Slack Randoms: A Parallelogram Suspension Stem, Dangerous Deer and Brazen Thieves

 People who leave bikes worth multiple thousands of dollars laying around like this (even locked up), shouldn't be surprised when shit like this happens.

I've always said and use this philosophy when thinking about locks where I may or may not leave a bike. There are two kinds of thieves:

1. Opportunists - These people don't carry tools and generally are just smash and grabbers or just grab unlocked bikes they comes across. Typically most basic locks will defeat these thieves.

2. People with tools - exactly as demonstrated here - can typically get through ANY lock within 30 seconds or less and DGAF who sees them. There aren't many locks that will defeat these thieves.

Lessons:
1. Don't spend a shit load on crazy expensive chains and locks.. it's wasted money. Get something that's pretty good... just good enough to stop the opportunists.

2. Always use that lock. Always. Lock your bike to your rack, no matter if "you don't plan on stopping anywhere" or not. Plans change... wives/husbands/life partners text you shit. I've even heard of bikes being stolen off of racks during a red light.

3. Sorry, but basically never leave your $3 - $15k bike alone. Bring it with you, take it home first, etc. Or... ensure it's parked within sight... won't be out of sight for longer than 15 seconds... or parked in a very highly trafficked and highly visible location. Popping into the beer/grocery store? Ok, maybe... but park right up front. Lots of people make the mistake where they think if they park around the corner or at the back of the lot, it's somehow hidden and it'll be safer... generally the opposite is true.

 @islandforlife: I mean yeah. I don't think that anybody is saying that this was unexpected. The source of my disgust (and presumably that of others) is given the fact that it's an e-bike locked up outside of a grocery store means it's most likely owned by an older person (or somebody who is mobility impaired).

 @islandforlife: Walking my bike through a Hotel Lobby, the clerk said I couldn't take it into my room. I asked where the Golfers keep their clubs and kept walking. And I do lock it up in my room.

 @islandforlife: This will get your bike stolen for sure. There are difference levels of tooled thieves, from people with small clippers and hack saws to pro's with battery powered saws and grinders. Having cut off a ton of them working in shops, I can get through a cable lock in about 25-45 seconds with 30$ clippers, likely without anyone noticing. I had to cut through a level 10 U-lock with a hack saw years ago for a customer and it took me 45 minutes and two ok saw blades. Even with a grinder you need to cut both sides off a U-lock to free it up. Also with a grinder, it's loud and noticeable by people around you. With cable locks I've watched security cam footage of someone walking away from their norco range on a rack and a guy with clippers snapped off the lock and take the bike before the guy was barely in the store. With a half decent lock it wouldn't have been taken without staff or the guy noticing the noise of the shackle being cut. Not sure why the customer didn't just bring it inside, that was a bad move either way, but a really lock is worth it.

A few years ago we had 3 bar bikes locked with one folding abus shackle lock. When we got out of the pub the lock was a mess, all of the plastic around the joints cut away and the metal marred up. Bikes were still there. a 100$ lock is cheaper than a new bike.

I will agree with #3. I shake my head when I see high end bikes on racks. People will literally break into peoples homes for bikes, why people think leaving their expensive investment out in the street unsupervised in a major city is beyond my comprehension.

 @islandforlife: how does this get downvotes? Everything is spot on!

 @islandforlife: exactamundo amigo

You are absolutely spot on. Dont know why the d/v

 @Muckal: because it puts blame on the victim which is bullshit

 @waldo-jpg: well, sometimes having your bike stolen is partly due to your own negligence. Only two days ago i accidentally left my garage open the whole day, with 3 bikes in there. Don't you think it would have been partly my fault if they were gone?

 @Muckal: No, not your fault. People shouldn't steal things. Stop blaming victims.

 @waldo-jpg: Absolutely correct! This bike was locked up and as ebikes are becoming a more common alternative to cars, can somebody explain to me why having the lock on an ebike sawed off makes the ebike owner at fault? Do people put the blame on a car owner if someone jimmies open the door and hotwires it?

Its also bull that a whole crowd of people just mill about like nothing is happening. Not that you need to personally cave that duchebag's head in, but if you have a crowd of 10 people stopping and ringing you in, I'm pretty sure those kids woulda gotten pretty uncomfortable.

 @Unrealityshow: well, I see your point, but me, I don't live in a perfect world, even though it's quite close to be honest. My bikes still being here proves just that. Nevertheless I need to take responsibility and act accordingly if I eant to keep my bikes and other property. Nobody else will do it for me. Talk to your insurance about it.

 @Muckal: no, any theft of anything anywhere is always 100% the responsibility of the their. It doesn't matter how easy it was to take it, they took what wasn't theirs.

 @Muckal: no. You making that accident didn’t force someone to choose to take your shit. You’re literally victim blaming yourself.

 @Muckal: I think the issue is he began his missive with “people leaving expensive bikes lying around shouldn’t be surprised when this happens.” Then he gives a bunch of precautions to take, most of which the victim followed here. The guy had his bike locked up, in plain sight, in a busy area where it appears quite a few people saw what was going down. That expensive bike wasn’t just “lying around.” These scum had some kind of mechanism to cut the lock. No matter what you do — even if you are sitting on the bike itself — there’s a chance your bike can get stolen, and if it does, that’s on the thieves, not you.

That said—yes—you should take responsibility and every possible precaution to lessen the chance your bike will get stolen.

What I have a problem with more than anything is the original post — that it’s ok this bike was stolen, because it’s an eBike. I know it was probably made in jest, but it has the highest number of up-votes than any other comment on the page, and that says something about the community here. F that noise. No matter how you want to slice it, this ish ain’t cool.

 @islandforlife: This kind of stuff should not happen in modern first world countries. For decades, governments have failed with bad policies and wasteful spending on not solving problems.

 @st-lupo: Yeah, I was going to say more or less what you already did.
I mean, if you report your car being stolen, does everyone pile on with helpful tips like "I NEVER leave my car somewhere I can't see it. I only ever leave it in my locked garage, with both the house and car alarms on, with a Club (tm) on the steering wheel. I also take the front wheels off, and lock them to the rear wheels with another lock, and bring the driver's seat inside with me"?

 @st-lupo:
How did I just triple-post, lol!
This is just embarrassing

 @TheR:

Totally on point. You steal things you are an ass hole. What I cant understand is why everybody just stands there and watches it. For Gods sake, put the phone down and get involved with whats going on in the world. At the very least, tell them you are calling the cops.

 @TheR: my post was in jest, and when I posted it it was all alone at the bottom of the page. Like many of my posts, I attempted to poke fun at our “community” as much as opine about the state of our troubled world. Thieves are scum, whether they’re stealing an ebike, an old beater, or anything else. This sucks for the victim and I truly hope their insurance replaced their bike and the thrives were prosecuted. PB posts these stories to get clicks and sell ads, and I chose to try to have fun with it, perhaps in bad taste.

 @RLEnglish: I used to do that with my motocross bike when staying in a motel, but wasn't using my van, where it was secure.

 that's assault. Unfortunately we've been pussified to just let people steal things because apparently the thieves being unharmed is more important.

 @Bro-LanDog: Gone are the days where you could curbstomp a criminal without people flipping out, We live in a weak world.

 @BikesNRussets: Now the guy trying to stop the crime will be arrested. Twilight Zone.

 The UK legal system means the scrotes will get a lawyer payed on by the system to get them off and some paid for rehabilitation all whilst paying 18p a week back to the victim

 The dude walking by at 0:13 could’ve tackled him… both had their backs to him, angle grinder limited by rack and body, but I guess it might’ve turned ugly.

 @mtbikeaddict: Knife crime is rife in London and other major UK cities with deaths reported almost every week. Probably fearful of becoming the latest statistic.

 @Bro-LanDog: We never had them in the first place ya div.

As far as I am concerned, I'm not putting myself at risk for someone else's bike..

 You ever been hit by an angle grinder?

 I'd run in and dropkick his ass, grinder be damned.

 @bman33: You really out here thinking an angle grinder isn't a weapon...

