How many of you carry a gun as part of your cycling equipment?

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Bathtubs, planes and basball bats were not designed to fire a high velocity projectile designed to kill or seriously injure others. Guns are.

This is why banning guns needs to be done with common sense so that we wont get the 'cars kill people' argument.

When you have people comparing a gun with the likes of bathtubs etc. you know they arent thinking rationally. A golf tee can kill if you bang it hard enough into a persons temple....stupid eh...yes some people are that stupid?
According to the NGTA (National Golf Tee Association - a subsidiary of the NRA), golf tees don't kill people; people (banging them into another person's temple) do. In the immortal words of Charlton Heston, "if you outlaw golf tees, only outlaws will have golf tees," and "you'll get my golf tee from me when you pry it from my cold dead hands."

Bathtubs, planes and basball bats were not designed to fire a high velocity projectile designed to kill or seriously injure others. Guns are.

This is why banning guns needs to be done with common sense so that we wont get the 'cars kill people' argument.

When you have people comparing a gun with the likes of bathtubs etc. you know they arent thinking rationally. A golf tee can kill if you bang it hard enough into a persons temple....stupid eh...yes some people are that stupid?
Do any of you carry bathtubs or golf tees when you ride. I know that where I live you can carry a bathtub without a permit, but I"m not sure about golf tees.

Well, I BELIEVE that he was using "hollywood" as another weak attempt to discredit americans/american society.

I certainly do not deny that I am affected by the US media, however I have a degree in history and am certainly not limited to some stereotype about americans that only know what they see in a movie.
Nein, i am not trying to discredit anyone. I love America and American people, i only said what i said because it is what i have heard Americans say to me. When i have been there an dthey ask where my accent is from...they say, hey Braveheart right?, sorry all i know about scotland is what i have seen in Braveheart, Rob Roy etc...which is perfectly understandable if you have never sampled the culture in person.

All i knew about america was what i have seen in the movies until i visited. So the statement about Hollywood could also have been directed at myself a few years ago.

I dont know much about Hollywood productions but i have been to Hollywood...have you been to Hadrian's Wall?

According to the NGTA (National Golf Tee Association - a subsidiary of the NRA), golf tees don't kill people; people (banging them into another person's temple) do. In the immortal words of Charlton Heston, "if you outlaw golf tees, only outlaws will have golf tees," and "you'll get my golf tee from me when you pry it from my cold dead hands."
If it is in the NGTA handbook then we must respect that. I would be a dire world if only outlaws were allowed to have golf tees.

Golf would cease to exist....which might not be a bad thing actually.

does anyone know if there's an holster to be used in bikes? looking for one that would fit HK USP45 and Beretta 92FS.

Correct...it was to keep the Caledoni and other Pictish tribes from raiding the Roman controled part of what was to become England. This was one tribe of warriors that the Romans couldnt defeat in open battle and besides, Scotland didnt agree with the lifestyle of the Romans who preferred the warm Italian weather. The Welsh were in a diferent part of the country.
The "Welsh", per se, didn't exist at all at the time of the Romans; this name is an Old English (Anglo-Saxon) word meaning "foreigner" - what a joke, called foreigners in their own country!
What I meant, calling the Britanni the Welsh, was that the peoples of the island of Britain were the group of tribes that ultimately were pushed into modern Wales, and Cornwall, by the invading Teutonics, and the invading Scots in the North. The language orignially spoken in what is now modern Scotland was an archaic form of the language that is now called Welsh, and not Gaelic, which was imported from Ireland.

mountain pro,

my bad then for jumping to conclusions.

i have not had the pleasure of visiting scotland yet.

while i am by no means a world traveler, i have been to quite a few european and eastern european countries. i love to learn about and experience other peoples culture and history.

i also love american culture and (short) history. hence the kneejerk reaction to some peoples blanket statements about the US. i believe that just because i dont agree with some of the decisions that my government makes, i dont have to become an apologist. i believe that the less government the better and the more rights that are preserved the better off we are.

Well, he is Scottish, so I think maybe he knows just a little about Scotland.
And it is true that the vast majority of Americans learn most of what they know through the media, so, as a whole, we Americans deserve a bit less credit than we give ourselves. Don't get me wrong, I'm by no means a self-hating American, I'm just a realist.

And even a degree in history doesn't equate to real life experience in another country. And even that experience is no assurance of protection from the media. I spent my early childhood in Chile, and even now, a good part of what I know comes from the media. If someone from Chile told me that a view I held about that country was wrong, I would accept their correction, because I'm sure they would know a heck of a lot more than I do about Chile.

You're making a little progress, but I'm still not nearly convinced that you're not susceptible to the "Hollywood Effect."

apparently being in the top 1% doesn't make you any more able to read. i already said that i don't deny being affected by the media.

due to your condecending attitude i dont believe i am capable of, nor am i interested in, "convincing" you of anything.

