# Top Tube Bag for Concealed Firearm? Any recommendations?



## hartzpad (Sep 21, 2010)

I've recently run across a black bear cub and a moose while mtn biking here in Utah, like ran into them around a corner. I usually don't carry a gun while riding, but I've got a Fat Bike on order and winter riding is more isolated with more potential run ins with wildlife as snow pushes them down further into populated areas.

I'm looking for a top tube bag that can fit a gun that measures 7" L x 4.5" high x 1.26" wide (Glock 29 10mm). I'd also like one that has a clear pocket on top for my cell phone, like this but a little larger:










Most top tube bags are too short or too narrow to fit a pistol. Any suggestions?
Maybe I'll just strap a holster to my headset and open carry it.


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2014)

Two pieces of advice. First, find a top tube or under the top tube bag that large enough an mount a holster inside (like an uncle mikes) or build something similar. Second, the MTB site is not "gun-on-bike" friendly. Stand by for the wrath.


----------



## hartzpad (Sep 21, 2010)

Forster said:


> Two pieces of advice. First, find a top tube or under the top tube bag that large enough an mount a holster inside (like an uncle mikes) or build something similar. Second, the MTB site is not "gun-on-bike" friendly. Stand by for the wrath.


1) I would use a pocket holster inside of the top tube bag.

2) I expect the liberal anti-gunners to attack my point of view on this site (I've seen it before), however, I will not forgo my own protection or my family's to make others "feel safer", I'd rather not become a trampled or half eaten human on the trail so some liberal can feel better.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

if it is for animal protection you need it strapped to yourself, up front, not on the bike IMHO. better and safer access


----------



## elliott436 (Jul 25, 2014)

127.0.0.1 said:


> if it is for animal protection you need it strapped to yourself, up front, not on the bike IMHO. better and safer access


Correct I agree, I would look in the black hawk holsters those are great or raven concealment.


----------



## hartzpad (Sep 21, 2010)

elliott436 said:


> Correct I agree, I would look in the black hawk holsters those are great or raven concealment.


Fair enough, I guess riding in snow there is much less chance of injury from carrying on my person and falling/crashing compared to the rest of the year. I may just carry on my person as suggested. I carry on my person every day when not riding.


----------



## hartzpad (Sep 21, 2010)

Flyin_W said:


> Animal protection? Call me a liberal if you'd like*, I own guns, and often ride solo into very remote regions. Never has fear guided my decision to carry a weapon. Most incidents are human interactions within 1/8 mile of the trailhead.
> Bear cubs do not maul people, they run to Mama. Black bears are afraid of people, unless they've been baited, and you're packing donuts. If you do shot a bear, be prepared to defend your actions to IFW, and levy a $$$ fine.
> You sir, are a big puzzy who is acting out of fear, not common sense, now get a fricking grip.


Sorry you feel that way. My protection is not limited to animals, I carry everyday to protect myself from 2 legged people as well. I love animals and will not shoot one unless my life depends on it and I cannot get away.

You're right, bear cubs do not maul people, their mama's do that are always close by.

Haha, I don't even know what a puzzy is, but thank you for calling me sir.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Flyin_W said:


> .
> You sir, are a big puzzy who is acting out of fear, not common sense, now get a fricking grip.


Right on! You tell him: fat bikes are lame!


----------



## elliott436 (Jul 25, 2014)

hartzpad said:


> Fair enough, I guess riding in snow there is much less chance of injury from carrying on my person and falling/crashing compared to the rest of the year. I may just carry on my person as suggested. I carry on my person every day when not riding.


The reason being especially since you carry your familiar with drawing the weapon out of the holster that is on you. Drawing a weapon from some where else ie bag on a bike takes training to get use to so that your efficient and effective. You can PM for more info but I know a tones about this topic I deal with guns on a daily basis it's my job.


----------



## hartzpad (Sep 21, 2010)

elliott436 said:


> The reason being especially since you carry your familiar with drawing the weapon out of the holster that is on you. Drawing a weapon from some where else ie bag on a bike takes training to get use to so that your efficient and effective. You can PM for more info but I know a tones about this topic I deal with guns on a daily basis it's my job.


Great point. I always carry strong side IWB @ 3:30 and have muscle memory from years or practice at that location, could definitely be a problem to switch. Thanks.


----------



## elliott436 (Jul 25, 2014)

hartzpad said:


> Great point. I always carry strong side IWB @ 3:30 and have muscle memory from years or practice at that location, could definitely be a problem to switch. Thanks.


Your welcome it's always better to be safe than sorry. I don't give care what anybody says I rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it!


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

hartzpad said:


> Great point. I always carry strong side IWB @ 3:30 and have muscle memory from years or practice at that location, could definitely be a problem to switch. Thanks.


You afraid that the bear or moose is gonna their gun first....planning a showdown at high noon on the streets of Tombstone?

Last time I checked moose were not very good gunslingers.


----------



## apriliano (Mar 21, 2007)

The video will be a hit on YouTube.


----------



## ozz (May 30, 2006)

I'd use a waistband holster and wear the gun just beneath my Camelbak. Gun belt would probably be uncomfortable but I'd get used to it. Then I'd be tempted to carry extra mags too.


----------



## AR424 (Jul 28, 2014)

I wouldn't carry a gun (or any weapon) on the bike, unless you can be certain that you will never be less than an arms length away from the bike I'd recommend against it....

lets say you're riding down a trail, a large sized beasty pops up out of nowhere, you get startled and fall off the bike....bike rolls downhill with your weapon and there you are, holding your balls and running for dear life. a gun that's not on your person is useless!


always, always, always keep your gun on your person or leave it in the safe.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Flyin_W said:


> ??? WTF - Fat is where it's at.!


You're following a trendy fad and not common sense. 
Get a grip!


----------



## Saul Lumikko (Oct 23, 2012)

The safest fight is one that doesn't get to you. Generally animals avoid us, but on a bicycle we move quickly in contrast to the minor sound of the bike. A loud rear hub or other means to produce sound should help if you're encountering animals too often for your liking.

A note about on-person carrying, we tend to sweat a lot when pushing hard (even during winter), so I would advise against IWB carry or any other means under your clothing. Even if you take regular care of the piece to prevent corrosion, I'm a bit paranoid about moisture + freezing temperatures. In the army we used to keep firearms outside of warm tents to prevent condensation. Maybe it's a bit far-fetched but something you might want to consider.


----------



## AR424 (Jul 28, 2014)

Saul Lumikko said:


> A note about on-person carrying, we tend to sweat a lot when pushing hard (even during winter), so I would advise against IWB carry or any other means under your clothing. Even if you take regular care of the piece to prevent corrosion, I'm a bit paranoid about moisture + freezing temperatures. In the army we used to keep firearms outside of warm tents to prevent condensation. Maybe it's a bit far-fetched but something you might want to consider.


agreed, that's why I use this guy....

Hill People Gear | Real use gear for backcountry travelers


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

Saul Lumikko said:


> The safest fight is one that doesn't get to you. Generally animals avoid us, but on a bicycle we move quickly in contrast to the minor sound of the bike. A loud rear hub or other means to produce sound should help if you're encountering animals too often for your liking.
> 
> A note about on-person carrying, we tend to sweat a lot when pushing hard (even during winter), so I would advise against IWB carry or any other means under your clothing. Even if you take regular care of the piece to prevent corrosion, I'm a bit paranoid about moisture + freezing temperatures. In the army we used to keep firearms outside of warm tents to prevent condensation. Maybe it's a bit far-fetched but something you might want to consider.


proper maintenance takes care of this problem

strip down wipe down clean re-lube re-oil reassemble will never have a problem with the elements. that or a giant freezer bag ziplock


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Backcountry Awesome Strap 'nuff said.


----------



## WNCGoater (Aug 21, 2014)

Jayem said:


> Backcountry Awesome Strap 'nuff said.


I about spit Coke when I read that! Fun thread, bwahahahaha!

HPG Kit bag is a great piece of gear. 
Two thoughts:
1. a little .380 in the pocket will take care of any frisky 2 legged critters
2. You're not going to be able to pack enough of anything in a waistband that will stop a moose. THAT will need a sling attached! Just sayin...

Okay 3, I'm in the camp of keeping it on your person. Being zipped in a tube bag, or backpack or otherwise just isn't accessible. In the extremely unlikely even you ever actually need it, you'll need it fast.


----------



## WNCGoater (Aug 21, 2014)

Saul Lumikko said:


> The safest fight is one that doesn't get to you. Generally animals avoid us, but on a bicycle we move quickly in contrast to the minor sound of the bike. A loud rear hub or other means to produce sound should help if you're encountering animals too often for your liking.
> 
> A note about on-person carrying, we tend to sweat a lot when pushing hard (even during winter), so I would advise against IWB carry or any other means under your clothing. Even if you take regular care of the piece to prevent corrosion, I'm a bit paranoid about moisture + freezing temperatures. In the army we used to keep firearms outside of warm tents to prevent condensation. Maybe it's a bit far-fetched but something you might want to consider.


+1 From the first sentence on, sound advice... especially the first sentence.


----------



## Saul Lumikko (Oct 23, 2012)

127.0.0.1 said:


> giant freezer bag ziplock


Well that's one way you won't see me carrying anything I might need to access quickly.


----------



## 28/29 WIT (May 7, 2011)

I think I remember reading a while ago on J.Paks LLC he had made a gas tank bag or something with a custom holster. It seemed pretty cool. Send him a email or any custom bag maker and they should be able make what you want.


----------



## Flyin_W (Jun 17, 2007)

It would appear that my posts in this thread have all been removed without notification, or any infraction of forum guidelines. 
If you do not like my opinion, respond, but do not delete what was within guideline rules, that is called personal censorship.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

Flyin_W said:


> It would appear that my posts in this thread have all been removed without notification, or any infraction of forum guidelines.
> If you do not like my opinion, respond, but do not delete what was within guideline rules, that is called personal censorship.


Call someone a ***** and you get 3 days time out.

[post was deleted]


----------



## hartzpad (Sep 21, 2010)

Flyin_W said:


> It would appear that my posts in this thread have all been removed without notification, or any infraction of forum guidelines.
> If you do not like my opinion, respond, but do not delete what was within guideline rules, that is called personal censorship.


I didn't complain or delete them, I have thick skin and don't worry about your opinions.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

CHUM said:


> Call someone a ***** and you get 3 days time out.
> 
> [post was deleted]


You know any good gun forums to advocate for trail access on?


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

Zowie said:


> You know any good gun forums to advocate for trail access on?


Try calguns

They're super lenient over there....



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Zowie said:


> You know any good gun forums to advocate for trail access on?


'Advocating'? Really?

I've seen biking related threads on all sorts of other forums. 
People generally don't seem to lose their **** about them.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

Hey, gotta try something to keep these threads from becoming what they are destined to be...


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

I got charged by a moose almost 3 weeks ago. Had no choice but to spray him with pepper spray. Stuff worked great and stopped him in his tracks. If I had a gun, I would have used it, but it would have needed to be at least a .44 magnum that I could have gotten to in the same amount of time (pepper spray is in a holster), and it was just a couple seconds. It's a lot easier to pepper spray it than having to explain to F&G the kill, attracting bears, hearing damage, etc. Still, if I had a .44 magnum I would have used it. My energy would have been better spent trying to beat it over the head with my bike if I had a .380.


----------



## MadPainterGrafx (Oct 3, 2014)

mtnbikej said:


> You afraid that the bear or moose is gonna their gun first....planning a showdown at high noon on the streets of Tombstone?
> 
> Last time I checked moose were not very good gunslingers.


I've not encountered a moose other than seeing a couple in vermont when I was driving flatbeds otr. I have encountered a black bear and some wild dogs. When it comes to wild animals you never know what will happen. Anyone that thinks a small deer won't hurt you or worse you better do some research but when an animal is as large as a moose and they have bad tempers with poor eyesight it's not a bad idea to have some protection. Jayem I like the idea of pepper spray as an initial line of defense but like to have at least a 45 with good rounds to follow up with if needed. I don't know you but glad that your encounter didn't turn out worse!

mtnbikej I highly suggest that you go to youtube and look up some animal attacks on people. An animal don't have to have young to attack because they could be sick or just naturally bad tempered. As far as human animals they can be just as unpredictable and deadly. I not only recommend someone learning and training how to use a firearm properly but also recommend taking and continued training in self defense classes that will teach you how to handle yourself in bad situations should you not have a weapon to use quickly.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

What about just using a Backcountry Research Tube Tourniquet to strap the holster to your top tube?

Backcountry Research - Makers of the AWESOME STRAPS


----------



## iWiLRiDe (Apr 17, 2006)

I don't have a problem with guns (I own a couple) but when you're talking more about guns than biking in a BIKING forum, that's more annoying than anything else. We don't see other users talking about what car they need to best get their bike to the trail or what condoms they should use when have sex on the trails. The point being, these are all bike related topics but not very relevant, just as the topic being discussed. This is basically just a gun conversation and the only reason why it's even remotely close to being relevant is because the gun owner just happens to ride a bike. If people want to talk about their right to bear arms and talk about using guns and its applications, that's fine. There are forums specifically for that, they're GUN forums. Maybe you can find some fellow cyclists there who own guns and can help you out.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

iWiLRiDe said:


> We don't see other users talking about what car they need to best get their bike to the trail....


No? Errrr...okay...

Here's a link to 3998 threads here you should post complaints to while you're at it.

Car & Biker - Mtbr.com

Few hundred more here

Photography for mountain bikers - Mtbr.com

Let me know when you're caught up and I can point you at 10's of thousands of others. Can't believe you never noticed any of them in the past decade or so. Odd.


----------



## cardnation (Jul 2, 2014)

AR424 said:


> agreed, that's why I use this guy....
> 
> Hill People Gear | Real use gear for backcountry travelers


I'm really digging those kit bags. Could pull double duty as a phone/wallet holder.


----------



## WNCGoater (Aug 21, 2014)

iWiLRiDe said:


> what condoms they should use when have sex on the trails.
> 
> If people want to talk about their right to bare arms and talk about using guns and its applications, that's fine.


People have sex on the trail?:eekster:

As far as bare arms. I usually ride with bare arms. I've found falling on gravel and rocks blows though, and is tough on bare arms. So I started wearing elbow pads. I know, some think it wimpy but I have no need to look cool out on the trails, or have sex out there for that matter. So unless I'm on the road bike, I no longer ride with bare arms. There are these arm warmer things that can be worn on cold days, then removed to exercise your right to bare arms.

Now, as far as discussing our right to bear arms this IS after all a discussion forum. There are a lot of non-bike related discussions. This subject in the context it was presented by the OP, happens to apply to bikes. This is exercising the "right of free speech" aka the 1st Amendment... which only is safe as long as the 2nd Amendment, aka, "the right to bear arms" is in place.

Am I making sense? 
WAIT!!.... 
Can you say "condom" on here? 

Or does it have to be bike related? 

I guess we could call it a "tube". :thumbsup:

On nevermind. :madman:


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Seems like discussion how best to carry a gun on a bike is very bike-related...is it just me? This is so simple, if you don't like guns, don't care about carrying while riding, don't read/respond. I don't carry but find it interesting how to attach it the bike!


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2014)

WNCGoater said:


> People have sex on the trail?:eekster:
> 
> As far as bare arms. I usually ride with bare arms. I've found falling on gravel and rocks blows though, and is tough on bare arms. So I started wearing elbow pads. I know, some think it wimpy but I have no need to look cool out on the trails, or have sex out there for that matter. So unless I'm on the road bike, I no longer ride with bare arms. There are these arm warmer things that can be worn on cold days, then removed to exercise your right to bare arms.
> 
> ...


 No you've confused me. Is he riding with Bare arms while bearing arms to shoot bears in their arms or barely riding because there are armed bears shooting his bare arms?


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

Quick Draw Mcgraw 101: you don't carry your gat, where it can be easily separated from your person.... like attached to your bike.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

d365 said:


> Quick Draw Mcgraw 101: you don't carry your gat, where it can be easily separated from your person.... like attached to your bike.


----------



## WNCGoater (Aug 21, 2014)

Forster said:


> No you've confused me. Is he riding with Bare arms while bearing arms to shoot bears in their arms or barely riding because there are armed bears shooting his bare arms?


DOH! Do bears technically have bare arms if the bears bare arms are actually covered with hair rendering their bare arms actually uhh, not bare? Can bears even bear arms if they are bare armed. Are bear's bare arms actually arms at all or simply front legs that bears the bear's weight?

Now I'm confused. It's too much to bare ....uh, bear.


----------



## WNCGoater (Aug 21, 2014)

d365 said:


> Quick Draw Mcgraw 101: you don't carry your gat, where it can be easily separated from your person.... like attached to your bike.


Dunno what a gat is but I believe your gun is best carried on your person. Also, never take on 7 men when all you're packing is your 6 shooter. (or 7 bare armed bears, or moose, or is it meese?)


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

TiGeo said:


> ...is it just me? This is so simple, if you don't like guns, don't care about carrying while riding, don't read/respond.