 @iduckett: yes I’m sure you would…

 We ought to let ONLY the police stop crimes in progress, I'm sure the woman on the train in Philadelphia agrees with this sentiment. The fear of physical injury or death is a necessary deterrent to those willing to violate the rights of others AND their property, do people not understand this?? Criminals, those who disregard the rights, safety, and property of others for their own gain have anti-social tendencies and don't think in terns of empathy or right and wrong. They think in one way only; can I get away with it, what could happen to me if I don't? They know only power and respond only to power.

 @bman33: bold of you to assume a chav in London has neither a knife (or improvised melee weapon) or a gun concealed in his oversize tracksuit. I can almost guarantee a knife, screwdriver or even hammer. Ive witnessed it first hand. The f*cker pulled a claw hammer on the police that came to arrest him for being a dickhead. Got pepper sprayed, tasered and clothes lined before being literally thrown into the back of a van. Was kinda funny in the end.

All too common of an occurance in some parts of Britain.

 @JSTootell: well yes I have and it makes a bloody mess

 @iliveonnitro That's the most cowardly attitude ever... why risk anything stopping crime as long as it doesn't hurt you.

 @wasea04: Welp, you'll be going to jail for assault (and possible homicide). You can't just start shooting at someone when your life is not in danger. There is no danger here unless a bystander decides to put themselves in harms way. Sure it's legal to carry a gun in Utah. It's not legal to use however you wish. Brandishing a fire arm without any immediate threat is definitely illegal.
I live in Utah.

 @wasea04: Guns?! Don't you know the only way to stop a bad guy with an angle grinder is a good guy with an angle grinder?

@badbadleroybrown: I'm glad you'd risk serious injury for a stranger's property.

 @wasea04: Chill out, cowboy. It's a bike. Nobody is getting assaulted, here.

 @iliveonnitro: Until you try to stop them...that's the point really, it's such a subtle mind-f#$% to understand how criminals manipulate well meaning people into tolerating their crime. They're willing to escalate and most normal people aren't, hence they become further emboldened. I'm not pulling out my gun until I or others are threatened physically, which would likely be the case if you tried to stop a criminal from stealing your stuff.

 @bproelofs: Nuance, fellow Utahn, heard of it. You tell thief to stop, you seek to stop them, THEN they then personally threaten your physical safety is when firearms are necessary. Good grief. See my other post.

 @boozed: Good one lol

 @inked-up-metalhead: wtf is a chav? Lol. A bellend? A tosser? I'm guessing a criminal but ??

 @iliveonnitro: because everyone is being cowed into submission...

 @wasea04: While I 100% support the right to bear arms and hold CCW permits in multiple states, Utah among them, you're an absolute asshat if you think you can use a gun to stop someone from stealing a bike and that's exactly the type of dumb shit that gives gun control nuts an argument to make about irresponsible cowboys. That's called brandishing and it's illegal.

If you need a gun to stop a scared shitbag from stealing a bike, you're the kind of person who shouldn't carry a gun.

 @bman33: It's a sad state of affairs that our culture no longer values courage and has conflated risk avoidance at any cost with wisdom and intellect. I've never been in a physical altercation in my life, wrestling and sparring with buddies and brothers notwithstanding, I hope to NEVER be in a physical altercation. I'm not a wild man looking to be a vigilante, far from it actually. I'm a regular guy with a wife and four kids, a mortgage, a car payment, etc. And, what I've said here on this thread is absolutely true, we're no longer brave and those that prey on weakness are having a heyday as a result of it. All that is required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing, we're living that as our reality!!

 @wasea04: Jesus man... please sell any firearms you own.

1. The huge majority of criminals are opportunistic and do NOT want to escalate. Merely confronting someone directly will dissuade a large number of thieves. Physically interfering with their efforts will deter the large majority.

2. If you insert yourself into that situation, you have done so by choice and can no longer claim self defense unless you have made all efforts to then remove yourself from the situation without the use of force but are unable to do so AND your life is in danger. So, if you choose to step in and wind up getting the shit kicked out of you, you're legally disallowed from pulling your gun and using it to stop the ass whooping unless they introduce a similar deadly weapon... say attempting to use that angle grinder against you.

3. Every comment you make is a caricature of a responsible gun owner. Go lock up your guns, take some firearms safety classes and learn wtf you're talking about, and reconsider your ignorance and your attitude before you become the next example someone tries to use to justify taking away our rights.

 @badbadleroybrown: Yes, of course, I too know and follow the same laws as you. Track the nuance with me for a minute...you step in and tell the thieves to stop, you call the police, and you eventually block the thieves from taking the bike by blocking their way. If after doing that, the thieves try to attack you with their angle grinder then what? Should I carry a club around to bludgeon someone for when a gun is deemed relevant only to an @sshatt as you put it?

 @wasea04: "Everybody does have a plan until they get punched in the mouth"

-Mike Tyson

 @badbadleroybrown: So, you'd attack the group with weapons with your bare hands. That's what men do? You use words but don't actually say anything at all. Or, I should say, you don't provide any real answers.

 @JSTootell: I love Mike Tyson, nice reference. He's a great example of man who has grown into quite a wise individual throughout his life.

 The problem is, in England, only criminals are "allowed" to own firearms. Try to steal something in a "red" town, and you're liable to get yourself shot. Stop voting for "gun control", and maybe the onlookers would be armed.

 @wasea04: I'd step the f*ck up and say that's not your bike and prevent him from finishing the job... if he turns that grinder on me, then we can see how far they want to escalate but I will absolutely take an ass whooping before I take a life. Some of y'all ain't dusted your knuckles enough to disassociate your pride from the outcomes of your actions. Looking at the situation here, I have zero reservations taking on both those dudes, even with one wielding an angle grinder, without feeling like my life is in danger.

You need to spend less time on social media and more in the gym or the ring if your first thought on seeing those two kids franticly trying to steal that bike is that you gotta clip up and draw down to do something about it.

 @gooded: That's the problem with gun control in general... only those willing to abide by the law abide by gun control laws. Once you've committed to breaking the law, gun restrictions are just one more law you'll break.

 @badbadleroybrown: I agree with you, I am familiar with martial arts and the gym, I agree that the only thing worse than being killed in a confrontation is taking a life and having to live with it. I pray to never have to do experience either. You actually sound more cavalier than me saying you're going to take two criminals with bare hands, and according to other commenters, the likely 4-5 others nearby. You've made my point, you'd be willing to escalate.

 @wasea04: You haven't made a point... unless your point was that you're talking out of your ass trying to sound tough and you think a gun makes you the law.

There's not 4-5 more criminals nearby, that's evident in their body language. It's these two alone, that bike has been there before and they've seen it there before. This was an opportunistic effort by amateurs who were near pissing themselves on nervous energy, not seasoned pros working with a crew. But even if there were 4-5, I'm confident that I could manage the situation sufficiently without drawing my weapon.

Wannabe cowboys like you assume that everything turns into the O.K. Corral and the hero is gonna gun everyone down and walk away clean to a round of applause. That's not real life. Real life is you're gonna lose something even when you win but the cost of doing the right thing is still less than the price of doing nothing. You're not gonna engage these two and have it turn into a f*cking fight sequence from a Marvel movie bruh... they're not trying to fight, they're not trying to go to jail, they're trying to roll the dice on making a quick pick and gtfo'ing.

 @badbadleroybrown: So, this is how we end up, huh? You making ad hominem attacks and projecting your tough guy issues onto me. I never called you names, I never questioned your toughness, etc. You're a joke. You lost credibility with me and I don't find you worth interacting with further.

 Watching the Americans frothing over gunning down some kids stealing a bicycle is quite alarming.

Also to suggest introducing guns into the situation is going to help keep anyone safe is a joke. You think if they had access to guns that the only weapons they'd carry is an angle grinder and some knives? Of course you would manage to draw first, that's how it always goes in the films :eyeroll:

 @Bushmaster123: "Chav " started out as Council house and violent,but now it just describes scumbags like these ,its a nationwide thing,every town is full of them ,they all dress the same,talk the same ,deadenders.

 @scoot34: Thanks!

 @scoot34: Sounds like a backronym to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chav

 @wasea04: but in our stupid world, the police can’t do anything in large city’s thanks to years of bad regulators.

