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.

The gunman at the Appalachian School of Law was apprehended by an unarmed student after he had run out of ammunition. The gunman placed the gun on the ground and put his hands in the air...the position he was in when the armed off-duty officers arrived at the scene.
The guns of the off-duty officers prevented nothing.Lott is lying again.One can read accounts by Lott, by his detractors, and hundreds of new report in between, and conclude two extremes, or anything in between:

1. The gunman ran out of ammunition, set his gun down, and was held by passersby, including off-duty police.

2. The gunman observed people coming toward him bearing firearms, laid his gun down, and was held by passersby, including students with LE affiliations.

You may choose to accept the former, so I'll add to the list:

"Nearly a decade ago, a Springfield, Oregon, high schooler, a hunter familiar with firearms, was able to bring an unfolding rampage to an abrupt end when he identified a gunman attempting to reload his .22-caliber rifle, made the tactical decision to make a move and tackled the shooter.

A few years back, an assistant principal at Pearl High School in Mississippi, which was a gun-free zone, retrieved his legally owned Colt .45 from his car and stopped a Columbine wannabe from continuing his massacre at another school after he had killed two and wounded more at Pearl.

At an eighth-grade school dance in Pennsylvania, a boy fatally shot a teacher and wounded two students before the owner of the dance hall brought the killing to a halt with his own gun.

More recently, just a few miles up the road from Virginia Tech, two law school students ran to fetch their legally owned firearm to stop a madman from slaughtering anybody and everybody he pleased. These brave, average, armed citizens neutralized him pronto."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commentary.nugent/index.html

My point remains - it is not to prove that allowing CCW on campuses will result in heros running to the rescue - the odds are low and it's not the job of the private citizen to run toward gunfire. It is to note that not a one of those killed could legally have had a gun for self-defense.

The daily occurances where citizens defend themselves using firearms are published in the news, and recounted in numerous blogs that track those new items. Every criminal that shoots at others either stops shooting themselves, or is stopped from shooting by others. Obviously, mass shooting are not under-reported by the news media. Cases where citizens defend themselves with firearms are certainly not lauded as having prevented potential multiple homicides. Like snuffing a small fire before it speads, the self-defense actions of single citizens against potentially lethal assailants may just as well stop stop multiple homicides with frequency - but that's a statistic that can't be gathered nor proven, by definition.

That is not how it went according to the reports I've read. Can you direct me to where you got this account?


Besen's account is the one accepted by the Virginia State Police.
http://timlambert.org/category/lott/appalachian/
Deltoid » Appalachian

One can read accounts by Lott, by his detractors, and hundreds of new report in between, and conclude two extremes, or anything in between:

1. The gunman ran out of ammunition, set his gun down, and was held by passersby, including off-duty police.

2. The gunman observed people coming toward him bearing firearms, laid his gun down, and was held by passersby, including students with LE affiliations.

You may choose to accept the former, so I'll add to the list:

"Nearly a decade ago, a Springfield, Oregon, high schooler, a hunter familiar with firearms, was able to bring an unfolding rampage to an abrupt end when he identified a gunman attempting to reload his .22-caliber rifle, made the tactical decision to make a move and tackled the shooter.

A few years back, an assistant principal at Pearl High School in Mississippi, which was a gun-free zone, retrieved his legally owned Colt .45 from his car and stopped a Columbine wannabe from continuing his massacre at another school after he had killed two and wounded more at Pearl.

At an eighth-grade school dance in Pennsylvania, a boy fatally shot a teacher and wounded two students before the owner of the dance hall brought the killing to a halt with his own gun.

More recently, just a few miles up the road from Virginia Tech, two law school students ran to fetch their legally owned firearm to stop a madman from slaughtering anybody and everybody he pleased. These brave, average, armed citizens neutralized him pronto."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commentary.nugent/index.html

My point remains - it is not to prove that allowing CCW on campuses will result in heros running to the rescue - the odds are low and it's not the job of the private citizen to run toward gunfire. It is to note that not a one of those killed could legally have had a gun for self-defense.

