View Full Version : Knives AND self-defense on A.T.
So, when I first (the only time) went on the A.T., I thought I felt pretty comfortable with the place, and the safety aspect. I'm an east coaster, from Quebec, I'm perfectly bilingual, I'm white, I blend in as a chubby American.
I'm a pretty big guy, AND I knew consciously that the A.T. was very non-violent, and that I would generally be very safe, AND that the area I was going into did not really have natural predators... Bears in MD and PA being few and far in between.
But I still brought a 'small' (heavy AF) foldable Gerber knife I thought was very nice, and a tiny pepper-spray canister. On top of my Victorinox Spartan knife, and of course my Victorinox Classic SD knife.
Honestly, I think that the 'visiting the US' factor encouraged me to bring the spray. In fact, over just some 130-150 miles, I got asked numerous times whether I was carrying a gun... (what??)... and got told that they would not ever hike like that without a gun. Holy moley. Man, guns scare the hell out of me, and I would never want to own one even if I could...
Today, though, I seriously think that I would go with ONLY the Victorinox Classic SD. I think that the only features I'd be missing are the can opener and the wine bottle opener. The first being EASILY replaced with a super light-weight army opener, and the second being totally useless, as anybody offering me wine will have one, lol.
In fact, one of the most stressful aspects of my hike was feeling like I had to dispose of the bloody dog spray before getting on the train back to Canada, in NYC. I ended up tossing it into a garbage bin on advice of port authority officers, and I felt really, really awful doing that (what if it pops? what if someone takes it and assaults somebody? urghhh!).
I would like to know how you people feel about safety, then. There was one night when, and I feel really stupid for it, I told two people I'd judged to be weird rednecks (they were just two nice people day-hiking with little gear, lol) that I was thinking of camping at that shelter (alone) and hiking faster to catch up with some trail friends the next day. That whole night, I kept getting paranoid and thinking that maybe they were coming back to kill me or something. I discovered that I have a big, irrational fear of being alone in the woods... I always knew I was afraid of the dark woods, but that night really made it all very concrete.
How do you deal with safety, AND, HOW do you deal with being alone in the woods, especially on a trail where others can find you?
Thank you :)
-A humble and very open Spork
Gambit McCrae
11-11-2019, 08:33
Who is trying to find you?...
If you are alone in the woods that sounds pretty safe lol
I feel real safe on the AT. A lot safer then at the grocery store. The most unsafe time I feel is when I am in a unfamiliar town for resupply. Here are some rules that I follow:
-I do not camp near roads. Even gravel roads. Good rule of thumb that can not ALWAYS be followed but most of the time you can is 1 mile from a road.
-Morning and nighttime check ins with family or loved ones when service allows. It gives them a piece of mind that you are okay, and a last known location in case something goes wrong.
-Be weary of what kind of help you accept. Some folks have taken accommodation offers along the trail and ended having really creepy experiences. If you haven't heard of good reports/ experiences from the person, if they are not in the guide books then probably would be smart to at least not take the advance solo. As in if other hikers are going, go but I would not go alone off of the "good trail vibes".
-Trust your gut, if you get to a shelter or campsite and the folks there give you a bad vibe, always be prepared to go a little further but try and get that gut feeling prior to setting up camp and the sun is setting. If I have chosen a site that I can not have my space, and others are around I try to get a feel for the crowd with my pack still on so that if i don't like what I see I can simply appear to only be stopping for a break and then move along.
-Lastly, trust your gut! Listen to yourself. Got a bad feeling? Act on it before you have to react.
illabelle
11-11-2019, 10:39
The kind of hiker that makes me nervous are those that carry big scary knives and talk about how dangerous the trail is.
:):rolleyes::)
Seriously, the primary danger to hikers is falling. All of us fall. Most of the time it's a little slip, maybe a bruised ego, or a stubbed toe. But sometimes it's the kind of fall where you get hurt. And if you're alone and/or unprepared, being hurt can precipitate a cascade of difficulties. Like an unintended night without a way to stay warm and dry, and being unable to call or signal for help.
garlic08
11-11-2019, 11:39
I guess I deal with safety by getting out of town as much as I can. The woods are a peaceful place.
I feel most exposed if I have to drive to a trailhead. Now that's scary.
orthofingers
11-11-2019, 11:45
Good advice from Gambit.
I go go with statistics. I believe the most dangerous part about a hike is the drive to the trail head. Yup, I know random murders have happened on the AT but, statistically speaking, they are very rare.
To put it into a bit of a ridiculous perspective, awhile back, I got into a discussion about relative risk with someone who knew a guy down in the Caribbean that wore a hard hat anytime he was under a coconut palm. He had sustained a traumatic brain injury as a young man from being struck on the head by a coconut. According to that most scientific of sources, Google, there are around 4 fatalities per year, worldwide from shark attacks. There are around 80 fatalities per year, worldwide from injuries sustained by falling coconuts. So, statistically speaking, one is 20 times more likely to die from a falling coconut to the head than a shark attack.
What's a person to do who wants to stay safe? Wear your seatbelt, don't swim where there has been shark activity reported and look overhead if there are coconut palms around. On the AT, do what Gambit suggests, listen to your gut and look overhead . . . not for coconuts but, for widow makers before you set up your tent or hammock.
While you can't argue that 'stranger danger' is non-existent on the trail, I'd certainly agree with all of the previous posts that in general there are MUCH greater concerns. Injury, illness from water and fecal matter, etc. Use your best judgement about the people you interact with and move on when the voice of reason tells you to get away from someone. As far as knives and self defense? I carry a dermasafe knife. It's basically a razor blade in a plastic carrier. Enough to do what I need on the trail, but hardly a fighting knife. I'd rather carry an extra granola bar than a bigger knife.
Hard to kill them ticks with a knife ! They are your biggest danger hiking.
thom
We pack our fears. They tell more about us than they do about any real issues on the trail.
Old Grouse
11-11-2019, 13:03
Hard to kill them ticks with a knife ! They are your biggest danger hiking.
thom
Reminds me of the way to get rid of body lice which I "learned" in the Army. Shave half your crotch and light the remaining hair on fire, then stab them with an ice pick when they come running out. I know, TMI.
4eyedbuzzard
11-11-2019, 13:11
...I discovered that I have a big, irrational fear of being alone in the woods... I always knew I was afraid of the dark woods, but that night really made it all very concrete.
How do you deal with safety, AND, HOW do you deal with being alone in the woods, especially on a trail where others can find you?...
Safety? Camp away from roads and party spots. Don't discuss timetable/camp plans with others who don't fit a fellow hiker profile. Move on if other people around me make me uncomfortable (pretty rare in my experience).
The irrational fear part is likely going to take time to overcome - precisely because it's irrational. You can't reason it away quickly or you already would have. But the more time you spend in the woods without being killed by a crazed maniac should lessen the fear. It's not an unusual fear. We are fed stories all our lives of vicious animals, people, and monsters in the dark spooky woods. Most are just fiction, but obviously a small fraction are true. So, will the fear ever go away COMPLETELY? Probably not. Add that we all have some degree of instinctive fears - the two biggest being falling and loud noises. But we also tend to fear the unknown mostly because we loose control. We are more at the mercy of other things. The woods are dark and silent. So, if say, we hear a noise that we can't identify (as an owl or squirrel or ?) it raises our anxiety a bit. And then we remember those two redneck day hikers we talked to, and then the relatively few real tragic events that have taken place, and the irrational fear spirals on from there.
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself "
Tipi Walter
11-11-2019, 14:59
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself "
For me it's "The only Gear you have to Fear is Gear Itself."
TwoSpirits
11-11-2019, 17:13
Like so many others, I've been asked if I carry a gun with me...and like so many others, I say no and can offer different reasons for not doing so. Then they'll ask, "Well do you at least carry a knife?", and they don't think it's one bit funny when I pull out my little swiss classic.
The truth is, if you're going to carry a knife for self-defense, you'd better be darn sure you know how to use it, or more likely you'll be the one who gets hurt. Just like a gun, simply carrying a knife doesn't necessarily make you any safer. You still have to use your wits, and as everyone says, trust your gut.
Five Tango
11-11-2019, 17:19
We had a case with a local guy out for a stroll near the Ocmulgee River on public lands who was attacked by a rabid coyote.Fortunately this individual had a pocket knife on him big enough to get the job done.Although the damage from the attack was not catastrophic,what nearly killed him was his reaction to the rabies vaccine.Stuff can happen out there even if it's rare.....................
Teacher & Snacktime
11-11-2019, 18:23
Let me start a response with an old Journal Entry...... https://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/entry.php/8087-Irrational-Fear
Now let me inform you that I have learned to travel alone and hike alone and fear seldom, if ever, comes into the equation anymore. That trepidation, even panic, happens to all at some point, but apart from being a useful warning, with time and experience it should be less and less frequent.
You'll be fine. Oh, and don't frighten others by carrying weapons...ie large knives & guns
Self defense against? You said it - irrational fear. Unless specifically trained in using a knife for self defense, NO. You're not going to scare everyone off with the knife options you listed. Pulling a knife on another might actually result in someone else pulling a knife, gun, crossbow, slingshot, tuba, foot or fist on you. ;)
Despite sometimes maybe never backpacking with a concealed sidearm for me it's most about situational awareness. Krav maga and taekwondo um maybe help... lol. I don't unnecessarily fret about it.
With today's tech and other resources it's made it harder to truly disappear. Very few have the resources to go off grid long term stepping 100% away from their previous life. Next time out, while laying in your sleeping bag look up. Satellite facial recognition. We see you. Dont assume that wall you're hiding behind, and certainly not nylon tent fabric, makes you a ghost either. Looking through walls is a reality. It's not in the future. It's being increasingly developed and utilized right now. China and the U.S. are some of the biggest players vying for global data surveillance and analysis. It has been known to even help get some elected or find people thinking they are hiding in caves. :D
Lots of silly posts. There is always, and anywhere a chance of danger. Be safe and protect yourself.
Seven thru hikers (yes, thru hikers) have been murdered on the AT, each many hundreds of miles into their respective journeys.
How one wishes to interpret that is up to them.
Am I correct the murder at the cow camp shelter has never been solved?
The odds are much higher that you will die on the way to the trailhead. What's your defense?
We are exposed to danger, and we don't have much control on the roads. There are other stupid drivers, distracted drivers, or drivers with medical issues However, we can try to protect ourselves somewhat while hiking. If you don't get it, you might suffer . There are not a lot of violent occurrences but they do happen. If you are fortunate and have not been assaulted, good for you - but it happens often and is rarely reported.
Lots of silly posts. There is always, and anywhere a chance of danger. Be safe and protect yourself.
Absolutely. Protect yourself from the real concerns. Dehydration. Hypothermia. Pathogens from water/your own body/other hikers.
A weapon to protect yourself from physical violence from other humans and animals? That's only a reflection of your own statistically irrational fear.
The odds are much higher that you will die on the way to the trailhead. What's your defense?
Given that 7 AT thru hikers have died at the hands of strangers in the middle of their thru hikes, how many do you think have perished on their drives to Springer?
The force response should be commensurate with the threat level. Civilians don't typically have the training of military and LEO personnel to recognize this. Making decisions out of pure emotion is not how they are trained. Can we imagine if LEO's always immediately unholstered, drew firearms, turned off safeties, and pointed their weapons with the intent to make it a dire DefCon 1, 2, and 3 self defense process? NO. There is a series of conditions and evaluations that occur at each step in that process. Can we imagine if more level headed leaders didn't prevail when knee jerk irrational fearful war mongers and profiteers always sought to take it to a DefCon 1,2, or 3 level? LEO's dont immediately resort to employing a firearm. They seek to defuse situations without always having that need, having situational awareness. THAT IS SELF DEFENSE!
Trekking poles, a heavy stick , and rocks can be self defense weapons already in our possession or at hand. Think of how trekking poles can be used for security. No need for another long handled stabbing or piercing weapon. Do we always optimize gear for the most extreme situations? NO. Those seven deaths were extremes - outliers - far outside the norm! How many could have been avoided or not resulted in fatal outcomes had their been a greater situational awareness - knowledge and wisdom? Better bring your snake bite kit, 3 lb FAK, jungle combat boots, fatigues, M18 Claymore mines, and always haul a 140 lb rucksack. Dont forget the Rambo knife and learning how to hunt wild boar. Ohh the woods are so hazardous. If we think they are reduce the risks by not having to immediately take it to the most hasty extremes. The threat level doesn't have to warrant it. Dont be ignorant and psychologically and emotionally self handcuffed.
Don't go out with just your feelings. Feelings and what we think can often betray us. Feelings(emotions) don't have to represent reality. As intuitive as this is it is rampant propping up feelings over facts, knowledge and wisdom, feelings and our perceptions/opinions NEEDING to always be validated as THE TRUTH, as THE REALITY, or were triggered, disenfranchised, discriminated against, having our safe spaces(delusional spaces) violated.
You know your fear's irrational. If carrying pepper spray and a knife gives you peace of mind, and calms that fear...do it, go hike.
If seven thru hikers had died in avalanches (which of course has not happened) I think most would welcome a discussion of whether or not carrying beacons, probes or airbag vests was worth considering.
And if seven thru hikers had died in avalanches (which of course has not happened) NO ONE would trivialize a hiker’s concern as being irrational.
That said, I understand why this discussion is difficult, and how an experienced hiker’s confirmation bias might lead him to conclude just that.
Good practical advise by Dogwood, I thought.
Today, though, I seriously think that I would go with ONLY the Victorinox Classic SD. I think that the only features I'd be missing are the can opener and the wine bottle opener. The first being EASILY replaced with a super light-weight army opener, and the second being totally useless, as anybody offering me wine will have one, lol.
The Victorinox Swiss Army Waiter Pocket Knife (https://www.amazon.com/Victorinox-Swiss-Waiter-Pocket-Knife/dp/B0001P15JY/ref=asc_df_B0001P15JY/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=167131408724&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=10459215495415091214&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9011572&hvtargid=pla-305158713294&psc=1) might meet your needs. I recently ordered a Victorinox Sportsman (https://www.amazon.com/Victorinox-Sportsman-Swiss-Army-Knife/dp/B0791J8P62)as I really like having a nail file also. I'm adding a mini screwdriver to the corkscrew for tightening up my eyeglasses. I also have a larger SAK, might be the WorkChamp XL (don't recall the model for sure) but that is heavy and not a real candidate for thru hiking. My daily carry is a Victorinox Escort (https://www.amazon.com/Victorinox-Escort-Red-Swiss-Pocket/dp/B0001P14Z4/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=victorinox+escort&qid=1573561967&s=sporting-goods&sr=1-1). It's similar to the Classic but without the scissors. The only other SAK I really like is the one with nailclippers.
If you want to improve your skill at detecting the potentially dangerous person, read the gift of fear by Gavin de Becker. While it does boil down to trusting gut instincts, he’s studied this topic extensively and has a number of good examples. Sometimes it may mean walking away from someone who would not have harmed you, because you can’t predict everything, leaving a place even if it is inconvenient to do so. Most of us just don’t have any experience with this, so you have to be alert to the signs. This attitude is probably much more effective than bringing a knife along, particularly since if you’re like me you have no idea what to do in a knife fight.
Getting back to lightweight knives, the Leatherman style cs weighs just a bit more than the victorinox and has a great pair or scissors. You can get tsa recycled ones on eBay for half price.
Kittyslayer
11-12-2019, 10:11
If seven thru hikers had died in avalanches...
Yet people visit Chicago every day and people are killed in Chicago every day.
Five Tango
11-12-2019, 10:47
So far I have needed a shoulder harness only once,yet I use it every time.I have never had a house fire,yet I keep my house insured.I have never needed a fire to ward off hypothermia either but I carry a knife big enough,4.5 oz with full tang blade and sheath,to baton damp wood.Oh,and you will never see it either so don't worry about being intimidated.And my hiking stick remains my weapon of choice should it ever be needed which we all know is quite unlikely,but it's handy.HYOH.
So far I have needed a shoulder harness only once,yet I use it every time.I have never had a house fire,yet I keep my house insured.I have never needed a fire to ward off hypothermia either but I carry a knife big enough,4.5 oz with full tang blade and sheath,to baton damp wood.Oh,and you will never see it either so don't worry about being intimidated.And my hiking stick remains my weapon of choice should it ever be needed which we all know is quite unlikely,but it's handy.HYOH.
So you refuse to go into the woods without violating the law because of your own personal terror?
Five Tango
11-12-2019, 10:52
So you refuse to go into the woods without violating the law because of your own personal terror?
No,because the blade length on my particular knife is within legal limits.
Perhaps I misunderstood your original post. Thought that wasn't the only thing you were carrying.
Five Tango
11-12-2019, 11:28
Perhaps I misunderstood your original post. Thought that wasn't the only thing you were carrying.
It isn't,I stated I also carry hiking sticks,carbon fiber,with 3/8" carbide drill tips if you really want to know.And I might occasionally carry bear spray if headed to an area with known wildlife issues as I have met people who were glad they had it although most of the time I don't carry anything but a small fixed blade knife capable of minor bush crafting.
I totally get the fact that people don't like to see other people carrying guns or big honkin' knives because I don't like that either although I am licensed to carry.My perspective is that a gun is unnecessary and the weight penalty is prohibitive.
And while we are on the subject,your gut is your best defense.My experience had been that the older I get the more refined my "creep detector" gets.
Sounds like we're generally on the same page. I was referring to the shoulder harness statement. My (flawed) interpretation was that you were carrying in the woods as well.
Five Tango
11-12-2019, 12:33
Sounds like we're generally on the same page. I was referring to the shoulder harness statement. My (flawed) interpretation was that you were carrying in the woods as well.
"Shoulder Harness" generally refers to the three point seat belt restraint system found in automobiles and mandated by Federal Law. "Shoulder Holster" is what detectives like Joe Kenda and Don Johnson of Miami Vice fame were known to wear.Sorry I did not make it more specific.
Understood. Like I said, I misinterpreted.
nsherry61
11-12-2019, 12:54
. . . I totally get the fact that people don't like to see other people carrying guns or big honkin' knives because I don't like that either . . .
And while we are on the subject,your gut is your best defense.My experience had been that the older I get the more refined my "creep detector" gets.
I actually don't mind seeing most people carrying all kinds of silly, heavy "survival" gear in the woods and mountains where many of us feel safer than in other spaces. I actually feel either sorry for them or get a good laugh at the silliness.
As for trusting one's gut, I beg to differ with many of the WB personalities. Trusting one's gut has gotten many, many innocent people killed because someone possessing a lethal tool, most often a gun, found that innocent person threatening and decided to defend themselves against a false threat that their gut felt was real!!
I would suggest that trusting one's gut is sound advice when it comes to avoiding potentially dangerous people and situations (there generally is little down side to playing it safe). BUT, trusting one's gut when it comes to potentially harming someone else in your defense of a gut feeling that is not also supported by clear and imminent danger to yourself or others is irresponsible, dangerous, and arguably the essence of human evil (your fear leading to harming another innocent person).