 @iduckett: heck yeah! Curbstomp his criminal ass.

 I get (and agree) with what you're saying but I think you can be more agressive as a bystander. You could for example, pretend (very loudly) that it was YOUR bike, yell fire, rapist, make a huge scene, get in their way or grab the bike once they cut the lock and ride away... depends on your risk tolerance and how much you hate these a-holes. I've personoally gotten 2 expensive bikes back from "unhinged" thieves because I'm a pretty big, white male who played the priviledge card. But again, YOU ARE RIGHT. There's a reason first responders are supposed to treat their own safety as the primary directive before others.

 @alwaysOTB: incorrect... an 18 year old adult is about to be vindicated against comically absurd charges against him for defending himself against multiple violent, armed aggressors in the midst of a riot.

 Mouf @JSTootell:

 Civilian or cop trying to stop the theft, what difference does it make if many UK police are ill-equipped to deal with an armed suspect? There are plenty of videos of UK cops running in circles from someone chasing with a knife because they don't have any way to respond with a greater force (>90% don't carry firearms).

 @wasea04: and there are no cases at all of your f*cked up gun culture going badly wrong, how safe, how civilised you little red neck ding dong.

 @wasea04: “I agree that the only thing worse than getting killed in a confrontation is taking a life”

Oh, so if you confront a criminal and they also have a gun you’ll let them shoot you, because that’s not as bad? That’s the stupidest pseudo heroic Hollywood brainwashed bullshit I’ve ever heard. Being killed by a criminal is worse. Being stabbed in the gut and spending the rest of your life shitting into a colostomy bag is worse. It’s worse for you and it’s worse for your family and loved ones. If you’re so deluded that you think the worst possible consequence of a confrontation with a violent criminal is the emotional trauma of being the guy who stepped up then you have literally no idea what the real world is actually about.

 @Jamminator: can you share these videos?

 @inked-up-metalhead: do you think Police in the UK end up with a different culture compared to other places where they are typically armed? Seems like you would need a fair bit of guts to do police work period, but without a firearm... Bold people they be recruiting for UK police.

 @MrDrynan: definitely for the average cop on the street. We do have armed police, but they're not out on the streets usually, unless something big is going on. But knowing gun crime does exist in the UK, it must be daunting to sign up knowing you'll have a can of pepper spray and a baton to defend yourself (most don't carry tasers, that's also a 'firearms officer' reserve.

 @wingguy: Perhaps it's a sentiment to show how little interest the poster has in harming or killing others. Kind of like "good men are reluctant to go to war, bad men crave it or flee from it." How is that deluded, wasea04 has nuts like you on one side and nuts like Badboybrown on the other, nobody's balanced.

 @Bushmaster123: a chav is literally the worst. I'd imagine the closest you'd get/know is a hood rat/wannabe gangster. Most of them won't do shit without half a dozen mates round them.

The joke is that chav stands for council house and violence. It's not too far from the truth. If you want a good example, watch the film anuvahood. It's hilarious, it's a piss take but actually not too far from reality for most chavs.

 @wasea04: It's usually safest and best to not intervene, but it's hurts the ego deep to feel like you've got no power to the thieving wankers because they expect you to cower down if you challenge them.

 @badbadleroybrown: Wild, and yeah, that's right. Goin' be a White Riot, that's what them Antifa's are, when young Rittenhouse be acquitted.

 @badbadleroybrown: agree. So many woodchuck vigilantes in merica. I gotta gun so respect me!

 @psyfi: And yet he’s strongly advocating for more people to carry deadly weapons so they can have armed confrontations with bicycle thieves in the understanding that it might escalate into homicide. Doesn’t quite scan with your take, does it?

And again, if killing is a worse outcome than being killed, why carry a gun?

 I don’t know what the solution is, but we need to get to a place where criminals can’t just commit crimes in broad daylight while everyone just watches. We are headed for a scary place. Maybe this is just the beginning, or maybe we’ve already gotten there.

 I’m interested to see what would have happened if the camera man would have simply started screaming at them. I’m not saying wrestle the guy down, but have some balls and at least call the guy out. Not whisper hey bro that your bike?

 True, but the fact remains that stuff like this should not happen in modern first world countries.

 @Joebohobo: Same people who think a long push broom handle isn't a weapon, which I'd take over an angle grinder any day. And then the angle grinder would be mine, too!

 @Bushmaster123: its a oh f*ck it here

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chav&amp=true

 @Compositepro: ahh, a ghetto punk/rat/wi@@er lol..

 @Compositepro: most of those perfectly describe a lot of our local bmx community.

 @wingguy: For your consideration, a fellow moderate American named Tim Pool recently discussed this:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeGDwPX7kfo

 @psyfi: The first guy has a lovely theory. Criminals won't crime when normal people are armed. So how come LA still has a robbery problem when most American households contain guns?

 @wingguy: LA has some of the strictest gun regulations in the USA.

 @wingguy: Only the criminals carry guns in LA. Very few people have legal guns in LA. Also, main crimes in LA are car theft jackings, car break-in burglaries, store burglaries, and muggings. Not a lot of home burglaries.

 @wingguy: tell us you don't understand how extreme California gun control is without just saying you don't have any idea wtf you're talking about.

 @badbadleroybrown: I agree with what you are trying to say, but you worded that horribly.

 @tacklingdummy: as someone who carries a gun in LA, I can confirm that the process for getting a CCW permit in California is obscenely discriminatory and borders on outright racist. It required more time, money, and connections than every other state in which I hold permits, combined... it also required very little on terms of practical competence or use of force education. Concealed carry in California is little more than a good ol boys club for those with connections and money and deliberately excludes people in the communities where it would do the most good.

 @wingguy: It's a tough thing to sort, what do we do with people that harm others in our society? We got our guns taken to reduce crime, unless you count single action shotguns for pheasants and foxes, and now we've got hundreds of stabbings daily in London. Something's amiss or are we just more aware of it?

 @badbadleroybrown: Tell us you didn't bother checking that the story provided was about home invasions without telling us.

 @psyfi: And now we have lots of stabbings? The guns that were taken weren't ones that people were carrying around the streets of London in the first place, so how is there a causal relationship in your mind? The USA with it's unfathomable amount of legal and illegal guns has an enormous murder problem, a huge portion of which is gang on gang murders. Clearly that doesn't put people off joining gangs, so the idea (intuitive as it may be) that danger must be an effective deterrent to crime doesn't seem to hold up in the real world.

 @wingguy: Gangs are a problem in Blue states, with "gun control". California, Illiniois, etc. You don't hear about gang problems in Kentucky, Tennessee, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Montana, etc.

 @gooded: You don't hear about big cities in any of those states either. Think there could be a connection between that and smaller amounts of gang violence?

Even then, you'd hear about it if you paid attention. For instance Louisville, Kentucky ("ground zero for America's homicide crisis" apparently) has just had an FBI task force deployed to help the local PD who feel unable to cope with a gang war that's been going since last year.

Quick comparison - Louisville, population 800,000 - murders from Jan to August this year 125. London, England, population >8,000,000 - murders over the same period 91. If transatlantic comparisons are unfair, it has a murder rate 5 times higher than that of true blue New York City. Explanation?

 @gooded: You completely miss the point, by the way. Gang members even in the states with the strictest gun control laws are still at risk of being shot by rival gangs with vast quantities of illegal guns, and it obviously doesn't bother them. If it did, gang violence would be a problem which solved itself decades ago. Since it hasn't it's quite compelling evidence that the risk of being shot is not an effective suppressor of criminal behaviour.

 Only “guns for everyone”can level the playing field when it comes to this problem.@wasea04:

 @wingguy: It's interesting that you have no idea what you're talking about, but you really love to hear yourself talk and just let your confirmation bias run wild on the google to fine anything you think supports your point.

To get the obvious out of the way first, comparing to London is an idiotic effort by any measure. The US is more violent than other first world nations due to a number of factors, and that isn't going to change even if all guns suddenly vanished.

The reality is that the US doesn't have a gun violence problem... liberal shitholes have violence problem and, specifically, a gun violence problems. Even within those shitholes, gun violence is an extremely localized issue that affects a small number of people.

