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