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 |

You make really good points. I agree with you.

Unfortunately most people make up their mind and will never change it no matter what is said. It's kind of like listening. Not many people do it. They are just waiting for a break so they can talk again. Listening and thinking folllowed by reasoning is a lost practice.

When was the last time you heard anyone say "you made a good point, I thought about it and you changed my mind".

---

Dan Kennison

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

I love how stats can be made to look any way you want them to. Anybody else read the fine print at the bottom of the graph..."excluding Mexico"

Correlation is not causation, but you'd have an uphill battle convincing a PhD committee that based on this correlative data, that you'd like to assume that guns are NOT responsible for that big uptick in gun deaths in the US, and that it's really just all the 'culture' and 'mental illness.' Even with Mexico thrown in there, it's pretty compelling data.

I'd love to believe the NRA stats, but those are the ones that seem to go out of their way to subgroup, subset, and make complicated an otherwise simple analysis.

Ya it's just too damn bad we still take our Declaration of Independence and Constitution seriously. Way to bash the USA.

Although I love the Richard Dawkins Foundation... That graph is a joke. Obviously there are more gun related deaths in the US simply because there are more guns. That's like saying there are more swimming pool related deaths in California so lets ban pools. Show me the country with the highest number of knife related deaths and lets ban all knives in that country.

Not bashing OZ.... Most folks here consider OZ like a brother to the USA. My point is that there is crime everywhere and when it's your wife, your daughter, that is the rape victim, you really don't care how the statistics are calculated.

A 110 pound women is a pretty easy target for someone my size, but a woman with a dog, gun, black belt karate shirt on, etc ....less so. The more defense items you remove from her, the less safe she is and this is true anywhere in the world.

Repealing guns in the USA is a shipped long sailed. As noted, Chicago had a gun ban until recently and look how well it worked.

I got to thinking about this thread the other day. The only time I've thought about carrying was running thru the desert in Tucson with the dog. We'd occasionally come across packs of javelina or coyotes. I actually got as far as trying to figure out what I'd need, how to carry it, etc when we moved.

M

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.

Agreed, that the nation bashing, is not a good thing, but, I notice you did it any way! :)

I'm not here to tell Americans what to do, or how to feel, but this is one of those issues, where the U.S. has decided to head in a very different direction than every other democratic country in the world! So the U.S. thinks their way, and well over billion+ other people think, another way. That right there should say something, but I'll leave you and others to draw your own conclusions.

However, the U.S. is a sovereign state, with it's own constitution and it can do as it likes.

I will end with this, and this is a Canadian issue and has to do with geographical proximity and nothing else. When they trace guns used in criminal activity here in Canada, a very high percentage of those firearms, illegally came into the country from the U.S. Very few guns used in criminal activity, up here, have their origins within Canada. So while this may be an issue that, rightly so, the U.S. needs to sort out on it's own, it's not an issue that is contained strictly within the U.S. - it spills over into Canada, my country and has a negative impact here, because we don't have the same attitude towards guns and firearms that you have and that causes issues and problems.

It's purely hypothetical, so I'll apologize for that absurdity right now, but it's worth asking the question - If Canada was next door to, say, Sweden( or any other European Country), would our gun problem be as bad?

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

It does take a lot for someone to say "you made a good point, I thought about it and you changed my mind."

For myself it does happen (not often, but sometimes). On a forum I don't bother responding, But, the exchange of ideas sometimes does change my mind. Perhaps I should recognize the "changer."

In effect it's asking a lot for someone to say "I was wrong and you are right."

I've held off commenting on this thread for a while. My blood has come close to boiling a few times, but, I figured that I might actually hear a few good points. And, I have. Thanks everybody (really).

Me? Hard core trigeek (surprise!). Maybe it's my native American ancestry, or... But I'm also hard core "haven't bought meat for 12 years" (aka hunter). Fill the freezers each fall by hiking the Rockies with bow or rifle for elk and deer. NRA member only because most shooting ranges require it (insurance reasons - I guess). I know what it's like to actually kill an animal, and, it's a real serious thing. I've never seriously thought of a firearm for defense, cause, I don't want to kill anybody. As a hunter my firearms hold 3 or 4 rounds. I should only need one or two for hunting. Or, I've not practiced properly. With my bow, it's one arrow; you don't get a second shot.

