# Mirrors and pistol mounts



## jdubau55 (Jun 1, 2010)

Very unique combo right?

My wife and I are getting into the sport. We went riding on our honeymoon and really enjoyed it. She usually rides behind me which gets me in trouble sometimes cause I cant look out for her. 

What is a good mirror that A) wont get caught on trees, weeds, etc and mess up my control or B) I can mount on my helmet and wont get caught on trees, weeds, etc and yank my head off so that I can easily see where my wife is on the trail?

Next...is there anyone here that carries a pistol with them on the trail? I hold a concealed carry permit and carry more often than not. There is always a pistol on the nightstand and always one in the car at my hip. Looking for some suggestions on bike mounts that can be accessed swiftly (no unzipping pouches) yet is secure enough for MTB use. This can be on bike or on person type wear. Would a thigh holster work well yet not effect riding?


----------



## carlos91 (Jun 12, 2010)

what size is it a small 380 or a full frame 40 need to be a little more specific


----------



## Mount Dora Cycles (May 29, 2009)

Try riding behind your wife instead of in front of her. Leave the gun at home tough guy.


----------



## carlos91 (Jun 12, 2010)

that works^


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=614875


----------



## CarolinaLL6 (Apr 12, 2010)

Well Dora I carry too.


----------



## womble (Sep 8, 2006)

Any thread about carrying guns quickly degenerates into a shouting match and rehashed arguments.

If you are worried about your wife, keep stopping or ride behind her. Mirrors don't work well on mountain bikes- you have to shift your body positioning and the bars around constantly which makes the mirrors unreliable. They're only good for smooth road riding.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Yep , ride her from beh....err........................ ride behind her .


----------



## DParks (Oct 3, 2009)

I ride behind my wife when we go. She feels that I am pushing her but it is more of a safety issue. For one, I can see where she is and call out to her about what is coming up. Two, there is no way for me to leave her behind. Also, if you are in front and you have to turn your head to see her or for her to hear you, you take your eyes off the trail. If you crash and she runs into you and goes down as well there isn't much benefit.

As far as guns go, I have had a CCW in the past but currently do not (due to moving). I couldn't care less if CCW holders carry on the trail. They went through the proper channels to get the license so they probably aren't going to ruin that with stupid actions. CCW or not, I, myself, wouldn't. I don't know where you ride or what the land is like. The potential problems I see with carrying on the trail is keeping possession of the weapon (what if it does fall out of the pack either from bouncing along or during a crash) and who owns the land you are riding on. If you go through private property and have permission of the owner to carry, then great. If you go through a State Park and get caught you have to ask yourself if a potential conviction on firearms charges are going to be damaging to your life. 

Why do you feel the need to carry? Are you riding in an area with bears, boar, mountain lions, etc? Or do you worry about who you may encounter on the trails? I feel fortunate that the areas I ride I don't feel endangered to the point where I need to carry. The menacing black snakes and shifty looking box turtles get out of my way without too much protest. I think those squirrels are up to some nefarious sh!t though! They have the numbers on their side, so I give them a wide berth.

I don't want this to become a big deal on carrying concealed thread but would rather understand your reason for wanting to carry.


----------



## aufevermike (May 5, 2010)

I live in Alaska and carry all the time. I am either carrying a .45 or my S&W .500. How do you ask? By putting wither one in my Topeak MTX bag. the only problem I have is that the bag is quit big and is behind the seat and not easily or quick enough to access. However I have toyed with the idea of a gentleman in Anchorage that makes bags called Epic designs. He can custom make bags. Might give him a try and he can custom make a bag with a holster inside. I would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. Anywhere here in AK a situation can arise, I want to be ready should that happen.


----------



## CaveGiant (Aug 21, 2007)

AZ.MTNS said:


> http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=614875


That was a fun thread.

Occasionally worth a re-read for a laugh.

It is amazing how offended these gun carrying bastards get when you bring up gun related child fatalities.

Probably due to the insecurities making them need to carry a tool of death to feel like a real man.

I tend to ride behind my wife, the view is great.
We always carry whistles too for quick communication if drops out of sight.


----------



## jdubau55 (Jun 1, 2010)

My wife prefers I ride in the front in the event that we might encounter said snakes, turtles, ferocious squirrels, etc. She prefers for me to set the pace. We will have to figure out what works best for us I guess. No mirror recommendations though???

As for the firearm thing....I am very aware each person has an opinion on the matter. That is ok. Neither is right or wrong. As an American and a CCW holder its my right to carry so I do. If you do not condone firearms that is ok with me. I wont hassle you about not condoning firearms. Thats the great part about living in America. 

As for holster options it looks like I am on my own. 

Oh and to answer Carlos...it would most likely be a .380 (Taurus TCP) Light and small to fit a bike easily. A holster of some sort to fit where the frame tubes meet near the handle bars would be nice.


----------



## auto (Aug 27, 2009)

Mount Dora Cycles said:


> Try riding behind your wife instead of in front of her. Leave the gun at home tough guy.


Do you leave your air pump or spare tube at home?

Seriously. Best place for the blaster is in the front pocket of the baggie shorts, still allows fast access and does not startle the sheeple out there.


----------



## jdubau55 (Jun 1, 2010)

I have a mini tuck from crossbreed that I wear IWB at the 4 o clock normally. Maybe it will work well on a bike as well...


----------



## CaveGiant (Aug 21, 2007)

jdubau55 said:


> As for the firearm thing....I am very aware each person has an opinion on the matter. That is ok. Neither is right or wrong. As an American and a CCW holder its my right to carry so I do.


Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and like most people you waste yours.

Only one side is correct, not both.

In Greece the population used to have the right to rape childeren, doesn't mean you have to or it is behavior than should be condoned.

So which side of the fence do you want to sit, the side with the rational people or the one with the childer rapers? To be fair it was their legal right.


----------



## EBasil (Jan 30, 2004)

HA hha haaa!

Well, to the mirrors, forget 'em. Ride behind or have your partner agree to speak up a little. Don't discuss how mountain lions attack the BACK rider, not the front one...


----------



## Armstrong57 (Jun 8, 2010)

Maybe try having whistles on board like CaveGiant suggested. If she gets too far back she can whistle and signal you to slow up. I have heard of some riders using walkie-talkies as well.


----------



## CarolinaLL6 (Apr 12, 2010)

CaveGiant said:


> In Greece the population used to have the right to rape childeren, doesn't mean you have to or it is behavior than should be condoned.
> 
> So which side of the fence do you want to sit, the side with the rational people or the one with the childer rapers? To be fair it was their legal right.


 Wow, equating the 2nd A with child rape. Not going to read any more of your crap.  /ignore


----------



## jdubau55 (Jun 1, 2010)

CaveGiant said:


> Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and like most people you waste yours.
> 
> Only one side is correct, not both.
> 
> ...


You are entitled to your opinion and I to mine. Lets leave it at that. If you don't have any input into answering my questions please kindly leave the thread.


----------



## CarolinaLL6 (Apr 12, 2010)

jdubau55 said:


> My wife prefers I ride in the front in the event that we might encounter said snakes, turtles, ferocious squirrels, etc. She prefers for me to set the pace. We will have to figure out what works best for us I guess. No mirror recommendations though???
> 
> As for the firearm thing....I am very aware each person has an opinion on the matter. That is ok. Neither is right or wrong. As an American and a CCW holder its my right to carry so I do. If you do not condone firearms that is ok with me. I wont hassle you about not condoning firearms. Thats the great part about living in America.
> 
> ...


I see here and there small stick-to-your helmet mirrors for around $10. It may be hit and miss until you find what you like.

Also to clarify and maybe give you another idea or two. My carrying depends on a lot of variables. Am I riding solo or with others? Where am I riding and may I even carry? Mostly obvious stuff.

My brother is a LEO and he always carries. When I ride with him I usually lighten my load by not carrying. What's nice are some of the CCW restrictions don't apply to him. He uses a fanny pack to carry his dept Sig 229. I personally don't like fanny packs. If I carry I just use my under seat bag. I realize it is not as accessible, but I always carry OC spray whether I'm carrying or not that's in my front pocket. I have pretty fast access to that.

Why I don't carry on me? All hunched over on a bike I have my doubts about IWB. My two carry weapons are either a SA Compact .45 (all steel) or a Glock 26. While thin the .45 is just too heavy. And the Glock though lighter and smaller is just too thick. I do carry IWB in my street clothes, but I wear a specific very stiff belt made for carrying. On the trail I wear Endura Hummvee's and they do have lots of pockets but they are either too deep and not very secure or too small.

With all of that I've been thinking about an under top tube type bag that would mount behind the head tube. There are also those that mount above it, too. I like that location because it's naturally right in front within easy reach.

Hope this gives you more ideas.


----------



## jdubau55 (Jun 1, 2010)

Thanks. Thats helpful. Found a few ATV pistol mounts that might be able to carry over. Will just have to wait until my bike arrives to see whats practical and wont break the bank. 

The whistle idea seems like the best so far instead of mirrors.


----------



## CharleyGnarlyP290 (Apr 26, 2010)

CaveGiant. You are an idiot. That is the stupidest comparison I have ever heard. I usually try to stay out of this kind of debate, but this is just beyond ignorant.:bluefrown:


----------



## jdubau55 (Jun 1, 2010)

If CaveGiant is anti-firearm that is ok. Just want to stay on topic here. I'm sure there are plenty of firearm bashing threads around. Just ask that people be courteous to my questions and give worthwhile answers to them.


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

I'd say ride behind, but that's been mentioned. Try pepper spray and or an air horn for safety. You could sew a holster onto your bullet proof vest, lol. Not against guns. Have a few myself, but never thought to take 1 for a bike ride. Must be a scary world for you if you only feel safe packin. I ride with many off duty cops and they don't carry on trails but whatever. 

When riding snowmobile in groups I use a mirror on the back of hand. Works pretty well. I'v also seen lotsa roadies with a mirror on side of helmet.


----------



## Oracle7775 (Oct 31, 2008)

Never mind. I found the other thread.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Just tell her to HTFU .


----------



## tomboyjr (Jul 16, 2009)

just use a camelback or other brand of backpack. With the shoulder and waist belt I bet you can find a velcro holster to fit


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

Just don't go around with a teabag hanging from your helmet...


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

The only mirror I see working, is one mounted to the helmet, but unless you're riding pretty smooth trials, I see it getting jolted out of position.

*Every rider should carry a whistle anyway*. Some company, can't remember which, had a whistle integrated into the chest strap of their hydration pack. Nice pack too, maybe it was Osprey???

***As for your firearm. I think you should find a way to carry it on your person, not the bike. Too easily separated from your weapon, in a surprise attack. Most real world situations, would have you quickly ditching your bike, and seeking cover, escape, etc.


----------



## jdubau55 (Jun 1, 2010)

Do I live in a high crime area? No.

Do I ride in areas with plenty of snakes? Yes

Bears? Occasionally

Bobcats? Occasionally

Am I paranoid all the time when I don't carry? No way.

Is the right to keep and bear arms still the 2nd amendment? Yes

Is free speech still in the 1st amendment? Yes

Am I proud to be an American where I can do all these things freely? Heck yes!



d365 said:


> ***As for your firearm. I think you should find a way to carry it on your person, not the bike. Too easily separated from your weapon, in a surprise attack. Most real world situations, would have you quickly ditching your bike, and seeking cover, escape, etc.


Very good advise. Seems like thigh or shoulder holster is the best bet.

Thanks for the suggestions.


