Single female campers. Do you carry a weapon for protection. Have u ever had to use a weapon to protect yourself.
Mike Harding said
07:10 PM Mar 24, 2018
Australia is one of the safest countries on the planet it is unlikely you will be attacked in this country and even more unlikely you will be attacked when in the bush.
People view weapons as a talisman again their fear of attack, they are seldom such and may only escalate a situation which could have been settled by calm and talk. In reality their fear of attack is usually irrational.
For a woman; any weapon, outside a firearm, is almost useless again a single male and totally useless against two males. Sadly, Australia does not permit ownership of firearms for the purpose of defence - you're supposed to call the police, dunno what you do if you don't have mobile coverage but that's another discussion.
This forum has a penchant for some silly wasp spray - it is foolish misapprehension. On the off-chance you have the can to hand and manage to orientate it so as not to spray it in your own face you may cause severe eye damage (or do nothing) to your assailant which *will*, almost certainly, result in you being charged with a serious offence - such is Australian law. The UK has recently changed its law in this area.
I suggest a piece of steel pipe (trolley jack handles are good) about 450mm long and 20mm diameter - use it to jab at the chest or face rather than swing - if you do swing it for God's sake don't go for the head (you'll end up in court) go for the elbows or knees.
If you do seriously injure him check to ensure he hadn't picked up one of your kitchen knives with murderous intent, because if he had that knife would have his fingerprints on it and thus indicate your level of defence was appropriate rather than excessive.
Personally I'm all for firearms for personal protection but I doubt I'll get much support on this forum :)
-- Edited by Mike Harding on Sunday 25th of March 2018 01:55:46 PM
jules47 said
07:28 PM Mar 24, 2018
The little tag on the thread list is that it s your post.
Kebbin said
08:18 PM Mar 24, 2018
Your a funny man Mike, wasp spray a no no, but a piece of metal pipe or a gun is good? Chellsbells go for spray if it will give you peace of mind after all it would only be used if someone was breaking in and it was at hand, but you will probably never use it.
rockylizard said
08:29 PM Mar 24, 2018
Gday...
I can fully understand the fear of being threatened when travelling.
However, statistically one is very much far safer in the bush or country .... away from cities and towns.
I never feel vulnerable when camped away from towns - but I am always on my guard in any town or city - particularly of a night walking around.
If one watches the news and read the newspapers it is extremely rare that folk get threatened, robbed or attacked away from them thar cities.
Carrying wasp spray, a metal pole, a wooden pole/baseball bat or any other such instrument can very easily be used against one ... especially if one is the slightest bit apprehensive in using it when confronted.
Just stay in the bush and keep away from cities.
Cheers - John
-- Edited by rockylizard on Saturday 24th of March 2018 08:30:32 PM
jules47 said
08:55 PM Mar 24, 2018
YEP - What John (RL) says! Why would you want to be anywhere else?
Single female campers. Do you carry a weapon for protection. Have u ever had to use a weapon to protect yourself.
No. Never felt unsafe. It amazes me that people think like this.
Dougwe said
09:45 AM Mar 25, 2018
I was heavily involved in baseball many moons ago and remember one club president telling everyone that if they had a baseball bat in the car on it's own the law could say it was a weapon, SO, keep a baseball with the bat.
If anyone asks why you have them you just tell them, I throw the ball up and as it comes down I hit the ball with the bat for light exersise. It is actually a part of baseball training, TRUE!
beiffe said
10:42 AM Mar 25, 2018
Best protection and also the only one I think you need is get a pair of large work boots from op shop and if you feel uncomfortable place them outside by your door. Must bullies thugs are wimps so the sight of large work boots means big bad man. Any preasure can will work too if they get inside so if you have a can of fly spray beside the bed then that may help but I think you are worried about nothing
Izabarack said
10:47 AM Mar 25, 2018
Mike Harding wrote:
Sadly, Australia does not permit ownership of firearms for the purpose of defence -
Nothing sad about it at all. Even those who have been highly trained in weapons handling stuff up regularly, think Police and Army personnel.