I thought you were supposed to insult and shout down anybody that dares to even mention anything remotely related to something you personally aren't into?

Hey look, a Beer sub-forum...on an MTB site!! WTF!!! Hypocrites - to arms!!!

Beer Forum - Mtbr.com


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

MadPainterGrafx said:


> Anyone that thinks a small deer won't hurt you or worse you better do some research


I deal with bears and moose. If a small deer threatens me I'll punch it in the face.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

MadPainterGrafx said:


> Jayem I like the idea of pepper spray as an initial line of defense but like to have at least a 45 with good rounds to follow up with if needed.


Cool story. I WATCHED a cop unload his service 9 into a moose (had wandered into the city) at the end of last winter. He had to go back to the patrol car and get the shotgun with slugs to drop it.

Responsible firearm users here have chest-holsters with at least .44 magnums. A .357 may be ok for the lower 48, unless again you are dealing with moose. If you don't keep your weapon in a place like this where you can get to it in a few seconds (like I had to with the pepper spray a couple weeks ago), you are an irresponsible firearm owner IMO. Bringing a totally insufficient caliber and keeping it in a place where you can't get to it as easily/quickly(especially if you are thrown from the bike/fall) is irresponsible. In the situation a few weeks back, I would have sacrificed my bike to run away if necessary, throwing it at the moose/bear, etc, that could have bought me time to draw, aim, etc.

I'm not against responsible firearm users. I'm against people with unrealistic expectations taking preventative measures so unlikely to be helpful that you might as well carry a fire extinguisher instead, because it'd be more likely to be useful on a given ride.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

Jayem said:


> I deal with bears and moose. If a small deer threatens me I'll punch it in the face.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jayem said:


> I'm against people with unrealistic expectations taking preventative measures so unlikely to be helpful that you might as well carry a fire extinguisher instead, because it'd be more likely to be useful on a given ride.


Waitminnut - are we back to Fat Bikes again?

:skep:


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

TiGeo said:


> Seems like discussion how best to carry a gun on a bike is very bike-related...is it just me? This is so simple, if you don't like guns, don't care about carrying while riding, don't read/respond. I don't carry but find it interesting how to attach it the bike!


In a ziplock baggie zip tied and duct taped to the top tube.....barrel pointed backwards....don't want to accidentally shoot an innocent trail user in front of you.


----------



## db440 (Jul 1, 2014)

Wow, interesting thread. I'm not a gun carrying kind of guy, but if I spent enough time in situations where it could be necessary that might change. Having the pepper spray seems like a great idea.

This is a bike related query from what I can see. I've read stories of mountain lions chasing down people on bikes before. A few weeks ago I surprised a small group of elk, maybe twenty or so, which usually wouldn't be a problem, but it was one bull and a bunch of cows so there was a very slight chance of defending mating territory. I was only like forty feet away from them and originally thought it was great, but there was a minute there where we all looked at each other and I realized it was not an ideal situation. They turned and took off, and it ended up being a good wildlife encounter, but it seems to me coming up on animals at any speed could really freak them out and noone wants to deal with a charging moose, bear or cougar, so it seems that if you are a competent and cautious carrier, why not be prepared?


----------



## Sevenrats (Jan 2, 2014)

You'll never be able to carry enough caliber to be effective on moose or bear and even if you could, when you come across a bear on the trail you'll likely be so close that you won't have time to draw the cannon fast enough. I know it's all romantic and stuff to carry your own protection but it's not really practical. Bear bells and pepper spray are more effective. 

Before everyone starts yelling at me, I own a S&W .38, a Glock 26 9mm, a Beretta 92FS, and a Ruger Super Redhawk .44 mag. The first two are light enough but are really useless against anything bigger than a coyote (four or two legged) and the second two are heavy. Especially the 44 mag, and it's the only one that even would remotely slow down a bear and I'm not so sure it would. 

Making noise is probably your best defense. Bear spray is quicker to deploy and easier to carry and it works on every thing including those two legged coyotes and there are less legal issues in that case.

You could always carry a small firearm like a 9mm or a .38 and the bear spray and the bear bells.


----------



## Deerhill (Dec 21, 2009)

Backwood ASSOME Strap ?


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

In Scotland, we don't have any bears or handguns. We have cows though!

Ever cycled round the corner on the country lane to be met by a heard of cows coming towards you? Scary! Like a mobile wall of....cow, coming towards you! What do you do? 

You can't turn round and cycle away, because that's not the way you want to go, and if they smell fear they might walk faster. Too big to bunny-hop, or cow-hop over. You have to stay very still, like a fence post, or a tree maybe...a lycra tree with metal branches, and hope they all walk around you as just one of them walking over you is very bad.

Some of the meaner ones sometimes give you the evils as they pass, trying to spook you. It's best to practice your 'I'm nor scared but I'm not wanting a fight either' look for those instances. 

Bears, pah! When you've met cows and lived, then we can talk.


----------



## Bro (Dec 20, 2010)

db440 said:


> I've read stories of mountain lions chasing down people on bikes before.


Mountain lions don't chase. They stalk. If one wants you for dinner, you're not going to realize it until it's already broken your neck.

That said, it takes actual hand-to-hand combat to defeat a mountain lion, because you can scare it off from a distance. If you can't scare it off, that means that it's going to come down to hand-to-hand combat, which guns are terrible for. I ride in mountain lion territory (really, who doesn't?), so it's pretty useless to carry a gun. That's why I carry my mountain lion knife, strapped to the seatpost. That carrying arrangement can get dicey in rough sections, but with it strapped to the seatpost I can activate my dropper post so that it shoots up, momentum carrying the knife out of its sheath and right into my hands. Needless to say, that has to happen when I'm not on the saddle.


----------



## Bro (Dec 20, 2010)

Mr Pig said:


> In Scotland, we don't have any bears or handguns. We have cows though!
> 
> Ever cycled round the corner on the country lane to be met by a heard of cows coming towards you? Scary! Like a mobile wall of....cow, coming towards you! What do you do?
> 
> ...


You need to start carrying a portable barbecue. Nothing better to scare off a herd of cows than the promise that they'll become dinner.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Bro said:


> You need to start carrying a portable barbecue. Nothing better to scare off a herd of cows than the promise that they'll become dinner.


Your cows must be far smarter than ours! :0.


----------



## random walk (Jan 12, 2010)

Bro said:


> That's why I carry my mountain lion knife, strapped to the seatpost. That carrying arrangement can get dicey in rough sections, but with it strapped to the seatpost I can activate my dropper post so that it shoots up, momentum carrying the knife out of its sheath and right into my hands. Needless to say, that has to happen when I'm not on the saddle.


This post is useless without a video demonstration.


----------



## MadPainterGrafx (Oct 3, 2014)

Jayem I would never consider using a 9mm on something or someone unless it was the only thing I could get my hands on! But like you said being responsible with the firearm and carrying something that is easy to get to as well as sufficient enough to handle a situation if needed. Often times just being smart on the trail helps alot. We don't have moose down here but there are some elk working their way back into certain area's of the state. Just wounding an animal will make it more dangerous but I hope nobody ever has to use a firearm but it's better have it and not use it then need it and not have it. lol


----------



## MadPainterGrafx (Oct 3, 2014)

iWiLRiDe said:


> I don't have a problem with guns (I own a couple) but when you're talking more about guns than biking in a BIKING forum, that's more annoying than anything else.


It's funny I've been looking through these forums a good bit since I joined and this is the only gun topic I've seen but I do have a solution for you. If you don't want to talk about guns in someone's topic/thread don't look at it or reply at all. See problem solved. Have a nice day!!


----------



## 006_007 (Jan 12, 2004)

Just get an awesome strap and be done with it.

http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/just-got-backcountry-awesome-strap-927368.html


----------



## iWiLRiDe (Apr 17, 2006)

LOL, ok so my computer made a spelling error. WHoopty-FUC1NG Do. 

The only reason why I really said anything is because these "gun" related topics are growing faster then ebola cases. 

I understand in my example that we don't discuss cars isn't exactly true. We do talk about cars, but I believe there are specific forums to talk about that kind of stuff. So unless mtbr decides to make a side forum for happy gun toting riders, then I don't see why it should go into general discussion, passion, or really any other main pages of mtbr.

I say give these users their own section so they can stop clogging up other pages with gun related topics. From a business stand point, mtbr could generate more revenue selling ads to the gun and ammo industry and these users can talk guns all day (on a biking forum). It doesn't make much sense to me; however, if means not having to see more of these intrusive gun related posts then I'm all for it.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

iWiLRiDe said:


> LOL, ok so my computer made a spelling error. WHoopty-FUC1NG Do.
> 
> The only reason why I really said anything is because these "gun" related topics are growing faster then ebola cases.
> 
> ...


simply don't post in threads you don't like.

If a thread subject/title bothers you - you can ignore...or report them if they break forum rules (like SPAM)


----------



## Saul Lumikko (Oct 23, 2012)

The biggest reason these gun-and-bike -topics are frequently in my "new posts"-search is that whenever there is a single topic on the subject (and it's always bike-related, not just a "what piece do you carry when walking downtown?"-questionnaire), fierce anti-gun protesters appear to derail the topic. They seem to be the ones who keep it active and bumped up for new content. 

The previous multi-page topics are so cluttered with off-topic posts and thread-jacking that I very much understand why someone might be hesitant to continue them and post a new topic instead.

If someone wants to carry while mountain biking, this forum is a rather sensible place to ask because we know what kind of things should be considered. It's obvious they are already carrying so they are unlikely to need input from firearm forums.


----------



## cardnation (Jul 2, 2014)

CHUM said:


> simply don't post in threads you don't like.
> 
> If a thread subject/title bothers you - you can ignore...or report them if they break forum rules (like SPAM)


I wish this was a practice more commonly used.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

006_007 said:


> Just get an awesome strap and be done with it.
> 
> http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/just-got-backcountry-awesome-strap-927368.html


Also apparently as controversy as this thread


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

hartzpad said:


> 2) I expect the liberal anti-gunners to attack my point of view on this site (I've seen it before), however, I will not forgo my own protection or my family's to make others "feel safer", I'd rather not become a trampled or half eaten human on the trail so some liberal can feel better.


3rd post ^

Also typical of these threads is that some people are so hyped up on the 2nd amendment that their itchy trigger fingers can't help but to fire first. Sometimes I think they forget that there are other amendments, including the 1st one and that the "freedom of speech" thing goes both ways.

It's a controversial subject, in a forum full of bike enthusiasts. What does anyone expect? Suck it up or get the f- out.

IMHO.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

hartzpad said:


> 1) I would use a pocket holster inside of the top tube bag.
> 
> 2) I expect the liberal anti-gunners to attack my point of view on this site (I've seen it before), however, I will not forgo my own protection or my family's to make others "feel safer", I'd rather not become a trampled or half eaten human on the trail so some liberal can feel better.


Why must one be liberal to be against you carrying a gun on the trail?

If you're carrying to defend yourself on the trail, a holster is the only real method that seems logical.

I'd carry on my person before on the bike, too.

And, as mentioned by others, short of a .44, you aren't stopping a moose.

And, black bears? Really? Clap your hands and roll your eyes a few times. They'll be gone like a fart in the wind.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MadPainterGrafx (Oct 3, 2014)

J.B. Weld said:


> 3rd post ^
> 
> Also typical of these threads is that some people are so hyped up on the 2nd amendment that their itchy trigger fingers can't help but to fire first. Sometimes I think they forget that there are other amendments, including the 1st one and that the "freedom of speech" thing goes both ways.
> 
> ...


Well like CHUM a Moderator said... if you don't like the topic don't reply or report it. If they broke the rules the moderators will handle it.

It's funny how everyone wants to exercise their first amendment rights for freedom of speech but want to constrain those that believe in the 2nd amendment then it justified for those that don't believe in it to attack those of us that do. They always seem to think we shoot first and ask questions later. Honestly and truthfully you can say what you want to but there are several facts that they refuse to see. A gun is a tool like a hammer, saw, computer, nobody is forcing anyone to buy a gun if you don't like them that's fine you don't have to buy them, without the 2nd amendment there would be no other amendments, if you take away the guns from the good people you won't take them away from the bad people, and last but not least I will respect your opinion no matter how crazy it may be and I will agree to disagree because I can't make you be right. lol

Anyway... just tossing out a little sarcastic humor at the end there... although someone will take offence to it. Oh well.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

MadPainterGrafx said:


> It's funny how everyone wants to exercise their first amendment rights for freedom of speech but want to constrain those that believe in the 2nd amendment then it justified for those that don't believe in it to attack those of us that do. They always seem to think we shoot first and ask questions later.


I was only commenting on an observation.

I checked, and the only post I could find that remotely resembled any sort of "attack" was deleted by the moderators. Only one post out of 69, and that one could be considered good natured banter by some reasonable people IMO.

Another observation I've made about these gun threads is that a disproportionate amount of the advocates seem to be overly paranoid, not trying to generalize here but you guys are making it hard.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

CHUM said:


> simply don't post in threads you don't like.


Interesting, tell me more, how does this work exactly?


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

J.B. Weld said:


> I was only commenting on an observation.
> 
> I checked, and the only post I could find that remotely resembled any sort of "attack" was deleted by the moderators. Only one post out of 69, and that one could be considered good natured banter by some reasonable people IMO.
> 
> Another observation I've made about these gun threads is that* a disproportionate amount of the advocates seem to be overly paranoid*, not trying to generalize here but you guys are making it hard.


Exactly. We see them rationalizing crazy things.

Someone was up here from Bike magazine last year taking pictures in one of our really neat trail systems. She had a .44 magnum short barrel in a holster across her chest. A reasonable precaution, although people are all over that trail system all day and night in the summer and winter, running, riding, skiing, doing whatever that thing is called where you have the long roller-skate things instead of XC skis on the asphalt, hiking, picking magic mushrooms, etc. All that said, usually a moose or two gets taken down in this trail area due to a human being charged, so again, it's a reasonable precaution and the person was handling it correctly. If animals outdoors are what you are concerned about, take the proper precautions. For the most part, the guides going out with the .500 magnums and .460s are going out to places where there is little to no help available and where they can easily be placed in a situation where there is no where to go or run, due to no "paths" or "trails". Again, reasonable precautions. If you have to CC due to human threats where you ride, it's probably a good idea to ride elsewhere, otherwise you're going to again need it on your body so you can get to it quickly, maybe in a concealed holster, but otherwise if you're justifying a 9mm because you travel in bear country and there might bad humans, you are just being ridiculous. Get a can of bear-spray and get it a water-bottle mount or one of the many types of mounts that are available. Bear spray works fantastically (at least on moose, as I was forced to test). Don't try to claim you're going to nail a moose in the eye socket with a .380 from 20 feet while it's moving, you have a glove on and are out of breath, it's beyond ridiculous. If you are concerned about those threats, take reasonable responsible precautions. Carry the right tool for the job and do it right (for the situation) or man up and carry all the other crap that one should have and "be better to have and not need than need it and not have it", like a tent, fire extinguisher, sat phone, spot tracker, fire starters, emergency blanket, extra derailleur, extra wheel, etc...


----------



## MadPainterGrafx (Oct 3, 2014)

J.B. Weld said:


> I was only commenting on an observation.
> 
> I checked, and the only post I could find that remotely resembled any sort of "attack" was deleted by the moderators. Only one post out of 69, and that one could be considered good natured banter by some reasonable people IMO.
> 
> Another observation I've made about these gun threads is that a disproportionate amount of the advocates seem to be overly paranoid, not trying to generalize here but you guys are making it hard.


I wasn't meaning you attacked someone. Sorry about that. Most anti-gun people do that and do it to start trouble to try and find more ammo for their arguments. The not so funny thing is I've seen these anti-gun people go to the point of wishing someone's family get injured or killed, and even make serious threats just to use something personal against those who support the 2nd amendment. A lot of time the term overly paranoid or you're just scared that's why you carry a gun, etc... gets tossed around like a hot potato but it's just those that don't know about guns that are overly paranoid and scared about them that want them taken away. I'm a chill as someone can get about the topic. I keep it simple if someone doesn't want a gun that's fine don't buy one but don't try to take my rights to have one away just because that person is scared of them. Most of the time it's because they have never been trained about them.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

FWIW, I don't own a gun, nor would I be likely to carry one on the trail if I did.

I just get annoyed that someone can't even mention it without getting a bunch of flack. 
Guns exist. Some people carry them. Get over it.


----------



## movingmountain (Jun 6, 2004)

If your really worried about bears : a chest harness at least a 3" stainless 44 mag 629 S&W or the like with some hot Buffalo Bore loads and couple of speedloaders. Being under gunned you probably would just piss off a bear more. But it's a lot of weight on a bike let alone walking around. Bear Spray works, a lot lighter and will work on two leggers Easy to carry on a bike. Good to know about Moose. I heard it doesn't work on big cats but don't really know. We do make a lot a noise riding bikes There's a video around of a black bear bluff charging a couple of mountain bikers on some single track (pinkbike?) the bear took off. I believe they carried spray but didn't have to use it.


