Women shooting alone in remote locations or at night?

[The_Traveler]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/26/opinion/the-concealed-carry-fantasy.html?src=me

 

[astroNikon]

Guns aren't needed all the time to feel safe.

one of these in your pocket/purse might go a long way though ==> Amazon Best Sellers: Best Stun Guns

 

[Warhorse]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/26/opinion/the-concealed-carry-fantasy.html?src=me

Oh horse pucky.

The Times, yeah...that's an unbiased news agency if I ever saw one.

 

[JacaRanda]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/26/opinion/the-concealed-carry-fantasy.html?src=me

Oh horse pucky.

The Times, yeah...that's an unbiased news agency if I ever saw one.

LOL, I knew this reply would come soon.
But I thought it would include a link to something showing exactly the opposite info or stats.

 

[The_Traveler]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/26/opinion/the-concealed-carry-fantasy.html?src=me

Oh horse pucky.

The Times, yeah...that's an unbiased news agency if I ever saw one.

Rather than reading the underlying report with figures quoted and respond to that, you want to minimize the point because you don't like the opinion.
That is called the 'backfire effect' (less, popularly 'confirmation bias') and it has been extesnively studied and measured

In Politics, Sometimes The Facts Don't Matter

backfire effect - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger. - See more at: How facts backfire

.​

I await a scathing comment about research, scientists, universities or Michigan, the state where the research was done.

.​

 

[The_Traveler]

In Politics, Sometimes The Facts Don't Matter

CONAN: And when facts are readily available, why are they not enough to change people's minds?

Mr. NYHAN: Well, the problem is, you know, as human beings, we want to believe, you know, the things that we already believe. And so when you hear some information that contradicts your pre-existing views, unfortunately, what we tend to do is think of why we believed those things in the first place.

And, you know, so when, you know, we get these corrections, we tend to say I'm right, and I'm going to stick with my view. And the thing that my research, which is with Jason Reifler at Georgia State University, found is that in some cases, that corrective information can actually make the problem worse.​

 

[pixmedic]

Smartphone stun gun. My wife carries one.

 

[Warhorse]

It is just politics as usual, for both sides of the spectrum.

It is hardly worth arguing the points against or for anymore, it is true that neither side is swayed much by the other.

 

[JoeW]

I've got a couple of comments to make:

1. In an ideal world, you're preventing an event from happening. I'm not sure how well a Concealed Carry permit is going to help unless you have enough warning to pull the weapon, warn off the potential attacker, they have time to realize "this is stupid" and then turn around and run.

2. This is more than just a gender issue. I'm sure it's true for most photographers that once the camera comes up, our situational awareness changes. We are not seeing things the same way we would if there was no camera. I had a tripod develop "legs" when I was shooting at Great Falls with a couple of spectators who walked by, I turned around and it was gone. There are a number of instances where photographers have made the news b/c they were a victim of a robbery or crime....camera gear is attractive and relatively easy to fence.

3. Anything you can do to deter a possible incident is better than having to respond to an attack. I say this b/c...quite simply, if you're responding, the chances are that you're caught by surprise and your chances of handling your weapon (be it a taser, pepper spray, a gun, whatever) aren't good. Even trained professionals (military and cops) will get caught unprepared and fire wildly or not at all--that's part of the principle behind the "Model Mugging" program (that you can carry a weapon or learn martial arts and when you get surprised you fail to use it). If you think I'm exaggerating on this, I want you to think of how many times you were out hiking with your camera at the ready and you missed that elk who jumped across the path or the eagle taking off from the branch over your head or the bear that ambled across the creek crossing. Great shots and you were fumbling to get your camera out or lens cap off and never got off a shot (or it was horribly out of focus). And that's with something (your camera) that you've probably used more often then you any weapon you're likely carrying. I agree with Lew on this point about the likelihood of guns being effective for situations like this. But even if you disagree and decide to get a permit to carry and you train, do realize there is a significant chance that if you're jumped, you'll never get your gun out.

4. So from my perspective, the best options are a combination of planning and situational awareness:
--Think through where you're going to shoot. If it's new territory for you, find people who've shot there before that can give you a better feel for the area. Sometimes you may decide to take a pass on an area b/c you don't have a good feel for the safety level.
--Always carry a cellphone and check to be sure you've got coverage in that area. If not, reconsider if you want to go there. Separate from an attack or crime, you can always break an ankle or a decaying floor gives way and you fall through and find yourself in an unbeaten area unable to get yourself out.
--Pay attention when you get in to parking lots. See if there are police or park rangers near by. Get a sense of who's likely to be in that area and what resources are available (other hikers, police) you can call on. Pick up a map of the area (that shows paths, cabins, rest stops, phone kiosks, etc.
--Consider a companion. Another shooter or two. Join a photo meet-up group and then coordinate shoots to places at the time you want to shoot there. For instance, I set up a night-time shoot on the DC Mall to shoot the Lincoln Memorial, the US Institute of Peace, etc....we got lots of females shooters...but we had safety in numbers (and a couple of them told me this). A dog can be a good asset (even if he's not big or an "attack" dog). BTW, here's a hint if you own a dog...teach him to bark or growl on command. And your command for your dog to growl is: "no bite, no bite." Tell that to a dog that is growling and most approaching individuals will figure they can't "friend" their way past the dog, they're going to take a couple of bites (even from a small dog) and like reconsider.
--As you shoot, always take quick breaks to put the camera down and look round you. Check the environment. Listen for other hikers. Scan for anyone who's being a voyeur of sorts. I had a chance to talk to a Brit who had gone through the British Jungle Warfare School in Malaysia...where they do their jungle training. He was taught that when you're out in the boonies you stop every couple of minutes and just take the lay of things...see if you hear any unordinary sounds, a flock of birds suddenly taking flight, and that when you do this as a habit...you start to acquire a sense that warns you "something's different."