As to the initial question, the stats are very clear that you are more likely to be attacked, or even threatened, in your own home. Carrying a weapon in some fantasy that the weapon will protect you will likely contribute to an atmosphere of constant anxiety and hypervigilance.
Of course it is sensible to be aware of unsafe situations and "be alert, not alarmed". One standout thing any remote camper can do to escape a situation is to park in a position where the path to drive away is clear. In a MH or campervan, being able to access the driving position without going outside will offer some further measure of protection.
Iza
STRETCH ARMSTRONG said
01:05 PM Mar 25, 2018
Mate l carry a bazooka, l saw Wolf Creek. Im not stupid!
rockylizard said
01:15 PM Mar 25, 2018
STRETCH ARMSTRONG wrote:
Mate l carry a bazooka, l saw Wolf Creek. I'm not stupid!
Gday...
As they say, never let the facts get in the way of the truth.
"Wolf Creek is not directly based on a true story, although a title at the start says, 'based on actual events'. It was suggested partly by the gruesome details of the backpacker murders committed by Ivan Milat in the 1990s, but these murders were committed in a state forest near Sydney. Wolf Creek relocated its killing spree to a much more foreboding and lonely landscape in the Australian desert, partly because it wanted the power of isolation, and partly because its about the myth of the friendly Aussie bushman"
"Wolf Creek was marketed as being "based on true events." The abduction of British tourist Peter Falconio and the assault of his girlfriend Joanne Lees in July 2001 by Bradley John Murdoch in the Northern Territory are cited as influences. Murdoch's trial was still under way at the time of the film's initial release in Australia, and for this reason the Northern Territory court placed an injunction on the film's release there in the belief that it could influence the outcome of the proceedings. Many are misled into thinking that the entire movie is based on a true story, when it only had many influences from other murders around Australia, such as the Ivan Milat Backpacker Murders and the Peter Falconio murder case.
As I stated in my original post this sort of danger in the bush is unlikely but it's not something which should be dismissed or ridiculed either and, as always, it's better to be prepared and, the reality is, a woman in the bush is defenceless again a man intent on doing bad.
Leo said
01:35 PM Mar 25, 2018
I wonder about police 'statistics'. Recently the AFP was caught out in the federal Parliament for a monstrous lie, fake news concerning a claimed 5,600 'guns' seized. But after long questioning and plenty of ducking and weaving it turned out it was only six (6), with their 'initiative' costing nearly $1million apiece.
Next, many crimes may go unreported in the police 'statistics' to make them look good. That may apply where insurance is not involved.
Yet other problems with 'statistics' of crime:
- the data may be old and always suspect anyhow. An example being that 'crime is lower in the country' - which even if once believable (and many moons ago!) is not the case now; and
- sweeping generalisations and averaging may conceal higher risks and higher consequences affecting YOU.
As an example of the last mentioned, it may be that crime generally could have a lower incidence in the broad, but burglary could be high and have a lower clearance rate (ie low apprehension), and for burglary both are the case. And what if there is increased violence where burglary is concerned? Might be time to ask the question if a lot of burglary is by the drug affected and desperate. Taking this a step further, might some oldies with lots of toys and maybe some money aboard become a target for offenders?
The right to self defence is affirmed by all developed nations. What is at issue in most Australian jurisdictions though is that the victim is re-victimised because the onus of proof is reversed(!) and s/he is required to prove that s/he actually was in fear of injury, even death and that his/her defence was 'reasonable'. Shouldn't the onus be on the police to prove that the victim wasn't in fear of injury/death?
Don't be imagining that police will beat the Coroner's van in your case. It is up to you. Which is why the smarter money in this thread is on proactive things a person can do to stay out of harm's way. For example, by not flashing any wealth, by being far from others and out of sight in the bush, not near towns, or camped up with others nearby (safety in numbers like birds).
-- Edited by Leo on Sunday 25th of March 2018 01:37:44 PM
Peter_n_Margaret said
01:38 PM Mar 25, 2018
Ahh yes, the US model of self protection is clearly superior to ours .......... NOT!
