Bike shop boycott NRA?

So who would carry a gun if mountain biking/bike packing/back packing in serious bear country, like Alaska? I've also read horror stories of mountain lions attacking and nearly killing mountain bikers but a gun isn't going to help you there - you'll never see them until it's too late.
 
rick81721 said:
So who would carry a gun if mountain biking/bike packing/back packing in serious bear country, like Alaska? I've also read horror stories of mountain lions attacking and nearly killing mountain bikers but a gun isn't going to help you there - you'll never see them until it's too late.
Click to expand...

you are part of the food chain in alaska - carry or die.

1519760429719.png
 
rick81721 said:
So who would carry a gun if mountain biking/bike packing/back packing in serious bear country, like Alaska? I've also read horror stories of mountain lions attacking and nearly killing mountain bikers but a gun isn't going to help you there - you'll never see them until it's too late.
Click to expand...

Certainly not in bear country, but this reminds me of way back when I started racing. There was this guy I knew who raced an age group lower than mine that first year. We were both beginners and we got to know each other because we were always at the same races. He lived somewhere out near York I think. Anyway, after the season I didn't talk to him at all and the next year the first race of the year was at Hibernia near Lancaster. I showed up with my two buddies and we were getting ready and he walks up to say hello. He was in full cycling kit for the race, but he also had a hand gun in a holster around his waist. Seriously - picture someone in full lycra kit with a holster on them. We were just like, "So ... ummmm ... planning on getting that hole shot one way or the other today?" I have to say, it was kinda weird and I don't think I was the only one there who thought so. I didn't ever see him at a race again and don't know if he just quit, decided he wanted to try other things with his gun, or whatever. I remember the whole drive home my buddies and I were tryign to come up with other activities he could do with his gun - like water skiing, or skydiving, or maybe competitive spelling.
 
Leftymuk said:
I meant that the orange things are REAL earplugs
Click to expand...

I was being facetious. Or is it jocular, when one joke is answered with another?
Maybe it was flippant, which is like facetious only all the vowels are not present, in order no less.
why does high school vocabulary bedevil me?

rick81721 said:
Perhaps a little life left. Sourland Conservancy is sponsoring another deer management symposium. Deer are a real problem for our beloved sourlands and hunting (and guns) are part of the solution. Check it out:

https://form.jotform.com/73516737184160
Click to expand...

wow - i wonder how mtbing ranks compared to the deer population.
And i'm fairly sure that the deer are not a threat to human existence. and if humans weren't here, those predators between us
and the deer would be - so by that logic, mtb'rs are the problem.

i've ridden the pipeline cut from zion to lindberg - there are a couple people with bait stations in their back yard.
iiwm the tool of choice in a neighborhood would be a crossbow.
 
fidodie said:
wow - i wonder how mtbing ranks compared to the deer population.
And i'm fairly sure that the deer are not a threat to human existence. and if humans weren't here, those predators between us
and the deer would be - so by that logic, mtb'rs are the problem.

i've ridden the pipeline cut from zion to lindberg - there are a couple people with bait stations in their back yard.
iiwm the tool of choice in a neighborhood would be a crossbow.
Click to expand...

Yeah the sourlands conservancy resorts to hyperbole in the deer issue but they are very passionate about it. One of the reasons I'm a member and support them every year is they aren't afraid to advocate tough solutions (like hunting) to problems.
 
so i'm reading an article that says bump stocks can achieve firing rates of dozens per second. lets say 2 dozen qualifies for dozens.
24*60=1440 rounds per minute. well that is nice, it isn't happening. i have a hard time believing 10/second is achievable - but maybe.
given that the barrel of the gun is in motion, they are only good at shooting into a general space - which makes "target" shooting with them impossible.

i'll take a stand on this one. it is an unnecessary modification, that has little value other than the ability to quickly spray bullets.
mods to make a gun more reliable, accurate, comfortable, lighter - make sense. it's a hobby. fire more quickly with less accuracy? nah.

edit: Just to reflect @1speed's post below. What am i missing besides the "holy shit" factor. I didn't mean my post to seem like it was not open to discussion.
 