So, use your gut to decide when to leave and/or avoid situations. Use cold hard calculated training (and NOT your gut) to decide whether to use force to protect yourself against a perceived threat.
Five Tango
11-12-2019, 13:05
So how many cases of accidental self defense have happened on the AT?
FlyPaper
11-12-2019, 13:06
Given that 7 AT thru hikers have died at the hands of strangers in the middle of their thru hikes, how many do you think have perished on their drives to Springer?
Great point. People's belief that the AT is safer than civilization is held to with religious zeal. Safer than a grocery store? Well, if we only visit grocery stores that are at least 1 mile from roads, and never tell anyone which grocery store we're going to, perhaps grocery stores would be safer than the AT. (And when you enter a grocery store, don't get a cart right away. Trust your gut. If you get a bad vibe, move on to another grocery store).
Obviously ones personal danger is affected by the statistical risk one exposes himself too. If you live among coconut trees and never go into the ocean, you have a much higher chance of getting killed by a falling coconut than a shark attack. But if you never set foot under a coconut tree and scuba dive every weekend, you are more likely to get killed by shark attack than a falling coconut. If you briefly walk under a coconut tree once in a year, yet swim in the ocean every day, still your risk of shark attach is greater than your risk of coconut injury. Although we know the AVERAGE person is in more danger from a coconut injury than a shark attack, none of us are AVERAGE. Our personal risk may be very different from the average. And if you spend 6 months living on the AT, your risk of crime during that 6 months is much greater than that of a person who spends 30 minutes walking the AT in the same year.
Obviously someone who day hikes half a mile on the AT is statistically less likely to be murdered on the trail than someone who spends six months of their lives on the
trail. Although millions set foot briefly on the AT every year, the cumulative amount of time of everyone on the trail is still very small compared to the cumulative amount of time of the same number of people living in a city. If one were to do a detailed analysis of crime danger of the trail with regards to time spent on the trail, I don't think it would turn out to be as safe as some think.
I have heard that your average risk of death for a single car ride is about 1 in a million. I'd guess that thru-hikers have been murdered at a higher rate than that.
Some people don't carry any weapons, feel perfectly safe, and the overwhelming majority of them never have a truly dangerous encounter on the AT. Some people do carry weapons, which help them feel safer, and the overwhelming majority of them never have to use said weapon on the AT. Bottom line is you can carry as many knives as you want, you're the one carrying the weight. I personally carry a tiny pocketknife for functional purposes only, and have never felt unsafe on the AT. But if I was stopped along the trail and some dude came up with a bunch of knives visible or talking about all of the different knives he has and why, I would probably put on my pack and mosey on down the trail.
perdidochas
11-12-2019, 14:27
So, when I first (the only time) went on the A.T., I thought I felt pretty comfortable with the place, and the safety aspect. I'm an east coaster, from Quebec, I'm perfectly bilingual, I'm white, I blend in as a chubby American.
I'm a pretty big guy, AND I knew consciously that the A.T. was very non-violent, and that I would generally be very safe, AND that the area I was going into did not really have natural predators... Bears in MD and PA being few and far in between.
But I still brought a 'small' (heavy AF) foldable Gerber knife I thought was very nice, and a tiny pepper-spray canister. On top of my Victorinox Spartan knife, and of course my Victorinox Classic SD knife.
Honestly, I think that the 'visiting the US' factor encouraged me to bring the spray. In fact, over just some 130-150 miles, I got asked numerous times whether I was carrying a gun... (what??)... and got told that they would not ever hike like that without a gun. Holy moley. Man, guns scare the hell out of me, and I would never want to own one even if I could...
Today, though, I seriously think that I would go with ONLY the Victorinox Classic SD. I think that the only features I'd be missing are the can opener and the wine bottle opener. The first being EASILY replaced with a super light-weight army opener, and the second being totally useless, as anybody offering me wine will have one, lol.
In fact, one of the most stressful aspects of my hike was feeling like I had to dispose of the bloody dog spray before getting on the train back to Canada, in NYC. I ended up tossing it into a garbage bin on advice of port authority officers, and I felt really, really awful doing that (what if it pops? what if someone takes it and assaults somebody? urghhh!).
I would like to know how you people feel about safety, then. There was one night when, and I feel really stupid for it, I told two people I'd judged to be weird rednecks (they were just two nice people day-hiking with little gear, lol) that I was thinking of camping at that shelter (alone) and hiking faster to catch up with some trail friends the next day. That whole night, I kept getting paranoid and thinking that maybe they were coming back to kill me or something. I discovered that I have a big, irrational fear of being alone in the woods... I always knew I was afraid of the dark woods, but that night really made it all very concrete.
How do you deal with safety, AND, HOW do you deal with being alone in the woods, especially on a trail where others can find you?
Thank you :)
-A humble and very open Spork
The AT is pretty safe. I have never worried about self defense or even seriously thought about being armed while backpacking, and I'm a pro-gun type of guy.
People's belief that the AT is safer than civilization is held to with religious zeal. Safer than a grocery store?
Yeah, the ingredients in processed highly refined foods has been associated with at least four of the U.S. Top 10 causes of fatalities. Diet plays a role in health.
Yeah, more people have died from contaminated food bought at a grocery store than have died on the AT. Who knows the number of grocery store employees who contaminate food with poor hygiene or miss freshness dates resulting in illness or greater. I routinely note grocery store employees sneaking food eating it while on shift or scratching their face or mucus membranes(nose and teeth pickers), fingering their scalp and hair, coughing into their ungloved hands, touching garbage and then handling food served to customers without washing their paws.
Yeah, more have died on the way to a grocery store than on the way to the AT . Dont really know this only suspect it. :D
Not everyone who is contagious and sick spreading bacteria using shopping carts, handling money/credit cards, has used the hand sanitizer and anti-bacterial wipes. Then kids are strapped in those seats with undeveloped not fully formed immune systems.
Yeah, slips trips and falls can be common in grocery stores that don't immediately clean up hazards.
Yeah, over exertion or stress injuries such as damaged backs occur in grocery stores. Being cut by knives is another hazard for employees. Most grocery stores have potentially hazardous equipment on site - forklifts, balers, power jacks, etc. Not all stores have the safety and learning classes.
And, if you're buying groceries at a Wally World marketplace around Black Friday there's the risk of being trampled or crushed by those seeking limited quantities of Cabbage Patch Kids dolls and LCD large screens. :D
You guys got me all worried about fellow AT hikers perishing in car crashes.
So I ran some numbers.
100,000 Hikers (about the number who have attempted a thru hike) X 2,179 miles (Not everyone who starts a thru will finish, but what the hell ) = 217.9 million hiker-car miles.
The NTSB says there is about 1.25 deaths for every 100 million miles driven.
So the conclusion is obvious.
Mile for mile you about 3X more likely to get Murdered thru hiking, than dying in a car wreck.
You guys got me all worried about fellow AT hikers perishing in car crashes.
So I ran some numbers.
100,000 Hikers (about the number who have attempted a thru hike) X 2,179 miles (Not everyone who starts a thru will finish, but what the hell ) = 217.9 million hiker-car miles.
The NTSB says there is about 1.25 deaths for every 100 million miles driven.
So the conclusion is obvious.
Mile for mile you about 3X more likely to get Murdered thru hiking, than dying in a car wreck.
It's more accurate to account for time spent on the activity in the denominator, rather than simple distance. If a thru hiker goes 3 mph (and spends the night on the trail), it is therefore much, much safer than driving. Add in thousands of section hikers 'at risk' and it looks even better.
Mile for mile you about 3X more likely to get Murdered thru hiking, than dying in a car wreck.
i don't believe this.....
last year, in tennessee----there were 1,047 traffic fatalities (https://www.tn.gov/safety/news/2019/2/5/state-official-announce-2018-tennessee-traffic-fatality-figures.html).........
but not one person killed in TN due to thruhiking last year......
so now in Virginia-----where there was one thruhiker that was murdered earlier this year..............and i'll use last years numbers of 819 traffic fatalities in virginia (https://www.drivesmartva.org/about-dsv/annual-report/)..........
Five Tango
11-12-2019, 19:40
I believe it,statistically speaking.However statistics don't necessarily reflect reality.It's a lot like commercial air travel statistics.You KNOW there are more fatalities per passenger mile driven than by commercial air travel.That's a FACT.Commercial air travel is hands down the safest way to travel statistically speaking.
However,I would argue that the survivability of an automobile crash is higher than that of a commercial airliner crash.So if most people were given a choice of being involved in a commercial air liner crash or an automobile crash,which one would you pick? Incidentally,statistics point toward higher survivability in airline crashes as compared to automobiles but that's not a bet I would like to take,thank you very much.
Five Tango
11-12-2019, 19:54
Here's a staticstic and some comments by someone from Harvard (so you know they're Right!)
https://traveltips.usatoday.com/air-travel-safer-car-travel-1581.html
As for me,I would rather have a car crash((because I survived one unscathed thanks to a shoulder harness(not to be confused with a shoulder holster)) and the thought of being trapped in a smoke filled tube with about 300 panicked people Really does not sound like a good thing despite what statistics prove.
GoldenBear
11-12-2019, 23:03
I would argue that the survivability of an automobile crash is higher than that of a commercial airliner crash
When trying to decide whether or not to travel from City A to City B by plane or by passenger car, you can't simply calculate the odds of surviving a car crash versus surviving an airplane crash. You have to ALSO factor in the odds of BEING in a car crash versus being in a plane crash.
For instance, let's make a bet on which quarterback will pass for the most yards in this season's NFL playoffs. If you pick Matt Stafford of the 3-5-1 Detroit Lions, simply because he averages 312 yards per game, over Jimmy Garappolo of the 8-1 San Francisco 49ers, who averages 228 yards per game; I see the source of your confusion. You can't just calculate the odds of Stafford throwing a lot of yards *IF* he makes the playoffs, you also have to calculate of odds of Stafford even MAKING the playoffs.
It's the same way with the odds of surviving a crash in either a car or a plane *IF* one occurs.
And the odds of BEING in a plane crash, given that you travel between two cities, are MUCH smaller than being in a crash if you travel between those same two cities by car.
And let me add one more thing: even if the crash you died in isn't reported by national news, YOU"RE STILL JUST AS DEAD.
Kittyslayer
11-12-2019, 23:28
The trouble with statistics is they apply to an entire population without acknowledging individual differences that exist.
I have driving skills like Mario Andretti so my odds of being able to avoid an auto accident are better.
I have honed my fighting skills like Chuck Norris so even grizzly bears run in fear.
My outdoor skills match Jerimiah Johnson and mountains flatten as I approach.
I can’t fly a plane and would die a horrible death if my number came up on the statistics Roulet wheel.
My outdoor skills match Jerimiah Johnson and mountains flatten as I approach.
he he he
While flying in a passenger plane may be a safer way to travel, it is also thru that
Being a professional Aircraft Pilot or Flight Engineer is classified as on of the deadliest jobs in this country.
The 10 Deadliest Jobs:
1. Logging workers
2. Fishers and related fishing workers
3. Aircraft pilot and flight engineers
4. Roofers
5. Structural iron and steel workers
6. Refuse and recyclable material collectors
7. Electrical power-line installers and repairers
8. Drivers/sales workers and truck drivers
9. Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers is country.
10. Construction laborer
There is a point in here somewhere, but I have forgotten what it is.
Oh, I know: seven AT Thru hiker deaths at the hands of a complete stranger is statistically noteworthy, and should be taken into consideration when making rational decisions — not out of fear, but a calm understanding of that (still small) possibility.
Five Tango
11-13-2019, 07:57
When trying to decide whether or not to travel from City A to City B by plane or by passenger car, you can't simply calculate the odds of surviving a car crash versus surviving an airplane crash. You have to ALSO factor in the odds of BEING in a car crash versus being in a plane crash.
For instance, let's make a bet on which quarterback will pass for the most yards in this season's NFL playoffs. If you pick Matt Stafford of the 3-5-1 Detroit Lions, simply because he averages 312 yards per game, over Jimmy Garappolo of the 8-1 San Francisco 49ers, who averages 228 yards per game; I see the source of your confusion. You can't just calculate the odds of Stafford throwing a lot of yards *IF* he makes the playoffs, you also have to calculate of odds of Stafford even MAKING the playoffs.
It's the same way with the odds of surviving a crash in either a car or a plane *IF* one occurs.
And the odds of BEING in a plane crash, given that you travel between two cities, are MUCH smaller than being in a crash if you travel between those same two cities by car.
And let me add one more thing: even if the crash you died in isn't reported by national news, YOU"RE STILL JUST AS DEAD.
You make a good point and I agree with you 100%.But if you had a crystal ball and told me that tomorrow at 2:21p.m. I am going to be in either a car crash or a commercial plane crash and could pick which one;I would not pick the long smoke filled tube with hundreds of panicked people;thank you very much.
Traveler
11-13-2019, 08:08
Mile for mile you about 3X more likely to get Murdered thru hiking, than dying in a car wreck.
Dang, stepping over bodies from GA to ME must be exhausting....
FlyPaper
11-13-2019, 08:21
This thread has just turned fun. People are at least attempting to make valid apples to apples comparisons about trail safety. It is not as easy to do as one would think. It is a lot more complex that just looking at the total number of people that spend at least 5 minutes on the trail.
While the trail is not as statistically safe as some like to claim, I'm guessing that no one is going to NOT hike because of that.
Puddlefish
11-13-2019, 09:16
The kind of hiker that makes me nervous are those that carry big scary knives and talk about how dangerous the trail is.
:):rolleyes::)
Seriously, the primary danger to hikers is falling. All of us fall. Most of the time it's a little slip, maybe a bruised ego, or a stubbed toe. But sometimes it's the kind of fall where you get hurt. And if you're alone and/or unprepared, being hurt can precipitate a cascade of difficulties. Like an unintended night without a way to stay warm and dry, and being unable to call or signal for help.
Very much this. Hiked alongside a guy (with an overtly adventure hero trail name that I'm certain that he gave himself) for a few hours. He had a 10 or 11 inch blade Bowie knife, strapped to his belt. I chuckled as I asked him if he was planning on chopping down pine trees to make his shelter every night. He said it was "for bears... and 'other' dangers." Well, alrighty then!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdbfJeI1Y1I
4eyedbuzzard
11-13-2019, 09:27
It's difficult to come up with a completely accurate death rate by murder for thru-hikers, but here goes: As of 2018 data, ATC reported that 20,479 people had completed a thru-hike. The completion range every year runs between 20 and 25%. So taking the middle ground of 23%, some 90,000 have been considered thruhikers at some point as of 2018. Lets go with 7 as the actual murder count, although there have been several other murders of hikers in the corridor that just as easily could have been thruhikers and not day or section hikers. That puts the thru-hiker murder rate at 7 per 90,000, or 7.78 per 100,000. In 2018, the overall US murder rate was roughly 5 per 100,000. Based on this, the AT thru-hiker murder rate is slightly higher than the US average.
But statistics don't tell the larger picture. There are probably 10 times as many section hikers on the trail as thru-hikers, all potential targets as well, which would reduce the AT rate substantially. But not by a factor of 10 as they typically spend a week or less on the trail. And it's probably fair to assume that the murderers probably don't know if you're a thru-hiker or section hiker. But even so, the presence of other hikers/potential victims obviously would reduce the overall any-hiker murder rate. The section hiker factor probably cuts the actual any-hiker murder rate in half or more. But, the other factor is that even though rural crime rates have increased recently, the overall US murder rate is skewed higher by more murders occurring in urban areas. So that would reduce the effective US rate as it pertains to the more rural AT. If you look at the numbers, the US rate, AT thru-hiker rate, any-hiker rate, etc all fall within a pretty small range. My thoughts have always been is that the AT is roughly as safe crime wise as the area it passes through.
Puddlefish
11-13-2019, 09:38
It's difficult to come up with a completely accurate death rate by murder for thru-hikers, but here goes: As of 2018 data, ATC reported that 20,479 people had completed a thru-hike. The completion range every year runs between 20 and 25%. So taking the middle ground of 23%, some 90,000 have been considered thruhikers at some point as of 2018. Lets go with 7 as the actual murder count, although there have been several other murders of hikers in the corridor that just as easily could have been thruhikers and not day or section hikers. That puts the thru-hiker murder rate at 7 per 90,000, or 7.78 per 100,000. In 2018, the overall US murder rate was roughly 5 per 100,000. Based on this, the AT thru-hiker murder rate is slightly higher than the US average.
But statistics don't tell the larger picture. There are probably 10 times as many section hikers on the trail as thru-hikers, all potential targets as well, which would reduce the AT rate substantially. But not by a factor of 10 as they typically spend a week or less on the trail. And it's probably fair to assume that the murderers probably don't know if you're a thru-hiker or section hiker. But even so, the presence of other hikers/potential victims obviously would reduce the overall any-hiker murder rate. The section hiker factor probably cuts the actual any-hiker murder rate in half or more. But, the other factor is that even though rural crime rates have increased recently, the overall US murder rate is skewed higher by more murders occurring in urban areas. So that would reduce the effective US rate as it pertains to the more rural AT. If you look at the numbers, the US rate, AT thru-hiker rate, any-hiker rate, etc all fall within a pretty small range. My thoughts have always been is that the AT is roughly as safe crime wise as the area it passes through.
It's estimated that 2-3 million visitors hike a portion of the Appalachian Trail each year. Most enjoy day hikes and short backpacking trips, but each year a small fraction of those hikers complete the entire Trail.
Why would you limit this to successful thru hikers only? You're comparing apples to oranges.
4eyedbuzzard
11-13-2019, 09:47
It's estimated that 2-3 million visitors hike a portion of the Appalachian Trail each year. Most enjoy day hikes and short backpacking trips, but each year a small fraction of those hikers complete the entire Trail.
Why would you limit this to successful thru hikers only? You're comparing apples to oranges.Actually, I didn't. If you'll note, I did say that there were some 90,000 thru-hiker attempts out of the roughly 20,000+ completions, used the 90,000 as the thru-hiker base, and added that the presence of section and other hikers reduces the effective rate: "There are probably 10 times as many section hikers on the trail as thru-hikers, all potential targets as well, which would reduce the AT rate substantially. But not by a factor of 10 as they typically spend a week or less on the trail. And it's probably fair to assume that the murderers probably don't know if you're a thru-hiker or section hiker. But even so, the presence of other hikers/potential victims obviously would reduce the overall any-hiker murder rate. The section hiker factor probably cuts the actual any-hiker murder rate in half or more."
Are these VERY rough estimates? Yes. There just isn't enough data to get really accurate rates. But it was just to point out that the effective murder rate isn't the almost alarmingly high one of 7 out of 20,000 - or even 90,000. I would hesitate to use the 2-3 million number as most are day hikers, and almost all the murders have been related to hikers staying overnight camped or at shelters. That's also why day hiker murders like Meredith Emerson weren't considered, even though a strong case could be made to include at least 4 other murders of day and other hikers related to the AT, but not on the AT proper. To get really into the safety data, you'd have to consider thru-hiker attempted mileage, location (all murders but one were south of PA I believe), victim age and gender (most all were young, most involved females), and then factor in all that stuff. A better way might be to come up with a ratio of hiker miles or time/bag nights vs murder rate, but this would be most difficult given available data.