Cheers,
Peter
Leo said
02:13 PM Mar 25, 2018
Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
Ahh yes, the US model of self protection is clearly superior to ours .......... NOT!
Cheers, Peter
It was clever of John Howard to reduce it all down to 'gun culture', wasn't it?
rockylizard said
02:36 PM Mar 25, 2018
Mike Harding wrote:
SNIP~~~ the reality is, a woman in the bush is defenceless against a man intent on doing bad.
Gday...
Now that is an interesting comment and view.
Why is it considered that a woman is "defenceless" but a man is not?
I am quite sure that if I was confronted by a person - either male or female - that was threatening me harm, especially if they had a 'weapon' ... whether that be a bit of wood, a knife, a bat, a gun or any thing else, I would be in some trouble.
I have never been one to use my 'manly strength' to offset a threat ... and that is multiplied manifold should there be more than one threatening me. In essence, I am defenceless.
My 'protection' is as stated by Leo that there are ".........proactive things a person can do to stay out of harm's way. For example, by not flashing any wealth, by being far from others and out of sight in the bush, not near towns, or camped up with others nearby."
I would never carry, or 'threaten' anyone who was wishing me harm with any instrument of 'harm'.
As Brickies stated, "Any weapon you carry could be the weapon that does the most damage on you if you are over powered."
Cheers - John
Mike Harding said
03:36 PM Mar 25, 2018
>Why is it considered that a woman is "defenceless" but a man is not?
I'm a man - I'm a biggish bloke, 6', 100kg, reasonably fit, assertive, confident and if anyone attempted to do bad things to me they, at the least, would be badly hurt.
My chances of being raped are as close to zero as makes no difference.
My chances of being attacked for any other reason are almost as close too - in other words I am safe in the bush. A woman is not as safe.
Almost every man with two cable ties and a quiet location can subdue almost any woman and rape has been a motive for its own end since the dawn of time.
This thread has been dominated by males, I'd be most interested to hear from some women and whether, if the law in Australia allowed, they would like to have a small .22 handgun in their handbag? In many parts of the world this is called a "ladies gun". It is small, only makes a crack when fired and if the head and heart are avoided probably won't kill but, sure as hell, it will make an attacker stop short - without even the need to fire.
It evens the score - it means the 5' 2", 55kg woman can stand her own against the 6' male.
I believe women have the right to defend themselves, to go where they choose without fear and they will never be able to protect themselves by bodily strength and the concept of calling the police from the bush is laughable - a firearm gives them protection.
Some may disagree.
rockylizard said
03:46 PM Mar 25, 2018
Gday...
"it means the 5' 2", 55kg woman can stand her own against the 6' male." Them's my dimensions.
DAMN ... so that means, as I said earlier, that I would not be able to "stand on my own" when threatened by "a biggish bloke, 6', 100kg, reasonably fit, assertive, confident"
I guess I had better get me a gun then ... WOW ... what a sheltered, lucky, unattractive life I have lead for the past 70 years.
.... and I agree, I too would be "most interested to hear from some women's opinion's" on this thread on the 'threats' they have suffered, experienced ... and how they feel about carrying a gun, baseball bat or any other 'weapon' just in case someone might threaten them.
Cheers - John
Dougwe said
04:55 PM Mar 25, 2018
Chellbells wrote:
Single female campers. Do you carry a weapon for protection. Have u ever had to use a weapon to protect yourself.
Marie, just get out here in the playground and ENJOY this great land. I think a couple on here have probably scared the hell of you. I have met many solo ladies since I started 6 years ago and I would say none of them are scared, they just love being out in the playground.
Tony Bev said
08:31 PM Mar 25, 2018
Usual disclaimer
Although I am married, I do at times travel on my own
I therefore know just a little, of the trials and tribulation of a solo traveller
I agree with Dougwe, I have met plenty of solo travelling females, in the last five years or so
In the free camps, away from the large towns, I have not heard of any solo female feeling unsafe
For every bad man in the travelling community, I would say that there must be plenty of good and responsible men
oldbloke said
11:00 PM Mar 25, 2018
"
For a woman; any weapon, outside a firearm, is almost useless again a
single male and totally useless against two males. Sadly, Australia
does not permit ownership of firearms for the purpose of defence -
you're supposed to call the police, dunno what you do if you don't
have mobile coverage but that's another discussion."
