Gun while Riding?
81 - 100 of 176 Posts
Joined
·
870 Posts
If something happens while riding bike it will likely happen while you are riding and moving on the bike. Something could also happen when you stop at a light but are still on the bike. That said is your gun within easy reach where you could pull it out and use it? If you are moving are you able to control your bike and aim and fire a gun at the same time? Have you trained for this? If you are moving and you pull the ugn to use it how sure are you that you're going to hit your intended target? Do you want it on your conscience that you fired a gun, missed the intended target and killed a child playing in her front yard? What if a bad guy tries to use his car as a weapon to take you out? Would you pull your gun while moving on your bike? If you fired at the car and missed what about the mini-van full of a soccer mom and kids from the team going for ice cream after the game in the other lane? The bad guy is not going to wait until you stop get your gun out and use it on him. He is there to do you harm, period.
Or is your gun more for when you are stopped and off the bike? The bad guy is not going to wait for this either. If he wants to do you harm he will do it on his schedule and at the quickest oppurtunity, even if it means he does you harm while you're moving on the bike, not on your schedule when you're stopped and off the bike.
Or is your gun more for when you are stopped and off the bike? The bad guy is not going to wait for this either. If he wants to do you harm he will do it on his schedule and at the quickest oppurtunity, even if it means he does you harm while you're moving on the bike, not on your schedule when you're stopped and off the bike.
Joined
·
12,350 Posts
Seriously?
Joined
·
870 Posts
Uh yes, seriously.
Joined
·
12,350 Posts
Go take a concealed carry class, and study the law a bit.
Joined
·
870 Posts
I am not going to take a concealed carry class because I have no reason to as I do not own a gun. My educated guess is there are a lot of restrictions when using a gun. I am thinking one of them is you are not to use while moving in or on a vehicle of the roadway. I also think one is it has to be equal force with equal force. So if the bad guy does not have a deadly weapon you are not allowed to use yours.
Joined
·
12,350 Posts
Incorrect on both counts. There are no moving vehicle or roadway restrictions, but the law is very specific in some states that you have a duty to retreat. So in some cases, you would only be justified in using lethal force if there was no other option.
In my state, you are allowed to use lethal force if you feel that you are in imminent danger of harm, which would include serious injury, rape, or murder. That means that a scrawny 100lb crackhead armed with a knife may not be a threat to me, but a 300lb Pacific Islander armed with nothing but his fists could be a threat to my fiance'. Got it?
Joined
·
870 Posts
And what happens if you fire because you are in imminent danger, miss the intended target and hit and kill an innocent bystander, like a kid in the minivan in the other lane or the little girl playing in her front yard? I mena what happens besided feelign bad about it? What happens legally? Whether civil or criminal? What do the laws in your state say about that?
Joined
·
12,350 Posts
I would have to check on that. In some situations, the burden of proof would be on the shooter to prove they did not act recklessly, in other situations the burden of proof is on the state. In both cases, the shooter may be required to prove their competency when it comes to handling a weapon. Sucks to be the guy that buys a gun but never trains with it. I've been shooting for 27 years, and can count training on the local police range with the SWAT trainer.
I'm not about to shoot recklessly, and am comfortable with hitting my target within the limits of whichever weapon I carry. For my 642, that's 25' or less. If you're farther away, you're not a threat.
Joined
·
4,299 Posts
Yes one of the first things your taught is that a non accesible gun is a liability. If your going to carry you must be able to use it. the majority of possible encounters are robberies. Putting your firearm in the intended target of the offender is ignorant.
No I haven't.
98%
No. That's why I practice.
It's not that hard to get off a bike. If my accidental falling off a bike took no time I can pretty much assume that if bodily harm is immenent, I might move a touch faster.
Bullets aren't magic. The majority of bullets when fired at an intended target make contact. Those that hit hard metal objects usually fragment lose velocity and become non lethal. The bullets that do ricochet have a similar probability of still hitting the intended target as opposed to hunting down a minivan with kids and murdering them all. If you're trained in the use of firearms which to carry legally you must be.
Exactly.
Could be, the situation I'm placed in will determine my reaction. I will not place myself in harms way there fore the stipulations of engagement are not left to me.
Nope. What are you going to do? He's in a car he has a gun and your bike although being awesome is not going to carry you out to safety in the needed time frame. Your stuck.
My response although on his schedule is not what he is expecting. Having a gun pointed at you is terrifying for everybody. It is then my decision to defend myself, or suffer the consequences of not doing it. Criminals aren't the Tooth fairy. Violence isn't just something on TV. It's real and it happens. At the first sign of trouble who do you call? The police. Why? They have guns. If not they would be useless.
