New posts

How often do you take your gun when you ride?

Dec. 11, 2019, 1:13 p.m.
Posts: 239
Joined: Sept. 10, 2012

On a serious note one thing to consider is if you have a direct encounter with a bear that requires you to use bear spray you really need to have multiple cans because the bear you sprayed may not have been fully deterred even if you were able to repel them during the initial encounter. This is less of a concern in a front country setting where retreat to a vehicle is fast and easy vs. a backcountry setting where you might be days away from a vehicle.

I like to carry bear bangers with plenty of cartridges [like 9 or 12] plus one bear spray per person so hopefully several in the group. I've never had to use bear spray in anger, but I have used bangers on a number of occasions and they have been effective at turning bears around at a safe distance from me.

Bear spray has a limited shelf life so check the expiry date before every trip and use expired cans [in a safe area] as practice to get used to how the spray deploys in real life.

Dec. 11, 2019, 6:40 p.m.
Posts: 4
Joined: Feb. 24, 2017

Live in BC and actually have a legal sawed-off shotgun that I keep in aback holster beside my Camelback pack when riding upcountry.

Dec. 12, 2019, 9:06 a.m.
Posts: 3
Joined: May 17, 2017

I live and ride in AZ (another state where you should assume most people are packing due to our gun laws), and the only time I have ever felt th need to bring a handgun in my pack would be on a solo night ride for self defense from a mountain lion or something of the sort.  I've never felt threatened by anything else and needed to ride with a piece showing as a deterrent, but I have seen some big cats out there and while it may be a lost cause to have it in my pack and having to dig it out, I do feel marginally safer having it available.

Dec. 12, 2019, 12:01 p.m.
Posts: 12782
Joined: Nov. 24, 2002

Posted by: blaklabl

I live and ride in AZ (another state where you should assume most people are packing due to our gun laws), and the only time I have ever felt th need to bring a handgun in my pack would be on a solo night ride for self defense from a mountain lion or something of the sort.  I've never felt threatened by anything else and needed to ride with a piece showing as a deterrent, but I have seen some big cats out there and while it may be a lost cause to have it in my pack and having to dig it out, I do feel marginally safer having it available.

Wow....big cats are scary....kind of like your ordinary Hello Kitty just the size of a St Bernhard's. 

I could imagine a larger knife on the shoulder strap of my pack would be easier to handle if attacked. If I were just followed I'd carry some bangers. 

But....the area where I ride has just a serious issue with wild boars and maybe a few wolves and lynxes. So nothing to worry about. 

On a side note...as a Euro I do not really get the whole gun ownership but it is really nice that the debate on here is thoughtful and well mannered.

Dec. 14, 2019, 10:55 a.m.
Posts: 3502
Joined: Dec. 17, 2003

This thread delivers.

Canadian exceptionalism, misunderstanding the 2A, misunderstanding what Americans can legally do with their owned firearms and a good dose of holier than thouism. Add in some bad statistics (looking at you VikB) and misunderstanding about whether America is a Democracy or not and what that means. But about what I would expect for NSMB talking about firearms and Americans. Subjects most Canadians are ignorant about IMO.

America is a different country, with a different cultural origin. Where Canadians stayed as happy subjects of the Crown (and are still generally happy to be subjects) Americans threw off the yoke. Everything from then on diverged their culture from ours. In the 1700's the folks who were white on this continent were not much different, whether they were North or South of the 49th parallel. Comparing Canada to the US is about as meaningful as comparing the US to Mexico, despite our 'common' language.

None of us up here generally 'get it' IMO, as the cultural differences are constantly reinforced (especially over the last 20-30 years up here from what I've seen and read). Canada has continued to push a civilian disarmament plan, where as Americans have gone the other way. Despite that gun culture (because of it?) homicide rates continue to fall in the US and Gun Culture 2.0 is racially diverse . Canadian gun owners are still culturally much more homogeneous - old white guys etc. In the States, firearms ownership is growing rapidly among young ethnically diverse urban dwellers, and they're not buying hunting rifles.

The streets don't actually run with blood down there - most deaths are suicides (60%) or gang related (22-27%). Accidental deaths run about 3% (<1000 per year VikB). That leaves between 10-15% (3200-4800 in 2011 #s) as what most of us would think of as interpersonal homicides. Avoid shooting yourself, don't deal drugs or hang out with dealers and you have a pretty slim chance of getting shot. Those figures were from 2011 but homicide rates are down about 50% from the 1990s, so pretty valid IMO. The endless news media cycle tries to persuade us that things are different with their constant coverage of murder and mayhem - if it bleeds it leads!