Calling the police is laughable. Even if you contact them assume 25 minutes before they arrive. Anything could happen in 25 min. Use some sense, it's pretty safe but have a plan B
dundreamin said
09:15 AM Mar 26, 2018
I used to travel with my dog so I had some degree of peace of mind with her on board. However I still didn't free camp in completely on my own. Sadly I had to say goodbye to my dog a few months ago so next time I head off it will be a completely different experience for me I'm sure. Definitely will not camp anywhere on my own & yes I do feel safer with some sort of weapon near at hand. It's also a matter of staying alert & taking note of who's around etc. If you don't feel comfortable - move on. Once I was thinking about staying the night at a camp overlooking a stunning beach but on looking around I noticed a lot of broken glass & beer cans around the campfires & decided to move on. If there's no-one else around by 4pm I move on - who knows who's going to turn up after dark?
Aus-Kiwi said
09:31 AM Mar 26, 2018
I would say . Thereās more assults etc in camping grounds . But that doesnāt take away any fear !! The woman weāve seen . Some with young children . Can imagine ? Running away from
BAD relationship ?? Having a time of their lives . We free camp . Good on them . Get over the fear . BUT be vigilant of any danger . Security camera, sensor lights. Over allās and steel capped boots at door etc .
Leo said
10:33 AM Mar 26, 2018
Police and the governments of some cultural groups, for example, Japanese, regularly express concerns about the vulnerability of backpacker tourists to property theft and predatory crimes. Tourists, anyone on the move, are strangers in their new environment and there is no effective way of assuring their personal safety or that of their goods incl. credit cards carried with them. They have a limited budget, want to explore their environment, meet people and so on, which puts them at risk.
There is no reason to suggest that elderly travellers, grey nomads, are less vulnerable and at any lower risk than young backpackers.
We have to concede that while police statistics might indicate that in the broad, reported and recorded crime statistics might not be increasing, but that does not necessarily accord with our own real life experience and nor does it give any assurance regarding serious crime that might affect us. To give two examples,
- along with others I regularly hitched rides to work and university (students live like church mice) and did the same for longer trips with a pack. However, police strongly advise against that practise now and I certainly wouldn't do it even if I was again the fit young man I used to be;
- secondly, in my once safe home of many years, where we left the doors and windows open, the risk of burglary and trespass now has police recommending charges against home owners who do not secure their homes while they are present, let alone when they are absent. Where policing fails, authorities are quick to blame the victim. Fact is, up until comparatively recent times crime in the neighborhood was unheard of, but over recent years we can list numerous homes that were broken into, often around lunch to soon after and even where the the residents were home. I was going to the front yard one day and walked smack bank into a big young fellow standing silently outside the door. He said he was, 'Looking for the station', which was a km away. More likely he had come by train and was looking for loot and a car to steal to transport it. They usually work in groups.
My final point is that it is illegal to keep anything that could be construed as a 'weapon'. So don't be silly and say to anyone, especially police, that anything you have in your possession, that walking stick, has that secondary purpose. While on that, be careful what sharp object you keep in your car if you ever have to release yourself from a seat belt, eg in an upturned vehicle. You could be facing charges.
-- Edited by Leo on Monday 26th of March 2018 10:34:37 AM
Aus-Kiwi said
10:42 AM Mar 26, 2018
Keep in mind some travelers or foreigners are bad too ! Every year we get them ( small % ) from
UK .,
Leo said
11:06 AM Mar 26, 2018
On reflection, while Australian governments have been at pains to make life safer for criminals, the only real practical advance for the law abiding citizen was the requirement for manufacturers to provide central locking on motor vehicles. When that was done, authorities were most surprised by the reduction in other serious offences (other than car theft which the initiative was aimed at). Problem is though, almost anyone can afford a car and a car provides the mobility, anonymity, carrying capacity and means of escape for serious crime.
