That depends... how large of a box is extra-large?

I tell people that your risk of violent crime is less if you bike than if you drive unless you frequently go on bike trails.

I came across a passed out drunk one day, right after a Father and Son went past. We called 911, and they sent 3 squad cars and an ambulance out in a few minutes. Turns out he was one of the regulars, and one of the cops recognized him by sight when he was face down in the dirt. The only other crimes I've seen on the MUP I regularly use are things like dogs running loose and people who don't keep right, pretty tame stuff.

The local newspaper always fans the flames whenever something happens on the MUP. No recent murders, though, as far as I can remember. I think there was a flasher at some point last summer.

Unfortunately, MUPS often become a refuge for all kinds of cowardly detritus.

A couple of years ago, I was passing through an industrial part of the local trail, where wanabee gang-bangers hang around "tagging" local businesses. On a slight downhill, I was approaching a group of punks blocking the way and heard one of them say "let's get him." I stood up and hammered it up to 40 km/h. This old fart surprised them.

I thought let's see who wants a Honjo fender up the arse. They scattered. I was thinking afterwards, what if I'd been an older guy who couldn't sprint up to 40 km/h?

I guess they interpret the "multi-use" bit more expansively than you might like

I ride 18+ miles each way on the W&OD and Custis trails, year round. I've never had an issue. Lots of the riding has been early in the am and later in the evening (ie:need lights)

That said, I've had wierd issues on the Arlington streets. Not bodily harm issues, but there are indeed some wacko's out there.

-Roger

For some people it's not a priority. For me it is, so I do practice draw/fire, mozambique drills etc... But then again, that's my thing.
Many people don't want to carry a firearm and don't want to invest the money or time.
For me it's a love. To someone else, it's a chore. And that's fine with me. If someone doesn't want to, he/she shouldn't.

The trail I take to work is cool during the day.... after dark, it a WHOLE DIFFERENT STORY. I'd rather ride on the very well lit street with some traffic, than get rolled on the trail (Erie Lackwana, Hammond IN). I have my CCW, but cannot bring the weapon into work (in a hospital), so I effectively cannot carry. My other defence is to stay visible, and stay where the people are.

Same goes for pepper spray, too -- or unarmed self-defense techniques. If you're not well trained, and if you don't practice how to use it, it's a long-odds bet you'll be able to use it effectively.

So, you say, what's the drill if you don't have the time to become proficient in the use of a weapon or unarmed self-defense? Well, then you just have to develop good radar and avoid sketchy situations. No, it's not fair and it's not right that because of gender or size or physical condition, some of us don't have the same rights to be safe as others...but it's reality. FWIW, I think that the general perception of risk from a stranger attack is way overblown, but that's not to say that there's no risk at all. I think before buying a gun or signing up for self-defense class or buying a can of pepper spray, people would do a lot better to sharpen up their situational awareness skills. How would you recognize a dangerous situation, and does your perception closely match reality? What makes you think that a situation is really dangerous, how many of those indicators are really stereotypes, and how many real dangers are you overlooking?

Well, I for one find the "your weapon will be taken away from you and used against you" theory to actually be an argument in favor of weapons with greater lethality from further distances. Armed with a knife? Well, you have to get within arm's reach, and if the assailant is better than you it is ineffective. Pepper spray? Well, you have to be within a few yards, it is an irritant not reliably an incapacitating agent, and your assailant just might take the few steps to get you. Same with clubs. That leaves firearms as the best choice. Lethal at a distance, no need to get right next to your assailant. And unless the assailant is wonder woman or superman, they can't count on just taking a few hits while they close the gap on you. Sure death is a rather potent deterrent, if you ask me. And anyone who claims you need an inordinate amount of training and practice to hit a torso sized target at 20 feet with a handgun is someone who hasn't ever shot one and gets their firearm information from watching movies and TV, is blind, or otherwise physically disabled. Few assailants are going to risk that you will miss or fail to fire due to stress.

But as for my local MUP's, They are relatively safe. A few murders over the years: one nutcase jumped out with an ax and killed someone, and a few gang members beat some dude to death one year for no reason. A few rapes over the years too, but these incidents were spread out over a wide area, and considering the use the MUP's get, not a very scary statistic (except for the victims and their families).

It ain't so lethal if you miss.

That's why I find Hand Grenades to be so much more effective. Close is good enough

Yeah but if you are being robbed or kidnapped its not like the criminal is going to try and do it from far away. They are going to wait until you are close and try and get the jump on you. So unless you are going around preemptively shooting people that you think look shady then lethality at a distance is pretty worthless.

This is a variant of the "quick draw" argument against being armed. In this theory, someone thrusts a finger at you and says "bang, you're dead. See, your gun is worthless." For sure, there is little defence against a complete surprise attack with overwhelming or lethal force. But I heartily dispute that is the way many attacks occur. Had the man in the OP's post actually tried to take control and harm the child, a firearm would be of more immediate use than a cell phone. For a weapon to be effective it need not be a defense for every possible scenario. I suspect that the real objection is not how effective a firearm would be, but rather should a firearm be possessed at all.

I used to live off of a MUP; ran about 30-40' beyond my bedroom/bathroom window. I was getting ready for work one morning, and heard a scream that literally made the hair on my neck pulse. I ran downstairs and grabbed my trusty Louisville Slugger and sprinted up to the trail. There was a jogger who was shaking so bad I can only imagine what was going through her mind. Some guy in a balaclava style ski mask thing had apparently run up behind her and accosted her. She told me which way he took off, and I went looking.... couldn't find the guy.
This happened a couple of more times in the next month or so in more or less the same general area. The local PD set up a sting where they assigned some female officers to jog regularly on the trail, and sure enough the scumbag bit. It turns out it was a sex offender that had just moved to the area. I hope he's still locked up.

You're right, because most attacks aren't stranger attacks at all -- which calls into question whether you're really enhancing your personal safety by arming yourself in preparation for a stranger attack on a MUP.

There is one section of a MUP I use that literally scares me.
It is forested and near a salvation army shelter \ day laborer pick up spot.
I have no issues with the homeless but when you turn a corner and come upon 20 people milling around an isolated MUP with drug users \ dealers walking around, it tends to make me a bit paranoid.
It also does not help that I have been spit at by a female drug addict while riding near her (she missed) and shoved off the trail.
Now I exit the MUP, use the street near it, and then reenter it later.

My point would be that you aren't harming your personal safety.

I sense that the crux of the issue is really the right to arm yourself, and all the "what-iff's" and other stuff is designed to convince someone that right should not exist. I personally believe that right exists.

Which part of Chicagoland are you in? I'm in the near northwest 'burbs, and haven't heard of anything like that around here.

Yeah, but "Oh, well, it won't hurt if you do" isn't a strong recommendation in my book.

Meh. You're seeing the "issue" through your filters, meaning that you see constant threats to your "right to arm yourself", and others see it through their filters. The crux of the issue, for you, is defined by your filters. For me, I wonder if there's an "issue" at all, and I think that debates about the efficacy of this or that self-defense method are useless if someone isn't going to commit to developing proficiency in that method. Any method requires competence; if you're not going to put in the work to become competent, you can't be effective.

Too many jerks on those MUPs. I stick to the road - where traffic and strong quads are your friends.

Speaking as someone who has a Black Belt in Kung Fu, I can tell you this is a common but completely inaccurate belief, especially the "unarmed self-defense techniques" part. The human body is disturbingly fragile. It's very easy to cause an injury that will stop any attacker cold and leave him begging for mercy. In just six weeks (probably less), I could teach you a number of very simple, very effective techniques that would allow you to fend off 99% of what you might encounter in a typical street attack. More importantly, these techniques would be simple enough that you'd never forget them, and it doesn't matter how out of practice you are - you could still make them work.

The real problem is that successful self-defense techniques - regardless of weapon - are terrifyingly brutal. The damage they cause - especially the empty-hand techniques - is so horrifying that most people will hesitate to use them. And it's that hesitation which allows your attacker to disarm you, or to put you in a position where your self-defense techniques won't work.

The solution is very simple. You have to decide that your life and safety are more important than that of anyone who tries to harm you and that you will do anything to protect yourself and your loved ones - including killing, crippling, maiming, blinding or otherwise completely (and probably permanently) incapacitating your attacker. If you can truly and honestly say this about yourself, then you can successfully defend yourself with your "weapon" of choice; be it a gun, pepper spray, martial arts, or what have you. If you can't, then yeah, you're better off not trying because you'll end up in a worse situation than you started - and probably piss off your attacker in the process, which is never a good thing.

Unfortunately it's hard to be prepared for any and all incidents. A Fox 40 whistle and a cell phone would probably be the best idea I can think of without carrying a weapon. But if I saw something happening I would definetly do something.

(side note--- My grandfather saw some kid stealing another kids bike. I heard the comotion and came outside and heard the kid tell my grandfather that he should mind his business. I chased the kid a little ways on foot (he had the bike) & then went back inside to get my bike because he was to far away. I found the bike a couple of blocks away dumped in someones yard but the kid nowhere to be seen. Well, the kid who had his bike stolen was gone so I called the cops and had them come to confiscate the bike.)