You think you're scoring a victory for your position in highlighting a city in a red state like Kentucky by calling out Louisville but you're not making any point other than to highlight your ignorance of the facts and desire to cherry pick data from the internet that you think sounds good. The reality is that Louisville is a solid example of why gun control is a bad idea. Let's break down your Louisville argument:
According to the FBI, Kentucky as a whole had a total of 309 homicides in 2020.
Of those 309 homicides:
261 of those were committed with a firearm.
173 of those homicides were in Louisville and 157 of them were firearms homicides in Louisville.
Louisville accounts for less than 14% of Kentucky's population but accounted for more than 60% of their firearms homicides and 56% of their total homicides
Roughly 55% of people of Kentucky own guns and yet only a very small portion of Kentucky is experiencing an issue.

More than half of the counties in this country have 0 homicides, by any means firearms or otherwise.
More than half of all homicides in this country occur in just 2% of the counties.
Nearly 70% of all homicides happen in just 5% of the counties, more than 80% happen in just 20% of counties.
Drilling down even deeper, even within those counties where crime is most prevalent, it's a highly localized issue... In Boston for example, more than 50% of gun violence occurs in an area covering only 3% of the city's intersections and streets.

Gun violence is a real issue, but it isn't the issue you're being sold by the media. There's a number of reasons around this that are complicated and would involve a much larger discussion than can reasonably be conducted here but, the one thing that is clear is that you lack the foundational knowledge of the basic facts surrounding the issue to conduct an informed discussion on it. If this is something you're actually interested in and passionate about, then I'd recommend you take the time to educate yourself on the facts rather than the propagandist spin that surrounds the discussion. If you're just trolling, then I suggest you find a topic where you're better informed.

 @badbadleroybrown: Idk bro Murica defo got gun issues. Glad I live somewhere where we didn't have to practice school shooting drills at school

 @badbadleroybrown: It is interesting that your entire purpose of your rant is to refute a position that I have not even hinted at, let alone taken.

Several people on here have posited that armed citizens are the solution to street crime. As you have just so comprehensively demonstrated, crime rates have toss all to do with availability of legal guns or other weapons that normal people can carry. NB: I have not said that legal guns cause crime. NB: I have not said I’m against gun ownership.

So if I have no idea what I’m talking about, how come you’ve just dedicated such a long post to comprehensively proving my point? Levels of street crime are linked to more complex factors that have orders of magnitude more influence than whether another person on the street might have a weapon.

 @badbadleroybrown: also, note well that I did not make this a red vs blue, I don’t think it is a red blue issue, and I did not cherry pick Louisville. A red vs blue claim about gang violence in Kentucky was made by another poster, and Louisville is the largest city in Kentucky. That’s what I was given, that’s what I responded to. That there are zero murders in some back woods rural county with 50 people living in it matters not a bit to my refutation of the person who tried to make it a red vs blue issue.

If you want to make ignorant and offensive comments about about people who claim this is a party political thing, make them at the other guy.

 @Joebohobo: Awww... did that sound clever in your head, before you typed it? Did you read the facts and come up totally short on anything relevant to say so you thought a flippant comment about kids dying was a good choice?

School shootings should never happen... which is why there should be better mental health support systems at schools, why schools shouldn't be a gun free zone, why gun safety should be taught in schools as it used to be, and why armed security should be allowed at schools. But that won't happen because the left and the media doesn't want logical, common sense solutions to gun violence at schools... dead kids on the TV so they helps sell their narrative and push for nonsensical bans on modern sporting rifles.

The reality is that no kid goes to shoot up a school looking for a gun fight. These are troubled kids who need help from mental health professionals and they're choosing schools because they're known targets with no defenses. Proper security would eliminate nearly all school shootings... which, despite their disproportionate media representation and use in arguing in favor of gun control, account for a statistically insignificant portion of gun violence.

Since 1999 when Columbine rocked the collective psyche of the country, there have been a total of eleven high casualty, high profile school shootings... combined, they account for a total of 127 deaths. In 2020 alone there were a total of 13,663 firearms homicides. So, collectively, the worst school shootings of the past 22 years represent less than 1% of the total firearms homicides from just last year.

That school shootings are propped up as a valid, or even relevant, component of the larger discussion surrounding gun violence and how to resolve it is nothing more than an example of pedophrastic propaganda.

 @wingguy: So now you don't even know what you're arguing anymore, you're just arguing... weird flex, but ok.

[QUOTE]Even then, you'd hear about it if you paid attention. For instance Louisville, Kentucky ("ground zero for America's homicide crisis" apparently) has just had an FBI task force deployed to help the local PD who feel unable to cope with a gang war that's been going since last year.

Quick comparison - Louisville, population 800,000 - murders from Jan to August this year 125. London, England, population >8,000,000 - murders over the same period 91. If transatlantic comparisons are unfair, it has a murder rate 5 times higher than that of true blue New York City. Explanation?[/QUOTE]

You brought up Louisville, which is a blue region within the larger state of Kentucky wherein firearms ownership is lower than the state as a whole. So, my breakdown of the statistical distribution of gun crime as it relates to the state refuted both the idea that gang crime is equally prevalent in both red and blue regions as well as the idea that more guns in citizens hands doens't have an impact.

Let me elaborate since you seem to be having a tough time keeping up... Louisville is a democratic region within the larger state of Kentucky. Within that region there is a highly permissive attitude towards criminals and they face lower penalties than in other areas... this is a common theme among liberal areas but we'll stick to just your example for the sake of simplicity to help you follow. So, in that permissive area, which leans heavily left, you have a combination of two things... the success and growth of gang activity in an area where they're less likely to be hit with maximum penalties and a population that eschews the "redneck" attitude of the state and doesn't embrace firearms ownership. So, we see that in this one area within the state, despite being a relatively small portion of the state's population, it's grown to a massive portion of the states gun crime and homicides.

Were guns the issue, we would see the gun crime rate follow the gun ownership rates... were red or blue politics not playing a part, we would see this gang activity spill into neighboring counties and distribute the violence there as well.

Apologies that my original post was too long for you and included more information than you were capable of absorbing, I generally tend to avoid explaining myself to low intelligence types so I failed to dumb it down sufficiently for you... but I figured this is an important topic and, for others who come across it, more information was better than less. I hope this more concise breakdown of the information specific to your Louisville example was helpful. Better luck on your next troll, hopefully it's an area you're better informed in.

 @badbadleroybrown: So you are arguing that the only factor in prevalence of gang violence in any community of any size is Democrat vs Republican control? You truly believe that a city of 5 million vs a town of 50 should see an equal rate of gang related violence if they are both controlled by the same political party?

You’re right, there is absolutely no point in us continuing this conversation.

 @badbadleroybrown: “Were guns the issue”

Right, since you couldn’t follow my very clear statement last time - I am arguing that guns ARE NOT the issue. You have simply assumed that because I am arguing guns are not a preventative, I must be arguing that they are causative. I am not. I have said absolutely nothing that could reasonably lead you to believe I think that. You are simply using it as an excuse to sling insults.

 @wingguy: I get your argument, that guns are not a preventative... but you're wrong. Guns are a preventative, as shown by the comparative lack of gun crime in areas where guns are prevalent. Only 3% of public mass shootings have occurred where guns were permitted, the other 97% have occurred in either designated gun free zones or where they're prohibited by statute. If having guns around doesn't affect shootings, why are mass shootings only happening where guns are prohibited? Why don't we have mass shootings at firing ranges or gun shows or rodeos?

And no, I'm not arguing that the only factor of gang violence prevalence in any community is party control... but that is an impressively absurd strawman that you've managed to concoct.

 @badbadleroybrown: Then why does a city in a red state where concealed carry is fully permitted have a murder rate 5 times that of a much larger city in a blue state where concealed carry is incredibly rare and difficult to get? Why does it have a murder rate orders of magnitude larger than a city where concealed carry of any weapon at all is illegal? If I’ve concocted a straw man you’ll need an argument other than ‘it has a blue city council’.

Mass shootings is simply a red herring. Mass shootings and overall crime are not the same thing.