No matter how you cook the books, the AT isn't 5 or 10 times safer nor 5 or 10 times more dangerous than the world surrounding it. The crime rate is within the expected range of the society it's located in.
Garlic Guy
11-13-2019, 10:15
Lots of solid advice and …….statistics. There are many other trails that are less popular/visited. That may or may not put you at ease a bit with less folks out and about. Take what you need to feel safe as it will give you a peace of mind. I have backpacked on the AT, in Colorado, Wyoming and many states in between and never once felt unsafe, even with grizz in Wyoming, cautious and prepared yes, but not in danger/fear. I did feel a bit uneasy when I camped near a trailhead once near the road but that was my mistake for not picking a different camp spot. The fear and anxiety would ruin the reason why I head out. As mentioned, there is enough fear and danger in our everyday lives to think about. If I was that worried where it ruined the reason why I hike (overnight), I would just stick to day hiking and maybe work up to overnighters.
I remember my first solo trip was on the AT for 5 days. While I had camped before, I was always with friends and never thought about being alone. First night was different as I heard every noise, tree blowing, animal noise, etc! Could there really be a Bigfoot.....! :-? I will say the more you camp alone, the more you get used to it and at the end of the day, you have no problem catching a good nights sleep despite noises, rain, wind, animals, etc. I even enjoy cowboy camping at times, throwing your bag on the ground under the stars and enjoying it. No tent or shelter.
Good luck and relax as the woods are the best place for it.
Puddlefish
11-13-2019, 10:16
Actually, I didn't. If you'll note, I did say that there were some 90,000 thru-hiker attempts out of the roughly 20,000+ completions, and that the presence of section and other hikers reduces the effective rate: "There are probably 10 times as many section hikers on the trail as thru-hikers, all potential targets as well, which would reduce the AT rate substantially. But not by a factor of 10 as they typically spend a week or less on the trail. And it's probably fair to assume that the murderers probably don't know if you're a thru-hiker or section hiker. But even so, the presence of other hikers/potential victims obviously would reduce the overall any-hiker murder rate. The section hiker factor probably cuts the actual any-hiker murder rate in half or more."
Are these VERY rough estimates? Yes. There just isn't enough data to get really accurate rates. But it was just to point out that the effective murder rate isn't the almost alarmingly high one of 7 out of 20,000 - or even 90,000. I would hesitate to use the 2-3 million number as most are day hikers, and almost all the murders have been related to hikers staying overnight camped or at shelters. That's also why day hiker murders like Meredith Emerson weren't considered, even though a strong case could be made to include at least 4 other murders of day and other hikers related to the AT, but not on the AT proper. The best way would be to come up with a ratio of hiker miles or time vs murder rate, but this would be most difficult given available data.
"Based on this, the AT thru-hiker murder rate is slightly higher than the US average." This was your conclusion. It's very wrong, based on the reasons you stated.
4eyedbuzzard
11-13-2019, 10:28
"Based on this, the AT thru-hiker murder rate is slightly higher than the US average." This was your conclusion. It's very wrong, based on the reasons you stated. Yes, based upon not factoring in the presence of section hikers. Which is why there is a second paragraph that expands upon that statement and points out its flaws. Read the full post and don't take it out of context.
somers515
11-13-2019, 10:36
While flying in a passenger plane may be a safer way to travel, it is also thru that
Being a professional Aircraft Pilot or Flight Engineer is classified as on of the deadliest jobs in this country.
The 10 Deadliest Jobs:
1. Logging workers
2. Fishers and related fishing workers
3. Aircraft pilot and flight engineers
4. Roofers
5. Structural iron and steel workers
6. Refuse and recyclable material collectors
7. Electrical power-line installers and repairers
8. Drivers/sales workers and truck drivers
9. Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers is country.
10. Construction laborer
There is a point in here somewhere, but I have forgotten what it is.
Oh, I know: seven AT Thru hiker deaths at the hands of a complete stranger is statistically noteworthy, and should be taken into consideration when making rational decisions — not out of fear, but a calm understanding of that (still small) possibility.
Because pilots also fly much less safe prop airplanes and helicopters too and have health risk exposures unique to their job. Its not because being a passenger on a commercial air flight in the USA isn't a safe way to travel. To suggest otherwise is irresponsible.
Your other post using actual statistics was a little bit more interesting. You compare the number of deaths of thru-hikers (7) and claim there have been 100,000 thru-hikers. Assuming your numbers are correct, I've read the overall homicide rate in 2018 in the USA was 5.3 per 100,000. Even factoring in that thru-hikers are only out hiking for half the year it still doesn't sound like we have a large enough sample size of thru hikers to claim that is a statistically significant difference. Do we have any statisticians who want to chime in?
Also for the months you are hiking you are probably driving a lot less and therefore improving your odds of avoiding the motor vehicle death. And this doesn't even count in the enormous health benefits of all the exercise you are getting. This is the same reason that while per mile biking to work say is more dangerous than driving per mile, when you factor in the health benefits it can be argued its a safer activity. https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safest-form-of-transportation/
But what I think this boils down for you Rickb is that you bristle at people calling your fear of death on the trail by homicide irrational. You think its completely rational to worry about a risk that is 7 out of 100,000. Can I ask you if you have the same worry about routinely driving your car (assuming you drive an average amount, a much more likely way for you to die by the way, roughly 90 deaths per day)? https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/motor-vehicle-safety/index.html Or of being murdered as you walk around your home town each year (5.3 out of 100,000)? Or of heart attacks or other health risks caused by lack of exercise and/or poor diet? Or the many other actually greater risks that you face while hiking? (hint greatest risk of death while hiking is falling) https://www.backpacker.com/survival/a-dozen-ways-to-die. If you do worry about everything then that's fine too I suppose but then perhaps try not to be bothered so much by people that don't worry about things that even you admit are a small possibility.
I actually do agree with you that before you go out in the wilderness to hike or do any activity you should spend some time considering the risks you may face and consider how best to minimize them. But I will continue to strongly disagree with you when you keep trying to imply that your risk of being murdered on the AT is high. It is not relative to the risks we face in every day life and even the specific risks we face while on the trail.
https://aeon.co/ideas/believing-without-evidence-is-always-morally-wrong
As for the OP I believe his question was appropriately answered by the first few posters and I second their overall message. I would welcome more discussion focused on answering the OPs questions or actual statisticians who could probably set us all straight. I hope this post was helpful to someone.
Puddlefish
11-13-2019, 10:40
Yes, based upon not factoring in the presence of section hikers. Which is why there is a second paragraph that expands upon that statement and points out its flaws. Read the full post and don't take it out of context.
I'm a math major with a concentration in statistics. I kills me that people will link to a poorly constructed study, and come out with a very wrong conclusion. The general public tends to walk away believing the conclusion. Your conclusion had no legitimate statistical base, even in the context of how you stated it, and that's what I'm pointing out.
Five Tango
11-13-2019, 10:56
Here's some official and professional data to consider https://crim.sas.upenn.edu/fact-check/what-are-chances-becoming-homicide-victim
So after looking at it and realizing that I am my own worst enemy I have resolved to carry a small fixed blade to:
A. protect myself from the cold
B. protect myself from a predator(human,wild,or rabid)
C.protect myself from an out of control domesticated dog (dog lover here but not all dogs realize that)
D.protect myself from hunger by whittling a spoon
E.protect myself from weather by whittling a tent peg
So that's why I lug the extra 4.5 oz out there.GEE,I hope people don't mind!
4eyedbuzzard
11-13-2019, 11:20
I'm a math major with a concentration in statistics. I kills me that people will link to a poorly constructed study, and come out with a very wrong conclusion. The general public tends to walk away believing the conclusion. Your conclusion had no legitimate statistical base, even in the context of how you stated it, and that's what I'm pointing out.I noted that the available data is very poor in terms of constructing an accurate result. It's a rough estimate as I stated. I didn't put it out there as an authoritative fact, only as an opinion and how I came to that conclusion. You are free to disagree. But I would be happy to see a better estimate taking into account the data that is available and some consideration of the other factors that might influence a rough conclusion.
Without naming names, some posters are doing a rather poor job of reading my mind.
Round numbers, something like 20,000 people have hiked the AT and about 100,000 people have attempted a thru hike.
7 AT Thru hikers have been murdered many hundreds of miles in the middle of their hikes.
For some, this number seams “reasonable” given the large numbers involved.
I think differently.
If 7 AT thru hikes were killed by bears, or widow makers, or exposure, or falls or any other vector, the conversation would be far different.
The conversation would be focused on how to mitigate the risk (even though is is relatively small when compared to dying of say, Diabetes), rather than just shrugging it off.
FlyPaper
11-13-2019, 12:05
Actually, I didn't. If you'll note, I did say that there were some 90,000 thru-hiker attempts out of the roughly 20,000+ completions, used the 90,000 as the thru-hiker base, and added that the presence of section and other hikers reduces the effective rate: "There are probably 10 times as many section hikers on the trail as thru-hikers, all potential targets as well, which would reduce the AT rate substantially. But not by a factor of 10 as they typically spend a week or less on the trail. And it's probably fair to assume that the murderers probably don't know if you're a thru-hiker or section hiker. But even so, the presence of other hikers/potential victims obviously would reduce the overall any-hiker murder rate. The section hiker factor probably cuts the actual any-hiker murder rate in half or more."
Are these VERY rough estimates? Yes. There just isn't enough data to get really accurate rates. But it was just to point out that the effective murder rate isn't the almost alarmingly high one of 7 out of 20,000 - or even 90,000. I would hesitate to use the 2-3 million number as most are day hikers, and almost all the murders have been related to hikers staying overnight camped or at shelters. That's also why day hiker murders like Meredith Emerson weren't considered, even though a strong case could be made to include at least 4 other murders of day and other hikers related to the AT, but not on the AT proper. The best way would be to come up with a ratio of hiker miles or time vs murder rate, but this would be most difficult given available data.
No matter how you cook the books, the AT isn't 5 or 10 times safer nor 5 or 10 times more dangerous than the world surrounding it. The crime rate is within the expected range of the society it's located in.
I think it is important to start by estimating how many "person-years" are spent on the trail. If you live in Baltimore, you probably spend 350+ days a year in Baltimore. If you leave Baltimore for vacation, there is probably someone not living in in Baltimore that visits Baltimore to make up for the time you're not there. So for 1000 people who live in Baltimore there is very close to 1000 "person-years" spent in Baltimore. You have 12 full months during which you are at risk of being murdered in Baltimore. Cities that have 37 murders per 100,000 population typically have those 100,000 people present in the city almost the entire year. One might guess that cities with 37 murders per 100,000 population would see about 18.5 murders in 6 months per 100,000 population.
If you thru-hike, you spend about 6 months on the trail. That means for 1000 successful thru-hikers, there are only 500 "person-years" spent on the trail. That means if 1 of those 1000 gets murdered, that is comparable to 2 of them being killed in a year when comparing apples-to-apples with a normal city. Similarly, if a city has 20 murders as of June 30, one would estimate it will have 40 murders by the end of the year.
Baltimore has different regions. One can reasonably measure the murder rate of downtown and would probably not be surprised if it is different than the northern suburbs. 10 extra murders downtown has no affect on the murder rate in the suburbs. The Appalachian Trail has thru-hikers, section-hikers and day-hikers. One can estimate the murder rate of each population separately even if one thinks the rates ought to be roughly the same.
For Baltimore, one might guess that the NorthWest Suburb ought to have roughly the same murder rate as the NorthEast suburb (I don't really know). Still, their murder rates can be measured independently and distinctly.
For the AT, one could consider thru-hikers as one region and section-hikers as another, each with their own population of "person-years" and number of murders. If 1000 section-hikers each spend one week on the trail, that is about like 19 "person-years" on the trail. Obviously it takes a lot more section-hikers to accumulate the same time and risk as it does thru-hikers. Since it is much harder to estimate the number of "person-years" accumulated by section hikers, one may choose to just look at the population of thru-hikers as if it were a single region of a city.
So I would say your original estimate of 7 murders in 90,000 is reasonable for thru-hikers and it is not necessary to consider the number of section hikers or the number of section-hikers murdered. Section hikers are like a different city with a different set of murder victims. Section hikers may be at roughly the same risk, but the number of section-hikers and the number of section-hiker murders are not necessary to calculate the murder rate for thru-hikers.
Your initial calculation of 90,000 thru-hikers seemed very reasonable to me.
But in terms of "person-years", I would suggest that the average thru-hiker of these 90,000 spends probably 2.5 months on the trail. We can say 3 months because it's easier. In terms of "person-years", 90,000 thru-hikers equals 22,500 "person-years" on the trail. If there are 7 murder for 22,500 "person-years", that is about 31 murders per 100,000 "person-years" which is comparable to many large cities in the US.
To do a similar estimate of section-hiker murder rate would be more difficult because it is harder to estimate how many there are and how long the stay on the trail on average.
I would guess that section hikers incur roughly the same risk as thru-hikers. But they spend much less time on the trail so that the average section hiker is less likely to be murdered while on the trail than the average thru-hiker. Similarly, someone that swims in ocean every day is more likely to be attacked by a shark than someone who wades in chest high for 5 minutes once a year. If 1 million people spend 5 minutes in the ocean and no one gets attacked, that doesn't prove the ocean is safer than land.
Regardless, I stand by the claim that the trail is not substantially safer than the rest of America. Here is a link that lists 12 murders in the last 45 years, although I didn't read carefully enough to see if each one was reported as either a thru-hiker or section-hiker. I just accept the claim that 7 thru-hikers have been murdered.
https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/violence-extremely-rare-along-the-appalachian-trail/article_b97869c5-76b4-579b-b4c7-0e3e785abc40.html
... I have backpacked on the AT, in Colorado, Wyoming and many states in between and never once felt unsafe, even with grizz in Wyoming, cautious and prepared yes, but not in danger/fear. .
I will most likely never do serious backpacking or camping in CO, WY, AK, etc because of grizzly bears ( given the taxonomical name "Ursus horribilis" for very good reasons by Meriwether Lewis based on his encounters with them and descriptions by Native Americans of their encounters) and the nearly pathological fear that I have of them.
That aside, just how do you prepare for an encounter with a 400-790 lbs. bear with 6" claws that can run 30 mph? If you wake up and hear/smell the thing in your campsite, other than praying to the baby Jebus and sh**ing one's pants, what's Plan B?
While flying in a passenger plane may be a safer way to travel, it is also thru that
Being a professional Aircraft Pilot or Flight Engineer is classified as on of the deadliest jobs in this country.
The 10 Deadliest Jobs:
1. Logging workers
2. Fishers and related fishing workers
3. Aircraft pilot and flight engineers
4. Roofers
5. Structural iron and steel workers
6. Refuse and recyclable material collectors
7. Electrical power-line installers and repairers
8. Drivers/sales workers and truck drivers
9. Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers is country.
10. Construction laborer
There is a point in here somewhere, but I have forgotten what it is.
Oh, I know: seven AT Thru hiker deaths at the hands of a complete stranger is statistically noteworthy, and should be taken into consideration when making rational decisions — not out of fear, but a calm understanding of that (still small) possibility.
Way off topic on my part but you misunderstand the pilot statistic above. It is not 'professional' pilots they are talking about as the number of them who die in crashes is almost zero - there has not been a fatal commercial airline crash in the US in over a decade. It is 'private' pilots as there are an average of 5 small plane crashes in the US every day and about 500 people die in them a year.
I will most likely never do serious backpacking or camping in CO, WY, AK, etc because of grizzly bears ( given the taxonomical name "Ursus horribilis" for very good reasons by Meriwether Lewis based on his encounters with them and descriptions by Native Americans of their encounters) and the nearly pathological fear that I have of them.
That aside, just how do you prepare for an encounter with a 400-790 lbs. bear with 6" claws that can run 30 mph? If you wake up and hear/smell the thing in your campsite, other than praying to the baby Jebus and sh**ing one's pants, what's Plan B?
As someone who has met a grizzly bear and also grew up camping in their country there is basically 3 answers to your question.
1. If you don't startle them, or God forbid get near a mother's cubs by accident, then you mind your own business and back slowly away and go way around them. You will be fine.
2. If they are going to threaten you or attack you then Bear Spray is the most effective deterrent statistics say. Get it in the air between you so they might breath it in and if they get close enough get it in their face, eyes, mouth. I have never used it on one but you could carry it if you felt you wanted it.
3. Carry a .44 magnum and use it if you have to. But unless you have experience using a weapon when there is only a second or two to save you it probably will not work. Bear Spray is more effective as you don't really have to aim well and it does not make them mad as it is an irritant that burns like crazy and they are more likely to run away. Wounding one with a gun is more likely to make them mad than stop them. And there are laws applicable about carrying guns into National Parks and across state lines etc which are going to impact that decision. Plus they are very heavy.
Most people survive big bear attacks by rolling up in a ball and trying to protect their head and neck. Don't fight a grizzly go passive - most people attacked survive. Fight a black bear as they are chickens and easily give up if you fight and scream at them - easily is a comparative term here obviously.
I will most likely never do serious backpacking or camping in CO, WY, AK, etc because of grizzly bears ( given the taxonomical name "Ursus horribilis" for very good reasons by Meriwether Lewis based on his encounters with them and descriptions by Native Americans of their encounters) and the nearly pathological fear that I have of them.That aside, just how do you prepare for an encounter with a 400-790 lbs. bear with 6" claws that can run 30 mph? If you wake up and hear/smell the thing in your campsite, other than praying to the baby Jebus and sh**ing one's pants, what's Plan B?
Yeah, I almost always hike solo, and it's the one thing keeping me from booking that trip out West into grizzly territory. When I do, I'll have bear spray and a 10mm glock on me. They also sell electric fences for camp, but I haven't looked into them to see how much they weigh or the volume they take up. All this fear planning, then I read reports of another 100# lady who solo'd the CDT.
TwistedCF
11-13-2019, 14:10
[QUOTE=4eyedbuzzard;2258713]It's difficult to come up with a completely accurate death rate by murder for thru-hikers, but here goes: As of 2018 data, ATC reported that 20,479 people had completed a thru-hike. The completion range every year runs between 20 and 25%. So taking the middle ground of 23%, some 90,000 have been considered thruhikers at some point as of 2018. Lets go with 7 as the actual murder count, although there have been several other murders of hikers in the corridor that just as easily could have been thruhikers and not day or section hikers. That puts the thru-hiker murder rate at 7 per 90,000, or 7.78 per 100,000. In 2018, the overall US murder rate was roughly 5 per 100,000. Based on this, the AT thru-hiker murder rate is slightly higher than the US average.
The AT murder rate is in No way remotely as high as the US average. You are comparing every murder on the AT over a span of how many decades?, to the murder rate for one, random year in the US. How many murders occurred in the US over the decades it took to accumulate a total of seven on the AT?
