"Bad things don't happen on the trail..." a/k/a "If she only had a pistol..."

Weapon doesn't mean gun necessarily, she almost fought him off unarmed if she had even had a SAK or a stick who knows......
 
better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

im feel for the woman and her family. usually in these cases its the thought of "it'll never happen to me" or "the odds are so extreme i dont need to worry". im sure we've all thought like that at one time or another. im sure its even happened on a smaller scale like the one day you take a different route to work you end up late because of road work (or something to that effect).
 
grunt soldier said:
mustardman actually there is that very study already with the exact same places. look at australia. check out there rates. everything has gone up a great amount since they took their guns.
Click to expand...

How is that the exact same places? Unless you are considering two towns in Australia, one of which banned guns and one which did not, you still can't draw meaningful conclusions from the statistics.

Sure you can argue the logic of it, and I'll even concede that the logic SOUNDS reasonable - but you can't PROVE it, and no matter how badly you want to believe it, the statistics don't PROVE your side any more than they prove the other side of the argument. They are nearly meaningless.
 
Crazy people are everywhere! How do you stop a deranged,nutty sociopath from doing his/her dirty deed somewhere/sometime?
 
Don Rearic said:
Or really knew how to use a knife...or a cane or walking stick. Good chance she would be alive today.

This is why it is sometimes very important to tell people when they are wrong or that they don't know what they are really talking about when it comes to the real world because occasionally, women like this frequent forums for information...if they feel as though they will be looked at as a "wannabe" or a "keyboard commando" or a "mall ninja," yeah, you can really negatively touch people's lives.

Not necessarily what happened in this case, she was a martial artist...but maybe somewhere on some forum or even in person, someone told her she didn't need a weapon. A guy that wasn't even in good enough shape to keep up with her on the AT met her on the way back down a trail and killed her later on.

http://www.citytv.com/toronto/cityn...iller-recounts-last-days-of-his-victim-s-life
Click to expand...

The OP originally mentioned a firearm as one possibility of several tools which she might have used to defend herself more effectively.

He also touched on the "Martial Artist mythology" (my term) this I suspect is the more likely scenario, as I've seen it in the real world.

More than once.

I am prejudiced, as the first homicide I ever worked (many years ago) was a Tae Kwan Do 'Black Belt' 17 year old who chased an armed robber.

New snow and it was easy to track them both, three blocks from the scene of the robbery we found the kid, propped up in an alley with a .32 caliber hole through his left eye and the brain behind it.

I think the OP made a very valid point!

I'm aware of the official Canadian and Japanese attitude toward personal ownership of firearms and the whole concept of self defense.

Been both places, never felt a need to return to either.

As far as the gun/crime debate ... read any of Dr. John Lott's books.

As always JMHO, YMMV.

Regards,
:)
 
well i guess i should have worded it differently mustardman. you can look at the exact same cities in australia and compare the statics from a when they had armed citizens and to when they decided to take them away. there was very little homicides and home invasions in that country and then they took away guns and all the sudden the homicide rate and home invasion rate went way up, i mean is that a coincidence, no because were not talking 30 years in between we are talking with in the same year and next couple years. thats a bit different than your pirate example. either way to each his own sir. you make very valid points and i see exactly what your saying but i just don't see it the same. i believe criminals are very opportunistic and would much rather rob, steal, and kill people who they know can't defend themselves in the same manner. i mean just a simple question would you rather rob someone who you know isn't armed or someone who might be armed and pose a real threat to you? again either way i see both points and understand where your coming from. not trying to cause any arguments here.

again i hope the bastard who did this gets the jeffrey dahmer treatment while inside
 
STAGE 2 said:
It is a nastier place.
Click to expand...

You are entitled to your opinion. However, there is a rather large and reliable body of readily available data on this, and simply saying 'it ain't so' doesn't invalidate the trend.