----------



## kapaso (Sep 15, 2007)

jdubau55 said:


> My wife prefers I ride in the front in the event that we might encounter said snakes, turtles, ferocious squirrels, etc. She prefers for me to set the pace. We will have to figure out what works best for us I guess. No mirror recommendations though???
> 
> As for the firearm thing....I am very aware each person has an opinion on the matter. That is ok. Neither is right or wrong. As an American and a CCW holder its my right to carry so I do. If you do not condone firearms that is ok with me. I wont hassle you about not condoning firearms. Thats the great part about living in America.
> 
> ...


My SO prefers I ride in front so she can use my lines through the rough sections.


----------



## hardwarz (Jun 12, 2009)

I normally carry a Springfield XC 9mm SC. I have to carry it in my hydration pack; it's just too big to carry while wearing shorts. I've thought about a frame mount pouch, but what if I need to go to the restroom? I'd need to retrieve it from the pouch and put it on my person. Not good to have to draw it from the pouch. I now have a Ruger LCP .380. I'll be getting a pocket holster from Cheaper Than Dirt. This will be my summer/shorts/bike carry weapon.

Maybe Camelbak will come up with hydration packs with hidden cross draw holsters soon! 

Oh... I live in NE Ohio... Wild cats have been moving north for the last several years. I've actually had one stalk me one night while playing paintball in the woods. We decided to get out of the woods and it stalked us until the edge of the woods. NOT a good feeling. You could hear it crunch leafs underfoot, and an occasional twig, but that was all. A paintball gun would have just pissed it off... We were all holding our paintball guns like bats at that point. lol.


----------



## jdubau55 (Jun 1, 2010)

Found this...looks interesting

http://www.511tactical.com/browse/H...ealed-Carry/D/30000/P/1:100:50000:50700:50705


----------



## YoungerNow (Nov 10, 2006)

jdubau55 said:


> Do I ride in areas with plenty of snakes? Yes


I support your right to carry, and take no issue with most of the reasons you state for doing so.

But the one above is silly. A snake isn't going to chase you down and strike you out of malice. In any situation where you'd have time to draw and shoot a snake, you'd also have time to walk around it and be on your way.


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

jdubau55 said:


> Found this...looks interesting
> 
> http://www.511tactical.com/browse/H...ealed-Carry/D/30000/P/1:100:50000:50700:50705


Looks like a rib breaker to me.  You must not plan on crashing.


----------



## hazdxb (Oct 11, 2008)

i think if you're looking for the best solution possible oyu might wanna check this out:
http://www.reevu.com/leisure.asp
mainly its a mirror built into the helmets inside itself and the back is clear so that you can check behind you just like the rear view mirror on a car good luck!


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

AZ.MTNS said:


> Just tell her to HTFU .


Or to work on her communication skills.


----------



## robc in wi (Sep 6, 2008)

I have 2 handguns mounted on my helmet next to my baseball bat and machete. No snakes or squirrels are going to mess with me. Seriously, I would be more worried about getting blindsided by a deer or a turkey. They're out of season anyway. I'm too busy living/working to worry about the boogie man/bear waiting around the next corner. Signed: A proud American/ex-service member who doesn't own a gun.


----------



## tihsepa (May 15, 2009)

Weird.


----------



## CaveGiant (Aug 21, 2007)

dammit jb seems a nice guy, where are the crazies screaming at the gun haters when you want 5 mins of entertainment!

For the record I am not saying that carrying guns was the equivalent of paedophilia; just that it is another example of stating the law to defend an immoral act that occasionally results in the death of children.

We don't have the right to free speech in the UK... overruled by the terrorism act =-(


----------



## Woozle (Jun 13, 2008)

Would a .38 stop Man-Bear-Pig?


----------



## hardwarz (Jun 12, 2009)

CaveGiant said:


> dammit jb seems a nice guy, where are the crazies screaming at the gun haters when you want 5 mins of entertainment!
> 
> For the record I am not saying that carrying guns was the equivalent of paedophilia; just that it is another example of stating the law to defend an immoral act that occasionally results in the death of children.
> 
> We don't have the right to free speech in the UK... overruled by the terrorism act =-(


In 2008, the United States Supreme Court determined that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution allowed the citizens of the United States to legally own firearms.

The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution was brought about prior to the American Revolution. It was originally brought about by the English Civil War. Militias would occasionally disarm Catholic and occasionally Protestants with out consent of the parliament.

During the American Revolution, the British and the Loyalists tried to disarm the Patriots to prevent the revolution.

It's legal and was determined a right by the US Constitution. How do you define the right to carry a firearm an "immoral act"? If a woman walks down the street wearing a short skirt, does that mean she's a prostitute? I think you're confusing the act of using a firearm illegally with the act of carrying a firearm. Just because I have a penis, doesn't mean I'm going to rape someone.

Hardwarz


----------



## CaveGiant (Aug 21, 2007)

Just because something is legal does not make it moral, don't ever confuse the two.

Read the newspapers and see how many legal but moral things happen on a daily basis.

Everyone's code of morals is different, I believe that guns are evil and should be kept to trained personnel who need them. 

Carrying a gun is a hobby, odds are it will cause you more harm than protect you. Just read one story about a kid accidentally being shot by thinking his parents gun was a toy. Well his parents didn't need the gun, it was essentially a toy and they killed their child through ignorance. 

I do agree though that manbearpig is a threat and should be dealt with, but please people, judo, kung fu, karate, there are many solutions to this chimera that do not need guns.


----------



## hardwarz (Jun 12, 2009)

Woozle said:


> Would a .38 stop Man-Bear-Pig?


Nothing short of a .45-70 will stop Man-Bear-Pig. But I'm not a expert on that. You might have to talk to Jimbo, he's had more experience with Man-Bear-Pig.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

CaveGiant said:


> Just because something is legal does not make it moral, don't ever confuse the two.
> 
> Read the newspapers and see how many legal but moral things happen on a daily basis.
> 
> ...


You assume that your moral standard is what everyone should be subjected to , you also state that carrying a gun is a hobby , got news for ya , where I hail from gun carry is a fact of life , not a hobby . Your broad assumptions about people and ways of life of a people in another country , not to mention on an entirely different continent leave you looking out of place in this discussion . FWIW a 500 S&W Magnum is very effective for MANBEARPIG .


----------



## Lawson Raider (Jul 24, 2006)

CaveGiant said:


> That was a fun thread.
> 
> Occasionally worth a re-read for a laugh.
> 
> ...


I don't think your name calling to gun owners or your perceived image of them as insecure is what offends them.. It's more likely your ignorance of the subject that does that.

I find it interesting that liberals or socialists are concerned about child fatalities when it comes to guns (which is one of their favorite reasons to try to ban or control the crap out of them) but not one bit concerned when it comes to abortion which kills exponentially compoundedly more children than guns.

We can also argue the stat that the liberal/socialist folks never tell you is that the over 1.5 million times a firearm is used to protect someone's life and property per year. They only want to tell you the far lower number of times a firearm is involved in a crime or other thing.

The problem is the usual indices that liberals/socialists use to tell all of us about the rampant child gun deaths are not very reliable because like all sources of statistics - they tend to be biased to whatever opinion they want to hold on the subject. Example - if you include the age group where gun crime usually happens like 18 - 25 in big cities where gangs and crime are rampant and put them in the children category, you can skew the number of child fatalities to make it look like it is rampant problem.

I am not denying that there are gun owners out there that in the past has left their gun out and the kid got hold of it and resulted in a fatality but the majority of gun owners are alot more responsible than that.

We can make arguments over swimming pools in back yards that kids fall in and drown. It all falls down to adults ensuring they are responsible for dangerous things in their houses so the kids won't have access to them. Firearm ownership carries an implicit responsibility.

Firearm owners have various reasons for owning firearms. It has nothing to do with feeling like they are a "real man". Some enjoy sport shooting, hunting, and yes personal defense. No sane firearm owner buys a firearm hoping they get to use it on a criminal - in fact, I am pretty confident that they actually pray they never have to use it in that manner. No one enjoys being in a situation that they have to defend themselves with one.

I will end this post with one quote -- "A person can believe that a person doesn't have the right to own a firearm which is their right to believe that. They just should pray that the criminal who breaks into their house believes the same way".


----------



## Lawson Raider (Jul 24, 2006)

YoungerNow said:


> I support your right to carry, and take no issue with most of the reasons you state for doing so.
> 
> But the one above is silly. A snake isn't going to chase you down and strike you out of malice. In any situation where you'd have time to draw and shoot a snake, you'd also have time to walk around it and be on your way.


I have to agree with YoungerNow. If you are gonna get bit by a snake, it is more likely either it got you while you were riding or you tried to handle it. Either way, no weapon would have affected the outcome.


----------



## Lawson Raider (Jul 24, 2006)

CaveGiant said:


> dammit jb seems a nice guy, where are the crazies screaming at the gun haters when you want 5 mins of entertainment!
> 
> For the record I am not saying that carrying guns was the equivalent of paedophilia; just that it is another example of stating the law to defend an immoral act that occasionally results in the death of children.
> 
> We don't have the right to free speech in the UK... overruled by the terrorism act =-(


The United States is different than England and pretty much the huge majority of Europe in that our founders having left and separated from a European nation put in our founding Constitution the right to keep and bear arms.

If memory serves me correctly, not too many years ago England decided to ban guns which sucked for them. I have read that an English judge agrees with allowing Sharia law to be practiced by the muslims who live there. Just a start of bad things to come over there when you have two groups living in the same place with two separate sets of laws....


----------



## Lawson Raider (Jul 24, 2006)

AZ.MTNS said:


> You assume that your moral standard is what everyone should be subjected to , you also state that carrying a gun is a hobby , got news for ya , where I hail from gun carry is a fact of life , not a hobby . Your broad assumptions about people and ways of life of a people in another country , not to mention on an entirely different continent leave you looking out of place in this discussion . FWIW a 500 S&W Magnum is very effective for MANBEARPIG .


+1.

In other countries where gun ownership is or has never been a personal right, there is not widespread inherent knowledge of the rights or intricacies of the subject of firearms as far as the rights of ownership are concerned. Add to that the socialist education systems over there and even over here who indoctrinate socialist values into kids and young adults and it is no surprise they come on here with these opinions.


----------



## Tom93R1 (Jan 26, 2005)

I have a helmet mounted mirror that I use when I road bike. It's great for that but to use it I have to take focus off what is in front of me for a second or 2. That works on the road bike but not so much on the trail. Plus the vibrations on the trail would render it virtually useless by constantly changing its orientation. Personally I think riding behind or just turning your head around are the better options.

As for guns, I never figured out a good way to carry that didn't involve tossing it in the Camelback where I couldn't reach it in a hurry if I actually needed to. That shirt has me imagining how it would hurt to have the gun mashed into my ribs in a crash, but on the other hand any crash where that was a problem would probably result in ribcage discomfort any way. Also, most holsters don't seem to be the most sweat proof. That was my other concern, don't really want to sweat all over my gun every ride. Fanny pack seems to be best solution but you wouldn't catch me wearing one of those in all their 80's glory!


----------



## popcorn8888 (Jun 15, 2010)

Oh, silly, silly CAVEGIANT. 

I suppose that if individuals were not allowed to legally carry weapons, we'd still be the Colonies instead of the USA; and, if we were not a weapons friendly society, you'd be speaking German. 

I don't know if you've ever visited the USA, but our country is huge, and the LEOs are few and far between. A popular saying is that when seconds count, the LEOs are just minutes away. I've heard so many individuals, like you, who seem to believe that gun ownership leads to death and anarchy. But, there are no wild west shootouts among licensed gun owners, no duels at 20 paces, and no loss of law and order. 

Your claims and views have been disproved by so many studies that a simple Google search will reveal them; i.e. crime rates decrease once a state adopts concealed carry legislation. Responsible, licensed individuals, who are entitled to carry concealed guns are some of the safest and most responsible folks around. Now, if you want to focus on gun accidents, it's due to irresponsible ownership, who, interestingly, are typically not those who are licensed and trained to carry a firearm (and, if it were otherwise, there would be more gun related accidents among LEOs). Oh, and BTW, cars, drunk drivers, and ordinary household accidents cause many, many more fatalities than private (non-criminal) ownership of firearms. 

