Forum menu
But they'd be packing too.It wouldn't stop the altercation, you'd just get your retaliation in first. It's not as though in a fist fight only one side has hands.
All these comparisons of shotguns with automatic weapons leaves me bemused. To pull off a mass killing with a shotgun you'd definitely need a big team of beaters as well as a loader. The time it takes me to get it out of the cabinet I reckon a world war could've been and gone.
The US healthcare company that holds shares in the company I work for has a "check/control of visitor guns" policy.
It's quite common apparently.
😯
Weird how pretty much everyone agrees that guns are horrible things, but there are still arguments. Even for this place that's surprising.
Edit: I quite like guns but am glad our laws won't let me have one, because then other, possibly more mad people would be allowed one too.
I keep seeing this getting posted by gun nuts on FB
The scary thing about that is that the confrontation that person is fantasising about is treated as an inevitability rather than vanishingly unlikely (which I'd like to think it still is, even in the US).
A quick thought experiment:
Take 500 people, arm all of them with as many guns as they like and make sure they know that everyone else is armed too. Now lock them all in one big room, with suitable provisions, and announce that one of them is a terrorist.
As a control do the same thing with 500 unarmed people.
Which room would you rather be in? Which room will have the most people alive in it after two weeks?
GrahamSWhich room would you rather be in? Which room will have the most people alive in it after two weeks?
Isn't it stalemate in either scenario? If the terrorist reveals himself in the "armed room" he gets shot. If he reveals himself in the unarmed room he gets beaten up. Right? Or is there some irresistable compulsion for the "terrorist" to reveal themselves? Is there even really a terrorist?
If you force me to choose I'll take the unarmed room since I'll have an advantage.
The scary thing about that is that the confrontation that person is fantasising about is treated as an inevitability rather than vanishingly unlikely
Yep - seems like a typical Action Hero fantasy. Too much Hollywood.
I suspect that the (very unlikely) reality would play out quite differently.
And it ignores the much more common reality that him or [i]"those I am actually charged with protecting"[/i] are more likely to be injured by his own gun.
Interesting though that even in the gun nuts story he describes himself carrying a concealed pistol and the assailant unleashing a [i]"hail of bullets"[/i] with [i]"sporadic gunfire"[/i] from a rifle.
Is there even really a terrorist?
There is no terrorist - you just tell them there is.
Isn't it stalemate in either scenario?
How long do you think a stalemate would stay a stalemate with 500 heavily armed strangers pointing guns at each other?
Maybe sprinkle in a few family members and loved ones to increase the tension.
GrahamS - Member
The scary thing about that is that the confrontation that person is fantasising about is treated as an inevitability rather than vanishingly unlikely
Yep - seems like a typical Action Hero fantasy. Too much Hollywood.I suspect that the (very unlikely) reality would play out quite differently.
And it ignores the much more common reality that him or "those I am actually charged with protecting" are more likely to be injured by his own gun.
Interesting though that even in the gun nuts story he describes himself carrying a concealed pistol and the assailant unleashing a "hail of bullets" with "sporadic gunfire" from a rifle.
The guy who I C&P'd it from on a Buzzfeed post looks like a rational and sane chap...
A quick thought experiment:Take 500 people, arm all of them with as many guns as they like and make sure they know that everyone else is armed too. Now lock them all in one big room, with suitable provisions, and announce that one of them is a terrorist.
As a control do the same thing with [s]500[/s] [b]499[/b] unarmed people,[b] and one armed one[/b]
Which room would you rather be in? Which room will have the most people alive in it after two weeks?
FTFY, because, even in Europe, terrorists and criminals still manage to get hold of guns.
Statistically, the one with one gun in it. The probability of someone going berserk with a gun is much lower if only one person in the room has one.
Only if the ownership of the gun is randomised - whereas there would in fact be a clear bias towards the person with criminal intent being the one with the gun, by the nature of them being a terrorist.
If you want to be pedantic, we will reword your thought experiment to
As a control do the same thing with 499 unarmed people, and one armed terrorist
Because, once again, terrorists and criminals still manage to get hold of guns.
> As a control do the same thing with 499 unarmed people, and one armed terroristBecause, once again, terrorists and criminals still manage to get hold of guns.
I was aiming to reflect reality in that 1 in 500 people aren't actually terrorists, but some folk are inclined to believe that with a bit of prompting.
