For some curious reason, our self-appointed social betters prefer collective solutions to the exclusion of private solutions. Public housing, public transportation, public protection in the form of police…invariably inefficient, insufficient and more expensive than private solutions. The expense is usually hidden, but it remains real and significant. The lack of choice is the greatest resulting problem — the bus goes from point A to point B, while a person on a bike or a car can go anywhere on the road and many destinations off road as well. The same is true of public protection — the political class get bodyguards and personal arms, the proles get only police who often act more as an occupying army than as protectors of the citizens.
My only concern–as a motorcyclist–with carrying like that is that in case of an accident, you’re likely going to be landing on your firearm, and there’s no good place on your body for that. Tank bags seem to be a safer place to carry, while still allowing ease of access–with the downside of having to transfer the holster between your body and your bike any time you leave or return to the bike.
A good holster distributes the area of the gun pretty widely, so the impact might not be as bad as it seems from observing only the visible holster part. Personally, I am afraid of riding with or without a gun, so any apprehensions seem well founded to me. But even the real risks are a personal choice, freedom.
I agree with Oleg (imagine that). Carry in a holster and leave it be. Most ND’s happen “transferring” the gun between holsters an storage. Carryin a holster and leave it be. Riding or not.
Great pic. I OC daily, and ride my MC most days, OC of course, as in the featured pic.
There are no “concerns”. Carry, OC, CC whatever… always. Just carry.
I have mixed feelings about open carry, believing concealed carry to be more prudent, it’s a “hot topic” subject with many people. Still, I support the right’s of other’s to carry, rather CCW or OC.
Did the young lady on the M/C ride it here from CA or is it a local M/C that she is pictured on? It’s pretty clear that she loves to ride.
Amazing. The lady can balance the bike while not moving long enough for a picture to be made. Hint: slow your shutter speed down and pan to show motion.
I tried that also but controlling vertical shake at speed in a car was rather difficult.
VR/IS lenses. Though personally I think there is plenty of blur around the brakes.
Not a camera tec, but…
The blurring around the spokes on both the front and rear wheels indicate that the bike IS in motion. I would guess the picture was taken at a relatively slow speed (little or no detail loss in the background) from a vehicle matching speed.
Hint: Nah, forget it.
I prefer CC -vs- OC, but I’m all for MYOB and individual freedoms. My pistol stays at between 3 and 4 o’clock and I will leave it there rather than transfer to and from some bag, especially as I CC. (Hey, look at the guy getting the gun out of bag. Oh yeah, that’s concealment). No, I don’t want to land on my weapon should I drop. The pelvis is certainly one of the major breakages in motorcycle accidents, but I would rather have my weapon available, concealed, and connected to my body.
Bad news to carry on the same side as the throttle. If she draws, she immediately starts losing speed and then come the ill timed swap to the off hand. She needs to learn to shoot/carry on the off side.
She’s more likely to need it when stopped, as she has more than enough power to outrun any cager. Shooting lefty costs her the use of the clutch which is likely more necessary for control of the bike.
I suppose I could get a left handed holster but in CA you have to load when needed not carry loaded. I can load with one hand now but not sure if left.
I would need a left handed holster. I can already shoot both hands almost equally
Even traveling on the roads and highways, you’re participating in a gigantic, multi-layer government program. Same goes for purchasing a vehicle and licensing it. Same goes for the manufacture of the vehicles and the production, formulation and distribution of the fuel.
Indeed, the very shape of our society– the layout of cities and towns, factories and suburbs, is dictated by this multi-trillion dollar government road, highway, and vehicle (including air travel) system.
Central “planning” and control is so deeply ingrained into our culture that I very much doubt anyone can imagine life without it. Most would shudder in fear and anger at the mere thought of a free society, at this stage.
Sorry, suckers. The die is cast.
Central planning and autocracy are also prominent features of the classic corporation.
BTW, how come CEO’s in the 1950’s and 1960’s could live on such drastically lower compensation? IIRC, they only earned 30-50 times the wage of a basic worker.
These days, they get far more. The question is, are they really earning that money. Seems to me 1950’s were far better times, economics wise.
I see nothing wrong with public transport. It works pretty well in most places in Europe.
Prague without it’s subway system and streetcars would be completely insane to commute in.
There’s no way to transport that many people that effectively. It’d be impossible to park all the cars needed in the city.
Prague was originally built around a system of foot and horse transportation. I said no one could imagine any transportation system other than a coercive one (public transportation is coercively funded and “planned” by bureaucrats) and you’re beginning to make my point. All you have left to seal the deal is to get angry at my suggestion that there are other ways besides coercion or other government meddling.
It’s not coercive, if the project is something the people’s elected representatives have voted on it.
At least in theory.
If even one individual is funding it, who doesn’t want it, then it is coercive, by definition.
If 51% of the individuals in a room want to rape a member of the other 49%, does that make it non-coercive?
Democracy is two wolves and one sheep, voting on what to have for dinner.
I understand there has been a concerted effort to conflate democracy with liberty, whereas in reality the two are near polar opposites.
Try refusing to pay for a public works project you disapprove, see what happens, and then tell me it’s not coercive. Or get a dictionary and look up the word. Here; I’ll do it for you. Encarta tells us “coercive” means; “Using Force – using force or threats to make somebody do something against his or her will.”
Or is there some difference, when 51% of the people use force against 49% that changes the meaning of the force and threats used to induce tax payments?
So theft is bad if one person does it, but it’s beautiful and wonderful if 100 million people do it?
Sooner or later, the truth will have its way with us.
Oy; but we do have such a very, very long way to go…
City real estate is expensive and makes up for the savings from (even heavily subsidized) public transportation. Cars allow for use of much cheaper decentralized real estate.