So, silly, silly CAVEGIANT, you just go on wearing your rosey glasses, believe that love makes the world go round, that the LEOs will be there when you need them, sing Kumbaya, believe that guns should not be privately owned and carried, and, if you ever get into a life threatening situation and there are no LEOs around, maybe a CCW licensee will be there to save your silly, silly butt.


----------



## CaveGiant (Aug 21, 2007)

The statistics I quoted were USA government released crime stats for fatalites of under 10's to gunfire.

I intentionally used that source for the reasons that if biased, it will be biased to reduce the number of fatalities and that it is also hard to consider the under 10s to be an active criminal element.

We have most guns banned here, shotguns can still be used for 'sport'.
Shootings are so rare in the UK it is always national news.
Some crazy went around with a shotgun (not banned, trained and psych approved guy) and killed 7 people last week. That is the only major shooting i the last few years.
Phoenix averages that many shootings a week, every week. (local government posted figures).

Now think how many more people he could have taken down with an automatic weapon. 

As people say the reports I read are biased (of course they are, govenrment figures people), please cite sources for the number of crimes prevented by carrying guns, not forgetting press is biased.

I would also like someone to explain that 700 under 10s got shot in the USA in one year, in the same year none in UK were shot.

The right to carry arms does not mean someone is compotent enough or has the moral grounding to carry arms.

And as metioned before, USA population is double UK, so mutliply that 0 by two to make the comparison fair.


----------



## popcorn8888 (Jun 15, 2010)

Statistics? Well, ok. A Home Office study published in 2007 reported that guns in England & Wales were used in 21,521 recorded crimes. In 2005/6 the police in England and Wales reported that 6.6% of homicides involved the use of a firearm. Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%, from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06. In late 2009 The Telegraph reported that gun crime had doubled in the past 10 years, with an increase in both firearms offenses and deaths. The Shadow Home Secretary attributed the rise to ineffective policing and an out of control gang culture. 

How has that UK gun ban been working? In the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's. In the UK 53% of burglaries occurred while occupants were at home, compared with 13% in the USA, where burglars admitted to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a 2002 United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people. Gun crime in London increased so rapidly that police feared they might not have the resources to cope. In a 2001 BBC report, officers stated there had been a 100% increase in firearms-related crime in the capital. 

How about more statistics? In or about 2006, there were about 60 million people in the UK as a whole, including Scotland. In England and Wales alone, discounting Scotland, there were over 163,000 knife crimes. By the end of 2006, there were more than 300,000,000 people in the USA, and there were fewer than 400,000 gun crimes. Based on these numbers, in the UK, there was one knife crime committed for every 374 people. In the USA, there was one gun crime committed for every 750 people; i.e. less than half a gun crime per 374 people (about 0.4987 gun crimes per 374 people, actually). This means that you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of gun crime in the USA.

More statistics? Take a look at: More Guns Less Crime by John R. Lott, Jr. Don't want to believe Mr. Lott? How about the FBI? The FBI's 2010 crime statistics report showed that between 2008 and 2009, as gun sales soared, the number of murders in the USA country decreased, and in 2009 the murder rate fell to a 45-year low. This has been an ongoing trend: "Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws severely limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense" (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1992). 

Don’t like the National Rifle Association in the USA. Well, the National Rifle Association of the United Kingdom was founded in 1859, which was 12 years before the USA Association. 

OK, so your view is that by limiting access to guns, the public is made a safer place; i.e. disarming the law-abiding public would enhance public safety, save children’s lives, and enhance or preserve civil rights. Well, the UK had its massive gun ban in 1997, which banned all handguns. If your view of gun control is correct, then crime rates should drop. So let’s check out that assumption. 

Statistically, violent crime rates were lower in the UK than the United States in 1992 (pre-ban). Burglary with entry: UK = 2.5%, U.S. = 3.5%. Robbery: UK = .9%, U.S. = 1.7%. Sexual assault of women: UK = .3%, U.S. = 1.5%. Assault with force: UK = 1.1%, U.S. = 2.2%. So, pre-ban, UK looks pretty good. However, in 2000 (with the three violent crimes of robbery, rape, and assault combined into one category entitled ''Selected Contact Crime’’), UK is not looking so good: Burglary with entry: UK = 2.8%, U.S. = 1.8%. Selected contact crime: UK = 3.6%, U.S. = 1.9%. So, while violent crime rates rose 100% in the UK, they fell 65 % in the USA. During this time, the UK outlawed private ownership of firearms, while over 70 million additional civilian firearms were sold in the USA. Oh, BTW, these trends were confirmed by Britain’s own Home Office. In the period of 1997 through 2001, homicide rose 19% in the UK while it fell 12% in the USA. Violent crime incidents rose 26% in the UK while falling 12% in the USA. Robbery rates rose 92% in the UK and fell 15% in the USA. 

Now, take a look at other forms of fatalities aside from the plethora of knifings in the UK. The Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, 2007 Social Trends Report indicated that there were 3360 road deaths in the UK per year. Based on population, that comes to 18.15% per 100,000 people. In the USA, it was 14.31 per 100,000 people. Maybe the UK should start banning vehicles since they cause so many deaths?

The utopian society you want is simply not reality. You cannot confuse the criminal use of weapons with a law-abiding use of weapons. That’s one reason your views fall apart upon a true analysis. While you and I may not seek to inflict gratuitous violence upon others, and we are not criminals, others in our society are not the same. There are those who are willing to inflict death or serious injury upon others to get what they want, be it money or from some other motive, whether by knife, handgun, shotgun, lead pipe, etc. When these folks know that you are unarmed, they will prey on you. If they believe you may have the ability to use lethal force against them, they think twice, thrice, and even change their mind. Crimes drop when the potential victims are armed. That’s reality.

Maybe you are willing to stand on your moral ground (lethal force is amoral), but I wonder how you would feel if someone broke into your house, or stopped you and your family in a secluded area, and threatened violence. You offer them your money, your jewelry, and you plead to be left in peace, but guess what, they want all of that and don’t want any witnesses; or, they just like to inflict harm. 

Talk to me when we truly live in a Utopia and all violence is eliminated. Until then, I’ll carry a handgun.

Silly, silly, CAVEGIANT.


----------



## Lawson Raider (Jul 24, 2006)

The problem with the gun argument or pretty any other social issue argument is when you start going into statistics. If you read your Statistics 101 book, the first chapter pretty much tells you that statistics in itself proves nothing. 

I could tell you that in cities allowing smoking in bars that you have an increased risk of crime if I put this dot here and that dot there and this number here and so on. If I connect enough dots then eventually even by far fetched statistics, I could show my point. But in reality, it doesn't really prove anything.

The one reason why statistics by itself is very inconclusive is the bias of the individual who is doing the statistics. Pretty much everyone has bias to some degree and no one really wants to be wrong.... That is why the global warming thing has fell down because it was shown the numbers were being purposely manipulated to the favor of those who want to tell us it is a real man made problem.

What you need to bring to the debate is plain common sense. In most social issues, you can apply the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid). Instead of trying to complicate the debate with statistics that don't prove anything just tell it in layman's everyday English.

Criminals don't obey laws that is why they are criminals. That is something that all of us pretty much can agree on. It is not rocket science nor does it take alot of cerebral prowess to figure it out.

Criminals are human beings with the same feelings as anyone else. They just don't respect the laws which is what separates them from law abiding citizens. With some exceptions, they use risk analysis when planning and carrying out their crime. They don't want to get caught so they try to plan their crime to minimize their chances of being caught. They don't want to get killed doing their crime either which is a real risk in their line of profession - especially if they enjoy breaking into people's houses as part of their profession.

Now, have two houses. House A has a gun owning member. House B has a non gun owning member. Both houses for argument's sake are equally valued as far as what the criminal can gain by breaking in. In reality, the criminal would not really know which house was armed or not but for argument's sake, let's presume the criminal knows House A is armed and House B is not. What house would you think the criminal would burglarize?


----------



## HamfisT (Mar 31, 2010)

MTB rider A is armed

MTB rider B is not


Which rider do you think that mountain lion is going to attack?


Will rider A be able to get his firearm out of his camelback or seat pack before said mountain lion breaks his concentration?


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

HamfisT said:


> MTB rider A is armed
> 
> MTB rider B is not
> 
> ...


Rider B fumbles for his firearm. Rider A keeps riding.


----------



## jdubau55 (Jun 1, 2010)

/thread


----------



## popcorn8888 (Jun 15, 2010)

HamfisT said:


> MTB rider A is armed
> 
> MTB rider B is not
> Which rider do you think that mountain lion is going to attack?
> Will rider A be able to get his firearm out of his camelback or seat pack before said mountain lion breaks his concentration?


Good example. Recently, in Texas, the Governor of the State was out jogging when a cougar (mountain lion) confronted him (and his dog) and crouched to pounce. The Gov pulled out his concealed handgun, shot the predator with one-shot, killed it, and kept jogging. Moreover, riding away from a mountain lion attack will only cause the predator to see you has prey and be more likely to attack. BTW, a mountain lion can move faster than you can on a bike.


----------



## miller1 (Mar 3, 2010)

Lawson Raider said:


> I don't think your name calling to gun owners or your perceived image of them as insecure is what offends them.. It's more likely your ignorance of the subject that does that.
> 
> I find it interesting that liberals or socialists are concerned about child fatalities when it comes to guns (which is one of their favorite reasons to try to ban or control the crap out of them) but not one bit concerned when it comes to abortion which kills exponentially compoundedly more children than guns.
> 
> ...


:thumbsup: well said


----------



## jdubau55 (Jun 1, 2010)

It was a coyote...and a .380 which is my EDC weapon of choice for its light weight and ease of concealment, but still a nice story.


----------



## HamfisT (Mar 31, 2010)

I've startled alligators around here... they have so far all hauled balls into the swamp to get away... but I'm sure there's bound to be that one that thinks it may be able to take me!


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

jdubau55 said:


> It was a coyote...and a .380 which is my EDC weapon of choice for its light weight and ease of concealment, but still a nice story.


Yeah, and the coyote was going after a dog.

The chance of a mountain lion attack is very, very low.


----------



## popcorn8888 (Jun 15, 2010)

"...What you need to bring to the debate is plain common sense. In most social issues, you can apply the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid). Instead of trying to complicate the debate with statistics that don't prove anything just tell it in layman's everyday English."

Good point. Everyday English. Wife and I are walking in a public park, quiet day, not many folks around. Three youths (all of whom are bigger than me) approach. One pulls a knife (switchblade kind). Demand money and jewelry. I have a handgun in a waist holster under my untucked shirt. I use my left arm to push my wife behind me, take two steps back, put my right hand on my now exposed handgun and make sure they see I'm about to draw. I tell them to leave us alone. They see the weapon and leave the park giving us a very, very wide berth. 

Plain enough Everyday English?


----------



## jtmoyer99 (May 7, 2010)

jdubau55 said:


> Next...is there anyone here that carries a pistol with them on the trail? I hold a concealed carry permit and carry more often than not. There is always a pistol on the nightstand and always one in the car at my hip. Looking for some suggestions on bike mounts that can be accessed swiftly (no unzipping pouches) yet is secure enough for MTB use. This can be on bike or on person type wear. Would a thigh holster work well yet not effect riding?


 I didn't read every thread, but I would say any high quality holster should have enough retention to keep your sidearm in place. I assume you have a holster already? I would avoid mounting it on the bike because you're already used to it being on your hip and you'd have to retrain yourself. Nothing would be worse than actually needing to use it and you grabbed for it on your hip, but it was under your seat instead.