But okay.
The big difference now is that in the unarmed room everyone knows exactly who the terrorist is. He's the guy standing there with illegal weapons.
Just out of interest, does anyone know how often the public rush the gunman en masse in these sort of situations? (and does it differ for double barrel shotgun vs large magazine gun/rifle scenarios? I can see how a bloke bristling with large ammo capacity weapons is going to be more conducive to run and hide than a bloke with 1 shotgun)Unless you are, or are in the company of, either Deadpool or Sterling Archer you had better be damn sure that clip is empty AND they aren't carrying another weapon.
I've no doubt I'd hide and piss my pants but there seem to be enough keyboard warriors about who fantasize about doing something in this sort of situation, so shirley occasionally someone tries it...?
How many of you carry a gun as part of your cycling equipment?
You know the joke, "how do you know if someone has an iPhone?" - "They tell you." That right there sums up the entire relationship between America and its guns. Look at the second reply,
Wow, I wish I could conceal my .45 (Para-Ord P14, steel) but at full size, its impossible for all but Hoss Cartwright. I have needed one twice on a ride, or would have felt better having one. One instance was a meth-making skinhead who didn't like me riding past his property on the public road. He ran me and my partner off the road and thankfully my [Concealed Carry Weaponry] training enabled me to de-escalate the situation. The other time was off-road riding encounter with a pack of dogs belonging to a vagrant squatter.My current choice is a Kel-Tec P3-AT. 10 ounces loaded, locked breech, recoil operated semi-auto with a 6 round magazine. Its good enough in my hands for "velo-dog" use (small revolvers traditionally carried by cyclinsts in the early 1900's) but being .380, adequate for self-defense when loaded with +P Cor Bons. A spare magazine is only an additional 3 ounces. For the weight of a small water bottle, I have adequate defense. I have yet to use it and my cycling partners don't know I carry.
So much detail, so much justification. Unsolicited. So much [i]pride.[/i] I can't think of a situation where we'd do that with anything else (note the question was "do you carry...?" and not "what do you carry" or "please recommend").
"How many of you carry a mobile phone as part of your cycling equipment?"
"For every day riding I carry a Samsung S6. I find it's the perfect combination of power to weight, a bright 5" screen that can comfortably display my GPS without compromise, 64Gb of storage for all my music and mapping, and a 4G antenna for rapid data reloads. The 16MP camera means I can accurately fire off shots faster than any other would-be photographer. Sure, the battery life could be better, but for only 200g I can add a separate power pack under my bars.
For city riding when the S6 just won't cut it, I've got the iPhone 6 Plus. It's too big to conceal but there are times when nothing but the best will do for those under my care."
"Um... ok?"
CougarSo much detail, so much justification. Unsolicited. So much pride. I can't think of a situation where we'd do that with anything else (note the question was "do you carry...?" and not "what do you carry" or "please recommend").
"For every day riding I carry a Samsung S6.......
Just go on any tech forum and you'll see people boast/bitch/argue/justify just about anything. Go to a camera forum and you'll see 10+ page threads where people argue what's needed for a compact, or pro or pocket camera. Everyone's right. Everyone's wrong.
Go to a car forum (or within this forum) and see what people deem necessary in a car.
Guns are strange and alien to us, that's for sure. Imagine how strange a forum where people own multiple £1000+ bikes must seem to non cyclists and how daft the justification must seem to have a road bike, touring bike, XC bike, Enduro bike and DH bike.
Most of these mass shootings, the criminal only becomes so because of his (or her) actions that day. The day before they were normal people, usually with something having gone wrong in their lives, moving towards becoming criminals only because they have access to guns. They seem to be about emotionally overwhelmed individuals at a single point of time and not career criminals.
The fact that terrorists and criminals may be able to get hold of guns anyway when they are illegal is a complete red herring.
In America it may take 2 or 3 generations to fix the current problems of gun access, but to not do anything because of that is just pure ignorance and selfishness.
Just go on any tech forum and you'll see people boast/bitch/argue/justify just about anything. Go to a camera forum and you'll see 10+ page threads where people argue what's needed for a compact, or pro or pocket camera. Everyone's right. Everyone's wrong.
Sure, but that's my point. The OP didn't ask for recommendations, just whether people carried them. Most of that twelve year thread is unsolicited info. It reads like the product placement advertisements in that Jim Carey movie.
