Shit Matthew. I'm sorry to hear that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Strongin
Printable View
Shit Matthew. I'm sorry to hear that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Strongin
Jesus! Glad you missed the ride Matt. I don't speak Spanish, anyone want to translate the gist of what they were arguing about? That seemed to go from friendly to f*cked pretty dang fast.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Strongin
And how dysfunctional some people are. I know cyclists that carry when they ride because because of interactions they've had with drivers in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Strongin
Surely someone in that group had a GoPro or something, right?
Please talk to the cyclists who feel the need to carry on their ride, as thats one step short of criminal itself. I have a no guns in my boat or on my rides policy, flat out.
If you dont plan to shoot someone, why would you carry a gun? If you do plan to shoot someone, what the actual fuck is your problem?
I grew up shooting. My Dad taught me how to shoot a rifle around 8 years old. I had a BB gun and would shoot empty can and have one pump fights with friends. Yes, we shot each other in the woods, one pump rule, sometimes broken. I got a 22 and so on and so forth. Spend my childhood shooting targets.
As I got older, I inherited a few long guns, a shotgun, and still have my BB gun and 22 from my early youth. I never bought any of these guns. I have never been required to be licensed, register anything, nothing. As far as the world knows, other than here now, I don't own a gun. I do. They are all safely stored and locked.
I would gladly register them, turn them in, whatever. I only have them all because I don't really know what else to do with them. I rarely go shooting. I would be solely interested to keep my 22 based on pure nostalgia. It's a single round pee shooter. Still dangerous as it is a gun but hardly an assault weapon.
But realistically, I don't really have a need.
My point is, I had to do nothing to have what I have.
I have a license to drive my car. I have a license to serve beer at the store. I have no license or certification to have guns. Just a random guy who has a more than needed amount of guns that the world has no record of.
There are times (commuting before daybreak or after sunset, or riding in isolated areas of some local parks) when I prefer to carry. I choose to live in a state that allows (and in fact licenses) that option. I don't feel as if I'm only one step from being a criminal, but I respect your right to think I am. There are people in this world who have noticed the five-figure price tags of modern high-end cycles, and don't mind engaging in violent behavior to acquire one (ostensibly to sell, as I don't see a lot of meth addicts on Effbuilder creations). I've had good luck with the Silca Impero regarding angry canines, but it seems feeble against full size humans with felonious intentions.Quote:
Originally Posted by mzilliox
I'm sorry we won't get a chance to ride together, but if we did, and nobody brandished a knife, lead pipe or gun at you/me/us, you'd never even know if I'd chosen to carry that day. It's not on my hip like I'm Wyatt Earp or something. In fact, nothing would make me happier than looking at that pistol in 50 years and noting its like-new condition due to lack of use (other than the corrosion from sweat, because that would mean I rode almost enough to justify my fancy frame).
Social media and cable news would have us think otherwise, but reasonable, caring, kind, generous, honest and loving people really can differ on these topics. See? We're doing it right now...
Its true, we differ on the topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Of Dirk
since we are discussing these things all civil like, why do you carry? if someone were to threaten you for your bicycle, would you kill them? shoot them in the knee? flash your piece in the hopes of them being frightened. do you think its worth killing someone for a bicycle? do you think its worth shooting a person in the knee for a bicycle? do you have insurance? are/were you law enforcement? have you had adequate training on the use of this weapon?
i dont have a problem with people not agreeing, i have a problem with people thinking policy for everyone should follow suit with their own preference, not the safety of the majority. im not even saying my views represent the majority, they dont, or we would not have this problem in this country, we would be solving it, or never have had it in the first place. im obviously a minority with a minority opinion, thats how this all works right? democracy and freedom? the majority wins? oh wait.
but yes, nothing personal at all, but now that i know you, if we ever ride ill be looking very hard at your baggy kit, and if theres a weird shape, im not riding
i really am curious what you think carrying solves. if i didnt know you were carrying, what significance is carrying?