The "Welsh", per se, didn't exist at all at the time of the Romans; this name is an Old English (Anglo-Saxon) word meaning "foreigner" - what a joke, called foreigners in their own country!
What I meant, calling the Britanni the Welsh, was that the peoples of the island of Britain were the group of tribes that ultimately were pushed into modern Wales, and Cornwall, by the invading Teutonics, and the invading Scots in the North. The language orignially spoken in what is now modern Scotland was an archaic form of the language that is now called Welsh, and not Gaelic, which was imported from Ireland.
well researched, I learned something today...:D

I would NEVER :eek: Shoot a gun when I'm riding!!!!!! Are you guys crazy?:( It is absolutely impossible to shoot with any accuracy when you ride.
What a dumb question! Where do you come up with this stuff?:confused:

no problems buddy,

sorry for the misunderstanding..

i do not judge you by the actions of your government...


mountain pro,

my bad then for jumping to conclusions.

i have not had the pleasure of visiting scotland yet.

while i am by no means a world traveler, i have been to quite a few european and eastern european countries. i love to learn about and experience other peoples culture and history.

i also love american culture and (short) history. hence the kneejerk reaction to some peoples blanket statements about the US. i believe that just because i dont agree with some of the decisions that my government makes, i dont have to become an apologist. i believe that the less government the better and the more rights that are preserved the better off we are.

I'm a police officer in Los Angeles County and when I first started riding recreationally (5 years ago) I used to carry my back-up duty weapon (Ti S&W 5-shot revolver). When I became more familiar with my routes and became more competative, I stopped carrying a weapon. It seemed stupid to me to spend 6K on a sub 16lbs bike, only to weigh it down with a weapon (even a hyperlight). I do enjoy weapons. I have 3 handguns and 3 rifles and shoot competitively, but, at the end of the day, I feel that I am fit and aware of my surroundings enough that I can get away from most knuckleheads with my bike. If they can run fast enough to catch me, or if they surprize me, then I deserve to get mugged. It's just motivation to train harder and a reminder not to get complacent.
As a police officer in the DC area, I started out riding with my Sig P239 (compact 9mm). As I progressed as a cyclist, my thinking changed too. I stopped carrying. I just remain aware of my surroundings. It sure is more convenient to not carry!

I have done a lot of backpacking and some of the people that you run into in these remote places lead me to believe that 'protection' is a must - I am sure long distance biking is no different.

People do wacked out shit when in the 'wilderness' - and mace/pepper spray may not stop thier aggressions, nor would I want them to get close enough to me to use a knife. If you are properly trained to use an appropriate fire arm, I see no reason not to carry.

In florida i think the rule is that if u want to carry a gun in public at all u have to have a permit and it has to be concealed.

I read a couple pages of this thread and then realized I didn't have the month it would take to read it all.... so I may be repeating someone else.

A pistol can be a very useful item and I have a permit to carry one. I've never felt the need for one when I ride, but that's just because I don't feel threatened where I ride. However, I fully support the right for anyone to carry one while riding, who feels they need the protection. There is no law that says they have to use it or even present it, no matter the situation. It's a judgement that they have the right to make depending on the situation.

I would like to clear up some things that I read here. First, no one I know is carrying with the intention of shooting anyone. Their first line of defense is to simply scare away someone who is threatening them physically. 99% of the time an antagonist will simply leave when presented with the option of approaching someone with a gun. Nobody who is sane, is going to pull a gun and just blow someone away. It's main purpose is to let the attacker know that the odds may not be on their side, and that backing off is the prudent thing to do.

Of course, everyone who has a gun should be trained and educated thoroughly on it's use. Sure, they can be dangerous and accidents can happen, but this is true of many things. Far more children die in swimming pools than get killed by a gun. I don't see any groups out to ban swimming pools. The same analogy can be made with many other dangerous activities that we commonly engage in every day. Of course, the press sensationalizes every shooting and all but ignores the everyday drowning. It's not small wonder that some have such a negative opinion of guns.

Having the freedom to protect ourselves (or not if we choose) is one of the many great things about this country. Freedom and liberty come only with a price. Most who live here would say the price is worth it. Those who don't, are free to move.

I read a couple pages of this thread and then realized I didn't have the month it would take to read it all.... so I may be repeating someone else.

A pistol can be a very useful item and I have a permit to carry one. I've never felt the need for one when I ride, but that's just because I don't feel threatened where I ride. However, I fully support the right for anyone to carry one while riding, who feels they need the protection. There is no law that says they have to use it or even present it, no matter the situation. It's a judgement that they have the right to make depending on the situation.

