Carrying a dagger while hiking

[Wise Old Owl]

Someone asked if there were "convicts" on the trail. We all probably interact with convicted felons every day and don't know it.
Motivation??? I was responding to a post. How do I know about felons? My profession puts me in a position of having to know about the criminal histories of some of the people I interact with. Some are very nice people who made a mistake, some are very not-nice people at the other end of the spectrum who would kill you for the fun of it.

Convicts? that just a "college" for folks that hated high school and wanted a "Degree" in hard knocks... they come out edumacated!


I can see the conversation now...


Not a lot of diffence between a "Counselor" and a "Parole Officer"

"Well Micheal "Vic" that Stoli & OJ at the Airport bar was not a good idea to toast the press with today!!!"

[weary]

So, does this mean nobody needs to bring his/her dagger?

Just as it's hard to tell whether folks one sees on a trail are convicts, it's equally hard to tell without some clue what "this" it is that you are referencing.

[JoshStover]

Have any of you all ever seen a "Cane Gun"? Pretty much just a walking stick with a .22 caliber rifle built in. I think I just had a great idea that I am going to have to sell to Leki. ''The New .22 Trekking Pole"!! That would be a must have when dealing with all of these Wild Felons we encounter along the AT. lol

[Homer&Marje]

That's a misfired weapon waiting to happen....just saying.

[JoshStover]

That's a misfired weapon waiting to happen....just saying.

lol. You can't really misfire a cane gun or atleast the ones I have seen. The top of the cane folds over to reveal the trigger so thats kind of a builtin saftey(I guess).

[Mags]

A cane gun?

Unless you are a James Bond villain you should never be using a cane gun.

OK...perhaps if you speak with a Brit accent and are dapper dresser while hiking. A bowler hat may help, too. The photo below is with an umbrella..but a cane would probably work, too. Chip. Chip. Cheerio!

[JoshStover]

A cane gun?

Unless you are a James Bond villain you should never be using a cane gun.

OK...perhaps if you speak with a Brit accent and are dapper dresser while hiking. A bowler hat may help, too. The photo below is with an umbrella..but a cane would probably work, too. Chip. Chip. Cheerio!

LOL. True True. I was pretty much joking about the cane gun and I think that the end of the barrel would get pretty dirty pretty quick on the AT...

[mudhead]

Visions of Diana Rigg. That's what I want for protection from idiots. Not a dagger.

[Two Speed]

. . . Instead of an ice axe we add an additional hiking pole?

I dunno. Maybe substitute a battle axe for the ice ax. That way it's multiple use so we're still gram weenies.

Have any of you all ever seen a "Cane Gun"? . . . lol

lol? LOL? Been carrying two of those for years, twinkie.

A cane gun? . . .

See above response. Evidently I'm a James Bond villain and never knew it. Guess I oughta check to see where my royalty checks have been going.

[take-a-knee]

God, I love you guys. Chest thumpin', drum beatin', real HE-men. Of course, neither I nor most backpackers ever see gosh-oh-golly REAL guys like you, packin' heat, bolo survival kay-bar big mean nasty knives on your hips in your realio-trulio almost-GI issue camos, unless say, we're watching a bad Ben Stiller movie. On the rrail? People are normal, maybe with a little pepper spray until they realize that's not really necessary either, since all the felons you guys seem to see behind every rock aren't really out that, darn it all! I mean, what use is all that hollow-point, copper-jacket ammo if you can't SHOW how much of a reel, I mean REAL, guy you are!

As for the law, well, when there is an assault, which is a threat of unlawful force and touching (as opposed to a battery), the law imposes on the victim what is known as a 'duty of retreat,' unless one is in one's own house (and sometimes even then). That means trying to avoid the assault if that is possible, and if it must be met with the least amount of force reasonably necessary to defeat the assault.

TW

Whether this retired SF Medic qualifies as "he-man" is for others to decide, suffice to say I'm secure in my manhood. I don't wear camo on the trail (unless I'm hunting) and I don't own a Kabar or a bayonet.

As for the law, states like I reside in, where there are far fewer "weasel" lawyers, have undone your cited "duty to retreat". Do you know a lot about alcohol stoves or something? Maybe you could post about something useful that you have actual knowledge of.

[sheepdog]

Most villans would blanch at the sight of scrapple.

[Two Speed]

Maybe a bullet proof sleeping pad filled with scrapple? Nah, means you'd have to smell that crap at night. Not worth it.

