Unless you're accusing him of being a criminal, he's not the reason that police are "undergunned" since he's not shooting it out with police. Also, if the police are "undergunned" with their weapons, why wouldn't it be a good idea for private citizens to not be "undergunned"?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/nyregion/gunman-who-shot-firefighters-left-chilling-note.html

Are you accusing him of providing weapons to convicted felons?

You need to stop putting words in my mouth. You're smart enough to know that I'm not saying that and that's clearly not my point to make out everyone as felons. There's no need to distort what I'm saying if you know what the message is. It's pretty clear - you arm the society to the teeth and you render the police less effective. You aren't a felon for owning those high powered rifles but it makes the job of the police exponentially harder and more dangerous when every household owns high powered rifles that fire bullets that can penetrate armor/vests and have high capacity cartridges.

Lightheir. You mention that you think the 2nd amendment is open to interpretation? It is not and that is a fact. the supreme court of the united states has up held the 2nd amendment and the right of we the people to keep and bare arms, and that right shall not be infringed ! If you don't want a gun fine don't have one, but do tell someone else that you think they can't protect themselves agains any and all threats to life and liberty! The 2nd amendment guarantees that we can!

Oh no, here comes the "2nd amendment" to the rescue argument again, against all rational rhyme and reason. A perfect excuse to ignore all sense of rationality and data. Here we go again...

Oh man! Here comes someone that's not a big supporter of the 2nd Amendment claiming the other side is ignoring all sense of rationality and data but with nothing else to add. Here we go again!

Not forgetting, of course, that the 2nd amendment *is* open to interpretation. That's exactly what the supreme court has done whenever they'd ruled on it -- what does it mean this time. Oh, and is the interpretation there unanimous? No. In 2008 Scalia got his interpretation passed, but Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer disagreed... sound like "interpretation"?

Of course, historians have various interpretations that don't necessarily sync with the supreme court, but the point here is that is is open to interpretation. The 2nd amendment has been interpreted different ways in its history, from a legal standpoint. The problem is that the wording takes on different meanings, to different folks, with different contexts... that's why historians and supreme court judges spend so much time on it.

Seriously, I'm not even American and I know that it's open to interpretation. Of course, the fact that the supreme court justices are political appointees doesn't help matters...

---

----------------------------------
http://ironvision.blogspot.com ; @drSteve1663

I honestly don't even care at this point that it's hard-rock or open to intepretation. If the freaking Children's Hospital of Boston is just one of many institutions that are recommending against guns due to the proven stats they have on injuries on children (I posted that link earlier), you can tell me the 2nd amendment says this and that - the facts are that that 2nd amendment isn't saving any childrens' lives and you should really think hard about why we even have such protections in our current day and age. In fact, most of the links I posted before are of current, real stats of morbidity and mortality from guns, and are not at all unclear in their impact (those dead body counts don't lie).


Again, if it showed that having guns in the house REDUCED all those childrens' deaths, and reduced all the gun-related crimes in the US, heck yes, I'd been on the NRA bandwagon myself, as I'd gladly support it as a public service safety act. As it stands, there's clearly no way I can take that stance, when the US leads almost all developed nations (by a landslide) in gun mortality. Again, I'm all open ears to stats - if you've got convincing ones, feel free to share them and I'll be glad to change my mind if they're convincing. I will warn though, that I've seen a lot of the ones put forth about explaining all the ways why our gun culture isn't responsible for that high US gun mortality, and they're pretty thin arguments compared to the hard-and-true facts of the dead body count as well as the dead child body count in the US.

*bear arms.

And ALL the amendments are open to interpretation. As is just about every law on the books. It's how lawyers make their living, arguing nuance and interpretation.

My interpretation is that I'd be perfectly fine with assault rifles and large capacity magazines being proscribed. The 2nd amendment was written in 1791 when guns were limited to single shot, black powder jobs.

John

---

---

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

well said. I have tried explaining this to my friends. The easier it is to get firearms, the more probable it is statistically for someone to get killed faster. The countries that are at the bottom of that table, are there because it is HARD to get a gun. If i cant get a gun, then its a knife on knife. switchblade to knife, fisticuffs fight. Would really really need to make an effort to kill someone. *

* assuming that 90% of the populace is not trained navy seals that can kill with bare hands.

If you aren't a felon, why would it make it harder for the police to do their job? If indeed you are a law abiding citizen, then why would you owning weapons make it hard for the police to do their job unless of course they were coming after you because you committed a crime?