And, for what it's worth, there are many reasons why people believe that the world is a more dangerous place today than it was X years ago. Interestingly, perceptions of risk and feelings of insecurity are often completely unrelated to actual risks of victimization. Culturally, we have raised the art of scaring the crap out of ourselves to an amazing level, and the fear-solution-fear-solution cycle is big business (and big politics). On balance, in many jurisdictions things are not significantly more dangerous than they were 30 years ago - and in many, they are safer than they were 15 years ago.

Alright, I'm definitely out this time.

Peace,

- Mike
 
Guns or not, it's all just second guessing now. I always dislike the "shoulda had a gun/knife/martial arts/etc" bandwagon. All the training in the world is sometimes not enough to defend against a foe who is more determined. Or simply has the advantage of surprise. As much as we like to think we can control our destiny, there's no accounting for plain old bad luck. Murphy's Law can sometimes slap you down in the cruelest of ways.

I have no particular numbers about violent crime in remote outdoor areas. But despite the always sensational coverage such stories get, violent crime in the US is relatively low. Rates have been falling overall for over a decade. Anyone got stats on wilderness areas?
 
MustardMan said:
How is that the exact same places? Unless you are considering two towns in Australia, one of which banned guns and one which did not, you still can't draw meaningful conclusions from the statistics.
Click to expand...

Sure you can. Both england and australia saw dramatic increases in violent crime directly after their gun bans were instituted. We arent talking about blips on a scale but increases of anywhere from 40-60% nationwide. You can ignore these stats, but there simply isn't any other way to interpret them.
 
I am a firm believer in the right of upstanding citizens to bear arms. With proper training they are a very effective tool that can save your life in more ways that one.

That said, I'm not so sure a gun would have made this particular situation any better. Looking at her training there is a good chance she was the type that preferred not to harm...just wanted to be able to defend herself. I think that for the majority of people out there, and most likely in this case, a non-lethal option would be more effective as they would be more likely to employ it without hesitation knowing it wasn't going to kill the person. It's easy to sit in comfort and think how you'd handle the situation....but when it's for real, and you know the action you are about to take will most likely end the life of another human being, even when that action is completely justified, it can send a million thoughts swirling through your mind...and once the weapon is drawn hesitation can be a very bad thing. More than one person who really never wanted to harm anyone has had their weapon taken and used against them.
 
5knives said:
As far as the gun/crime debate ... read any of Dr. John Lott's books.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, Lott's done a good job of discrediting his own work. Google "Mary Rosh" if you're interested in the details.

The relationship of guns and crime in he US seems more and more a very weak one, if at all. This isn't an argument against guns and gun ownership. It just isn't a very strong argument in favor. Violent crime began falling back in the early 90s. It fell during the Clinton AR ban, fell after the ban, and still seems to be low. Rates fell most dramatically in some areas with particularly stringent gun laws (NYC, CA). The quick reading opponents and proponents give is always in their favor. But the real analysis is not conclusive, and much more complicated once the many factors involved in crime are considered.

What we do know is that crimes are in fact lower than in the recent past, despite all the coverage and nasty stories you hear on the news. Strange but true, most crime rates here in the big bad city of Los Angeles are comparable or lower than they were when I was born here 43 years ago!
 
I hear you Mist. Most martial arts students do not train to kill. They can't for many reasons, e.g. insurance and potential bodily harm to your fellow students (not the enemy and you KNOW it).

Many arts are defensive in nature, MMA nonwithstanding. Remember...they are in a ring with a referee.

Often it is a mindset over a skillset that saves your life. I have many years of martial arts training and do not for one second think that my abilities mean didly-squat in a life or death struggle unless I am going to go all the way. Most schools I've trained at talk about taking a life to save theirs, yet what they say and how they say it is cavalier. False senses of security abound, even at the upper rank level.
 
STAGE 2 said:
Sure you can. Both england and australia saw dramatic increases in violent crime directly after their gun bans were instituted. We arent talking about blips on a scale but increases of anywhere from 40-60% nationwide. You can ignore these stats, but there simply isn't any other way to interpret them.
Click to expand...