 @wingguy: Blue cities are just letting gang shootings happen because they consider them "mutual combatants". Recently in Chicago (Oct 4, 2021), there was a shootout. Five suspects were detained and 70 casings found. Prosecutors let them go, did not charge them of any crimes, and said the reasoning was that they were "mutual combatants." So, there's that.

www.foxnews.com/us/illinois-chicago-gang-shootout-mutual-combat-charges

 @badbadleroybrown: guns & Murica good. Rest of world bad. Me like trump keep going man

 @wingguy: Oh... I see your problem... it's that among the great many aspects of firearms laws in the US about which you're entirely clueless, the concealed carry permit process is among them. Apologies, I should have assumed as much but I'll gladly elaborate for you. As we've already touched upon, the deeply blue Louisville area isn't populated with people who own guns to begin with so they're disadvantaged... again, this is why we don't see the epidemic of gang activity spill over to neighboring communities like Lexington.

Now, to your newly revised approach concerning concealed carry... if you have a population that's largely disinterested in guns and subscribes to the liberal narratives surrounding them, then they're not going to be particularly interested in pursuing concealed carry... so despite the state as a whole being a constitutional carry state, the locality largely eschews that freedom in line with their political stance.

This, of course, is all just an ancillary strawman you've moved to that's only tangential to the underlying issue we're actually discussing... which is the prevalence of gang activity cause by the permissive attitude by the local liberal government. Sadly, the local liberal folks living their are victims of their own votes fostering this environment and they then suffer the consequences in dealing with the gang crime epidemic as well as an in being victims directly of the crimes they commit. This is typically liberal pattern of their cognitive dissonance wherein they vote for policies that ruin their local communities before leaving those communities for better, safer communities where they continue to vote for precisely the same policies that led to their abandoning previous communities. It's a significant issue that states like Florida and Texas are dealing with in people fleeing California because of the failings of liberalism but bringing their absurdly bad political ideologies with them.

And no, discussing mass shootings wasn't a red herring... it was a direct response to someone else who mentioned school shootings. Try to keep up; when there's a different user @'ed atop the post that means the comment is a response to that user instead of you.

 @Joebohobo: Well, that was interesting response to your previous point being thoroughly dismantled.

Guns are neither good nor bad... Anything in the wrong hands becomes bad, guns are no different. You can carve a turkey with a chefs knife or you can slit someone's throat with it, the knife is indifferent to which choice you make. You can shoot a turkey with a gun or you can shoot your neighbor, the gun is similarly indifferent. Guns don't create violence any more than a fork creates obesity.

Very little of the world is either bad or good, the huge majority is a complicated blend of both and that presents tremendous difficulties for the short attention span generation you're a part of with your inability to think about things in depth and form conclusions on your own so I understand you're a victim of your times but you're old enough now to expect better for yourself and do better... so try harder.

As for Trump, he's an ass... but his policies were solid and did well for the country. Despite all the propaganda you've been fed and clearly believe, he was much closer to a classical democrat than he was to the conservative tyrant you've been sold... so that might be a good place for your start your journey of critical thinking. Learn to accept that he's neither good nor bad, he's a pompous elitist but one whose personal interests aligned with the good of the nation at the expense of the entrenched establishment, on both sides, which is why they all worked so hard to convince folks like you to hate him.

 @badbadleroybrown: That's not an elaboration, those are just sweeping assumptions. What data do you have to show that people in Louisville have decided not to take advantage of their ability to own and carry guns?

But OK, Lexington. Just to be clear, you do hold up Lexington as an example of the crime reducing potential of red state legal carry attitudes? Ok cool. Lexington has a murder rate over the past 5 years that has been, on average, around 2.5 times that of NYC. I await your next logical contortion with great interest.

And mass shootings? YOU wrote about mass shooting to ME in response to our discussion. Try and at least keep your own bullshit straight. But ok, here's why there aren't mass shootings at gun shows - homicidal gun fetishists are unlikely to have anything against a group of random people whose only shared characteristic is that they also like guns. Duh.

 @badbadleroybrown: please don’t take my constitution away x

 @wingguy: The data of CCW license penetration prior to constitutional carry passing... just south of 8% of people in Lexington vs less than 5% in Louisville.

You really struggle with comprehension don't you? I didn't hold up Lexington as anything but an example of a neighboring community to Louisville that isn't yet experiencing the same issues because this isn't a "Kentucky" problem, it's a Louisville problem. Give it some time though, as I already alluded to, lefties love to leave and bring their bad votes to neighboring states so I've no doubt that we'll eventually see more and more similarities as the conservative voting gun owners are replaced with gun fearing, crime tolerant liberals.

As for your idiotic comparison and question about why NYC has a much lower per capita rate, it's because NYC benefits from a massive population distributed into roughly the same area as Lexington so, despite having well over 10x more homicides each year, the large population makes it seem like a comparatively small number when you twist things into "murder rates" instead of talking about the actual numbers. With the high localization of gun crime being offset by high population density, high income and business areas in NYC which simply aren't present anywhere in Kentucky, least of all Louisville or Lexington, you get a massive boost to population without a corresponding increase in homicides. If I actually believed you were more than just a troll, I'd take the time to drill down into the localities to highlight how bad the actual crime prevalent areas within NYC are, but we both know you don't want and education on the facts... you just want confirmation bias for the scary stories your TV told about gun violence in the US.

As for mass shootings, no... I wrote about mass shootings in response to Joebohobo, I then referenced mass shootings to you only in the context of your idiotic assertion that more guns doesn't serve as a deterrent to gun crimes. I referenced mass shootings because crime as a whole where guns are prevalent is statistically non-existent and the reality of gun free zone homicides paints an easy picture for anyone with a brain to follow, perhaps I gave you too much credit in thinking you could make sense of it. In any case, as "sweeping assumptions" go, you certainly hit the mark with "homicidal gun fetishists are unlikely to have anything against a group of random people whose only shared characteristic is that they also like guns" so good job on that. If your objective is to really drive home how little you understand the issue of gun violence, you're really doing a phenomenal job.

"Homicidal" and "gun fetishist" is a phrase you looney gun control types love to associate but the two rarely meet in the real world. Outside of the criminalistic cultures that you types love to preach tolerance for, there's gun owners are almost universally non-homicidal. Most of the homicidal types outside of career criminals are either wannabe thug life types like the recently released pro football player, Desmond Arnett, or they're emotionally inept mental healthcare cases who break existing laws to gain access to guns, further nullifying many basic elements of the gun control arguments y'all push.

But "duh" certainly sums up your contribution to this discussion in the type of concise manner generally missing from your posts so, next time, save yourself the typing and just roll with that.

 @badbadleroybrown: You said that gun violence didn’t spill from Louisville to Lexington BECAUSE Louisville was uniquely non gun carrying. It is unbelievably dishonest of you to claim I don’t know anything because I’m taking your words at face value.

What are the concealed carry stats for the rest of KY? What about NYC?

Right, so you admit you wrote to me about mass shootings. So why were you so dishonest as to claim I was replying to what you wrote to someone else? Why do you get off on being so rude for no reason?

On that note - You realise you’re now claiming that perpetrators of mass shootings aren't homicidal, right? What on earth makes you think that reflects well on your reasoning skills?

 @wingguy: are you actually this stupid or is this just a routine you do online while trolling?

1. I never said Louisville was uniquely anything, claiming I did is literally the opposite of taking my words at face value... which is why I've stated you obviously don't know anything. I used Lexington as a local comparative as it's a similarly large metropolis in the same region, just without the extent of liberal saturation. I never said Louisville was uniquely bad nor that Lexington was uniquely good... only that they are not the same despite proximity and similarities.

2. I never said I didn't write anything to you about mass shootings... I refuted your claim that "mass shootings is simply a red herring"... perhaps you're as unaware of this as you are everything about firearms but a red herring is a logical fallacy in which someone attempts to build a case based upon irrelevant data, which I did not do. I brought up mass shootings in reply to someone directly mentioning them, and then referenced them as an example of where the absence of guns has led to the proliferation of target selection in those areas. In both cases, the mention was very relevant and in no way a red herring.