 

[JacaRanda]

It is just politics as usual, for both sides of the spectrum.

It is hardly worth arguing the points against or for anymore, it is true that neither side is swayed much by the other.

Sucks that it is considered politics. One, because it could get the thread locked. Two, because I'm guessing most of us here are not politicians, yet concerned human beings that would benefit from the truth of statistics. I would like to be swayed by the truth. If the truth is that I (more importantly my children) are safer because more people around me are carrying or simply owners, I would gladly be swayed.

 

[The_Traveler]

It is just politics as usual, for both sides of the spectrum.

It is hardly worth arguing the points against or for anymore, it is true that neither side is swayed much by the other.

Again, you don't deal with the facts of the report, just want to get out of the issue by saying it is politics.

That is the classic 'backfire' effect.

 

[pixmedic]

Did I hear the word "politics" mentioned? This thread isn't getting political is it? Of course it isn't because that would be against forum rules!

 

[JacaRanda]

Did I hear the word "politics" mentioned? This thread isn't getting political is it? Of course it isn't because that would be against forum rules!

Nope, didn't see or hear a thing.

 

[JacaRanda]

1. In an ideal world, you're preventing an event from happening. I'm not sure how well a Concealed Carry permit is going to help unless you have enough warning to pull the weapon, warn off the potential attacker, they have time to realize "this is stupid" and then turn around and run.

2. This is more than just a gender issue. I'm sure it's true for most photographers that once the camera comes up, are situational awareness changes. We are not seeing things the same way we would if there was no camera. I had a tripod develop "legs" when I was shooting at Great Falls with a couple of spectators who walked by, I turned around and it was gone. There are a number of instances where photographers have made the new b/c they were a victim of a robbery or crime....camera gear is attractive and relatively easy to fence.

3. Anything you can do to deter a possible incident is better than having to respond to an attack. I say this b/c...quite simply, if you're responding, the chances are that you're caught by surprise and your chances of handling your weapon (be it a taser, pepper spray, a gun, whatever) aren't good. Even trained professionals (military and cops) will get caught unprepared and fire wildly or not at all--that's part of the principle behind the "Model Mugging" program (that you can carry a weapon or learn martial arts and when you get surprised you fail to use it). If you think I'm exaggerating on this, I want you to think of how many times you were out hiking with your camera at the ready and you missed that elk who jumped across the path or the eagle taking off from the branch over your head or the bear that ambled across the creek crossing. Great shots and you were fumbling to get your camera out or lens cap off and never got off a shot (or it was horribly out of focus). And that's with something (your camera) that you've probably used more often then you any weapon you're likely carrying. I agree with Lew on this point about the likelihood of guns being effective for situations like this. But even if you disagree and decide to get a permit to carry and you train, do realize there is a significant chance that if you're jumped, you'll never get your gun out.

Could not have said this better but glad you did. Hoping to see counter responses to it; if there are any.

 

[vintagesnaps]

From what I've understood the thing is with carrying any sort of weapon or device is whether or not you could use it; if you're caught unawares there may or may not be time to react.

I had one experience doing home visits where a guy passed me and nodded and I nodded back and then the realization sunk in, did he have something under his jacket?? I walked very fast the last few feet to the car, hopped in and got the heck out of there. If Mr. Friendly neighborhood drug dealer (and I don't know that but would consider it a possibility) wanted to take me out I don't know that I could have done anything or not to prevent it. But trying to be alert, park close to where I'm going, schedule early mornings before things get hopping, etc. could be preventive (and carrying baby toys probably made me appear as not much of a threat to the livelihood of any Mr. Drug dealer types around).

Of course something could happen anyplace, and thinking about how many home visits we did in our jobs, in 20+ years we had some odd situations but nothing life threatening or close to putting our lives in real danger. So maybe the odds are against an attack or abduction and everyday routine happenings aren't what you see on the news.

Being in a park of course is a situation where in a way, maybe more likely to be a place where you wouldn't expect to have to be too concerned about safety. I agree, prevention and awareness are probably best as much as possible.