----------



## Bro (Dec 20, 2010)

CHUM said:


> simply don't post in threads you don't like.
> 
> If a thread subject/title bothers you - you can ignore...or report them if they break forum rules (like SPAM)





bxpyddelfel said:


> The video will be a hit on YouTube.**************/fWQjU


CHUM, I tried to report this fvcker (the one I quoted) as spam, and I got a 403 error when I hit "send report." So I guess this will do as a good-enough spam report.


----------



## WNCGoater (Aug 21, 2014)

This thread has become useless... as most threads do that involve even the slightest of controversial subject matter. Even if not, there are some who get their jollies from starting controversy.

My free advice, which is worth what you paid for it, is get your contribution to a thread in on page 1 then fuggitaboutit, because after that, it's going downhill. By page 3, it has become nothing more than playing the blame game as to "he said/she said" and "who started what". The original intent is long gone. 

There is a common "modus operandi". In typical fashion, one or two have to get involved and hijack it away from the original intent and by the bottom of page 2 the keyboard commandos are attacking and throwing all manner of BS around trying to start a pissing match. They put words in people's mouths, change clearly worded responses as to original intent, portray themselves as some type expert and everyone else is idiot and on and on. 

As far as topic content. As stated, if you don't like the subject matter, simply don't click on the thread. Getting involved in a thread by whining about the content, and trying to be a moderator when you're not, makes no sense. Just don't involve yourself if it's bothersome.

And FWIW, I DO frequent several other forums, including hunting, shooting, and in general firearm discussions. There are MANY MANY unrelated topics, including biking, hiking, camping, fishing, heck, TV shows and Girl Scout Cookies. The difference between other forums and this forum, is in those, people generally don't get their panties in a wad quite as quickly and start sniveling that somehow the content of a thread doesn't belong on a firearm discussion forum. They either engage in the thread, or ignore it. Maybe over there, a higher percentage wear their big boy pants. Most of those forums DO apparently have a higher percentage of more mature participants.


----------



## Sevenrats (Jan 2, 2014)

movingmountain said:


> If your really worried about bears : a chest harness at least a 3" stainless 44 mag 629 S&W or the like with some hot Buffalo Bore loads and couple of speedloaders. Being under gunned you probably would just piss off a bear more. But it's a lot of weight on a bike let alone walking around. Bear Spray works, a lot lighter and will work on two leggers Easy to carry on a bike. Good to know about Moose. I heard it doesn't work on big cats but don't really know. We do make a lot a noise riding bikes There's a video around of a black bear bluff charging a couple of mountain bikers on some single track (pinkbike?) the bear took off. I believe they carried spray but didn't have to use it.


This is all true. Plus, if you did run into a moose or a bear it would probably be inside 50 feet. Stopping the bike, drawing the gun, aiming and actually hitting anything important would take me over 10 seconds or most likely longer because it's a total surprise.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Saul Lumikko said:


> The biggest reason these gun-and-bike -topics are frequently in my "new posts"-search is that whenever there is a single topic on the subject (and it's always bike-related, not just a "what piece do you carry when walking downtown?"-questionnaire), *fierce anti-gun protesters* appear to derail the topic.


I challenge anyone to dig back in this thread and produce one example of a "fierce anti-gun protester".

Voicing a difference of opinion and being vehemently anti-gun are not the same thing.

Pedal threads get even more derailed than gun threads, but I think the pedal crowd has thicker skins.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

WNCGoater said:


> And FWIW, I DO frequent several other forums, including hunting, shooting, and in general firearm discussions. There are MANY MANY unrelated topics, including biking, hiking, camping, fishing, heck, TV shows and Girl Scout Cookies. The difference between other forums and this forum, is in those, people generally don't get their panties in a wad quite as quickly and start sniveling that somehow the content of a thread doesn't belong on a firearm discussion forum. They either engage in the thread, or ignore it. Maybe over there, a higher percentage wear their big boy pants. Most of those forums DO apparently have a higher percentage of more mature participants.


People generally use cycling as an escape from the real world. Go out and enjoy the outdoors for a while and forget whatever problems exist at home/work, etc. Bring the subject of guns/weapons into that equation, and all of a sudden you are back into the real world. Let's face it, weapons really only have one purpose....to kill/injure/maim.

Yes, it is easy for shooting and hunting forums to talk about Girl Scout Cookies....except for making you fat, can't really hurt you, plus users on those forums go there to talk about guns/weapons.

I guarantee that if went to the Girl Scout Cookie forum and started a thread "Which Holster for my .44 Magnum should I use when we go door to door selling cookies"....you would probably get the same response as here.

Don't get me wrong, I grew up shooting guns, am perfectly comfortable around them. So I am not an "Anti Gun Liberal".


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

J.B. Weld said:


> I challenge anyone to dig back in this thread and produce one example of a "fierce anti-gun protester".
> 
> Voicing a difference of opinion and being vehemently anti-gun are not the same thing.
> 
> Pedal threads get even more derailed than gun threads, but I think the pedal crowd has thicker skins.


Reminds me of a thread/subject on another webpage about airline hiring. A few people think they are getting passed over because they are white males, so I ask if the majority of major airline crews are "two old white males", which they are. Man that set them off, railing against all sorts of affirmative action and hiring processes and so forth. Yes, that's nice and all, but they failed to get the point, if the crews were something OTHER THAN mostly old white males, then yes, you could claim they are hiring people other than old white males, but the person was just using it as an excuse to rail against the world and vent all their frustration about why the world has been so unfair to them and how much they hate affirmative action (which isn't even happening).

The term "hair trigger" is surprisingly accurate in this case to describe how some people are "cocked and loaded" to start screaming about 2nd amendment rights, even when it's not justified or has nothing to do with the topic at hand.


----------



## Chester4 (Aug 12, 2014)

*Bearing bare arms for armed bears*

Two things: one, why does everyone dislike the .380 for animal defense? I'm well aware that it isn't going to drop a charging bear with one shot, but who here is a good enough shot to (in your biking gear mind you) dismount a bike, draw a weapon, chamber a round, release the safety (unless you're just dumb) and fire a kill shot, mind you a charging animal has the least effective kill shot area, as opposed to say quartering away.. In my mind the main line of defense with predators would be the sound of the shot itself. I have been trapped in a treestand with a large mountain lion (approx. 150-160 lbs) circling below as sun was setting, while bow hunting, sure an arrow through the back would have gotten me down; but all I had to do was light one firecracker, which I carry when bow hunting for this very reason, and it was GONE. Not to mention my .380 is sized where it fits almost anywhere, on person or elsewhere, should I chose to carry it.

Secondly, next time I'm riding where bears are I'll just change bikes:


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

TiGeo said:


> Also apparently as controversy as this thread


My attempt at humor on this thread was subsequently removed by the MODS, which is fine. They have a job to do and I crossed the line, though it was indeed funny.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

WNCGoater said:


> This thread has become useless... as most threads do that involve even the slightest of controversial subject matter. Even if not, there are some who get their jollies from starting controversy.
> 
> My free advice, which is worth what you paid for it, is get your contribution to a thread in on page 1 then fuggitaboutit, because after that, it's going downhill. By page 3, it has become nothing more than playing the blame game as to "he said/she said" and "who started what". The original intent is long gone.
> 
> ...


The OP was looking to raise some hackles. Check it...

_2) I expect the liberal anti-gunners to attack my point of view on this site (I've seen it before), however, I will not forgo my own protection or my family's to make others "feel safer", I'd rather not become a trampled or half eaten human on the trail so some liberal can feel better._


----------



## gandrimp (Aug 21, 2014)

mtnbikej said:


> Go out and enjoy the outdoors for a while and forget whatever problems exist at home/work, etc.
> 
> Exactly why I go hunting,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, with a gun.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

gandrimp said:


> Exactly why I go hunting,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, with a gun.


Most people do.....don't see a big group of hunters going hunting without sometime of weapon.

"Hey Bob, let's go deer hunting this weekend....but leave everything at home.....we are just gonna use our bare hands." Yeah, right.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

I support the right to arm bears! ...moose, elk, whatever!


----------



## Saul Lumikko (Oct 23, 2012)

J.B. Weld said:


> I challenge anyone to dig back in this thread and produce one example of a "fierce anti-gun protester".
> 
> Voicing a difference of opinion and being vehemently anti-gun are not the same thing.


The opinion need not be put fiercely. Simply voicing it in this kind of a thread is enough proof. Think about it: the question is not whether or not to carry, but the decision has been made to carry and the OP is asking for a good way to go through with that plan. In that case it honestly takes a rather dedicated anti-gun person to derail the topic into "whether or not to carry", even if they word it politely. It's called thread-jacking and the act itself is fierce, not how you put it.

But now that I think of it, any hint towards carry-folk being paranoid constitutes an attack against the person in my book. Also the first page did include name-calling, but the post was deleted by a moderator. Pretty difficult to produce examples at this point. 

People don't seem to notice the paranoia door swings both ways: A calls B paranoid for carrying a gun because of X and says people should not carry, because the gun could go off by accident or A could flip and start shooting people over an argument on the trail. Now if we do a reality check on the scenario "mountainbiker is carrying a gun and shoots an innocent bystander (deliberately or by accident)", seems to me B is the pot calling kettle A black.

Your analogy to pedal threads is a really good one and I agree: if someone is asking whether to buy Time Attac or Crankbrother Eggbeater pedals, it does take a special kind of impolite to start blabbing about flat pedals.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

I don't see why anyone should have a problem with people going into the woods armed. Bears and lions do! Why should it be ok for an animal to kill you but not for you to kill it instead? 

Thankfully, I live in a country where the only animals that pose a regular danger are the ones driving small hatchbacks with loud exhausts and blacked-out windows. But if I lived in place with bears or lions I would want a gun, no question. Actually, I wouldn't mind one for the idiots in the hatchbacks but they don't allow that, sadly.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

Group A wants to make situation A sound normal.
Group B wants to make situation B sound normal.

Sound familiar from EVERY OTHER PART OF YOUR LIFE?


----------



## Tystevens (Nov 2, 2011)

The OP is probably long gone, his apparent trolling efforts having worked. But in the event he is still around and is seeking legit advice ...

As a fellow Utah rider, where did you see these animals? If, as I suspect, it was in Big Cottonwood Canyon, those moose see about a million people a year. Particularly in the spring and fall, I see one more often than I don't. I've come around the corner and had one or 2 standing in the middle of the trail on several occasions; a few times, I've been less than 20 ft from them when I came to a stop. They are huge animals and it is startling, I'll give you that. But every time, they just they look at me for a minute and wander down in to the stream.

But the Wasatch is the busiest National Forest in the country, I believe, receiving over 2.1 million visitors a year. And in the 10 yrs I've been living here, I haven't heard a single report of someone having a problem w/ a moose in the Wasatch (I know, someone's gonna find a story now). Likewise, I don't think I've ever heard a report of anyone being harmed on Wasatch trails by miscreants or any other animals during daylight. I haven't seen a bear in the Wasatch, and would be curious to know where you saw that guy. There was the case of a bear killing a boy at night in an American Fork canyon campground a few years back, but that is the only one I can think of.


----------



## velosapiens (Mar 8, 2004)

Not going to respond to all the nutjobs, but here's my 2 cents:
I've been riding alone in the woods all my life. I've seen bears more times than I can count, and coyotes more times than you can count, but only a couple moose. I personally only carry a gun when I am riding with my dogs, because unlike me, my dogs might be dumb enough to antagonize some critter. I just wear a bear of baggy shorts with a belt over my cycling shorts, and a normal leather belt holster. I think carrying a gun on the bike (rather than on my person) is dumb, but if it gives you peace of mind, then whatever.

I don't really worry about injuring myself. If you are the sort of person who falls off your bike when riding alone, then I think animals are the least of your safety worries. I would try to ride better.


----------



## velosapiens (Mar 8, 2004)

Chester4 said:


> but who here is a good enough shot to (in your biking gear mind you) dismount a bike, draw a weapon, chamber a round, release the safety (unless you're just dumb) and fire a kill shot,


Wait, what? why would you carry a gun without a round in the chamber?

FWIW, most modern carry guns don't have a safety.


----------



## WNCGoater (Aug 21, 2014)

Chester4 said:


> Two things: one, why does everyone dislike the .380 for animal defense? I'm well aware that it isn't going to drop a charging bear with one shot, but who here is a good enough shot to (in your biking gear mind you) dismount a bike, draw a weapon, chamber a round, release the safety (unless you're just dumb) and fire a kill shot, mind you a charging animal has the least effective kill shot area, as opposed to say quartering away.. In my mind the main line of defense with predators would be the sound of the shot itself. I have been trapped in a treestand with a large mountain lion (approx. 150-160 lbs) circling below as sun was setting, while bow hunting, sure an arrow through the back would have gotten me down; but all I had to do was light one firecracker, which I carry when bow hunting for this very reason, and it was GONE. Not to mention my .380 is sized where it fits almost anywhere, on person or elsewhere, should I chose to carry it.
> 
> Secondly, next time I'm riding where bears are I'll just change bikes:
> 
> View attachment 931589


Okay. So in getting back to the OP's intent, and for those who think of those who carry paranoid. Here's where I stand.

I carry exactly that, a .380 (Not the^^ bike). It's small, lightweight and easily concealable in a pocket.
I always carry while riding on the roads, seldom while mtb in the woods.

I carry a .380 mostly for the 2 legged variety of threat. They are wily creatures, able to carry out their nefarious activities in a variety of venues. They look for non-threatening, and particularly, victims who appear oblivious and unaware of what's happening until too late. They will kill you for $20 if they are in desperate need to feed their habit, or maybe just 3 or 4 will beat the life out of you in a senseless gang initiation. Doesn't matter if you avoid their typical hangouts, as if you could identify where that may be, they'll find you even while riding your in an upscale neighborhood or the "nice" part of town.
I also carry pepper spray. Dogs(of all varieties) don't like spray and a shot to the face will stop most. But I have heard of it making aggressive dogs seem to go more aggressive. So in case spray just makes one more angry, the .380 will take care of any k-9's latched onto my leg. Two legged threats to my life won't get the benefit of pepper spray first.

Typically though, they are little threat way out in the woods, dogs or criminals, thus why I rarely carry there. That and I'm usually riding with other guys.

I don't really worry about animals out there. I spend a lot of time in the woods, hiking, backpacking, and hunting. I'm fairly comfortable out there.
As I stated earlier, I can't carry enough to stop a moose unless I'm carrying a rifle, not that they are a threat in NC. That also applies if a bear charged. A .380 won't get the job done. MOST handguns won't get the job done and they would require instantaneous access, use, and extreme accuracy. You would maybe have 3 seconds from the time an animal spots you, charges, you realize the threat, and the animal is on you. 
Maybe a .380 would stop a rabid raccoon or coyote but even then, it is a close range proposition. Having said that, I have NO PROBLEM whatsoever with someone who wants to carry a handgun for any reason, or no reason. It is as much that person's right as it is to be out on public lands to start with.

In all the scenarios above, I'd probably just s**t my pants anyway.

I don't live scared. I'm not paranoid. I don't wander through life filled with fear. 
I'm also not stupid. Bad things happen to good people through no fault of their own. We live in society where there is an element that goes through life, by preying on others. I don't care where you live or how nice your little town, that is the case.

I'll not be beat to death like an animal by the two legged vermin that prey on innocents, not without putting up a fight.

I know what I said will not sway those who, for some reason, fear law abiding individuals who carry a firearm for personal protection. They'll call me paranoid, stupid, inept... I don't care. If you choose to fight with your tire pump or squirt them with your water bottle, that's your business.

I truly and sincerely hope NONE of us ever find ourselves in a situation of violent crime. But the time to prepare how to handle it, isn't when it is happening.


----------



## random walk (Jan 12, 2010)

Mynd you, møøse bites Kan be pretti nasti...

Seriously, I'm on the skeptical side about the ability of a modestly skilled shooter to fend off an attack by a large, pissed-off animal like a moose or a grizzly bear -- even a javelina, for that matter. Bonus points for doing it while riding a bike, most likely having reaction and accuracy performances degraded by effects of physical exertion. Even more bonus points for using a realistic caliber weapon (weight, recoil, etc.).

Here's a wild idea to test a person's response to a simulated animal attack, using a model similar to a "pistol practical." You're riding along, and at a random location on the course "surprise" a mechanical animal at a reasonably short distance (as would be the case in real life), causing it to charge you at a realistic speed. You must place (pick a number, 4?) rounds into a realistic target area to successfully pass. Make it interesting by inflicting consequences for failing -- maybe the shooter gets a good dousing of pepper spray or a hail of paint balls if the target makes it to within a couple yards.


----------



## jugdish (Apr 1, 2004)

I hate pants. What about you big thinkers?