I'm all about protecting yourself and your family, being prepared and self reliance. If any law abiding American wants to pack a gun on trail, more power to them. But statistics are tied to fear mongering and almost never paint an accurate picture because they can be skewed to support any argument. Most people outside of engineering , mechanical, or careers in mathematics have trouble making correct change so throwing a string of numbers at them and making a claim that's in no way supported by the numbers instils a false reality. The At in particular and long distance hiking in general has never put anyone at higher risk of being a victim of violent crime than day to day life in any city or rural area in the US.
To the OP... Good luck with overcoming the irrational fears associated with being in the woods. As for the very real threats that do exist... practice good hygiene. Also, consider not walking with the telescopic aluminum toothpicks known as trekking poles. Replace them with a five foot long hickory staff. The end will nub down and need to be whittled back to a taper periodically giving you an excuse to carry a reasonable size knife:D and it wont break if you take a tumble. Five feet is long enough to keep some one or something further than arms length from you and there isn't a stray dog alive who doesn't respect a good stick!
Yeah, I almost always hike solo, and it's the one thing keeping me from booking that trip out West into grizzly territory. When I do, I'll have bear spray and a 10mm glock on me. They also sell electric fences for camp, but I haven't looked into them to see how much they weigh or the volume they take up. All this fear planning, then I read reports of another 100# lady who solo'd the CDT.
I don't intend to hijack this thread, but in re bear spray, I've seen videos of grizzly bears -- size, speed, ferocity, fearlessness -- and then I try to imagine myself trying to ward off One Of Them -- say, one of the 600 lbs. guys running at me at 25 mph -- with a 6 ounce aerosol can of REI pepper spray, and I know for a 100% fact that it wouldn't work for me. It may work for others, and I hope it does, but it wouldn't work for me. So as much as I would like to hike out west, and although my daughter lives in Colorado Springs and hikes and climbs all the time and always wants me to come out to do the same, I just can't and won't do it. A car load of drunken West Virginia rednecks doesn't scare me; a single bear does. Call me irrational, call me a chicken****, I don't care.
I will most likely never do serious backpacking or camping in CO, WY, AK, etc because of grizzly bears ( given the taxonomical name "Ursus horribilis" for very good reasons by Meriwether Lewis based on his encounters with them and descriptions by Native Americans of their encounters) and the nearly pathological fear that I have of them.
That aside, just how do you prepare for an encounter with a 400-790 lbs. bear with 6" claws that can run 30 mph? If you wake up and hear/smell the thing in your campsite, other than praying to the baby Jebus and sh**ing one's pants, what's Plan B?
Best Grizzly attack scenes are in the Faces Of Death DOC series when one takes the head off a stupid acting Touron with one swipe of it's paw. The other one is Lenardo De caprio being mauled in The Revenant. Please pass the popcorn. Can we imagine what it was like crawling back to the fort in his conditions over that terrain avoiding the hazards?
here's a true story about a guy who had his face torn apart by a grizzly.....
http://danbigley.com/beyondthebear/
i met him over a NYE run of some music in Colorado shorty after it happened...........
Traveler
11-14-2019, 07:54
That aside, just how do you prepare for an encounter with a 400-790 lbs. bear with 6" claws that can run 30 mph? If you wake up and hear/smell the thing in your campsite, other than praying to the baby Jebus and sh**ing one's pants, what's Plan B?
Defecation on demand is not altogether a bad plan. Making the other guy smell better and to the discriminating bear engaged in a bit of mauling likely taste better as well, could be the holy grail of self defense mechanisms. Practicing for this circumstance however would not lend well to developing relationships on the trail. Baby Jebsus, famed food truck cook and 1987 runner up in the "New England Cottage Cheese Spitting Festival" would be the lesser choice in this circumstance.
FlyPaper
11-14-2019, 08:31
The AT murder rate is in No way remotely as high as the US average. You are comparing every murder on the AT over a span of how many decades?, to the murder rate for one, random year in the US. How many murders occurred in the US over the decades it took to accumulate a total of seven on the AT?
I believe 4eyebuzzard made a pretty solid case that the AT is in fact not substantially safer than the rest of the US. You've dismissed it with nothing more than religious conviction. Obviously average murder rate must take into account population numbers and time involved. A small population (AT hikers) extended over a long time is comparable to a larger population over a shorter time, which is the approach 4eyebuzzard took.
I know religious convictions die hard, and for those of us who don't fear hiking the AT it can be fun to tell others how safe it is. But any dispassionate analysis that makes an apples-to-apples comparison of populations along with time spent on trail leads to the conclusion that the AT is just as dangerous as the rest of America in terms of homicide rates.
FlyPaper
11-14-2019, 08:56
Simple analysis since most won't read longer posts:
If there have been 90,000 attempts at a thru-hike and we assume the average thru-hike attempt results in a person spending 3 months on the trail (most don't finish), then that is the equivalent of 1 town of size 22,500 occupied for 12 months of ONE year.
If there are 7 murder in a town that size, that is about 31 murders per 100,000, which is about the same murder rate of Kansas City, MO and is actually significantly higher than most of the US.
For those that say "but this happened over 45 years!!!". True. But to my knowledge, no one has lived on the AT for 45 straight years. If you thru-hike in 2001 and get murdered in 2005, you do not count as a thru-hiker murdered on the AT.
If there were 90,000 thru-hikers EVERY year, then that would be equivalent of a town of size 22,500 occupied for the last 45 or so years. Some are confusing this point as if the total number of years increases the size of the denominator. It does not. Total number of years can be ignored since we know the total number of thru-hike attempts (approximately).
Garlic Guy
11-14-2019, 09:32
John B,
(458424584345844 Couple warning signs in Glacier for bear but than look at the scenery.... There are no grizzlies in Colorado (one reported sighting since 1979) so you can rest easy. Common sense is the factor. Do not sleep with or near your food. Do not cook or prepare your food near where you camp. Make noise when hiking to let bears know you are around. Chances of crossing a grizz are slim. Unless they are with their young, feeding or sometimes surprised (thus the making noise) they are not aggressive. Just got back from Glacier National Park in Montana. Talked to a ranger. There are approx. 300 grizzly bears in the park, the park covers 1,583 square miles. You can do the odds of encountering a grizz or being attacked by one. Yes, a bear can come into your camp so can a mountain lion, etc. Lets talk statistics, Fatal Bear attacks vs Fatal Shark attacks - 1900-2009. Lower 48, 14 fatal bear attacks, 30 fatal shark attacks. Another stat, 1 in 2.7 million park visitors are likely to be injured by a bear, odds go up in the backcountry to 1 in 232,000 per day. Alaska is a different story for bear attacks. I will takes those odds in the lower 48 to enjoy and experience some beautiful less seen backcountry scenery, but that is me. What is your "Plan B" when you go into the ocean, just in case you are attacked by a shark? I am a vet, and have a carry permit and go to the range frequently but having a handgun against a 400-1200lb pissed off bear is something I never want to encounter. Your shot better be dead on as bears can reportedly hit 35 mph (Usain Bolt's top speed is 27 mph) so shot placement is a life or death situation. I will take my chances and be cautious and enjoy. To each their own. I do not have a death warrant but am not going to avoid the things I enjoy for a possible animal/bad person encounter. Be responsible, cautious and know your surroundings. As mentioned, how many folks get killed each day in major city yet people still visit.
This thread has taken a turn off course from the OP's questions for sure!
To the OP, as mentioned, trust your gut feelings and get out more!
greensleep
11-14-2019, 10:52
Defecation on demand is not altogether a bad plan. Making the other guy smell better and to the discriminating bear engaged in a bit of mauling likely taste better as well, could be the holy grail of self defense mechanisms. Practicing for this circumstance however would not lend well to developing relationships on the trail. Baby Jebsus, famed food truck cook and 1987 runner up in the "New England Cottage Cheese Spitting Festival" would be the lesser choice in this circumstance.
Your posts are always worth reading!
colorado_rob
11-14-2019, 14:08
I don't intend to hijack this thread, but in re bear spray, I've seen videos of grizzly bears -- size, speed, ferocity, fearlessness -- and then I try to imagine myself trying to ward off One Of Them -- say, one of the 600 lbs. guys running at me at 25 mph -- with a 6 ounce aerosol can of REI pepper spray, and I know for a 100% fact that it wouldn't work for me. It may work for others, and I hope it does, but it wouldn't work for me. So as much as I would like to hike out west, and although my daughter lives in Colorado Springs and hikes and climbs all the time and always wants me to come out to do the same, I just can't and won't do it. A car load of drunken West Virginia rednecks doesn't scare me; a single bear does. Call me irrational, call me a chicken****, I don't care. Furthering the hijacking.... Just making sure.... you do realize that there are NO grizzlys in Colorado, right? Furthermore, I've been hiking and backpacking in CO for 40 years now, and have seen 5 bears, all timid. Hiking 5 months on the Appalachian trail, I saw 11 bears. Just sayin... bears are not any more of a problem in CO than on eastern trails, probably way less of a problem.
BTW, I have respect, but no real fear of black bears, but when it comes to Grizzlies.... No thanks! Na-ga-da.
Furthering the hijacking.... Just making sure.... you do realize that there are NO grizzlys in Colorado, right? Furthermore, I've been hiking and backpacking in CO for 40 years now, and have seen 5 bears, all timid. Hiking 5 months on the Appalachian trail, I saw 11 bears. Just sayin... bears are not any more of a problem in CO than on eastern trails, probably way less of a problem.
BTW, I have respect, but no real fear of black bears, but when it comes to Grizzlies.... No thanks! Na-ga-da.
Actually I didn't know that. I just assumed that since you have mountain lions and at least one rattle snake every 50 feet, then surely there are grizzlies waiting to kill me, too.
I've been to CO twice -- once to help daughter and SIL move, once to dog sit while they were on vacation. Going again this Thanksgiving, though.
I've hiked Amicaloa to Daleville, saw two bears -- one ran when it saw me, the other looked at me for a looooong time and kinda ambled off the trail in a way that left me wondering where in the brush and rodo-hell it was ahead.
If there are 7 murder in a town that size, that is about 31 murders per 100,000, which is about the same murder rate of Kansas City, MO and is actually significantly higher than most of the US.
Well reasoned.
That said, the murder rate in my state is less than 2 per 100,000. And the murder rate for people killed by a stranger around here is much lower than that.
But the good news is that the people in Kansas City MO can rest easy in the knowledge that their community is as safe as the AT!
Here's where people differ in their thinking: I am never scared, but I am almost always able to protect myself. I don't give a hoot about statistics, because trouble comes in stores, on roads, parking lots, trails, parks, your own driveway, your house, your workplace, your church, etc. If you happen to be one of the people who are violently accosted, believe me, it won't matter to you where you are or what you are doing, or the likelihood of trouble. Relative probability according to statistics won't matter at all to you at that point. Police can arrive after an incident and clean up and maybe collect evidence. Not much help. A while ago, a high-ranking official in my state responded to an inquiry saying that Virginia State Parks are safe. Safe is relative to how you are impacted. No place is safe unless you are OK with being somewhat safe - relative to somewhere else.
Five Tango
11-14-2019, 19:08
Here's where people differ in their thinking: I am never scared, but I am almost always able to protect myself. I don't give a hoot about statistics, because trouble comes in stores, on roads, parking lots, trails, parks, your own driveway, your house, your workplace, your church, etc. If you happen to be one of the people who are violently accosted, believe me, it won't matter to you where you are or what you are doing, or the likelihood of trouble. Relative probability according to statistics won't matter at all to you at that point. Police can arrive after an incident and clean up and maybe collect evidence. Not much help. A while ago, a high-ranking official in my state responded to an inquiry saying that Virginia State Parks are safe. Safe is relative to how you are impacted. No place is safe unless you are OK with being somewhat safe - relative to somewhere else.
Well said! I share your views,am always as prepared as I can be depending on where I am.No,I would not expect to necessarily win against an aggressor like the murder that occurred this summer on the trail but one thing is for sure,I would at least be in a position to resist if a speedy retreat was not possible.
Elaikases
11-14-2019, 20:22
I'm a math major with a concentration in statistics. I kills me that people will link to a poorly constructed study, and come out with a very wrong conclusion. The general public tends to walk away believing the conclusion. Your conclusion had no legitimate statistical base, even in the context of how you stated it, and that's what I'm pointing out.
Neat. I used to tutor advanced statistics.
I'm glad someone else has the duty to try to explain where some of the calculations have gone wrong in this thread.
Elaikases
11-14-2019, 20:26
Very much this. Hiked alongside a guy (with an overtly adventure hero trail name that I'm certain that he gave himself) for a few hours. He had a 10 or 11 inch blade Bowie knife, strapped to his belt. I chuckled as I asked him if he was planning on chopping down pine trees to make his shelter every night. He said it was "for bears... and 'other' dangers." Well, alrighty then!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdbfJeI1Y1I
This year there was a guy who got at least to Shaws with a gladius.
Though to be fair, he slack packed almost the entire trail, so his gladius wasn't actually with him while he was hiking.
FlyPaper
11-14-2019, 22:46
Well reasoned.
That said, the murder rate in my state is less than 2 per 100,000. And the murder rate for people killed by a stranger around here is much lower than that.
But the good news is that the people in Kansas City MO can rest easy in the knowledge that their community is as safe as the AT!
As I think of this more, most people murdered in the US are murdered by people they know. Perhaps estranged lovers, a drug deal gone bad, gang turf wars, etc. Since my ordinary life in civilization carries practically no such danger, I consider myself to be statistically much safer than average. I'd guess that if you're reading this right now you also are a person living a safer than average life (let's face it, there probably aren't many street gang members reading this).
But on the AT it seems that almost all known murders are by strangers which means that all of us kind of share an equal risk with the exception than men and women likely do not have equal risk. Although the risk on the AT may not be substantially worse than the average in the US, most of us, when hiking go from below average risk to average risk, which means our risk is greater on the trail than in every day life.
Nevertheless, I hope to see some of you on the trail next spring on my next hike.
FlyPaper
11-14-2019, 22:52
I'm a math major with a concentration in statistics. I kills me that people will link to a poorly constructed study, and come out with a very wrong conclusion. The general public tends to walk away believing the conclusion. Your conclusion had no legitimate statistical base, even in the context of how you stated it, and that's what I'm pointing out.
Would love to hear your more correct analysis.
(
Would love to hear your more correct analysis.
Yours is very well reasoned and articulated, FlyPaper.
Here is a larger question.
Would one or more of the 7 thru hikers who was murdered on the AT have acted any differently after meeting their soon-to-be killer if they had known the AT murder rate was actually 50% higher than Chicago’s (using your 31/100k number) — rather than the 1 in 6 million figure the ATC likes to trot out after each tragedy?
It should be hard to fathom that 7 Thru hikers were killed on the AT. Not rationalized as a product of large numbers.
For every 3000 thru hikers that joyously celebrates on top of Katahdin, one didn’t because he/she was murdered many miles into their thru hike.
colorado_rob
11-15-2019, 09:56
Sorry folks, those attempts at any sort of statistical analysis are all way off, not even close to the right order of magnitude. No, I will not attempt to present any of my own, not worth doing and it would fall on deaf ears anyway. Any analysis has to use the metric "hiker miles" or even more accurately "hiker hours". A quick glance sees none of this; If I missed someone doing this, I apologize, this thread blossomed in silliness quickly, and I have no desire to sift through to find the meaningful posts.
Carry anything you want, big knives, guns, machetes, who cares (RYOH R=ruin)
FlyPaper
11-15-2019, 10:44
Sorry folks, those attempts at any sort of statistical analysis are all way off, not even close to the right order of magnitude. No, I will not attempt to present any of my own, not worth doing and it would fall on deaf ears anyway. Any analysis has to use the metric "hiker miles" or even more accurately "hiker hours". A quick glance sees none of this; If I missed someone doing this, I apologize, this thread blossomed in silliness quickly, and I have no desire to sift through to find the meaningful posts.
Carry anything you want, big knives, guns, machetes, who cares (RYOH R=ruin)
I stand by my analysis.
Also, while I didn't mention "hiker hours", I did mention "person-years". For my purposes, "person" and "hiker" would be interchangeable. And if you need help converting hours to years, I can send you a link.
Consider the following math "word problem":
There have been 20,479 completed thru-hikes. If 23% of thru-hike attempts have been successful, how many thru-hike attempts have their been?
4eyebuzzard worked this problem and came up with 90,000 as an estimate. One can squabble about the 23%, but 4eyebuzzard's methodology for estimating thru-hike attempts was 100% SPOT ON. I have two high school students in my house and both of them can solve this problem. In fact, I think they both could have solved it while in 5th grade. But the response from the other math expert on this thread was the following:
Why would you limit this to successful thru hikers only? You're comparing apples to oranges.
I took this further and scaled the number based on "person-years" and used that to compare to publish statistics from cities around the US. I stand by my methodology. My apologies for not converting "person-years" to "hiker-hours" for you.
If you have something useful to add, I'd be interested I'd be interested in hearing it. But I don't think the air of condescension is warranted.
Personally, if you do produce an analysis that finds an answer off by more than an order of magnitude, I'd expect to be able to shoot holes in it quite easily.
colorado_rob
11-15-2019, 11:03
I stand by my analysis.
Also, while I didn't mention "hiker hours", I did mention "person-years". For my purposes, "person" and "hiker" would be interchangeable. And if you need help converting hours to years, I can send you a link.
Consider the following math "word problem":
There have been 20,479 completed thru-hikes. If 23% of thru-hike attempts have been successful, how many thru-hike attempts have their been?
4eyebuzzard worked this problem and came up with 90,000 as an estimate. One can squabble about the 23%, but 4eyebuzzard's methodology for estimating thru-hike attempts was 100% SPOT ON. I have two high school students in my house and both of them can solve this problem. In fact, I think they both could have solved it while in 5th grade. But the response from the other math expert on this thread was the following:
Why would you limit this to successful thru hikers only? You're comparing apples to oranges.
I took this further and scaled the number based on "person-years" and used that to compare to publish statistics from cities around the US. I stand by my methodology. My apologies for not converting "person-years" to "hiker-hours" for you.
If you have something useful to add, I'd be interested I'd be interested in hearing it. But I don't think the air of condescension is warranted.
Personally, if you do produce an analysis that finds an answer off by more than an order of magnitude, I'd expect to be able to shoot holes in it quite easily. OK! So, I'll push at your analysis a bit... lets work together here and try to come up with a reasonable number, sorry if I was blunt, I wasn't picking on you specifically. And please if I stop, how about you stop with the insults (your "word problem")?
First of all, what IS your number? I would assume the "number" we're looking for here is the probability of being murdered on the AT for a thru hike, right? Or maybe I'm missing some point on what you specifically are saying.... This thread is about danger on the AT, if you're talking about something else, then I'm NOT talking about your analysis.
Next, what have Thru-hikers got to do with it (maybe we agree here?)? The AT is dominated by hikers, not thru hikers. Please look up the total hiker-hours on the trail over the last 45 years before you start play with stats. If you want to use "person years", that's fine (yes hiker=person), but how would you convert hiker hours to hiker years? Using the factor 365.25*24 would be way off, because the vast majority of hikers on the trail are day hikers, spending what, 6-8 hours? Combine those with thru hikers (and section hikers) who spend, say an average of 18-20 hours a day on the trail (remember town stops!), the average might be 7-9 hours, so I would use 365.25*8 or so for a conversion from hiker hours to hiker years. How about we just say "hiker days"?
