Another assault on the Met Branch Trail

[baiskeli]

@lordofthemark 99378 wrote:

I thought we were discussing what DC law should be, not what an individual should do.

What I mean to say is that I think about what I might want the law to allow me to do.

I am more interested in a discussion of things that can be done to improve conditions on all the more crime ridden trails in the region – including better design, more critical mass, and things that WABA and others can do like organizing patrols and convoy/slugging systems, than in reviewing the more general debates about gun laws (I also do not think this is the place to discuss the root causes of crime, the competence of Cathy Lanier, etc)

A reasonable point.

[PotomacCyclist]

@baiskeli 99360 wrote:

Well, yes, nobody said arming yourself would always work, but would you expect them to be safer unarmed?

I see it the way I see bike helmet laws and use. In some cases, a helmet might decrease the severity of an injury. But helmets are far from the most important element when it comes to overall safety for a cyclist.

[dasgeh]

@PotomacCyclist 99406 wrote:

I see it the way I see bike helmet laws and use. In some cases, a helmet might decrease the severity of an injury. But helmets are far from the most important element when it comes to overall safety for a cyclist.

Helmets can’t be used against you and don’t injure and kill innocent bystanders and kids who find them a get curious. BIG difference.

[PotomacCyclist]

I was going to mention that, but I don’t type that quickly on the phone. (Now I’m on the computer.)

I was also going to mention another similarity, but this one between gun advocates and marijuana advocates. I often hear about the importance of self defense in debates. But in everyday life, I sometimes hear gun enthusiasts boast about the size and power of their home arsenals, and sometimes talk about intimidating and even shooting political opponents (!). (This is from vocal 2nd Amendment conservatives, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with self defense.) I think the gun issue has just as much to do with culture and liking guns as it has to do with self defense.

I thought of the marijuana campaign, because they have frequently spoken about the need for medical marijuana. But when those people are not in campaign mode, they will admit that much of the motivation is cultural, that they simply like marijuana, recreationally and otherwise. They want to smoke and the medical marijuana angle has been revealed to be just a way to get a foot in the door politically. (Note: I don’t use marijuana myself. I used to be more strongly against it because the medical marijuana argument was shown to be a way to get recreational use approved. But now I wonder how different it is from tobacco products/nicotine, which are just as, or even more, harmful.)

Anyway, to get back to the cycling issue, the main point about the helmets is that helmets, guns, etc. should not be the primary method of creating a safe cycling environment, on the MBT or elsewhere. Even with the DC gun laws, none of the other local trails have this many attacks, so clearly that is not the determining factor in the safety of the MBT. Others have also pointed out that they used to ride through that same neighborhood on the streets and did not hear of this many assaults on cyclists.

[AFHokie]

@dasgeh 99410 wrote:

Helmets can’t be used against you and don’t injure and kill innocent bystanders and kids who find them a get curious. BIG difference.

If I or an attacker is wearing a helmet; my attacker will find out how a person can effectively use a bike helmet as a weapon.

Just about any object can be turned into an improvised weapon and just like my bike helmet, a firearm is an inanimate object when sitting on a shelf. The true danger comes from the individual holding it.

Firearms are not a magic panacea and like many tools; misused. That said, I’d rather kids be educated to understand and respect the danger they can pose if misused. I view firearms no differently than a set of kitchen knives on the counter. Do we teach kids to be afraid of them, or do we teach our kids how to handle them properly and understand the dangers if handled carelessly?

As far as the attack on the trail. I’d like to see more lighting on areas of the trails where incidents occur. A few portable light towers in key areas would be extremely useful.

[dasgeh]

@AFHokie 99430 wrote:

If I or an attacker is wearing a helmet; my attacker will find out how a person can effectively use a bike helmet as a weapon.

Just about any object can be turned into an improvised weapon and just like my bike helmet, a firearm is an inanimate object when sitting on a shelf. The true danger comes from the individual holding it.