----------



## rockerc (Nov 22, 2010)

random walk said:


> Mynd you, møøse bites Kan be pretti nasti...
> 
> Seriously, I'm on the skeptical side about the ability of a modestly skilled shooter to fend off an attack by a large, pissed-off animal like a moose or a grizzly bear -- even a javelina, for that matter. Bonus points for doing it while riding a bike, most likely having reaction and accuracy performances degraded by effects of physical exertion. Even more bonus points for using a realistic caliber weapon (weight, recoil, etc.).
> 
> Here's a wild idea to test a person's response to a simulated animal attack, using a model similar to a "pistol practical." You're riding along, and at a random location on the course "surprise" a mechanical animal at a reasonably short distance (as would be the case in real life), causing it to charge you at a realistic speed. You must place (pick a number, 4?) rounds into a realistic target area to successfully pass. Make it interesting by inflicting consequences for failing -- maybe the shooter gets a good dousing of pepper spray or a hail of paint balls if the target makes it to within a couple yards.


_A møøse once bit my sister..._

Thankfully she was carrying a fire extinguisher filled with "Moose Off!"

Most sensible post here...


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

rockerc said:


> _A møøse once bit my sister..._
> 
> Thankfully she was carrying a fire extinguisher filled with "Moose Off!"
> 
> Most sensible post here...


So (and I think we all deserve to know), did she get the moose off?


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

Why even conceal your weapon in the first place?! Don't you want to spread a warning to everyone not to fvck with you by showing that you are packing???


----------



## Slow Danger (Oct 9, 2009)

Hawg said:


> Don't you want to spread a warning to everyone not to fvck with you by showing that you are packing???


They prefer to do that on the internet.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Hawg said:


> Why even conceal your weapon in the first place?! Don't you want to spread a warning to everyone not to fvck with you by showing that you are packing???


Concealed Carry has no place in the wilderness.

Guns do have a place in the wilderness (if they are the appropriate size/type)


----------



## velosapiens (Mar 8, 2004)

Hawg said:


> Why even conceal your weapon in the first place?! Don't you want to spread a warning to everyone not to fvck with you by showing that you are packing???


It depends on where you are riding. In general, the whole point of concealment is to avoid freaking out the vegetarians, subaru-owners, democrats, and other emasculated hoplophobes. If you are riding groomed suburban trails near a starbucks, you may still see alot of those folks, and it is considerate to avoid making them cry.

OTOH, if you are riding somewhere more remote, no one will really glance twice at a firearm, so there's no point in concealing it.

I carry mine openly when I ride with it. I don't know if the critters take it as a warning or not. I've unholstered 3 times, once for a coyote (he ran away), once for a badger that was squaring off with my dog (dog backed down), and once for a moose lurking in the underbrush when I was just walking with the dogs. No shots fired, but it gave me some peace of mind.

And actually, that's the whole point, is peace of mind. I'm good at math, so I don't worry too much about the possibility of ever *needing* a gun in the woods, but I feel better when I have it, so I typically bring it anytime the dogs are with me.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

velosapiens said:


> It depends on where you are riding. In general, the whole point of concealment is to avoid freaking out the vegetarians, subaru-owners, democrats, and other emasculated hoplophobes. If you are riding groomed suburban trails near a starbucks, you may still see alot of those folks, and it is considerate to avoid making them cry.
> 
> OTOH, if you are riding somewhere more remote, no one will really glance twice at a firearm, so there's no point in concealing it.
> 
> ...


Must've been a pretty scary coyote.....unless you are taking about the smugglers who get illegals across the borders.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Hell, if I see a coyote in Utah, I shoot it whether it's scary or not. They are a pest animal and the state pays me $50 for each confirmed kill.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

Silentfoe said:


> Hell, if I see a coyote in Utah, I shoot it whether it's scary or not. They are a pest animal and the state pays me $50 for each confirmed kill.


Then that becomes hunting and a completely different topic.


----------



## rockerc (Nov 22, 2010)

velosapiens said:


> It depends on where you are riding. In general, the whole point of concealment is to avoid freaking out the vegetarians, subaru-owners, democrats, and other emasculated hoplophobes. If you are riding groomed suburban trails near a starbucks, you may still see alot of those folks, and it is considerate to avoid making them cry.
> 
> OTOH, if you are riding somewhere more remote, no one will really glance twice at a firearm, so there's no point in concealing it.
> 
> ...


This post demonstrates why people get their knickers in a twist over these threads. You sir, are a baboon


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

rockerc said:


> You sir, are a baboon


Really? Pot meet kettle.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)




----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

rockerc said:


> You sir, are a baboon


What _exactly_ is it that you don't agree with in what he said? Seemed a reasonable post to me.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

Mr Pig said:


> What _exactly_ is it that you don't agree with in what he said? Seemed a reasonable post to me.


Probably safe to say this part of his statement:

It depends on where you are riding. In general, the whole point of concealment is to avoid freaking out the vegetarians, subaru-owners, democrats, and other emasculated hoplophobes. If you are riding groomed suburban trails near a starbucks, you may still see alot of those folks, and it is considerate to avoid making them cry.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

If I really wanted to piss off a moose, I'd shoot it with a handgun.


----------



## dgw2jr (Aug 17, 2011)

mtnbikej said:


> Probably safe to say this part of his statement:
> 
> It depends on where you are riding. In general, the whole point of concealment is to avoid freaking out the vegetarians, subaru-owners, democrats, and other emasculated hoplophobes. If you are riding groomed suburban trails near a starbucks, you may still see alot of those folks, and it is considerate to avoid making them cry.


Well he's not wrong lol


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

mtnbikej said:


> Probably safe to say this part of his statement:


Was I asking you?


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

dgw2jr said:


> Well he's not wrong lol


No, he isn't.

In my teens I had an air rifle and the reason I got rid of it was that it was almost impossible to go anywhere with it without people getting pissed off, just because you had it! You didn't have to do anything wrong, just having it was a crime. In the end I decided it wasn't worth the grief and sold it.

Dear vegetarians, subaru-owners, democrats, and other emasculated hoplophobes (whatever that last one is! ;0). Most gun owners are normal people who will not just shoot you for the fun of it, despite the fact that you probably deserve it. Please feel free to prosecute the few who do misbehave but deliberately provoking tens of thousands of people who have firearms may not further your quest for peace on earth as much as you might imagine.

Who knows, perhaps one day you will find yourself in one of the schools, cinemas or shopping malls that you successfully banned guns from while some armed screw-ball takes advantage of the lack of resistance. While you wonder just how much protection a rail of ladies blouses is likely to offer, you might at that moment find yourself wishing there were some law-abiding people like the original poster next to you who were also carrying guns.

Kind regards,
Realism and logic.


----------



## rockerc (Nov 22, 2010)

Mr Pig said:


> No, he isn't.
> 
> In my teens I had an air rifle and the reason I got rid of it was that it was almost impossible to go anywhere with it without people getting pissed off, just because you had it! You didn't have to do anything wrong, just having it was a crime. In the end I decided it wasn't worth the grief and sold it.
> 
> ...


I do not believe the intention of the OP, giving him the benefit of the doubt as to his sockishness or trollicity, was to debate the rights or wrongs or otherwise of carrying in general, rather how to do so on a mountain bike. These interminable threads have proved one thing only in my opinion, that reason and logic dictate that it is pointless carrying a firearm when out riding. The post that I objected to was an obvious attempt at an inflammatory statement engineered to raise the hackles of those that disagree with the idea of feeling the need to carry when riding, and also to widen that net to include anyone who disagrees with 2nd Amendment rights in general. 
The poster also mistakenly states that in more remote areas no one will give a second glance at the unconcealed weapon. Pretty much everyone that I ride with here in Tucson would not feel comfortable anywhere out there with someone open carrying.
I also believe that to take your dogs into the woods where larger game is known to be, then carry a weapon because the dogs might rouse that animal is simply barbaric. That is their habitat, and taking your dogs for a walk out there should not be cause for bloodshed. Control your dogs.
I also believe that anyone who feels the need to unholster their weapon when a coyote appears should not be out on their own at all. They are a danger to themselves. 'Baboon' is restrained.

Think yourself lucky Mr Pig, that it is very difficult for idiots and the mentally deficient to get themselves lethal weapons in Scotland. Here in Tucson I had someone I know gunned down and killed at our local Safeway a few years ago, by a kid who would most definitely not have been able to lay his hands on the weapons he used to kill those innocents in your country. There would be many more Dunblanes if these people could get hold of them as readily there.


----------



## norton55 (Oct 5, 2005)

Hey rockerc, looks like all the socks have fled this thread.


----------



## rockerc (Nov 22, 2010)

norton55 said:


> Hey rockerc, looks like all the socks have fled this thread.


Good riddance!


----------



## WNCGoater (Aug 21, 2014)

velosapiens said:


> It depends on where you are riding. In general, the whole point of concealment is to avoid freaking out the vegetarians, subaru-owners, democrats, and other emasculated hoplophobes. If you are riding groomed suburban trails near a starbucks, you may still see alot of those folks, and it is considerate to avoid making them cry.





rockerc said:


> Pretty much everyone that I ride with here in Tucson would not feel comfortable anywhere out there with someone open carrying.


Well I'd say you proved his case for carrying concealed.


----------



## Sevenrats (Jan 2, 2014)

velosapiens said:


> In general, the whole point of concealment is to avoid freaking out the vegetarians, subaru-owners, democrats, and other emasculated hoplophobes.


Hold it right there!!! I own five handguns, 3 rifles (including an AR-15), three bikes and two Subaru's!


----------



## rockerc (Nov 22, 2010)

WNCGoater said:


> Well I'd say you proved his case for carrying concealed.


Only if I don't want to open a whole 'nother can o' worms!


----------



## rockerc (Nov 22, 2010)

Sevenrats said:


> Hold it right there!!! I own five handguns, 3 rifles (including an AR-15), three bikes and two Subaru's!


BZZT! BZZT! APOSTROPHE POLICE!!! The plural of Subaru is SUBARUS!!! Any emasculated Hoplophobe knows that!


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

Emasculated? Well there was that HVAC technician last year In Michigan who had an accidental discharge while "adjusting" his Ccw In his pocket. Shot his own dick off.


----------



## net wurker (Sep 13, 2007)

I thought it was Subari???


----------



## WNCGoater (Aug 21, 2014)

Well FWIW, people on this thread aren't the first ones to consider this. I suppose this would fall into the "Back woods open carry option". Not safe near the Starbucks.









Of course, as I've said (and others as well) , for moose a handgun is going to leave you lacking, you're gonna need a bigger gun! LOL!









Use a pump 12 gauge and you can simply call it your "frame mounted pump" putting worried minds at ease.

And yes, this post falls under what I mentioned that "pretty much this thread has become useless, though entertaining."


----------



## Slow Danger (Oct 9, 2009)

Plenty of Democrats use and carry guns, are fully masculated, eat meat, and don't drive a Subaru. I've only met a few who met the vegetarian, anti-gun, emasculated, Subaru driving cliche, and they tend to whine and cry a lot less than the gun and flag waving, fast food eating, pick-up truck nuts driving, overcompensating, oppressed, white male. But, hey, I could be making lazy assumptions.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

rockerc said:


> Think yourself lucky Mr Pig, that it is very difficult for idiots and the mentally deficient to get themselves lethal weapons in Scotland.


I do. I feel blessed to live in a country where guns are very few, it is a better way to live. However, if I lived in the US I would own a gun.

This is the mistake the anti-gun lobby make. They look at other parts of the world and think they can impose similar solutions on the US. You can't. Each country is different and needs different, sometimes diametrically opposed solutions. An over-simplistic 'no guns = good, guns = bad' mentality won't work. You have to be realistic about the situation you are in and act accordingly.

In the US there are already too many guns in circulation for any restrictions or bans to work. It would be great if you could hoover them all off the streets but it's simply not possible. The only thing that efforts to that effect would achieve would be a reduction in the numbers of guns in the hands of responsible people, which is exactly the opposite of what you want.

In a society already saturated with guns the best answer is having many of the good, responsible citizens armed. Yes, I know it's not great but it's what you're stuck with. The genie is out of the bottle and can't go back in. You can't stop crazy shooters targeting innocent people but if more of those people are armed the less people will die. If you ban guns in a school, mall or cinema all you are doing is creating killing zones for the nutters.

Maybe you would feel uncomfortable around a guy carrying a weapon but who's fault is that? Do you feel uncomfortable around the cops because they are armed? There are cops holding MP5s walking around the concourse in Glasgow airport. No one bats an eye. The actual threat and your perception of it are not the same thing.

People in the US will die because of guns. That is sad, but you're stuck with it. Three-times as many will die in car crashes but I don't hear many people suggesting you ban cars! Your society has developed along a certain road, one which includes both cars and guns, and it's too late to go back to the beginning and pick a different one. The best you can do is try to figure out how you can manage the reality you now have to minimise the carnage but if you are not going to be realistic about it you're just wasting your time.


----------



## WNCGoater (Aug 21, 2014)

Slow Danger said:


> But, hey, I could be making lazy assumptions.


Yeah, you are. Not that it matters, you're a little late to the party and most have moved on to more interesting topics.


----------



## WNCGoater (Aug 21, 2014)

andytiedye said:


> Emasculated? Well there was that HVAC technician last year In Michigan who had an accidental discharge while "adjusting" his Ccw In his pocket. Shot his own dick off.


I guess he had to sell his pickup truck and buy a Prius. (I'll cut the Suburi crowd a break)


----------



## rockerc (Nov 22, 2010)

Mr Pig said:


> I do. I feel blessed to live in a country where guns are very few, it is a better way to live. However, if I lived in the US I would own a gun.
> 
> This is the mistake the anti-gun lobby make. They look at other parts of the world and think they can impose similar solutions on the US. You can't. Each country is different and needs different, sometimes diametrically opposed solutions. An over-simplistic 'no guns = good, guns = bad' mentality won't work. You have to be realistic about the situation you are in and act accordingly.
> 
> ...


I'm afraid that I just cannot agree with this take on the situation here. I am not going to get into my reasons here and now, I have already laid them out elsewhere, and it would really be a waste of time to repeat...


----------



## Slow Danger (Oct 9, 2009)

WNCGoater said:


> Most have moved on to more interesting topics.


Well, at least you're keeping a sense of humor. The party's been over on these type of threads long before you joined mtbr just to take part in them.


----------



## rockerc (Nov 22, 2010)

Here's a troop of baboons recently... I wonder if they're coming or going?


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

I know we've talked a lot about what kind of firearm is appropriate in the backcountry, but what about for racing?


----------



## rockerc (Nov 22, 2010)

Jayem said:


> I know we've talked a lot about what kind of firearm is appropriate in the backcountry, but what about for racing?


One of these obviously...

Titanium RPG-7 - Marvel: Avengers Alliance Wiki - Guides, Items, Characters, and more


----------



## random walk (Jan 12, 2010)

Wait, I think I found a problem for this solution:

the lady on the white horse (if you ran into her you know what im talking about) - Page 14- Mtbr.com


----------



## net wurker (Sep 13, 2007)

rockerc said:


> Here's a troop of baboons recently... I wonder if they're coming or going?


Pretty sure that's the GR Bike Club.


----------



## dgw2jr (Aug 17, 2011)

random walk said:


> Wait, I think I found a problem for this solution:
> 
> the lady on the white horse (if you ran into her you know what im talking about) - Page 14- Mtbr.com


Centaurs!


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

rockerc said:


> Here's a troop of baboons recently... I wonder if they're coming or going?


It's a sad tactic, you can't or won't deal with the actual issues raised so ridicule the people raising them instead. Let's gang up on the guy we don't agree with and make fun of him. Very mature, and achieves what exactly?


----------



## spirit4earth (Apr 30, 2007)

Jayem said:


> Exactly. We see them rationalizing crazy things.
> 
> Someone was up here from Bike magazine last year taking pictures in one of our really neat trail systems. She had a .44 magnum short barrel in a holster across her chest. A reasonable precaution, although people are all over that trail system all day and night in the summer and winter, running, riding, skiing, doing whatever that thing is called where you have the long roller-skate things instead of XC skis on the asphalt, hiking, picking magic mushrooms, etc. All that said, usually a moose or two gets taken down in this trail area due to a human being charged, so again, it's a reasonable precaution and the person was handling it correctly. If animals outdoors are what you are concerned about, take the proper precautions. For the most part, the guides going out with the .500 magnums and .460s are going out to places where there is little to no help available and where they can easily be placed in a situation where there is no where to go or run, due to no "paths" or "trails". Again, reasonable precautions. If you have to CC due to human threats where you ride, it's probably a good idea to ride elsewhere, otherwise you're going to again need it on your body so you can get to it quickly, maybe in a concealed holster, but otherwise if you're justifying a 9mm because you travel in bear country and there might bad humans, you are just being ridiculous. Get a can of bear-spray and get it a water-bottle mount or one of the many types of mounts that are available. Bear spray works fantastically (at least on moose, as I was forced to test). Don't try to claim you're going to nail a moose in the eye socket with a .380 from 20 feet while it's moving, you have a glove on and are out of breath, it's beyond ridiculous. If you are concerned about those threats, take reasonable responsible precautions. Carry the right tool for the job and do it right (for the situation) or man up and carry all the other crap that one should have and "be better to have and not need than need it and not have it", like a tent, fire extinguisher, sat phone, spot tracker, fire starters, emergency blanket, extra derailleur, extra wheel, etc...


this makes sense, but if you must carry a gun, carry it on your self, not on the bike.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Mr Pig said:


> It's a sad tactic, you can't or won't deal with the actual issues raised so ridicule the people raising them instead. Let's gang up on the guy we don't agree with and make fun of him. Very mature, and achieves what exactly?


