Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Boys Attack Cyclist Who Fights Back, Kills 1 [View all]iverglas
(38,549 posts)88. nah, I'm not missin nuttin
The point you are missing is that the old guy DID take reasonable precautions. He came armed! He quickly deescalated the situation and ended the violence.
Fail.
His gun did not stop him from being attacked. Duh.
Didya watch the video? The area is desolate and deserted, from what I can tell. The kind of place where, yes indeed, geezers and anybody else should be able to go for peaceful bike rides. But should just isn't is, y'ken?
I should be able to go anywhere anytime I want without let or hindrance. The fact is that if I do that, I take a risk. I assume the risks. My choice.
What exactly did this guy plan to do with his gun, in what circumstances? He's riding a bike, an undertaking that generally takes both hands. In what circumstances would he have been able to avert harm with his gun? Take it out and aim it at every individual he encountered along his way, in case they were planning to jump him?
The gun DID NOT protect him from violence. It enabled him to ESCALATE the violence in his own favour once it occurred.
And I am just not simple enough to say that in this case or all the many others we are constantly presented with, the killing of another person was necessary in order to avert worse harm than had already occurred. Reality just isn't on that side.
And yes, if what they were after was his bike or his money, yes, you DO relinquish them RATHER THAN KILL SOMEBODY.
That's the simple moral code that the vast majority of decent people in this world live by.
Fail.
His gun did not stop him from being attacked. Duh.
Didya watch the video? The area is desolate and deserted, from what I can tell. The kind of place where, yes indeed, geezers and anybody else should be able to go for peaceful bike rides. But should just isn't is, y'ken?
I should be able to go anywhere anytime I want without let or hindrance. The fact is that if I do that, I take a risk. I assume the risks. My choice.
What exactly did this guy plan to do with his gun, in what circumstances? He's riding a bike, an undertaking that generally takes both hands. In what circumstances would he have been able to avert harm with his gun? Take it out and aim it at every individual he encountered along his way, in case they were planning to jump him?
The gun DID NOT protect him from violence. It enabled him to ESCALATE the violence in his own favour once it occurred.
And I am just not simple enough to say that in this case or all the many others we are constantly presented with, the killing of another person was necessary in order to avert worse harm than had already occurred. Reality just isn't on that side.
And yes, if what they were after was his bike or his money, yes, you DO relinquish them RATHER THAN KILL SOMEBODY.
That's the simple moral code that the vast majority of decent people in this world live by.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
149 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
You aren't seriously suggesting that these twi situations are the cyclist fighting
Ecumenist
Jan 2012
#6
Makes no sense and you know it. I'm not a gun fanatic but those two boys who atttacked
Ecumenist
Jan 2012
#10
You know what I mean. the fact that a 65 YEAR OLD MAN WAS DEFENDING HIMSELF in
Ecumenist
Jan 2012
#17
The former criminal was even wearing an electronic monitoring device as part of his probation.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2012
#9
I carry mine a few different ways depending on if I'm riding alone or with the kids.
ileus
Jan 2012
#13
Dang, I'll have to check my bike store to see if they have handlebarholster -- If I carried.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#20
If that happened. Besides, a million more guns for relatively few instances. Seems like pollution.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#22
Yeah, the old guy should have let them abuse him. 'Cause that wouldn't have been too steep....
PavePusher
Jan 2012
#48
The "Velo-Dog" revolver was specifically marketed as a defense for cyclists against dogs.
Jean V. Dubois
Jan 2012
#35
so much for getting him in a position of weakness....getting killed...ain't that a bitch.
ileus
Jan 2012
#131
"I am quite comfortable saying the onus is on them to organize there lives differently."
EX500rider
Jan 2012
#90
iverglas is a certified bad ass--ready, willing and able to hand out beat downs at a moment's notice
TPaine7
Jan 2012
#70
That's as close as I've ever come to alerting on a post. My skin is crawling as I type.
TPaine7
Jan 2012
#83
Decent people don't advocate for the disarmament of the most vulnerable among them.
Callisto32
Jan 2012
#96
No, my urge is to defend people who had to defend themselves from those that would suggest Bludlust.
Callisto32
Jan 2012
#102
To kill 16 year olds engaged in a life-threatening attack on a senior citizen.
Callisto32
Jan 2012
#94
Despite your petty insults you have failed once again to answer the question.
oneshooter
Jan 2012
#121