That provides some explanation why the GNs who can get well off road, or at least set up camp some distance from towns, feel safer. Add the benefit of being one of a flock (watchers of Attenborough will have a deeper understanding of the usefulness of a flock) by sussing out and camping with others.
Still, it is a pity that Government doesn't trust its citizens with a 'squirrel gun' for rabbits for the pot. Better safety for criminals that the victims are known to be disarmed or if not, they cannot access that prohibited 'squirrel gun' or Daisy air rifle. Because the Daisy and the dangerous slugs for same are stored separately and under lock and key, and it is a serious crime to regard the Daisy as a possible defence weapon.
Noticeably, criminal thugs are now monstering families on farms while the farmer is busy tending stock. Years ago no two legged feral would have had the arrogance to drive right up to the farm house and kick down the door for fear that madam might have the .22 or .410 shotgun near to hand. That is 'progressive' politics, but for whom?
-- Edited by Leo on Monday 26th of March 2018 11:08:05 AM
-- Edited by Leo on Monday 26th of March 2018 11:20:21 AM
aussie_paul said
12:21 PM Mar 26, 2018
Leo wrote:
On reflection, while Australian governments have been at pains to make life safer for criminals, the only real practical advance for the law abiding citizen was the requirement for manufacturers to provide central locking on motor vehicles. When that was done, authorities were most surprised by the reduction in other serious offences (other than car theft which the initiative was aimed at). Problem is though, almost anyone can afford a car and a car provides the mobility, anonymity, carrying capacity and means of escape for serious crime.
That provides some explanation why the GNs who can get well off road, or at least set up camp some distance from towns, feel safer. Add the benefit of being one of a flock (watchers of Attenborough will have a deeper understanding of the usefulness of a flock) by sussing out and camping with others.
Still, it is a pity that Government doesn't trust its citizens with a 'squirrel gun' for rabbits for the pot. Better safety for criminals that the victims are known to be disarmed or if not, they cannot access that prohibited 'squirrel gun' or Daisy air rifle. Because the Daisy and the dangerous slugs for same are stored separately and under lock and key, and it is a serious crime to regard the Daisy as a possible defence weapon.
Noticeably, criminal thugs are now monstering families on farms while the farmer is busy tending stock. Years ago no two legged feral would have had the arrogance to drive right up to the farm house and kick down the door for fear that madam might have the .22 or .410 shotgun near to hand. That is 'progressive' politics, but for whom?
-- Edited by Leo on Monday 26th of March 2018 11:08:05 AM
-- Edited by Leo on Monday 26th of March 2018 11:20:21 AM
Totally agree Leo.
Aussie Paul.
Aus-Kiwi said
12:56 PM Mar 26, 2018
Sheesh we can have guns . Thatās another story . But itās not advisable, it can be used against you . Itās the LAW thatās soft . Mind our jails are full of addicts and dead beats !!ā
Single female campers. Do you carry a weapon for protection. Have u ever had to use a weapon to protect yourself.
Australia is one of the safest countries on the planet it is unlikely
you will be attacked in this country and even more unlikely you will
be attacked when in the bush.
People view weapons as a talisman again their fear of attack, they
are seldom such and may only escalate a situation which could have
been settled by calm and talk. In reality their fear of attack is
usually irrational.
For a woman; any weapon, outside a firearm, is almost useless again a
single male and totally useless against two males. Sadly, Australia
does not permit ownership of firearms for the purpose of defence -
you're supposed to call the police, dunno what you do if you don't
have mobile coverage but that's another discussion.
This forum has a penchant for some silly wasp spray - it is foolish
misapprehension. On the off-chance you have the can to hand and
manage to orientate it so as not to spray it in your own face you may
cause severe eye damage (or do nothing) to your assailant which
*will*, almost certainly, result in you being charged with a serious
offence - such is Australian law. The UK has recently changed its law
in this area.
I suggest a piece of steel pipe (trolley jack handles are good) about
450mm long and 20mm diameter - use it to jab at the chest or face
rather than swing - if you do swing it for God's sake don't go for
the head (you'll end up in court) go for the elbows or knees.
