Packing heat while on tour/middle of nowhere

[gasman]

Originally Posted by 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.

At one time wasn't it the opposite ?

[Louis]

My only real question about carrying a gun while cycling is how often would you really, truly need it? (and presumably that's the only time you should point it at some one/thing)

Unfortunately, I think as a cyclist you're much more likely to be mowed down by a texting teen / drunk idiot / or sky-high meth head than you are to need a gun. I have no data to back this up, but I bet a mirror on your helmet and good lights fore and aft are more likely to help you while touring than a gun in your pack.

[Dead Man]

Originally Posted by Louis

My only real question about carrying a gun while cycling is how often would you really, truly need it? (and presumably that's the only time you should point it at some one/thing)

Never, hopefully, and in all likelihood. You don't wear a helmet or carry a gun or buy insurance in the expectation of actually needing them. It's that the consequences of not having them if you did need them are generally dire.

There's a few sayings in the defensive tactics world... one is: Guns are like parachutes. You don't need one until you do need one, and if you don't have one when you need one, you'll never need anything again.

[gdw]

''My only real question about carrying a gun while cycling is how often would you really, truly need it?'

How often? Hopefully it will never be unholstered or drawn. The original post was about cycling in remote areas so we probably have different definitions of remote. I view remote as backcountry where calling 911 won't bring the calvalry very quickly if at all. One of the people I know who carries rides and trains near this route:
http://www.bikepacking.net/triprepor...-of-the-devil/
Methinks most of the folks who live in the metropolitan areas of our country have no idea of how remote and dangerous some sections of the west actually are.

[SlackMan]

Originally Posted by professerr

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.

That's not a trend, so I wouldn't really call that a decline in the sense one might normally think about a decline over time.

[Louis]

Originally Posted by The B

Never, hopefully, and in all likelihood. You don't wear a helmet or carry a gun or buy insurance in the expectation of actually needing them. It's that the consequences of not having them if you did need them are generally dire.

There's a few sayings in the defensive tactics world... one is: Guns are like parachutes. You don't need one until you do need one, and if you don't have one when you need one, you'll never need anything again.

All true, but my point was that if the goal is to have a safer ride, there are things that may be more likely to help (statistically) than carrying a gun.

[parris]

I've seen cases where the Taser failed to stop. I've been involved where Pepper had no effect on some subjects. Generally the people who aren't stopped by a Taser or Pepper are those who are under the influence in a big way, or they have some other altered mental state.

Something to be VERY aware of if/when using Pepper is to know/feel the wind direction. It REALLY sucks to catch some due to being down wind of things. Another thing to be aware of is splash back if the person who you may need to spray is very close. It's a similar deal to the wind.

All defense options that have been spoken about in this thread can have legal issues attached. No matter what route taken learn your local laws. It wasn't so long ago that Pepper wasn't legal for the general public here in NYS. One of the posters spoke about the expandable baton. In some locals those aren't legal. They also take a fair amount of training to utilize effectively, are limited to very close distances, and generally come in higher on a use of force scale.

Finally be aware that Taser, Pepper, Baton CAN cause death depending on the subjects involved as well as how it's utilized. The instances are fairly rare but it does occasionally happen.

[professerr]

Originally Posted by SlackMan

That's not a trend, so I wouldn't really call that a decline in the sense one might normally think about a decline over time.

Sure it is. But call it what you want - the numbers speak for themselves, and I only suggest that people look at them vis-a-vis the gun crime rate, and claims that more guns means fewer gun crimes.

[gasman]

Originally Posted by Louis

My only real question about carrying a gun while cycling is how often would you really, truly need it? (and presumably that's the only time you should point it at some one/thing)

Unfortunately, I think as a cyclist you're much more likely to be mowed down by a texting teen / drunk idiot / or sky-high meth head than you are to need a gun. I have no data to back this up, but I bet a mirror on your helmet and good lights fore and aft are more likely to help you while touring than a gun in your pack.

I've never carried a gun as a cyclist and doubt I would. I agree that it is unlikely to be of help with the hassle of getting it out and aimed accurately. I have and will continue to carry pepper spray when on my own in the boonies.

I've only carried when hiking less than a dozen times-in very remote areas when hiking with my wife. Every time it's been in areas without cell reception, I feel a bit safer and also carry pepper spray.
It's a really serious decision to use a gun and one I hope I never, ever need to make.

[professerr]

Originally Posted by Louis

All true, but my point was that if the goal is to have a safer ride, there are things that may be more likely to help (statistically) than carrying a gun.