----------



## Lawson Raider (Jul 24, 2006)

HamfisT said:


> MTB rider A is armed
> 
> MTB rider B is not
> 
> ...


When has anyone heard of a mountain lion being able to intelligently reason whether its intended victim is armed?

What I was talking about was a *human* criminal (I guess for some folks you have to really spell it out for them) making a risk assessment because criminals do make these decisions whether they realize it or not.

So back to the original situation. If you were a criminal, which house would you have the most risk in burglarizing? House A which is armed or House B which is unarmed.


----------



## HamfisT (Mar 31, 2010)

As with the human criminal, the mountain lion will have no idea which house/rider is armed...

That was my point.


This thread is not about home defense, it's about packin' heat on the trail. 

I have never been accosted by a human on any trails, I see no need for defensive weapons against humans. Alligators, bears and cougars are another story!


----------



## boomn (Jul 6, 2007)

Lawson Raider said:


> When has anyone heard of a mountain lion being able to intelligently reason whether its intended victim is armed?


I think that was the point... it wouldn't know and would attack both. Plus, through they are very rare, I believe most of the fatal mountain lion attacks I have heard of were from behind. An attack from behind by a stealthy, professional carnivore wouldn't leave much chance for shooting it



Lawson Raider said:


> So back to the original situation. If you were a criminal, which house would you have the most risk in burglarizing? House A which is armed or House B which is unarmed.


How would they know either?


----------



## jtmoyer99 (May 7, 2010)

HamfisT said:


> This thread is not about home defense, it's about packin' heat on the trail.
> 
> I have never been accosted by a human on any trails, I see no need for defensive weapons against humans. Alligators, bears and cougars are another story!


Stuff like that happens all the time...

http://www.adn.com/2010/03/23/1196292/defendant-convicted-for-westchester.html

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Body+found+Vancouver+park+near+site+previous+murder/3149771/story.html


----------



## HamfisT (Mar 31, 2010)

I'm 6' tall and weigh 210 lbs, so I don't think I'm viewed as an easy target.

i'm all for the freedom to own and carry firearms, but personally, I've never needed to on a trail, and I hope it stays that way.

Invade my property, and we're talking a whole different ball game!


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

I _*have*_ been attacked by a mountain lion. You'll have better luck with a knife than a gun because you'll never see the cat until it's on you. Then you are in a close quarters situation.

If you* are* going to use a handgun to fight a cougar (that's what we call them here)

Keep the gun on your person not your bike because you'll be off your bike by the time you realize anything is happening.

Carry it on your chest because you probably won't be able to "reach" to get it.

Club the cat in the head near it's eyes if you can. Most animals are very cautious of being injured and will break off an attack if they think they will get hurt. I couldn't imaging someone shooting a cougar that's attacking them because it would be on their back and they would have to shoot towards themselves to hit it. I don't know anything about handguns so it might be possible to shoot something that's wrapped around you like a heavy coat.

I'd still rather have a knife


----------



## alex(K) (Jun 27, 2008)

This thread is like a medley of what makes mtbr.com great. A potpourri of sorts.
The only thing missing is Presta vs. Schrader.

Schrader, to me is really more a gun enthusiasts valve, whereas presta leans more towards the more liberal bunny hugging spectrum of riders.

Opinions?


----------



## hazdxb (Oct 11, 2008)

holy crap after reading all of these stories of people riding near bears and mountain lions and what not, im extremely glad i live in the desert despite the crappy trails the worst for me is being chased by a pack of dogs at which i point i just kicked the one little bugger that tried to take a bite out of my heel and booked it!


----------



## EBasil (Jan 30, 2004)

alex(K) said:


> Schrader, to me is really more a gun enthusiasts valve, whereas presta leans more towards the more liberal bunny hugging spectrum of riders.


Statistically speaking, the presta is involved with less crime and injury than the schrader valves and this is the reason the schrader must be severely limited, if not reserved for law enforcement use only. Do you realize the Enola Gay used schrader valves? Not a coincidence, my friend, not a coincidence.


----------



## hardwarz (Jun 12, 2009)

Over the last 15 years, 2 bodies have been dumped in the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area in NE Ohio. I pack because I don't want to accidentally run into a body dump and then they come after me because of what I witnessed.


----------



## hardwarz (Jun 12, 2009)

EBasil said:


> Statistically speaking, the presta is involved with less crime and injury than the schrader valves and this is the reason the schrader must be severely limited, if not reserved for law enforcement use only. Do you realize the Enola Gay used schrader valves? Not a coincidence, my friend, not a coincidence.


Presta valves are definitely involved in less crimes.

Presta valves are used on higher end bikes. People that own higher end bikes usually don't live in the the poorer parts of town. Poorer parts of town usually have big box store type bikes, there is also a lot more crime in those areas (I own property in those areas). Therefore... Presta valves are involved in less crimes than Schrader valves.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

EBasil, You can use statistics to prove any point if you twist them the right way. Presta is involved in less crime & injury because there are less of them... and half the presta crimes go unreported because they happen to roadies and they are afraid that mountain bikers will laugh at them.

Also most valve crimes happened before presta valves were invented. The Enola Gay is a perfect example, although most people (in the USA) wouldn't consider it a crime.

Oh yeah, I'll give up my Schraders when they pry them from my cold dead rims.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

jtmoyer99 said:


> Stuff like that happens all the time...
> 
> http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Body+found+Vancouver+park+near+site+previous+murder/3149771/story.html


The second body was a suicide. First one was murder most likely.


----------



## EBasil (Jan 30, 2004)

hardwarz said:


> Presta valves are definitely involved in less crimes.
> 
> Presta valves are used on higher end bikes. People that own higher end bikes usually don't live in the the poorer parts of town. Poorer parts of town usually have big box store type bikes, there is also a lot more crime in those areas ...


I feel as though you're profiling schrader valve riders and I wonder when the bus will come to take us away while you liberal, pinky-flaunting, landlord-class roadies toast to your final solution. Thank gawd I've got my guns. :madmax:


----------



## Dogbrain (Mar 4, 2008)

My father retired from Law Enforcement after 31 years and I'm definitely a gun rights supporter. That being said, most gun owners are not very effective with their weapon. Shooting paper targets and deer from treestands prepares you to fight for your life to the extent that hopping a log in your back yard prepares you to race Pro DH. Training to fight effectively under life-or-death conditions is a full-time commitment. Should anything actually happen, these guys carrying in their camelbaks will most likely piss their baggies and ultimately be "carried by six." If you need it you'll need it in less than a second. Wait just a second Mr. Dope Farmer I need to get in my saddle bag! If you're genuinely concerned with your safety get a dog that can handle itself. A 50-70 lb working dog with a defensive-aggression streak will (hopefully) buy you enough time to get the hell out of dodge.

My buddy spooked a cougar last Sunday. It disappeared in one leap. I challenge anyone to find a report where someone actually shot a cougar that was attacking. They fight for their life on a regular basis while you watch monday night football. 

As for the mirror that seems like something that's just going to end up in your eye.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

HamfisT said:


> ..
> 
> This thread is not about home defense, it's about packin' heat on the trail.
> 
> I have never been accosted by a human on any trails, I see no need for defensive weapons against humans. Alligators, bears and cougars are another story!


they finally caught this kooky environmentalist recently in NorCal..he likes to detain you, ice pick your tires...and at least in 1 case cut you with a saw.....
http://police.berkeley.edu/crimealerts/2010/documents/10-052810-37NC_000.pdf

been attacking MTB'ers for years......
link here:
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=621739


----------



## hardwarz (Jun 12, 2009)

EBasil said:


> I feel as though you're profiling schrader valve riders and I wonder when the bus will come to take us away while you liberal, pinky-flaunting, landlord-class roadies toast to your final solution. Thank gawd I've got my guns. :madmax:


Why would I look at a Presta valve when Presta valves aren't in bad areas of town? If the only thing in the bad part of town is Schrader valves, then I'll look at the Schrader valves! :shocked:


----------



## APmech70 (May 12, 2010)

The man and his wife were out for a walk in the area when the mountain lion came out of the brush and was in a "crouch position," Hampton said. The couple's names were not immediately available late Wednesday.

"(The mountain lion) began to approach them," he said. "The husband was carrying a firearm, and he shot and killed the lion as it got really close."

http://www.postindependent.com/article/20080807/VALLEYNEWS/741521761&parentprofile=search

For those not familar with the area, this happened about 90 miles east of Fruita.


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

APmech70 said:


> The man and his wife were out for a walk in the area when the mountain lion came out of the brush and was in a "crouch position," Hampton said. The couple's names were not immediately available late Wednesday.
> 
> "(The mountain lion) began to approach them," he said. "The husband was carrying a firearm, and he shot and killed the lion as it got really close."
> 
> ...


Interesting first post. :lol:


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

Brave Mountain Lion Fends Off Group Of Hikers


> EUREKA, CA-A local mountain lion came face-to-face with a group of hikers and made it out alive, sources reported Monday. Wildlife officials are crediting the courageous cougar's quick thinking, catlike reflexes, and 150 pounds of coiled muscle with successfully fending off the human foot travelers.
> 
> The mountain lion was reportedly enjoying a quiet afternoon walk around Redwood National Park, on the same path it had taken almost every single day for the past three years, when it heard a rustling sound emanating from the underbrush. Upon investigation, the large feline noticed that a pack of hikers-one adult male, two young children, and an adult female that it instantly recognized as the mother-had crossed into territory that the cat had clearly marked as its own via tree scrapings and urine.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lawson Raider (Jul 24, 2006)

Carrying a gun doesn't give you a 100% chance of coming out on top of a life threatening situation animal, human, or whatever. It is not a magic wand that will make bunnies pop out of your hat and make you fly like superman. 

Not carrying a gun doesn't give you a 100% chance that you'll never be in a life threatening situation with an animal, human, or whatever. 

A mountain lion is very stealthy and like above posters have stated, they are typically ambush hunters. You won't know kitty is there until he is on your rump giving you the talpookie for the most part. Kitty might be having you for supper no matter if you are unarmed or racked up like Rambo in that situation. 

A user has to be proficient with their gun in order to be effective. Yes, that means regular practice, keeping the weapon clean and maintained, keeping it zeroed, keeping it in a handy place so you can access it very readily. 

A nonproficient gun owner will probably be as ineffective as an unarmed person in a sudden, life threatening situation as a mountain lion attack from the rear. In all cases, it is not the fault of the gun but rather the gun owner. 

A powersaw is a good wood working tool but it doesn't mean everyone can cut wood with precision.


----------



## alex(K) (Jun 27, 2008)

A powersaw is a good wood working tool but it doesn't mean everyone can cut wood with precision.[/QUOTE said:


> When used correctly it is very affective against mountain lions, you will however need long extension cord.


----------



## BulldogTod (Jun 4, 2010)

Funny how automobiles kill more people a year than guns, but it would be absurd not to own them in these modern times I guess? Guns are tools nothing more. Whats great about the USA is the choice. I have no problem with someone else that chooses to be a victim. It wont be me that gets gang raped by a meth head reconsidering the right to carry laws. Because bad things never happen, and humans are the nicest predictable animals to ever walk the planet. Any one who has ever served here in combat knows what all men are capable of. Be the judas goat if you choose(and someone else gets your sweet bike!), I dont care.


----------



## hardwarz (Jun 12, 2009)

Lawson Raider said:


> A powersaw is a good wood working tool but it doesn't mean everyone can cut wood with precision.


But imagine not having the ability to even own a power saw! Also, people can be taught to use a power saw and become proficient with it.


----------



## APmech70 (May 12, 2010)

Just a few words of wisdom.

“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity" Sigmund Freud

"An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a serf."

and my favorite Guns cause crime like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.