Imagine how strange a forum where people own multiple £1000+ bikes must seem to non cyclists and how daft the justification must seem to have a road bike, touring bike, XC bike, Enduro bike and DH bike.
If I posted a thread asking "going camping at (place), should I take my bike?" then I'd expect to see replies saying "yes" or maybe even "I'd take a full-sus for down there mate." I wouldn't expect folk to detailing which specific model of bike they'd take, in granular detail down to the number of teeth in their chainring. Even on a cycling forum that's just weird, if I'd asked on a gun forum and got that sort of reply from a cyclist I'd be worrying about the poster's mental health.
Imagine how strange a forum where people own multiple £1000+ bikes must seem to non cyclists and how daft the justification must seem to have a road bike, touring bike, XC bike, Enduro bike and DH bike
I'm fairly certain no one has ever massacred people with a bicycle
I'm fairly certain no one has ever massacred people with a bicycle
More pedestrians have been killed by bicycles in the US than people murdered with civilian legally held selective or full-auto weapons (ie. Assault rifles, sub machine guns & machine guns) in the past fifty years.
My current choice is a Kel-Tec P3-AT. 10 ounces loaded, locked breech, recoil operated semi-auto with a 6 round magazine. Its good enough in my hands for "velo-dog" use
**** me!! I generally find a bike pump or boot does the trick.
More pedestrians have been killed by bicycles in the US than people murdered with civilian legally held selective or full-auto weapons (ie. Assault rifles, sub machine guns & machine guns) in the past fifty years.
Sauce?
(How about the past 20 years since the ban on assault weapons was lifted for a fair gauge)
More pedestrians have been killed by bicycles in the US than people murdered with civilian legally held selective or full-auto weapons
Good argument for licensing there. Since those weapons are the ones with legal restrictions (plus big price tags).
Good argument for licensing there. Since those weapons are the ones with legal restrictions (plus big price tags).
Unfortunately all the murders committed with [b]illegally[/b] held full auto weapons undermine the arguments for either licencing or prohibition.
**** me!! I generally find a bike pump or boot does the trick.
It's incredible to me that someone's life threats are a shouty bloke and a homeless man with his pets, and their thought process is "if only I had semi-automatic weaponry..."
I do get that for some it's a hobby, for some it's a fear that someone else will have one. I get that there's an exotic appeal to the things, and sadly yes even that the whole thing is a penis extension in the same way that over here we'd have a flash car. If I lived in that sort of environment I might even entertain the idea of owning one myself. Pretty cool, amIright? But to go from that to a mindset of barking dog == requirement for hollowpoint ammo is just... staggering to me.
Just out of interest, does anyone know how often the public rush the gunman en masse in these sort of situations? (and does it differ for double barrel shotgun vs large magazine gun/rifle scenarios? I can see how a bloke bristling with large ammo capacity weapons is going to be more conducive to run and hide than a bloke with 1 shotgun)
Ever heard of it happening? I've not.
But I'm guessing you understood my point.
More pedestrians have been killed by bicycles in the US than people murdered with civilian legally held selective or full-auto weapons (ie. Assault rifles, sub machine guns & machine guns) in the past fifty years.
Interesting statistic, source please.
Unfortunately all the murders committed with illegally held full auto weapons undermine the arguments for either licencing or prohibition.
So given we still have a few kicking about the UK we should just open up the market? Your logic is absolutely terrible.
Ninfan, you are both a ninny and a fanny, congrats.
In that post the encouraging bit was this :
thankfully my [Concealed Carry Weaponry] training enabled me to de-escalate the situation.
i.e. his first reaction was not to use his weapon.
In related news,
I've just spotted the "similar threads" bit at the bottom of that gun / cycling thread:
[i][b]Similar Threads[/b]
How many of you carry a gun as part of your cycling equipment?
Sonssu, Jun 6, 2012, in forum: Cycling Equipment
How many of you carry a gun while reading bike forums?
jhuskey, Jul 7, 2010, in forum: The Bike Cafe
How many of you carry a cucumber as part of your cycling equipment?
Martian Tom, Aug 16, 2009, in forum: Cycling Equipment
How many of you carry Pepper Spray/Mace as part of your cycling gear?
cucamelsmd15, Aug 24, 2005, in forum: The Bike Cafe
How many of you carry a gnu as part of your cycling equipment?
