Forum menu
There are plenty of guns in the UK!
Not concealed ones there isn't.
I live in the US. I have about as much chance of being involved in a gun-related incident as you do in the UK.
A vocal minority does not make a whole nation. Look at gun deaths in the USA. The figures are broadly:
younger black urban males killing other young black urban males
older white rural males killing themselves
It's a bit mad here but the gun issue is all bent out of shape by a very vocal minority who use very traditional values to stir it up.
Not concealed ones there isn't.
You'd have to tell us how you know that - or do you have X ray vision?
There are plenty of guns in the UK!
There are, but people (that I know) don't make a habit of carrying a sub-machine gun while walking the dog or packing a 9mm to go cycling. 😯
Number of firearm deaths in UK: 0.25 per 100,000 population.
Number of firearm deaths in US: 10.30 per 100,000 population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
I have about as much chance of being involved in a gun-related incident as you do in the UK.
Not according to that^ you don't.
Not [b]legal[/b] concealed ones there isn't.
Number of firearm deaths in UK: 0.25 per 100,000 population.
Number of firearm deaths in US: 10.30 per 100,000 population.
Or 0 per 1000 and 0 per 1000.
Not according to that^ you don't
Pretty much not going to happen.
I live in the US. I have about as much chance of being involved in a gun-related incident as you do in the UK.
Hmmm.....
Or 0 per 1000 and 0 per 1000... Pretty much not going to happen.
Okay to put it another way, if it was a disease then it would rank as joint 12th next to Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis on the [url= http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf ]CDC causes of death[/url], ahead of such things as renal disease and Parkinson's.
But no one [i]ever[/i] dies of those eh?
Back to the OP... For Most UK trail centres a cap gun should suffice, but if I'm riding wild trails, I prefer a spud gun
But no one ever dies of those eh?
You'd better not look at deaths from cars...
Not according to that^ you don't.
If it were uniformly applied across the whole population, you would be correct. However, as I indicated elsehere in the post, there are greater details available in the statistics and they involve age, race, gender and location. Four variables that mean I do not have the same statistical risk as everyone else here.
I don't agree with the gun laws here, but I have examined them and the statistics more than most, partly because I moved here and partly because 'what you see depends on where you are standing'. I still disagree with the whole gun lobby here, but I understand it a whole lot more.
Hmmm.....
Do you have the statistics for 'gun deaths involving white, 42 year old suburban British mountain bikers in the USA'?
He's failed his history then.
Yup, and physics, once got into a long conversation with him about energy security only for it to become apparent that he didn't know the difference between nuclear fusion and fission. Attempting to gently explain this without embarrassing him was a pretty toe curling process.
Fox news; it makes you dumb.
You'd better not look at deaths from cars...
I do. I love the stats me. But saying cars are really dangerous doesn't mean you can just ignore other dangers from heart disease or guns.
Four variables that mean I do not have the same statistical risk as everyone else here.
I agree your personal risk is lower than the US population average.
I [i]suspect[/i] it is still quite a fair margin higher than the UK population average though - but obviously I don't have the data to show that.
I do think there is a danger in the American gun debate for certain conservative quarters to argue: [i]"it's okay, it's not 'Americans' dying, it's just blacks killing blacks"[/i].
I'm not convinced that is entirely borne out by the stats - and I'm not sure that it makes any difference if it was.
I do. I love the stats me. But saying cars are really dangerous doesn't mean you can just ignore other dangers from heart disease or guns.
Now that's where we disagree. If something is low risk I don't worry about it, so something else equally low risk is equally of no worry.
But, I'm not the anxious type.
If something is so low risk I don't worry about it then something else equally low risk is equally of no worry.
So because [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate ]the risk of being killed by a car in the US is 10.4 per 100,000[/url] - roughly the same the risk of being killed by a gun - then you don't "worry" about either of those?
But, I'm not the anxious type.
Neither am I - I just consider risks.
So because the risk of being killed by a car in the US is 10.4 per 100,000 - roughly the same the risk of being killed by a gun - then you don't "worry" about either of those?
Yes, neither is a meaningful risk. It's simply not going to happen.
The car vs gun thing is pointless though.
You can't drive your gun to work...
*cue loads of smartarse posts of military vehicle pictures*
You can't drive your gun to work...
But what if you drive with your gun to work in a car?
😯
A BB gun, it does fire bottom brackets doesn't it, or am I getting confused.
Yes, neither is a meaningful risk. It's simply not going to happen.
That's why you never hear of anyone being killed in a car crash?