If you do seriously injure him check to ensure he hadn't picked up
one of your kitchen knives with murderous intent, because if he had
that knife would have his fingerprints on it and thus indicate your
level of defence was appropriate rather than excessive.
Personally I'm all for firearms for personal protection but I doubt
I'll get much support on this forum :)
-- Edited by Mike Harding on Sunday 25th of March 2018 01:55:46 PM
Gday...
I can fully understand the fear of being threatened when travelling.
However, statistically one is very much far safer in the bush or country .... away from cities and towns.
I never feel vulnerable when camped away from towns - but I am always on my guard in any town or city - particularly of a night walking around.
If one watches the news and read the newspapers it is extremely rare that folk get threatened, robbed or attacked away from them thar cities.
Carrying wasp spray, a metal pole, a wooden pole/baseball bat or any other such instrument can very easily be used against one ... especially if one is the slightest bit apprehensive in using it when confronted.
Just stay in the bush and keep away from cities.
Cheers - John
-- Edited by rockylizard on Saturday 24th of March 2018 08:30:32 PM
YEP - What John (RL) says! Why would you want to be anywhere else?
No. Never felt unsafe. It amazes me that people think like this.
If anyone asks why you have them you just tell them, I throw the ball up and as it comes down I hit the ball with the bat for light exersise. It is actually a part of baseball training, TRUE!
Nothing sad about it at all. Even those who have been highly trained in weapons handling stuff up regularly, think Police and Army personnel.
As to the initial question, the stats are very clear that you are more likely to be attacked, or even threatened, in your own home. Carrying a weapon in some fantasy that the weapon will protect you will likely contribute to an atmosphere of constant anxiety and hypervigilance.
Of course it is sensible to be aware of unsafe situations and "be alert, not alarmed". One standout thing any remote camper can do to escape a situation is to park in a position where the path to drive away is clear. In a MH or campervan, being able to access the driving position without going outside will offer some further measure of protection.
Iza
Gday...
"Wolf Creek is not directly based on a true story, although a title at the start says, 'based on actual events'. It was suggested partly by the gruesome details of the backpacker murders committed by Ivan Milat in the 1990s, but these murders were committed in a state forest near Sydney. Wolf Creek relocated its killing spree to a much more foreboding and lonely landscape in the Australian desert, partly because it wanted the power of isolation, and partly because its about the myth of the friendly Aussie bushman"
http://www.convictcreations.com/culture/movies/wolfcreek.html
"Wolf Creek was marketed as being "based on true events."
The abduction of British tourist Peter Falconio and the assault of his girlfriend Joanne Lees in July 2001 by Bradley John Murdoch in the Northern Territory are cited as influences. Murdoch's trial was still under way at the time of the film's initial release in Australia, and for this reason the Northern Territory court placed an injunction on the film's release there in the belief that it could influence the outcome of the proceedings. Many are misled into thinking that the entire movie is based on a true story, when it only had many influences from other murders around Australia, such as the Ivan Milat Backpacker Murders and the Peter Falconio murder case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Creek_(film)
Cheers - John
Unfortunately this is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Peter_Falconio
As I stated in my original post this sort of danger in the bush is unlikely but it's not something which should be dismissed or ridiculed either and, as always, it's better to be prepared and, the reality is, a woman in the bush is defenceless again a man intent on doing bad.
I wonder about police 'statistics'. Recently the AFP was caught out in the federal Parliament for a monstrous lie, fake news concerning a claimed 5,600 'guns' seized. But after long questioning and plenty of ducking and weaving it turned out it was only six (6), with their 'initiative' costing nearly $1million apiece.
Next, many crimes may go unreported in the police 'statistics' to make them look good. That may apply where insurance is not involved.
Yet other problems with 'statistics' of crime:
- the data may be old and always suspect anyhow. An example being that 'crime is lower in the country' - which even if once believable (and many moons ago!) is not the case now; and
- sweeping generalisations and averaging may conceal higher risks and higher consequences affecting YOU.