The 2A was written expressly with the intent to allow regular people to defend against a tyrannical government. They'd experienced that once already and knew what they were talking about. Syncro's point about a musket being different to an AR15 is a typical red herring. At the time of the War of Independence, many Americans were BETTER armed than the Redcoats - they had rifles which were more accurate than the muskets which were literally unable to hit a man outside of 50 yards - they didn't fight in big lines because they liked the symmetry. Against that were colonials who could often kill a man at 200 yards or more due to the better accuracy of their firearms. The Supreme Court in the US has actually ruled that NON military firearms are NOT covered by the 2A! Most folks don't know that. So owning something that is not an AR15 or derived from a military type firearm puts you at more jeopardy than owning a select fire assault rifle. Why would you expect to restrict people to a firearm that is less capable if you expect them to defend themselves against the government that you expect to try and tyrannize them. IMO that argument is usually made by people who say things like "Well defending yourself against the government is ridiculous, you could never do that." Or "governments never harm their own citizens!". Both of which are patently false to even a casual student of history. Disarmament is usually the first thing governments do before subjecting their citizens to violence.

Of course the Founders of the US were against democracy - because they understood that democracy is fickle mob rule and nothing more. Most people don't understand that we don't live in a democracy, so when they see stuff like was posted above they think that can be used to attack the intent of the founding of the USA, which is ridiculous.

Americans CAN NOT just shoot after a truck that has run them off the road as it speeds away. And that's not what the OP represented the PB question as. But it's no wonder that a Canadian might think that it's what is OK down there - as it suits everybody involved in disarmament to paint a picture of a lawless society with everybody blasting away at each other. Of course that goes to my point about the streets not generally running with blood. Depending on your State, you can't even necessarily shoot a violent home invader without suffering the consequences of punishment by trial. In some States in the US, if someone is breaking through your barricaded bedroom door screaming that they're going to rape and kill you, you STILL cannot shoot them through the door despite the obvious threat to your life. The US does not have universal 'Castle Doctrine' which is what many Canadians seem to think applies when they think of the States. Using your firearm to defend yourself IS permissible in Canadian law - just expect that you're going to spend years defending yourself in court, after you've defended yourself in fact. I did read a statistic recently that suggested that US burglars preferred empty homes compared to Canadian burglars due to the risk attendant to their crime in the US, but I can't find again it to reference it here.

To answer your question OP - I would use something like this from Hill People Gear - it wouldn't serve as much of a deterrent against rednecks but there's not much point carrying a pistol that isn't accessible when you need it. At the bottom of my Camelbak where it's settled after riding for a couple of hours is a pointless place for a pistol, but then so is carrying one on your hip. Open carry is dumb IMO and makes you the obvious target. With that said, it's unlikely that I would carry while mountain biking even in the US. I struggle with wanting to carry what friends consider essentials when riding up here, and expecting to add a pistol into that mix would probably double my load! Unless I was riding in an area that i thought I was likely to be targeted in, there would be no need. The best way to avoid being a victim is to avoid areas where you're more likely to be victimized. I'd be generally happy to carry concealed in the US outside of riding my bike - or swimming. probably wouldn't tuck a Glock in my speedos. Defensive gun use is a nebulous # but even on the low end is thought to run 500,000 per year (high end 3 MILLION) - instances when having a gun has prevented victimization, robbery or death. Canadians for good reason can't wrap their heads around that idea.

Edit: If any NSMBrs want to come shooting - drop me a line. Ammo's on me. Come and see how safe and regulated Canadian firearms owners are.


 Last edited by: nouseforaname on Dec. 14, 2019, 11:46 a.m., edited 1 time in total.
Dec. 14, 2019, 1:08 p.m.
Posts: 512
Joined: March 15, 2013

You know what I know? There are a lot of generalizations in this thread.

Dec. 14, 2019, 5:12 p.m.
Posts: 33207
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002

America has a fearful culture, which is why they have an unnecessary desire for firearms.

Dec. 14, 2019, 9:47 p.m.
Posts: 1072
Joined: Nov. 8, 2003

I think it's one thing to bring a firearm home while recognizing the many fold increase risk of death to you and your family, and quite another to bring a gun home with delusional notions of being a good-guy-with-a-gun and believing the gun safety stats are a liberal conspiracy.