But nothing so hot ‘n sexy.

[Peter B]

When the day comes that I feel I really *need* a gun to go for a ride or to go into the woods well the the point of the ride and the woods is gone.

[Louis]

Originally Posted by professerr

But nothing so hot ‘n sexy.

Absolutely.

Just ask Darrell Winfield, the most famous Marlboro Man about that.

[slidey]

Originally Posted by The B

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.

Hmm...remarkably stark hypotheticals you've painted there. Don't take it amiss, but for the above situations to dictate your choice to carry a firearm strikes me as a logical fallacy. There's something to hoping for the best, and preparing for the worst which is what got me to zero in on the pepper spray but to carry a firearm on a ride, to me, is akin to buying galoshes in the California of today, i.e. a statistically insignificant situation (assailant ripping a barb out, pepper spray not being good enough, barbs not always sailing clear/true/straight, said assailant ripping barb out or seeing through pepper spray to shooting a presumably darting individual, and so on) dictating a requirement. The above doesn't really worry me all that much, because I haven't seen such an odious strain of comprehensive stupidity (i.e. all stakeholders are committed in their stupidity) in the real-world (discounting the US Congress), yet. I'm sure it exists in other parts, but my calculations of encountering such a scenario in the circles I move around in, at the present moment, are vanishingly small.

Not responding to the post above, one important reason that I don't think it makes sense to *usually* carry firearms in public places is that it sets a slightly weird precedent. Most of society views a gun as a weapon, and a civilian with a gun will be viewed as someone to stay away from...cascading effect of which implies more people in the area would be tempted to carry weapons. Where does that road lead us down? Moreover I think it is statistically accurate to say that not everyone carrying the weapon is going to be as meticulous as the members of this forum. Put another way, it takes all sorts to make the world, but all sorts (discounting the sliver of people who are banned from arming up) have a right to bear arms, at least thus far. Would you be willing to trust everyone around you carrying a weapon had the same amount of rigour/care in securing their loaded weapon? Would you be comfortable with sudden, jerky movements by your fellow passerby without being afraid of them? Would you be willing to trust your fellow citizen to never discharge a weapon on accident? If not, isn't it better that the maximum penalty for an accident not be death, and instead be getting teary-eyed or have a really fast paced heart for a few minutes? Maybe after getting zapped, and spiced a few times the society realises that there are too many careless people at any given time, and in time people stop arming themselves in their everyday life; all without anyone losing a life. Would it be possible for such an evolution if a few people died, or got injured by bullet wounds by unintentional yet careless acts?

And, for the extreme scenario of fear that we like to wrap ourselves in - a gunman with multiple rounds gunning down a public facility, etc - maybe addressing the correlation of mental instability of such people by more expansive background checks at all points of sale is a worthwhile first step to take.

[gdw]

You probably should review the thread before posting. Packing heat in the middle of nowhere.....

[mcteague]

Originally Posted by parris

I've seen cases where the Taser failed to stop. I've been involved where Pepper had no effect on some subjects. Generally the people who aren't stopped by a Taser or Pepper are those who are under the influence in a big way, or they have some other altered mental state.

Something to be VERY aware of if/when using Pepper is to know/feel the wind direction. It REALLY sucks to catch some due to being down wind of things. Another thing to be aware of is splash back if the person who you may need to spray is very close. It's a similar deal to the wind.

All defense options that have been spoken about in this thread can have legal issues attached. No matter what route taken learn your local laws. It wasn't so long ago that Pepper wasn't legal for the general public here in NYS. One of the posters spoke about the expandable baton. In some locals those aren't legal. They also take a fair amount of training to utilize effectively, are limited to very close distances, and generally come in higher on a use of force scale.

Finally be aware that Taser, Pepper, Baton CAN cause death depending on the subjects involved as well as how it's utilized. The instances are fairly rare but it does occasionally happen.

Man, where do you folks ride where so much self defense is needed? I have one handgun but have not even fired it for over 10 years. Not sure why I still have it but do store the thing in a small gun safe. As a kid I was really interested in guns, most are, then I became mostly anti-gun. Much later, with a spouse I felt protective of, I bought a Glock and went to the range to learn how to handle it. Over time I lost interest and pretty much think guns are a menace, just like I think about most people.

Anyway, statistics are pretty clear. If you own a gun you are far more likely to have it used on yourself or those you care about than in self defense. I have no problem thinking that guy killed the 3 Muslims over a parking space. That is just the sort of stupid argument that can lead to death, when guns are at hand.

Tim