Edit: Aha, NOW I see your detailed analysis down in post 67, I didn't see it earlier, I only saw your more recent post. I'll take a closer look later today, gotta do something more useful first!
FlyPaper
11-15-2019, 11:55
OK! So, I'll push at your analysis a bit... lets work together here and try to come up with a reasonable number, sorry if I was blunt, I wasn't picking on you specifically. And please if I stop, how about you stop with the insults (your "word problem")?
First of all, what IS your number? I would assume the "number" we're looking for here is the probability of being murdered on the AT for a thru hike, right? Or maybe I'm missing some point on what you specifically are saying.... This thread is about danger on the AT, if you're talking about something else, then I'm NOT talking about your analysis.
Next, what have Thru-hikers got to do with it (maybe we agree here?)? The AT is dominated by hikers, not thru hikers. Please look up the total hiker-hours on the trail over the last 45 years before you start play with stats. If you want to use "person years", that's fine (yes hiker=person), but how would you convert hiker hours to hiker years? Using the factor 365.25*24 would be way off, because the vast majority of hikers on the trail are day hikers, spending what, 6-8 hours? Combine those with thru hikers (and section hikers) who spend, say an average of 18-20 hours a day on the trail (remember town stops!), the average might be 7-9 hours, so I would use 365.25*8 or so for a conversion from hiker hours to hiker years. How about we just say "hiker days"?
Edit: Aha, NOW I see your detailed analysis down in post 67, I didn't see it earlier, I only saw your more recent post. I'll take a closer look later today, gotta do something more useful first!
Sorry for the insults.
The goal is to compare the danger of life on the trail by converting to a form used for typical US cities (murders per 100,000 per year). I think we're on the same page that we don't count total successful thru-hikers nor total thru-hike attempts, but we find hiker time on the trail. As far as time in the city, I would count that, but I could respect a choice to not count that too. Personally, if a thru-hiker got killed while doing laundry in Damascus, the news would be reported as "thru-hiker killed while thru-hiking". And I think all agree we must count thru-hike attempts, not thru-hike completions because no one murdered while thru-hiking completes that hike and we have no way of knowing whether they would have been among those who complete the hike or not.
For simplicity, I've narrowed it down to just thru-hikers (only counting thru-hiker time on trail and thru-hiker murders). There have been section hikers murdered too, but we don't count their time on the trail nor any homicides of non-thru hikers. The number given of 7 thru-hikers killed while thru-hiking is something I accept, but if someone wants to challenge that number with more careful analysis, I'm open to input. Clearly it is not 1 and it is not 50. 7 seems about right.
One can separately analyze danger to section hikers and day hikers and aggregate the numbers at the end, but estimates are harder to attain for time spent on the trail. Perhaps adding section hikers and day hikers would change the numbers significantly up or down, but I think it is still interesting to to calculate just for thru-hikers. Personally, I would guess that section hikers share the same risk profile, but probably not day hikers. As a section hiker, I consider myself to be at similar risk to that of a thru-hiker.
You ask what is my number. "I would assume the "number" we're looking for here is the probability of being murdered on the AT for a thru hike, right?"
Primarily my number is "homicides per 100,000", just like we find for Kansas City and Baltimore so we can make an apples-to-apples comparison, which must take into account total time on the trail being much less than the average time a city dweller spends in their city. This could be converted to probability of being murdered on an AT thru-hike by scaling the total time spent. You'd probably want to assume a completed thru-hike when getting that number because obviously the odds of being murdered on a complete thru-hike is higher than the odds of being murdered if you quit at Blood Mtn.
To estimate the total danger on the trail, one could do these steps.
1. Estimate the danger that thru-hikers experience.
2. Estimate the danger that section-hikers experience.
3. Estimate the danger that day-hikers experience.
4. Aggregate them with appropriate scaling based on proportional population-time to get a "homicides per 100,000 for person year".
One could also approach it this way...
1. Estimate average time on the trail for all hikers.
2. Find total homicides for all hikers.
3. Divide and scale accordingly to get a final "homicides per 100,000 for person year".
I think the second approach is what you're leaning toward and that both of these approaches are an attempt to estimate the same final value.
I have been focused on the first approach, and within the first approach, only step #1. While step #1 does not give the answer to how dangerous is the trail, it is arguably something more relevant and interesting to any potential thru-hiker. As a section hiker, I'd just guess my risk profile is similar to that of a thru-hiker. A day-hiker is probably a lot different, although I wouldn't know whether it would be higher or lower.
colorado_rob
11-15-2019, 12:22
Not going to quote your post FP, too much screen real estate... I understand where you're coming from, but I see a couple of serious flaws in yours and others' arguments, at least from my perspective.
First, in terms of "danger for a hiker per hour (day, month, year) on the trail" I see no actual evidence that section/thru hikers are in any more danger. Am I missing something? Is there evidence that, say, someone who camps along the trail vs. just hikes for a day is in any more danger? I suspect there is some correlation, but is there evidence to this? When lacking evidence, but suspecting something is correlated, I'd start with a factor of 2, just to start, meaning you're twice as likely to die hiking and camping vs. just hiking. Very flaky, but really, we're just looking for an order of magnitude here.
One serious flaw is the statistical significance of a very small number of murders (7 in 45 years, right?) vs. the thousands in a big city per year. This one little fact is probably a deal killer in terms of any meaningful results, but heck, we'll ignore it for now (not being sarcastic).
Also be very careful about your thru-hiker count. Lots of us, myself included, don't register either starting or finishing my long hikes. I probably should, it would help trail organizations know better about trqaffic, but I just get lazy and don't. This probably only makes a 30-40% difference; I quote that number after discussing this with the ATC some years ago, they estimate about 2/3rd register. This difference is minor w.r.t. order of magnitude estimates.
What I do not see is any way to compare safety on the trail to safety in the big, relatively dangerous cities like Baltimore or Chicago. None of the arguments that I read below make sense to me in trying to form this comparison. I'll think more about it.
I believe the only reasonable way to estimate the danger to any given hiker in terms of his chance of getting murdered for any given length of time on the trail can only be done using a Monte Carlo analysis. I'm probably copping out saying this, but I'm biased because that's what I did for roughly half of my 30 year engineering career in the rocket biz. Basically when it's too hard to figure out a given statistic, just make some rough assumptions, throw them in a pot, make a couple billion random draws and collect the results. It's really easy to do, in fact, next bad weather day, maybe I'll try just that.
Back to work....
FlyPaper
11-15-2019, 12:47
Not going to quote your post FP, too much screen real estate... I understand where you're coming from, but I see a couple of serious flaws in yours and others' arguments, at least from my perspective.
First, in terms of "danger for a hiker per hour (day, month, year) on the trail" I see no actual evidence that section/thru hikers are in any more danger. Am I missing something? Is there evidence that, say, someone who camps along the trail vs. just hikes for a day is in any more danger? I suspect there is some correlation, but is there evidence to this? When lacking evidence, but suspecting something is correlated, I'd start with a factor of 2, just to start, meaning you're twice as likely to die hiking and camping vs. just hiking. Very flaky, but really, we're just looking for an order of magnitude here.
One serious flaw is the statistical significance of a very small number of murders (7 in 45 years, right?) vs. the thousands in a big city per year. This one little fact is probably a deal killer in terms of any meaningful results, but heck, we'll ignore it for now (not being sarcastic).
Also be very careful about your thru-hiker count. Lots of us, myself included, don't register either starting or finishing my long hikes. I probably should, it would help trail organizations know better about trqaffic, but I just get lazy and don't. This probably only makes a 30-40% difference; I quote that number after discussing this with the ATC some years ago, they estimate about 2/3rd register. This difference is minor w.r.t. order of magnitude estimates.
What I do not see is any way to compare safety on the trail to safety in the big, relatively dangerous cities like Baltimore or Chicago. None of the arguments that I read below make sense to me in trying to form this comparison. I'll think more about it.
I believe the only reasonable way to estimate the danger to any given hiker in terms of his chance of getting murdered for any given length of time on the trail can only be done using a Monte Carlo analysis. I'm probably copping out saying this, but I'm biased because that's what I did for roughly half of my 30 year engineering career in the rocket biz. Basically when it's too hard to figure out a given statistic, just make some rough assumptions, throw them in a pot, make a couple billion random draws and collect the results. It's really easy to do, in fact, next bad weather day, maybe I'll try just that.
Back to work....
I agree that there is no evidence that section/thru/day hikers have a different risk profile. I think I posted my most recent post while you were writing your post. I would guess that spending the night in camp is the more risky time and this seems to align with the reported crime data also. Section hikers and thru-hikers share this risk, but not day hikers. But, for my analysis I've focused only on thru-hikers, the rest being side conversations that are interesting. One could convince me that the trail is safer than I've estimated because day-hiking is so common and so much safer than overnight hiking. But I'm still more interested in the danger to thru-hikers and section-hikers.
Thru-hiker count, I agree is suspect, but probably very useful for rough estimates as you say. Also, I have thrown out the estimate on my own that the average thru-hiker spends 3 months on the trail. That's a rough number and probably overestimates a bit. With numbers that rough, it's hard to squabble about other rough estimates.
And the weakest is probably the very small number of 7 murders. You take what you get. There's nothing better to use. We know we are getting at best make a rough estimate. And I jumped in this thread in the first place to counter the claims that the stats prove how safe the trail is compared to the city. The stats, to the extent they are able to feed estimates point the other way. At least that is my contention.
As far as Monte Carlo, I don't see how that will help, but perhaps I'm missing something. If you simulate a billion thru-hikes assuming that 7 out of 90,000 get killed, you'll end up getting the ratio of 7 out of 90,000. From where I see it, the initial assumption will determine the outcome.
colorado_rob
11-15-2019, 13:30
Sorry, I just don't get it. I just don't understand why you separate the small number of thru hikers from the huge population of hikers, it seems to be this totally skews any possible results, hence why I made my initial brash and rude remarks.
How I see a sequence of arguments is this:
Take the last 45 years.
Estimate the total number of hiker-hours on the AT. Just for grins, pick a wild guess for now, lets say 45*5,000,000*8 (45 years, 5 million average hikers on the AT a year, hiking an average of 8 hours each). We can refine this later if necessary. This would be 1.8 billion hiker-hours.
Take the number of murders, apparently 7.
So the rate of murder is 7 murders per 1.8 billion hiker hours including everyone, day hiker, section, thru, whatever.
Estimate the time on the trail for a successful thru hiker. Let's say 150 days at 20 hours a day (allowing for town stops one out of every 6 days, and we'll ignore his/her danger of getting to/from town). Call it 3000 hiker hours, meaning a successful thru hiker is on the trail roughly 3000 hours.
So the chance of a thru hiker getting murdered on the AT is 7 murders * 3000 hiker hours / 1,800,000,000 hiker hours (in the last 45 years) = .000016 murders per successful thru hiker, or call it 1 in 60,000 chance.
If one wants to claim that a person spending a night during his/her hiker-hours is in more danger, that's fine, I doubt if it's a factor of 2, but call it that, so call it 1 in 30,000 chance of getting murdered on a thru hike.
I really am curious though, what makes any of us think that being murdered is more likely if you are camping? Being dark and scary isn't enough of an argument. Does anyone know, of the 7 murders, how many of these murders occurred at night with a camping victim? (tent, shelter, whatever). We all know the most recent one was indeed a camper, in his tent, poor soul.
That's my rough number. 1 in 60,000 (or 30000 if we think camping makes it twice as likely, which is a stretch). It seems pretty different from anything I see below, like 7 out of 90000 (or one in 12000), but I do admit it is in the same order of magnitude.
I'm gone for the next 5-6 hours, can't comment anymore until then.
(side note: the previously mentioned Monte Carlo analysis would take into account where along the trail hikers were, his/her age, gender, that sort of thing, it would't be too hard to construct a series of a billion random hikers, nuff said, I just cop out and do this sort of thing with engineering problems, easier than thinking too much)
Puddlefish
11-15-2019, 14:00
Would love to hear your more correct analysis.
I'm retired, no one's paying me to spend the time to gather the data properly and to look for patterns. Like you said, in another post. You're doing word problems, at an 8th grade level maybe (probably even lower, the kids are learning a lot more math at earlier grades these days.)
Your person hours idea isn't a terrible way of looking at it. But, you have to start at the beginning and decide if the initial question even makes sense. No one starts a hike with 100% certainty that they'll be a successful thru-hiker. There are questions on what makes a specific hiker more, or less vulnerable, there are questions on the motive of the murderers, there need to be control groups, the sample size of murders is tiny!, and that creates it's own problems with statistical significance.
My initial point is correct however, as there are already quite a few people tossing out variants of the 7 out of 100,000 number as of it's gospel. It isn't.
How to correct this number and this conclusion. I can't even explain everything wrong with it without hours of effort. At a minimum you'd have to take a solid college statistics course or two to even understand what's involved. Here's a link to just a basic structure of how to conduct a study.
http://gchang.people.ysu.edu/class/pstudy.htm
If I were world emperor, every High School would require a statistics course, a formal logic course and a debating course.
Edit: My posts sometimes come across as know it all, so I'll just state that there's a hell of a lot I don't have a clue about. Bad statistics just happens to be a peeve of mine.
illabelle
11-15-2019, 14:56
I'm not a statistician, though I do have a degree in Math Education (high school algebra and geometry). I haven't tried to understand all the points made above. I just wanted to point out what I think might be a hole in the considerations:
Where are the criminals? Given that nearly all hikers I've met (day, section, or thru) appear to be decent law-abiding people, there would appear to be very few individuals on the trail who have murderous inclinations. Criminals tend to stay in cities. Yes, I know small towns have criminals also. If the people who wish to kill aren't on the trail [very much], what difference does it make how many miles, or hiker-hours, or person-years, or whether I sleep at home or on the trail? If the bad people aren't there, I'm safe from bad people.
So shouldn't the calculations take into account the distribution of bad people among the population?
FlyPaper
11-15-2019, 15:33
I'm not a statistician, though I do have a degree in Math Education (high school algebra and geometry). I haven't tried to understand all the points made above. I just wanted to point out what I think might be a hole in the considerations:
Where are the criminals? Given that nearly all hikers I've met (day, section, or thru) appear to be decent law-abiding people, there would appear to be very few individuals on the trail who have murderous inclinations. Criminals tend to stay in cities. Yes, I know small towns have criminals also. If the people who wish to kill aren't on the trail [very much], what difference does it make how many miles, or hiker-hours, or person-years, or whether I sleep at home or on the trail? If the bad people aren't there, I'm safe from bad people.
So shouldn't the calculations take into account the distribution of bad people among the population?
I agree that most people I see on the trail are decent. However, I don't see why we would need to consider the distribution of bad people when we know incontrovertibly that people have been murdered while hiking.
If we look at shark attacks along US coast, I find a website that says there have been 30 so far this year. This could be 1 million nice sharks and 30 bad sharks along our coasts. It could be 1 single bad shark that really gets around. It is absolutely unnecessary to know how many actual sharks are involved, we can measure the rate at which attacks are happening use that information to predict future year's attacks.
FlyPaper
11-15-2019, 15:52
I'm retired, no one's paying me to spend the time to gather the data properly and to look for patterns. Like you said, in another post. You're doing word problems, at an 8th grade level maybe (probably even lower, the kids are learning a lot more math at earlier grades these days.)
Your person hours idea isn't a terrible way of looking at it. But, you have to start at the beginning and decide if the initial question even makes sense. No one starts a hike with 100% certainty that they'll be a successful thru-hiker. There are questions on what makes a specific hiker more, or less vulnerable, there are questions on the motive of the murderers, there need to be control groups, the sample size of murders is tiny!, and that creates it's own problems with statistical significance.
My initial point is correct however, as there are already quite a few people tossing out variants of the 7 out of 100,000 number as of it's gospel. It isn't.
How to correct this number and this conclusion. I can't even explain everything wrong with it without hours of effort. At a minimum you'd have to take a solid college statistics course or two to even understand what's involved. Here's a link to just a basic structure of how to conduct a study.
http://gchang.people.ysu.edu/class/pstudy.htm
If I were world emperor, every High School would require a statistics course, a formal logic course and a debating course.
Edit: My posts sometimes come across as know it all, so I'll just state that there's a hell of a lot I don't have a clue about. Bad statistics just happens to be a peeve of mine.
Obviously all calculations start with some known numbers and some estimations (e.g. how long on the trail does each thru-hiker spend). Everyone familiar with the trail can join in and debate the estimated numbers. I contend my methodology has been reasonable. And FWIW, I have some college level statistics. Although I wasn't a math major, in the classes I did take in college that had math majors, I generally fared well in comparison with the math majors even for senior level course.
And let's not forget. What is thrown around more often is the assertion that "the trail is totally safe, a lot more safe than civilization". Whether or not my methodology is open to weaknesses that I've overlooked, it is A LOT more solid than the assertions that the trail is safer than civilization.
When Baltimore calculates it's murder rate, it does not have control groups and it doesn't consider the motivation of murders. Those are questions others can ask, but they are not necessary to calculate a murder rate. There are some towns that have very few murders. They can still calculate their murder rate for any given year. Whether it is useful for predicting future years can be up for debate, but the rate is the rate. If a town of 50,000 has 1 murder, it's murder rate is 0.5 per 100,000.
You say: But, you have to start at the beginning and decide if the initial question even makes sense. No one starts a hike with 100% certainty that they'll be a successful thru-hiker.
My question is "How does the risk of a thru-hiker, when adjusted for time compare to the murder rate of big cities?" Possibly some may not care about the answer, but the question is a valid question and I don't see how it needs to "make sense" anymore than it already does. And whether one will successfully thru-hike has been addressed already by estimating how many months "thru-hikers" including successful and not successful average for their hike. Virtually anyone can answer this question while hiking... "If I were murdered today, would the news say 'thru-hiker killed' or would it say 'section-hiker killed'?" If the former, you are a thru-hiker. If the later, you are not.
To get a rough estimate of how life on the trail (for thru-hikers) compares to life in the city in terms of risk of homicide, I say takes a few minutes, especially when given the ATC estimate of about 20,000 completed thru-hikes. Whatever you're doing that would take hours I do not think will help produce a substantially more accurate estimate especially since we are already limited to a very small sample of actual homicides anyway.
Time Zone
11-15-2019, 16:11
Your person hours idea isn't a terrible way of looking at it.
Not terrible? Jeez, that doesn't even rise to the level of damning with faint praise.
Not all statisticians have studied actuarial science. I'm an actuary. For incidence rates you need a good measure of exposure to the risk that is of interest. The word "exposure" isn't even brought up on the page you link, though of course it's full of other useful concepts.
"8th grade level maybe"? "Probably even lower"? Watch your balance ... that horse you're on is awfully high.