After thinking about this stuff, I don't see any reason why anyone should be allowed to have a magazine that contains more than 5, maybe 10 rounds. Semi-auto isn't the issue. I have semi-auto shotguns that hold 3 rounds - don't need and can't use any more. If someone is competitive, then have the shooting range "check out" large magazines while the shooter is at the range.

I'm tired of seeing guys who've never owned a gun go out and purchase as their first a military style semi-auto with a large magazine. They'll end up shooting at tin cans a few times and realize that it isn't all that much fun and IS expensive. Then the gun will sit in a closet and a small percentage will get stolen and end up in the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

Home protection? I'd prefer a dog, but my bird dogs are too friendly for that. I've got my bird guns - know how to use 'em and don't miss. Odds I'll ever need them? Practically zero.

I believe there should be no more civilian sales of military style semi-autos to the public, and if not at least limited to 5 shot magazines.

To the original title of the post. Each fall, it's a heap of work (that I love) hiking the mountains with backpack and rifle. Not the kind of training one thinks of for triathlon, but after a busy spring and summer of racing, it's great to be in the woods. Healthiest meat you can get.

peace

---

I saw this on a white board in a window box at my daughters middle school...
List of what life owes you:
1. __________
2. __________
3. __________

I think you're missing the point. yes, I acknowledge firearms, in the right hands of a well trained and intelligent person, is nothing to be afraid of.
unfortunately, you can;t always guaruntee that. in my op i stated I am from a concript army. that means the guy next to you sometimes doesn't want to be there, has his mind drifting and is giving a lot less shit about the training he's supposed to b thinking of. one of the more intense experiences I had was going on a live fire exercise with a guy who had punched me the day before in a disagreement. he's not the smartest of the bunch but I did manage to get charges dropped against him despite this happening in front of m OC. this very same guy had a live weapon at my back the whole day and let me tell you it was no fun.

similarly, yes, you can have all the right to defend yourselves against your 'evil' governments. but what makes you so sure that everyone out there is buying a gun for this eventuality? is every red neck out there training himself or even aware of gun safety? some people might be buying guns for their own 'evil' purposes.

I'll correct that for you. firearms aren't evil, governments aren't evil. HUMANS , when they want to be, are evil. and you voted that evil human into government in the first place. don't like him? vote him out in the next election. if things are really that bad, I'm betting you probably have guys who have the proper power base, planning, and resources to stage a coup. I'm willing to bet that some of these guys might be GOOD. the whole 'citizen militia' thing is nonsensical. there are more ways to toppple a government than armed violence.

quoting mao, stalin, and hitler is totally out of context. circumstances between the american public and the historical, cultural, and social contexts of the respective populations of china, russia and germany are too different. it's too lengthy to discuss here, but the one major reason why I think this won't happen again, at least not in any developed country, is education. back then education and information was much less prevalent. people didn't think for themselves, they accepted what their leaders said. so mao said communism and his great leap forward was the way to go. mao had just won a decades long war, brought stability to the country, and stopped the rot of a corrupt nationalist government. he's a hero. so everyone who isn't educated takes his word for it. and sorry, theres no internet to communicate with the economist who might think otherwise. similar situations in russia and germany. just in different cultural and historical contexts.

If you want to be able to defend yourself on a bike or while running than learn practical self defense methods. The truth is that most attacks are 'won' by the person initiating because of the surprise nature. Defending an attack is half the battle and the other half is not making yourself an easy target. People are naive to think runners and bikers are not targeted regardless of what city or country you live in. Stay alert by knowing your surroundings, run or bike in populated areas, and avoid times of low light. This is especially important for women. If you can't avoid these things, take some defense classes and know how to quickly and effectively defend yourself. I'd recommend Krav Maga (google IKMF) for practical self defense as they even have classes to defend while clipped in on a bike. I have a conceal permit but never have carried a gun while running or biking - I wouldn't recommend it unless you are highly trained or former military or police. If you are highly trained, chances of needed a gun are virtually zero. The tactical flashlight is also a great rceommendation.

"Defend while clipped in on a bike". Considering your leverage is nil and your balance/base is almost nonexistent, I'd be interested in seeing what's being promoted for that.

Also, with Krav, you need to REALLY vet the instructor. Krav is another "fad" art that has become popular over the last 5 years, and it's just like kung fu was when Bruce was alive. "Learn from a sensei who trained with Bruce Lee at his San Fran studio!". "Instructor X spent 3 year with the Israeli Defense Forces", etc.

John

---

---

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

We'll have to disagree that Krav is a fad - but you need to ensure your instructor is certified by the IKMF so you know they have been trained. For me, its the only fighting style that I think has real world applications for regular people. That being said, the best defense is to not get yourself in a bad situation. Also, the first option is run/flee and do not engage if you can avoid it.

You're right that having leverage while clipped in on a bike is the issue - the same issues you have when there is a regular crash. The key is recognizing that you are going to be on the ground, falling to avoid injury, and being able to quickly defend yourself. Sometimes it's as simple is keeping the bike between you and the attacker. Most attacks are over if you can show reasonable resistance. If you are not an easy target most attackers will flee.

That makes sense. And my characterization of Krav as a fad art is that it's one of the latest "ehrmagerd!" arts that suddenly is popping up at every black-belt-in-a-box studio. I know the history and the actual application of the real art (and it can be fairly brutal), I was more denigrating the boom popularity and every other studio suddenly having all these two week seminar certified instructors...

John

---

---

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

Actually a lot of people miss the points. Most people in this argument don't understand the history of our country or even why the 2nd amendment exists.

1) It has zero to do with hunting. And it also has zero to do with how many bullets your magazine holds.

2) It has everything to do with ensuring your own safety and rights to pursue liberty, happiness and everything else in The Constitution.

3) "Shall not be infringed" is pretty powerful language. Any law regarding firearms is in fact infringement, but everyone seems to think infringement is good.

4) Comparison to Stalin, Mao, Polpot and Hitler is completely the point. Look at what happens once a bad person gets everyone's firearms. I'm not sure our current President is a bad person, but what if the next guy is bad? What if the next guy is evil?

5) According to The Constitution, I have the right to train with a portable anti-tank missile strapped to my back if I want to. You can argue the validity of my statement by confusing the subject but if you think any different or argue different you are lying to me and to yourself. I don't care if you want to lie and proclaim your innocence... people do it all the time. Just don't expect me to believe your lies or those of our politicians.

The DHS just ordered 7,000 assault rifles for the personal defense of people in the DHS. If I don't have the right to one, why in the hell do they need them? We already have a military and plenty of police. Did you see the order the post office put in for ammo last year? Why does the post office need 10s of thousands of rounds of ammunition?

Anyone that wants to take anything from you is a thief plain and simple. The founding fathers knew this. Why does everyone else find this so confusing?

Why don't people start acknowledging before the mass distribution of pyscho drugs, we didn't have these problems in this country? Oh wait, the drug industry is even bigger than the gun industry. In the old days kids carried guns to school with no issue. Schools even had shooting teams.... shooting is very American. Anti-gun laws are Un-American. I'm an American. Members of my family have died securing these rights. I don't trust anyone who wants to steal them in the guise of "safety." Ben Franklin warned about people giving up their rights for "security." He warned that anyone doing so would have neither rights or security.

When you need the police and seconds count, the police are only minutes or hours away......

No one is more suited to protect myself or my family than I am. As the head of this household it is my responsibility to protect my family.

---

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

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.

Your post is so off-base I really shouldn't even bother to respond.