I've used a bike to move along logging roads with a 30-06 rifle slung over my back while moose hunting in Sweden. Historicaly moose are hunted by a team with a dog but stalking clearcuts can be very effective. It's not thought to be ethical or legal to use a car to move around once you've started but a bike is. Very niche probably 3 bike hunters out of 300,000 hunters in total. Hope hubs not ideal!
Obviously, the firearm material needs to match that of the bike! 🙄 All of us Americans know that FFS! 🙂
So, if you have a carbon bike, a polymer framed Glock would be a good choice.
Steel framed bike = steel framed firearm.
And yes, you can get firearms in Aluminum and Titanium as well! 😀
Edit - so if you have a several bikes, you may need to have several guns as well! 8)
The whole firearm/death statistics debate is extremely tiresome.... in terms of cost benefit - what are the benefits of large numbers of guns circulating in society?
Aside from the occasional person that likes to go hunting, or target shoot, guns (in general circulation) serve absolutely no purpose at all.... there is no benefit side to the equation.
cars, swimming pools, drinking etc are all dangerous.... but at least their primary purpose is not to be harmful.
I'll stick this in the mix then,
It's not the gun that's dangerous it's the person operating it.....
🙄
The whole firearm/death statistics debate is extremely tiresome.... in terms of cost benefit - what are the benefits of large numbers of guns circulating in society?
Same could be said of beer. Or pies.
outspoken - Member
I'll stick this in the mix then,It's not the gun that's dangerous it's the person operating it.....
So an idiot with a gun is no more dangerous than an idiot without a gun? Unless the idiot without the gun was battering me to death with his bare fists and could easily be confused by a safety catch I'll take my chances with the one without the gun.
It's not the gun that's dangerous it's the [s]person[/s] wapper operating it.....
FTFY
Never underestimate how dangerous an idiot can be. And that's with or without something like access to firearms.
GrahamS - Member
It's not the gun that's dangerous it's the [s]person[/s] wapper operating it.....
FTFY
This is indeed true. I seen it in a documentary on BBC 2.
It just seems crazy that these guys are out in the woods etc, enjoying riding their bike and they're convinced that there'll be a crack den or a hobo out to mug them so they feel the need to carry a gun! I think it's the paranoia thats more scary than than the stats for actually being shot etc. But I find it equally worrying that creationism holds ground with so many people in the States too.
The guy on the MTBR forum forum banging in about mountain lions was funny though, especially when he talks about how amazing an encounter with one is....as long as he gets to kill it! Why?
t just seems crazy that these guys are out in the woods etc, enjoying riding their bike and they're convinced that there'll be a crack den or a hobo out to mug them so they feel the need to carry a gun!
It's no different to wearing a helmet. The fear that there's a slim chance it might be useful somehow gets warped into "you'll die if you don't".
It is though. By wearing a helmet you are protecting yourself and not harming anyone or anything else.
By carrying a gun, you can harm or kill something that you perceive to be a threat. Its also more likely that any such situation gets more blown out of control.
You'll find many people who carry pen knives on a bike over here don't stab anyone.
The yanks carrying [legal] guns is about as useful, and dangerous, as carrying a lightning rod.
Back in the mists of time I used to be a civilian working at a military establishment. On some Fridays I had to draw a pistol from the armoury for a demonstration in the afternoon. However, the armourer finished at three o'clock on a Friday and so I was told to hang on to the pistol until the following Monday.
I shared an office which didn't have a locking door or even a locking cabinet (I kept the pistol ammo in an unlocked desk drawer) and so I wasn't too happy leaving the pistol in the office over the weekend.
The only solution was to cycle home with the pistol tucked into my bar bag, but for the life of me I can't remember what it was (it was single shot). Luckily I never encountered any bears (not too many in Wiltshire) or crack dens (not many of those either). Good job I was never stopped by the police (I didn't have a gun license), but back in those days I expect the MOD police would have smoothed things out for me...............
Looking back on it, it was a strange way of doing things. The establishment had its own gun and explosives licenses which I could borrow to purchase whatever ammunition and explosives I wanted.
well its definitely each to their own.
Ive had firearms since i was 15 so thats over 15 years now. A firearm in the right hands is no more dangerous than a lolly stick in a professionals hands.
and thats the point, anything can be used as a weapon whether your trained to use them or not, trying not to be pedantic but how many threads do we have about people using their cars to run cyclists off the road? and how many threads do we have about cyclists coming across people shooting in the countryside?
For what its worth If their was the option to carry Leaglly in the UK I would. but thats my personal preference.
They banned hand guns from License holders and for what? Dunblane, yes a tragedy but the guy didn't use a handgun at all, and how many target shooters are involved in gang crime? not many...