That second group is scary.

Dec. 15, 2019, 8:41 a.m.
Posts: 244
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

Posted by: nouseforaname

Syncro's point about a musket being different to an AR15 is a typical red herring. At the time of the War of Independence, many Americans were BETTER armed than the Redcoats - they had rifles which were more accurate than the muskets which were literally unable to hit a man outside of 50 yards - they didn't fight in big lines because they liked the symmetry. Against that were colonials who could often kill a man at 200 yards or more due to the better accuracy of their firearms. The Supreme Court in the US has actually ruled that NON military firearms are NOT covered by the 2A! Most folks don't know that. So owning something that is not an AR15 or derived from a military type firearm puts you at more jeopardy than owning a select fire assault rifle. Why would you expect to restrict people to a firearm that is less capable if you expect them to defend themselves against the government that you expect to try and tyrannize them. IMO that argument is usually made by people who say things like "Well defending yourself against the government is ridiculous, you could never do that." Or "governments never harm their own citizens!". Both of which are patently false to even a casual student of history. Disarmament is usually the first thing governments do before subjecting their citizens to violence.

While the part about muskets may not have been bang on (ha!), the general point I was making about firearms still stands. There is a pretty wide margin between the firearms of today and 300 years ago, especially when it comes to hand guns. And while the point you make about the 2nd Amendment is true, that also speaks to the main point I was making; society today is quite different from 300 years ago and to expect the rules we live under to not change at all is it a bit unrealistic. 2A is an amendment, it's not impervious to change.

I don't think most people here are calling for a ban on guns, just improved regulations around purchasing and owning them. That's one of the main issues with firearm ownership in the US in my opinion, there is a wide variation in regulations. Some states have what seem like fairly sensible regulations and other states have very little. It's like having a no peeing section in a pool - not very effective. The other thing I see is that the pro-gun lobby seems completely opposed to any talk about firearm regulation, if it comes up they basically loose their shit. 

When it comes to Canada I think we have fairly sensible laws for the most part, but I still think there is room for improvement. Some of that is would be in favour of firearm owners and some would be in  favour of stronger regulations. The recent moves announced by the Liberals are not waht I would call an improvement.

Dec. 16, 2019, 7:31 a.m.
Posts: 3502
Joined: Dec. 17, 2003

Posted by: syncro

While the part about muskets may not have been bang on (ha!), the general point I was making about firearms still stands. There is a pretty wide margin between the firearms of today and 300 years ago, especially when it comes to hand guns. And while the point you make about the 2nd Amendment is true, that also speaks to the main point I was making; society today is quite different from 300 years ago and to expect the rules we live under to not change at all is it a bit unrealistic. 2A is an amendment, it's not impervious to change.

I don't think most people here are calling for a ban on guns, just improved regulations around purchasing and owning them. That's one of the main issues with firearm ownership in the US in my opinion, there is a wide variation in regulations. Some states have what seem like fairly sensible regulations and other states have very little. It's like having a no peeing section in a pool - not very effective. The other thing I see is that the pro-gun lobby seems completely opposed to any talk about firearm regulation, if it comes up they basically loose their shit.

When it comes to Canada I think we have fairly sensible laws for the most part, but I still think there is room for improvement. Some of that is would be in favour of firearm owners and some would be in favour of stronger regulations. The recent moves announced by the Liberals are not waht I would call an improvement.

How much of a margin between 18th century freedom of speech and what we have now? He types on his computer. There is a slim margin between society of 50 years ago and today - there is no firearm on the market that is novelly different from what was available 50 or 60 years ago. 40 years ago, you could buy a select fire rifle or an actual machine gun. You could buy real assault rifles just like the military had - actual M16s with full auto not just AR15 semi automatics. Want an M2 Browning, sure no prob. What has changed for the worse since then, you can't buy an assault rifle any more, so things should be better right. Why are things 'worse' now than they were 40 years ago?

States with the strictest regulations have the most problems - when will enough regulation be enough? There are already laws about transporting firearms, shipping firearms across state lines (has to go to a FFL, not your home), mandatory background checks for all purchases - what law can you propose? (Serious Q, answers like 'take them away' or other unicorn reliant solutions don't count).

What stronger regulations would you propose for Canadian firearms owners - that aren't "this gun is scary, you can't own it"? And what improvement in favour of firearms owners would you propose?