Puddlefish
11-15-2019, 16:36
Obviously all calculations start with some known numbers and some estimations (e.g. how long on the trail does each thru-hiker spend). Everyone familiar with the trail can join in and debate the estimated numbers. I contend my methodology has been reasonable. And FWIW, I have some college level statistics. Although I wasn't a math major, in the classes I did take in college that had math majors, I generally fared well in comparison with the math majors even for senior level course.
And let's not forget. What is thrown around more often is the assertion that "the trail is totally safe, a lot more safe than civilization". Whether or not my methodology is open to weaknesses that I've overlooked, it is A LOT more solid than the assertions that the trail is safer than civilization.
When Baltimore calculates it's murder rate, it does not have control groups and it doesn't consider the motivation of murders. Those are questions others can ask, but they are not necessary to calculate a murder rate. There are some towns that have very few murders. They can still calculate their murder rate for any given year. Whether it is useful for predicting future years can be up for debate, but the rate is the rate. If a town of 50,000 has 1 murder, it's murder rate is 0.5 per 100,000.
You say: But, you have to start at the beginning and decide if the initial question even makes sense. No one starts a hike with 100% certainty that they'll be a successful thru-hiker.
My question is "How does the risk of a thru-hiker, when adjusted for time compare to the murder rate of big cities?" Possibly some may not care about the answer, but the question is a valid question and I don't see how it needs to "make sense" anymore than it already does. And whether one will successfully thru-hike has been addressed already by estimating how many months "thru-hikers" including successful and not successful average for their hike. Virtually anyone can answer this question while hiking... "If I were murdered today, would the news say 'thru-hiker killed' or would it say 'section-hiker killed'?" If the former, you are a thru-hiker. If the later, you are not.
To get a rough estimate of how life on the trail (for thru-hikers) compares to life in the city in terms of risk of homicide, I say takes a few minutes, especially when given the ATC estimate of about 20,000 completed thru-hikes. Whatever you're doing that would take hours I do not think will help produce a substantially more accurate estimate especially since we are already limited to a very small sample of actual homicides anyway.
The question to be initially asked is that are you going to change your life choices based on a .00001% risk difference between one activity and another activity/no activity. I mean, I don't particularly enjoy walking in a circle around my house for hours on end, but it lowers the risk of falling off a ledge on the AT by a considerable amount. Why would anyone want to think like this?
Puddlefish
11-15-2019, 16:38
I agree that most people I see on the trail are decent. However, I don't see why we would need to consider the distribution of bad people when we know incontrovertibly that people have been murdered while hiking.
If we look at shark attacks along US coast, I find a website that says there have been 30 so far this year. This could be 1 million nice sharks and 30 bad sharks along our coasts. It could be 1 single bad shark that really gets around. It is absolutely unnecessary to know how many actual sharks are involved, we can measure the rate at which attacks are happening use that information to predict future year's attacks.
The risk of dying in a shark attack is less than that of cow attacks and vampire attacks combined.
FlyPaper
11-15-2019, 16:54
Reply to colorado_rob:
Sorry, I just don't get it. I just don't understand why you separate the small number of thru hikers from the huge population of hikers, it seems to be this totally skews any possible results, hence why I made my initial brash and rude remarks.
I have not taken the time to study all known murders. Some sites have slightly different numbers. It is my understanding that 7 thru-hikers have been murdered. I found a link that is saying 10 hikers have been murdered, and I saw another link that said 11. I am just assuming that some section-hikers have been murdered too, and am accepting 7 as the number of thru-hikers murdered. If someone wants to scour the web and get very precise numbers on this, I'd be glad to take their data and use it.
One can go to Baltimore and calculate the homicide rate of Asian-Americans. To do that, one would take the total number of Asian-Americans living in Baltimore and dividing by the total number of Asian-Americans murdered. The final number might be similar to other ethnic groups or it might not. But for sure there would be a lot more people who are not Asian-Americans both living in Baltimore and murdered while living in Baltimore. The murder rate of Asian-Americans can be calculated and discussed and things can be gleaned from it even without knowing the total numbers. Ignoring African-American population in Baltimore does not make the Asian-American calculations wrong. My guess is that the murder rate of Asian-Americans in Baltimore is very different from the murder rate of African-Americans. If I am an Asian-American and want to estimate how dangerous it is to live in Baltimore as an Asian-American, what do you think is the most important thing to know? The total murder rate, or the murder rate of the sub-population of Asian-Americans?
If I only had numbers available to estimate the Asian-American murder rate of Baltimore and I was an Indian-American (from India), I might reasonably guess that my risk was the same as theirs. One can bring in anecdotal data to contest this, but for rough estimates I think this is a reasonable guess. That is not a mathematical assessment, but rather my guess based on my knowledge of culture in the US. An Indian-American could reasonably guess his risk while living in Baltimore by considering the murder rate of Asian-Americans even if he does not know the total murder rate of all citizens of Baltimore.
If one wants to claim that a person spending a night during his/her hiker-hours is in more danger, that's fine, I doubt if it's a factor of 2, but call it that, so call it 1 in 30,000 chance of getting murdered on a thru hike.
I really am curious though, what makes any of us think that being murdered is more likely if you are camping? Being dark and scary isn't enough of an argument. Does anyone know, of the 7 murders, how many of these murders occurred at night with a camping victim? (tent, shelter, whatever). We all know the most recent one was indeed a camper, in his tent, poor soul.
I just think most of the murders are happening when people stop for the night. Not necessarily asleep. I haven't heard of any murders while people were on the move mid day. I could be wrong and am open to correction for anyone who wants to read more carefully. But it doesn't really matter. If you are long distanced hiking you are both hiking and sleeping on the trail and you accept the aggregate risk. The only reason this matters is that it leads me to guess that thru-hikers and section-hikers are more at risk than day-hikers. If we know that 7 thru-hikers have been murdered out of 90,000 attempts, it doesn't really matter when it happened. Thru-hikers could average sleeping 8 hours per night or 4 hours per night. The aggregate murder rate per day on the trail is the same.
That's my rough number. 1 in 60,000 (or 30000 if we think camping makes it twice as likely, which is a stretch). It seems pretty different from anything I see below, like 7 out of 90000 (or one in 12000), but I do admit it is in the same order of magnitude.
If you count all hikers including day-hikers then I think we have say there have been 10 or 11 murders. But, I would say the risk profile of a day hikers may be a lot different than the risk profile of a section or thru-hiker. A large number of people who safely walk 1 hour on the trail may skew the numbers and make it seem like thru-hiking is safer than it is. For example, if one wanted to gauge how dangerous cave-diving is (scuba diving in caves), it would make sense to only consider cave-divers while ignoring ordinary scuba divers and deaths of ordinary scuba divers. One can estimate the danger of thru-hiking without being obligated to also measure the danger of day hiking.
The one other factor is that thru-hikers spend 6 months on the trail. People that live in Baltimore spend 12 months in Baltimore. The average thru-hiker that attempts to thru-hike spends probably 2 or 3 months on the trail. If you get killed while thru-hiking, you will not be a successful thru-hiker, but rather someone who attempted a thru-hike and thus population-wise indistinguishable from a thru-hiker that quit early. If you estimates 1 in 30,000 thru-hikers would be killed, then that would be equivalent to a murder rate of about 1 in 7500 for a whole year.
There can be two questions:
1. What is the odds of being murdered while thru-hiking.
2. What is the odds of being murdered for every 12 months of hiking done.
I am trying to answer the second question because that's a way to compare the murder rate on the trail to the murder rate in the city. You seem to be trying to answer the first question, which is an okay question to answer, but not quit as useful as a basis for comparison against typical per-capita murder rates of US cities.
Here is a summary:
1. Thru-hiking murder rate is about 31 homicides per 100,000 person-years on the trail counting only thru-hikers. This I've done by a few calculations based on estimated numbers.
2. Section-hiking is roughly the same risk as thru-hiking. This I am guessing not based on mathematics, but by my familiarity with the culture of the trail.
3. Day-hiking is less dangerous than thru-hiking in terms of homicide rate. This is just an slightly educated guess.
One be on the brink of thru-hiking and say that my 31 per 100,000 is garbage because I've ignored the day-hikers. But if you are contemplating a thru-hike, doesn't it make sense you would WANT to ignore the potentially lower risk to a group when you're NOT in that group?
FlyPaper
11-15-2019, 16:56
The risk of dying in a shark attack is less than that of cow attacks and vampire attacks combined.
Interesting. But if I were on a boat in the ocean considering going swimming, I'd only care about the risk of shark attack.
FlyPaper
11-15-2019, 16:59
The question to be initially asked is that are you going to change your life choices based on a .00001% risk difference between one activity and another activity/no activity. I mean, I don't particularly enjoy walking in a circle around my house for hours on end, but it lowers the risk of falling off a ledge on the AT by a considerable amount. Why would anyone want to think like this?
I wasn't even considering not hiking on the AT.
One of my hobbies is hiking.
Another of my hobbies is mathematics. I've enjoyed making these estimations more than many other things I do each year.
There can be two questions:
1. What is the odds of being murdered while thru-hiking.
2. What is the odds of being murdered for every 12 months of hiking doneI wasn't even considering not hiking on the AT.
One quibble.
Your analysis is reasonably good at determining what the thru hiker murder rate has been. Establishing the odds of being murdered (future tense) may be informed by that understanding, but cannot necessarily be used to predict the future.
Sort of like how backtesting the performance of your portfolio and the S&P is only of limited value in predicting the future. Even if that is highly recommended for those willing to assume a bit of risk.
Another of my hobbies is mathematics. I've enjoyed making these estimations more than many other things I do each year.
Google up “Monte Hall Problem” and work to really understand it.
Then discuss with the smartest person you know (or the one who thinks he is smartest) after Thanksgiving dinner.
Yea, that will be fun.
colorado_rob
11-15-2019, 19:59
All interesting stuff, and again, I'm sorry for my initial knee-jerk brash dismissal of these attempts to figure "the odds".
FP: my quick/dirty analysis takes into account the time spent on the trail, however long a thru-hiker-wannabe is on the trail, meaning if instead of being on the trail for the full 5 months, he quits after 2.5 months, of course his odd drops to 1/2, all things being equal.
(For the record, strictly speaking, NO thru hiker has been murdered on the trail, right? You're only a thru hiker if you make it to the end of the 2192 mile trail, how ever you do this).
So, the rough odds I propose are only for a 5-month hiker. Extrapolating that to a year, obvious multiply by 12/5ths.
Odds over 5 months are 1/60000. So that times 12/5 = 12/300000 = 1 in 25,000 chance if an AT hiker stayed on the trail for an entire year.
Bringing that to the 100,000 standard, I'm saying very roughly, that compared to city murder rates, the AT hiker murder rate would be "4" (100,000/25,000).
Or "8 per 100,000 per year" if you think it twice as likely to be murdered if you sleep on the trail the entire time, which I don't buy. Again, what evidence is there to this?
It is a real stretch to do any stats on such low sample sizes, seven murders over 45 years. It is even more of a stretch to say that campers on the trail are at a significantly higher risk than simple hikers, without actually checking the situations of those 7 murders. It would be nice to know this, but again, with such a minute sample, its dicey to extrapolate. But as you say FP, that's all we have to go on.
Looking at my own results, it is surprising on a statistical basis how relatively "dangerous" the trail is. I was going on faith at the news reports that say "one in a gazillion" chance of being murdered, but of course for a single day's hike, the odds are very low.
What I'm saying is that for a rough order of magnitude, we're not far off. 8 per 100,000 per year vs 31, and if I correct to your claimed 10-11 murders FP, I'm at 10-ish/100,000, even closer. different assumptions, different results.
Traffic Jam
11-15-2019, 22:19
............
Alligator
11-15-2019, 22:49
We do know some of the motivation behind some of these murders, and for some of the murders it wasn't because they were thruhiking.
If every thruhiker signed a pledge to skip and hike one 10 mile section the next year, would no AT hikers be murdered ever? Would you suddenly be safer because you did that? Like the murderer would know? "You're killing the wrong person dude, I'm only a section hiker!" "Oh man I'm sorry, I only kill thruhikers, my bad."
Slow Trek
11-16-2019, 00:13
Wow,way more math than I ever imagined I would find here..but for me,it boils down to this-everywhere I go,and everything I do has risks. I am not immortal,I have to die somewhere,sometime. If it happens on the trail,by whatever means,so be it. i much prefer to take my last breath on the AT than in a nursing home.
....
Where are the criminals? Given that nearly all hikers I've met (day, section, or thru) appear to be decent law-abiding people, there would appear to be very few individuals on the trail who have murderous inclinations. Criminals tend to stay in cities. Yes, I know small towns have criminals also. If the people who wish to kill aren't on the trail [very much], what difference does it make how many miles, or hiker-hours, or person-years, or whether I sleep at home or on the trail? If the bad people aren't there, I'm safe from bad people.
....
Exactly the way I'm thinking:
Where there are few people, there is much less chance for meeting bad people.
Criminals tend to stay at the cities, and terrorists, mass shooters and such try to get to the crowds.
Shhhhh, or one might show up a Trail Days. God forbid.
Five Tango
11-16-2019, 09:35
After careful consideration of all the information presented I am inclined to wonder how many people who would not consider any sort of weapon or preparation for an on trail assault because of the low statistical probability of that occurrence would still buy a Power Ball Lottery Ticket because,after all,somebody is going to win?
Thank
After careful consideration of all the information presented I am inclined to wonder how many people who would not consider any sort of weapon or preparation for an on trail assault because of the low statistical probability of that occurrence would still buy a Power Ball Lottery Ticket because,after all,somebody is going to win?
The odds of winning $1 million (second place) are slim — about 1 in 12,000,000.
Buy 180 tickets and your chances of winning go up.
If you get together with 2500 like minded individuals and 500 them buy 180 tickets, 1250 of them buy 90 tickets, and 750 of them buy just 45 tickets (236,250 total tickets purchased) the odds at least on of your buddies winning that $1 million go up.
Way, way up.
Slo-go'en
11-16-2019, 13:58
There have been 11 murders on the AT in it's history.
The first was 1974 at low gap shelter in GA.
In 1975, Janice Balza was murdered for her backpack
In 1981, two hiker were killed, no details.
In 1988, one woman was killed for having sex in a shelter with another woman, who survived.
In 1990, a drifter killed 2 hikers at Cove Mountain in PA The male hiker was shot and killed, the woman raped and then killed.
In 1996, two woman were killed in the SNP -still unsolved.
In 2011, a hiker was found asphyxiated, not solved.
In 2019, a hiker was killed by a deranged hiker with a machete.
Interestingly, nearly half of the victims were woman. Only a couple of these murders were committed by other hikers.
At most, only 2 people have been murdered in the same year and as a couple. We go years between murders.
All in all, there really isn't anything to worry about.
Your details on the 1988 murder are factually incorrect.
Five Tango
11-16-2019, 14:05
All in all, there really isn't anything to worry about.
Sorry,but you just named 11 people plus myself who would not necessarily agree.
Can you imagine the outrage if the ATC suggested crossing the Kennebec on foot was nothing to worry about?
There have been 11 murders on the AT in it's history.
The first was 1974 at low gap shelter in GA.
In 1975, Janice Balza was murdered for her backpack
In 1981, two hiker were killed, no details.
In 1988, one woman was killed for having sex in a shelter with another woman, who survived.
In 1990, a drifter killed 2 hikers at Cove Mountain in PA The male hiker was shot and killed, the woman raped and then killed.
In 1996, two woman were killed in the SNP -still unsolved.
In 2011, a hiker was found asphyxiated, not solved.
In 2019, a hiker was killed by a deranged hiker with a machete.
Interestingly, nearly half of the victims were woman. Only a couple of these murders were committed by other hikers.
At most, only 2 people have been murdered in the same year and as a couple. We go years between murders.
All in all, there really isn't anything to worry about.
Meredith Emerson was murdered in 2008.
There are many, many threads about Meredith Emerson, Gary Hilton (the freak who murdered her and many others), the group Right to Hike (founded in her memory), memorial services for her, patches to sew onto backpacks in her memory. I'm not search savvy enough to pull up the 'main' thread, but this one should give some indication of how her murder sent shock waves through WB and other hiking sites:
https://whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php/31415-Support-for-the-family-amp-friends-of-Meredith-Emerson?highlight=meredith+emerson
Five Tango
11-16-2019, 15:07
I am sorry but I get emotionally invested in threads like these because I had a high school classmate who was murdered on a well used bike trail here in Georgia.The only weapon she had was her teeth and she put them to good use before he killed her.The scumbag was caught after seeking medical attention,tried,and eventually put to death.That's why I get rankled when people minimize the issue.Violence and murder can happen anytime and anywhere,including your own home.
Slo-go'en
11-16-2019, 16:51
All in all, there really isn't anything to worry about.
Sorry,but you just named 11 people plus myself who would not necessarily agree.
Certainly nothing to obsess about. It's tragic anyone has to die that way, but it's also very rare on the AT. It looks like if you avoid VA and PA, you reduce your risk to nearly zero.
Now on the other hand, how many have had to defend themselves or otherwise felt threatened and fearful of bodily harm, but did not result in injury? You'd have to sift through the ATC's incident report files to figure that out. The only time I've had those fears were during dog encounters.
4eyedbuzzard
11-16-2019, 17:45
There have been 11 murders on the AT in it's history.
The first was 1974 at low gap shelter in GA.
In 1975, Janice Balza was murdered for her backpack
In 1981, two hiker were killed, no details.
In 1988, one woman was killed for having sex in a shelter with another woman, who survived.
In 1990, a drifter killed 2 hikers at Cove Mountain in PA The male hiker was shot and killed, the woman raped and then killed.
In 1996, two woman were killed in the SNP -still unsolved.
In 2011, a hiker was found asphyxiated, not solved.
In 2019, a hiker was killed by a deranged hiker with a machete.
Interestingly, nearly half of the victims were woman. Only a couple of these murders were committed by other hikers.
At most, only 2 people have been murdered in the same year and as a couple. We go years between murders.
All in all, there really isn't anything to worry about.I wouldn't be paranoid worried. But saying there really isn't anything to worry about is a bit of a stretch IMO. The victims shouldn't be passed over as mere statistics. They were young people with their lives ahead of them, and were tragically cut down by deranged, evil, murderers. Most were in their 20's. And regarding the 1996 murders of Julianne Williams and Lollie Winans, while the case is officially unsolved, I'd bet law enforcement considers it solved even though they didn't get a conviction [details below].
Just to expand and add the details for those interested:
May 2019 - Thru-hiker Ronald Sanchez, 43, was stabbed to death by James Jordan on the AT in SW VA. Jordan also stabbed another hiker, Kirby Morrill. She survived her wounds. Jordan was found incompetent to stand trial by a judge at a hearing. He remains in custody undergoing mental treatment and evaluation.
Aug 2011 – Section hiker Scott Lilly, 30, was strangled/asphyxiated to death while hiking from Maryland to Georgia. He was found off a blue blaze to Cow Camp Gap shelter just off the AT. The murder remains unsolved.
Jan 2008 - Day hiker Meredith Emerson, 24, was kidnapped and murdered by Gary Hilton while she was dayhiking on Blood Mountain near, but not on the AT. Hilton remains incarcerated for her and other murders.