----------



## johnny dollar (Nov 17, 2009)

Ak-74u, stockless and bolted to the top tube. modified 'trigger' shifters and extra banana clips in my pack.

it's a point and shoot. 

take that liberal hippy soshulist pinko commie mountain lion bastard!


----------



## Lawson Raider (Jul 24, 2006)

APmech70 said:


> Just a few words of wisdom.
> 
> "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity" Sigmund Freud
> 
> ...


I tell you what is more dangerous than any mountain lion, Vanderman, ole grizzly bear...........

That is the space between Rosie O'Donnell and the refrigerator! Not even the North Koreans will cross that DMZ.


----------



## Dogbrain (Mar 4, 2008)

Lawson Raider said:


> Carrying a gun doesn't give you a 100% chance of coming out on top of a life threatening situation animal, human, or whatever. It is not a magic wand that will make bunnies pop out of your hat and make you fly like superman.
> 
> Not carrying a gun doesn't give you a 100% chance that you'll never be in a life threatening situation with an animal, human, or whatever.
> 
> ...


Outside of individuals with special forces/SWAT training, I would say that virtually no one has the experience to act defensively with a handgun. Sure you meet the occasional hardass who spent the last 20 years bow-hunting wild boar from the ground and has the scars to prove it, but most hunters are basically target shooters who might have some tracking skills. They are not fighters.

I know of exactly one person who's been attacked by humans on the trails in OR. I'm not going to dig up the article but they hit him in the face as he passed a large tree. He came off his bike and they beat him and robbed him (thankfully he lived). Unless you've trained extensively to take a real beating and still function you're not going to do sh!t in this situation.

Again, I support gun rights, but for most people carrying is about as useful as a thug-life pair of gold-plated brass knuckles on a dog chain around your neck. The knowing is in the doing. So tell me CCW Bikers at large, what exactly have you _done_ to _know_ you can fight for your life?


----------



## Lawson Raider (Jul 24, 2006)

Dogbrain said:


> Outside of individuals with special forces/SWAT training, I would say that virtually no one has the experience to act defensively with a handgun. Sure you meet the occasional hardass who spent the last 20 years bow-hunting wild boar from the ground and has the scars to prove it, but most hunters are basically target shooters who might have some tracking skills. They are not fighters.
> 
> I know of exactly one person who's been attacked by humans on the trails in OR. I'm not going to dig up the article but they hit him in the face as he passed a large tree. He came off his bike and they beat him and robbed him (thankfully he lived). Unless you've trained extensively to take a real beating and still function you're not going to do sh!t in this situation.
> 
> Again, I support gun rights, but for most people carrying is about as useful as a thug-life pair of gold-plated brass knuckles on a dog chain around your neck. The knowing is in the doing. So tell me CCW Bikers at large, what exactly have you _done_ to _know_ you can fight for your life?


I actually agree with you dogbrain on this. It is one thing to recreational shoot and another to actually be able to do it in a sudden life or death situation.

The best fighter in the world who knows their stuff and can fight like Bruce Lee can still be taken out like a punk in the right situation. I mean a criminal in a bush hiding with a gun can still take anyone out no matter what skill level or ability they have.

How many people on the highways and sidewalks do you pass each day? How many of those are armed? You really don't know. Last year I hit a deer out 5 miles from my house and while I was out surveying the damage it did to my truck, a moving van pulled up behind my truck and stopped. The guy got out and asked me if everything was ok and I said I am fine and the truck looks like it is still operational and he said where is the deer.

I pointed over to the ditch and it was there looking up at everyone. You could tell it was injured pretty bad (I hit it at 55mph). The guy went into the cab of the moving truck and brought out his pistol and shot the deer! He said good day, got back in the truck, and went on his way. I am like that was wierd. But he did put the deer out of its misery which I reckon was the humane thing to do.

But it goes to show that you just really don't know who is packing and who is not.

The real issue is should a person have the same chances and opportunities of survival as the criminal enjoys as alot of them are armed and carrying?


----------



## auto (Aug 27, 2009)

Dogbrain said:


> Outside of individuals with special forces/SWAT training, I would say that virtually no one has the experience to act defensively with a handgun. So tell me CCW Bikers at large, what exactly have you _done_ to _know_ you can fight for your life?


Well I would have to say you just cast a giant net of stupidity and generality over a large segment of the population. :skep: I have attended classes(tactical/fighting) with some of the best instructors (in the world) with door kickers, active military, executive protection, private contractors, State/Federal LEO and will hold my own in carbine and pistol. In fact in several classes civilians were high shooter. These are not markmansship classes, but people that can fight. I shoot a ton of rounds down range w/ carbine, pistol and DMR and precision and compete occasionally.

So.....since I miss the memo that put you in charge I will continue to carry my gun as I see fit, and hope others do so alsol The gun is another tool, that will hopefully assist you day when needed.


----------



## popcorn8888 (Jun 15, 2010)

auto said:


> Well I would have to say you just cast a giant net of stupidity and generality over a large segment of the population. :skep: I have attended classes(tactical/fighting) with some of the best instructors (in the world) with door kickers, active military, executive protection, private contractors, State/Federal LEO and will hold my own in carbine and pistol. In fact in several classes civilians were high shooter. These are not markmansship classes, but people that can fight. I shoot a ton of rounds down range w/ carbine, pistol and DMR and precision and compete occasionally.
> 
> So.....since I miss the memo that put you in charge I will continue to carry my gun as I see fit, and hope others do so alsol The gun is another tool, that will hopefully assist you day when needed.


Ditto. After basic CCW training, I've taken, and others I know have taken, advanced defensive handgun instruction. I don't practice to put little holes in pieces of paper, I practice to react and shoot defensively; as do others. Dogbrain, if you don't know what you are talking about, you should first find out. Better to remain silent and be thought the fool, then speak and remove all doubt. :nono:


----------



## boomn (Jul 6, 2007)

auto said:


> Well I would have to say you just cast a giant net of stupidity and generality over a large segment of the population. :skep: I have attended classes(tactical/fighting) with some of the best instructors (in the world) with door kickers, active military, executive protection, private contractors, State/Federal LEO and will hold my own in carbine and pistol. In fact in several classes civilians were high shooter. These are not markmansship classes, but people that can fight. I shoot a ton of rounds down range w/ carbine, pistol and DMR and precision and compete occasionally.
> 
> So.....since I miss the memo that put you in charge I will continue to carry my gun as I see fit, and hope others do so alsol The gun is another tool, that will hopefully assist you day when needed.


that is very good, but do you really think that applies to a "large segment of the population" though?


----------



## auto (Aug 27, 2009)

boomn said:


> that is very good, but do you really think that applies to a "large segment of the population" though?


A large segment of the gun owning population, very possibly, which is much more plausible than "virtually no one outside of SF/SWAT" can't fight worth a damn.

Anyone only has to look at the pariticpation of combat centered leagues and classes out there to know that there is a lot of people serious about shooting, tactics, and combat.


----------



## robc in wi (Sep 6, 2008)

Personally I ride (both road and mtb) to get away from the stress I face in life every day. I feel very fortunate to live in a place where I CAN walk down the street and not think about whether someone is packing or not. Wisconsin is one of a handful of states that don't have a conceal/carry law and the funny thing is that virtually none of the law enforcement agencies in the state support conceal/carry. I have never, ever thought there might be a meth lab around the next bend or a eco nut with a handsaw. There are black bear moving into my area of the state but unless I've got a string of bratwurst around my neck they would most likely run away at the sight of me. 

I wonder what it would be like to get out of bed each day and be so worried about my daily survival that I would have to strap a gun on. If you live in a place where it's that bad why wouldn't you just pack up and leave for a safer place. We might get one murder around here a year and it is usually a domestic family issue. If I lived and biked in the wilderness of Alaska then protecting myself would obviously be an issue. I support every ones rights to own a gun but carrying one around like the old west just because the law allows it is borderline paranoid IMO.


----------



## boomn (Jul 6, 2007)

auto said:


> A large segment of the gun owning population, very possibly, which is much more plausible than "virtually no one outside of SF/SWAT" can't fight worth a damn.
> 
> Anyone only has to look at the pariticpation of combat centered leagues and classes out there to know that there is a lot of people serious about shooting, tactics, and combat.


I still think that wording is an exxageration. There may be a large _number_ of people in the overall US population that do such things, but as a _percentage_ of our huge population I would say it is likely a very small segment

quick statistics search says that 25% of Americans own firearms and ~2.5% of Americans in CCW states have a CCW license, which I think is somewhat reflective of the number of people interested in self defense, but even then I know a couple people with CCW licenses and none do that type of training

From your perspective within such circles it may seem huge, but most people probably don't even know anyone that does such training


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

Chelsea King - attacked, raped, and killed while running in a popular mountain biking area around Lake Hodges in San Diego county.

There are plenty of bad people out there who do bad things to people while on the trail.


----------



## aufevermike (May 5, 2010)

http://www.adn.com/2010/06/15/1324609/bear-attacks-cyclist-on-anchorage.html
And this is why I carry. However I'm not sure I would have had enough time to retrieve it from my MTX bag.......But you can sure as hell know that I would try. If it were me and I saw a bear 20 yards or even 20 feet off the trail you can bet that I would be peddling even faster that I already was and hope I did'nt feel the sharp claws puncturing my backside.


----------



## auto (Aug 27, 2009)

boomn said:


> From your perspective within such circles it may seem huge, but most people probably don't even know anyone that does such training


Which is still more correct than "virtually no one outside of SF/Swat" That was the point I was trying to make, of course I live in Texas, not some namby pamby anti gun mecca.

Listen, ol Dogbrain played one of the most famous plays out of the anti gunner crowd is to question the training/ability of the CHL or gun owner. The problem is you don't hear many stories in the news of CHL/Gun Owners losing confrontations, actually pretty rare.

I mean, come on, do you really think the average gangbanger/mugger is more familar with that weapon and profeciency than the avg CHL/Gun owner?

I am in the beginner forum to improve my biking knowledge, and rarely comment on biking issues (except for product experience), I would suggest some of the people in this thread not comment about guns/tactics/training or analysis of said situation, because they don't have the knowledge to comment with intelligence or fact.


----------



## APmech70 (May 12, 2010)

I'm here in the beginner section to learn as well and plan to learn as much as possible.

I'm fortunate enough to live in western Colorado near some great areas to ride. There are bear, mountain lion, meth heads and other two legged vermin here that talking nice to would do no good. I know the woman that had the Mountain Lion approach to within in six feet her, before her husband shot it. I've unknowingly walked as close as twenty yards to a sow bear, fortunately her cubs were on the other side of her or she may of torn me apart.

I do carry a handgun and am licensed to do so. Why? I feel it's better to have and not need than need and not have. Do you have a fire extinguisher in your home? Do you plan on having to use it? Unless you're a pyromaniac the answer is no. That's the same way I feel about a firearms for protection.

I've taken multiple classes from Rob Pincus, one of the top people in the U.S and the retired Navy Seals who work with him. He also teaches law enforcement and military here and in Europe. Does every firearm owner spend the time and money to do so? No. But everyone that I know that carries, does take time to practice and I 've tried to teach them what I can. But what gives anyone the right to deny a person the ability to defend themselves and there families? A baseball bat or Karate against an armed assailant/intruder? I'm not Chuck Norris and this isn't the movies.

Now back to original topic. I would do the pocket holster if you have a firearm that would fit. The Desanti Super Fly is the one I use. If you don't have a light weight firearm, take a look at the Ruger LCP or Kahr PM9.

http://www.desantisholster.com/storefrontB2CWEB/browse.do?action=refresh_browse&ctg_id=4204


----------



## jdubau55 (Jun 1, 2010)

Wow this thread had really exploded. 