I'm not saying that an eye for an eye is necessarily a good idea or productive in any way but the poster who was referred to as a baboon was/is an obvious troll who was making fun of those that he didn't agree with. Why give him a pass?

I disagree by with rockerc btw, referring to that guy as a baboon is an insult to their species. Baboons are actually intelligent and reasonable creatures.


----------



## Sevenrats (Jan 2, 2014)

rockerc said:


> BZZT! BZZT! APOSTROPHE POLICE!!! The plural of Subaru is SUBARUS!!! Any emasculated Hoplophobe knows that!


For the record. I eat animals, own 2 subarus^^^, vote Rebublican/Libertarian, have a working member, and I have no idea what hopolophobe is. I also have no problem with Starbucks coffee but there are a lot of hippies in there. And my trails are not groomed.

I buy Subarus^^^ because they make the best damned all wheel drive car on the road.

I walk to the beat of my own drum.


----------



## rockerc (Nov 22, 2010)

J.B. Weld said:


> I'm not saying that an eye for an eye is necessarily a good idea or productive in any way but the poster who was referred to as a baboon was/is an obvious troll who was making fun of those that he didn't agree with. Why give him a pass?
> 
> I disagree by with rockerc btw, referring to that guy as a baboon is an insult to their species. Baboons are actually intelligent and reasonable creatures.


I have to agree with you there JB, I have done the baboon a disservice, and for that I apologise. I was once threatened by a baboon in S. Africa, but I reasoned with it, then ran away.

Mr Pig, if you really want to hear my opinion on these matters, go find it on the myriad other gun threads here, as I invited you or anyone else to do but you seem to have missed. In a nutshell tho, you are talking of damage limitation, where I am talking of damage prevention. 2 very different things.


----------



## Sevenrats (Jan 2, 2014)

Jayem said:


> I know we've talked a lot about what kind of firearm is appropriate in the backcountry, but what about for racing?


If you're slow.









If you're fast.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

Slow Danger said:


> Well, at least you're keeping a sense of humor. The party's been over on these type of threads long before you joined mtbr just to take part in them.


He'll catch on.


----------



## Flyin_W (Jun 17, 2007)

hartzpad said:


> I've recently run across a black bear cub and a moose while mtn biking here in Utah, like ran into them around a corner. I usually don't carry a gun while riding, but I've got a Fat Bike on order and winter riding is more isolated with more potential run ins with wildlife as snow pushes them down further into populated areas. I'm looking for a top tube bag that can fit a gun...


OP.
Since my opinion earned a vacation, here's a perspective from - Justin Dolling, game mammals coordinator for the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. "Last year, no one outside of our agency shot a bear to protect themselves or others."

Dolling says there are plenty of things you can do if you encounter a black bear. "Shooting a bear should be a last resort," he says.

Dolling says black bears are usually more afraid of us than we are of them. That's the first thing to remember if you see one.

"If a black bear knows you're in the area, it will probably turn and run away from you as fast as it can," Dolling says.

Dolling reminds Utahns that DWR officers investigate every bear shooting that occurs outside of the state's hunting season. They give their findings to the county attorney in the county in which the shooting occurred.

If the attorney determines that the shooting wasn't justified, the shooter could be charged with up to a third degree felony for poaching.

And that could result in *up to five years in jail, a $5,000 fine* and the loss of the person's hunting privileges in Utah and 30 other states for up to seven years.

Perhaps this will cause somebody here to re-evaluate the wisdom of this idea.


----------



## deke505 (Jul 29, 2012)

Jayem said:


> I know we've talked a lot about what kind of firearm is appropriate in the backcountry, but what about for racing?


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Wouldn't shooting a bear with a handgun just piss them off?


----------



## deke505 (Jul 29, 2012)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Wouldn't shooting bear just piss them off?


That is why you need to be faster than the guy next to you.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Sure, that, and planting jerky on the other riders.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Wouldn't shooting a bear with a handgun just piss them off?


Yes, it might possibly make it as mad as Ted Nugent was last year when he was hit with the poaching fine.


----------



## tim208 (Apr 23, 2010)

personally carry the rifle in an eberlestock pack and than pack the elk out on your bike and back.


----------



## rockerc (Nov 22, 2010)

tim208 said:


> personally carry the rifle in an eberlestock pack and than pack the elk out on your bike and back.


Do you have to go back for the rest of the elk? Nice set up... bet you carry some spare tubes!


----------



## tim208 (Apr 23, 2010)

rocker

usually you have to make multiple trips. The bike and trailer, just fit my style of hunting .


----------



## icecreamjay (Apr 13, 2004)

Flyin_W said:


> OP.
> Since my opinion earned a vacation, here's a perspective from - Justin Dolling, game mammals coordinator for the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. "Last year, no one outside of our agency shot a bear to protect themselves or others."
> 
> Dolling says there are plenty of things you can do if you encounter a black bear. "Shooting a bear should be a last resort," he says.
> ...


Damn, this means the " South Park - It's comin straight at us " excuse isn't gonna work.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Slow Danger (Oct 9, 2009)

tim208 said:


> personally carry the rifle in an eberlestock pack and than pack the elk out on your bike and back.


I take some of the back-strap and a shoulder roast. Thanks.


----------



## tim208 (Apr 23, 2010)

Here is a great front shoulder recipe

shoulder roast(anything works well)
crock pot
can of bud light
small jar of crushed garlic
2 brown gravy packets
1 au jus packet
1 onion soup mix packet.
combine all ingredients in crock pot and cook for roughly 8 hours. 
pull apart in crock and serve on a good hard roll with horseradish

I have done this to 6 types of animals and it comes out the same every time. very good and simple.


----------



## bcriverjunky (Jul 8, 2014)

In some areas it's the feral pit bulls I worry about. We've had trails shut down because of them. Airplane, Saginaw County Sheriff's Posse search for pack of wild dogs | MLive.com My Sig fits nicely in this frame bag.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

tim208 said:


> Here is a great front shoulder recipe
> 
> can of bud light


What am I going to do with the rest of the 6-pack, can't I uses some decent beer instead?


----------



## rockerc (Nov 22, 2010)

bcriverjunky said:


> In some areas it's the feral pit bulls I worry about. We've had trails shut down because of them. Airplane, Saginaw County Sheriff's Posse search for pack of wild dogs | MLive.com My Sig fits nicely in this frame bag.
> View attachment 933446


Does your underwear co-ordinate too?


----------



## Sevenrats (Jan 2, 2014)

bcriverjunky said:


> In some areas it's the feral pit bulls I worry about. We've had trails shut down because of them. Airplane, Saginaw County Sheriff's Posse search for pack of wild dogs | MLive.com My Sig fits nicely in this frame bag.
> View attachment 933446


This here is a situation that you should carry, but not on a bike. It should be a hunt. Which is what it sounds like they did.


----------



## tim208 (Apr 23, 2010)

jb
A guy at work used a fancy beer and he told me next time he would pick up a cheap can of beer at the corner store. The beer is more about adding liquid than flavor.


----------



## Brisk Eddie (Jun 23, 2014)

Personally, I go commando.



rockerc said:


> Does your underwear co-ordinate too?


----------



## AnimalBikeman (Jun 18, 2011)

Ooohh, another yet another "carry for protection" argument gone completely nutso. This is why I am Scared to death to go riding in the mountains during hunting season. these people actually believe they are going to be attacked by every living thing - you and I included- they come across. So here we've got yet another self preservationatist packing heat on a fat bike - piss ant glock to boot - to protect against BEARS IN WINTER! When is the last time you saw a bear, OR a BEAR CUB, in winter??? Outside of a zoo. They hibernate! And by winter, they grow up and don't have mamma protecting them.... So they are a zero threat to anyone.

Secondly, you shoot a bear with a glock, and all your gonna do is piss it off. Maybe then it actually will attack you - in self defense. 

Moose are the same way. Leave them alone- they will leave you alone. The last thing they want to do is get in a gun fight with a wanna be John Dillenger.

Use some common sense, instead of feeding your fearsome machismo, and you won't have any trouble on the trails. And you won't need a gun to ride a fat bike.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

AnimalBikeman said:


> Ooohh, another yet another "carry for protection" argument gone completely nutso. This is why I am Scared to death to go riding in the mountains during hunting season. these people actually believe they are going to be attacked by every living thing - you and I included- they come across. So here we've got yet another self preservationatist packing heat on a fat bike - piss ant glock to boot - to protect against BEARS IN WINTER! When is the last time you saw a bear, OR a BEAR CUB, in winter??? Outside of a zoo. They hibernate! And by winter, they grow up and don't have mamma protecting them.... So they are a zero threat to anyone.
> 
> Secondly, you shoot a bear with a glock, and all your gonna do is piss it off. Maybe then it actually will attack you - in self defense.
> 
> ...


Now, do you have anything to say in regards to the OP question? Anything at all?


----------



## rockerc (Nov 22, 2010)

jazzanova said:


> Now, do you have anything to say in regards to the OP question? Anything at all?


I think he covered all the bases there...


----------



## chuck80442 (Oct 4, 2009)

High octane bear spray would do the trick just as well. No need for a gun when some common sense will suffice.


----------



## Hurricane Jeff (Jan 1, 2006)

Where I live, we have both black bears and mountain lions, although I've seen both while riding and actually had a few close encounters with bears and a moose and calf in Utah several years back. I never felt that I needed a gun for protection against the animals on the trails and think this a pretty ridiculous subject. Now if I lived in a place that had grizzly bears, my opinion might be a little different. I think it's the humans on the trails/ back country that pose more of a threat than any animal could.

Why is it, every time guns or the second amendment comes up, everyone's shouts" liberals!" When it was the conservitives than originally started gun control, Ronald Reagan in the early 80's with his signing of the Brady bill. No one wants to take your guns away, as the conservitives would like you to believe, they just want at least the same gun restrictions in place that Reagan signed into law( later reversed by GW Bush)
I have several guns and have no problem with gun control, I'm a law abiding citizen, why should I have a problem?
Btw, my wife used to carry around a 9mm in a fanny pack type holster( there were a few attacks on women out on the trails several years ago)


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Hurricane Jeff said:


> We I live, we have both black bears and mountain lions, although I've seen both while riding and actually had a few close encounters with bears and a moose and calf in Utah several years back. I never felt that I needed a gun for protection against the animals on the trails and think this a pretty ridiculous subject. Now if I lived in a place that had grizzly bears, my opinion might be a little different. I think it's the humans on the trails/ back country that pose more of a threat than any animal could.
> 
> Why is it, every time guns or the second amendment comes up, everyone's shouts" liberals!" When it was the conservitives than originally started gun control, Ronald Reagan in the early 80's with his signing of the Brady bill. No one wants to take your guns away, as the conservitives would like you to believe, they just want at least the same gun restrictions in place that Reagan signed into law( later reversed by GW Bush)
> I have several guns and have no problem with gun control, I'm a law abiding citizen, why should I have a problem?
> Btw, my wife used to carry around a 9mm in a fanny pack type holster( there were a few attacks on women out on the trails several years ago)


----------



## kewlfewl (Oct 28, 2014)

This should work:


----------



## 006_007 (Jan 12, 2004)

chuck80442 said:


> High octane bear spray would do the trick just as well. No need for a gun when some common sense will suffice.


Guns are way easier to have then common sense. Thats why there is so many of them out there.


----------



## abegold (Jan 30, 2004)

How common is it for a moose to attack a human? Living in AZ I've only encountered them in other western states. Moose attacking dogs I've heard of. Bears and cougars, sure but I've never seen either on a bike. 
I had a moose run right by me in northern MT on my bike. I was so winded at the time from just reaching the top of a 2900' climb that I could barely react. What did happen is Deer Flies following the moose decided I might taste better and I had to kill 5 of the biting blood suckers!


----------



## 2manyhobbies (Oct 19, 2014)

Hurricane Jeff said:


> Where I live, we have both black bears and mountain lions, although I've seen both while riding and actually had a few close encounters with bears and a moose and calf in Utah several years back. I never felt that I needed a gun for protection against the animals on the trails and think this a pretty ridiculous subject. Now if I lived in a place that had grizzly bears, my opinion might be a little different. I think it's the humans on the trails/ back country that pose more of a threat than any animal could.
> 
> Why is it, every time guns or the second amendment comes up, everyone's shouts" liberals!" When it was the conservitives than originally started gun control, Ronald Reagan in the early 80's with his signing of the Brady bill. No one wants to take your guns away, as the conservitives would like you to believe, they just want at least the same gun restrictions in place that Reagan signed into law( later reversed by GW Bush)
> I have several guns and have no problem with gun control, I'm a law abiding citizen, why should I have a problem?
> Btw, my wife used to carry around a 9mm in a fanny pack type holster( there were a few attacks on women out on the trails several years ago)


LBJ signed the Gun Control Act of 1968. I don't think he was a conservative.


----------



## kewlfewl (Oct 28, 2014)

My GF is a bike cop.
They like these for carrying their backup:
https://www.google.com/search?q=law...tbm=shop&q=law+enforcement+firearm+fanny+pack
Apparently, with a little practice, you can develop a quick draw.

The one she uses for off-duty looks like this:
TSSi - 5.11 Select Carry Pistol Pouch


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

abegold said:


> How common is it for a moose to attack a human? Living in AZ I've only encountered them in other western states. Moose attacking dogs I've heard of. Bears and cougars, sure but I've never seen either on a bike.
> I had a moose run right by me in northern MT on my bike. I was so winded at the time from just reaching the top of a 2900' climb that I could barely react. What did happen is Deer Flies following the moose decided I might taste better and I had to kill 5 of the biting blood suckers!


Much more common than bear attacks here in Alaska.

Generally, black bears want nothing to do with you, they aren't even as protective of their young as brown bears. Brown bears pretty much want nothing to do with you, unless you are holding a salmon, or in between them and their young (as with pretty much any animal).

The moose are territorial and they generally do not scamper off when a loud noise/big mountain biker comes around the corner. The worst is if they are standing in the middle of the trail (which is somewhat often) and they see you from a ways off. You ride closer, they won't budge. You get within a few dozen feet, they go into attack/aggressive mode. Then they come at you and try to stomp/trample/kick you.

Most of the time I just turn around, as shouting and waving arms only seems to piss them off more and make them come at you sooner. I got trapped a little over a month back and the moose came at me from around 20 feet. I just had a couple seconds to get to the spray and disperse it. Worked great, turned the moose right around.

The moose are unpredictable. Sometimes I ride 5 feet away from a volkswagen-sized cow bedded down in the grass (because I didn't see it earlier and it's sitting there motionless). Sometimes you have to find a different trail to ride because they just stand motionless in the middle of the trail, or working their way towards you. I've waited over 15 minutes before trying to see if they'll move off. It's also often difficult to tell if there's a cow and a calf. If you see a calf, assume there's a cow, which may be right out of view or around a corner, but it's generally not safe to proceed unless you are pretty sure.

The moose are far more dangerous than the bears. I've only see a few small bears from a distance, but again, they generally want nothing to do with you. Moose on the other hand act like they own the trail and if they see you on it, they may come after you and trample you to death.

When I lived in AZ, I remember that we had Elk, similar in size, not quite as big as a moose I think, but they are way more rare in AZ. The first time I saw one alive was after around 9 years living in AZ up at the Grand Canyon, otherwise it was usually just carcasses on highway 40. Moose are quite common in AK. A few years back one came into the ER at a hospital in winter (you know, automatic doors).


----------



## SimpleJon (Mar 28, 2011)

I go riding and camping in Sumatra, Indonesia, quite a lot. That has wild tigers, elephants, rhino's, pythons, clouded leopards, wild boars and various types of monkey along with saltwater crocs and several other predators. The only ones I've had issues with were wild boars and wild dogs, I've had a pannier gored and so has a riding buddy. A gun may have been useful for those but then pepper spray also works. 
As for the others Sumatran Tigers and clouded leopards generally ambush from behind so a gun is no use. (plus I've never seen either)
A croc, elephant or a rhino would require an assault rifle to bring down not a handgun (although the sumartran rhino is pretty small and timid and I don't recall ever hearing of an attack)
Reticulated pythons don't generally attack adult humans but there are media reports of the cops having to empty entire clips and more into them to kill them.

I am not sure that any sort of handgun is much use for protection from animal attacks, if it is big enough to have a go at me it would probably need a much bigger gun to stop it


----------



## J-Bone (Aug 26, 2008)

I own use and carry firearms as well. But when I ride I use bear spray. Studies show they are more effective in animal attacks. There's 2 different types. Water and oil based. Oil based last longer. I use water base incase I get some of the spray to come back on me. 

I did read a study that says the spray is 90-some % effective in deterring animal attacks. How would you like to be part of the 10-some percent that was not effective in deterring animal attacks. 