The daily occurances where citizens defend themselves using firearms are published in the news, and recounted in numerous blogs that track those new items. Every criminal that shoots at others either stops shooting themselves, or is stopped from shooting by others. Obviously, mass shooting are not under-reported by the news media. Cases where citizens defend themselves with firearms are certainly not lauded as having prevented potential multiple homicides. Like snuffing a small fire before it speads, the self-defense actions of single citizens against potentially lethal assailants may just as well stop stop multiple homicides with frequency - but that's a statistic that can't be gathered nor proven, by definition. Ted Nugent? LOL!
An old rock singer who happens to be a board member of the National Rifle Association, something you neglected to mention in your post.
Silly.
:D

It isn't. I have not heard of mothers buying stab proof or bullet proof vests for their kids in the U.S.
British citizens are now more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the US.
In 1998, a study conducted jointly by statisticians from the U.S. Dept. of Justice and the University of Cambridge in England found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States.
"You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study."The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's." The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study," the difference between the murder rates in the two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years.

The United Nations confirmed these results in 2000 when it reported that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the U.S.

Gun free England not such a Utopia after all. According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the UK rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.

Nationwide. Statistical comparisons with other countries show that burglars in the United States are far less apt to enter an occupied home than their foreign counterparts who live in countries where fewer civilians own firearms. Consider the following rates showing how often a homeowner is present when a burglar strikes:
Homeowner occupancy rate in the gun control countries of Great Britain, Canada and the Netherlands: 45% (average of the 3 countries); and,
Homeowner occupancy rate in the United States: 12.7% (Source Kleck,Point Blank, at 140.)
They are not even safe in their own homes.
It sure sounds like Govt. and people like you are more concerned with criminal rights instead of the rights of the innocent people they have victimized.
In fact it looks like the criminals are dictating what goes on in prison. They have been handed the keys to their cells:
www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=444586&in_...
Crime rates have either been falling or remaining stable for years in Britain, according to the British Crime Survey.
You're getting really desperate when you use the Daily Mail or the Telegraph as sources.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb1206.pdf
hosb1206.pdf (application/pdf Object)

This is the latest one. There are a couple of others from previous years which confirm that crime of all types in Britain is falling or stable.

http://timlambert.org/category/lott/appalachian/
Deltoid » Appalachian

Besen's account is the one accepted by the Virginia State Police.The only thing clear in the link you provided, is that there is more than one story and the exact truth may only be known by the few who were there.

To me, it's all irrelevant anyway. If a student had a gun, he could have helped saved lives. If he didn't, then only the killer running out of ammo would stop the killing. I know which senerio I prefer.

So feel as safe as you want to, at the cost you are willing to pay, to reduce firearms shootings the 3-fold quoted as the difference between the US and AUS. One thing you can be sure of, is that your fellow countrymen who stomp, stab, beat and steal from you are not doing so because we have more guns in the US than you do in your safer countries.


That’s your own choice. The USA does not have 3X the number of firearms shootings as Australia. It's much higher than that.
The USA has 3X the murder rate of Australia.
Actual shootings in Australia....much lower than 1/3 of the USA.

The only thing clear in the link you provided, is that there is more than one story and the exact truth may only be known by the few who were there.

To me, it's all irrelevant anyway. If a student had a gun, he could have helped saved lives. If he didn't, then only the killer running out of ammo would stop the killing. I know which senerio I prefer.So why do you prefer Bridges's account (unsupported by any other witness) rather than that of the Virginia State Police, who accepted Besen's account?
Because it panders to your prejudices?
:D

Recent analysis of the gun amnesty and buy-back in the wake of the Port Arthur murders in Australia show that it has saved a minimum of 120 lives (suicide) and as many as 260. A subsequent analysis of the numbers by economists show that the buy-back has more than paid for itself.

You can't shoot people without guns.

Ted Nugent? LOL!
An old rock singer who happens to be a board member of the National Rifle Association, something you neglected to mention in your post.
Silly.
:DI thought so. Any number of news agencies are presently discussing the same past events, but I thought I'd use the Nugent one - just on the off-chance you would reject anything said by anyone pro-NRA, pro-2nd amendment, or pro-guns as biased. No doubt you believe any and all other sources referencing these event have been deluded by the evil NRA as well - so I'll not bother to list the Google output from Forbes, WSJ, NYT, etc.

... and of course, only YOU know the real truth about the Appalachian Law Shools event. More of your insider sources that can't be confirmed or revealed?

Your bias runs very deep SB - your :Ds, LOL!s, and such nonsense really don't compensate for lack of any objectivity.

Recent analysis of the gun amnesty and buy-back in the wake of the Port Arthur murders in Australia show that it has saved a minimum of 120 lives (suicide) and as many as 260. A subsequent analysis of the numbers by economists show that the buy-back has more than paid for itself.

You can't shoot people without guns.The total suicide rate in Australia continues to rise, but suicide by gun has declined. What is good about that? Is suicide by other means more economical??