Not speak for Jasper, but if he's like the folks I know that sometimes carry on a ride it's not to show off or to prove anything to others - it has nothing to do with you. The ones I know aren't open carrying, they're concealed carrying, and have permits to do so. It's there just in case someone does something crazy. Which is rare, but it does happen. It seems like it happened to Matt's group this morning.Quote:
Originally Posted by mzilliox
And as far as 'one step from criminal' - hell, aren't we nearly always one step from criminal?
Mass shootings are rare period......if you have a gun, live in a house with a gun or associate with people who own guns your chance of getting shot will go through the roof.
If you own guns and have children the chances of them being shot are going to increase...
What do you think would have happened if the cyclist(s) in Miami just pulled over and the let motorcyclist go by......
What do you think will happen when a tired cyclist is who is pumped up on adrenaline attempts to wrestle his gun out of his back jersey pocket - (oh I am sure that you gun range enthusiast are also practicing live simulations so you know what it is like to pull a gun a live person and not a paper target) - I have a hard enough time to "draw" a Gu pack from my holster
As more details have come to light, it seems the motorcyclist was the one carrying. They got into a fight, perhaps one with history, and he lost his cool. And instead of punching a cyclist, he shot one. Seems to me the gun is what made this situation crazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by dgaddis
I don't mind discussing this at all. I've stated already why I sometimes carry. To elaborate, I'm not quite sure I can trust a violent felon to take my bicycle and leave me to go about my merry way. To quote a douchebag cheater, it's not about the bike. I do not think it's worth maiming or killing someone (or shooting someone in an extremity) for a bicycle, especially me. I do have insurance. I am not, nor have I ever been, law enforcement. And I've had adequate training. By the way, "flashing" a piece in my state is considered deadly force - waving a gun around down here if a reasonable person wouldn't be in in fear of that person's imminent demise is a one-way ticket to prison, as I believe it should be. I do not know what Oregon's statutes have to say on the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by mzilliox
I'm not trying to be pedantic, I swear, but your point about majorities is exactly why this country isn't a democracy; the tyranny of the majority is real. Fundamental rights of minorities must be protected from majority sentiment, regardless of whether that sentiment is malicious or well-intentioned. And of course, the smallest possible minority is the individual. Our fine Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to guarantee an individual's fundamental right to self defense. Guarantee, that is, because a fundamental right can't be granted (or revoked). How individuals defend themselves is absolutely subject to regulation, and so far a five-round pistol is still well within the bounds of what this society (via its laws and the enforcement thereof) deems acceptable. I'm not invading Panama, for Pete's sake. But if that law changes, well, I guess I'll have to change with it. I'm not interested in armed rebellion. It saddens (and embarrasses) me that many gun owners portray themselves as would-be heroes in some epic showdown with the U.S. government. I believe that government is the people, and I'll live by the laws the people enact, though I'd certainly advocate for change via the legislative and judicial process if I felt a law were unconstitutional. I'm not a "cold dead hands" sort of chap, but I acknowledge regretfully that many are. I like them as little as you do, I promise.
On your last point, this is where I take issue with the laws of my state, and several others that allow "open carry." I don't see the rationale, and I'd like it to be off limits for all but law enforcement. I don't want you, or anyone else, to know when or if I'm carrying. It draws attention, and of the kind I really don't want. The kind of people who do want that kind of attention, in my opinion, are among the least suited to own/carry a firearm. If you didn't know I was carrying, the most significant thing is that we had a great day. No one will ever know I'm carrying unless my life is threatened, and I become aware of that fact in time to react...which could be quite unlikely.
On the other hand, I believe the uncertainty about who is/isn't carrying is a benefit. I believe it is part of the explanation for the fact that the overwhelming majority of mass shootings occur in "gun free" zones. The recent shit in the El Paso Walmart is certainly an exception, but overwhelmingly these "crazy" people elect - somewhat rationally for a "crazy" person - to attack innocent people in areas where the felon can be certain the law abiding types are defenseless.