For one, cars are on the way out, due to rising energy costs.
As to the expense.. I wouldn’t be so sure.
For two, decentralized real estate places end up looking like LA.
Repeating the mantra doesn’t make it so. That overall energy costs are deliberately being driven up for political reasons (cf. nuclear more of the cost of that is spent on political issues than technical by far) doesn’t make it a law of nature. Oil costs are close to the level where coal liquification and extraction from more difficult oil shales and tar sands (both of which have very large reserves) are competitive. That makes the costs likely to stabilize (unless artificially driven up for political reasons) in constant dollars.
As to the cost, price an acre of land in the downtown area of any city then price an acre of land in the suburban areas around it.
For your second, LA looks like LA. And Indianapolis looks like Indianapolis. And San Antonio looks like San Antonio. Far more than just “de centralized real estate” goes into how a city “looks.”
I’m willing to drive a half hour to work in one direction.
My wife is willing to drive 45 minutes to work in the other direction. With “public transportation” (available in this city) my commute time would double and my wife wouldn’t be able to commute at all (works in a different city). To make that at all practical, one of us would have to quit and we’d have to move. The problem is that the houses close to where I work are either in really “bad” neighborhoods or very expensive. I can buy a lot of gas for what it would cost to live within an easy “public transit” commute of work (unless I were willing to have my daughter live in an unsafe, crime-ridden environment).
Despite what the government keeps saying, one size does _not_ fit all.
If public transportation actually made sense, it wouldn’t need to be subsidized; the fares from commuters would pay for it. The fact that it cannot be self-sufficient demonstrates that it is a failed idea.
That’s a straw-man argument. I know of no government that’s against private transport.
Public transport is simply a part of the overall picture, and one that only makes sense in densely inhabited regions.
——————–
Oil costs are far above where coal liquefaction is practical. South Africans put that figure at $40-60 per barrel.
The thing is, no big coal to oil plants will ever be built in the US. They’re environmentally dangerous and even if the plant was rammed past the greentard objections, good little libertarians like you would sue the project out of existence were it supposed to be built anywhere.
I mean, such an eyesore would lower the value of your property. That’s like stealing.. the plant would be effectively enslaving you ..
How is it a straw man argument when your. ow. words. were “cars are on the way out”? And how is it a straw man when the US’s own president made the campaign promise “under my plan energy prices will necessarily skyrocket” (a promise kept there)? All part of a deliberate policy to drive people to getting around (or not getting around) in government approved ways and drive people to “public transportation” that very few people want and the ones who want it aren’t willing to pay for it.
As for your mini-tirade against coal to oil, that argument can apply to _any_ energy generation method. You think wind farms aren’t an eyesore? You do know that the Sierra Club sued to stop the building of solar power plants in the southwest do you not? And as for “enslaving” (yet another emotion charged word that pundits love to throw around in an effort to shortcut reason), if I don’t like plant I can always move elsewhere. This is not an option when policy forbids the development of real energy sources. Which one, then, is doing the enslaving?
Oh, BTW, I’m not a Libertarian. I have some views congruent with the Libertarian view, but then I also have some views that differ. But it’s so much easier to just apply a label, isn’t it?
Oh, and another aspect of that “environmentally dangerous” the current (as in the last few decades) “trend” of using “environmental protection” as a tool of “social engineering” (what a lovely Newspeak term for totalitarianism–the government control of the everyday lives of individuals) is setting itself up for a backlash where nobody’s going to _care_. That result will be as bad, if not worse, in its own way as the current nanny state likely leading to a backlash back and starting the whole cycle all over agin.
Um, actually, no. Libertarians are absolutists for contracts. If I don’t have an agreement with the property owner that they cannot build a coal plant there, there would be no claim over which to sue. If I want to have those sort of restrictions, I would expect to pay for them, not just have some government impose them by force. By telling that land owner that he cannot build a coal plant there, I’ve lowered the value of his property by restricting his business opportunities, so I should justly expect to pay him if I expect him to agree to that restriction.
If I dislike living near coal plants, and I’m too stupid to make sure that I buy someplace where that will not happen (either due to geography, or by agreement), any libertarian would say “caveat emptor,” and tell me to get lost if I tried to stop it.
California Catalina Island most of Island 3,696 car free except for gasoline-powered golf carts in the town of Avalon
Car Free places
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_car-free_places#North_America
Seems that often the problem with public transport is the statists start hinting- and then demanding- that ‘Now you don’t need to have anything more than a bicycle, so you can get rid of that car/motorcycle/truck’.
And everything’s a trade-off: fast access vs. won’t land on it, or won’t land on it vs. have to screw with it when get on & off.
Shoulder rigs make much more sense for motorcycle riding. You are dressing for the (possible) fall, as much as the ride itself. Riding and racing suits are padded/armoured on the hips for a reason.
BTW, riding in tennis/running shoes is not very smart. They fly off in a fall, they are too sticky when you would rather have your feet slide across pavement, they provide no foot or ankle protection ( don’t even have to crash to need that), and provide no airborne debris protection while riding. And, your feet get cold.
Quod Erat Demonstradum
The reason why is actually pretty obvious, Mr. Volk.
Private services can exclude single individuals or entire sectors of population by reasons of, generally, income (those who can’t afford such services), or other preferences.
But there are some kind of services that a modern, civil sovereign nation can not let parts of the population excluded from. This should include communications, transportation, basic commodities, and safety.
That’s what the State is for. If the State doesn’t provides such services so that those who can afford either public or private services have a choice, and those who can NOT afford private services can still benefit for the same services provided by the public sector, well, in this case the State is basically pointless in existence.