As an example of the last mentioned, it may be that crime generally could have a lower incidence in the broad, but burglary could be high and have a lower clearance rate (ie low apprehension), and for burglary both are the case. And what if there is increased violence where burglary is concerned? Might be time to ask the question if a lot of burglary is by the drug affected and desperate. Taking this a step further, might some oldies with lots of toys and maybe some money aboard become a target for offenders?
The right to self defence is affirmed by all developed nations. What is at issue in most Australian jurisdictions though is that the victim is re-victimised because the onus of proof is reversed(!) and s/he is required to prove that s/he actually was in fear of injury, even death and that his/her defence was 'reasonable'. Shouldn't the onus be on the police to prove that the victim wasn't in fear of injury/death?
Don't be imagining that police will beat the Coroner's van in your case. It is up to you. Which is why the smarter money in this thread is on proactive things a person can do to stay out of harm's way. For example, by not flashing any wealth, by being far from others and out of sight in the bush, not near towns, or camped up with others nearby (safety in numbers like birds).
-- Edited by Leo on Sunday 25th of March 2018 01:37:44 PM
Cheers,
Peter
It was clever of John Howard to reduce it all down to 'gun culture', wasn't it?
Gday...
Now that is an interesting comment and view.
Why is it considered that a woman is "defenceless" but a man is not?
I am quite sure that if I was confronted by a person - either male or female - that was threatening me harm, especially if they had a 'weapon' ... whether that be a bit of wood, a knife, a bat, a gun or any thing else, I would be in some trouble.
I have never been one to use my 'manly strength' to offset a threat ... and that is multiplied manifold should there be more than one threatening me. In essence, I am defenceless.
My 'protection' is as stated by Leo that there are ".........proactive things a person can do to stay out of harm's way. For example, by not flashing any wealth, by being far from others and out of sight in the bush, not near towns, or camped up with others nearby."
I would never carry, or 'threaten' anyone who was wishing me harm with any instrument of 'harm'.
As Brickies stated, "Any weapon you carry could be the weapon that does the most damage on you if you are over powered."
Cheers - John
>Why is it considered that a woman is "defenceless" but a man is not?
I'm a man - I'm a biggish bloke, 6', 100kg, reasonably fit, assertive,
confident and if anyone attempted to do bad things to me they, at the
least, would be badly hurt.
My chances of being raped are as close to zero as makes no difference.
My chances of being attacked for any other reason are almost as close
too - in other words I am safe in the bush. A woman is not as safe.
Almost every man with two cable ties and a quiet location can subdue
almost any woman and rape has been a motive for its own end since the
dawn of time.
This thread has been dominated by males, I'd be most interested to
hear from some women and whether, if the law in Australia allowed,
they would like to have a small .22 handgun in their handbag? In many
parts of the world this is called a "ladies gun". It is small, only
makes a crack when fired and if the head and heart are avoided
probably won't kill but, sure as hell, it will make an attacker stop
short - without even the need to fire.
It evens the score - it means the 5' 2", 55kg woman can stand her own
against the 6' male.
I believe women have the right to defend themselves, to go where they
choose without fear and they will never be able to protect themselves
by bodily strength and the concept of calling the police from the
bush is laughable - a firearm gives them protection.
Some may disagree.
Gday...
"it means the 5' 2", 55kg woman can stand her own against the 6' male." Them's my dimensions.
I guess I had better get me a gun then ... WOW ... what a sheltered, lucky, unattractive life I have lead for the past 70 years.
.... and I agree, I too would be "most interested to hear from some women's opinion's" on this thread on the 'threats' they have suffered, experienced ... and how they feel about carrying a gun, baseball bat or any other 'weapon' just in case someone might threaten them.
Cheers - John
Marie, just get out here in the playground and ENJOY this great land. I think a couple on here have probably scared the hell of you. I have met many solo ladies since I started 6 years ago and I would say none of them are scared, they just love being out in the playground.
