Workout safety (stranger danger)

DavPul

^^ I like how casual this commenter is about "if you miss". Yeah, if you miss the attacker they'll probably be scared off. And bullets that miss their intended target just disappear from the air once they get 2 feet beyond said target, right? So no big deal, fire in the general direction with your eyes closed and everything gonna be aight.

background, anyone?

TheSlorax

I'm implying that when given a choice, an assailant will generally pick a more appealing target over a lesser one. Which is why 80% of rape victims are women under 30. I don't have stats specifically on joggers in pink, tight-fitting shorts vs. camo sweatpants.. but like the saying goes, you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

I don't think you really understand how sexual assailants target their victims. again, rape (as is being described in this thread) is largely a crime of opportunity. if the perpetrator has an opportunity he will take it, regardless of whether the victim is wearing sweatpants or yoga pants.

Opportunity no doubt plays a part, but arousal initiates the drive. Which is why elderly women are a lower risk demographic for rape, even though they're an easier opportunity -- the appeal is less.

A woman running in camo tactical pants is probably perceived as a harder opportunity than one in tight shorts, because not only does she look harder to control, you can't tell if she's packing a weapon like you can with tight shorts. So ugly, masculine clothes can act as a deterrant. Bonus points for wearing a grey wig. :bigsmile:

actually, rape in elderlies is more common than you would think. your statistics from which you are basing your ludicrous opinions off of only include reported assaults.

as for the rest of your response... I stand by my assessment that you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to victimology.

Erm... okay I'll try to follow your train of thought here...

Firstly, I know a little bit about victimology. I'm a postgraduate psychologist with specialism in abnormal psychology and significant work experience in inpatient forensic environments, both mental health units as well as custodial settings. I spent a good ten years working for the UK probation service as a specialist with mentally disordered offenders.

I agree to the point that all rapes are under-reported, meaning that the official statistics are only the tip of the iceberg rather than the full story. I think most people would appreciate that simple fact. Of all reported rape cases there will also be social groups who are EVEN less likely to report an assault or rape, and one could agree that due to shame etc the elderly would fall into that category (as would men or certain groups of ethnic minorities).

However, fact remains that most perpetrators are known to the victim, not strangers.

The media makes a huge story out of it whenever you have an elderly lady being attacked in her own home etc, such as this case which got a lot of attention by the press in the UK... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2402971/Rape-victim-93-speaks-17-year-old-boy-charged-assault-elderly-womans-home.html
However that does not mean that these cases are in any way "frequent" by any stretch of the imagination... well certainly not in the UK, I can't speak for US statistics.

From my frequent involvement in adult safeguarding work, POVA investigations (Protection of Vulnerable Adults) into Elder Abuse, in the vast majority of cases the perpetrator of the abuse (be it physical, psychological or financial) is a family member or care home staff, not a stranger. This is also supported by statistics, and these statistics are gleaned not only from reported cases but also taking into consideration information from anonymous calls to elder abuse phone lines etc.
http://www.elderabuse.org.uk/Mainpages/Services/services_dloads.html#Prevalence

I would be very interested to hear about your knowledge or professional experience of vicimology that made you come to the conclusions that you came to.

I'm relatively sure you're arguing the same side as the person you quoted

^ yes. thank you.

my point about the elderly rape cases was that the other poster was basing her opinions about how certain clothing is more likely to invite rape. she was using statistics to come to these conclusions and mentioned that the apparently low # of rape in elderly women proved her point (that "more appealing" women are more likely to be raped). I mentioned earlier that I was discussing a specific instance of rape (what would occur if someone was attacked while out jogging, as is the main focus of this thread), and that it is, again, largely a crime of opportunity and the rapist will not be deterred by choice in clothing. I do realize that a high percentage of victims know their attacker, and that date or marital rape, child molestation, etc. are different crimes with different victimology. however, the other poster was using statistics for many different types of sexual crimes to make broad assumptions on rapes of joggers.

I am very interested in your post though, some interesting facts there. but, as mentioned above, you are arguing for the same side I am!

3dogsrunning

^^ I like how casual this commenter is about "if you miss". Yeah, if you miss the attacker they'll probably be scared off. And bullets that miss their intended target just disappear from the air once they get 2 feet beyond said target, right? So no big deal, fire in the general direction with your eyes closed and everything gonna be aight.

background, anyone?

:huh:

MeanderingMammal

While I agree on the self-defense part - I remember my self-defense courses from college but doubt I'd react fast enough to make them useful without regular practice - I definitely disagree about carrying. Get a gun that's simple to operate, and most can shoot well enough to scare someone off with a couple of hours of training and an hour or so of practice once a month to maintain familiarity with the gun. The important thing is to train safety so the person carrying doesn't fire accidentally.

Let's be real - most times, just aiming a gun at someone will be enough to get them to back off. If it doesn't, just firing the gun, even if you miss will scare off a good percentage of the ones that didn't take off when they saw the gun. If not, you're still probably going to be shooting at close range the vast majority of the time - 7 yds and less is typical. You don't need hardly any skill to hit someone at that range. You're going to miss because you don't have combat training and you don't cope well with the adrenaline rush and the fear, not because of lack of training at the gun range.

Did you miss the bit about having experience of carrying, and using, a personal weapon system in both an operational and competitive environment?

Just for the sake of clarity, I started shooting about 27 years ago so have a reasonable degree of familiarity with the concept. The suggestion that "vaguely in the correct direction" is remotely acceptable is even more disturbing than the idea of being tooled up in the first place.

It should be possible to talk someone down without even using a weapon system in the first place

fwiw the arguments about wild animals do have some credence, but similarly maintenance of skill is significant.