You stated you really are curious what I think carrying solves. I'll answer you honestly: I think it marginally increases my chances of going home to my wife if my life is ever threatened by a person who has decided to ignore the rules the rest of us agreed to live by. I am aware of related statistics, and under no illusions about my proficiency or odds - marginally increases my chances. I also have annual physical exams, try to exercise, and do my best to stay away from sugar. I understand studies indicate those who own/carry guns are more likely to be injured or killed by one, but I also understand those who get in salt water are more likely to be bitten by a shark than those who don't, and I'm arrogant enough to believe I can control my firearm better than most. I see the fallacy, kinda like everyone thinks their kid is above average, and only half of them are correct. But you asked, and I'm being forthright. I appreciate the chance to discuss with you. If I'm tardy in reply to any response, it's only because I need to get some work done. But before signing off for a while, I want to make it explicitly clear that I think firearms are too easy to procure in the U.S., and that I support much stricter enforcement of existing gun laws, and reform of others. I do not believe the status quo is acceptable, or inevitable.
I'm at a loss for words on this one. I'm not surprised, but I'm at a loss. It reminds me of all the hot-head roadies that used to get pissy with one another and with drivers. To have a firearm added to that level of aggression/testosterone makes me want to stick to riding alone...in the woods...Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Strongin
--- again.., explain to me the differance between an assult weapon and a weapon of mass destruction..!
i am not interested in your familiarity with realtive to your militaty training nor your good intentions...
"have you served in combat, killed with, loss men realtive too and been wounded with..??"
if not.., you might want to relate too what is subjective within and objective fact..
like piss'n in a blue surge wool suit.., feels warm and good to me for i am the only one relative too..
ronnie
I think its changing. With each new shooting the odds increase that someone knows someone or knows someone who knows someone who got shot. That's the difference between not caring and caring for many people. Most of these people who care more about their guns than other people's lives will change their tune when its someone they know. -Mike G
this is a stupid pedantic discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by ron l edmiston
the bottom line is those people looking to engage in a mass killing are purchasing ar-15's, ruger min 14 ak-47's and similar weapons that the vast majority of normal Americans regard as assault
rifles and not hunting rifles. We had a working definition during the last assault rifle ban. I guarantee you go to the police and law enforcement and they will be more than happy to use the old or come up with a new working definition. And guaranteed the police do not want ar-15's to deal with since they are the ones risking their lives to protect the public
It is absolutely essential that non-gunowners relentlessly insult, harangue, and belittle entirely peaceful law-abiding gunowners to convince them, without recompense, to change. It is a proven negotiating technique that totally works.
I'll try, just as soon as you define "assault weapon" in a way that doesn't make it functionally equivalent to a deer rifle. I can define "high-capacity magazine," though, and think they should be regulated.Quote:
Originally Posted by ron l edmiston
It's not pedantic. Definitions matter. And if you don't think they do, watch me define "weapon of mass destruction" in a way that includes a seven year old who hasn't gotten his vaccinations.
Well with all due respect, Mr. Edmiston, you may consider the feeling mutual.Quote:
Originally Posted by ron l edmiston
And if I answer "yes" to all of your interrogatories, may I keep my pistol, sir? How many classes of citizens would you prefer?Quote:
Originally Posted by ron l edmiston
-----------------------------------------Quote:
Originally Posted by fastupslowdown
i am out of this discussion relative to my lack of insight, knowledge and my personal crusade...
ronnie
I'm glad you mentioned the 1994 AWB. The FBI's crime statistics cast some doubt on its efficacy (well, that's not exactly true - actually they prove it was pointless). How do you propose revising it so that it will accomplish anything this time?Quote:
Originally Posted by fastupslowdown
Have a link you can share? I've mostly heard it reported that the ban worked and mass shootings are on the rise since it expired. But if there's sound data to support a different conclusion, I'm all ears.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Of Dirk
For those keeping track, the cyclist shot this morning, where I ride everyday on the group ride I do often, died. Not surprisingly, the comments in the article are mostly about cyclists being annoying for riding in the road. I wholeheartedly believe we have a gun problem in this country. But there's no arguing we also have a people problem.
Not a productive combination, huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Strongin
Personally I'd choose to preserve the people and forsake the guns. (Even when I read comments like, "hell, aren't we nearly always one step from criminal?" about my fellow humans.)
Others seem to disagree.
Agree 100%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Strongin
So sorry about your friend and your group Matt.
Since I'm looking at this thread again, I’m going to share what, for me, has been the single most upsetting thing in this thread.
