Personal safety when hiking alone

Options
15681011

Replies

  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    Options
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    MikePTY wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    aokoye wrote: »
    See, one of the reasons why I'm less than keen on going on hikes by myself is because I'm afraid people will have guns and think "oh god this person must be a threat!" Not that many Portlanders carry guns, but that's along the same lines of, most violence against women is perpetuated by people they know (and that not stopping women from being scared of things like hiking alone).

    And no I'm not a threat to anyone, but not being a threat or acting like a threat doesn't mean that people won't think you are (I'll let you all fill in the various dots). It is crappy though because there is a lot of very good hiking here and I currently have way too much free time on my hands.

    People who are concerned with their safety may take notice of someone who seems threatening and keep an eye on them but they don't preemptively attack strangers who leave them alone.
    That's not a thing that happens.

    Alas, this is not true, but I don't want to take this thread there. I'm sure if you think about it, you will recall some high profile instances where this was not the case. But we shouldn't derail this thread with that discussion.

    You could have provided a single example instead of alluding to supposed "high profile cases" to substantiate your claim.
    Instead, you just made the claim and stated that to counter it would be to derail the thread.

    However, it wouldn't be derailment at all.
    This is a discussion about safety while hiking. The claim was made that people may perceive a peaceful person as a threat, despite them not acting in a threatening manner, and that this makes hiking unsafe for the peaceful yet scary looking person.
    I replied that this isn't a rational concern because people don't approach and attack others in broad daylight on the basis of "I thought they looked threatening" when the person has left them alone.

    So, on topic with the thread, I maintain that being attacked for looking scary isn't a reasonable cause for concern when hiking.

    If you believe that to be inaccurate, I do request that you present one case of a civilian attacking another civilian, unprovoked, on the basis of "I thought they were a threat to my safety" while hiking in broad daylight.

    Two people in a neighborhood getting into an altercation at night, regardless of who started it, which leads to one of them dead with only the survivor's side of the story left and a media frenzy surrounding the controversy does not factor into a discussion about whether or not your looks make it unsafe to go hiking.

    "in broad daylight while hiking" is a very narrow clarification of it. It's happened plenty of time where people in the world are just generally minding their own business and doing nothing to lead others on that they would be threatening.

    Example: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-adams-white-man-indicted-elijah-al-amin-murder-black-teen-over-rap-music-2019-07-11/

    "In broad daylight while hiking" is the topic of this thread and exactly the circumstances in which it was claimed that a person's looks make them unsafe.

    ETA: Also, a disgusting racist who murders a kid over rap music isn't an example of someone attacking someone for looking threatening. Again, that's the claim that was made, that they were afraid to go hiking because someone may think they look threatening.
    I'm not debating whether or not racists exist. They do. I'm not saying senseless murders don't occur. They do.
    But the claim wasn't "I'm afraid to leave the house because of racists."
    The claim was "I'm afraid to go hiking because another hiker may think I look threatening."

    We get it. You really love guns. They're tacticool toys and you feel threatened by people saying they don't love them too. But this is a thread where somebody is asking for advice, and guns aren't the answer where she lives. Please drop it.

    And where in this little side discussion did I even mention guns? Oh, I didnt?
    No, I didn't.
    Nor did I ever once recommend that the OP consider guns as an option for self defense.
    Maybe stop projecting.
  • slimgirljo15
    slimgirljo15 Posts: 269,440 Member
    Options
    Anyway. Today I skipped out on the hike I had planned and did farm work instead. Behold, tiny cow butts. Little orphans/poddy babies trying some hay. 2l9rg40n5899.jpeg

    Aww brings back memories of hand rearing poddy calves..
  • lauragreenbaum
    lauragreenbaum Posts: 1,017 Member
    Options
    Never mind. It’s illegal here.

    To that I say "So what??" You can buy it on Amazon. Carry it when you hike and have it in a place you can grab it quickly. I talked to an ex- Navy Seal who said part of their training is being sprayed in the face with it, and he said the toughest of guys were rendered incapacitated- if only for a couple minutes which is long enough to run.
  • Lillymoo01
    Lillymoo01 Posts: 2,865 Member
    Options
    Never mind. It’s illegal here.

    To that I say "So what??" You can buy it on Amazon. Carry it when you hike and have it in a place you can grab it quickly. I talked to an ex- Navy Seal who said part of their training is being sprayed in the face with it, and he said the toughest of guys were rendered incapacitated- if only for a couple minutes which is long enough to run.

    Look luck with doing that! We can not simply buy it from Amazon and get it shipped here. If you do get caught the fines are huge.
  • Hannahwalksfar
    Hannahwalksfar Posts: 572 Member
    Options
    This discussion also proves that people really don’t read past the OP before commenting.

    To reiterate

    Guns, pepper spray, bear spray, nun-chucks, brass knuckles, knives, hand grenades etc are all illegal here.

    Wow, Australia's no fun at all.

    😂🤣😂🤣
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,964 Member
    Options
    sgt1372 wrote: »
    MikePTY wrote: »
    Australia, where the homocide rate is more than 5 times lower than the US.


    If you do have the mindset to inflict lethal force on an attacker (which is a legal form of self defense IF you have a "reasonable" fear that you may be killed or suffer serious bodily injury as a result of the attack), I would suggest you look into carrying a light weight karambit blade which can be used very effectively w/o significant training. If used deliberately to cut the throat, femoral or brachial arteries, the result will almost always be fatal.

    Is that based on your knowledge of the law where you live, the law in New Zealand, or the law is Australia, where the OP actually lives?
  • Hannahwalksfar
    Hannahwalksfar Posts: 572 Member
    Options
    Self defence laws in Australia are pretty ambiguous. Basically you can take reasonable force to subdue an attacker if you have to. If you can you must try other reasonable methods of self-protection before becoming physical. It really is based on a case by case basis from what I understand.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,897 Member
    Options
    Never mind. It’s illegal here.

    To that I say "So what??" You can buy it on Amazon. Carry it when you hike and have it in a place you can grab it quickly. I talked to an ex- Navy Seal who said part of their training is being sprayed in the face with it, and he said the toughest of guys were rendered incapacitated- if only for a couple minutes which is long enough to run.

    I guess you missed my post where I said Amazon wouldn't ship it to me and I had to buy it in a gun store (just because something is for sale on Amazon doesn't mean they will ship it to you.)

    Or the OP's numerous posts stating she is not willing to do anything illegal.