 Last edited by: nouseforaname on Dec. 16, 2019, 8:25 a.m., edited 1 time in total.
Dec. 16, 2019, 12:22 p.m.
Posts: 33207
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002

States with the strictest regulations have the most problems...

BS.  States with strict regulations, that are bordered by states with strict regulations, have the least problems.  States with the least restrictions have the most incidents of mass shootings.

The laws work, when applied appropriately.

Dec. 16, 2019, 12:54 p.m.
Posts: 1783
Joined: May 23, 2006

Posted by: nouseforaname

The streets don't actually run with blood down there - most deaths are suicides (60%) or gang related (22-27%). Accidental deaths run about 3% (<1000 per year VikB). That leaves between 10-15% (3200-4800 in 2011 #s) as what most of us would think of as interpersonal homicides. Avoid shooting yourself, don't deal drugs or hang out with dealers and you have a pretty slim chance of getting shot. Those figures were from 2011 but homicide rates are down about 50% from the 1990s, so pretty valid IMO. The endless news media cycle tries to persuade us that things are different with their constant coverage of murder and mayhem - if it bleeds it leads!

++++++++++++++++++++++

Guns killed nearly 40,000 Americans in 2017, according to official statistics, which only counts cases if guns were "the principal cause" of death but not if they only "contributed" to it; that is 4.43 deaths per 100,000. By contrast, the death rate from gun violence in Japan and the United Kingdom is 0.04 and 0.06 respectively.

About two-thirds of all gun deaths in the US are suicides. This tells us there is plenty of despair. It has gone up by 33 percent in the last two decades while the global suicide rate has declined by 30 percent in roughly the same period.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/drugs-guns-despair-america-killing-americans-191210154703005.html

++++++++++

The 2A was written expressly with the intent to allow regular people to defend against a tyrannical government.

Of course the Founders of the US were against democracy - because they understood that democracy is fickle mob rule and nothing more. Most people don't understand that we don't live in a democracy, so when they see stuff like was posted above they think that can be used to attack the intent of the founding of the USA, which is ridiculous.

Yeah no it's not yes they can and no it isn't. Jeez........

Edit: If any NSMBrs want to come shooting - drop me a line. Ammo's on me. Come and see how safe and regulated Canadian firearms owners are.

Cool! Got an outdoor location where we can film it so we can post up here and make Vikb's skin crawl? You, know, the anti-gun guy who rides a bike with silhouettes of Colt SA revolvers on his chain stays?

But no 2nd admendment discussions ok? I wouldn't want our little outing to end in bloodshed. heh...

ps - I can bring my own ammo

Dec. 16, 2019, 4:17 p.m.
Posts: 3502
Joined: Dec. 17, 2003

Posted by: tungsten

Posted by: nouseforaname

The streets don't actually run with blood down there - most deaths are suicides (60%) or gang related (22-27%). Accidental deaths run about 3% (<1000 per year VikB). That leaves between 10-15% (3200-4800 in 2011 #s) as what most of us would think of as interpersonal homicides. Avoid shooting yourself, don't deal drugs or hang out with dealers and you have a pretty slim chance of getting shot. Those figures were from 2011 but homicide rates are down about 50% from the 1990s, so pretty valid IMO. The endless news media cycle tries to persuade us that things are different with their constant coverage of murder and mayhem - if it bleeds it leads!

++++++++++++++++++++++

Guns killed nearly 40,000 Americans in 2017, according to official statistics, which only counts cases if guns were "the principal cause" of death but not if they only "contributed" to it; that is 4.43 deaths per 100,000. By contrast, the death rate from gun violence in Japan and the United Kingdom is 0.04 and 0.06 respectively.

About two-thirds of all gun deaths in the US are suicides. This tells us there is plenty of despair. It has gone up by 33 percent in the last two decades while the global suicide rate has declined by 30 percent in roughly the same period.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/drugs-guns-despair-america-killing-americans-191210154703005.html

++++++++++

The 2A was written expressly with the intent to allow regular people to defend against a tyrannical government.

Of course the Founders of the US were against democracy - because they understood that democracy is fickle mob rule and nothing more. Most people don't understand that we don't live in a democracy, so when they see stuff like was posted above they think that can be used to attack the intent of the founding of the USA, which is ridiculous.

[b]Yeah no it's not yes they can and no it isn't. Jeez........[\b]

Edit: If any NSMBrs want to come shooting - drop me a line. Ammo's on me. Come and see how safe and regulated Canadian firearms owners are.