"You can't shoot people without guns", but you sure can kill people by other means. Murder by careless use of motor vehicles is tolerated and hardly punished at all. Why?

[QUOTE=Akadat]The total suicide rate in Australia continues to rise, but suicide by gun has declined. What is good about that? Is suicide by other means more economical??QUOTE]

It would have been at least 120 higher. What price do you put on 120 lives?

It would have been at least 120 higher. What price do you put on 120 lives?
120 since Port Arthur? How do you know that? How many being unable to find grandad's old shotgun in the shed, successfully chose another method? I think the economists are speculating with numbers.

Putting a price on human life - I wouldn't be so naive, but the economists are apparently doing it. Please ask them how much air and sunshine are worth, and whether the body of a rich man is worth more than the body of a poor woman. Do they know that the spark of life is a constant?

So why do you prefer Bridges's account (unsupported by any other witness) rather than that of the Virginia State Police, who accepted Besen's account?
Because it panders to your prejudices?
:DI didn't say I prefer either account. I said, the exact occurrance is under debate. My comment has to do with any future shootings on a campus. My prejudices prefer that the killer is stopped by someone legally carrying a gun on campus vs. waiting for the shooter to run out of ammo.

120 since Port Arthur? How do you know that? How many being unable to find grandad's old shotgun in the shed, successfully chose another method? I think the economists are speculating with numbers.

Putting a price on human life - I wouldn't be so naive, but the economists are apparently doing it. Please ask them how much air and sunshine are worth, and whether the body of a rich man is worth more than the body of a poor woman. Do they know that the spark of life is a constant?

I am quoting the conclusions of a study that were on the radio over the weekend. You will probably find it if you do a google on the Australian press.

Economists (actuaries actually) are always calculating the price of a human life - how do you think insurance companies work out their policy prices (before they add a huge amount on for profit)?

But it is not just Australia. Gun deaths in most countries where it is not an accepted god-given right to carry a gun and use it are well below those in the land of the free (isn't that full of irony?) I suspect the word naive was invented for people such as yourself.

I didn't say I prefer either account. I said, the exact occurrance is under debate. My comment has to do with any future shootings on a campus. My prejudices prefer that the killer is stopped by someone legally carrying a gun on campus vs. waiting for the shooter to run out of ammo.
so if everyone is armed to be educated and everyone is armed to ride their bike, the community will be a safer place? There is something seriously wrong with your society:-(

The USA does not have 3X the number of firearms shootings as Australia. It's much higher than that.
The USA has 3X the murder rate of Australia.
Actual shootings in Australia....much lower than 1/3 of the USA.... it sounds like although guns don't kill as many people in AUS, people still kill people.

Now where have I heard that before???

There is something seriously wrong with your society:-(I guess it's hard to become and remain the world's only super-power without having a few things left to fix, eh? :rolleyes:

I guess it's hard to become and remain the world's only super-power without having a few things left to fix, eh? :rolleyes:

you're right, no society is perfect. It does sound very disturbing though to see the need to carry a gun when cycling or studying as a 'right' that must be defended rather than as a problem to be examined.

... it sounds like although guns don't kill as many people in AUS, people still kill people.

Now where have I heard that before???

sure, people are murdered here too, some even shot. Abolishing guns won't abolish crime but nobody is naive enough to suggest that. I can cycle anywhere without carrying a gun for self-defence, and I can get educated without getting shot.

I am quoting the conclusions of a study that were on the radio over the weekend. You will probably find it if you do a google on the Australian press.

Economists (actuaries actually) are always calculating the price of a human life - how do you think insurance companies work out their policy prices (before they add a huge amount on for profit)?

But it is not just Australia. Gun deaths in most countries where it is not an accepted god-given right to carry a gun and use it are well below those in the land of the free (isn't that full of irony?) I suspect the word naive was invented for people such as yourself.I did Google 'the dollar value of life', this quote comes from the first hit: "Economists measure the value of a life by people's willingness to pay for safety". The value is directly related to fear, hardly a stable baseline, and one that is easily exploited. The VT massacre has increased the value of life according to the economist theory. As a result some will top up their insurance and give more autocratic power to their 'protectors'; and others will rush to the gun shop and top up their ammo supply.

People are willing to pay others for their safety. I do not oppose their choice, but why do those people insist that all must do the same? The people who take responsibility for their own safety do not insist that all do the same, and naturally they resent those who seek to deny them that choice.