Although I am married, I do at times travel on my own
I therefore know just a little, of the trials and tribulation of a solo traveller
I agree with Dougwe, I have met plenty of solo travelling females, in the last five years or so
In the free camps, away from the large towns, I have not heard of any solo female feeling unsafe
For every bad man in the travelling community, I would say that there must be plenty of good and responsible men
For a woman; any weapon, outside a firearm, is almost useless again a
single male and totally useless against two males. Sadly, Australia
does not permit ownership of firearms for the purpose of defence -
you're supposed to call the police, dunno what you do if you don't
have mobile coverage but that's another discussion."
Calling the police is laughable. Even if you contact them assume 25 minutes before they arrive. Anything could happen in 25 min. Use some sense, it's pretty safe but have a plan B
Police and the governments of some cultural groups, for example, Japanese, regularly express concerns about the vulnerability of backpacker tourists to property theft and predatory crimes. Tourists, anyone on the move, are strangers in their new environment and there is no effective way of assuring their personal safety or that of their goods incl. credit cards carried with them. They have a limited budget, want to explore their environment, meet people and so on, which puts them at risk.
There is no reason to suggest that elderly travellers, grey nomads, are less vulnerable and at any lower risk than young backpackers.
We have to concede that while police statistics might indicate that in the broad, reported and recorded crime statistics might not be increasing, but that does not necessarily accord with our own real life experience and nor does it give any assurance regarding serious crime that might affect us. To give two examples,
- along with others I regularly hitched rides to work and university (students live like church mice) and did the same for longer trips with a pack. However, police strongly advise against that practise now and I certainly wouldn't do it even if I was again the fit young man I used to be;
- secondly, in my once safe home of many years, where we left the doors and windows open, the risk of burglary and trespass now has police recommending charges against home owners who do not secure their homes while they are present, let alone when they are absent. Where policing fails, authorities are quick to blame the victim. Fact is, up until comparatively recent times crime in the neighborhood was unheard of, but over recent years we can list numerous homes that were broken into, often around lunch to soon after and even where the the residents were home. I was going to the front yard one day and walked smack bank into a big young fellow standing silently outside the door. He said he was, 'Looking for the station', which was a km away. More likely he had come by train and was looking for loot and a car to steal to transport it. They usually work in groups.
My final point is that it is illegal to keep anything that could be construed as a 'weapon'. So don't be silly and say to anyone, especially police, that anything you have in your possession, that walking stick, has that secondary purpose. While on that, be careful what sharp object you keep in your car if you ever have to release yourself from a seat belt, eg in an upturned vehicle. You could be facing charges.
-- Edited by Leo on Monday 26th of March 2018 10:34:37 AM
On reflection, while Australian governments have been at pains to make life safer for criminals, the only real practical advance for the law abiding citizen was the requirement for manufacturers to provide central locking on motor vehicles. When that was done, authorities were most surprised by the reduction in other serious offences (other than car theft which the initiative was aimed at). Problem is though, almost anyone can afford a car and a car provides the mobility, anonymity, carrying capacity and means of escape for serious crime.
That provides some explanation why the GNs who can get well off road, or at least set up camp some distance from towns, feel safer. Add the benefit of being one of a flock (watchers of Attenborough will have a deeper understanding of the usefulness of a flock) by sussing out and camping with others.
Still, it is a pity that Government doesn't trust its citizens with a 'squirrel gun' for rabbits for the pot. Better safety for criminals that the victims are known to be disarmed or if not, they cannot access that prohibited 'squirrel gun' or Daisy air rifle. Because the Daisy and the dangerous slugs for same are stored separately and under lock and key, and it is a serious crime to regard the Daisy as a possible defence weapon.
Noticeably, criminal thugs are now monstering families on farms while the farmer is busy tending stock. Years ago no two legged feral would have had the arrogance to drive right up to the farm house and kick down the door for fear that madam might have the .22 or .410 shotgun near to hand. That is 'progressive' politics, but for whom?
-- Edited by Leo on Monday 26th of March 2018 11:08:05 AM
-- Edited by Leo on Monday 26th of March 2018 11:20:21 AM
Totally agree Leo.
Aussie Paul.