Cool! Got an outdoor location where we can film it so we can post up here and make Vikb's skin crawl? You, know, the anti-gun guy who rides a bike with silhouettes of Colt SA revolvers on his chain stays?

But no 2nd admendment discussions ok? I wouldn't want our little outing to end in bloodshed. heh...

ps - I can bring my own ammo

I'm not sure what you meant by the bolded section.

Your numbers broadly track with mine - so I think you're in agreement with me that if you're not suicidal or dealing drugs, you have a low chance of dying by firearm?

I'm a member at PCDHFC - we can discuss the 2A all you want. A video would be pretty dull because safe and well regulated really translates as dull.

I don't end political conversations with gunfire. I hope you're not projecting.

Dec. 16, 2019, 5:36 p.m.
Posts: 244
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

Posted by: nouseforaname

How much of a margin between 18th century freedom of speech and what we have now? He types on his computer. There is a slim margin between society of 50 years ago and today - there is no firearm on the market that is novelly different from what was available 50 or 60 years ago. 40 years ago, you could buy a select fire rifle or an actual machine gun. You could buy real assault rifles just like the military had - actual M16s with full auto not just AR15 semi automatics. Want an M2 Browning, sure no prob. What has changed for the worse since then, you can't buy an assault rifle any more, so things should be better right. Why are things 'worse' now than they were 40 years ago?

States with the strictest regulations have the most problems - when will enough regulation be enough? There are already laws about transporting firearms, shipping firearms across state lines (has to go to a FFL, not your home), mandatory background checks for all purchases - what law can you propose? (Serious Q, answers like 'take them away' or other unicorn reliant solutions don't count).

What stronger regulations would you propose for Canadian firearms owners - that aren't "this gun is scary, you can't own it"? And what improvement in favour of firearms owners would you propose?

Not sure how much of a margin, but I think it's safe to say there is less freedom of speech now than in the 18th C. 

I'll disagree on there being a slim margin of society between now and 50 years ago, but if one is a white male I can see how they might make that assumption. Re firearms being not much different 50 years ago sure, but the constitution wasn't written 50 years ago either. 

Re states with the strictest regs - that'a fallacy, but switch already caught that. It's a bit of a red herring too. 

re firearm regs here in Canada, I'd like to see improved mental health checks, on an annual basis. Got a gun?  Get a checkup from a doc once a year. I'd like to see some sort of regular check-up too to keep track of firearms. The long gun registry was definitely a fiasco, not sure why tho. How difficult can it be to set up a data base that tracks firearm serial numbers and owners?  I'd be okay with opening up the classification of firearms that are available a bit and opening up transportation restrictions. Maybe even allow for full auto under certain circumstances, say they'd have to be kept at an approved facility. Of course with that comes greater oversight and probably more expense.

As to why are things worse? That's a societal question. Why do people seem more likely to resort to violence, including gun violence to resolve their issues? It seems to be a somewhat prevailing attitude in the US. The thing with firearms is that even a typically competent and rational human being can fall prey to stress and emotional turmoil. Who more dangeroous, a stressed out person with a gun or a stressed out person without a gun. I think there's more truth to saying less gun violence would occur if guns weren't legal than saying less gun violence would occur if everyone had guns.  I think a lot of it comes down to the attitude towards firearms, and it seems to be too casual. When it's relatively easy to get something, people tend to have less respect for it. Maybe owning a firearm needs to move from being a right to being a privilege instead? 

Sorry this reads mostly as random thoughts, I'm just not really into the discussion all that much right now. One thing I can say for sure tho is that there is a problem with the way a large part of society views firearms and when you have a lack of respect for firearms and a lack of respect for people then people tend to die. Whether it's getting robbed of their drugs, blowing out their brains or getting shot up in school it's all pointless, firearms just make the killing easier.

Dec. 16, 2019, 6:07 p.m.
Posts: 591
Joined: Nov. 6, 2006

Sync’ do you really think that there is really less freedom of speech now? I think the complete opposite. One only needs to watch television to see how far freedom of speech has come in the last 50 yrs. Take MLK for example, in the 1800’s he would have been lynched no trial or question.

I agree with you on mental and physical exams, maybe not annually but certainly every 3 to 5 yrs. Has you age or even with certain medical conditions you need a physical to retain a drivers license. If you have failing vision should you really own guns?

Definitely don’t agree with the full auto point. Give me a good reason why any regular citizen would need a fully automatic weapon. Purely designed for killing.

Forum jump: