“A U.S. academic has been gang raped in Papua New Guinea by nine armed men who hacked off her blonde hair and left her husband tied naked to a tree,” dailymail.co.uk reports. “The 32-year-old woman, who was conducting research into exotic birds in a remote forest on Karkar Island, was walking along a bush track with her husband and a guide on Friday when they were set upon by the gang armed with knives and rifles. Her husband and the guide were stripped and bound by the men, who then used a bush knife to hack off the woman’s hair before raping her in a terrifying ordeal lasting 20 minutes.” The right to armed self-defense is a human right. Wherever it’s prohibited, whether that’s Chicago Illinois or Papua New Guinea, bad things happen. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves—and endangering us all.
Not to diminish the atrocity, but I doubt the three of them would be able to defend themselves since the bad guys had rifles and outnumbered them 3:1, especially if it was an ambush.
Thugs are the same the world over…they want easy targets, even outnumbering 3 to 1 gets dicey when everyone is packing heat. Nobody wants to be the one who takes a bullet so the rest can overwhelm the prey.
+1
+1
Agreed. I doubt they would have overcome their assailants, however their assailants may not have attempted the attack knowing that some of them may have been killed.
See Screwtech02’s comment below. It’s true that they might still have attacked had the party been armed, it’s also true they might have passed on the idea as not worth the risk. Either way, being armed at least gives you a sliver of a chance. Disarmed, you can only hope you don’t run into trouble.
The rapists had a choice. The ones attacked did not. If the victims were armed, I’m sure that would have changed the dynamic or caused the event not to happen.
Unfortunately, the thugs only understand power and not decency. I wish the worst for the thugs.
Maybe not, but wouldn’t you rather be able to try?
I would like to have the opportunity to defend myself and my traveling party, yes. But if a gang of nine armed men took us by surprise I’d probably have to end up putting down the gun, being quite outnumbered and outgunned. I could have tried to shoot my way out of it but could end up shot right away.
Obviously it’s impossible to know how it could have gone down as the article doesn’t say how many rifles or how they were ambushed. And, as others have stated, having guns could have been a deterrent…or they could have shot the armed members (since it was a surprise attack) and still had their way.
It sounds like if someone is going to be traveling around this area they should have armed escorts who are prepared (armor, firearms, training) to encounter thugs.
She should have peed herself right, because even the remote possibility of defending themselves is possibly remote and thus invalid, right? Tool.
Because they are outnumbered they should be denied the right to defense?
He’s decrying their odds, not denying their rights.
I disagree. If the three were armed with AR-15s, I do not believe the rape, kidnapping, and torture would have ever occurred. Even a double barrel shotgun would have been better than nothing. Now, these scum are free to roam and commit atrocities somewhere else. Gun control is not a good thing for those it controls.
Peter, don’t worry, bud, you didn’t “diminish the atrocity” (whatever the fluke that means). You completely missed the point. If everyone cannot be armed, then only the predators will be armed. And that leaves the rest of us unarmed prey. Arming oneself is not some magic force shield that wards off the possibility of attack. Arms are the opportunity to defend against the attack, should you decide to do so based on your judgment of need in the context of a specific attack. Furthermore, Peter, a freely armed citizenry changes the entire context for predators. They must factor in the possibility that they could get themselves shot for their troubles. Some predators will take that chance. Some will succeed. But some may decide its not worth it and others will be thwarted and some may well die trying. The point is, an armed citizen has a defensive option. A disarmed citizen is a victim waiting to happen. Your answer is (I paraphrase) “let the poor woman be raped. They probably wouldn’t have been able to stop them, anyway.” Peter, that is your solution? Peter, you didn’t “diminish the atrocity”. You blessed it with a nihilistic “Why bother?”
I said nothing of the sort, nothing close. Did I say keep them disarmed? Did I even hint at that? No, I did not.
I said that, in this case, the odds seem to be against the victims, armed or not. Having arms would help the victims narrow the odds, but to me it doesn’t seem like it would do much in this case.
If three armed men break into your home or business and catch you unawares, being armed yourself would help but you still have some strong odds against you.
These people were foolish for heading into a dangerous area without means of defense. Does this excuse the actions of the offenders? Of course not.
“I doubt the three of them would be able to defend themselves since the bad guys had rifles and outnumbered them 3:1”
Peter, I’m going to do something hate to do: admit I was wrong. Trudat: you did not say they keep them unarmed. I was wrong to say or imply you said such a thing.
But what was I to infer? You doubt they would be able to defend themselves. OK. Why? What’s your point? That this should not have been a DGU moment? That they should not have tried? Or that the situation was hopeless from the get-go?
Maybe they were outnumbered 3:1. Maybe one flash of a gat would have scattered the baddies. Maybe they wouldn’t have come near the vics if they’d seen a mini 14 propped against a tree. Maybe whatever. Maybe they were helpless, hopeless victims. What’s your point? Clarify and end my fevered speculations.
My point was just what I said. I have my doubts that these folks would have been able to defend themselves. They could try, sure, but the odds seem to be strongly against them given the circumstances. That’s it.
Also even if the fight resulted in a pyrrhic victory – one where the two good guys kill all the bad ones at the cost of their own lives. I believe if you ask any man alive who has had a loved one sexually assaulted they would agree that they’d gladly give their lives to prevent it.
That said, I’m sure the Persians with their superior forces thought the Spartan’s were easy targets. – Imagine a horn-rimmed glasses-wearing academic with the proper mindset and equipment. He would be a walking trojan horse.
