Another assault on the Met Branch Trail

[dasgeh]

@AFHokie 99446 wrote:

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 In the third, the driver demonstrated through previous acts of reckless behavior that perhaps his license should’ve been revoked and he not allowed to drive.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.

If you are serious that helmets have the same effectiveness as a weapon as guns, awesome. I’m happy to print you a permit to carry a concealed helmet.

My point, which you seem to have missed entirely, is that guns amplify the violent force of an individual and therefore should be regulated more than, say, knives. If you disagree with the beginning of that statement, you need to learn more about guns. If you disagree with the latter, well, unfortunately for the safety of our children and our country, you can take comfort that the majority of decision makers agree with you.

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 99464 wrote:

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.

Nobody is saying that the analogy is one-to-one. The point is this – helmets are important, but not sufficient, for bike safety. Responsible use of the bicycle to avoid hazards to self and others is also required. Same with guns – just owning a gun is not enough, one must know how to use it, store it, etc. to avoid unintentional harm to self or others. Just like with many other things we use every day that could pose threats to ourselves or others.

The public policy implications might be that we require a gun safety course to buy a gun or something like that, and/or a license.

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 99466 wrote:

My point, which you seem to have missed entirely, is that guns amplify the violent force of an individual and therefore should be regulated more than, say, knives.

I don’t think anyone here has said guns shouldn’t be regulated more than knives or other things. The issue is how much more regulation.

[lordofthemark]

@baiskeli 99463 wrote:

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.

I shouldn’t BUT

– A child playing with, say, a hand saw, imitating its designed use, will use it on a piece of wood. A child aiming a gun (in particular a hand gun) on a friend, while acting unsafely and in a way a responsible adult would not IS imitating its designed use. That is what is special about a gun (and perhaps some kinds of knives, but not kitchen knives)

– if you have ever spent any time on a site frequented by people contemplating suicide you will note that guns are craved in a way that matches, power tools, etc, are not.

Note I am not calling for guns to be banned. (I myself had some fun target shooting with a rifle many years ago, though in recent years I have found computer games a more than adequate substitute) And I hope all my gun owning friends are well trained in gun safety as you describe – but suggesting carrying a gun even as a part of the solution to places like the MBT, raises issues for many of us that helmets, hearters, kitchen knives, etc do not. Its a suggestion that will naturally take the discussion away from cycling, just as suggestions to avoid cities, or to gentrify them, or whatever, would.

While the particular crime we are discussing was not commited with a gun, many crimes in DC (and elsewhere in the region) are. Someone could argue that we as cyclists would be SAFER if gun regulation were tighter (in particular gun regulation in Virginia, generally the main source of guns used by criminals in DC.) For the other suggestions – lighting, completing the MBT, etc – there is no prospect they will make the situation worse. Ergo, I suggest the suggestion to reduce gun regulation in DC to make the MBT safer, and the suggestion to increase gun regulation in Virginia to make cycling safer, be considered to cancel out and both be dropped from discussion. Lets instead focus exclusively on the other suggestions, where we can actually advance the discussion (in a way I do not see happening here)

[jabberwocky]

@dasgeh 99466 wrote:

My point, which you seem to have missed entirely, is that guns amplify the violent force of an individual and therefore should be regulated more than, say, knives.

Guns are more regulated than knives. And more regulated than other dangerous things (cars, power tools, poisons, etc).

And yeah, guns are unquestionably dangerous. They have the same issue a lot of technology has: they magnify the impact a person can have on people around them. True of guns, true of computers, true of cars, true of basically all tech. Its a good thing when used for good purposes, and bad when used for bad purposes. I’m a gun owner, and have nothing but contempt for people who are careless with them, just like I’m a driver who has nothing but contempt for drivers who drive carelessly.

[lordofthemark]

@AFHokie 99430 wrote:

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.

What do we think is the reason DDOT has not done this? Community issues with the light? Costs?

WABA has pushed for trail completion as the way to solve the problem (noting the CCT gets many times the number of riders MBT does) Should WABA balance that with pushing for lighting? Would that dilute their message? This is in the district of CM McDuffie IIUC. Has he spoken out on solutions?