3. Go ahead and quote the comments I made which your malformed little brain is attempting to distort into me claiming that mass shooters are not homicidal.

You're grasping at straws and making increasingly irrelevant arguments at this point... you've lost the debate so badly you aren't even trying to argue your original idiotic point anymore, you're just jumping from one poorly formed assumption to another in a desperate attempt to salvage some win here and all you're doing is making yourself look more ignorant with every post. You really should've taken my advice hours ago and moved on.

 @badbadleroybrown: 1) Right. So Lexington DOES HAVE concealed carry and DOES NOT HAVE liberal saturation - the two things you have held up as the main factors for and against gun violence. So why does it consistently have more than double the homicide rate of NYC, a significantly larger city with liberal saturation and without concealed carry? Care to demonstrate you’re capable of more than just hurling insults and address that point?

2) You’re just lying now. You said I should have realised you weren’t talking to me about mass shootings because someone else’s name was quoted at the top of the post. My name was quoted at the top of the post I replied to about gun violence. You lied when you said you weren’t addressing it to me, and you’re lying now when you claim you didn’t say that. It’s pathetic, and I have no idea why you’re doing it.

3) I said mass shooters were homicidal gun fetishists (I threw in the gun fetishist bit to piss you off - not all of them are, but a lot are). You ranted for several paragraphs about how it’s anti gun propaganda to call them homicidal. You even equated them with normal gun owners. I don’t think mass shooters have anything to do with normal gun owners - obviously they’re almost universally not homicidal. The fact that you felt an attack on mass shooters was an attack on normal gun owners speaks volumes about how you see them, though.

 @wingguy: You're really flailing about here lil guy... we already covered this, and it's all still posted in the comments above if you need to refresh your flagging short term memory.

1. We already covered that... population density. In terms of homicides, NYC has more than 20x more... but NYC also 25x the population of Lexington so the "rate" you keep trying to reference in your desperate attempt to say something relevant is heavily skewed and not representative of anything but your poor grasp on basic reasoning.

2. Feel free to reread the comments... and then feel free to google "red herring fallacy". You are pathetic though, I'll agree with that much.

3. Still waiting for those quotes where I said mass shooters weren't homicidal. Not sure what all your blathering idiocy has to do with my quotes but, like I said... feel free to quote the comments I made. I never made any comment relating to the homicidal tendencies of mass shooters, mostly because I wouldn't think anyone would be stupid enough to need to dissect anything that obvious but then I apparently keep overestimating your capacity for basic reasoning and giving you way too much credit.

 @badbadleroybrown: You think that population density naturally leads to lower crime rates? That’s insane. Do you even know what crime rate is? It’s how many are committed per X number of people. Lexington has more than double the homicide rate of NYC. That means if you divide the population into chunks of 10k people, each 10k chunk of Lexington currently has twice as many murdered people as each 10k chunk of NYC. The explanation for that is not “NYC has more people”.

2) Mass murder is a red herring. Even in the states it’s a rare crime and it’s tricky to try and take statistical meanings from it. For a start, most mass murders have a motive, even if it’s a crazy one. A teenager shoots up his school it’s not because the school happened to be a gun free zone, it’s because that’s where the people he hates are. A guy shoots up a government office, it’s not because it’s a gun free zone but because he thinks that department is evil and must be stopped. A homicidal maniac with a massive gun collection doesn’t shoot up a gun show, it’s because he doesn’t have a a problem with gun owners.

3) Like you said, it’s all in the comments above. I said mass shooters were homicidal, you said that was a looney gun control type thing to say, and went in to spend several paragraphs explaining why normal gun owners aren’t homicidal. Again, I don’t know why you equate mass shooters with homicidal gun owners but you clearly do and that’s an issue you’ll need to work through on your own.

By the way - it didn’t work as an insult either because I still haven’t said a single thing in favour of gun control. Maybe if you had bothered listening for one moment instead of focussing all your effort on being as offensive as possible you wouldn’t be so confused.

 @wingguy: Wow... it's legitimately impressive that you could respond this frequently, and with such verbosity, and yet entirely avoid saying anything remotely intelligent.

Still waiting for you to quote where I said mass shooters are not homicidal. Just copy/paste the part where I said that. While you're at it, go ahead and quote where I said population density "naturally leads to lower crime rates" as well.

And no, mass murder isn't a red herring at all. It is interesting that you desperately try to dismiss mass murder as an irrelevant number of killings while more people die from mass shootings each year than die in all of Kentucky, and yet you cling to Louisville and Lexington as some glaring example of gun violence run wild. That type of hypocritical reasoning takes a truly impressive level of stupidity to commit to...

 @badbadleroybrown: Pretty much all of my posts have been shorter than yours. To complain about verbosity shows a staggering lack of self awareness on your part.

You just said that NYC has a lower crime rate than Lexington because of population density. You absolutely, unequivocally just said that. So explain what you meant by that statement if you’re not saying that high population density leads to low crime. Explain why true blue, no concealed carry NYC has a lower murder rate than concealed carry red state Lexington if guns are so important for crime prevention.

I said that mass shooters were homicidal gun fetishists and you went on a massive rant about how I must be a looney gun control type for calling gun owners homicidal. So again - it’s completely your problem that you conflate gun owners with mass shooters, because I don’t. If you want to apologise for going on an unfounded rant based on something I didn’t say, and you didn’t mean to conflate all gun owners with mass shooters then I’ll accept that you simply made a mistake and didn’t mean to say that mass shooters aren’t homicidal.

Mass shootings are a red herring. They are rare, and there are numerous reasons why they happen where they happen that have nothing to do with gun control. Especially why they don’t happen at gun shows because again, homicidal gun fetishists are very unlikely to have anything against a bunch of random people who also like guns.

 @wingguy: Jesus guy, don't you ever get tired of looking stupid?

I never complained about verbosity, I literally said I was impressed by the frequency and verbosity with which you've engaged in this conversation while still managing to avoid saying any intelligent. You've reached a level of idiocy that borders on skilled stupidity at this point.

Yes, I said that the RATE of homicides... as in homicides per 100k population is lower in NYC than in Lexington because of population density, which is the correct answer. There were 462 murders in NYC last year compared to 34 murders in Lexington... the reason that equates to a higher homicide RATE in Lexington is because there's roughly 8,420,000 people in NYC compared to 320,600 people in Lexington.

One more time since you continue to struggle with reality... QUOTE where I said that mass shooters are not homicidal. I'm not interested in your misguided interpretation of what you think I said, we've already well established that reading comprehension and critical thinking are not your strong suites... go ahead and post the quote or admit you're full of shit.

Once again, no... Mass shootings are not a red herring. In point of fact, comparing Lexington to NYC is more of a red herring than mass shootings are but that's a whole different topic and you're already struggling to keep up so we'll table that. A red herring is the presentation of irrelevant information in an effort to distract from the underlying discussion (sort of like rambling about the murder rates of wildly different areas) in a debate. I brought up mass shootings in direct response to a poster mentioning school shootings and the referenced mass shootings as an example of where gun control has done a demonstrably poor job in regulating gun crime. While we're discussing logical fallacies, your idiotic presumption that mass shootings don't happen at certain places because of unspecified "numerous reasons" where the shooter is "unlikely to have anything against a bunch of random people" is what's called begging the question. The presumption that the interpersonal conflicts which lead to mentally unstable individuals committing mass shootings are somehow excluded in a particular venue purely because their inclusion would serve to disprove your argument is flatly idiotic.

 @badbadleroybrown: Yes, as I just taught you, that is how homicide rate is calculated. And homicide rate is the measure of how dangerous a place is - because simply comparing total numbers of homicide s as you are apparently trying to do is both useless and unbelievably stupid. Like, honestly, what the f*ck are you even talking about at this point? If you live in a village of 100 people and they sacrifice 5 to Satan every year is that a safer place to live than NYC because it only had 5 murders?

Mass shootings a red herring. I don’t care why you mentioned them to another poster or why he mentioned them to you, that’s not part of the conversation we are having. Location of mass shootings doesn’t have anything to do with general crime prevention. And you still need to explain why you called me a looney gun control type for saying mass shooters are homicidal. I will now say the only gun control related thing I will say in this entire conversation, you shouldn’t have a gun because you’re clearly too idiotic to know how to use one.