I would like to clear up some things that I read here. First, no one I know is carrying with the intention of shooting anyone. Their first line of defense is to simply scare away someone who is threatening them physically. 99% of the time an antagonist will simply leave when presented with the option of approaching someone with a gun. Nobody who is sane, is going to pull a gun and just blow someone away. It's main purpose is to let the attacker know that the odds may not be on their side, and that backing off is the prudent thing to do.

Of course, everyone who has a gun should be trained and educated thoroughly on it's use. Sure, they can be dangerous and accidents can happen, but this is true of many things. Far more children die in swimming pools than get killed by a gun. I don't see any groups out to ban swimming pools. The same analogy can be made with many other dangerous activities that we commonly engage in every day. Of course, the press sensationalizes every shooting and all but ignores the everyday drowning. It's not small wonder that some have such a negative opinion of guns.

Having the freedom to protect ourselves (or not if we choose) is one of the many great things about this country. Freedom and liberty come only with a price. Most who live here would say the price is worth it. Those who don't, are free to move.
... and if the attacker has a gun?

Of course, everyone who has a gun should be trained and educated thoroughly on it's use. Sure, they can be dangerous and accidents can happen, but this is true of many things. Far more children die in swimming pools than get killed by a gun. I don't see any groups out to ban swimming pools. The same analogy can be made with many other dangerous activities that we commonly engage in every day. Of course, the press sensationalizes every shooting and all but ignores the everyday drowning..

Ok New thread.


How many people carry there pool with them when they ride? Pools are more dangerous then guns so... attackers should be more afraid of pools and any one who carries a pool should be safer. As long As he or she is properly trained in the use of pools.


Thankyou:D:D:D:D

BUSH in 2008

I read a couple pages of this thread and then realized I didn't have the month it would take to read it all.... so I may be repeating someone else.

A pistol can be a very useful item and I have a permit to carry one. I've never felt the need for one when I ride, but that's just because I don't feel threatened where I ride. However, I fully support the right for anyone to carry one while riding, who feels they need the protection. There is no law that says they have to use it or even present it, no matter the situation. It's a judgement that they have the right to make depending on the situation.

I would like to clear up some things that I read here. First, no one I know is carrying with the intention of shooting anyone. Their first line of defense is to simply scare away someone who is threatening them physically. 99% of the time an antagonist will simply leave when presented with the option of approaching someone with a gun. Nobody who is sane, is going to pull a gun and just blow someone away. It's main purpose is to let the attacker know that the odds may not be on their side, and that backing off is the prudent thing to do.

Of course, everyone who has a gun should be trained and educated thoroughly on it's use. Sure, they can be dangerous and accidents can happen, but this is true of many things. Far more children die in swimming pools than get killed by a gun. I don't see any groups out to ban swimming pools. The same analogy can be made with many other dangerous activities that we commonly engage in every day. Of course, the press sensationalizes every shooting and all but ignores the everyday drowning. It's not small wonder that some have such a negative opinion of guns.

Having the freedom to protect ourselves (or not if we choose) is one of the many great things about this country. Freedom and liberty come only with a price. Most who live here would say the price is worth it. Those who don't, are free to move.

A very sensible post, this. I, a life-long ACLU, tree-hugging liberal, just finished firing my handgun at a range, and cleaning it. Here in CA I don't have a carry permit, so taking it with me as I ride isn't an option. Not sure if I would do so even with a permit. But a lot of the posts on this topic have arisen from people's visceral distaste for firearms, and not from reasoned and careful thought. Too often, we join what amount to clubs, wherein everyone pretty much agrees with everyone else, and expressing an unexpected point of view is a social gaffe, rather than a challenge to re-think things.

Let's try not to fall into this trap. We've got one thing in common--we ride and love bicycles. Everything else is up for grabs, and we deserve each other's respect.

... and if the attacker has a gun?
Then the attacker went from having 100% of the upper hand to 50/50. You went from 0% to 50/50. One of the two of the people in this scenario is a coward, with any luck, the coward will run... and you can continue on about the business of cleaning out your shorts...

And if what you meant is what if you are attacked and present your piece, and then the attacker presents his. I don't know if that's logical. Why would an attacker with a gun not use it to gain the upper hand right off the bat? Is it more fun to get yourself in over your head and THEN show a weapon, rather than just control the situation at the start? I'm not sure how miserable the criminal mind is, but I'd be willing to bet if you have a gun and you are planning on a crime, you start with that.

It would have to be MANY times more effective (as a spine-less piece of human waste) to put a weapon in Grandma's face and take her purse, than to simply ask for it with no weapon at all.

Ok New thread.


How many people carry there pool with them when they ride? Pools are more dangerous then guns so... attackers should be more afraid of pools and any one who carries a pool should be safer. As long As he or she is properly trained in the use of pools.


Thankyou:D:D:D:D

BUSH in 2008

You know what's pitiful, I'd be willing to bet if 2 losers are trying to break into your home, and one of them drowned in YOUR pool, you'd be liable...