[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [at-l] Trail Attack

Arctic Sven wrote:

> I was debating a similar thought.  I'm a 240lb, 6'4" male who is also
> nervous about getting "mugged" on the trail.  I've been held up and
> jumped in my lovely NJ homeland so I figure some of my fear is
> unjustified on the trail.  (I've never met a suspicious person on the
> trail, let alone gotten mugged).  

Your likelihood of victimization depends much more on your
lifestyle choices, cultural knowledge and mental attitude,
rather than where you happen to be at the time. Crime statistics
grouped geographically by political boundaries are misleading
at best. Such statistics instill into people the belief that
they don't have much control over their personal security,
except to move to a "safer" community where there are fewer
crimes.

However, does a high crime rate mean that there are more
criminals in an area, or does it mean that there are more
people with a victimhood mindset? After all, wolves tend
to congregate where the sheep flock. Would it not be better
to be something other than a sheep?

>                                   I made it a practice to carry a small
> diving knife on my pack strap so that I could easilly grab it if needed. 
> I never carried mace or a gun on the trail.  To me, a handgun is just not
> likely to be useful enough by the time the assailant is at close range.

The majority of defensive shootings occur inside of seven
yards, and many occur at contact distance. Handguns are
plenty useful at close range, with caveats.

> It's only useful when you know the assailant is going to attack you back
> about 10 feet or more.

Actually, against a *charging* attacker wielding a knife or a
club, the established distance is 21 feet when starting with
a holstered firearm. The distance will be further still if
presenting from a concealment rig:

http://www.recguns.com/XI3.html

If the Tueller drill teaches us anything, it teaches us to 1)
stay alert to potential threats, 2) maintain a safe distance
from potential threats, once identified and 3) fill your hand
as soon as discretion and opportunity dictate. Being aware of
the limitations of a handgun also suggests that one should
develop a "plan B" for those occasions when a handgun cannot
be employed effectively (or at all). Surprisingly, a popular
choice of escape and/or handgun retention tool is already
carried by a lot of hikers:

http://www.insightstraining.com/courses/close/defknf.htm

In terms of personal protection on the trail, I have yet to
hear of an attack (or threat of one) in which the intended
victim had insufficient warning or chance to prepare. That
includes, based on what's been reported so far, the recent
rape in Pennsylvania. Attacks almost never happen "out of
the blue." People should ponder that fact before asserting
that weapon X is useless unless it can be quick-drawn during
a surprise attack.

>                         A knife, on the other hand, requires no doubt in
> your mind when you finally produce it.

Drawing is one thing. Slicing is another. If you have the
will to fight back, you will have "no doubt in your mind"
regardless of the weapon in your hand. Conversely, if you
aren't mentally prepared, no weapon will save you, including
pepper spray.

If you're carrying a knife because you are worried about 
following through with countervailing force, I suggest
that you rethink carrying in general.

[...]

> All this coming from a NJ EMT and an Arctic Alaska Teacher (who carried a
> .44 magnum to and from school as polar bear protection).

Against Black Bear? Okay. Against Glizzlies? Uh, if you say
so (I wouldn't). Against Polar Bear? I hope you filed off the
front sight.

--
mfuller@somtel.com; Northern Franklin County, Maine
The Constitution is the white man's ghost shirt.  }>:-/> --->


* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List | For info http://www.hack.net/lists *

==============================================================================