[Pedaling Fool]

God, I love you guys. Chest thumpin', drum beatin', real HE-men. Of course, neither I nor most backpackers ever see gosh-oh-golly REAL guys like you, packin' heat, bolo survival kay-bar big mean nasty knives on your hips in your realio-trulio almost-GI issue camos, unless say, we're watching a bad Ben Stiller movie. On the rrail? People are normal, maybe with a little pepper spray until they realize that's not really necessary either, since all the felons you guys seem to see behind every rock aren't really out that, darn it all! I mean, what use is all that hollow-point, copper-jacket ammo if you can't SHOW how much of a reel, I mean REAL, guy you are!

As for the law, well, when there is an assault, which is a threat of unlawful force and touching (as opposed to a battery), the law imposes on the victim what is known as a 'duty of retreat,' unless one is in one's own house (and sometimes even then). That means trying to avoid the assault if that is possible, and if it must be met with the least amount of force reasonably necessary to defeat the assault.

TW

TW, you know I wasn't thumping my chest. As for the "Duty to Retreat" laws, that's just the kind of laws I was referring to that will ensure lawyers remain employed.

Tell me you can't see the stupidity in placing the burden on the victim to clearly announce their intention to use deadly force if running away failed.

[The Weasel]

Whether this retired SF Medic qualifies as "he-man" is for others to decide, suffice to say I'm secure in my manhood. I don't wear camo on the trail (unless I'm hunting) and I don't own a Kabar or a bayonet.

As for the law, states like I reside in, where there are far fewer "weasel" lawyers, have undone your cited "duty to retreat". Do you know a lot about alcohol stoves or something? Maybe you could post about something useful that you have actual knowledge of.

And maybe YOU can keep on flaming and adding nothing useful to the topic of "carrying a dagger while hiking" and, thereby, get this thread closed. Does that make your 'manhood' more secure?

TW

[The Weasel]

TW, you know I wasn't thumping my chest. As for the "Duty to Retreat" laws, that's just the kind of laws I was referring to that will ensure lawyers remain employed.

Tell me you can't see the stupidity in placing the burden on the victim to clearly announce their intention to use deadly force if running away failed.

John:

First, the duty to retreat - which, despite 'manhoody' SF medics' beliefs to the contrary, survives largely intact in all 50 states - permits reasonable force for self-protection once retreat is no longer possible. "Deadly" force is only "reasonable" if one has a legitimate/reasonable belief that one is threatened with death or serious bodily injury. Thus, if a 14 year old girl is hitting your chest with fists in anger and your back is to the wall, bear spray or a choke lock is going to be 'reasonable,' but shooting her is going to get you a charge of some kind of manslaughter or murder 2. Similarly, if someone pulls a knife at you on the trail, while they are drunk and staggering, 15 feet away, and you're sober with boots on, doing the Indy Jones gun trick on him is also going to get you charged.

Second, the 'duty to retreat' - which has lasted for 500 years or so, so it must not just be a 'lawyer thing' - serves a very important public interest of making sure that "victims" really are victims, and of preventing fights rather than encouraging shootouts (or knife fights, or whatever). Thus, there are no small number of situations where the attacker, when the "victim" responds in kind, actually succeeds in convincing the authorities (sometimes with the help of witnesses on his side) that he was the one that was attacked. Encouraging people to 'back away' from fights minimizes this. It also, by discouraging fights, maintains public safety for both people (and others, who are often injured by wild shots, including injuries from knives). In short, it's not there to help lawyers make a living (no lawyer can make a living on that kind of case, either), but to protect the public from testosterone-overloaded people who are looking for a fight.

And that's how it sounds here: All this noise is back-and-forth about "I'm really, really, really tough, me and my knife/1911/dagger/numchuks/pet gopher that anyone mess with me, they gonna hurt!" It's WWE-style nonsense, basically a genetic remnant of monkeys screeching at each other. Are there occasions when someone defends themself for real with a weapon? Yes, but far more rare than Fox Cable wants you to think. Are there some of those occasions which couldn't have been avoided? Even fewer. Are there far more occasions when people get hurt by joining a fight? Yes.

Sorry. Ben Stiller and Robert Downey sort of ruined it for the "We bad" crowd, I know. And the movie was bad, too.

TW

[Alligator]

And maybe YOU can keep on flaming and adding nothing useful to the topic of "carrying a dagger while hiking" and, thereby, get this thread closed. Does that make your 'manhood' more secure?

TW

Actually The Weasel he has shown quite remarkable restraint in responding to the completely inflammatory post you put out following. You are not a moderator here, so quit posting about what's going to get things closed and not closed. If you have an issue with a post, PM a moderator or use the report post icon.