A recent true story of events locally. 

A boy and girl met for a "date" and they went onto the Blue Ridge Parkway. This is exactly what it sounds like. A parkway to drive and see the wonderful mountain views. They pulled off o nto a scenic pull off area. As they looked onto the scenic mountain area they paid no attention to the car that pulled up. Out of that car a man got out wielding a shotgun. With no warning he shot the male in the back at close range. This basically took the guy out of the picture. The girl turn to see the attacker and started to run away. He shot at her hitting her in the back. A struggle began. She fought with the man who ripped her dress away top down. She struggled with him and fell over a short drop of about 6'. Fought her way back up to solid ground asking him the whole time what his problem was. Running away wounded a car finally came down the parkway which she barely waved down. The passenger swiftly got out and helped her to the back seat of the vehicle while the driver quickly backed up the parkway until finally a safe distance from the attacker where they called 911. The boy died 3-4 days later from his wounds. The girl recovered to tell her story. A leisurely day looking at a scenic area turned deadly. 

In this day and age you really don't know what might happen. Am I paranoid? No. Do I wonder how that situation might have played out if one of them had been carrying? Yes. Do I want to find myself defenseless in a situation like that? No. Is there something I can do legally that might alter a situation like that? Yes. Carry a firearm in condition 0 whenever appropriate. 

With that said do I looked around paranoid when I go to Wal-mart to get bread? No I do not. Speaking of Wal-mart...was there a man who walked into Wal-mart, pulled a gun, and shot a women point blank in the head then walked out casually while people were left stunned and defenseless recently? Yes. 

Will I carry a firearm when I ride into secluded area while mountain biking? Most definitely. Why? Because I can and because RESPONSIBLE (key word) gun owning, law abiding citizens are not the problem here. 

Yes, there are accounts of idiots that have a firearm and leave it unsecured lying around and a child grabs it and shoots themselves. It is at that point I blame the irresponsible idiot and not the gun for the accident. 

Kinda like the hot coffee woman or the woman who sued Winnebago because she set the cruise control and then went to make herself a sandwich in the back and wondered why her motor home wrecked. These people are stupid to begin with. Don't fault a firearm for an ignorant persons actions. The problem with America today is that we don't make people take responsibility for their actions, but try to blame them on an inanimate object or a corporation. 

/end rant


----------



## jdubau55 (Jun 1, 2010)

APmech70 said:


> Now back to original topic. I would do the pocket holster if you have a firearm that would fit. The Desanti Super Fly is the one I use. If you don't have a light weight firearm, take a look at the Ruger LCP or Kahr PM9.
> 
> http://www.desantisholster.com/storefrontB2CWEB/browse.do?action=refresh_browse&ctg_id=4204


I have a Taurus TCP which I keep loaded with Corbon DPX hollow points. Which in my opinion are the BEST hollow points money can buy for penetration and expansion. I also own the Desantis pocket holster. Looks like I already have the best combo. When it comes to firearms the debate will always run hot.

Do I think people that are against them are idiots? Not at all. I live in a country where you can voice your opinion and have it be heard. It is a wonderful place. Will I ridicule those who think I am a gun toting lunatic? Never. To each his own.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

Sorry I don't know much about hand guns or holsters. Can I assume a pocket holster goes *in* a pocket? Like the front pocket of your pants or shorts?

I find it uncomfortable to ride with anything bulky or heavy in my pants pockets. A holster attached to a camelback strap would seem right for comfort and accessibility. For me, accessibility would be the main factor followed closely by comfort. I carry a large knife attached to the front strap of my pack in a quick release sheath.

That means your gun would be in plain view and I don't know what the laws are concerning that. I've accidentally gone into town and forgotten to take the knife off my pack and had the police stop me (10" blades are illegal in town).

Oddly enough I've never been stopped when I have a 24" machete sticking out of the top of my pack and I've ridden through town several times like that.

Where I live, people aren't a danger (there aren't any). Just cougars, hybrid dogs and mother black bears.


----------



## mikf44 (Feb 22, 2010)

Keep it on you, not the bike.

I wear a fanny pack when I ride.

Read this story

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/news-article.aspx?storyid=156780


----------



## jdubau55 (Jun 1, 2010)

In VA you can open carry all day long without any type of permit. You see very little of that, but when you do they are usually packing a hand cannon of massive proportions. Think I am going to try and find a thigh holster and see how that works out.


----------



## Dogbrain (Mar 4, 2008)

auto said:


> Which is still more correct than "virtually no one outside of SF/Swat" That was the point I was trying to make, of course I live in Texas, not some namby pamby anti gun mecca.
> 
> Listen, ol Dogbrain played one of the most famous plays out of the anti gunner crowd is to question the training/ability of the CHL or gun owner. The problem is you don't hear many stories in the news of CHL/Gun Owners losing confrontations, actually pretty rare.
> 
> ...


You must have trouble reading, as I made it clear that I am not anti-gun. My father retired from the FBI after 31 years and owns a small arsenal. He's kicked in plenty of doors and definitely used his weapon and he's still here to talk about it.. I don't own any guns at the moment, not because I'm opposed to them but because I simply don't feel the need for them. I fully support an individual's right to own and carry a gun, despite the fact that I went to Virginia Tech and had a friend of 5 years get killed by that coward. That event turned many to the anti-gun side once they learned he had a history of mental illness and the BGC didn't show that.

I'm glad that you took the time to actually train to use your tool. Most people do not, and the fact that a majority of the carriers in these threads keep their weapon in their backpack is ample evidence for my statement. Out of all the people I know who own a variety of firearms, only the Military/LEO folks have actually trained tactically. The rest are hunters. I realize that I don't know every gun owner, and that there are people such as yourself who do train, but on average I think my statement holds. Please don't be offended if you are the exception rather than the rule. While we're talking about training though, how many hours have you spent on your tactical training? Are we talking about a weekend workshop or weekly training over several months, with continued practice to keep your skills honed? That's not meant to be inflammatory, just a reality check in case you think a weekend workshop genuinely prepared you to fight. Proficiency in any activity requires lots of hard work, trying and failing and trying again.

As for the gang-banger comment, I really feel that shines a bright light on your misunderstanding of the situation. Anyone can pick up a weapon and go on the offense against unsuspecting people just going about their day. Being able to react defensively when you are the one being attacked is another game altogether. I don't use this as evidence for why people shouldn't be allowed to carry, as in most cases the penalty for failure is simply the same as the penalty for not carrying (unless you factor in that the criminal will steal your gun after they kill you). Accidental discharge is rare, shooting innocent bystanders while trying to prevent a crime is very rare. Carry if you want to, but if you're serious about being an effective defensive fighter, you should spend *A LOT* more time training in a high-stress situation than you do riding your bike.


----------



## auto (Aug 27, 2009)

Dogbrain said:


> You must have trouble reading, as I made it clear that I am not anti-gun. My father retired from the FBI after 31 years and owns a small arsenal. He's kicked in plenty of doors and definitely used his weapon and he's still here to talk about it.. I don't own any guns at the moment, not because I'm opposed to them but because I simply don't feel the need for them. I fully support an individual's right to own and carry a gun, despite the fact that I went to Virginia Tech and had a friend of 5 years get killed by that coward. That event turned many to the anti-gun side once they learned he had a history of mental illness and the BGC didn't show that.
> 
> I'm glad that you took the time to actually train to use your tool. Most people do not, and the fact that a majority of the carriers in these threads keep their weapon in their backpack is ample evidence for my statement. Out of all the people I know who own a variety of firearms, only the Military/LEO folks have actually trained tactically. The rest are hunters. I realize that I don't know every gun owner, and that there are people such as yourself who do train, but on average I think my statement holds. Please don't be offended if you are the exception rather than the rule. While we're talking about training though, how many hours have you spent on your tactical training? Are we talking about a weekend workshop or weekly training over several months, with continued practice to keep your skills honed? That's not meant to be inflammatory, just a reality check in case you think a weekend workshop genuinely prepared you to fight. Proficiency in any activity requires lots of hard work, trying and failing and trying again.
> 
> As for the gang-banger comment, I really feel that shines a bright light on your misunderstanding of the situation. Anyone can pick up a weapon and go on the offense against unsuspecting people just going about their day. Being able to react defensively when you are the one being attacked is another game altogether. I don't use this as evidence for why people shouldn't be allowed to carry, as in most cases the penalty for failure is simply the same as the penalty for not carrying (unless you factor in that the criminal will steal your gun after they kill you). Accidental discharge is rare, shooting innocent bystanders while trying to prevent a crime is very rare. Carry if you want to, but if you're serious about being an effective defensive fighter, you should spend *A LOT* more time training in a high-stress situation than you do riding your bike.


Not that I should justify myself to you, but 2 4 day classes each year, with the best guys out there teaching tactics, 2 a month competition, and weekly sessions at the range. Like I said, I did better than active military (deployed) some leo, and some SWAT, but again, you seemed to have it figured out. Your circle of people is entirely different than mine as evidenced as you don't own a gun, I can count one hand of the people that I know, that do not own a gun.

So by your standards, most LEO's (including federal LEO's) should leave their weapons at home, because I know the players, and the smallest percentage imagiable receive that kind of training I assure you.

I will agree with you that the more training, shooting, and stressful situations will make you a better shooter. This holds true with any activity, however it does not guarantee success, nor does it preclude non-trained individuals from being successful. I think that almost all encounters will justify that most people who use their firearm in DGU.

Strike one for the good guys, most likely an untrained blaster..... ymmv

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-ia-waterloo-fatalrob,0,5049959.story


----------



## popcorn8888 (Jun 15, 2010)

Dogbrain said:


> You must have trouble reading, as I made it clear that I am not anti-gun. My father retired from the FBI after 31 years and owns a small arsenal. He's kicked in plenty of doors and definitely used his weapon and he's still here to talk about it.. I don't own any guns at the moment, not because I'm opposed to them but because I simply don't feel the need for them. I fully support an individual's right to own and carry a gun, despite the fact that I went to Virginia Tech and had a friend of 5 years get killed by that coward. That event turned many to the anti-gun side once they learned he had a history of mental illness and the BGC didn't show that.
> 
> I'm glad that you took the time to actually train to use your tool. Most people do not, and the fact that a majority of the carriers in these threads keep their weapon in their backpack is ample evidence for my statement. Out of all the people I know who own a variety of firearms, only the Military/LEO folks have actually trained tactically. The rest are hunters. I realize that I don't know every gun owner, and that there are people such as yourself who do train, but on average I think my statement holds. Please don't be offended if you are the exception rather than the rule. While we're talking about training though, how many hours have you spent on your tactical training? Are we talking about a weekend workshop or weekly training over several months, with continued practice to keep your skills honed? That's not meant to be inflammatory, just a reality check in case you think a weekend workshop genuinely prepared you to fight. Proficiency in any activity requires lots of hard work, trying and failing and trying again.
> 
> As for the gang-banger comment, I really feel that shines a bright light on your misunderstanding of the situation. Anyone can pick up a weapon and go on the offense against unsuspecting people just going about their day. Being able to react defensively when you are the one being attacked is another game altogether. I don't use this as evidence for why people shouldn't be allowed to carry, as in most cases the penalty for failure is simply the same as the penalty for not carrying (unless you factor in that the criminal will steal your gun after they kill you). Accidental discharge is rare, shooting innocent bystanders while trying to prevent a crime is very rare. Carry if you want to, but if you're serious about being an effective defensive fighter, you should spend *A LOT* more time training in a high-stress situation than you do riding your bike.