Firearms are not a magic panacea and like many tools; misused. That said, I’d rather kids be educated to understand and respect the danger they can pose if misused. I view firearms no differently than a set of kitchen knives on the counter. Do we teach kids to be afraid of them, or do we teach our kids how to handle them properly and understand the dangers if handled carelessly?

As far as the attack on the trail. I’d like to see more lighting on areas of the trails where incidents occur. A few portable light towers in key areas would be extremely useful.

I forgot, guns don’t kill people; helmets kill people.

Sarcasm aside, you can’t be serious about this line of reasoning. Guns amplify the violent power of a person by a huge amount. Yes, someone can use a helmet to injure another, but the helmet is going to inflict damage through the power of the person wielding it. And it is EXTREMELY unlikely a bystander will be seriously injured or killed by a stray helmet.

Of course we should teach children about being safe around all of the dangers in this world. But even a sitting Vice President managed to be involved in a gun accident. Guns are tools that any person – even a toddler – could easily use to kill themselves or others, even in a way that’s unintended (but not a freak accident). The danger they pose is different than helmets and even knives. There’s no rational discussion if you can’t recognize that.

Put another way gun:knife:helmet as mack truck:bike:big wheel

[hozn]

@AFHokie 99430 wrote:

… a firearm is an inanimate object when sitting on a shelf. The true danger comes from the individual holding it.

The Gun Thing – Eddie Izzard: http://youtu.be/KsN0FCXw914

“They say that ‘Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.’ Well I think the gun helps.”

[ShawnoftheDread]

I offer a compromise. I’m a giver.
http://weaponsman.com/?p=18804

[AFHokie]

@dasgeh 99435 wrote:

I forgot, guns don’t kill people; helmets kill people.

Sarcasm aside, you can’t be serious about this line of reasoning. Guns amplify the violent power of a person by a huge amount. Yes, someone can use a helmet to injure another, but the helmet is going to inflict damage through the power of the person wielding it. And it is EXTREMELY unlikely a bystander will be seriously injured or killed by a stray helmet.

Of course we should teach children about being safe around all of the dangers in this world. But even a sitting Vice President managed to be involved in a gun accident. Guns are tools that any person – even a toddler – could easily use to kill themselves or others, even in a way that’s unintended (but not a freak accident). The danger they pose is different than helmets and even knives. There’s no rational discussion if you can’t recognize that.

Put another way gun:knife:helmet as mack truck:bike:big wheel

No, people kill people. Nowhere in world has an inanimate object ever jumped up on it’s own and attacked a person ever.

I am serious. The same way you will never have a rational discussion if you cannot recognize the root cause of the problem is not the object, but the mental state of the person wielding the object. Additionally, recognize children’s access to dangerous items is a separate issue. That toddler could also easily kill themselves or others in a way that’s unintended with a knife. How do we prevent this? We keep knives out of reach of toddlers.

Vehicle accidents occur every day and more people are killed by cars per year. A vehicle will amplify the violent power of an enraged driver and many an innocent bystander has been hit by a stray vehicle. It certainly did in these three incidents:
2001 Isla Vista, CA
2006 San Francisco SUV Rampage
2006 UNC SUV Attack

Three incidents involving cars. In the first two Incidents, the drivers were later diagnosed with mental health issues. In the third, the driver demonstrated through previous acts of reckless behavior that perhaps his license should’ve been revoked and he not allowed to drive. Lets address the root cause of an incident and not the mechanics.

The former VP’s accident is as much a teaching point about inattention and distraction causing an accident the same way texting while driving can cause an accident.

Back to the whole point of the thread. In order to improve safety along the trail, a holistic approach is needed. One thing will not improve the situation. CC permits are not the solution. Once the pedestrian bridge is completed, how likely will traffic on the trail increase if there’s a history of assault in the area and no other improvements? As I pointed out, improving the lighting is an additional step and something that can easily be done in a day with portable light towers.