November 2001 —Section hiker, Louise Chaput, 52, a psychologist from Sherbrook, Quebec, was found stabbed to death about 200 yards from the Glen Boulder Trailhead at the foot of New Hampshire’s Mt. Washington. Chaput began a solo hike in the area on November 15, 2001, and when she failed to return, officials launched a 3-day manhunt. Searchers located her body about a mile south of the Appalachian Mountain Club’s Pinkham Notch Lodge, where she’d scheduled a reservation but never showed up. Police continue to seek Chaput’s backpack, a dark blue internal frame containing a green down sleeping bag, and the keys to her Ford Focus station wagon.
May 1996 — Section hikers Julianne Williams, 24, of St. Cloud, Minn., and Lollie Winans, 26, of Unity, Maine were found slain June 1st, just off the Appalachian Trail near Skyland Lodge in Shenandoah National Park. Their throats had been cut. They were camped about 1.5 miles from Skyland Lodge, in a spot about 25 yards off the trail near a brook. Darrell David Rice of Columbia, Md., was indicted for the murders 6 years later. During questioning, Rice told authorities the women “deserved to die because they were lesbian (expletives),” according to prosecution documents filed in court. Rice was convicted of a different crime, the attempted kidnapping of a woman in Shenandoah NP in 1997 (the year after the murders), for which he served 10 years. He was released in 2007. Rice was indicted for the murders in 2002, but never convicted. He remains free. The crime is officially listed as unsolved.
September 1990 — Thru-hikers Molly LaRue, 25, from Shaker Heights, Ohio, and her boyfriend, Geoffrey Hood, 26, from Signal Mountain, Tennessee, were killed as they woke up at the Thelma Marks shelter just off the Trail south of Duncannon, Pa., by fugitive P. David Crews (now under death sentence in Pennsylvania). She was raped and stabbed to death; he was shot. Crews, carrying some of their gear, was arrested eight days later by National Park Service rangers on the A.T. bridge above the Potomac River from Maryland into West Virginia.
May 1988 — Section hikers Rebecca Wight, of Blacksburg, Virginia, 29, was killed, and her partner, Claudia Brenner, 31, of Ithaca, New York, was shot 5 times. She survived to testify against her attacker. On May 13, 1988, Stephen Roy Carr, a so-called mountain man living in Michaux State Forest in south central Pennsylvania, shot two female section hikers. He stalked them as they moved their campsite to a spot off a side trail and shot at them with a rifle from the woods - because they were lesbians. Carr was arrested about 10 days after the crime and sentenced to life in prison without parole.
May 1981 — Thru-hikers Susan Ramsey, 27, and Robert Mountford, 27, both from Ellsworth, Maine, were killed near a shelter in southwest Virginia, 20 miles from Pearisburg, during the night, by Randall Lee Smith, who pleaded guilty to lesser charges and was paroled by Virginia in September 1996. Mr. Mountford was shot at the shelter, and Ms. Ramsey was stabbed to death a short distance away. Although he had made an effort to hide the bodies, Smith was arrested and charged within a matter of weeks. Smith was freed in 1996 after serving 15 years, only to shoot two fishermen (who survived their wounds) in 2008. Smith died in jail from injuries received while trying to escape apprehension.
April 1975 — Thru-hiker Janice Balza, 22, of Madison, Wisconsin, killed by a hatchet wielded by hiker/tree surgeon Paul Bigley, 51, after breakfast at a shelter in northeast Tennessee. He died in state prison in Nashville. He killed her for her pack, a brand he coveted, testimony revealed.
May 1974 — Thru-hiker Joel Polson ,26, of Hartsville, South Carolina, was killed at Low Gap shelter in Georgia by Michigan fugitive Ralph Fox, who also kidnapped Polson’s hiking companion, Margaret Harritt, 17, but did not harm her. Fox murdered Polson for his pack and gear. Fox was convicted later that year and released in 1991. Within a year of his release, Fox murdered Diane Good, 29, in Michigan. He died in prison in 2003. [NOTE: I listed this as an intended thru-hike even though the murder took place only 5 miles or so into the hike, on the first night on the trail, as they began their hike at Tesnatee Gap, not Springer. Their intent was to hike the AT to Maine.]
Certainly nothing to obsess about. It's tragic anyone has to die that way, but it's also very rare on the AT. It looks like if you avoid VA and PA, you reduce your risk to nearly zero.
Now on the other hand, how many have had to defend themselves or otherwise felt threatened and fearful of bodily harm, but did not result in injury? You'd have to sift through the ATC's incident report files to figure that out. The only time I've had those fears were during dog encounters.
Here's a link to Gary Hilton, dubbed "the National Forest Serial Killer."
https://murderpedia.org/male.H/h/hilton-gary-michael.htm
May 1974 — Thru-hiker Joel Polson ,26, of Hartsville, South Carolina, was killed at Low Gap shelter in Georgia by Michigan fugitive Ralph Fox, who also kidnapped Polson’s hiking companion, Margaret Harritt, 17, but did not harm her. Fox murdered Polson for his pack and gear. Fox [NOTE: I listed this as an intended thru-hike even though the murder took place only 5 miles or so into the hike, on the first night on the trail, as they began their hike at Tesnatee Gap, not Springer. Their intent was to hike the AT to Maine.]
Good summary, but not sure about one small detail.
I think Joel Polson did in fact start his intended thru hike at Springer, but got off the Trail after a week. He then met up with his would be hiking partner where he left off at Tesnatee Gap to restart his hike to Maine. He then got killed and his hiking partner was kidnapped.
At least that is how I understood things from a very good article in Outside Magazine, by the same author who did the piece on Geoffrey Hood and Molly LaRue.
4eyedbuzzard
11-17-2019, 00:55
Good summary, but not sure about one small detail.
I think Joel Polson did in fact start his intended thru hike at Springer, but got off the Trail after a week. He then met up with his would be hiking partner where he left off at Tesnatee Gap to restart his hike to Maine. He then got killed and his hiking partner was kidnapped.
At least that is how I understood things from a very good article in Outside Magazine, by the same author who did the piece on Geoffrey Hood and Molly LaRue.Thanks for the correction.
Five Tango
11-17-2019, 08:31
Just for the record,I am not obsessed but I am always prepared.It's a mindset.If you want to go with statistical probability,fine,it's a good indicator to know,but evil and tragedy can strike anyone anytime anywhere and sometimes it does.
BrokenEars
11-17-2019, 10:05
No matter how safe the trail is, I'd feel more comfortable having a knife on me.
Just for the record,I am not obsessed but I am always prepared.It's a mindset.If you want to go with statistical probability,fine,it's a good indicator to know,but evil and tragedy can strike anyone anytime anywhere and sometimes it does.
My guess is that you and I would agree:
* In absolute terms the probability of horrific crime on the AT is small
* Bad things have happened and will happen again
* People can reduce the chance of bad thing happening to them while still enjoying their hikes
I think you would also agree that knowledge is power, and accepting inconvenient truths does not mean one has to walk in fear under normal circumstances.
That said, it does trouble me a bit that for everything posted on this topic, very little is ever discussed about the common circumstances surrounding each of these tragedies.
And less still about the choices hikers made and the communal mind set to reluctantly share campsites with an unstable armed man, and even stay on the trail at all, in the days and weeks before James Jordan became the most recent killer. Probably much too early for that discussion I expect.
I wonder if some of those decision were informed by the mantra from the ATC and others that the AT is safer than most any place else — or as Brian King would tell us — a 1 in 6 million chance.
Five Tango
11-17-2019, 11:07
My guess is that you and I would agree:
* In absolute terms the probability of horrific crime on the AT is small
* Bad things have happened and will happen again
* People can reduce the chance of bad thing happening to them while still enjoying their hikes
I think you would also agree that knowledge is power, and accepting inconvenient truths does not mean one has to walk in fear under normal circumstances.
Absolutely agree and my "tent peg whittler" can serve as a dual use item if necessary and only weighs in at 4.5 oz.
4eyedbuzzard
11-17-2019, 14:56
One of the saddest things to me is that many of these murderers had prior convictions for violent crime and/or had known mental health issues that indicated violent potential. Now, I don't like the idea of trampling on people's freedom and rights for no reason, but if you look at the prior criminal and mental health records of the murderers, there's just no way many of these guys should ever have been loose in society.
To all those that are opposed to carrying a weapon on the AT. I ask this question ....if you are put in harm’s way and I am near by would like me to help you or just walk away....Enjoy your hike!....
To all those that are opposed to carrying a weapon on the AT. I ask this question ....if you are put in harm’s way and I am near by would like me to help you or just walk away....Enjoy your hike!....
Again with the 'you're welcome' nonsense. How can people be more clear? Most of us DO NOT WANT you to carry weapons out in the woods to satisfy your irraitonal fantasy about rescuing us.
Five Tango
11-18-2019, 15:07
Don't worry,CalebJ,nobody is having hero fantasies when they pack something for self defense;it's all about self preservation.So why should you care if some of us carry one?
I will agree that nobody is interested in seeing someone carrying a weapon,self included.Nobody has ever seen mine and I doubt they ever will.
Fascinating. You say 'nobody' despite me quoting someone that thinks precisely that.
Five Tango
11-18-2019, 15:26
You said you quoted Bassius as saying that but that is NOT what he said.How would you know if he was carrying a concealed weapon or not? All he did was ask if you would want help or not,rare though that case might be,it is not outside the realm of possibility.
You can't possibly be that obtuse.
Five Tango
11-18-2019, 15:38
Not obtuse,just curious as to why you care if anyone has anything on their person that could be used as a weapon for self defense or come to the aid of others.
I don't care what you carry on your person, especially if you're doing so legally.
I have a real problem with the argument that you're carrying it for my defense. Stop kidding yourself. You're carrying it because of something YOU are afraid of. I'm not asking you to do it, and have no appreciation for the what-if claim that you'll suddenly come to my rescue in time of need. One of many reasons I go into the woods is to get away. Stop bringing your own terrors into the woods.
Five Tango
11-18-2019, 16:56
I don't care what you carry on your person, especially if you're doing so legally.
I have a real problem with the argument that you're carrying it for my defense. Stop kidding yourself. You're carrying it because of something YOU are afraid of. I'm not asking you to do it, and have no appreciation for the what-if claim that you'll suddenly come to my rescue in time of need. One of many reasons I go into the woods is to get away. Stop bringing your own terrors into the woods.
Not carrying it for YOUR defense and never said that I was;so stop putting words in my mouth.I carry it for a number of reasons like building a fire,cutting a package or a root in a cathole.Trust me sir,I have absolutely no intention of defending you nor do I bring "my terrors to the woods".Well,except I might be concerned about running out of water so I bring a spare bag. You got a problem with that?
You still have not said why it matters to you what anyone carries.You do realize people carry all sorts of stuff,right? And should we meet,you would never see my little knife,OK,so stop being terrified of people like me.
At no point in this entire back and forth have I suggested or thought that those were -your- words. This conversation started with me quoting a different person.
I -have- said that I DON'T care what legal weapons others carry. You're continuing to respond to things that are opposite to what I've said.
You have a serious issue with comprehending my posts.
Five Tango
11-18-2019, 17:46
I never presented the argument that I was carrying it for your defense.Maybe you should consider your own comprehension and hypersensitive reactions to the comments of others.
sorry for interrupting but can someone kinda remind me how many of these mass shootings we have had recently, have been stopped by a non law enforcement (as in, private citizen) person carrying a gun?
I never presented the argument that I was carrying it for your defense.Maybe you should consider your own comprehension and hypersensitive reactions to the comments of others.
What are you talking about?
Again...
I don't think you presented that argument.
I haven't said you presented that argument.
I've told you this repeatedly but you keep going there.
perdidochas
11-18-2019, 18:10
Your details on the 1988 murder are factually incorrect.
Well, that is what the murderer's defense was--that he got enraged by the lesbian sex.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Rebecca_Wight
Police arrested Carr on a warrant from Florida (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida) for grand larceny (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_larceny).[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Rebecca_Wight#cite_note-12) Carr waived his right to a jury trial in exchange for an agreement by the prosecution not to seek the death penalty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty).[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Rebecca_Wight#cite_note-Killer-13) At trial, Carr claimed he had been enraged by the sight of the two women having sex, that the two women had taunted him by having sex in front of him. His public defender (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_defender) said he'd been raped in a Florida (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida) prison, and sexually abused as a child. The attorney claimed that the couple's lesbianism was provocation that caused her client "inexplicable rage."
Five Tango
11-18-2019, 18:15
Go read your post number 143-"I have a real problem with the argument that you're carrying it for my defense".
I never made that argument and honestly do not know how you arrived at that conclusion.
Go read your post number 143-"I have a real problem with the argument that you're carrying it for my defense".
I never made that argument and honestly do not know how you arrived at that conclusion.
you need to read post #136.........
Five Tango
11-18-2019, 18:25
I did not make post 136.
I did not make post 136.
and there ya go.............
hence why calebj replied with this----
"What are you talking about?
Again...
I don't think you presented that argument.
I haven't said you presented that argument.
I've told you this repeatedly but you keep going there"
Exactly. At no point was I suggesting that you made that argument.
Five Tango
11-18-2019, 19:21
To all those that are opposed to carrying a weapon on the AT. I ask this question ....if you are put in harm’s way and I am near by would like me to help you or just walk away....Enjoy your hike!....
Bassius does not say he is carrying a knife here for your defense or anyone else's.He does ask if you would want help if the case should arise.You people are "stretching" for it.
And I have a real problem with that nonsensical argument. Like I said.
Bassius does not say he is carrying a knife here for your defense or anyone else's.He does ask if you would want help if the case should arise.You people are "stretching" for it.
It's not a stretch at all----bassius, by way of his/her wording, is implying that
he or she is carrying a weapon of some sort......
that's the "help" part of it all.....
Five Tango
11-18-2019, 19:35
You are "Stretching" to think that anyone is carrying any sort of weapon "to satisfy irrational fantasies of rescuing us".I simply don't believe that to be the case and to be quite honest,I doubt most people who carry a knife have ever given it much thought.
Except that's precisely what was suggested. Any other interpretation is wishful thinking.
Five Tango
11-18-2019, 19:41
That's not what he said.
I think it is important to remember that while gear may be helpful in challenging situations, it might also be helpful to ask what else could have made a difference.
Seems like there were enough similarities with each of these crimes that some reasonable conclusions might be drawn.
Wow....you all are still carrying on....just for the record I carry a knife as well as a firearm at all times not just hiking. It’s all legally done according to the state I am in....also you will never know I have a weapon, because I do not display them....
Guys... I never meant to create such a controversial thread xD !!!!!!!!! I did not delete it aftrer 3 pages or so because it had taken a turn where others were arguing between themselves. I myself have definitely gotten the point I was looking for, and my decision is now crystallized in just carrying a Victorinox Classic SD. I've been feeling a bit stupid non-stop because of how many people reply, and from reading those replies. Anyway, those replies are yours, just know that I got what I was hoping for and that I'm grateful for all of the replies that helped me ;) Rock on, then!
Guys... I never meant to create such a controversial thread xD !!!!!!!!! I did not delete it aftrer 3 pages or so because it had taken a turn where others were arguing between themselves. I myself have definitely gotten the point I was looking for, and my decision is now crystallized in just carrying a Victorinox Classic SD. I've been feeling a bit stupid non-stop because of how many people reply, and from reading those replies. Anyway, those replies are yours, just know that I got what I was hoping for and that I'm grateful for all of the replies that helped me ;) Rock on, then!
Posts about how safe hikers are from violent crime on the AT and what to do or not do about the potential for violent crime are invariably controversial on WB and always have been.
You didn't do anything wrong by asking a question, so don't worry about it. Have a great hike!
grubbster
11-19-2019, 08:35
sorry for interrupting but can someone kinda remind me how many of these mass shootings we have had recently, have been stopped by a non law enforcement (as in, private citizen) person carrying a gun?Ironically happened the same day of your post in Oklahoma.
colorado_rob
11-19-2019, 08:54
Guys... I never meant to create such a controversial thread xD !!!!!!!!! I did not delete it aftrer 3 pages or so because it had taken a turn where others were arguing between themselves. I myself have definitely gotten the point I was looking for, and my decision is now crystallized in just carrying a Victorinox Classic SD. I've been feeling a bit stupid non-stop because of how many people reply, and from reading those replies. Anyway, those replies are yours, just know that I got what I was hoping for and that I'm grateful for all of the replies that helped me ;) Rock on, then!Hah! Zero worries, whenever guns, dogs or pack weight comes up, the "discussions" flourish with all sorts of varied opinions/heated responses. Seems kinda silly, but that's typical on forums, I think it's simply because we're not discussing this face-to-face and so much gets lost without this. If we were all sitting at a pub, tossing a couple back and talking, things would stay much more civil.
I personally have found that statistics discussion fascinating, and kind-of eye opening, and I again apologize for being a bit of a d**k in my early post. I'm personally glad you're going with the little Victorinox thing and not falling prey to the trail violence scare thing, though I also have no problem with those that carry.
All so true and well said.... and under 10,000 words....:)
FlyPaper
11-19-2019, 09:54
Wow,way more math than I ever imagined I would find here..but for me,it boils down to this-everywhere I go,and everything I do has risks. I am not immortal,I have to die somewhere,sometime. If it happens on the trail,by whatever means,so be it. i much prefer to take my last breath on the AT than in a nursing home.
As one who has contended that the trail is slightly more dangerous than big cities, I wouldn't suggest any other approach.
I'll see you on the trail.
Wow....you all are still carrying on....just for the record I carry a knife as well as a firearm at all times not just hiking. It’s all legally done according to the state I am in....also you will never know I have a weapon, because I do not display them....
For what it's worth (and to clarify my previous comments) - I have no problem whatsoever with you legally carrying on the trail.
My argument was specifically with the rationalization that you're doing it for other people because they'll want your help in an emergency. If you want to bring it for your own needs, do so. Just don't use other people as your excuse.
CalebJ....please reread my post....you don’t seem to pay attention to what you read....I never mentioned that I carry a weapon for protection of other people but I would if the need be....the criminal mind is something you obviously due not understand....
Ironically happened the same day of your post in Oklahoma.
it's unconfirmed though....
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/18/us/oklahoma-walmart-shooting/index.html
https://www.kswo.com/2019/11/18/reports-shots-fired-inside-duncan-wal-mart/
and even if it was confirmed------it's rare that it happens................
that was my point......
To all those that are opposed to carrying a weapon on the AT. I ask this question ....if you are put in harm’s way and I am near by would like me to help you or just walk away....Enjoy your hike!....
CalebJ....please reread my post....you don’t seem to pay attention to what you read....I never mentioned that I carry a weapon for protection of other people but I would if the need be....the criminal mind is something you obviously due not understand....
You're right - you did not explicitly state that you carry a weapon for other people's protection.
You'd also have to assume that we're all fools to not read that clear implication in your first post.
What any of this has to do with my understanding of the criminal mind is wildly unclear.