By owning mass-kill weapons or substances, you automatically infringe on everyone in the community's safety, like it or not. For example, if you keep a huge canister of cyanide or other mass-lethal agent in an open container in your driveway, you are infringing on everyone's right, even if YOU can handle it safely (or think you can.)

You do NOT have the right to train with explosive ballstics strapped to your back, contrary to what you might like to believe. We are a civilized society, not a free for all weapons area. Even in the most military of societies, they would not allow the reasoning you have amongst civilians, even those on the side of the gov't.

Please quote the part of The Constitution that says I am off base. Your liberal moralistic argument is the idiotic argument here. Thanks for playing though. Yes and as long as this is your argument and it is entirely devoid of facts, you probably should not respond. If we lived in a civilized society as you claim no one would need weapons. If you think we live in a civilized society, you should probably read more news though. Start your reading with gun violence and gun laws in Chicago, and then take a look into what the drug business is doing to cities on the US border with Mexico. If you think that stuff is civilized, then you are beyond help.

---

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

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.

I live in a civilized neighborhood. It's not the Mexican border, and there is no need for me to own a gun, period. I am however, glad that the police have guns, although I wish it were more like Japan where guns really are not necessary. Unfortunately, thanks to folks like you, cops are often undergunned even when carrying semiautomatic weapons. I already know there's no way I can even begin to use reason to convince you that you should consider looking at things from the other perspective, but that's unfortunately what the NRA wants. If there was clear evidence that guns really made us safer, with less risk of crime across the board, I would definitely get on board and own a gun. Unfortunately, all of the unbiased statistics I've seen (and yes there are some out there, that aren't just liberal or NRA noise) show clearly otherwise, and I'll go with the evidence.

But hey - I'm not going to argue with someone who thinks they have the right to tramp around with ballistic weapons because their interpretation of the Constitution says so. An awfully convenient interpret, imo.

Let's see these unbiased statistics. Maybe you'd like to interview the Jewish people Hitler rounded up and exterminated. They might have an opinion on your statistics. See history refutes your unbiased statistics. I'll stick with history. You refute history, and I will agree with you.

My interpretation isn't convenient. It is the correct one. All the current interpretations being tossed about are convenient and deny history.

Don't bother with reason, you have none. Let's just stick with facts. Present one for starters: one single solitary fact. I've provided numerous examples what can happen if a society is disarmed. You have yet to refute one of those actual easily verifiable historical facts. My preponderance of evidence outweighs all of your moralistic claims.

And furthermore what I may or may not own does not in any way violate your rights. I could own anything, and it doesn't infringe on your rights. It's all in how the items are used. Someone could drown in you in their toilet if they wanted to. Do you think we should ban water and toilets too? By your "logic" we should as they are potentially as dangerous as cyanide or firearms.

I know you aren't going to argue with me. You are simply incapable of presenting a valid argument against anything I have stated, because there is not one. You should be smart enough to know this, but you are too liberal to admit it.

---

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

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/blow-on-guns-america-stands-out.html


http://www.salsa.net/peace/mmm/statistics.pdf


http://www.childrenshospital.org/az/Site905/mainpageS905P0.html


These are only a few of the many. I seriously doubt a Children's hospital is putting up statistics just so they can placate the liberal right.


I would also complain to the local police (as would all my neighbors) if my neighbor decided that it was his right in a suburban neighborhood to start firing an automatic rifle at targets in his backyard which is small and adjacent to mine. Your concept that what you own doesn't infringe on anyone else's right is an immature, self-centered perspective at best.


And this one is nice as well. You're not going to read it because you think the NYT is liberal, but the quote is apt: "Indeed, even as some Americans propose expanding our gun culture into elementary schools, some Latin American cities are trying to rein in theirs. Bogotá’s new mayor, Gustavo Petro, has forbidden residents to carry weapons on streets, in cars or in any public space since last February, and the murder rate has dropped 50 percent to a 27-year low. He said, “Guns are not a defense, they are a risk.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/sunday-review/more-guns-more-killing.html

I'll also assume that you're siding with the NRA president that all teachers should be armed, right?