I have done backcountry backpacking through yellowstone national park and have come uncomfortably close to several grizzly bear and they really didn't care about me or anybody in our group.


----------



## deke505 (Jul 29, 2012)

It'll stop anything in your path, you can even create your own path.


----------



## rockerc (Nov 22, 2010)

deke505 said:


> View attachment 936027
> 
> 
> It'll stop anything in your path, you can even create your own path.


Deke, am I right in assuming that thing has not one, but TWO fire extinguishers?!?

AWESOME!!!


----------



## deke505 (Jul 29, 2012)

rockerc said:


> Deke, am I right in assuming that thing has not one, but TWO fire extinguishers?!?
> 
> AWESOME!!!


Well from what I recall in the sales pitch video I think it is more of an anti-fire extinguisher. More like the reason Jay-em carries the fire extinguisher.


----------



## Wittgenstein's Ghost (Oct 4, 2014)

One more vote for bear spray. I've read a lot of literature on bear attacks, and the spray is actually a better deterrent in most cases. Not that you'll need it, as black bears are extremely unlikely to attack, even to protect their young. Black bear mamas are not like grizzly mamas.

I also take issue with the idea that caring about the earth or being a vegetarian is somehow less masculine. There is nothing "tough" about eating meat that you bought from a grocery store (or even killed yourself) or driving a car that gets bad gas mileage. My grandmother does both on a regular basis. 

I'm a gun owner. I own multiple guns. Guess what? I'm also a proud liberal vegetarian, and as a a guy who ate an absurd amount of meat for over 25 years, I can tell you that going vegetarian was FAR "tougher" than ordering a big mac.

You don't need to denigrate people who care about the earth or other living, sentient animals in order to ask a question about carrying a handgun.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Wittgenstein's Ghost said:


> I own multiple guns. I'm also a proud liberal vegetarian.


Ohh, Obama isn't going to like you! ;0)

I'm more or less vegetarian too, if I go to someone's house for dinner and they serve me meat I'll happily eat it, but it's for health reasons. Nothing to do with caring about sentient animals. While I have nothing against said animals personally I am not blind to the fact that they murder and eat each other pretty much non-stop! Why is it fine for a lion to eat a sheep but not ok for a person? Always seemed like a rather large hole in animal-hugger logic to me?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Wittgenstein's Ghost said:


> You don't need to denigrate people who care about the earth or other living, sentient animals in order to ask a question about carrying a handgun.


Good point.

I think it's probably mostly in reaction to all those that feel they need to denigrate anyone that so much as mentions carrying a handgun in the first place. Place seems to be chock full of those types.


----------



## Wittgenstein's Ghost (Oct 4, 2014)

Mr Pig said:


> Ohh, Obama isn't going to like you! ;0)
> 
> Why is it fine for a lion to eat a sheep but not ok for a person? Always seemed like a rather large hole in animal-hugger logic to me?


You can't be serious. Lions are not moral agents because they are not capable of moral reasoning. In order to be morally responsible, one must have the ability to reason. Lions are sentient creatures that have very vivid internal experiences, but their lack of language ability precludes them from "thinking" about moral issues.

Further, relating to lions and all cats specifically, cats' biology is different from ours. They simply COULD NOT avoid eating meat and be healthy. For much of human history, prior to the ability to supplement vitamins such as B12, we were the same way.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Wittgenstein's Ghost said:


> You can't be serious. Lions are not moral agents because they are not capable of moral reasoning.


Ok, so why should being able to reason exclude you from being able to eat meat? What does one have to do with the other?

I don't really see where morality comes into it at all. If a creature needs to eat other creatures to live then it is neither right or wrong, it's just a matter of survival. Most humans at most times in history have killed animals for food. Why is that suddenly a wrong thing to do just because we have developed technology that allows up to get by without meat?

If I'm wandering across an African plane and a lion has me for dinner the lion hasn't done anything wrong. It is just putting its survival before mine. Likewise, if I have a gun an pop a cap it its ass neither have I because I'm just doing the same thing! Right?


----------



## AnimalBikeman (Jun 18, 2011)

Wittgenstein's Ghost said:


> One more vote for bear spray. I've read a lot of literature on bear attacks, and the spray is actually a better deterrent in most cases. Not that you'll need it, as black bears are extremely unlikely to attack, even to protect their young. Black bear mamas are not like grizzly mamas.


Interesting to read bear behavior from different parts of the country. In alaska, blacks are generally considered to be the more dangerous, as they keep chewing on you if they attack, whereas a Brown bear is likely to stop and walk away after the initial charge. Iam not an expert, but I supose Ive had hundreds of encounters with bear and moose. Mostly the bear encounters consisted of listening to something crashing through the woods to get away from wherever I was. However five of us hunted moose on the Alaska Penninsula many years ago, and camped for 10 days in Becharof Valley, amongst 200 brown bears- we counted them. With no incidents. They were all well fed on salmon and berries, being fall, and had no interest in us. A fisheries biologist in our party said he would whack bears on the nose with his fly rod to get them to move over so he could go fly fishing.

Now, in the interior of Alaska, Grizzlies (just a sub specie of brown bear - Ursus horriblous - but with a different local name) used to be considered more aggressive throughout the summer. This because they are hungry all the time. No salmon or berries to feast on, hence always on the lookout for food. Not that any one will run into a brown/grizzly, as we have managed to mostly kill them all off in the lower 48 and destroy their habitat - save for some Yellowstone park animals. brave heroic us!

Any way, point is, bears in spring have Cubs and are actively looking for food - be careful and make noise, they will mostly disappear and you never see them. Rest of the time, if they are well fed, likely to cause you not the slightest concern.

BTW, only time I ever carried a gun out in the Bush in Alaska, a .44 magnum, was my first year as a Cheechako green horn. After I got a little experience I left it at home as it was a nuisance to carry and nothing but deadweight. In 25 years never had a reason to even think about using it for protection. Didn't need it. I guess that makes me a liberal....


----------



## Wittgenstein's Ghost (Oct 4, 2014)

Mr Pig said:


> Ok, so why should being able to reason exclude you from being able to eat meat? What does one have to do with the other?


Me being able to reason makes me a moral agent. That gives me the capacity to behave rightly and wrongly, something a lion cannot do. Because eating meat is, in most case, immoral, it means I am acting immorally if I eat it.



Mr Pig said:


> I don't really see where morality comes into it at all. If a creature needs to eat other creatures to live then it is neither right or wrong, it's just a matter of survival. Most humans at most times in history have killed animals for food. Why is that suddenly a wrong thing to do just because we have developed technology that allows up to get by without meat?


It is absolutely a moral issue. Whether man should kill other sentient creatures is a classic example of a moral dilemma. The error you've made here is that you've assumed that humans must kill other animals in order to survive. That isn't the case. Vegetarianism isn't only possible, but it's actually healthier.

If you believe that we shouldn't cause unnecessary suffering, particularly that suffering which is easily avoidable, then our development of technology that allows us to be vegetarians significantly changes the game because it is no longer necessary to cause the suffering that eating meat entails. For man a hundred years ago, he had no choice, thus it wasn't causing unnecessary suffering. Today, matters are different.



Mr Pig said:


> If I'm wandering across an African plane and a lion has me for dinner the lion hasn't done anything wrong. It is just putting its survival before mine. Likewise, if I have a gun an pop a cap it its ass neither have I because I'm just doing the same thing! Right?


Again, the lion isn't a moral agent because he or she is not capable of moral reasoning. You are, thus the scenario is not the same. Think of it this way: If you're walking across that African plane and a lion kills someone in your party, would it then be permissible for YOU to kill another person in your party? Why not? The lion did it! I think you see that that position isn't really tenable.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

You are presenting just your beliefs. 
I am not going to comment on the moral issue, but what proof do you have that vegetarianism is healthier than meat eating? 
I have tried many different diets since my inflammation problems started. Including vegetarianism. 
The highest health benefit I have experienced was going Paleo 3 years ago. Completely eliminating grains, milk and unhealthy vegetable oils.
I prepare all my meals from scratch, almost 100percent organic. Plenty of vegetables, nuts. Lot of healthy fat. Low sugar and only from fruit.
I have never felt healthier.


----------



## Wittgenstein's Ghost (Oct 4, 2014)

jazzanova said:


> You are presenting just your beliefs.
> I am not going to comment on the moral issue, but what proof do you have that vegetarianism is healthier than meat eating?
> I have tried many different diets since my inflammation problems started. Including vegetarianism.
> The highest health benefit I have experienced was going Paleo 3 years ago. Completely eliminating grains, milk and unhealthy vegetable oils.
> ...


There's a large body of evidence that meat protein is largely responsible for heart disease and is a strong contributor to many cancers. One example of these data is the China-Cornell-Oxford project, which was one of the most comprehensive population studies ever done. It's results are discussed in the book "The China Study" as well as the documentary "Forks Over Knives." Multi-variate statistical analysis of the study showed statistically significant correlations between the consumption of meat protein and a whole host of health issues. T. Colin Campbell, one of the researchers behind the study, has also published a great deal of work that correlates casein protein found in meat product with heart disease and cancer as well. These examples really are just the tip of the iceberg, and they come from well-respected researchers at top universities, not online quacks with no real credentials.

If you have a specific health condition, it is possible that eating meat might be necessary. I think those sorts of cases aren't common, but they do exist.

Of course I'm presenting my beliefs. That's all we can ever do. In some cases, those beliefs are knowledge, but in others, they are educated guesses. That they are beliefs, however, is not reason enough to discount them.


----------



## Hodo (Sep 30, 2014)

To the OP:
I skipped the 8 pages of drivel, so this might have been recommended already.

Look into Diamond D holsters in Alaska.
Guides Choice Chest Holster, Original Alaskan Holster
I use their guide series chest holster.
They custom make it to any gun and you body dimensions.
Not cheap, but we all know good stuff isn't.
I use it with my Camelback and there is no interference, and it does not bounce or flop around.


----------



## Mike123456 (May 14, 2013)

elliott436 said:


> The reason being especially since you carry your familiar with drawing the weapon out of the holster that is on you. Drawing a weapon from some where else ie bag on a bike takes training to get use to so that your efficient and effective. You can PM for more info but I know a tones about this topic I deal with guns on a daily basis it's my job.


Solid advice here....


----------



## VitaVelNex (Jun 5, 2013)

I've seen Black Hawk recommended in here, and I will say DO NOT get anything Black Hawk. There's a reason their Serpa holsters are banned from a lot of police departments, federal agencies, and pretty much every respected trainer in this country. Do some research, especially riding a mountain bike with dirt... the locking mechanism on a Serpa is known to completely seize up under the slightest bit of dirt or even snow. Horrible choice if you'd like to get to your weapon.

Hill People Gear is by far the best suggestion. I've used one for years. Depending on what gun you plan on carrying, Raven Concealment makes a Vanguard II for Glocks and M&P's, which is by far the best method to carry. It only secures around the trigger guard, and you can anchor the holster part to the bag, so when you pull the pistol out, the holster portion comes detached from it being anchored. 

I would highly recommend keeping the pistol on you, versus the bike. I've seen guys under pressure freak out and not be able to get their gear out because they just changed things, or had multiple ways of carrying things. Elliot436 touched on this topic.


----------



## tim208 (Apr 23, 2010)

I will probably use the bike on sunday to go look for a big buck. 

There is something to be said for all the different life style being represented on this thread. For me the rural mountain lifestyle of having your winter meat and heat coming from the mountains is a great lifestyle. Lots of people won't respect it, but that is ok. 

so go vote today and remember, just because it is not your lifestyle does not make it wrong.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Wittgenstein's Ghost said:


> Me being able to reason makes me a moral agent. That gives me the capacity to behave rightly and wrongly, something a lion cannot do. Because eating meat is, in most case, immoral, it means I am acting immorally if I eat it.


Hang on, who says that eating meat is immoral? You feel it is but most of the other humans on the planet don't agree with you. For most people it is not a morel dilemma at all. In _your opinion_ eating animals is immoral, it is not a fact.

And who defines what is right or wrong? You?

For most of man's history killing animals for food has been part of everyday life and a very hands-on affair. I doubt you would find many vegetarians a thousand years ago. But now with our sanitised, detached lives we can play any high-minded games we like but be aware that you do not speak for the human race.



> If you're walking across that African plane and a lion kills someone in your party, would it then be permissible for YOU to kill another person in your party? Why not? The lion did it! I think you see that that position isn't really tenable.


Is it your position that the life of a person and the life of an animal are of equal value? I don't agree with that. I think the life of a person is of greater value, which is why I think it is ok to kill animals for food and not ok to kill a person for food. Thankfully, most other people agree with me!

I agree that eating meat excessively is almost certainly not healthy but that has nothing to do with the morality of it.


----------



## Wittgenstein's Ghost (Oct 4, 2014)

Mr Pig said:


> Hang on, who says that eating meat is immoral? You feel it is but most of the other humans on the planet don't agree with you. For most people it is not a morel dilemma at all. In _your opinion_ eating animals is immoral, it is not a fact.
> 
> And who defines what is right or wrong? You?
> 
> ...


First, it is clearly a moral issue. You may think it is morally acceptable, but it is a moral issue. Morality is simply defined as principles or rules that govern what is right or wrong. The simple fact that we are debating whether it is right or wrong is enough to at least make it a moral issue.

It's always funny to me when people resort to saying things like "Someone else would disagree with you about this moral issue, so it's really just your opinion." You probably believe that it is wrong to molest young children. There are people who disagree with you about that, as evidenced by the number of sexual predators in society. Does that disagreement mean that it is only your opinion that molesting children is wrong? Of course not. Disagreement doesn't render your belief on the subject useless. Keep in mind that there are two sorts of "opinions." One is simply your thought on something that inherently has no correct answer. An example would be "Chocolate is the best flavor." The other is your thought on something that DOES have a correct answer, but there's dispute about that answer. An example would be "It's going to rain tomorrow." Two weather men may disagree about whether it's going to rain, but that doesn't mean there isn't a truth to the matter. Morality is of the second type. I doubt you'd argue that there is NO moral truth. If you agree that there is such a thing as moral truth, then I imagine that it would be possible to identify underlying principles that govern your moral beliefs. One example could be "Don't harm sentient creatures for no reason." That might be your justification for why it is a bad thing to go around kicking puppies and slapping children for fun. I believe one underlying principle most people already accept is that we shouldn't cause unnecessary harm to sentient creatures, especially when it can be easily avoided. My argument is that you probably accept this principle, as evidenced by most of your actions, but that meat eaters typically ignore this principle when it comes to eating meat. It is an inconsistent application of a principle you already accept. Thus, even in your own moral framework, it is already wrong. In order to justify the practice, you must resort to arguments the either show it is necessary or that animals aren't sentient, both of which are false.

The fact that man has killed animals for thousands of years is irrelevant. Man also sacrificed animals to gods or even sacrificed babies for thousands of years. Hell, we even had slaves for thousands of years. Tradition doesn't make a practice right. As I already explained, man has not had vegetarianism as a legitimate option until the last several decades due to the inability to obtain vitamins such as B12 from plants alone. It really is inconsequential to this discussion that vegetarianism is a new thing. Also, I do not agree that vegetarianism is a more detached lifestyle. In fact, it's the opposite. I believe it takes a great amount of detachment from the experience of animals in order to foster eating meat. If everyone was required to take a tour of the factories that produce our meat or see the living conditions most animals are raised in, they would not eat meat. Detachment is necessary for the meat circus to go 'round.



> Is it your position that the life of a person and the life of an animal are of equal value?


No, I believe humans are generally more valuable than animals, but that it is a matter of degree. We are only more valuable insofar as our capacity for consciousness makes us have a richer, more vivid experience of the world around us. There is nothing magical about being human, though. That does not, however, entail that it is okay to kill animals for food, as our lives are not at stake in doing so. If we imagine a scenario where we must choose to either save the human or the animal, I'd pick the human. But that isn't the scenario we face when deciding to eat meat.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Sorry. You lost me after you equated child molestation with eating meat. What? Straw man? Wow. Just wow.


----------



## Wittgenstein's Ghost (Oct 4, 2014)

Silentfoe said:


> Sorry. You lost me after you equated child molestation with eating meat. What? Straw man? Wow. Just wow.


I didn't equate child molestation with eating meat. I used the child molestation example to show that moral disagreement does not equal a lack of moral truth.

It is actually you who committed a straw man fallacy, but I suspect you might not actually know what that is given your post.


----------



## Saul Lumikko (Oct 23, 2012)

On the morality of eating animals, in my book it's not wrong to kill an animal and eat it, but the way our meat industry treats animals before slaughtering them is despicable. For this reason I've pretty much stopped eating chicken and I buy eggs in bulk from producers that treat their poultry with decent standards. 

Sorry OT.


----------



## Flyin_W (Jun 17, 2007)

Wow, this thread has gone from how to best pack heat to protect oneself from a mid-winter bear, or moose to.... 

The morality of eating meat. 😨💣😱
Eat what you like, I don't give a rat's ( x )~~ just don't expect me to be friendly when we meet on the trails if you're armed and dangerous..