If I understand your view, you are not anti-gun, but believe that only those in elite tactical forces should be allowed to carry a firearm. Respectfully, that view does not make sense to me. Essentially, you want to disarm all civilian ownership, which, to me, is anti-gun. Most anti-gun advocates recognize the need for LEOs and the military to carry guns, but feel that no such need extends to civilians. This seems to be your view, and seems very anti-gun, despite your father's use of firearms, which would fall under your LEO exception. I also note the reference to your father's "arsenal" rather than "collection," or "several weapons." I sense a tone of disapproval regarding the "arsenal," which again seems anti-gun, but then again I may be way off base.

There is a further flaw in your logic. Many smaller police departments do not have the resources to adequately train their LEOs, including continuing range practice, let alone tactical practice. Some LEOs don't fire their weapon except to pass qualifications. Just being a LEO does not mean you have superior tactical training compared to a civilian licensed to CCW. Granted, they go through more training than the average CCW holder, but by the same token, there are many civilian CCW holders who can outshine the average LEO. Your father may have been an active special agent in the field, but ask him if he knows of other FBI agents who are authorized to carry, but never trained past Quantico, never kicked in a door, and never continuously practiced any tactical activities.

I do think that you're anti-gun (not that there's anything wrong with that, since you're entitled to your opinion), but just have not admitted it to yourself. Quick test: Given your father's expertise and arsenal, have you ever asked him to train you in the proper use of a (concealed) handgun in a tactical situation, just in case you needed that knowledge some day?


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

jdubau55 said:


> In VA you can open carry all day long without any type of permit. You see very little of that, but when you do they are usually packing a hand cannon of massive proportions. Think I am going to try and find a thigh holster and see how that works out.


What would the weight of your gun & holster be? I could imagine that being a little uncomfortable to ride with a couple of pounds strapped to one leg. Maybe before buying the holster, try riding around with a similar weight tied or taped on.

All my suggestions are guesses but my son thought a regular shoulder holster would be a good idea. He does ride with guns but he doesn't expect to have to quick-draw so he keeps his in a pack.

Edit: after a little more discussion, he also suggested that the gun might fall out of a thigh holster and you might not notice (has happened to a friend of his) but if it fell out of a shoulder holster, it would hit you on the way down and you'd be more likely to notice.


----------



## Dogbrain (Mar 4, 2008)

popcorn8888 said:


> If I understand your view, you are not anti-gun, but believe that only those in elite tactical forces should be allowed to carry a firearm. Respectfully, that view does not make sense to me. Essentially, you want to disarm all civilian ownership, which, to me, is anti-gun. Most anti-gun advocates recognize the need for LEOs and the military to carry guns, but feel that no such need extends to civilians. This seems to be your view, and seems very anti-gun, despite your father's use of firearms, which would fall under your LEO exception. I also note the reference to your father's "arsenal" rather than "collection," or "several weapons." I sense a tone of disapproval regarding the "arsenal," which again seems anti-gun, but then again I may be way off base.
> 
> There is a further flaw in your logic. Many smaller police departments do not have the resources to adequately train their LEOs, including continuing range practice, let alone tactical practice. Some LEOs don't fire their weapon except to pass qualifications. Just being a LEO does not mean you have superior tactical training compared to a civilian licensed to CCW. Granted, they go through more training than the average CCW holder, but by the same token, there are many civilian CCW holders who can outshine the average LEO. Your father may have been an active special agent in the field, but ask him if he knows of other FBI agents who are authorized to carry, but never trained past Quantico, never kicked in a door, and never continuously practiced any tactical activities.
> 
> I do think that you're anti-gun (not that there's anything wrong with that, since you're entitled to your opinion), but just have not admitted it to yourself. Quick test: Given your father's expertise and arsenal, have you ever asked him to train you in the proper use of a (concealed) handgun in a tactical situation, just in case you needed that knowledge some day?


I do not support disarming regular citizens. My opinion is simply that most people are wasting their money buying tools that they will not be able to use when the time comes.

I agree that Law Enforcement is chronically underfunded. Ask the families of the four Lakewood, WA officers who were ambushed while having coffee at local shop. On duty, carrying at the hip, only one managed to get a weapon out and return fire but unfortunately he was still killed. I bet they had more training than the shooter, but defense is a totally different game.

As for asking my dad for training, we used to shoot a lot. It certainly wasn't tactical training, as we never really got into doing drills etc. and I did not develop any muscle memory. I did get a great deal of insight into what it takes to be proficient. Given an adequate "heads up" I can handle a weapon, but I'm certainly not proficient and would not consider myself prepared to draw and fire in less than a second. That's probably why I don't own a gun now. At this point it's just one more hole to throw time and money into and personally the cost-benefit analysis just doesn't work out for me. I take a much bigger risk riding my bike around the cagers than I do by heading into the woods. I did used to have a shotgun, which I consider to be a very functional, all-purpose weapon in case the food truck stops showing up and the riots break out, but my brother stole it and pawned it for drugs. My dad offered to replace it but I never got around to shopping. So many trails, so little time.

The only reason I post in these threads (which there have been several) is to point out how dumb it is to think that a gun in your backpack is going to do sh!t for you. I'll stand by that opinion, and at the same time fully support an American's right to put a gun in their camelbak if it makes them feel better about taking a bike ride. Defense is a losing game from the start, and since most of these threads are about defense, either from cougars or humans, most people posting don't seem to understand how to be defensive.

auto - First, I just want to say I have a lot of respect for the fact that you train the way you do. I feel like if we had this conversation over a beverage instead of the internet it wouldn't have been so confrontational, but who knows. I do have to say that I'm surprised a person with your skills isn't more outspoken about the need for training. Since you are obviously more knowledgeable about gun culture than I am, what percentage of gun owners train to the level that you train? I'd bet a month's salary you are in a small minority. Second, where is your gun when you're out riding?


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

A bit off topic...

What's a good way to carry a hunting rifle while mountain biking? My dad is interested in using a bike to get into the backcountry on his property, and I'm interested in helping him out.

I was thinking about having a modified pannier over the rear wheel that holds the gun vertically on one side of the bike, and he can balance the weight with gear on the other side.

What do you guys think?


----------



## auto (Aug 27, 2009)

Dogbrain said:


> I
> 
> auto - First, I just want to say I have a lot of respect for the fact that you train the way you do. I feel like if we had this conversation over a beverage instead of the internet it wouldn't have been so confrontational, but who knows. I do have to say that I'm surprised a person with your skills isn't more outspoken about the need for training. Since you are obviously more knowledgeable about gun culture than I am, what percentage of gun owners train to the level that you train? I'd bet a month's salary you are in a small minority. Second, where is your gun when you're out riding?


Of course the internet is poor medium for gauging personality and itent and I am opionated on this one subject, and am sure we could have a pleasant conversation and probably agree on a lot of points.

I personally think people who do not train are leaving things up to chance and that greatly reduces their chance to live and survive. I am however a huge live and let live person, and if people choose not to dump time and money into training, practice as I do so be it.:thumbsup:


----------



## popcorn8888 (Jun 15, 2010)

_...The only reason I post in these threads (which there have been several) is to point out how dumb it is to think that a gun in your backpack is going to do sh!t for you...._

Yes. One must have immediate access. Small fanny packs seem to work well.
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/49600-33.html


----------



## High Side (Apr 16, 2010)

I am a pretty big 2A advocate and I don't carry a gun anymore. I used to all the time. If I ever feel the need to, I will.

Arguing with a lib is pointless. Just let them wallow in their inanity.


----------



## 006_007 (Jan 12, 2004)

I assume we carry the beer in the pack?


----------



## big0mike (Jun 11, 2010)

CaveGiant said:


> Just read one story about a kid accidentally being shot by thinking his parents gun was a toy. Well his parents didn't need the gun, it was essentially a toy and they killed their child through ignorance.


Cleaning out the gene pool. We need more of this...

To the OP... I always carried my full-size Kimber in a Galco fanny pack whipped around to my backside, just underneath my Camelbak. Never felt heavy or got in the way.


----------



## static_mass (May 14, 2010)

*more than you know...*

I got curious a while ago and looked up some statistics on the PA state police website because I live in PA. According to their 2007 firearms report, there were 164,824 concealed carry permits issued that year in all PA cities of the first class (which really is only Philadelphia to my knowledge).

Philadelphia's reported population in July 2007, according to Google, was 1,448,631.

( 164,824 / 1,448,631 ) * 100% = 11.4%

What does that mean for me? It means that more than 1 in 10 people I come across every single day, even just standing in line at the supermarket or going to the doctor's office, are licensed to conceal a firearm.

1 in 10.

Think about that for a moment.



Why is this good? Well, for one thing, you know that more and more people are being background checked. A carry permit is a good sign that someone is not known to the state police to have a criminal or mental background. It's not bombproof, but that's at least more than you can say about anyone who doesn't have a permit.


----------



## big0mike (Jun 11, 2010)

static_mass said:


> Philadelphia's reported population in July 2007, according to Google, was 1,448,631. ( 164,824 / 1,448,631 ) * 100% = 11.4%
> 
> What does that mean for me? It means that more than 1 in 10 people I come across every single day, even just standing in line at the supermarket or going to the doctor's office, are licensed to conceal a firearm.


And, keep in mind that if PA mirrors AZ there have only been something like .05% of CCW holders convicted of crimes that would repeal their CCW. That means that (if my memory and facts are correct) out of 164k CCW holders only about 800 of them will ever commit a serious/violent crime.


----------



## static_mass (May 14, 2010)

It seems I initially misread the report-- that was the total # issued for the state in 2007, not just cities of the first class. That changes the percentage; it's a little over 1 in 100 people for the entire state.

That only counts permits that were issued in 2007 though. They need to be renewed every 5 years, so the number is actually higher. 1 in 100 should be a very safe minimum though, especially considering there were almost half a million firearms transfers in the state that same year.


----------



## simian23 (Aug 13, 2004)

*Two points*

1. I have yet to meet a fellow American that has a fear / hatred / suspicion of socialism that knows the first thing about it. The word has a negative connotation in much of Europe too, FYI. And for much better reasons than morons like McCarthy.

2. Having utmost respect for the constitution I would never deny a man the right to carry a firearm legally while mtn biking. Nor would I deny myself the right to laugh and laugh and laugh at that man.

I guess you didn't start this thread looking to be judged, but the idea of riding with a firearm is just...WTF. Where are you riding, in Peshawar? It's like someone asking, "Hey, I'd like to carry Webster's Unabridged Dictionary with me on the trail, because you never know when you'll absolutely have to know the meaning of the word "acatalepsy"!

As for the mirror, I think a mirror on the back of your hand that someone suggested is a great idea, but simple verbal communication and stopping at every trail intersection should be more than enough.


----------



## AusMTB Orienteer (Jun 30, 2006)

i got to wonder though
the high rate of firearm related incidents ie the shooting at the side of the road.
could that have been avoided if that person did not have access to a firearm in the first place.
a constitutional right to bear firearms means that any idiot can get his hands on a gun and does.. 
Next question, gun owners in a situation to defend themselves. ask yourself this question. can you kill someone or something. sounds stupid but it isn't. there are a lot of messed up ppl from firearms situations where they had to take a human life. Have a look at your own military from Irag/Afghanistan to see a true reflection of what using a firearem against a person probably will do to you.
A guy here in aus when I did security training did all this, was involved in an armed robbery he was forced to shoot to protect.
He was taken off active duty and could only work in money sorting because he was so messed up psychologically from the experience.
So I listen to the arguement about the right of every american to carry fireams and wonder why so many people are killed by firearms in the US
for example the washington sniper. would he have gone on his rampage if he didn't have access to a high powered weapon
I'm not saying either that no one should allowed firearms. there are legit reasons to carry a fire arm than simply because I can
ie farmers protecting stock.
all others can have firearms but how about keeping them where you are more likely to use them at say the range than on you.
Saying that...if I where carrying a firearm on a bike it would be for a good reason, ie somewhere where there is a high threat area then i would have a holster devised that clips on the front near the head tupe with two restraining straps and a clip on fly off restraint for quick access if necessary. maybe try looking at military providers as they often have to design holsters for access in vehicles and other difficult situations, I'm sure they might have something that would suit.
BTW before you shoot me down I work for DoD with people who use high powered weapons everyday and used to be a submariner and deal everyday with people who have been to a warzone to fight.