I also think you're not very educated on weapons as a whole, which is evident from your armor/vest penetration comments. If you're going to do a google search to try and prove me wrong (about your knowledge) please save it, I doubt you have any knowledge on ballistics and bullet composition, and the fact that in this country owning armor piercing bullets makes you a criminal to begin with. I don't understand why people continue to lump the ownership of weapons by law abiding citizens into the same camp as weapons owned by criminals.

---

http://www.facebook.com/ReconFoundationTeam
http://www.facebook.com/MarineReconFoundation
http://www.reconfoundation.org

So you are assuming that someone whom has committed, 100% committed, to taking another persons life is not "really really" making an effort? The tool used in a homicide or attempted homicide is not the issue you're addressing, you're saying a criminal needs commitment and effort to take another human's life. I think the commitment is already there despite what tool a murderer uses.


And to get at your harder to get comment, do you think criminals just walk up to wal-mart or a licensed FFL dealer and buy weapons? Why the hell would they care if guns were harder to get for law abiding citizens? If I'm a criminal I'm not going to worry about a misdemeanor for an 'illegal magazine' or 'collapsable stock' if I'm on my way to commit a felony. Let's not forget that during the height of the AWB in the state that to this day still has one of the strictest gun controls (California), there was the North Hollywood shootout. Clearly those criminals gave a shit about how hard it was to obtain 'illegal weapons' and then the legality of turning them into fully automatic machine guns.


I'm not saying you have to agree with decisions that are pro or anti-gun control, but I do wish that people were more realistic about these types of things and didn't pretend like we live in some utopian world where: crime only happens in the 'ugly' parts of inner cities that are overpopulated, unicorns fart rainbows and your daughter hasn't seen a penis until the day she gets married.

---

http://www.facebook.com/ReconFoundationTeam
http://www.facebook.com/MarineReconFoundation
http://www.reconfoundation.org

Besides, the original thread was about "guns and training"... not "guns and govt., criminals, insane folks, etc".

So taken in that context, are there valid and reasonable reasons that a normal, law abiding, person would need a gun while training?

How about the day my wife, 6-week old son and gentle giant Newfoundland were out for a mid-day, suburban neighborhood run when the a big ol' Rottweiler came charging out of the yard, across the street, and attacked my dog without warning?

I'll never forget my only thought when I jumped into the fight, "this is gonna hurt"!

Fortunately I was able to grab the Rotty by the throat without getting bitten but that was only because my big dopey dog had a monster sized can of whoop ass hidden where we never saw it and was giving that Rotty hell at the time.

But trade one Rottweiler for 2, or 2 Pit Bulls and the story changes dramatically when all I've got for protection is a pair of Hokas and Nike running shorts.

Fast forward to a few days back and a suburban guy not too far from our area had his house windows broken by 3 Coyotes going after his dogs even after he got them in the house. They were literally trying to get into this guys house to kill his dogs. He finally shot 2 of them with a high powered air gun to get them to leave.

This really got me thinking about needing to have something with me when running with my current Goldens. Even if they could turn it on like my Newf did that day, they don't have the size he did and I'm really not all that interested in jumping into another dog fight as luck like I had usually doesn't offer itself up more than once.

this is all i need to know about gun control, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...rrany_n_2502105.html.

And I know he is a comedian, but there is some really good points in there.

The NRA and gun lobbyists are not there to "preserve your right to own a gun". they are there to make money. All this hysteria over the new gun ban (that doesn't exist yet) has made them billions of dollars off of inflated prices on firearms.


That being said back to the topic, I wouldn't carry a gun while riding for one simple reason.... I would be tempted to use it on every vehicle that "buzzes me" and/ or threatens my life whether intentional or not. Another way to look at it is maybe the driver has a screw loose or two and decides to buzz you for fun, sees you have a weapon (let's be honest its hard to hide a firearm in lycra), and instead of buzzing you hits you bc he doesn't want to be shot at.....

Just my thoughts

---

- Cat 2
- Training Peaks ambassador

"A good coach will do more for you than a good set of wheels."

It's good to know that you are aware that you aren't psychologically stable enough to carry a gun. Most people would have a hard time having that talk with themselves.

Also, let's be honest with ourselves, even if you carry on a bike ride 99% of the time you won't see (or be able to react in time to) that car that buzzes you or hits you again on that ride, unless they make a deliberate attempt to seek you out again. Which, at that point, they've attempted manslaughter with a deadly weapon twice and you would have every right to protect yourself.