God, I love you guys. Chest thumpin', drum beatin', real HE-men. Of course, neither I nor most backpackers ever see gosh-oh-golly REAL guys like you, packin' heat, bolo survival kay-bar big mean nasty knives on your hips in your realio-trulio almost-GI issue camos, unless say, we're watching a bad Ben Stiller movie. On the rrail? People are normal, maybe with a little pepper spray until they realize that's not really necessary either, since all the felons you guys seem to see behind every rock aren't really out that, darn it all! I mean, what use is all that hollow-point, copper-jacket ammo if you can't SHOW how much of a reel, I mean REAL, guy you are!

As for the law, well, when there is an assault, which is a threat of unlawful force and touching (as opposed to a battery), the law imposes on the victim what is known as a 'duty of retreat,' unless one is in one's own house (and sometimes even then). That means trying to avoid the assault if that is possible, and if it must be met with the least amount of force reasonably necessary to defeat the assault.

TW

[Homer&Marje]

John:

First, the duty to retreat - which, despite 'manhoody' SF medics' beliefs to the contrary, survives largely intact in all 50 states - permits reasonable force for self-protection once retreat is no longer possible. "Deadly" force is only "reasonable" if one has a legitimate/reasonable belief that one is threatened with death or serious bodily injury. Thus, if a 14 year old girl is hitting your chest with fists in anger and your back is to the wall, bear spray or a choke lock is going to be 'reasonable,' but shooting her is going to get you a charge of some kind of manslaughter or murder 2. Similarly, if someone pulls a knife at you on the trail, while they are drunk and staggering, 15 feet away, and you're sober with boots on, doing the Indy Jones gun trick on him is also going to get you charged.

Second, the 'duty to retreat' - which has lasted for 500 years or so, so it must not just be a 'lawyer thing' - serves a very important public interest of making sure that "victims" really are victims, and of preventing fights rather than encouraging shootouts (or knife fights, or whatever). Thus, there are no small number of situations where the attacker, when the "victim" responds in kind, actually succeeds in convincing the authorities (sometimes with the help of witnesses on his side) that he was the one that was attacked. Encouraging people to 'back away' from fights minimizes this. It also, by discouraging fights, maintains public safety for both people (and others, who are often injured by wild shots, including injuries from knives). In short, it's not there to help lawyers make a living (no lawyer can make a living on that kind of case, either), but to protect the public from testosterone-overloaded people who are looking for a fight.

And that's how it sounds here: All this noise is back-and-forth about "I'm really, really, really tough, me and my knife/1911/dagger/numchuks/pet gopher that anyone mess with me, they gonna hurt!" It's WWE-style nonsense, basically a genetic remnant of monkeys screeching at each other. Are there occasions when someone defends themself for real with a weapon? Yes, but far more rare than Fox Cable wants you to think. Are there some of those occasions which couldn't have been avoided? Even fewer. Are there far more occasions when people get hurt by joining a fight? Yes.

Sorry. Ben Stiller and Robert Downey sort of ruined it for the "We bad" crowd, I know. And the movie was bad, too.

TW

As a knife wielding drunk I completely agree with this It is always better to retreat from a fight than to enter into one.

Especially in the middle of the woods. Imagine how much they could charge your family for the SAR if you were in 6 pieces all scattered around in a national forest.

[oldfivetango]

I think the point is that 1 person in a million might need a gun on the AT. I thought this was a knife thread?

I've never used my knife for anything but cutting cheese. And myself, once

But it's there. But if someone seriously attacks me with no gun or a knife of some sort...I'm droppin pack and kickin your ass with my hands. Much more fun

Yo Homer!
Been out a few months and decided to dropin today.Same old things
goin' on.As for me,I got guns,I got knives,got bear spray,got it all.
Dont want to think about someone taking the knife and using it on me.
Shooting works sometimes until you get put in the slammer for it which is
really likely in todays world.Sprays cause blindness and lawsuits.People who are concerned about violence should carry a fake wallet and be
ready to hand it over and run as the banjo players prolly just want some
meth money anyway.
Oldfivetango

[Homer&Marje]

O Tango....I've kept so far away from the gun talk and you decide to come back and check in now. Fake wallet is a great idea, sometimes....running is still your best option in a lot of circumstances.

Or attack your attacker until he bleeds, tell the courts you were the initial attacker and sue the victim for traumatizing you because you don't like the sight of blood....

Any lawyers willing to take me as a client?? Oh wait...Johnny Cochrin died...never mind.

[The Weasel]

Any lawyers willing to take me as a client?? Oh wait...Johnny Cochrin died...never mind.

How much can you afford?

TW