Last edited:
I really didn't want to get in this discussion, but I have a serious question for gun owners that I've wondered about for a long time. When it comes to these fully automatic weapons or modifications that can make a weapon essentially automatic, like bump-stocks, why do gun owners want to own them? I mean, I get that firing them is fun - I went to one of those "Fire high-powered guns!" places in Vegas once and, holy shit, it's fun to pump tons of bullets into a target (or in my case, pump tons of bullets in the general proximity of a target.) But why do you need to own them? I am not trying to say no one should have guns, but I honestly wonder if a potential option in the current debate on these things might be to make those types of guns only available at a firing range for the general public. That is, you can go fire them anytime you want, but you just can't walk out of the place with one. I know there is the whole 2nd amendment argument about no infringing on the right to have guns, but I guess I don't see why anyone would justifiably argue the need to own something that, to @fidodie 's point, fires 1440 rounds per minute. Is anyone using a gun that fires 1440 rounds per minute for anything other than target practice? If so, what? And if it is only for things like shooting targets, why wouldn't the idea of having these only available at target ranges be a bad option? What am I missing?
 
1speed said:
I really didn't want to get in this discussion, but I have a serious question for gun owners that I've wondered about for a long time. When it comes to these fully automatic weapons or modifications that can make a weapon essentially automatic, like bump-stocks, why do gun owners want to own them? I mean, I get that firing them is fun - I went to one of those "Fire high-powered guns!" places in Vegas once and, holy shit, it's fun to pump tons of bullets into a target (or in my case, pump tons of bullets in the general proximity of a target.) But why do you need to own them? I am not trying to say no one should have guns, but I honestly wonder if a potential option in the current debate on these things might be to make those types of guns only available at a firing range for the general public. That is, you can go fire them anytime you want, but you just can't walk out of the place with one. I know there is the whole 2nd amendment argument about no infringing on the right to have guns, but I guess I don't see why anyone would justifiably argue the need to own something that, to @fidodie 's point, fires 1440 rounds per minute. Is anyone using a gun that fires 1440 rounds per minute for anything other than target practice? If so, what? And if it is only for things like shooting targets, why wouldn't the idea of having these only available at target ranges be a bad option? What am I missing?
Click to expand...
Why would anyone need to own a bike? There's plenty of places you can rent one. Just because you can't justify a reason for someone to own something doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to. I get someone can use the gun to harm others but that's not the point.
 
1speed said:
I really didn't want to get in this discussion, but I have a serious question for gun owners that I've wondered about for a long time. When it comes to these fully automatic weapons or modifications that can make a weapon essentially automatic, like bump-stocks, why do gun owners want to own them? I mean, I get that firing them is fun - I went to one of those "Fire high-powered guns!" places in Vegas once and, holy shit, it's fun to pump tons of bullets into a target (or in my case, pump tons of bullets in the general proximity of a target.) But why do you need to own them? I am not trying to say no one should have guns, but I honestly wonder if a potential option in the current debate on these things might be to make those types of guns only available at a firing range for the general public. That is, you can go fire them anytime you want, but you just can't walk out of the place with one. I know there is the whole 2nd amendment argument about no infringing on the right to have guns, but I guess I don't see why anyone would justifiably argue the need to own something that, to @fidodie 's point, fires 1440 rounds per minute. Is anyone using a gun that fires 1440 rounds per minute for anything other than target practice? If so, what? And if it is only for things like shooting targets, why wouldn't the idea of having these only available at target ranges be a bad option? What am I missing?
Click to expand...

I don't want/need to own a Full auto gun because I don't want to spend the $15,000- $25,000 to legally purchase one. I don't need or want to own a bump stock because I personally don't find them fun. But I don't force my wants and needs on others. I would appreciate people not forcing their wants and needs on me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom