Forum Index » GEAR » Solo Wilderness Security

Display Avatars Sort By:
Roger Dodger
(RogerDodger) - F

Locale: Wess Siide
[...] on 02/21/2013 21:22:24 MST Print View


Edited by RogerDodger on 11/01/2013 16:14:44 MDT.

Ozzy McKinney
(PorcupinePhobia) - F

Locale: PNW
Whoa. on 02/21/2013 22:23:27 MST Print View

Soooo... I clicked on this thread out of curiosity. Read the first few pages, and then the last few. Whoa.

Tyranny in the wilderness.

Colin Krusor
(ckrusor) - M

Locale: Northwest US
Strange on 02/21/2013 23:55:28 MST Print View

Roger, I completely agree with some of what you've written here. But why the "turban diaper" bit?

Loving freedom is fine. I like that part of what you said. Being racist just makes you sound like a simple-minded buffoon.

Roger Dodger
(RogerDodger) - F

Locale: Wess Siide
the "turban diaper" bit on 02/22/2013 00:22:50 MST Print View

What would you call it? underwear wrap? cotton ribbon? toga?

You can't stand up for yourself and protect your loved ones, "protect" in the true sense of chivalry, if you can't keep your pants up. Much like today's poser gangsters that wear their underwear high and their pants waist low. it's the defeatist uniform. Gandhi couldn't walk 5 mins without tripping on the robe wrap or whatever you want to call his wardrobe.

He used to wear pants in his younger academic years, he gave them up. It isn't functional, it's a statement of intentional submissiveness to attract sympathy.

My comment is unrelated to race. The rest of the people around him were the same race, they wore pants. Not everyone who is Indian wears his choice of wardrobe. Almost no one else.
Ganghi ribbon

Remember this guy in Harry Potter? The British slipped that hint in the movie.

I work with two dozen Indians on work visas, half eat chicken and 4 eat beef. The vegan Indians adore him as a god, the Indian carnivore guys have no respect for him.

For the record, MLK in his latter years was getting impatient with the results of his own passive approach and started leaning toward the Malcolm X direction of proactively taking charge.

Anyway, This thread morphed a dozen times, it's now in the philosophy stage.

To the original post about gear.

Solo Wilderness Security:
pepper spray: legal and mediocre functionality unless 1) the wind is against you, 2) you run out of spray squirts, 3) you are inside the tent, 4) the spray can is not readily accessible, 5) the attack is upon you and you spray yourself. 6) as with any pressurized canister such as iso pro stoves, the effectiveness of the spray is diminished with altitude.

revolver Ruger LCR 1) legal issues in many places. 2) will not accidentally discharge 3) weighs about 1 lb. 4) limited capacity, then reload after 5 or 6 shots. 5) low to none probably of failure or jam. 6) shorter barrel means less accuracy than longer heavier. 7) small enough to carry and packs a big output. 8) ammo effective at any altitude. 9) can be shot from inside the jacket pocket only if you are 007. 10) Rounded design with built-in trigger to slide in pants pocket concealed. better wear a good belt.

Glock 1) surprisingly accurate design, even with short barrel. 2) if carried loaded, will need a holster to protect the trigger from catching on other gear. 3) many pistol can jam, but the Glock has loyal following because it run accurate even after a torture test. 4) unlike the LCR revolver it can NOT be shot from inside the jacket pocket, the slide could catch on the cloth. 5) the joke about Glock is that it's plastic, the polymer makes it lighter. 6) there are hate forums on Glocks for their fat grip (they made a SF:small frame aka short fingers)

Edited by RogerDodger on 02/22/2013 01:10:47 MST.

Roger Dodger
(RogerDodger) - F

Locale: Wess Siide
[..] on 02/22/2013 01:17:27 MST Print View


Edited by RogerDodger on 05/08/2014 00:54:38 MDT.

Travis Leanna
(T.L.) - MLife

Locale: Wisconsin
Ghandi=diaper/mule/Harry Potter elf on 02/22/2013 01:47:48 MST Print View

"I have no respect for Ghandi or passive resistance (aka passive victim)"

"Die with your boots on with dignity, is far better than dying as an old man wearing a turban diaper."

"My point is that Ghandi was a domesticated mule."

"Gandhi couldn't walk 5 mins without tripping on the robe wrap or whatever you want to call his wardrobe."

Holy Sh!t. I'm really not sure what to say. I'm all for standing up for ones self and fighting for freedom, but your statements about Ghandi are about the Sh!ttiest things I've read in a LONG time. Seriously. Not to mention the astounding ignorance.

I really am truly sorry you think this way. It's sad.

Edited by T.L. on 02/22/2013 01:59:58 MST.

Roger Dodger
(RogerDodger) - F

Locale: Wess Siide
Re: Ghandi/diaper/mule/Harry Potter elf on 02/22/2013 02:11:57 MST Print View

I understand your comments. In the west, we perceive the people of India as somewhat a homogeneous group. By knowing many folks from India in college and at work, albeit the age group (mostly in their 20s - 30s and few in the 40s) is a biased selection, many Indians born in India, educated in the UK and US, and working in the US have a strong disgust for Gandhi. Remember that he was shot (edit: not stabbed, thanks Travis for the accurate fact verification) by his own people.

The marketing in the US and that old movie is that he was MLK Jesus savior Elvis of India. He was a pop culture icon in his era, but a significant population of the current generation in India strongly reject his philosophy, as more Indians travel to the west and experience successful wins that were accomplished by direct strength of power.

I think more people in the West that were infatuated with the John Lennon philosophy like many hippies of the 60s 70s, feel stronger connection about the mystical East, than the actual people that live in the East every day.

I'll give you another absurd example for contrast.
Hawaiians today in Hawaii only wear tribal costumes for the tourist shows, otherwise they wear casual clothes like we do in California. President Obama is from the state of Hawaii. Let's pretend that President Obama does press conferences wearing the Hawaiian Luau tribal costumes, to make a philosophical point about simplicity and being humble. The local Hawaiians (who wear every day casual clothes) will be terribly offended by that retro wardrobe.

That is how many young Indians feel today about Gandhi's philosophy and wardrobe. It makes their culture look 500 years behind, since he is the icon but does not represent the majority of the youth.

Gandhi is not the father or king of all Indians. His philosophy doesn't speak for all or even the majority of Indians.

Edited by RogerDodger on 02/22/2013 09:36:52 MST.

Travis Leanna
(T.L.) - MLife

Locale: Wisconsin
Re: Re: Ghandi/diaper/mule/Harry Potter elf on 02/22/2013 02:52:09 MST Print View

>Remember that he was stabbed by his own people.
Ghandi was shot 3 times in the chest by Nathuram Godse. An extremest.

John Lennon was shot 4 times in the back by Mark David Chapman. An extremest.

Lincoln was shot by his own countryman. Kennedy was shot by his own government (debatable). Martin Luther King Jr was shot by his fellow American.

I guess they were all useless too since their own people murdered them.

>That is how many young Indians feel today about Gandhi's philosophy and wardrobe. It makes their culture look 500 years behind, since he is the icon but does not represent the majority of the youth.

Of course his wardrobe doesn't represent today's youth. He died 65 years ago. Do young Christian boys walk around in clothes Jesus wore? He also chose his wardrobe in direct defiance of British rule and occupation. Something today's current generation of India would have little direct experience with, since it ended 66 years ago.

India's flag, which depicts the spinning wheel, was a direct result of Ghandi's work and influence. A spinning wheel that he often made his own clothes on, in protest of British rule (boycotting foreign-made goods)

Edited by T.L. on 02/22/2013 03:29:21 MST.

Ian B.

Locale: PNW
Books are good on 02/22/2013 06:53:47 MST Print View


There are some fairly major points about Gandhi's philosophy and how he developed it over the years which cannot be covered in this thread.

With all due respect, if you feel that your current position is correct and that there is nothing else to learn then by all means carry on. If you are interested in learning about Gandhi from his own words and only want to read one book, I'd recommend this one:

I guess you'd come out the other side with more or less the same beliefs since you've spent some time developing your opinion based on your research and experiences but this book will give you a better understanding of Gandhi.

I've put myself in harms way in the defense of others, including working as a peacekeeper in the Balkans. I walked through entire villages which were wiped out and the survivors displaced. I worked as a EMT at WTC. Trust me, I get your underlying message.

I have no intention of allowing myself or any other innocent person to face harm at the hands of a predator if I can do something to stop it. On the same token, violence committed in defense should always be an absolute last resort. In the case of national defense, when diplomacy has failed or imminent danger. In the case of defense of self or the innocent, the measured act is the lowest use of force on the continuum which will resolve the issue.

+1 Glock 26.

Roger Dodger
(RogerDodger) - F

Locale: Wess Siide
The Gandhi philosophy 1946 on 02/22/2013 09:54:05 MST Print View

I was not alive in 1946, but many of the online resources were consistent on this quote by Gandhi, how he would have ended the Nazi holocaust from the Jewish victims point of view. Basically consistent with looking so miserable, to gather sympathy for an aggressor to voluntarily stop the oppression, or for someone else to take up arms in proxy defense. Here's the Ghandi wisdom quote below.

- - -
In a post-war interview in 1946, he said, "Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs... It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany... As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions."[159] Gandhi believed this act of "collective suicide", in response to the Holocaust, "would have been heroism"
- - -

If you cannot see the flaw in his "feel sorry for me" philosophy, I cannot add further discussion.

When an aggressor has revealed himself (or her?) in a wilderness mugging, home invasion, or hiker rape, drug farm protection, they are beyond the point of sweet talking them into a compromise - that happens in the movies. In real life - people go missing, then found dead.

Sure a less lethal approach is preferred. I have scared off a coyote pack and a black bear before, but I was prepared to respond in escalation if the animal threat was persistent. Humans on the other hands, can't be easily deterred with yelling "Go Away Bear"

Edited by RogerDodger on 02/22/2013 10:11:52 MST.

Diplomatic Mike

Locale: Under a bush in Scotland
Ghandi on 02/22/2013 10:15:31 MST Print View

Sometimes i despair for the future of the human race.

Ben 2 World
(ben2world) - MLife

Locale: So Cal
Re: The Gandhi philosophy 1946 on 02/22/2013 10:37:48 MST Print View

"If you cannot see the flaw in his "feel sorry for me" philosophy, I cannot add further discussion."

I can. Much depends on what resources you have. As Americans, and the world's sole superpower, it would be ridiculous for us to "throw ourselves into the sea...". We prefer to 'nuke' our enemies instead -- because we can. And so you ridicule.

But if you are the puny underdog, "live free or die" often means die.

All of us can think of examples where brave defenses bore fruit. And there are also plenty of examples where brave defenses bore death and ultimate destruction. The peaceful resistance of the Balkan states won the people their independence. The fierce resistance of the Palestinians won them little sympathy but countless deaths and suffering -- and we're talking 60+ years of zero progress.

Not saying you are wrong -- because sometimes you are right. But only sometimes. By that, I mean your view about zero tolerance for oppression and tyranny... is too simplistic. Zero tolerance? Rarely are things in life ever so black and white. And it's too easy to subscribe to 'zero tolerance' when our country is the current top dog.

Ian B.

Locale: PNW
I've reconsidered my position on 02/22/2013 11:13:29 MST Print View

... and have decided to paint half my body blue, carry a Nerf Mace, and scream "THIS.... IS.... SPARTA!" randomly throughout the day (purposefully mixing historical events bastardized by Hollyweird.)

I think we can officially call this one a stalemate.

Happy trails all.

Roger Dodger
(RogerDodger) - F

Locale: Wess Siide
Re: Re: The Gandhi philosophy 1946 on 02/22/2013 11:28:12 MST Print View

Have you seen the size of India on a map? it's not puny. And it used to be even bigger prior to the Pakistan split.

The population of India is: 1.2 BILLION.
The population of the US is: 313 million.
The population of the UK is: 63 million.

India's population is 4 times that of the US.
India's population is 19 times that of the UK.

The land area of the US: 3.8 Million sq miles
The land area of India: 1.3 Million sq miles

India's land area is roughly 3 times smaller than the US.

So roughly 16:1 density. India is no puny country.

For perspective, and possibly humor, imagine you and your wife on a 2 seater couch in the US. If that love-seat 2-person couch represented India, it would have 32 people sitting on it.

When a nation is this dense in population - it is a super power. By population numbers alone they could have escorted the British out of the perimeter on day 1 of the occupation by swarm. 19:1 population ratio in favor of India. Instead that culture of submissiveness did them a huge disadvantage, and the Imperialism factor took advantage of that weakness.

Today - India has nuclear reactors, jet fighter planes and sattelites launched in orbit.

Like I said earlier, freedom and dignity is not for everyone. Given a choice to avoid a fight at no cost, that is the path of least resistance. But when a person or group sacrifice the dignity and safety of the people that depend on them - that is failing to be responsible.

Edited by RogerDodger on 02/22/2013 11:33:58 MST.

Ben 2 World
(ben2world) - MLife

Locale: So Cal
Re: Re: Re: The Gandhi philosophy 1946 on 02/22/2013 11:37:45 MST Print View

Again, overly simplistic in your analysis. It's seldom just population or land mass. It's whether the people are united or not. Back in Gandhi's time and before -- they weren't united. As well, the people were unarmed for all intent and purpose.

Cultural submissiveness? The various Indian kingdoms, nawabs, etc. did fight back. But they lost due to their vastly inferior armament. Would you ever consider Russians as culturally submissive? Methinks a final charge a la Churchill against the Mongols back in the 1300's would have meant annihilation. But they were smart enough to cater to their Mongol overlords for a couple of hundreds of years -- and fought back successfully when ready!

Finally -- you surely aren't arguing that "zero tolerance / armed resistance" is always the answer?? My point is simply this: there is no single solution that works every time. Much depends. If you cannot see the flaw in your "zero tolerance" philosophy, then using your own words, "I cannot add further discussion".

Edited by ben2world on 02/22/2013 11:47:20 MST.

Diplomatic Mike

Locale: Under a bush in Scotland
Help on 02/22/2013 11:42:09 MST Print View

Britain had machine guns to help negotiations.
The US follows the same empire building model.
Economic 'aid' can be painful.

Roger Dodger
(RogerDodger) - F

Locale: Wess Siide
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Gandhi philosophy 1946 on 02/22/2013 12:12:57 MST Print View

I read your comment and understand that many see "zero tolerance" to aggression as a fanatic extremist crazy talk to be discounted.

I repeat I always favor avoiding conflict when possible. However I maintain the Zebra versus the Mule analogy. The zebra is cost prohibitive to tame.

It's always emotionally disconnected and mathematically doable to justify headcount under oppression, and quantify numerically the quality of life under foreign occupation.

when it happens to someone you don't know, its just "whatever" rationalize in a variety of ways, media hype, denial, saying that there are two sides to every story, all that funny talk. Then it happens to many people you know, and the reality is clear.

Example: someone somewhere in the world gets abused. it's "whatever" but your journalist neighbor is found dead in a ditch after apparent heavy interrogation - that is real to you.

I recall a silly Far Side cartoon... Had Noah been truly wise, he would have swatted that mosquito as soon as it boarded his arc.

African Slavery started with one boat, 400 years later and countless generations and lives ruined. Same with Hitler... of course hindsight is perfect vision, stop that first Nazi mosquito (zero tolerance) before it grows into a swarm.

Daniel Fish

Locale: PDX
... on 02/22/2013 12:14:18 MST Print View


Edited by on 06/12/2013 00:15:28 MDT.

Peter Evans
What a trainwreck this thread is... on 02/22/2013 12:33:10 MST Print View

This forum needs some active mods... This is supposed to be the gear section of an ultralight backpacking forum.
I feel I've wandered onto some militant racist survivalist forum.

As a paying customer I'm sad to see it. Just my opinion.

Roger Dodger
(RogerDodger) - F

Locale: Wess Siide
Re: Solo Self Defense: Big Honkin Knife? on 02/22/2013 12:44:42 MST Print View


the disadvantage of a knife is that it requires arms length proximity, which is already too close against an adversary animal or human. For comedy, please refer to the Michael Jackson music video "beat it" or west side story, street gang knife fight. Knife fight does not protect against multiple assailants.

How can an aggressor disarm you of a firearm when they are 15 ft away? A knife however is only functional at point blank, in which you could be disarmed of it.

in case of a bear attack, unless you are Jules Vernes' fictional character Michael Strogoff, I don't think we have the skill to stab an attacking bear or cougar... and if you do... bear will be very upset. with you. may be John Rambo can in a movie, but not us trail hiker types.

For bear - pepper spray will give you a better chance, than hand to claws (?) knife combat with a bear. A cougar will stalk and jump you from behind silently and slice your jugular and drag you by the neck before you could hear the twigs and leaves rustle. Watch National Geographic channel, see how the cougars strike their prey with speed and accuracy.

I'm sure to many I sound like a lunatic or keyboard commando, but I'm seriously a wimp when it comes to mountain lion territory after a few attacks on bicyclists and hikers in the SoCal area in the past few years. Those deep woods isolated areas I don't go solo. No reflex or arsenal can outwit a stalking cougar.

Edited by RogerDodger on 02/22/2013 13:05:55 MST.