In order to cite some data on violent crime, a VSalon member posted a link to a website that is run by a known racist and antisemite. In the same post, this member also accused "the press" of suppressing this crime data.
I checked out the website, and found that it features a horrifying collection of racist and antisemitic articles. I'll share just one particularly appalling example: The website's namesake wrote and published an article claiming that even if the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is fake (and he's not convinced) there definitely is an international Jewish conspiracy to rule the world.
I called this out in a post.
That VSalon member continued to contribute to this thread. He never acknowledged that he'd linked to a website brimming with lies and hate.
The member who posted the website link is clearly against gun control. I won’t accuse him of condoning the vile and hateful beliefs that litter that loathsome website. But I’d sure be more comfortable if he’d repudiate them.
That was me. Frankly, that's the only article from that site I've ever read, and I got there via a link from an outside source (a high school friend). I don't condone hate, lies, racism or anti-semitism.Quote:
Originally Posted by davids
But I also won't discount everything some one says just because I don't agree with everything some one says (or even most things). As for my continued participation in this thread, it's been scant. I try to stay out of these discussions because I'm not all that eloquent, and I don't think it's really anyone's business whether I own firearms or not.
I am not against "gun control", but I do disagree on what, exactly, that means by most posters here.
I really do wish this forum and its thinkers were representative of the population in general, because we would not be having to have this talk if that were the case. thanks (most) everyone for reminding me there is some sanity in the world and that people still care and think beyond their tiny little bubbles. And thanks to King of Dirk for the honest response. while i can not agree with your rationale, its pretty level headed and fair.
thanks all for the enlightening discussion, i should probably quit now as ive already said too much.
Thank you for that, friend. Your kind words truly mean a lot to me. I, too, am grateful for this forum and the people who make it what it is. I'm going to follow your lead and leave this topic to others, but I'm really touched by your willingness to hear me out in good faith, not despite the fact that we disagree, but because of it. Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by mzilliox
Mr. Strongin I didn't mean to leave without answering your question. You deserve better than that, so y'all forgive me one more post in this thread:Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Strongin
I don't wish to have a battle of the experts with anyone. Given some of the issues in this thread with sources, and the agendas that are behind sources, and junk science, and all of that, I tried to find something that at least appears to be trying to be fair and objective. At the very least, the link seems to suggest both Senator Dianne Feinstein and Wayne LaPierre are full of shit - and I don't want to waste time discussing anything with anyone who can't take those two conclusions as given.
If someone points out the Annenberg Public Policy Center is an arm of the Trilateral Commission or the International Socialist Organization, I disclaim any affiliation, this is not an endorsement, close cover before striking, and Your Mileage May Vary: Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work? - FactCheck.org
What I take from the factcheck.org link is that restricting magazine capacity would be far more effective than worrying about the instrument into which the magazine is inserted; a semi-auto is a semi-auto, whether it's a deer rifle or an AR-15. I believe, but have zero non-anecdotal proof to cite, that many people who own guns but not "assault rifles" oppose banning "assault rifles" because, if one were to conclude (correctly) that the only meaningful difference between an AR-15 and a semi-automatic deer rifle is that one's stock, grip and foregrip are usually made of black plastic while the other's stock, grip and foregrip are usually made of wood, an otherwise-reasonable-non-AR-15-owning gun owner might conclude that as soon as some kook shoots up a Burger King with a deer rifle, some significant number of public officials will be clamoring to ban deer rifles. Some see it as a slippery slope. When legislators who introduce bills to ban "assault rifles" can't explain what it is about the firearm in question that makes it distinct from others, I think it's fair to wonder if the legislators even understand what they're attempting to regulate. Nah, I'm being too generous...there's no reason to wonder - they don't know what the hell they're talking about. I particularly like the ones who suggest we might ban automatic weapons. My achin' head...
Look, I'm being harsh, but it's because I do not accept the status quo. Loose talk by members of Congress and others is making it harder, not easier, to effect meaningful change on this issue. Not everyone has the luxury of pontificating about the philosophical distinctions as some of us here do, and to be a real asshole, there are at least 150 million people in this country that just aren't very bright. If you give any person who is attempting to defend his/her position an opportunity to take something out of context to their benefit, you can bet they'll do so. Gun control advocates need to be precise in their message and their language, and perhaps work on appearing a little less contemptuous of the people they wish to (nay, need to) convince. They are failing miserably, and the NRA bears absolutely none of the blame for that inconvenient truth.