[baiskeli]

@lordofthemark 99470 wrote:

I shouldn’t BUT

– A child playing with, say, a hand saw, imitating its designed use, will use it on a piece of wood. A child aiming a gun (in particular a hand gun) on a friend, while acting unsafely and in a way a responsible adult would not IS imitating its designed use. That is what is special about a gun (and perhaps some kinds of knives, but not kitchen knives)

Of course. But that doesn’t really make guns special. Both involve risk. Obviously guns involve alot more risk, but my point is that there are plenty of tools that are really dangerous and we manage to possess them safely. And I’m talking about power tools (including nail guns, which are almost the same thing as real guns in terms of how they work and their risk), not just hand saws. Dozens of things in my home could kill my child if I let them use them, or let them use them without supervision.
Guns are certainly alot more dangerous, but they are on a spectrum of danger, and we should recognize that. Just as a power saw is more dangerous than a hand saw, and you are therefore more careful with it.

EDIT: a child can certainly use a handsaw, or anything else, in a way not intended for its use that it dangerous – or even in a dangerous way on a piece of wood. Kids are highly creative about danger and destruction.

– if you have ever spent any time on a site frequented by people contemplating suicide you will note that guns are craved in a way that matches, power tools, etc, are not.

Yes, that’s a serious concern with a gun in the home.

Note I am not calling for guns to be banned. (I myself had some fun target shooting with a rifle many years ago, though in recent years I have found computer games a more than adequate substitute) And I hope all my gun owning friends are well trained in gun safety as you describe – but suggesting carrying a gun even as a part of the solution to places like the MBT, raises issues for many of us that helmets, hearters, kitchen knives, etc do not. Its a suggestion that will naturally take the discussion away from cycling, just as suggestions to avoid cities, or to gentrify them, or whatever, would.

I’m not saying they are the same issue. The conversation wandered.

Lets instead focus exclusively on the other suggestions, where we can actually advance the discussion (in a way I do not see happening here)

Good idea.

[PotomacCyclist]

WABA and REI are hosting tours of the MBT this Saturday. It won’t fix the safety issues but maybe people can continue to brainstorm and discuss the problems of the trail.

Location:* The grassy field at First & Pierce Street NE (in the NoMa neighborhood)
Date: *Saturday, November 15
Time:*11:00 am – 2:00 pm

[Terpfan]

@dasgeh 99464 wrote:

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.

I would argue the vehicles pose a far greater danger than guns and criminals combined. Which would bring it back to the need for responsible ownership.

Unrelated to that response, I think there is a mistaken notion that those with CCW permits (actually called concealed handgun permit in VA) are always carrying. Quite the opposite, I think many don’t carry often at all. It’s a use of force as a very last resort. First option is always defuse or flee. Just like driving, you want to avoid the accident so you swerve. So I really don’t see much value in carrying and riding when I figure the situations wouldn’t permit me to have an ample response that outweighed fleeing. Mountain biking deep in the woods away from civilization may be a little different.

[skins_brew]

Guns aside, I am not sure how to fix the MBT.

Start by getting rid of the benches near S street. There are always kids loitering there.

Next, install The Mosquito under New York Ave. Again, another area where I see kids loitering. There have been several times where they are standing on the entire width of the trail. I try to get in the right state of mind as I come up on them and try to keep an eye on their hands.

The problem is that there are not a whole lot of solutions that do not cost a lot of money. The best solution would be to have a cop on the MBT everyday during rush hour, but that is not happening.

Shitty thing about the mosquito is I am sure that someone is going to say it infringes on the rights of young people.

[PotomacCyclist]

Have a sound generator that annoys all people equally. People who are riding on the trail will only have to put up with it for a few seconds.

[AFHokie]

@dasgeh 99466 wrote:

If you are serious that helmets have the same effectiveness as a weapon as guns, awesome. I’m happy to print you a permit to carry a concealed helmet.

My point, which you seem to have missed entirely, is that guns amplify the violent force of an individual and therefore should be regulated more than, say, knives. If you disagree with the beginning of that statement, you need to learn more about guns. If you disagree with the latter, well, unfortunately for the safety of our children and our country, you can take comfort that the majority of decision makers agree with you.

I never said or implied a helmet is as effective as a gun when used as a weapon. Your initial statement indicated a helmet posed no danger as a weapon and my point is most any object can be used as an effective improvised weapon.

Nope, I got your point, however you missed when I pointed out any object when used maliciously as a weapon amplifies an individuals violent force. You’re fixated on firearms. A firearm can cause damage a faster than a knife, but so can baseball bat or a car. You say I need to learn more about firearms, so I’ll ask, have you ever: held one? fired one? taken game with one? carried one throughout your daily activities? have your life and the lives of others depend on the use of one? I have for all and I have more than enough experience/first hand accounts with the consequences. Unless you can say yes to some of those, you should objectively ask yourself if you have a fair and qualitative perspective.

