Packing heat while on tour/middle of nowhere

[Rudy]

Originally Posted by gdw

"I do not live in the US and every time one of these threads pops up, I have to confess, I read everyone's responses and sit an wonder what on earth sort of places do you guys live that you feel the need to carry guns even when just out riding a bike .................."

I spend a lot of time bikepacking and would probably carry if riding close to our border with Mexico or in areas with grizzly or brown bears. Fortunately backcountry Colorado/Utah is far from the drug smuggling routes and our bears are small. Hungry canines are sometimes a problem but I prefer to shoot them with a camera.

Red fox is vulpine. Great encounter—and response—just the same!

[Peter P.]

I think very few people get involved in situations requiring the use of deadly force. To pull out a weapon to defuse a POTENTIAL situation could wind up being more aggravation than it's worth. Judgment and use requires PRACTICE and EXPERIENCE, which takes time and is hard to come by.

I think of the most common scenario; the car driver who confronts you in an act of road rage. A lot of chest puffing and swearing, but even if they get in your face you can't pull the gun unless you're backed into a corner.

That said, I won't fault anyone for carrying. I just don't think they're practical and they're of limited use. Speaking of practical, from a practical standpoint a handgun can take up a reasonable about of cycling jersey space, weight down a jersey, and seriously-any gun lube on the surface may stain a jersey. I'd also be worried about sweat staining the weapon.

For animal protection in the wilderness, it makes more sense to me as there are fewer consequences.

For practical protection, I'd recommend mace, or in the wilderness, bear spray. For larger canisters, a top tube bag may be necessary. For personal protection from most human confrontations, a cellphone and 911 are probably more if not most effective; most people run when you tell them the police have been called or you've taken their photo.

[professerr]

Originally Posted by 93legendti

"Violent crimes reported for January through June of 2014 were down 4.6 percent from the same time period in 2013. All of the offenses in the violent crime category—murder and non-negligent manslaughter, rape, aggravated assault, and robbery—showed decreases. And the number of property crimes during the same time period decreased 7.5 percent, with all three offenses—burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft—showing declines."

http://www.fbi.gov/news/news_blog/pr...show-decreases

"According to DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent. The majority of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years of that time frame. Firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006, and then declined again through 2011. Non-fatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004, then fluctuated in the mid-to-late 2000s."

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4616

"The March Pew study, drawn from numbers obtained from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, also found a dramatic drop in gun crime over the past two decades. Their accounting shows a 49 percent decline in the homicide rate, and a 75 percent decline of non-fatal violent crime victimization."
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/...ublic-unaware/


"Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% a year ago and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993, albeit marginally above the 44% and 45% highs seen during that period."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Se...hest-1993.aspx

Thinking people should click on the gallup poll link that 93legendti has helpfully provided above to see the chart with the trendline showing gun ownership declined significantly from 1994 (54%) to 2011 (41%). Decide for yourself what that has to do with the decline in gun crime during virtually the exact same period cited in the other multiple reports provided above by 93legendti.

[fuzzalow]

I think most people that respond to this inquiry that say they would pack a firearm haven't actually done so. It is much easier to say what you might do, or are in favor of doing, than to actually do. I believe that much in the way most persons think they are much better automobile drivers than they really are, so does this inflated sense of capability lend itself to belief in handling a firearm in a confrontational situation.

"Man's got to know his limitations".

Carrying a firearm means that the person is prepared to go the entire distance with that weapon. And with it, all that it entails. This holds true whether one is skilled in defusing a confrontation, handling a weapon under stress, assessing multiple targets and combat shooting situational awareness. Or not. Because whether a person is trained and good with a weapon or not, once a confrontation has started it will inevitably resolve itself. The question is to what level of finality. Do not start what you are not prepared to finish.

I don't see any situation where a cyclist will require deadly force against another human. Doesn't mean there aren't SOBs that you wouldn't want to pop a cap in but the question remains - was that necessary and was there really no other choice. I'm not a pacifist - better judged by 12 than carried by 6. But I don't have the training WRT handling lethal force confrontations so to think I could pack heat & handle such a situation would be just kidding myself.

[F150]

Rode from ABQ to Missoula following the Divide in 1987. Don't even know if meth existed then. My Dad asked if I planned to carry, and I said no. Never had the first incident.

Own more guns than Carter has liver pills. Get on the bike and ride, leave the worry and iron behind, IMO.

[Bruce K]

I believe that a possible flaw in that poll is that illegal gun owners generally don't respond to such polls

By most accounts I've seen sales are up

But back to the original thought many folks I know who have a permit do not carry based on the kinds of decisions and responsibilities that go along with that choice

I don't carry

BK

[grawk]

The responsible way to carry is to only pull out the gun if you strongly believe your life will end if you don't, and that you're willing to go to jail. Pulling a gun is never a way to diffuse a situation. I'd never carry a gun in a situation where I'm the only person who might be in any danger, so I don't ever feel the need to bring a gun on my bike. Maybe if I were on a bike tour with my kids covering more than a week.