If the anti-gun folks would bring forth honest meaningful proposals that could keep guns out of the hands of loons & criminals, I believe everyone would be on board. But don’t expect pro-gun folks to happily sign on to what appears to be ineffective laws that just seem like the first brick in the foundation of developing a mechanism to take guns away from law abiding folk while leaving them in the hands of non-law abiding folks.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Of Dirk
law abiding folks, non law abiding folks. What is the difference ?
Time.
i'm sorry, this is like saying I don't like nazi genocide policy but i like its stance on the economy and border security. i would refuse to visit any website or promote one that has links to the elders of zion. what you're basically doing is getting them new hits and a potential weak mind. i find it repugnant -mike gQuote:
Originally Posted by David Tollefson
The person that uses a gun to harm you or your family: non-law abiding. The person that uses a gun to defend himself or his family from someone trying to do them harm: law-abiding.Quote:
Originally Posted by sk_tle
Were you trying to be funny, or did you sincerely need that explained to you ?
The person who needs no gun at all - enlightened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dallas Tex
Unless you are forced to protect your family, friends, or yourself than you are simply unprepared.Quote:
Originally Posted by e-RICHIE
You do realise that's a black and white view. The right of self-defence is not absolute (at least in this and I assume most other countries) and has to have some degree of proportionality to the threat. So, while you may argue that you were protecting from harm, your actions maybe judged by the law in a different way and push you into the non-law abiding category.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dallas Tex
Perhaps this was the intention of the post you responded to. Waving a gun around is a sure fire way to cause things to go south pretty quickly and the line between law abiding or otherwise is pretty thin.
I’ll take my chance with a judge/jury every time, as opposed to the hope that the crack head that breaks into my house in the middle of the night has a kind heart and won’t hurt my wife or daughter.Quote:
Originally Posted by BBB
When the cops are 20 minutes away, IF you were able to call them, would you rather be prepared to defend your loved ones or not ?
Do you believe it´s only about those two sides of that particular situation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dallas Tex
In some countries you can have a gun at home but there is no concealed carry..Quote:
Originally Posted by Dallas Tex
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by colker
Thank you for the reasonable discourse on this difficult subject. I'd like to turn the tables on the political discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Of Dirk
I no longer think it's up to the proponents of common-sense gun control laws, like Moms Demand Action and similar groups, to bring up ideas that get swatted down by the NRA and Republicans in congress. The quote is that the best defense is a good offense, but I really think that's not the way this should be handled.
The gun enthusiasts should offer solutions that can make progress against this violence. These sickos have unfettered access to incredibly efficient machines for killing multiple people at once, and thousands of rounds of ammo, and the opportunity to practice and get proficient at using them. In most cases these nutjobs are obtaining the hardware legally, and even practicing at ranges with other law-abiding shooters.
How do you propose keep your access to the weapons you want, and minimize the chances that nutjobs like the Sandy Hook shooter don't? Or is that acceptable collateral damage?
TH
I just don't understand this madness. We have drug problems in Australia and home invasions, but the average punter doesn't have a 50 calibre machine gun under his or her bed to guard against all possibilities ("Sorry your honour, he asked for my wallet, so I gave him 25 rounds with the old peacemaker. He won't be making that mistake again. The Mrs was very grumpy at the damage to the house. That's punishment enough I submit"). To the extent they did have a gun it would be locked in a gun safe. If everyone is armed to the teeth, then you will just end up with more and more gun related deaths. I think the statistics support this view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dallas Tex
And, to get back to the point of the right to bear arms, it wasn't - ever - about being prepared to defend against crackheads - it was about something more substantial. The rational or reason supporting the right, as I'm sure you will appreciate, has since evaporated.
Couldn’t agree with you more.Quote:
Originally Posted by BBB
Couldn’t agree with you less.Quote:
Originally Posted by BBB