Alligator
11-19-2019, 18:24
Bassius and CalebJ take it to private message. That side argument ends and so does any nontrail related mass shooting discussion. Thank you.
Wow....you all are still carrying on....just for the record I carry a knife as well as a firearm at all times not just hiking. It’s all legally done according to the state I am in....also you will never know I have a weapon, because I do not display them....
If I felt I needed to do that I would probably move to another country.
What a life !
Time Zone
11-25-2019, 15:21
just for the record I carry a knife as well as a firearm at all times not just hiking ... you will never know I have a weapon, because I do not display them....
We'll never know you have a weapon? You've just told us you're always armed.
Not to take sides regarding the rest of the sideshow ....
BlackCloud
11-25-2019, 21:28
"Murder on the Appalachian Trail" by Jess Carr
The Whole Truth? A Case of Murder on the Appalachian Trail" by H.L. Pohlman
True....but you do not know me. I could be your best friend, Time Zone....Happy Thanksgiving....
perdidochas
11-26-2019, 12:36
If I felt I needed to do that I would probably move to another country.
What a life !
Well, I carry a knife at all times (except in forbidden areas like airports or courthouses). Nothing to do with self-defense or offense, it's just a handy thing to always have to open boxes, cut string, or do a variety of things.
Well, I carry a knife at all times (except in forbidden areas like airports or courthouses). Nothing to do with self-defense or offense, it's just a handy thing to always have to open boxes, cut string, or do a variety of things.
Maybe that is not the aspect I was referring to...
If I felt I needed to do that I would probably move to another country.
What a life !for the people that feel that way, another country, continent, world.... would not matter
We'll never know you have a weapon? You've just told us you're always armed.
Not to take sides regarding the rest of the sideshow ....
and you think you can connect someone in the real world to here??
Well, I carry a knife at all times (except in forbidden areas like airports or courthouses). Nothing to do with self-defense or offense, it's just a handy thing to always have to open boxes, cut string, or do a variety of things.
To make it a bit clearer, my comment was about this :
I carry a knife as well as a firearm at all times
for the people that feel that way, another country, continent, world.... would not matter
There is a song by Crowded House that has these lyrics " everywhere you go, you take the weather with you "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag8XcMG1EX4
Time Zone
11-26-2019, 20:11
and you think you can connect someone in the real world to here??
Maybe.
How many 72 yr old hikers do you think there are in a town of less than 900? And if Bassius is a trail name ...
It would be a pleasure to meet you. I am sure we would have a wonderful time....Happy Thanksgiving....
Time Zone
11-26-2019, 21:50
It would be a pleasure to meet you. I am sure we would have a wonderful time....Happy Thanksgiving....
To you as well. It is always good to meet nice people on the trail!
Why does this thread remind me of the old joke about never mud wrestling with a pig?
You know, you both get covered with mud, and the pig likes it.
perdidochas
11-27-2019, 13:23
To make it a bit clearer, my comment was about this :
I carry a knife as well as a firearm at all times
Yes, I know. My point was that those were two different things with different uses. I always have a knife, and it's not for defensive use.
Maybe.
How many 72 yr old hikers do you think there are in a town of less than 900? And if Bassius is a trail name ...
lot of if's - told the age, town etc
pretty sure if we met on the trail you would not connect me to here
Time Zone
11-29-2019, 22:28
lot of if's - told the age, town etc
pretty sure if we met on the trail you would not connect me to here
I think you have totally missed my point.
If we met on the trail and you said you were 56 yr old George from Fort Madison, IA, well, then I think I might be able to "connect" you to your identity here. That's all I was saying about Bassius, too. Of course, if your location and age are false, and you don't go by your WB name on the trail, then yes, I'd agree with you.
SWODaddy
11-30-2019, 17:32
If I felt I needed to do that I would probably move to another country.
What a life !
The circumstances are no different than wearing a seatbelt. I wear mine every time I get into the car; nobody calls me paranoid and I never expect to get into an accident - but I still do it. Who's being irrational?
The circumstances are no different than wearing a seatbelt. I wear mine every time I get into the car; nobody calls me paranoid and I never expect to get into an accident - but I still do it. Who's being irrational?
Totally false analogy but don't worry about it.
Totally false analogy but don't worry about it.
A better analogy might be making sure the new car you are considering comes with a jack and spare tire.
Neither are needed— until you need them.
A better analogy might be making sure the new car you are considering comes with a jack and spare tire.
Neither are needed— until you need them.
how many people drive their car without a spare tire ?
One in one hundred ?
How many people hike with a gun ?
One in one hundred ?
See if you can spot the difference.
HooKooDooKu
11-30-2019, 23:13
Why does this thread remind me of the old joke about never mud wrestling with a pig?
You know, you both get covered with mud, and the pig likes it.
Best reply yet
how many people drive their car without a spare tire ?
One in one hundred ?
How many people hike with a gun ?
One in one hundred ?
See if you can spot the difference.
In the USA about one in three new cars are sold without a spare tire, mine included.
Understanding the risk of doing without, I purchased my Prius anyway, but then made my individual choice to take other measures, including the purchase of a plug kit and compressor to backup the goop supplied by Toyota. I also take extra care in situations where I understand there to be a greater risk, like driving around construction areas.
Recognizing the risk of a flat did not necessitate that I get another car or stay home — but it did not require I ignore it altogether, either.
7 thru hikers died at the hand of a stranger during their walks — a rather striking number to some, but obviously not to all.
Traveler
12-01-2019, 08:32
My guess would be more than 7 people over the past two decades have died while changing a flat tire.
My guess would be more than 7 people over the past two decades have died while changing a flat tire.
Agreed. Good not to minimize the risk of that.
fastfoxengineering
12-02-2019, 19:14
Pretty much anyone I know legitimately trained with weapons doesn't carry one on trail.
Typically the people carrying a weapon on trail are more of a danger to themselves than anything
Pretty much anyone I know legitimately trained with weapons doesn't carry one on trail.
Typically the people carrying a weapon on trail are more of a danger to themselves than anything
The typical people I know on the AT that carry are LEO's and hunters BOTH of whom have above avg gun awareness and demonstrate above avg gun safety particularly among the hunter category if they are state required to complete a Gun Safety Class.
ar
fastfoxengineering
12-02-2019, 20:42
The typical people I know on the AT that carry are LEO's and hunters BOTH of whom have above avg gun awareness and demonstrate above avg gun safety particularly among the hunter category if they are state required to complete a Gun Safety Class.
ar
Above average? My experience with your typical LEO is minuscule firearms training. Most cops take their duty pistol out of their holster once a year. We needed to reteach them how to field strip a glock every year at qualifications. This is what we found to be the norm. It's actually unfortunate because they are carrying a weapon with a greater likelihood to use it over a civilian. Your basic hunter education course is a joke. Seeming 9/10 times you never touch a loaded weapon. I find hunters always flagging others or themselves with unloaded guns all the time which is still a no go. The main problem with your basic LEO is they very rarely get any training on moving with a pistol out. Standing in a shooting lane at Mr Paper Silhouette is one thing. Tell them to twirl around in a 360 and it all goes to hell. One thing I learned about cops was just like military folk.. most are not gun people. They are just issued one and hope they never have to use it. Then theres the select few who enjoy the sport and practice once a week
Most LEO at least have the capacity to keep it holstered on trail and not want to ahow it off..
I saw 4 loaded pistols out of their holsters on the AT lol. People just love to show them pieces off. They think because of my background that I would LOVE to check out their basic plastic blaster.
gpburdelljr
12-02-2019, 20:50
Above average? My experience with your typical LEO is minuscule firearms training. Most cops take their duty pistol out of their holster once a year. We needed to reteach them how to field strip a glock every year at qualifications. This is what we found to be the norm. It's actually unfortunate because they are carrying a weapon with a greater likelihood to use it over a civilian. Your basic hunter education course is a joke. Seeming 9/10 times you never touch a loaded weapon. I find hunters always flagging others or themselves with unloaded guns all the time which is still a no go. The main problem with your basic LEO is they very rarely get any training on moving with a pistol out. Standing in a shooting lane at Mr Paper Silhouette is one thing. Tell them to twirl around in a 360 and it all goes to hell. One thing I learned about cops was just like military folk.. most are not gun people. They are just issued one and hope they never have to use it. Then theres the select few who enjoy the sport and practice once a week
Most LEO at least have the capacity to keep it holstered on trail and not want to ahow it off..
I saw 4 loaded pistols out of their holsters on the AT lol. People just love to show them pieces off. They think because of my background that I would LOVE to check out their basic plastic blaster.
What experience do you have with LEOs, that forms the basis of your opinion?
saltysack
12-06-2019, 23:18
My weapon carries it’s self!https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191207/e33e4216a975cddc0520244787636ee2.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191207/bb61a2c962a4c52d7ca4ab69bbbbaee6.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191207/e33e4216a975cddc0520244787636ee2.jpg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Above average? My experience with your typical LEO is minuscule firearms training. Most cops take their duty pistol out of their holster once a year. We needed to reteach them how to field strip a glock every year at qualifications. This is what we found to be the norm. It's actually unfortunate because they are carrying a weapon with a greater likelihood to use it over a civilian. Your basic hunter education course is a joke. Seeming 9/10 times you never touch a loaded weapon. I find hunters always flagging others or themselves with unloaded guns all the time which is still a no go. The main problem with your basic LEO is they very rarely get any training on moving with a pistol out. Standing in a shooting lane at Mr Paper Silhouette is one thing. Tell them to twirl around in a 360 and it all goes to hell. One thing I learned about cops was just like military folk.. most are not gun people. They are just issued one and hope they never have to use it. Then theres the select few who enjoy the sport and practice once a week
Most LEO at least have the capacity to keep it holstered on trail and not want to ahow it off..
I saw 4 loaded pistols out of their holsters on the AT lol. People just love to show them pieces off. They think because of my background that I would LOVE to check out their basic plastic blaster.
I concur 100%.
ZombieDust66
12-07-2019, 07:08
I carry a small folding knife 2-3” blade and pepper spray. Nothing too scary
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ZombieDust66
12-07-2019, 07:17
So you refuse to go into the woods without violating the law because of your own personal terror?
Carrying a gun is perfectly legal on many parts of the trail and many hikers with a concealed carry license carry a fire arm and you don’t even know it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Carrying a gun is perfectly legal on many parts of the trail and many hikers with a concealed carry license carry a fire arm and you don’t even know it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm aware of that. Not the point we were discussing at the time.
camper10469
12-13-2019, 14:12
having a knife wont do you much good as protection since thats hand to hand combat. Supposing you are confronted with a gun? OH so now you need a gun? how about a taser gun? where does it stop? Anyone coming into your site that looks threatening, take a picture of the person with your phone or start the video mode so you can record any incident to show police.
I like the dog defense, but now you need to carry more stuff for the dog unless he or she can carry its own.
If someone is going to rob you, they are going to do it no matter what you carry. So why bother?
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191207/e33e4216a975cddc0520244787636ee2.jpg
That is a beautiful creature!
Scary/friendly, dignified/goofy all at the same time— the way I see him, anyway. If pictures are are reflection of reality, he seems just perfect.
What’s the breed?
having a knife wont do you much good as protection since thats hand to hand combat. Supposing you are confronted with a gun? OH so now you need a gun? how about a taser gun? where does it stop? Anyone coming into your site that looks threatening, take a picture of the person with your phone or start the video mode so you can record any incident to show police.
I like the dog defense, but now you need to carry more stuff for the dog unless he or she can carry its own.
If someone is going to rob you, they are going to do it no matter what you carry. So why bother?
Well now it all depends on how good you are with that knife . No not much you can do against a gun especially if they keep a distance. It doesn't stop stay prepared and protect yourself. I agree with the phone but sometimes that will just piss somebody off more if they're being hostile to begin with. i agree with the dogs, Dogs are awesome salty has some beautiful dogs I have a pitbull. And those last 2 sentences really!!??
Above average? My experience with your typical LEO is minuscule firearms training. Most cops take their duty pistol out of their holster once a year. We needed to reteach them how to field strip a glock every year at qualifications. This is what we found to be the norm. It's actually unfortunate because they are carrying a weapon with a greater likelihood to use it over a civilian. Your basic hunter education course is a joke. Seeming 9/10 times you never touch a loaded weapon. I find hunters always flagging others or themselves with unloaded guns all the time which is still a no go. The main problem with your basic LEO is they very rarely get any training on moving with a pistol out. Standing in a shooting lane at Mr Paper Silhouette is one thing. Tell them to twirl around in a 360 and it all goes to hell. One thing I learned about cops was just like military folk.. most are not gun people. They are just issued one and hope they never have to use it. Then theres the select few who enjoy the sport and practice once a week
Most LEO at least have the capacity to keep it holstered on trail and not want to ahow it off..
I saw 4 loaded pistols out of their holsters on the AT lol. People just love to show them pieces off. They think because of my background that I would LOVE to check out their basic plastic blaster.
"This is what we found to be the norm." Who is we? " I find hunters always flagging others or themselves with unloaded guns all the time which is still a no go. " " they think because of my background that I would love to check out their basic plastic blaster. " just curious could you elaborate a bit?
But having quoted all that, all good in the woods if you don't. Sometimes I don't.
I can spray, my EDC, and the very sharp multifunction bad boy pictured below
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49219015441_926e3b6883_q_d.jpg
Excellent, I don't know if this has been mentioned but here goes , I think tent stakes would make for a great self protection increment. If you you have the opportunity and the situation calls for it. Stick your stakes in your pocket or hand and placed in certain areas of the human body neck, eyes, heart , radial artery, femoral artery, groin. You might just be victorious and not the victim!
Excellent, I don't know if this has been mentioned but here goes , I think tent stakes would make for a great self protection increment. If you you have the opportunity and the situation calls for it. Stick your stakes in your pocket or hand and placed in certain areas of the human body neck, eyes, heart , radial artery, femoral artery, groin. You might just be victorious and not the victim!
or you might just freeze and crap yourself when confronted with an agressor with a knife or a gun.
Some of y'all maybe, but not this humanoid. I've made it a point in my life to possess a certain set of survivor skills. On trail and off!! Good luck to you!!
I don't mean to be so harsh, but come on, we are are talking about your life! Crapping yourself might even be a option especially when you've eaten Mexican! Whew look out!!
And I'm not looking for arguments or disagreements. I'm simply looking to save another life.
SoaknWet
12-15-2019, 07:28
It's a shame what today is like. I'm 73 years old and before I was a teenager I was taught to Never go into the woods without a knife and matches. Still follow that rule today. The woods have always been my safe place and will continue to be, a few bad apples and fear will not destroy that.
fastfoxengineering
12-16-2019, 04:05
And I'm not looking for arguments or disagreements. I'm simply looking to save another life.Most people do freeze when confronted by a threat.
I have a perfect example and it cracks me up EVERYTIME.
We take a group of individuals and get them much better than your average joe with a defensive pistol. Drawing from holster, reloads, malfunction drills, moving, communicating, etcetera. They're actually pretty good shots at this point. Out to 25 to boot.
We started with paper silhouttes. And then we moved onto a paper bad guy with a gun pointed at you. Same idea. But now theres a bad guy with a gun rather than an innocent blob.
For the last 4000 rounds. Everyone always waited my command "UP" to run thru a drill. And the drill was to shoot the bad guy with a gun. Lots and lots of dead bad paper bad guys.
Now everyones on the line. Everyones locked and loaded. Everyones feeling confident.
I yell.. "That guys got a gun" pointing at the paper bad guy.
99% of the time. Noone shoots him. Noone. Everyone looks around and doesn't know what to do lol. Everyone is baffled. Then I pull out my pistol and shoot them. Because someone had to.
Then everyone realizes what happened. That their brain failed them because it got wired a certain way. Noone yells "UP" when someones coming into a place with a weapon.
You'd think when someones screams "That dudes got a gun" while pointing at said gentleman. A line full of 10-12 proficient pistol shooters would ventilate the crap out of them...but.. crickets.
The brain is weird thing to train.
Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk
Traveler
12-16-2019, 07:31
...........
45927
Now that's hilarious, is that Rambo security service for the pride parade?
Most people do freeze when confronted by a threat.
I have a perfect example and it cracks me up EVERYTIME.
We take a group of individuals and get them much better than your average joe with a defensive pistol. Drawing from holster, reloads, malfunction drills, moving, communicating, etcetera. They're actually pretty good shots at this point. Out to 25 to boot.
We started with paper silhouttes. And then we moved onto a paper bad guy with a gun pointed at you. Same idea. But now theres a bad guy with a gun rather than an innocent blob.
For the last 4000 rounds. Everyone always waited my command "UP" to run thru a drill. And the drill was to shoot the bad guy with a gun. Lots and lots of dead bad paper bad guys.
Now everyones on the line. Everyones locked and loaded. Everyones feeling confident.
I yell.. "That guys got a gun" pointing at the paper bad guy.
99% of the time. Noone shoots him. Noone. Everyone looks around and doesn't know what to do lol. Everyone is baffled. Then I pull out my pistol and shoot them. Because someone had to.
Then everyone realizes what happened. That their brain failed them because it got wired a certain way. Noone yells "UP" when someones coming into a place with a weapon.
You'd think when someones screams "That dudes got a gun" while pointing at said gentleman. A line full of 10-12 proficient pistol shooters would ventilate the crap out of them...but.. crickets.
The brain is weird thing to train.
Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk
That is very funny and a great example. And I concur 100 % . That's one reason why I think it's important to discuss active self protection if we find ourselves in the woods with a crazy person , might not be a bad idea to discuss as many life saving choices as possible.
TexasBob
12-16-2019, 11:04
Carrying a gun is perfectly legal on many parts of the trail and many hikers with a concealed carry license carry a fire arm and you don’t even know it ...........
Seems like a contradictory statement. I am curious where you get this info. If many hikers carry a gun and you don't even know it, how could you know how many are carrying?
The Old Chief
12-16-2019, 15:11
Seems like a contradictory statement. I am curious where you get this info. If many hikers carry a gun and you don't even know it, how could you know how many are carrying?
How many is many? I have carried concealed on the AT and nobody knew it. But I've been asked many times "do you carry a gun on the AT?" and I alway answer truthfully. It's not an uncommon question from other hikers and non-hikers. I've hiked around many hikers I know and found out after the hike that they were carrying concealed. I wish they would have told me beforehand so I could have saved some weight and left my firearm at home!
Typically the people carrying a weapon on trail are more of a danger to themselves than anything
been around the "gun culture" a lot - it is not only on the trail, but everywhere - other than LEO, about 3/4 of those who carry are their own greatest hazard - and some LEO......
Lone Wolf
12-16-2019, 21:31
been around the "gun culture" a lot - it is not only on the trail, but everywhere - other than LEO, about 3/4 of those who carry are their own greatest hazard - and some LEO......
bull.......
bull.......
you will change my statement of what I see first hand at training events
ie. 8 in a class for NRA pistol instructor, the other 7 carried daily, I was the only legit "pass" of the range portion and it was not challenging - if they were not keeping that level of proficiency, then carrying was more hazardous than not
Alligator
12-17-2019, 00:48
Looks about done.