Um, yes there is. Crime usually seems to have some very complex relationship with things like demographics, rates of incarceration, economic performance, culture, and so on. As mentioned before, correlation is not causation. Control for all the variables, and then you can get closer to a meaningful interpretation.

Unless one is intimate with the particulars about England and Australia (places that have not had a very strong tradition of personal firearm ownership for a long time, if ever, I might add), it seems premature to draw conclusions. Too many casual counter examples exist if you insist on making such strong declarative statements based on numbers without analysis.
 
I believe its time to buy me an ASP baton to accompany me on my hikes in addition to my knives. Those things pack a punch!
 
zhangmaster12 said:
I believe its time to buy me an ASP baton to accompany me on my hikes in addition to my knives. Those things pack a punch!
Click to expand...

Yes they do. We train extensively with them...mny LEO students and we teach defensive tactics to some of Minnesota's instructors. I'd HATE getting hit with one with intent. It's bad enough on accident. Sorry for drift.
 
5knives said:
I'm aware of the official Canadian and Japanese attitude toward personal ownership of firearms and the whole concept of self defense.

Been both places, never felt a need to return to either.
Click to expand...

Why throw in a casual insult to other peoples' countries?
This is a good discussion, it doesn't need that.
 
InfidelShootist said:
Lucky for us you didn't write the Constitution and are actually suppose to enforce the law even if you don't agree with it.Personally,the way I see it,there is no difference between someone who would limit my right of self defense or limit my speech,steal my properly or search my home without cause.You either believe in the constitution or you don't.You support a police state and tyranny or you don't.

"i think they should be used by those who need them "

Just out of morbid curiosity as you say you want to be law enforcement just who "needs" them in your opinion?
Realize,felons and mentally disabled are already non eligible.
Click to expand...

Im not looking to piss people off this is just my opinion but there are plenty of non lethal yet highly effective not to mention cheaper alternatives to guns for self defense

I would also like to add that the american constitution was written when a gun was needed for survival, when you used it to hunt for food or needed protection from bandits looking to steal from or kill whoever. Also a quick look at my location would let you know I live in canada. And last but not least, I think those who need them 24/7 would be law enforcement and military personnel, I might also add that I see no problem with owning guns for hunting
 
shecky said:
Um, yes there is. Crime usually seems to have some very complex relationship with things like demographics, rates of incarceration, economic performance, culture, and so on. As mentioned before, correlation is not causation. Control for all the variables, and then you can get closer to a meaningful interpretation.

Unless one is intimate with the particulars about England and Australia (places that have not had a very strong tradition of personal firearm ownership for a long time, if ever, I might add), it seems premature to draw conclusions. Too many casual counter examples exist if you insist on making such strong declarative statements based on numbers without analysis.
Click to expand...

Exactly. At least someone else here has an understanding of the complexity of variables at play here.
 
I guess I did not pick up how much training she really had in martial arts. Some people think that with a few months of training they can take anyone on. You have to be aware that even a 13 year old kid can do you harm, beat your head in with a bat etc. With her training, and I don't exactly know the situation, she should have tried to run. Maybe she tried and he had a good hold on her. Leave the dog and get away. The dog is your first alert which is very helpful. The second time they met, the dog was acquainted with the guy and was not an immediate threat. I do not allow people to be friendly with my dog. Come to the house, the dog alerts and is put up. Meet someone out on a hike, put the dog in the down and stay position till the meeting is over. Keep them guessing. If you are friendly, the dog thinks it is an O.K. person. There is a difference if the dog is trained to attack on command or threatening postures. Big problem if people think their dog will scare a bad guy off and are lulled into a false sense of confidence. She should not have been alone. She probably was not trained in full contact fighting. Big difference in training and experience. She did her best with what she had and should be commended but made some fatal errors. We all do. Learn from others mistakes.
 
My views are simple and arguably naive to some. Firearms treat the symptoms not the disease. I agree that they may be necessary in many areas. I am not against 2nd Amendment rights. The flaw is in our legal system and the processing (or lack of) of criminals. Guns will not make the problems go away... just as bandaging an infected wound won't make it heal.

Rick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top