Don Shipp, Aug 16, 2005, in forum: Cycling Equipment
[/i]
😀
i.e. his first reaction was not to use his weapon.
He didn't have a choice, his [s]penis[/s] gun was too big to carry.
Unfortunately all the murders committed with illegally held full auto weapons undermine the arguments for either licencing or prohibition.
How many of the illegally held weapons were stolen from legal sources?
If those legal sources dried up then wouldn't that reduce the illegal ones?
ninfan - Member
I'm fairly certain no one has ever massacred people with a bicycle
More pedestrians have been killed by bicycles in the US than people murdered with civilian legally held selective or full-auto weapons (ie. Assault rifles, sub machine guns & machine guns) in the past fifty years.
that's some spectacular cherry-picking right there, well done.
still arguing semantics then?More pedestrians have been killed by bicycles in the US than people murdered with civilian legally held selective or full-auto weapons
(and does it differ for double barrel shotgun vs large magazine gun/rifle scenarios?
Not all shotguns hold only two rounds, you can get semi-auto shotguns/pump action shotguns with detachable box magazines....even in the UK. The argument being that they are actually quite useful for duck hunting and pest control.
It's incredible to me that someone's life threats are a shouty bloke and a homeless man with his pets, and their thought process is "if only I had semi-automatic weaponry..."
I'm trying to work this out. So did he draw? Did he use his Para-Ord P14 as a threat? Or did he point at his overtly carried weapon and look at the aggressor in a knowing fashion with a glint in his eye?
Only - and this is a personal choice - if I were to draw or threaten with a firearm, I would have to be prepared to use it. It's such a massive, massive escalation of a situation. Sure, it may sort out an awkward altercation very quickly, but what happens when shouty skinhead attempts to call bluff?
Have to laugh at the yanks though
The home front: So many people die annually from gunfire in the US that the death toll between 1968 and 2011 eclipses all wars ever fought by the country. According to research by Politifact, there were about 1.4 million firearm deaths in that period, compared with 1.2 million US deaths in every conflict from the War of Independence to Iraq.
Zulu-11 you don't half write some shite.
There are 3.7m assault weapons in the US and 360m guns. The situation will never be in control. That ship has sailed.
Donk the guys on the Belgium / Paris train confronted the gunman with quick reactions, 3 of those where military on holiday.
I think in Orlando you have such weight of fire in a dark confused environment, aside from the off duty policeman who fired back its easy to imagine that confronting him wasn't a realistic option
@tom half those deaths are suicides, a lot of the rest are gang/criminal violence
It still amuses me though Jamby.
Upset Drac?
Problem is, I'm only telling the truth, what I said is entirely accurate (cf. the [i]Ken Livingstone defence[/i] 😆 )
[i]Statistically, the one with one gun in it. The probability of someone going berserk with a gun is much lower if only one person in the room has one. [/i]
+1
They can only shoot so many people before they'll be overwhelmed.
jambalayaDonk the guys on the Belgium / Paris train confronted the gunman with quick reactions, 3 of those where military on holiday.
Two were military, one was a student. Several other people tried to intervene but they were ineffective. Spence Stone, the Airman who actually tackled the gunman and choked him unconscious is a white belt in Brazilian Jiu-jitsu and has stated in interviews that he is 100% certain it was jiu jitsu that saved his life and the lives of those around him.
the guys on the Belgium / Paris train confronted the gunman with quick reactions, 3 of those where military on holiday.
The two French guys that took him on first weren't military. Neither was the British guy.
But it's not an isolated example, just a public and memorable one:
The FBI looked at 160 "Active Shooter Incidents" between 2000 and 2013.
In 26% of cases it ended in a bad guy vs cops gun battle.
In 13% of the cases the shooter was taken down by unarmed "good guy without a gun" civilians.
In 3% of cases it was armed "good guy with a gun" civilians.
(56% of cases ended with the shooter committing suicide or just leaving)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/fbi-report-active-shooters_b_5900748.html
[I]There are 3.7m assault weapons in the US and 360m guns. The situation will never be in control. That ship has sailed.[/I]
No not really.
First thing you do is change the law on who can own what and then have an amnesty , offer $100 (or more/less) per weapon. As a part of the law change you also make the penalties for crime with a gun harsher.
It's the usual method employed around the world, and currently been employed in Scotland as a part of the new airgun licence implementation.