun crime in the US and a large part of that problem is the lack of gun control. The clinging to the "right to bear arms"/freedom rhetoric is frankly bizarre and talk of being ready to topple an oppressive government simply paranoid delusion to justify an odd and morbid obsession.

No. The largest part of that problem is the lax enforcement of the screening necessary to obtain a gun. Add to that, if you are not primarily a gun seller, you can sell guns at something like a show without any background checks. (This accounts for ~ 40% of gun sales in the US, and can include convicted felons, etc.)

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |