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