---

http://www.facebook.com/ReconFoundationTeam
http://www.facebook.com/MarineReconFoundation
http://www.reconfoundation.org

Mounted a custom 50 cal to the frame. The recoil caused a lot of handling issues.

I'm not saying that I'm psychologically unstable, and therefore recognize that I shouldn't carry a firearm. I'm simply stating that using a firearm as self defense (unless faced with another firearm) is a bit overkill. It takes only a few seconds to end someone's life, and to me that seems like a lot of risk. I would venture to say that 99.99% of people (including muggers, robbers, thieves, etc...) are not out to kill a person they accost. so to pull a firearm to me seems to me to be jumping the gun (see what I did there). I guess you could say that I believe in people a bit too much, but I'm not willing to risk ending someone's life over a scuffle or even an accident.

---

- Cat 2
- Training Peaks ambassador

"A good coach will do more for you than a good set of wheels."

I don't know about you but a couple thousand pound vehicle is enough to end your life. Also a simple baseball bat or crowbar will also end a life. A weapon isn't used to gain superiority, it's used to even the footing. I'm pretty sure a 100lb female triathlete would be hard pressed to fight off a 210lb man whether armed or not, and I don't think it would be overkill for her to pull a gun on him to prevent physical injury or death to herself whether that man is armed or not. It's also incredible that you would think someone who is desperate or unstable enough to commit a felony crime with a deadly weapon would have the judgement or decision making ability to not shoot you because they are weighing the cost of future punishment.

I do respect that you're willing to lay your own life down for your argument and belief in people, though. I also don't think that in the heat of being beaten senseless with fists or a baseball bat you would have the same sentiments. The good old days of ending arguments with a fist fight are long over, now people will do anything to gain an advantage over you and destroy you. I guess you could say that the age of chivalry is over, and even if it wasn't the type of people we encounter that buzz us on training rides aren't that chivalrous to begin with.

---

http://www.facebook.com/ReconFoundationTeam
http://www.facebook.com/MarineReconFoundation
http://www.reconfoundation.org

This is the kind of thinking that scares me about the general public owning guns. It's as if EVERY encounter is all of a sudden a life or death situation, even an argument on the road bike vs driver.

If you're in an area where actual fatal violence does occur on a high frequency to the point that you need a gun just to be safe, you really owe it to yourself to find a safer place to live/workout. There aren't too many places in the US that are that violent.

This guy carries:

Agreed. Let me break it down like this. I ride 6 days a week and cover about 11000 miles annually. I get "buzzed" at least once a week, and I have been hit twice. One of those being a hit and run in which I was lucky to walk away with only a fractured hand. Taking all of that into account I cannot see a situation on the bike in which carrying a firearm would benefit me. You want to do something that would buy a camera and mount it on your bike. I did that. So far thanks to said camera one person has lost his license for year and paid a hefty fine for reckless endangerment for yelling and buzzing me. I've also found that most people when approached politely respond the same. Remember brandishing a firearm is illegal, and discharging it is more illegal. You would be hardpressed to convince a judge that the driver endangered your life bc he passed you too closely. For runners, i don't know, sure. But remember if the mugger feels his life is in danger bc he sees you with a firearm and he has one. He's more likely to use his as well.

---

- Cat 2
- Training Peaks ambassador

"A good coach will do more for you than a good set of wheels."

Based on your comment I wonder why 2.7 million people live and work out in Chicago (27,957 instancea or violent crime per 100k people) and why our politicians call D.C. their home with 1,241 cases of violent crime (in 2010) per 100,000 people. Why don't we just move our national capital, and why do people not move out of Chicago?

This is what scares me about your type of thinking, I'll run away until I have no other choice left. Well, some people don't have the choice to run away or live elsewhere and others simply do not want to let criminals and inept law enforcement control the way they live their lives.

---

http://www.facebook.com/ReconFoundationTeam
http://www.facebook.com/MarineReconFoundation
http://www.reconfoundation.org

The commitment may be there but it's still going to be harder for them to carry through with it. If you attack me with a knife and intend to kill me, I can probably survive either by fighting back with anything available like a bat or a rock... or by running away. Unless you're a champion knife thrower or can run faster than me, my chances of survival are very high.

If you attack me with a gun on the other hand.....

It's not just about commitment level. It's about ease and realistic outcomes.

Thank you. The idea that the proper response to being buzzed (which could be intentional, or could be just a result of carelessness or plain old bad driving) is to KILL THE PERSON is just 100% insane nuttery.