 @wingguy: guys just agree to disagree, I haven't read these posts and just trolled the other day in the hope you guys would realise there's no end to this.

People have different opinions and that's okay - arguing over a bike forum/news site is just wasting both of your time and energy. You really think one of you is gonna read the other's comment and go 'You know what old chap, you're right - thank you for making me see sense?'

 @wingguy: The only thing you've taught me is that the UK's public education system is apparently even worse than the US's. And no, homicide rate isn't a measure of how dangerous a city is because, as we've already established, crime and gun crime in particular is a highly localized issue. As for what I'm talking about, I'm not talking about NYC, you are... did you forget already? I merely said that Lexington had a higher rate of concealed carry and a lower rate of murder as compared to Louisville, which is a relevant comparison between two geographically and socioeconomically... you then jumped into some retarded soliloquy about New York and started demanding to have homicide rate explained to you, so I obliged and explained that homicide rate is the result of population density.

Again, no mass shootings are not a red herring. The fact that you're exponentially more likely to be shot in a gun free zone than in a shooting range or gun show or rodeo where there's a high concentration of guns is directly relevant to your argument that the presence of armed citizens doesn't impact the chance of gun violence in a positive way. You don't want to accept that fact because it contradicts your confirmation bias but it is reality.

As for who should or shouldn't have guns, we've already thoroughly established the general worthlessness of your opinion so I'd honestly be more concerned about anyone you thought should have a gun than those you think shouldn't.

 I know one thing. Minds have been changed, lives have been saved through this conversation.

 @TheR: I mean, during this long thread, Britney was finally 'freed' from conservatorship. There is that.

 @bman33: During this thread, I've spent 5 days of my life deleting notifications from it.

 @TheR: and i just realised the true definition of a satirical comment

 @iduckett: me too!

 @iduckett: And why would someone downvote what you said, I can’t see why that would offended someone.

 @Joebohobo: Hey idiot London has more murders than most cities in America ok stabbings, you got me. I would rather get shot than stabbed ya wanker ..

 @BikesNRussets: you just have to remeber some folks are offended by even their own pathetic existence the rest just go who the f*ck pays attention to upvotes or downvotes unless youvget a dollar in the secret pinkbike outside account

 @BikesNRussets: and lets not forget the entourage …. I didnt know sad little wankers also follow you to see what you comment on just to downvote comments you make …. Stalkers

 @Compositepro: and it doesn’t help that the downvote button is exactly where I scroll on mobile, I’ve downvoted like 30 people this week on accident because of that.

 @Compositepro: I’ve said some non pc stuff in forums so I probably do have stalkers LOL.

 @Bushmaster123: love u bro x

 @badbadleroybrown: Leroy, you’re just flat out lying about the conversation. I’ve been asking you to explain for many posts now why Lexington is a more dangerous place than NYC despite having red state policies and concealed carry, I haven’t just jumped into it. And you did just say NYC had a lower murder rate because it’s bigger - despite the fact that I’d already specifically asked you if that’s what you were arguing and you vehemently denied it.

Anyway, you’ve just again admitted that numerous other policy factors have a far, far greater effect on crime than the carry of guns, and you’ve just again stated that blue state NY is inherently safer than red state Lexington or Louisville despite levels of guns. So week done you, you’re making some progress at least.

 @Bushmaster123: London has a far lower murder rate than the average US city.

 @wingguy: NYC isn't bigger than Lexington, idiot... they're roughly the same size. Murder rate is a function of population density, so NYC has substantially more murders and is more dangerous, but it's so much more populous that the rate is lower because that's how math works. Imagine being stupid enough to argue that an area where more than 400 people are killed each year is safer than an area where 30 people are killed.

The blue state NY isn't "inherently" anything either... you keep using these words that you don't understand, desperately trying to seem informed and just keep looking like a dumbass.

 @badbadleroybrown: You are a dyed in the wool moron. Imagine being so obsessed with firearms that you have to argue that the city where each person has twice the chance of getting murdered is the safer city, because otherwise you’d have to admit that concealed carry doesn’t prevent crime.

I’ll ask again, say you live in a crazy cult village of 100 people and 5 of them are ritually murdered every year in a Wicker Man type ritual - is that village safer than NYC or Lexington because it only has 5 murders, even though you’d stand a 5% chance of being murdered each year if you lived there?

But ok, if pure number of murders is the measure of danger, let’s try Texas. Super red, red state Texas has more murders than NYC, despite all the guns. Why is Texas so much more dangerous?

 @wingguy: "You are a dyed in the wool moron" i can only assume you set your expectations far too high , someone once said dont read the bottom of the internet (they were referring to the comments section) however im going to steal the term and use it with much abandon

 @wingguy: What if it was more Midsommar style? That appeals more to me, just saying You and Leroy need to put on the parachutes and ease it up, man. Let the disagreement go, better activities for ya out there!

 @wingguy: Jesus man, every time you post you just seem stupider. At this point, I feel like I'm explaining something to a disabled person. You're being given the precise, factual answer to the question you're asking. You not liking the reality of that answer doesn't mean it's not the answer. Homicide rate is the number of homicides divided by the population. Ipso facto, NYC's murder rate is lower because their population is higher. Not sure if English is your second language or if you're just really really stupid but if you want a different answer you'll need to ask a different question.

5 murders in abstract doesn't equate to a 5% chance of being murdered, that's not how reality works. Comparing a state that covers nearly 270,000 square miles with a city that spans only 300 square miles is retarded even by the incredibly low standard you've set. It's almost like you're in a competition with yourself to just say dumber shit in a desperate effort to salvage some dignity in this long chain of you demonstrating your ignorance.

I'll tell you what though... I'll throw you a bone and do some public service today trying to educate an idiot:

If you want to make comparisons, they need to be roughly similar sets of data to have any relevance. So, since you're so hung up on your comical perception of how safe NYC is, let's break down a couple boroughs within NYC and see how your ignorance plays out.

Neighboring boroughs, Staten Island is conservative (58%), slightly smaller, less populous, and has a much higher concentration of CCW permits... and then Brooklyn, right across the bridge next door, is just a bit larger, much more populous, only the crooks have guns, and they're staunchly Democrat (78%).

Staten Island had a total of 20 murders in 2020. 4.2 Murders per 100k
Brooklyn had a total of 244 murders in 2020. 9.4 murders per 100k

You gonna raise your family on the Island or are you gonna settle down in Crooklyn?

Or maybe you wanna go to true blue Bronx (83% dem) and get some of that AOC socialism, not to worry, there's only been 232 murders there so far this year... pushing a strong 16 murders per 100k compared to Staten Island's flimsy 2021 rate of 2.3 murders per 100k. Those damn conservative gun owners on the Island really need to get their shit together huh?

Anti-gun heavily liberal Brooklyn has more than twice the homicide RATE as their next-door neighbor, conservative gun loving Staten Island and, not to be outdone, the Bronx is coming hard for the title in 2021.

If only someone had mentioned earlier how crime, and gun crime in particular, is a highly localized problem. Better luck next time lil guy...

 @badbadleroybrown: Yes, a precise factual answer that has absolutely zero meaning or value to a discussion. Yes, number of murders per population is how murder rate works (as I had to explain to your ignorant ass several posts ago). But it is absolutely not an answer that has any informational value whatsoever when asking ‘why does place x have a higher murder rate than place y’. Again, you are either a dyed in the wool moron or you are being intentionally dishonest to avoid actually answering a question you know you can’t answer.

You’re flailing so much that you actually claimed that the relative danger to the residents of Lexington and NYC had to be measured in number of murders per square mile, that’s how retarded you are.

And yes, someone did say gun crime is a highly localised issue - I did. Why is it so localised? Because it depends so massively on many issues that are far more powerful than whether resident carry guns. Which is also why you still see gang violence in red states, and Christ knows why you’re trying to argue otherwise.

 @wingguy: If you don't find value in the correct answer, then blame yourself for asking the wrong question... funny how you think you explained something to my "ignorant ass" and yet you still don't seem to understand it.