That said, this is the most amusing thing I've seen on paceline thus far. Who can spare the weight a loaded firearm adds. I expected people to be discussion titanium vs carbon fiber derringers.

[Louis]

Originally Posted by grawk

That said, this is the most amusing thing I've seen on paceline thus far. Who can spare the weight a loaded firearm adds. I expected people to be discussion titanium vs carbon fiber derringers.

I'm no expert, but aren't some of the Glocks "plastic?"

[Peter B]

Originally Posted by fuzzalow

i think most people that respond to this inquiry that say they would pack a firearm haven't actually done so. It is much easier to say what you might do, or are in favor of doing, than to actually do. I believe that much in the way most persons think they are much better automobile drivers than they really are, so does this inflated sense of capability lend itself to belief in handling a firearm in a confrontational situation.

"man's got to know his limitations".

Carrying a firearm means that the person is prepared to go the entire distance with that weapon. And with it, all that it entails. This holds true whether one is skilled in defusing a confrontation, handling a weapon under stress, assessing multiple targets and combat shooting situational awareness. Or not. Because whether a person is trained and good with a weapon or not, once a confrontation has started it will inevitably resolve itself. The question is to what level of finality. Do not start what you are not prepared to finish.

I don't see any situation where a cyclist will require deadly force against another human. Doesn't mean there aren't sobs that you wouldn't want to pop a cap in but the question remains - was that necessary and was there really no other choice. I'm not a pacifist - better judged by 12 than carried by 6. But i don't have the training wrt handling lethal force confrontations so to think i could pack heat & handle such a situation would be just kidding myself.

+1

[Dead Man]

Originally Posted by Louis

I'm no expert, but aren't some of the Glocks "plastic?"

All Glocks have polymer frames. The slides/barrel/mechanical parts are steel, plus they're double-stack higher capacity guns, so loaded they still weigh quite a bit.

[slidey]

Can someone explain to me the perceptible advantage of a gun over a taser gun, or a pepper spray both with substantial discharges?

I'm not logically able to work out the advantage here. You will usually be able to determine a threatening situation when its really upon you i.e. proximity is near zero, and here it seems to me each of the above are just as good, if not better than the gun because they aren't lethal. If however a sniper wanted to do you in from afar without your knowledge then I fail to see how if you were to be Rambo on a bike would you be able to prevent/avert this situation.

I can see how a few of the posts here have highlighted genuine, unusual situations where a gun came in handy but for protection on a ride can someone poke holes in the thesis above?

[bcgav]

Originally Posted by gdw

I'm glad the area you ride in is safe. Most of the folks I know who carry work in law enforcement and don't make a point of telling the world that their top tube bag or frame pack was designed around a compact .357 or duty piece. They aren't paranoid or gun nuts and are a bit more knowledgeable than the average Joe about illegal border activities.

This. A lot of stuff never makes the news.

[fuzzalow]

Double stacked, can be your best friend or your worst enemy. May your adversary's slide lock first.

[Dead Man]

Originally Posted by slidey

Can someone explain to me the perceptible advantage of a gun over a taser gun, or a pepper spray both with substantial discharges?

I'm not logically able to work out the advantage here. You will usually be able to determine a threatening situation when its really upon you i.e. proximity is near zero, and here it seems to me each of the above are just as good, and per my view the non-lethal options are better than the gun because they aren't lethal. If however a sniper wanted to do you in from afar without your knowledge then I fail to see how if you were to be Rambo on a bike would you be able to prevent/avert this situation.

I can see how a few of the posts here have highlighted genuine, unusual situations where a gun came in handy but for protection on a ride can someone poke holes in the thesis above?

Tasers only give you one shot, and aren't as reliable as firearms. The barbs don't always sail clear and true. Plus, they don't incapacitate... only while being shocked - once the first 5-second ride is over, the assailant can potentially rip a barb out, and now you're defenseless against an absolutely enraged person. There are also a few very rare cases where a taser actually failed to incapacitate even while delivering the shock. No likely, but neither is needing to shoot someone, gun or taser.

Pepper spray is as good as useless against someone wanting to do you true harm. Have you ever gotten hit with it? I've taken a full pepper spray blast to the face, and I've also been in the CS chamber in the army. Both suck real bad, but they did not incapacitate me. I could still pop caps at you, or slash at you with a knife. EASY. If someone is trying to kill you, you need them absolutely incapacitated, and you need it to be instant.

There's only two ways to immediately and conclusively incapacitate someone trying to kill or seriously injure you: Cause their blood pressure to drop to 0 or destroy the central nervous system. Either way, you're looking at giving them a bad day, and the only practical way to do this from a safe distance and do it instantly is with a firearm.

It does kind of suck that we have to kill people for the bad choices they may chose to make, but it's what we've got. I'd rather someone making a bad decision die than for someone innocent to suffer any harm from the person making a bad decision. A lot of Europeans don't seem to agree with this.... don't know why.

[Frankwurst]

Kudos to the members of the forum for carrying on a civilized and intelligent conversation about such a sensitive topic and for what it's worth I have more guns than I do bicycles.