I don't see why people should have to defend themselves for the sport or hobbies they have!
ready to be flamed
A firearm in the right hands is no more dangerous than a lolly stick in a professionals hands.
I suspect that even the most professional mercenary/ninja would struggle to kill someone 20 yards away using a lolly stick.
For what its worth If their was the option to carry Leaglly in the UK I would.
Yep. Escalation. If guns were freely available and other people were carrying them it starts to make sense to carry one yourself "for defense".
But what makes much much more sense is not allowing our society to get into that situation in the first place!
I don't see why people should have to defend themselves for the sport or hobbies they have!
I've got no problem with target shooting - done a fair bit myself. That's a quite a step away from carrying a concealed sub-machine gun whilst walking the dog!
i think a lot of this is out of context as usual with a firearms discussion.
I don't think i'd carry a sub machine gun for walking the dog, if i carried it would be on the pre tense that if i can't do the job with 1-2 rounds then it aint worth doing.
Back to the question - Winchester - has no one else seen True Grit.
5thElefant - MemberSame could be said of beer. Or pies.
It's very rare to kill someone else with your pie habit. I hear Binners did once but it's all a bit awkward.
outspoken - MemberA firearm in the right hands is no more dangerous than a lolly stick in a professionals hands.
Hmm. But going back up the page a bit, in the US you're 4 times more likely to be killed during a crime if you're carrying a weapon. Now that doesn't mean just having one is dangerous but that's a strong correlation between having one, and being tempted to use it in the heat of the moment, with the best intentions. The hard reality is, the number of times it'll be useful to have one are lower than the number of times it'll be dangerous, and they're both tiny compare to the number of times it'll just be a waste of time and an inconvenience.
Don't get me wrong, I really like guns- shooting is fun, and satisfying, but a good one's a lovely mechanism as well- pleasing like a watch or a bike mech. But most people have no reason to carry one other than "because I can"
Incidentally:
Dunblane, yes a tragedy but the guy didn't use a handgun at all, and how many target shooters are involved in gang crime?
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre ]According to Wiki[/url]:
Thomas Hamilton walked into Dunblane Primary School [b]armed with two 9 mm Browning HP pistols and two Smith & Wesson M19 .357 Magnum revolvers, all legally held.[/b] He was carrying 743 cartridges, and fired his weapons 109 times.
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Those certainly look like "handguns" to me.
And the subsequent gun control legislation specifically DIDN'T ban .22 calibre single-shot pistols of the type used by target shooters.
That didn't happen until the Labour government got in.
Its the "concealed carry" bit that gives the game away. (If it means what I think it means).
If you want to carry a gun to avoid become a crime victim surely the best way is to carry it openly. All the bad guys will see it and leave you alone.
If they can't see it, what is to stop them starting on you anyway? You then have to draw your gun to either frighten them off, or shoot them dead.
So these guys don't really want to avoid trouble. They want to get into a situation where they can "legitimately" draw a gun and shoot a (probably) unarmed crack-head.
Don't believe what you read on Wiki, the files are still not available for general release.
Don't believe what you read on Wiki, the files are still not available for general release.
Eh????
Are you suggesting there was some kind of cover up and he was actually using some [i]other[/i] weapons other than the ones extensively reported?? Perhaps lolly sticks??
Here is an excerpt from [url= http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199596/cmhansrd/vo960314/debtext/60314-07.htm#%22column_1115 ]the Hansard, 14th March 1996[/url]:
..will he ensure that Lord Cullen's inquiry will be a full investigation of how on earth an infamous character such as Thomas Hamilton could apparently obtain a firearms certificate that apparently [b]enabled him to carry four lethal handguns[/b] and how, according to some reports, he was apparently running a gun club at some stage?
And here is a quote from [url= http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/scottish/dunblane/dun01.htm ]The Public Inquiry into the Shootings at Dunblane Primary School (aka the Cullen Report)[/url]:
..having entered the school with 4 handguns and 743 rounds of ammunition, Thomas Hamilton fired 105 rounds with a [b]9 mm Browning self-loading pistol[/b] over a space of about 3-4 minutes before committing suicide with one shot from a [b].357 Smith & Wesson revolver[/b].
Are those "files" official enough for you??
There is more in [url= http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/scottish/dunblane/dun03b.htm ]The firearms, ammunition and other equipment carried by Thomas Hamilton section of the report[/url], if you care to read it.
Nope not official enough.
Not suggesting anything was covered up, it was a tragic event by anyones standards and making it seem less tragic than it was only ruins the memories of those who suffered at the hands of a truly horrible human being.
This is one of those threads that quickly spirals into a mess of opinions