----------



## big0mike (Jun 11, 2010)

AusMTB Orienteer said:


> So I listen to the arguement about the right of every american to carry fireams and wonder why so many people are killed by firearms in the US.


Because, in general, the US populace is a bunch of spineless pu$$ies that refuse to punish people properly. If you take a life in the commission of a crime you should be executed. There's no logical argument (not in my mind anyway) against that. I don't give a sh1t if your daddy wasn't around or your mommy abused you or you were raised on welfare. Get over it and make something of your life or rely on a life of crime and risk being executed for them.

If we weren't spineless and executed murderers, drug dealers, gang bangers, pedophiles, rapists, bank robbers, etc... like they deserve there'd be a helluva lot less of them.

The problem is that we don't. And the criminals don't fear being locked up. That's a status symbol and in many cases the criminals heaven. We aren't doing them or society any favors by locking them up. They need to be killed.


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

When guns r outlawed, only the outlaws have guns.
I do not believe in killing people even if there's no dought they are guilty of murder. Just a big waste. Donate their live body to science. Leave the inocent animals alone.
Yes, jail is like a school for criminals, and a money making bussines in this country.


----------



## CaveGiant (Aug 21, 2007)

theMeat said:


> When guns r outlawed, only the outlaws have guns.
> I do not believe in killing people even if there's no dought they are guilty of murder. Just a big waste. Donate their live body to science. Leave the inocent animals alone.
> Yes, jail is like a school for criminals, and a money making bussines in this country.


I like the second bit, but have to disagree with the "when guns are outlawed, only the outlaws have guns"

There is some truth to this, but it is oversimplified.

There is always going to be a hardened element of scum who will get guns no matter what. The ban will affect the next stage of less scummy people who will stop carrying. availabiity of firearms will go down massivly as well, this might take years for them to mostly trickle out of the chain, but they will go.

Handgguns were banned a while back in the UK, most gun crime is now done with shotguns (still allowed).


----------



## static_mass (May 14, 2010)

I'm not sure if this has been stated, but laws can only control law-abiding people. Criminals have access to guns on the black market, and you can never regulate that. What it comes down to is that the criminals have guns, because they don't go through the proper channels to get them anyway, but law-abiding folks don't. That just doesn't seem fair.


----------



## static_mass (May 14, 2010)

I don't think you can ever prevent crime. If you do somehow have a way to eliminate all firearms (legal and illegal), people will use knives. Or shovels. Or sticks. Whatever cave-man used to wage violence.


----------



## HamfisT (Mar 31, 2010)

Guns don't kill people....


It's the bullet that does all the damage!


----------



## MrOldLude (May 10, 2010)

I keep an Ruger LCP in my pocket when I feel a desire to carry. 

lulz @ a mirror though.


----------



## hardwarz (Jun 12, 2009)

HamfisT said:


> Guns don't kill people....
> 
> It's the bullet that does all the damage!


Actually, my guns and all my personally purchased ammunition have killed/injured less people than Ted Kennedy's car.

As far as ammunition purchased for me by Uncle Sam... that's a different story.


----------



## hardwarz (Jun 12, 2009)

CaveGiant said:


> Handgguns were banned a while back in the UK, most gun crime is now done with shotguns (still allowed).


How come you never talk about the increase in knife crimes in the UK?


----------



## jdubau55 (Jun 1, 2010)

Trail Ninja said:


> What would the weight of your gun & holster be? I could imagine that being a little uncomfortable to ride with a couple of pounds strapped to one leg. Maybe before buying the holster, try riding around with a similar weight tied or taped on.


TCP loaded is still probably under a lb. unloaded is around 10 oz.

A thigh rig would have a strap to retain the pistol just like a police issue holster that comes across the butt\grip of the firearm securing it in the holster.


----------



## js_paddle07 (Jun 18, 2008)

This entire thread looks like it was written by an adult from _Peanuts_.

For the ones who carry guns while riding, be careful and don't shoot me. For the ones who don't, use the extra Camelbak space for tubes or a copy of Capitalism: A Love Story by Michael Moore.


----------



## popcorn8888 (Jun 15, 2010)

CaveGiant said:


> I like the second bit, but have to disagree with the "when guns are outlawed, only the outlaws have guns"
> 
> There is some truth to this, but it is oversimplified.
> 
> ...


Oh, silly, silly, CAVEGIANT. Did you just ignore all the information I gave you about crime and crime rates in the UK? Do you just want to pretend that the UK's 1997 handgun ban has resulted in an increase of crime. Let me give you a little UK history lesson. Remember British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's participation in the the 1938 Munich Pact among Germany, Great Britain, France and Italy as a way to avoid violence. He believed that he had secured "peace for our time." So, tell me, how did that Brit's decision work out for you. As the saying goes: "Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it." - Winston Churchill. So, now you're disarming civilians. How's that handgun ban working out for you? Based on what I've seen, pretty poorly I'd say. You can pretend all you want to, but the UK is not the safe Utopia you seem to think it is.

Silly, silly CAVEGIANT


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

popcorn8888 said:


> Oh, silly, silly,... blah, blah, blah...
> 
> ...Silly, silly....


the baiting isn't necessary.....you 2 simply have a different opinion....on _guns_....in the noob section of a _mountain bike forum_.....


----------



## popcorn8888 (Jun 15, 2010)

CHUM said:


> the baiting isn't necessary.....you 2 simply have a different opinion....on _guns_....in the noob section of a _mountain bike forum_.....


Shame on you! :nono:

This picture is just making fun of mentally challenged individuals. I had hoped that people, in general, had stopped making fun of those with handicaps.

You should just be ashamed of yourself.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

popcorn8888 said:


> .....You should just be ashamed of yourself.


apparently you have not reviewed my sig....

:lol:


----------



## chas_martel (May 14, 2006)

CaveGiant said:


> We don't have the right to free speech in the UK... overruled by the terrorism act =-(


Cool, then you are not likely to be offended by my next comment.

STFU!


----------



## chas_martel (May 14, 2006)

johnny dollar said:


> shifters and extra banana clips in my pack.


ARGRGRGRGRGR!

IT is not called a clip! It is called a magazine. A clip holds rounds and is used to charge
a magazine or firearm, it is not used while firing the firearm. A magazine holds ammo while it is attached to the firearm and is attached while you are firing the firearm.

An AK-47 uses magazines, an M1 Garand uses clips.


----------



## big0mike (Jun 11, 2010)

static_mass said:


> I'm not sure if this has been stated, but laws can only control law-abiding people.


Don't go trying to make sense, dammit!


----------



## Superorb (Apr 7, 2009)

I hate these threads, it always comes down to people thinking a gun ban will magically make ALL guns disappear. If a criminal breaks laws on a daily basis, why will he all of a sudden abide by the law and give up his handgun? NOBODY can answer this for me. A gun ban will only remove guns from law abiding citizens, NOT from criminals. Period. End of discussion.

EDIT: Looks like others have mentioned what I've said already. I guess some people just lack common sense and any form of logic.


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

Superorb said:


> EDIT: Looks like others have mentioned what I've said already. I guess some people just lack common sense and any form of logic.


Something tells me that's not it.

P.S. It's a good idea to avoid logical fallacies when making such accusations.


----------



## big0mike (Jun 11, 2010)

Superorb said:


> If a criminal breaks laws on a daily basis, why will he all of a sudden abide by the law and give up his handgun? NOBODY can answer this for me.


I'll answer it for you. *The criminal WILL NOT "all of a sudden abide by the law". *That's the answer and anyone who believes otherwise is a fool... at best. More likely they are the kid in the above photo... :ciappa:


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

A gun is like pot. You can make owning it illegal, but you won't stop people from getting it whenever they want.

And eventually California will consider repealing the ban to help stimulate the economy.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Nugent

" I dont like repeat offenders , I like dead offenders "


----------



## Superorb (Apr 7, 2009)

big0mike said:


> I'll answer it for you. *The criminal WILL NOT "all of a sudden abide by the law". *That's the answer and anyone who believes otherwise is a fool... at best. More likely they are the kid in the above photo... ciappa:


I was hoping people would read between the lines and come up with this thought on their own so they'd realize it themselves.


----------



## johnny dollar (Nov 17, 2009)

chas_martel said:


> ARGRGRGRGRGR!


gangbangers don't call them banana magazines. too many syllables.










then again...



chas_martel said:


> __________________
> Nobody cares...........


----------



## STT GUY (May 19, 2009)

CaveGiant said:


> That was a fun thread.
> 
> Occasionally worth a re-read for a laugh.
> 
> ...


Well, you need a permit to carry a firearm... but any idiot can pop out a kid..food for thought in there somewhere.


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

Oh, so all those people who get shot with illegal guns get wounded needlessly? We just have to let them know about that permit thing. Sadly, in most urban locals its easier to get 1 illegally.


----------



## big0mike (Jun 11, 2010)

big0mike said:


> I'll answer it for you. *The criminal WILL NOT "all of a sudden abide by the law". *That's the answer and anyone who believes otherwise is a fool... at best. More likely they are the kid in the above photo... :ciappa:
> 
> 
> Superorb said:
> ...


People that are so adamantly (and illlogically) against EVIL firearms do not have the brain power to come up with that. If they did they wouldn't insist that people give up their guns to make us safer.



STT GUY said:


> Well, you need a permit to carry a firearm... but any idiot can pop out a kid..food for thought in there somewhere.
> 
> 
> theMeat said:
> ...


I take the comment in two ways.

1. People are generally extremely stupid. I can walk into any Walmart (I know, *mart is an easy place to find white trash) and see dozens of people leading a horde of children through the store that have no business owning 1 welfare check let alone a whole slew of them. Does this world really need more kids born to parents that don't have the intelligence, common sense, and skills to be good parents? You need permits and licenses to do a lot in society and I believe having a kid should be one. At the very least an IQ test should be administered. Ideally, some type of sterilization would be performed on females BEFORE they are able to start shitting out babies (since nowadays they are obviously too fraking stupid to prevent pregnancy) and only when they are married would the sterilization be reversed. But, the entire above paragraph would infringe on society's "right" (which I don't think exists) to pollute the gene pool with children we don't need. And it's deserving of it's own flame thread...

2. People are generally extremely stupid. Thinking about extremely stupid people walking around with a firearm definitely scares me. The problem is the 2nd amendment doesn't require any kind of IQ test. Ideally (and hopefully back in the day the 2nd amendment was written) people that were too stupid to own a firearm simply didn't. But, the 2nd amendment says the federal gubment (most states also have an identical law or amendment in their state constitutions but many choose to ignore it) can not deny my right to bear arms. Any arms, carried any manner, in any place. My solution is that if you ILLEGALLY take a life with your firearm you forfeit your life. It would take a few needless deaths but after a short while we'd weed both out the stupid people and inform the remaining & new stupid people that if they choose to carry they'd better not act as stupid as they really are.


----------



## Superorb (Apr 7, 2009)

^^ While I agree with you, the NAACP would be all over you for the 1st and 2nd point, and everyone else will be all over you for the 2nd point.

Our infrastructure is already buckling, and now we've got more and more people (here illegally and legally) popping out kids like a friggin factory and things are only going to get worse. Either the gov't needs more money to handle this influx of kids or there needs to be limits placed on kids born. China has been doing that for a while. I don't want to turn this thread into a pissing match though so I'll leave it at that.


----------