[jabberwocky]

@dasgeh 99410 wrote:

Helmets can’t be used against you and don’t injure and kill innocent bystanders and kids who find them a get curious. BIG difference.

I don’t think potomaccylist meant they are directly comparable, just that when talking about self defense, firearms can be thought of like helmets. Helpful in specific situations perhaps, but need to be considered as part of an overall plan to actually be useful. You don’t throw a helmet on and think that solves your safety problems on the bike, right? Obviously we discuss safety issues here on a daily basis. We wouldn’t tell someone concerned about riding safety to get a helmet and do nothing else, and I wouldn’t tell someone worried about self defense (for whatever reason) to get a firearm and do nothing else either.

[DismalScientist]

I think that folks should discuss the deterrent effect as well: Thugs might reduce the likelihood of attacking someone if their is a greater likelihood of the victim being armed.
The question isn’t merely whether a gun in someone’s hands is likely to that person harm or “good.”

[skins_brew]

@PotomacCyclist 99427 wrote:

I was also going to mention another similarity, but this one between gun advocates and marijuana advocates. I often hear about the importance of self defense in debates. But in everyday life, I sometimes hear gun enthusiasts boast about the size and power of their home arsenals, and sometimes talk about intimidating and even shooting political opponents (!). (This is from vocal 2nd Amendment conservatives, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with self defense.) I think the gun issue has just as much to do with culture and liking guns as it has to do with self defense.

There is a gun forum that I frequent that IS the forum for all things relating to guns and MD, along with any other topic that exists. As you might guess, most of these people are conservative leaning, but I have never, never, seen anyone say or write anything about shooting someone of the opposite political party. Where do you hear this? I would almost say that could be perceived as a threat.

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 99410 wrote:

Helmets can’t be used against you and don’t injure and kill innocent bystanders and kids who find them a get curious. BIG difference.

We didn’t say they were the same thing. The point is that helmets, like guns, may be part of safety, but not the only part. Both require additional measures. In the case of a gun, it would require the training and responsibility to avoid having it used against you and killing a bystander or kid.

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 99435 wrote:

Of course we should teach children about being safe around all of the dangers in this world. But even a sitting Vice President managed to be involved in a gun accident. Guns are tools that any person – even a toddler – could easily use to kill themselves or others, even in a way that’s unintended (but not a freak accident). The danger they pose is different than helmets and even knives. There’s no rational discussion if you can’t recognize that.

The same could be said of bicycles. Riding a bike might expose one to additional risk that driving a car wouldn’t. We weigh risk vs. reward, and we mitigate the risk with other measures.

Also, my home is full of knives, power tools, heaters, matches, poisonous fluids, large objects that can tip over, etc., and all pose risks to my children, but I am smart enough and responsible enough to mitigate them. On the other hand, thousands of people each year fail to do so, which gives us…statistics. There is nothing special about a gun. I’d turn this helmet/gun analogy around and say, just as wearing a helmet or owning a gun is not sufficient for safety, one shouldn’t think you’re safe if your home is gun-FREE, since there are so many other risks.

[dasgeh]

@jabberwocky 99449 wrote:

I don’t think potomaccylist meant they are directly comparable, just that when talking about self defense, firearms can be thought of like helmets. Helpful in specific situations perhaps, but need to be considered as part of an overall plan to actually be useful. You don’t throw a helmet on and think that solves your safety problems on the bike, right? Obviously we discuss safety issues here on a daily basis. We wouldn’t tell someone concerned about riding safety to get a helmet and do nothing else, and I wouldn’t tell someone worried about self defense (for whatever reason) to get a firearm and do nothing else either.

But might point is that, unlike helmets, guns pose grave dangers to crime victims and people completely unrelated to crime. It’s a crucial distinction, and a big reason a lot of people, myself included, don’t want to see ccw in dc.

[Author]

Posts