Joined
·
12,350 Posts
Poor grammar aside,
my state has no requirement of demonstrated ability, which is why our permits are not recognized in certain states.
Joined
·
870 Posts
I think it is that way in my state, Iowa, too. I live in Sioux City. A person can literally drive from Iowa to Nebraska and South Dakota within minutes. If you do you had better not be packing heat in the form of a hand gun. Also you can put a rifle or shotgun on a rack in the window of your truck in south Dakota, in Iowa you can not. If you come across to Iowa from South Dakota to hunt your weapon has to be in a case and unloaded. In Iowa you can not hunt deer with a rifle.Poor grammar aside,
Joined
·
4,299 Posts
Sorry Mrs. Masterson (she was my eight grade english teacher. She tried.)Poor grammar aside,
Do they at least do a background check?
Joined
·
4,299 Posts
Bow hunting only? That's weird and kinda of cool.
Joined
·
870 Posts
You can hunt deer in Iowa with a bow, shot gun and black powder. But no rifle. The reason is because of all of the farms. They do not want a stray ullet flying through a farmers kitchen window and hitting his wife or hitting a cow or hitting a propane tank.
For the record when I used to hun with my dad I have 2 deer to my credit. A buck I took while bow hunting and a doe I took with a shot gun.
Joined
·
12,350 Posts
Hey, I get paid to write.
Yes, they require a background check. And permit holders get the fee for a background check waived when purchasing a gun. Private sales require no paperwork.
Joined
·
4,299 Posts
Neat. I like hunting but it's been years since I have gone. Now all my friends have a wife and kids, responsibilities. The last time all my friends were together was Christmas and it will be next Christmas until it happens again. Damn responsibilities.
Joined
·
4,299 Posts
Fair enough.Hey, I get paid to write.
I can travel from FL to SD with a CCW as they are have receprical agreement on CCW permits. But I can NOT drive across the river to Nebraska. My CCW travels in my bow case without problems if luggage is checked all the way though.
Hack, Thats awesome. I wish I was bright enough to write well enough to get paid for it.
Hack, Thats awesome. I wish I was bright enough to write well enough to get paid for it.
Joined
·
39 Posts
For all you gun carriers
Think of the following:
According to NYPD SOP-9 (Standard Operating Procedure #9) data, in the year 2000, only 9% of shots fired by officers engaged in gunfights actually hit perpetrators at which they were fired[citation needed]. In the same year, there were a total of 129 "shooting incidents" (including non-gunfights, such as officers firing at aggressive dogs, unarmed or fleeing perpetrators, etc.), 471 total shots fired by officers, 367 shots fired at perpetrators, and 58 total hits on perpetrators by police. So, when non-gunfight shooting data is added, the rate at which police hit what they aim at in real life situations is typically only 15.8%. By either measure, the vast majority of bullets were not stopped by hitting perpetrators, but ultimately encountered some other object. The propensity of these "stray" bullets to pass through windows, walls, car doors, etc. and possibly injure bystanders is a concern, and falls into the overall risk/benefit calculation when considering how much penetration is enough.
Not only are these trained and tested officers of the law only hit what they're aiming at 15% of the time, but they are using weapons with much more stopping power than what a cyclyst would have. So even if you can hit what you're aiming at 15% of the time, it probably won't stop what you hit only make it much more determined in their attack.
l I can say is good luck
Think of the following:
According to NYPD SOP-9 (Standard Operating Procedure #9) data, in the year 2000, only 9% of shots fired by officers engaged in gunfights actually hit perpetrators at which they were fired[citation needed]. In the same year, there were a total of 129 "shooting incidents" (including non-gunfights, such as officers firing at aggressive dogs, unarmed or fleeing perpetrators, etc.), 471 total shots fired by officers, 367 shots fired at perpetrators, and 58 total hits on perpetrators by police. So, when non-gunfight shooting data is added, the rate at which police hit what they aim at in real life situations is typically only 15.8%. By either measure, the vast majority of bullets were not stopped by hitting perpetrators, but ultimately encountered some other object. The propensity of these "stray" bullets to pass through windows, walls, car doors, etc. and possibly injure bystanders is a concern, and falls into the overall risk/benefit calculation when considering how much penetration is enough.
Not only are these trained and tested officers of the law only hit what they're aiming at 15% of the time, but they are using weapons with much more stopping power than what a cyclyst would have. So even if you can hit what you're aiming at 15% of the time, it probably won't stop what you hit only make it much more determined in their attack.
l I can say is good luck
81 - 100 of 176 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!