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Saul Lumikko said:


> For this reason I've pretty much stopped eating chicken


I think chickens are horrid creatures and getting eaten is the best thing that can happen to them! ;0)

Sorry, I'm off to bed and I'll catch up on the rest of the day's fun tomorrow but...



> humans are generally more valuable than animals..


Generally??...


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Mr Pig said:


> Generally??...


I've met a lot of non-humans of superior character that have also contributed more to society and the planet at large than many people I've known so yeah, I'd agree with that.


----------



## db440 (Jul 1, 2014)

I was gonna unsubscribe from this thread but this is pretty fun reading. =)


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Non issue. Scientists have been able to "grow" meat in a lab now, like plants. Soon we'll have bushes with T-bones hanging off the branches. Science.


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

this thread is funny, just gotta love mtbr


----------



## Wittgenstein's Ghost (Oct 4, 2014)

Mr Pig said:


> Generally??...


Yes, I think there are multiple kinds of cases where the life of an animal is more valuable than the life of a human. As someone else mentioned, there are humans that are simply terrible people. If my dog and a mass murderer were both in a burning building, I would save my dog.

There are also cases where a human's capacity for conscious experience may have been compromised, as in the case of a person in a vegetative state or someone born with severe brain damage to the point that there is no individual "inside" experiencing anything. Because there are many animals that have very rich inner experiences, their capacity to suffer would be far greater than a human with such a condition. In these cases, the animal's experience should take precedent over the human's.

There's nothing magical about being human. Most of us experience the world around us in a very real way, but that doesn't give us a right to trample on other creatures who still have very vivid experiences, albeit at a somewhat diminished level compared to our own.

I do want to second something that has been mentioned here a couple times: not all kinds of meat are created equal. Hunting your own meat is FAR preferable to buying meat at a grocery store or restaurant. Yes, I know, we liberals aren't exactly known for our support of hunting. But I much prefer it to a grocery store. Buying from a local farm that you know treats animals ethically is also far better than supporting and perpetuating the cruel practices of the factory farm machine. I still consider eating such meat to be immoral, but morality is not an "on or off" switch. It is a spectrum. If everyone only ate meat that they either personally killed or was local, less cruel meat, the world would be a much better place.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

Wittgenstein's Ghost said:


> Hunting your own meat is FAR preferable to buying meat at a grocery store or restaurant. Yes, I know, we liberals aren't exactly known for our support of hunting. But I much prefer it to a grocery store. Buying from a local farm that you know treats animals ethically is also far better than supporting and perpetuating the cruel practices of the factory farm machine. I still consider eating such meat to be immoral, but morality is not an "on or off" switch. It is a spectrum. If everyone only ate meat that they either personally killed or was local, less cruel meat, the world would be a much better place.


I'm a liberal and I don't have any problem with YOU hunting your own meat.
ME hunting my own meat would cause unnecessary suffering to the animals I would hunt because I am a lousy shot, and no amount of practice is going to change that.

I buy local, free-range meat instead.

A vegetarian diet leaves me constantly hungry and low-energy. If meat were off the menu, so would mountain-biking be. Your mileage may vary.


----------



## SimpleJon (Mar 28, 2011)

How did a thread on what holster to buy and where to carry a handgun get onto lentils vs T bones?


----------



## Wittgenstein's Ghost (Oct 4, 2014)

SimpleJon said:


> How did a thread on what holster to buy and where to carry a handgun get onto lentils vs T bones?


Here's how: 


velosapiens said:


> In general, the whole point of concealment is to avoid freaking out the vegetarians, subaru-owners, democrats, and other emasculated hoplophobes.


----------



## Wittgenstein's Ghost (Oct 4, 2014)

I should add that I'm going to get off my vegetarian soapbox. I think I've expressed enough of my viewpoint considering this thread has a different topic altogether. Thanks for the back and forth, and I hope that at some point you'll consider some of the things I've said.


----------



## Mike123456 (May 14, 2013)

Not my ride, but fitting for the thread...


----------



## WNCGoater (Aug 21, 2014)

Wittgenstein's Ghost said:


> I should add that *I'm going to get off my vegetarian soapbox.*


Speaking for many of us, thank you!


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

The "China Study" is highly controversial. 
Its data its interpretation has been questioned.
The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? | Raw Food SOS
Rest in peace, China Study
The China Study exposed: actual data does not support vegetarian health claims | Hunter Gatherer


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

Not to push more OT, but can you find any sources without a conflicting monetary interest that call it into question?

I mean, I could post some "Meat industry says not eating meat bad for you", or "Organic farm producers say eating meat is bad for you" types of studies, but they would pretty much just waste everyone's time...


----------



## Wittgenstein's Ghost (Oct 4, 2014)

Regarding the China Study being controversial:
It isn't. Well, only in the sense that evolution is controversial. There aren't really very many actual experts who have any serious reservations about it. It's mostly bloggers who have no actual education in the subject. The Raw Foods SOS link above is written by a girl with an English degree who, if you read through her actual criticism along with Campbell's response, is clearly making the egregious error of analyzing a population study in a uni-variate manner, which can never be done. She's an amateur, and it shows. In fact, the second two links posted above just reference the first, and also -- no surprise -- are written by bloggers with no academic credentials. Most have a vested interest in the paleo fad.

More importantly, however, you must realize the the book "The China Study" only contains one chapter on the China-Cornell-Oxford project, which is the actual population study these bloggers are calling into question. That is only the icing on the cake. Much evidence is presented that has been accumulated over a period of decades that supports the conclusion drawn from China-Cornell-Oxford project. This evidence includes studies that evaluate cancer rates in mice as their exposure to Casein changes, population studies in other people groups, and some evidence regarding the biological plausibility and mechanism of meat causing various health problems. Keep in mind that this is all conducted and written by leading experts at top universities -- not health bloggers. Much of the supporting evidence has been published in highly respected peer reviewed journals.

Zowie:
I assume your question was directed at Jazzanova, given that his links are all from people with monetary interests that conflict with the outcome of the China-Cornell-Oxford project.

Just in case it was directed at me, I'd like to clarify that the researches who have put together the evidence against meat have no monetary interest in doing so. In actuality, some have taken career hits due to the meat lobby.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

Wittgenstein's Ghost said:


> Zowie:
> I assume your question was directed at Jazzanova, given that his links are all from people with monetary interests that conflict with the outcome of the China-Cornell-Oxford project.


Indeed.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

I really dont want to hijack this thread, since it relates to a different topic. 
I did not have time to read th Chinese study in whole or the argument against. But I will, since this topic interests me greatly. I will respond when I get more familiar with it.
I have been paleo for 3 years and eat more high quality organicly grown produce than anyone I personally know.
All my food, including meat comes from local farms or Alaska (fish). I prepare 99percent of my meals. I considered myself to be highly educated in proper eating. 
I have tried different diets before, including vegetarianism for a year. The truth is I was still eating grains and unhealthy vegetable oils in that time. 
Non of them had such a positive effect like paleo.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

I eat 26ers


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

Jayem said:


> I eat 26ers


Please stop. They have become an endangered species.


----------



## Wherewolf (Jan 17, 2004)

*1st Amendment*

Not commenting on anything but the common misconception regarding the 1st amendment. It states "*Congress *shall make no law .... abridging the freedom of speech,..."

You have no 1st amendment protections on this forum.


----------



## ebenke (Sep 1, 2008)

jazzanova said:


> I really dont want to hijack this thread, since it relates to a different topic.
> I did not have time to read th Chinese study in whole or the argument against. But I will, since this topic interests me greatly. I will respond when I get more familiar with it.
> I have been paleo for 3 years and eat more high quality organicly grown produce than anyone I personally know.
> All my food, including meat comes from local farms or Alaska (fish). I prepare 99percent of my meals. I considered myself to be highly educated in proper eating.
> ...


Ok, so what's your point?

EBenke


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

andytiedye said:


> I'm a liberal and I don't have any problem with YOU hunting your own meat.
> ME hunting my own meat would cause unnecessary suffering to the animals I would hunt because I am a lousy shot, and no amount of practice is going to change that.
> 
> I buy local, free-range meat instead.
> ...


i just had to...


----------



## Wittgenstein's Ghost (Oct 4, 2014)

Wherewolf said:


> Not commenting on anything but the common misconception regarding the 1st amendment. It states "*Congress *shall make no law .... abridging the freedom of speech,..."
> 
> You have no 1st amendment protections on this forum.


Did someone say otherwise? I may have missed it, as I skimmed some pages, but I didn't realize the topic of first amendment rights on this forum came up.


----------



## J-Bone (Aug 26, 2008)

Jayem said:


> I eat 26ers


I eat full suspension bikes.

But I like them. Only because I wish I had one 😢


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Wittgenstein's Ghost said:


> First, it is clearly a moral issue. You may think it is morally acceptable, but it is a moral issue. Morality is simply defined as principles or rules that govern what is right or wrong.


Sorry to take so long the reply, just not had the time.

Firstly I should say that I agree with part of your position. I don't think it's right to hurt animals unnecessarily. I couldn't go hunting for instance, but where I take issue is the way you are presenting your opinions as established, irrefutable fact. Few things are that clear cut. To you or I sport hunting may seem pointless and cruel but the difference is that I recognise that not everyone in the world sees things the same way as I do. Nor should they have to. Depending on their upbringing, circumstances and view of the grand order of things, some people clearly feel no guilt in killing animals. Unlike you, I don't condemn them or look down on them. I have no right to impose my opinions on them or think less of them because they don't agree with me.

It is also curious that you are using the word _moral_ so much. As an evolutionist, surely you must understand that there is no such thing?! If evolution is true, there is only randomness and natural selection. Where does this morality of yours come from and by what authority is it superior to what anyone else considers right or wrong? If humans are just animals that have evolved a little more then there is no answer. What you consider _moral _has no lesser or greater worth or weight than the moral position held by anyone else.

In fact, if evolution is true then haven't you got it back to front?

Evolutionary thinking states that the fitter, stronger animals have an advantage over the weaker ones. So they survive at the expense of the less developed animals and over time the weaker species die off and only stronger ones remain, thus advancing animal-kind as a whole.

So, isn't it your evolutionary duty, as a fitter, stronger species member, to use your advantage and kill off as many of your weaker competitors as possible? In doing this you would advance evolution. But you, protecting all these weaker animals, you're mucking the whole thing up!

You are so full of contradictions. You are happy to assign responsibly solely to humans , because of their more highly developed reason, logic etc, while animals bear none. Yet you accord animals equal standing with regard to their ability to feel and process pain? You can't have it both ways. Either animals are limited by comparison to humans or they are not?

And who decides where the line is? Which animals are ok to kill and which ones must be protected? Unless you are prepared to hand over your house to invading termites even you have a line, right? Can you kill flies? Rats? Pretty sentient things rats. Basically, you have just decided that the rest of the world should bow to the values you have created in your own head and rationalised as universally correct, yes?



Wittgenstein's Ghost said:


> Regarding the China Study being controversial:
> It isn't. Well, only in the sense that evolution is controversial. There aren't really very many actual experts who have any serious reservations about it.


See, here you go again making sweeping statement about how unassailable your views are. I assume you know that more people in the world reject evolution than accept it but I'm guessing you dismiss them as not enlightened like what you are? ;0) That notwithstanding, it is still somewhat arrogant to say that evolution is free of controversy.

I used to beleive in evolution myself but with the advances in our understanding in the last few decades, particularly in information sciences, frankly I'm surprised that _anyone_ still thinks it a tenable theory. It's so staggeringly, obviously a non-starter that only dogmatism and fear of the implications could compel a otherwise rational mind to hold to it.

But I'm sure you have not seen any of the information that might contradict evolution, just as you have not seen any of the rationales that contradict your other views, because you'll never see what you believe can't possibly exist. You're not enlightened, it's you that has the blinkers on, and there is a world of understanding out there that you will never know unless you can find the courage to take them off.


----------



## rockerc (Nov 22, 2010)

Wittgenstein's Ghost said:


> First, it is clearly a moral issue. You may think it is morally acceptable, but it is a moral issue. Morality is simply defined as principles or rules that govern what is right or wrong. The simple fact that we are debating whether it is right or wrong is enough to at least make it a moral issue.
> 
> It's always funny to me when people resort to saying things like "Someone else would disagree with you about this moral issue, so it's really just your opinion." You probably believe that it is wrong to molest young children. There are people who disagree with you about that, as evidenced by the number of sexual predators in society. Does that disagreement mean that it is only your opinion that molesting children is wrong? Of course not. Disagreement doesn't render your belief on the subject useless. Keep in mind that there are two sorts of "opinions." One is simply your thought on something that inherently has no correct answer. An example would be "Chocolate is the best flavor." The other is your thought on something that DOES have a correct answer, but there's dispute about that answer. An example would be "It's going to rain tomorrow." Two weather men may disagree about whether it's going to rain, but that doesn't mean there isn't a truth to the matter. Morality is of the second type. I doubt you'd argue that there is NO moral truth. If you agree that there is such a thing as moral truth, then I imagine that it would be possible to identify underlying principles that govern your moral beliefs. One example could be "Don't harm sentient creatures for no reason." That might be your justification for why it is a bad thing to go around kicking puppies and slapping children for fun. I believe one underlying principle most people already accept is that we shouldn't cause unnecessary harm to sentient creatures, especially when it can be easily avoided. My argument is that you probably accept this principle, as evidenced by most of your actions, but that meat eaters typically ignore this principle when it comes to eating meat. It is an inconsistent application of a principle you already accept. Thus, even in your own moral framework, it is already wrong. In order to justify the practice, you must resort to arguments the either show it is necessary or that animals aren't sentient, both of which are false.
> 
> ...


Nicely put! Many will disagree because they cannot see simple reason. I will personally try to eat a plant-based diet, altho I will have chicken sometimes, but always try to have non GMO, cage free, no antibiotics etc etc. Sometimes I will make a burger or a bolognaise sauce with bison, and very very occasionally I will have a 5 Guys burger. I do have to say that I don't feel great after eating that, but it is good while I am eating it. I am of course doomed... and an imperfect human...


----------



## rockerc (Nov 22, 2010)

Mr Pig said:


> Sorry to take so long the reply, just not had the time.
> 
> ... the way you are presenting your opinions as established, irrefutable fact.
> 
> See, here you go again making sweeping statement about how unassailable your views are. You're not enlightened, it's you that has the blinkers on, and there is a world of understanding out there that you will never know unless you can find the courage to take them off.


Now we're onto evolution? I don't think W's Ghost is saying his views are unassailable, he is putting a very strong and rational argument that you obviously disagree with, yet do not seem to be able to refute other than by heading off in a tangent that bears little relation! I would say he (she?) is very enlightened!


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

rockerc said:


> Now we're onto evolution?


Who introduced it?!

I don't agree that his argument it strong. I largely agree with the principal he is proposing, I am almost completely vegetarian myself, but calling the vast majority of other people immoral because they eat meat is shockingly sanctimonious and bordering on offensive. Also probably fairly counter-productive don't you think?


----------



## rockerc (Nov 22, 2010)

Mr Pig said:


> Who introduced it?!
> 
> I don't agree that his argument it strong. I largely agree with the principal he is proposing, I am almost completely vegetarian myself, but calling the vast majority of other people immoral because they eat meat is shockingly sanctimonious and bordering on offensive. Also probably fairly counter-productive don't you think?


No. You take from his argument what you see. You seem to not be able to see what he is saying exactly, and take offense when I do not think any is intended. WG seems to be a rational person capable of putting a strong argument with which you "largely agree". It does not necessarily follow that he/she is being "sanctimonius" or "bordering on offensive". Just because WG believes that there is a moral choice in eating sentient animals or not, does not necessarily mean that people who do so are immoral, since the act of immorality implies inherent and knowledgable intent.


----------



## Wittgenstein's Ghost (Oct 4, 2014)

I'm going to try to keep this thing on the issue of vegetarianism, as evolution was merely an example I presented of something riddled with fabricated "controversy." It isn't essential to any point I'm making. Since 97% of actual scientists believe in evolution, I thought you'd agree that no real controversy exists. You obviously don't share that thought, which is a topic for another day. I'm also going to dodge the issue of the compatibility of moral realism and evolution. You've made several common faulty assumptions on those issues, but it's simply not possible for me to properly provide a defense of evolution, moral realism and vegetarianism all in one post. Maybe we can revisit the first two in a different thread, but I'm going to stick with vegetarianism here. I'm going to focus below on the parts of your response that I think make up the core of your argument. If I don't reply directly to something that you think was important, let me know and I'll do so.



Mr Pig said:


> I don't think it's right to hurt animals unnecessarily.


Eating animals is hurting animals unnecessarily. There's no health reason to do so. In fact, vegetarians, on average, live slightly longer than meat eaters. It is not necessary for you to eat animals, thus eating animals is unnecessary.



Mr Pig said:


> I couldn't go hunting for instance, but where I take issue is the way you are presenting your opinions as established, irrefutable fact.


I don't believe I'm doing that. I believe I'm presenting my opinion as true, and I'm arguing that there's good evidence on my side. It may not be "clear" in the sense that there's disagreement, but disagreement doesn't mean I'm wrong.



Mr Pig said:


> To you or I sport hunting may seem pointless and cruel but the difference is that I recognise that not everyone in the world sees things the same way as I do. Nor should they have to.


This is essentially the core of your response to me, and I don't think it holds up. You are essentially saying that because some people disagree on the issue of killing animals for fun (sport hunting) that we can't say it's wrong. Do you feel the same way about racism or molesting children? Mormon fundamentalists (not regular Mormons) are raised in an environment where having multiple wives, many early teenagers, is normal. Does that mean I can't say that marrying a thirteen year old is wrong? What about the slave trade, which is alive and well today? Does the fact that other people disagree with me on the issue mean that I can't say slavery is wrong? Of course not. Moral disagreement does not entail a lack of moral truth.



Mr Pig said:


> Depending on their upbringing, circumstances and view of the grand order of things, some people clearly feel no guilt in killing animals. Unlike you, I don't condemn them or look down on them. I have no right to impose my opinions on them or think less of them because they don't agree with me.


Again, are you willing to say the same thing about racists, sexual predators, sexists, murderers, etc.? I'm guessing not. Btw, yes, you DO have the right to "impose your opinions on them," so long as that means disagree with them and call their practices wrong, which is all I'm doing here.



Mr Pig said:


> You are so full of contradictions. You are happy to assign responsibly solely to humans , because of their more highly developed reason, logic etc, while animals bear none. Yet you accord animals equal standing with regard to their ability to feel and process pain? You can't have it both ways. Either animals are limited by comparison to humans or they are not?


Actually, that's not a contradiction. Capacity to suffer depends on capacity for conscious experience. Having a large capacity for conscious experience does not entail having language ability or the ability to reason. Pick someone who you would agree has better reasoning ability than you do....let's say Einstein. Einstein is better at "reasoning, logic, etc." than you are, but does that mean that his capacity for suffering is greater than yours? If you are both chewed up by a pack of lions, does it suck more for him than it does for you? Of course not, because you are both somewhat equally conscious. Animals can't reason simply because they don't have language ability. However, we have strong scientific evidence that they are in fact conscious. Maybe not as conscious as you or me, but conscious enough that getting chewed up by a pack of hungry humans really sucks for them.



Mr Pig said:


> And who decides where the line is? Which animals are ok to kill and which ones must be protected? Unless you are prepared to hand over your house to invading termites even you have a line, right? Can you kill flies? Rats? Pretty sentient things rats.


You are assuming that we are "making" a line. It is instead our job to discover the line and respect it. Science has informed us greatly about the requirements for consciousness. That should be our guide. I'm not advocating that humans live in a tiny bubble so they don't step on ants as they walk down the street. However, I am advocating that you avoid killing sentient creatures for no good reason. I actually try to avoid killing even things like rats without good reason if possible. Rats actually are really sentient creatures, considering that they are mammals like you and me.

Where the line is, however, doesn't change the fact that there is a line, and it certainly does not permit the meat system in place today. Your argument is essentially like a 400 pound person saying "So where's the line between what's healthy and what isn't? Is broccoli healthy if I put cheese on it? Is pineapple juice healthy? Since no one can tell me where the line is, I'm going to keep eating Big Macs for breakfast."



Mr Pig said:


> Basically, you have just decided that the rest of the world should bow to the values you have created in your own head and rationalised as universally correct, yes?


Regarding this issue, yes, but not BECAUSE they are my values or BECAUSE I have decided them. As I mentioned earlier, you probably think racism is wrong for all people everywhere. Yet, you think I'm out of place saying the same thing about eating animals. The issue here is not whether I can generalize a moral principle to all people everywhere, because you and I both do that. The issue here is whether eating animals is wrong.



Mr Pig said:


> ... just as you have not seen any of the rationales that contradict your other views, because you'll never see what you believe can't possibly exist. You're not enlightened, it's you that has the blinkers on, and there is a world of understanding out there that you will never know unless you can find the courage to take them off.


I'm not sure how you jumped to a very broad and unwarranted conclusion about whether I've been exposed to the arguments against my position simply because i'm asserting that my position is true. I ate meat for over twenty-five years. I once at fifty strips of bacon in one sitting. I've eaten a 30+ ounce steak on multiple occasions. My wife laughs now because when we first got married I would stop eating a meal as soon as I was done with the meat on my plate -- it didn't matter what else was on there. So to say that I haven't been exposed to the other side is silly. The arguments against eating meat are simply compelling, provided you're driven by reason.


----------



## Wittgenstein's Ghost (Oct 4, 2014)

rockerc said:


> Just because WG believes that there is a moral choice in eating sentient animals or not, does not necessarily mean that people who do so are immoral, since the act of immorality implies inherent and knowledgable intent.


This is a very good point. There are several requirements when assigning moral blame, and one of them is knowledge that an action is wrong. Let's imagine that I have a bad peanut allergy but haven't told my friends about it. If a friend of mine goes on to give me some homemade peanut butter, he's not acting immorally because he didn't know that he was going to put me in the hospital. If he did know about by allergy, however, he would be quite a terrible person.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Trying to draw a parallel between ordering a BLT and being a diddler is little bit of of stretch there.


----------



## Wittgenstein's Ghost (Oct 4, 2014)

slapheadmofo said:


> Trying to draw a parallel between ordering a BLT and being a diddler is little bit of of stretch there.


I'm not sure that it is. Either way, I didn't draw a parallel between the two. I was only bringing up "diddlers" to illustrate that Mr Pig does in fact believe in moral truth, and that moral disagreement does not entail a lack of moral truth.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Wittgenstein's Ghost said:


> I was only bringing up "diddlers" to illustrate that Mr Pig does in fact believe in moral truth, and that moral disagreement does not entail a lack of moral truth.


Well yes I do beleive in moral truth but that's not a problem for me. I beleive in a God who created man in His image and it is that image that is the source of our morality. It is also why humans are fundamentally different from animals in more than just intelligence.

Your love of the word moral is a problem for you though, if you are an atheist and evolutionist, because the moral position you propose has no greater value that that of anyone else's. If we are just animals then we have as much right to kill other animals as all of the worlds other predators do. By what authority do you say that someone is acting immorally by choosing to eat meat?

You quote the percentage of scientists that believe in evolution and suggest that the high level of support means that the matter is concluded. Over 90% of the worlds population eat meat! Does that not mean that the matter is concluded and you are wrong?

You can argue that eating meat is less healthy and unnecessary, these are fair points, but who gave you the badge and the gun to say that most of the world's population are acting immorally because they eat meat? As I see it you represent a tiny minority with zero authority to be telling the rest of the world they are wrong.


----------



## Wittgenstein's Ghost (Oct 4, 2014)

Mr Pig said:


> Well yes I do beleive in moral truth but that's not a problem for me. I beleive in a God who created man in His image and it is that image that is the source of our morality. It is also why humans are fundamentally different from animals in more than just intelligence.
> 
> Your love of the word moral is a problem for you though, if you are an atheist and evolutionist, because the moral position you propose has no greater value that that of anyone else's. If we are just animals then we have as much right to kill other animals as all of the worlds other predators do. By what authority do you say that someone is acting immorally by choosing to eat meat?
> 
> You quote the percentage of scientists that believe in evolution and suggest that the high level of support means that the matter is concluded. Over 90% of the worlds population eat meat! Does that not mean that the matter is concluded and you are wrong?


As I said, the discussion of moral realism as it relates to a naturalistic worldview is an entirely different topic. If you agree that morality exists, then that is enough for our discussion. It is irrelevant that you think that I, given my other beliefs, shouldn't believe in morality.

Comparing the stat regarding scientists (experts in the field) believing in evolution to the beliefs of the global population toward meat is apples to oranges. Pointing toward a general population's belief and saying "See, it must be true!" is an appeal to belief fallacy. If you could find a group of experts on the topic of morality as it relates to eating animals, their beliefs would be relevant. As it turns out such a group does exist: moral philosophers. They are overwhelmingly vegetarian or vegan.



Mr Pig said:


> You can argue that eating meat is less healthy and unnecessary, these are fair points, but who gave you the badge and the gun to say that most of the world's population are acting immorally because they eat meat? As I see it you represent a tiny minority with zero authority to be telling the rest of the world they are wrong.


I don't have a badge nor a gun in this debate, and I don't need one. I'm merely expressing my view. You would likely do the same in a debate about racism, slavery, child molestation, murder, torture, etc. Why don't you need a badge and gun for those debates, but I need one for this conversation? At one point, abolitionists were in the tiny minority. At another point, suffragists were in the minority. Being in the minority is irrelevant.

You've sort of shifted the topic from whether eating animals is appropriate to whether I can call something immoral given that I believe in evolution. If you wish to continue, let's address the actual issue at hand -- the morality of eating animals.


----------



## Slow Danger (Oct 9, 2009)

Evolution is not defined as "survival of the fittest". It means survival period. Morality is easily argued as a product of evolution.


----------



## deke505 (Jul 29, 2012)




----------



## Slow Danger (Oct 9, 2009)

Better a sock philosophical discussion that is being fairly argued than a sock pissing-match on NRA talking points.


----------



## Flyin_W (Jun 17, 2007)

Is it morally wrong, natural selection, or guilt to mow down a dumb-azzed pedestrian?










What if they were on their cell phone postulating on the morality of eating wild game vs. free range farm animals, 
or extolling on the benefits of packing a handgun on their fat bike to defend themselves from a 
perceived threat of a mid-winter bear cub, or moose calf?


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

I don't think that counts^^

Looks like he was on his way to Subway, no doubt for cold cuts of innocent animal meat on bread with fresh, fresh veggies, so it was a morally justified 'accident'. :lol:


----------



## Wittgenstein's Ghost (Oct 4, 2014)

Zowie said:


> I don't think that counts^^
> 
> Looks like he was on his way to Subway, no doubt for cold cuts of innocent animal meat on bread with fresh, fresh veggies, so it was a morally justified 'accident'. :lol:


I would like to know where you've found a Subway with "fresh, fresh veggies"!


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

Ooops, /sarcasm was missing. My bad.


----------



## tim208 (Apr 23, 2010)

so if you are of a certain religion, eat meat you are equivalent to a child molester?

some ones right and wrong are a little mixed up.


----------



## 006_007 (Jan 12, 2004)

mmmmmm


----------



## Brisk Eddie (Jun 23, 2014)

Not all beliefs are true,
Not all truths are believed,
But the truth is the truth no mater what you believe.


----------



## bing! (Jul 8, 2010)

I carry a dagger in a quick release sheath strapped to my camelbak shoulder straps. I'll give whatever out there a sporting chance


----------



## Wittgenstein's Ghost (Oct 4, 2014)

tim208 said:


> so if you are of a certain religion, eat meat you are equivalent to a child molester?
> 
> some ones right and wrong are a little mixed up.


Who said that? Surely you didn't get that from anything I said. Here's a simple logic lesson for you: Using child molesters as an example that moral truth exists is not the same as comparing child molesters to meat eaters. Where you got that I was comparing religious folks to child molesters is beyond me, since I literally never once brought up religion.

It's unfortunately very common for people to hear two things in the same discussion and assume they are being compared directly. For example, if I said "The local girl scouts are more vigilant in selling their cookies than ISIS is in recruiting terrorists," I'm not comparing girls scouts to terrorists. I'm comparing the vigilance of the girl scouts' selling methods to the vigilance of ISIS's recruiting methods.

I didn't even do that, however. Mr Pig implied that moral truth didn't exist because of the existence of moral disagreement. I brought up child molesters as a counter example to that point to prove that just because someone believes his or her actions are morally acceptable does not make them so.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Wittgenstein's Ghost said:


> Mr Pig implied that moral truth didn't exist because of the existence of moral disagreement.


No he didn't. My point was that, under evolutionary thinking there can be no moral absolutes. I believe in God, so I believe there are.

This is my last post on the thread anyway. There is no point in going around in circles, which is all we would do. It's just a shame that your hopelessly narrow and extreme views on animal rights are likely to do more harm than good, as less animal death and suffering is a worthy cause. You're just going to piss people off though.


----------



## Wittgenstein's Ghost (Oct 4, 2014)

Mr Pig said:


> No he didn't.


Here:


Mr Pig said:


> Hang on, who says that eating meat is immoral? You feel it is but most of the other humans on the planet don't agree with you. For most people it is not a morel dilemma at all. In your opinion eating animals is immoral, it is not a fact.


and here:


Mr Pig said:


> To you or I sport hunting may seem pointless and cruel but the difference is that I recognise that not everyone in the world sees things the same way as I do. Nor should they have to. Depending on their upbringing, circumstances and view of the grand order of things, some people clearly feel no guilt in killing animals.


Your claim that evolution eliminates moral absolutes is simply false. Even if it were true, however, evolution has equipped us with enough sense to care about other creatures that we naturally want the world to be a certain way. "Reducing" my claim to "If you want to eliminate needless suffering, you shouldn't eat animals" is equally as powerful as a moral absolute because virtually everyone would agree that eliminating needless suffering is a good thing. I'll leave you with this: the vast majority of philosophers believe in evolution and don't believe in an intelligent higher being. The vast majority of philosophers are moral realists.

I do not care if it upsets someone when I say that eating animals is immoral. It is. I'm going to call a spade a spade.


----------



## ozz (May 30, 2006)

Flyin_W said:


> Is it morally wrong, natural selection, or guilt to mow down a dumb-azzed pedestrian?


The reason doesn't matter, as long as you make use of all of the meat, and don't waste any. Nothing more wasteful than finding a partially harvested pedestrian, probably killed just for his Nikes or his Beats earphones, and all that usable meat gone to waste.


----------



## burtronix (Jun 5, 2006)

So what caliber pistol do you expect would stop a moose our bear? The most stopping power you could get is probably the Desert Eagle .50 AE, but I'm not sure even that is enough. Definitely not a strategy for weight weenies.


----------



## Flyin_W (Jun 17, 2007)

I'm thinking that fast moving bus would do the trick.


----------



## rockerc (Nov 22, 2010)

Flyin_W said:


> I'm thinking that fast moving bus would do the trick.


Perhaps, but it is sadly lacking in moral fiber...


----------



## gps_dr (Feb 27, 2007)

I have an Ibarra top tube bag that fits my M&P Shield.
Manufactured an internal frame from thin aluminum & moleskin to make it a little stiffer.
Also will hold cell phone or battery pack for my headlight as well as spare magazine.
_Works even on fairly rough trails, although it is more suited for smooth path use as slipping forward on top bar can be painfull._ :madman:









Prefer to carry it in an in-the-pocket holster in my Zoic shorts.
But am not always wearing clothing with a large pocket.


----------



## icecreamjay (Apr 13, 2004)

Wittgenstein's Ghost said:


> I do not care if it upsets someone when I say that eating animals is immoral. It is. I'm going to call a spade a spade.


So is my dog immoral? He does like to rape pillows, so maybe...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 006_007 (Jan 12, 2004)

gps_dr said:


> I have an Ibarra top tube bag that fits my M&P Shield.
> Manufactured an internal frame from thin aluminum & moleskin to make it a little stiffer.
> Also will hold cell phone or battery pack for my headlight as well as spare magazine.
> _Works even on fairly rough trails, although it is more suited for smooth path use as slipping forward on top bar can be painfull._ :madman:
> ...


I think you need a few more things attached to that bike to go along with the concealed fire extinguisher.

Thank you for keeping our trails safe.


----------



## 006_007 (Jan 12, 2004)

icecreamjay said:


> So is my dog immoral? He does like to rape pillows, so maybe...
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The dog says the pillow play was consensual.


----------



## 006_007 (Jan 12, 2004)

See this is why we need protection.

Man attacked with blow dart while cycling on Sauvie Island - BikePortland.org


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

006_007 said:


> See this is why we need protection.
> 
> Man attacked with blow dart while cycling on Sauvie Island - BikePortland.org


Does your blow-dart gun fit in your frame-bag?


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

Jayem said:


> Does your blow-dart gun fit in your frame-bag?


No need. My last custom frame I had the builder integrate a blow-dart gun into the top tube, with a hydration pack bite valve rigged up to provide the air input. I've found it less then useful in some situations though, like on switchbacks or when someone is chasing me. I have to be directly behind them, or else take them head on jousting style. I might start carrying a smaller backup blow-dart gun, which I can carry with my Awesome Strap.


----------



## scrublover (Dec 30, 2003)

This is why I love this place.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

I still want a bike-to-car guided missile.


----------



## tim208 (Apr 23, 2010)

People for the 
Eating of
Tasty 
Animals


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Wow, that must be new! Tell me more!


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

Here I expected a gun-nuts vs. anti-gun-nuts shoutthread, which is fun and all but still, and what I found was a genuinely intelligent discussion of the ethics of eating meat.

This internet thing is fun sometimes.


----------



## deke505 (Jul 29, 2012)

Mr Pig said:


> I still want a bike-to-car guided missile.


Here ya go









and here it is in action


----------