The reason NYC has a higher murder rate is because it has more people. That IS the reason, you can flounder about kicking and screaming about how much that upsets you but that is the reality. You are producing an artificial result by including millions of additional people into a comparison. It's a common liberal anti-gun tactic so I'm surprised by neither your attempts nor your outrage at being confronted by reality, but I am amused.

Also, just FYI, and I don't mean to be pedantic but while we're educating "ignorant ass" you might want to look up the meaning of 'dyed in the wool' because it doesn't mean what you think it means... it applies to a person holding immutable beliefs and ideologies, not intelligence. So, a person can be a dyed in the wool conservative or a dyed in the wool gun advocate but they can't be a dyed in the wool moron or even a dyed in the wool genius, you moron.

You're welcome to quote where I ever stated that relative danger is measured by murder per mile or anything else, I'd like to read that... especially since I've made no statement at any point as to how the relative danger to anyone is measured.

And now you're just moving on from ignorance to outright lies; YOU didn't say gun crime is a highly localized issue... I did. In fact, I said it in only my second response to you while you were sooking on about your original idiotic comparison to London before you skipped over to raging against the reality that concealed carry correlates with a localized reduction in gun crime. If you had any comprehension of this reality, then you wouldn't have tried to make a non-localized comparison to places like London and NYC. Put the big red nose and floppy shoes away and stop being such a clown.

Since you're still struggling with facing reality, here's that post where I explained to you the localization of crime to you... you should've taken my advice about educating yourself or moving on four days ago (also funny that four days later you still have no idea what you're talking about, but you're still in love with hearing yourself talk ) :

@wingguy: It's interesting that you have no idea what you're talking about, but you really love to hear yourself talk and just let your confirmation bias run wild on the google to fine anything you think supports your point.

To get the obvious out of the way first, comparing to London is an idiotic effort by any measure. The US is more violent than other first world nations due to a number of factors, and that isn't going to change even if all guns suddenly vanished.

The reality is that the US doesn't have a gun violence problem... liberal shitholes have violence problem and, specifically, a gun violence problems. Even within those shitholes, gun violence is an extremely localized issue that affects a small number of people.

You think you're scoring a victory for your position in highlighting a city in a red state like Kentucky by calling out Louisville but you're not making any point other than to highlight your ignorance of the facts and desire to cherry pick data from the internet that you think sounds good. The reality is that Louisville is a solid example of why gun control is a bad idea. Let's break down your Louisville argument:
According to the FBI, Kentucky as a whole had a total of 309 homicides in 2020.
Of those 309 homicides:
261 of those were committed with a firearm.
173 of those homicides were in Louisville and 157 of them were firearms homicides in Louisville.
Louisville accounts for less than 14% of Kentucky's population but accounted for more than 60% of their firearms homicides and 56% of their total homicides
Roughly 55% of people of Kentucky own guns and yet only a very small portion of Kentucky is experiencing an issue.

More than half of the counties in this country have 0 homicides, by any means firearms or otherwise.
More than half of all homicides in this country occur in just 2% of the counties.
Nearly 70% of all homicides happen in just 5% of the counties, more than 80% happen in just 20% of counties.
Drilling down even deeper, even within those counties where crime is most prevalent, it's a highly localized issue... In Boston for example, more than 50% of gun violence occurs in an area covering only 3% of the city's intersections and streets.

Gun violence is a real issue, but it isn't the issue you're being sold by the media. There's a number of reasons around this that are complicated and would involve a much larger discussion than can reasonably be conducted here but, the one thing that is clear is that you lack the foundational knowledge of the basic facts surrounding the issue to conduct an informed discussion on it. If this is something you're actually interested in and passionate about, then I'd recommend you take the time to educate yourself on the facts rather than the propagandist spin that surrounds the discussion. If you're just trolling, then I suggest you find a topic where you're better informed.

 @badbadleroybrown: can you like shut the hell up? I agree with most the things you are saying, but you retards are flooding my inbox.

 @BikesNRussets: agreed - these two just need to give it a rest take it to the dms if they need to

 @L0rdTom: you realise he's won national level lock picking competitions in the states, right? The guy is a master of his craft

 Too true, total lack of finesse

 @wasea04: You aren’t being radical, he is holding a angle grinder. Curbstomp his ass.

 I don't think you're a radical per say, but have you thought out the other side of confronting a criminal element with a weapon long term? Does that just mean the guy has a gun the next time to match the potential threat of someone that's not law enforcement having a weapon that can overwhelm them? An open carry gun doesn't matter much if it elevates the every day criminal to concealed carry does it? The desperate are more likely to find a way to succeed than the careful. I see civilian open carry almost the same as police equipment escalation, the criminal group will match or better the opposing force eventually. In this case, with the next encounter the thief had a weapon and both parties opened fire, would the potential danger to civilians surrounding the incident be worth it?

 @TheBrosCloset: @TheBrosCloset: I'd guess you'd hope that knowing many are capable and willing of fighting back would make them think more than once on whether they'd roll the dice of thieving.

 Half send

 @DizzyNinja: Which means it ended up in the wrong edit...Friday Fails was a few minutes ago.

 The deer taking out the rider didn't really surprise me really. What struck me was that it jumped back to help the rider back on the saddle, then to do it over and over again.

 Do gravel riders ride in cold weather? I thought the elastomers used for suspension duties stiffen up when they cool down. I wonder whether Vecnum has found an elastomer that doesn't (or at least doesn't in the foreseeable conditions).

 Does Vecnum have a suspension post to go along this? Maybe they could call it Vecnun rectum shocker?

Maybe I have to leave the room now..

 @vinay:

Depends on the elastomer material... but cold weather elastomers were a thing for bicycle suspension nearly 30 years ago also. Lots of other REAL vehicles use elastomers as springs which need to operate across a wider temperature range than one is likely to encounter on a gravel bike.

 You don't think this is somebody's business plan? Wait for the patents to expire and then sell the gravel bikers all of the old "half-measure" crap that didn't work out for MTBs. Softride seats next. They are already onto flat bars. It'll be bullhorns next, maybe a slingshot-type frame design?

 @st-lupo:

Already had bullhorns make it into gravel bikes... hell the current flared drop bar craze goes back to WTB handlebars as folks like John Tomac was using on his Yeti when he raced XC and DH with drop bars. I still have a nearly complete NOS softride beam kit in the box on a shelf... gonna have to put it on a gravel build eventually just to make someone young thing its the greatest thing ever....

 I have a quill-stem version out in my garage somewhere. Much better looking than the vecnum. It had springs AND elastomers... Good 'ol Alsop!

 All the glue.

 I also had the version with the anodized purple bolts and it worked well enough, but for aggressive riding, you had to replace the bushings quite often. The one parallelogram broke and Softride sent me an all gold anodized stem for a replacement. I guess they just wanted to unload stock as the company was about to disappear. I love to try my gold one which is still in the original box on my Lynskey gravel bike. The problem is it ha a quill stem and is only for the old 26mm bars. Still, a shootout is needed.

 And slam that stem

 and turn his fork around

 way to give adolescents muscle imbalance that will stick with them through development jeez

 Still no complaint about seat tube angle?

 What footage?

 @wasea04:young citizen kr will be free and rapist rosenbaum is dead!!

 What if they had to pedal in order to charge their gaming laptop?

 I was going to say the same thing. If you want to ride a “gravel” bike for whatever reason, good on you. But if you’re looking for suspension and dropper posts, maybe a gravel bike isn’t what you’re looking for.

 Either way the guy on the bike got bucked

 Should be, that was a 9.5 dismount.

 Apparently so in looking at all the down votes on my comments pretty much most folks are just going to stand by and put it on Instagram for kicks and not do anything about it. Not even yell they're calling the cops. That doesn't take any physical effort nor getting close to the perps Sad group

 @pargolf8: I live in Bentonville, come on down, look me up and we can have a beer a talk about it. I welcome you. Let's see if your sh*t talking changes

 Agreed. That was a cool trail that would make the stationary bike ride a lot more fun. I'm curious where that trail is.