My point which you refuse to even acknowledge is the root cause of violence: the motivation and mental state of the individual. I find the ignorance from both sides of the argument appalling. Banning won’t fix the problem and neither will ‘guns for everyone’. Nothing will resolve the issue until we as a nation focus on the root motivation and mental state of the individual.

If you feel we must specifically discuss firearms further, PM me. I do not wish to derail the thread topic any further.

[dasgeh]

@AFHokie 99528 wrote:

I never said or implied a helmet is as effective as a gun when used as a weapon. Your initial statement indicated a helmet posed no danger as a weapon and my point is most any object can be used as an effective improvised weapon.

My initial point was to a claim that guns were like helmets in that they may be able to keep you safe, which I refuted by bringing up the very real possibility that guns could make an attack situation worse (by causing injury to the victim or a bystander). I’ll give you that someone could concoct a crazy circumstance where a helmet makes an attack worse, but experience, logic and statistics all tell us that it is far more likely to happen with a gun than with a helmet.

@AFHokie 99528 wrote:

Nope, I got your point, however you missed when I pointed out any object when used maliciously as a weapon amplifies an individuals violent force. You’re fixated on firearms. A firearm can cause damage a faster than a knife, but so can baseball bat or a car. You say I need to learn more about firearms, so I’ll ask, have you ever: held one? fired one? taken game with one? carried one throughout your daily activities? have your life and the lives of others depend on the use of one? I have for all and I have more than enough experience/first hand accounts with the consequences. Unless you can say yes to some of those, you should objectively ask yourself if you have a fair and qualitative perspective.

Are you saying that there’s not a magnitude of difference between the amplification of violence from a gun than from a baseball bat? If so, please let me introduce my friend Physics to the discussion. I’m not fixated on firearms: we’re talking about firearms, and I think they are in a different class from non-amplified weapons/objects. I do think they are like cars, and have stated so. And not only have I done many of the things on your list, I have done empirical research on the subject. But it’s also completely possible for someone to study the facts on an issue and develop valid and valuable views without having personal experience. In fact, there’s a valid argument that the less emotional attachment one has to an issue, the more objective and fair one can be.

@AFHokie 99528 wrote:

My point which you refuse to even acknowledge is the root cause of violence: the motivation and mental state of the individual. I find the ignorance from both sides of the argument appalling. Banning won’t fix the problem and neither will ‘guns for everyone’. Nothing will resolve the issue until we as a nation focus on the root motivation and mental state of the individual.

If you feel we must specifically discuss firearms further, PM me. I do not wish to derail the thread topic any further.

I don’t refuse to acknowledge the root cause of violence. No one, not even you, has brought up the cause of the violence on the MBT. We could discuss that, but that’s also not about cycling.

And I appreciate you declared that you have the last word on the subject, but it’s not your place to instruct me or others what to say or how to communicate.

[NicDiesel]

@AFHokie 99528 wrote:

My point which you refuse to even acknowledge is the root cause of violence: the motivation and mental state of the individual.

In the long run we’re all dead. Good luck finding out why bored teenagers find violence a fun past time.

[jabberwocky]

@dasgeh 99544 wrote:

My initial point was to a claim that guns were like helmets in that they may be able to keep you safe, which I refuted by bringing up the very real possibility that guns could make an attack situation worse (by causing injury to the victim or a bystander). I’ll give you that someone could concoct a crazy circumstance where a helmet makes an attack worse, but experience, logic and statistics all tell us that it is far more likely to happen with a gun than with a helmet.

Honestly, if you’re going to be accidentally shot in this country, its much more likely to be by a cop than a CHL holder.

We have quite a lot of general info on CHL laws affecting crime rates (in that we have a variety of states that have passed them while adjacent demographically similar states have not, and can compare overall accidental shooting and crime rates before and after) and the reality is that they don’t really change things either way. I don’t buy them as some sort of crime solution, but I also don’t see them making things worse. If DC passed (or, more likely, lost in court and were forced to allow) concealed carry, I seriously doubt it would have any impact at all on either crime rates or your chances of being accidentally shot in the city. Its not like DC is some sort of gun free panacea now. Its worth noting that, of the 3 major jurisdictions (DC, Maryland and Virginia), Virginia has by far the most liberal gun laws and also by far the lowest violent crime rate.

[Author]

Posts