Indiana Jones was an academic…
So we should just sit there and let it happen? If there had been a good possibility that at least one of those creeps would’ve been shot and killed, there’s a good chance that they would have moved on to find a softer target. Some hope is better than none.
The Gurkha soldier in India that fought off a gang of over 40 armed robbers and would be rapists on a train with a Gurkha knife would probably disagree; a violent and immediate offense, even with just a knife, can and does turn the tables against predators not expecting a counter attack.
Maybe if they would have seen they were “armed” this wouldnt have happened?? Sight deterance? Chicago/DC would have the whole United States this way if possible.
She should have tried urinating or vomiting on her attackers. Or at least told them she was menstruating or had the clap or something.
HAHA stupid Colorado senators. If a person is sick enough to do this to a woman I doubt he would care about a little urine or feces, in fact these sickos may actually like it.
I wonder if this couple will become pro gun when they come back home?
Maybe not. They will have seen and experienced violence at the hands of armed perps. If it furthers their world view, they will resist the idea that an armed victim has better odds, be it through deterrence or actual self-defense. The incident may reinforce the idea that gun=violence, and thus all guns must be banned.
Where was her rape whistle?
It was locked up and unloaded in a safe at home.
Without a gun, life is but a chance.
Life is but a chance, with or without guns. But your chance is a lot better with a gun at your side.
True that!
Stories like this make me completely sick…that people are capable of that. I can imagine no worse thing than to see my wife attacked and be helpless to defend her…
I understand the point of this post and agree completely, but…I wish I hadn’t read it.
Unarmed white US intellectuals on a PNG island. Guess their talking skills didn’t dissuade the natives, huh? But she hopes her story will inspire other women to just say ‘no’ to rape. That’s all ya gotta do.
Pretending they even get suspects, good luck getting anyone to testify. PNG makes the USVI look like an open society.
Even after all the recent rapes in Mexico and India, the latest in India being a five year old girl for chrissakes, I find it stupefying anyone anywhere still recommends anything short of armed defense.
Anything less than advocating armed defense is in practice condoning rape. Where are the statistics for how many times “saying no” has stopped any rape?
But they were just cavorting amongst the noble natives, soaking up a little multi-culturalism…enough with the snark, though.
Being unarmed is incidental. The fundamental flaw here is attributing civilizational norms to where there is no evidence of any, of assuming the ability to operate normally in an alien context with superimposed mores. It’s arrogance combined with ignorance. There is a price to be paid for that, and they paid it.
Exactly. I wouldn’t hesitate to be armed and hanging around in a variety of primitive “cultures”. There are many circumstances when they will be friendly and hospitable – they aren’t inherently “evil” per se. But when they start slicing up the 10 year old’s vajay-jay, or raping an 8 year old to cure aids, one had better get a mental handle on what kind of primitive animals they are really dealing with. There are genes for all sorts of modern behaviors – they ain’t turned on in this crowd.
My dog has emotions and feelings, but his reasoning skills leave something to be desired. I would never abuse him simply because he isn’t as capable as I, but the minute he bit anyone I would kill him without more than a second’s hesitation. I would feel horrible, but I would also intellectually know who had to win in that Darwinian scenario.
kinda off topic but whenever i watch jeremy wade on river monsters go to places like this i wonder if he has armed gaurds with him or not?
I’ve actually wondered that too. He has a penchant for going into some seriously iffy places. I wondered that on the South American Challenge episode on Top Gear too.
That South America challenge Top Gear episode is one of the best ever! Not just best Top Gears, but best shows period. Just awesome.
I’ve got a “I am the Stig” sticker on my truck. And yes, I’ve wondered about their security, though I don’t think they’d be keen on Clarkson or May…. Hammond? Who knows.
In all seriousness though, I echo Jack’s comment above. The point made is very clear and relevant, but not a post I enjoyed reading.
The thought that ‘auntie-beeb’ let alone “Health and Safety” would have turned them loose without some sort of armed protection is truly hard for me to believe.
LongBeach,
Definitely not May.
http://www.gifbin.com/985933
Hammond’s reaction is priceless.
Not to excuse or justify what happened, but you have to think that maybe the decision to walk around in that area without protection might have smacked of poor judgement. From the article in the Daily Mail, here are a couple of other recent events in Papa New Guinea:
“In February a 20-year-old mother accused of witchcraft was dragged from her village, taken to a rubbish dump, stripped and burned alive near Mount Hagen, in the centre of the country.
And earlier this month an elderly woman was beheaded with a bush knife after being accused of sorcery.”
If this is the sort of thing happening over there, then you are kind of dumb to be walking around without an armed escort.
That line of reasoning, Jim Barrett, will get your cojones (assuming) cut off in the court of popular public opinion when applied to, say, a woman wearing a mini skirt after dark in South (or any quadrant of) Chicago after midnight. The “she was asking for it” defense might have grounds in some base reality (such as the one in which we live). But is is no excuse for the crime, and a very dangerous gambit in the afore-mentioned court. Two questions, Jim: 1. Was she asking for it? 2. If you’d have been one of the alleged men and had a gun, would you have used it?
No one is suggesting it as a defense. It’s just smart to be prepared.
These two would not have been armed,even if they would have had the option. I lived and worked in Africa for 5 years and PPNG is very much like that. I know the type. Researcher, NGO, Aid worker. They hate guns and would never carry one. They all have the “no weapons” sticker on their vehicles (it’s a silhouette of an AK with the red circle crosscut over it). This would have never been a DGU because they would not have carried.
Wow. All I can say is, Wow. How you take a comment about using a little more common sense than God gave gravel and turn it into some sort of “she deserved it” polemic is beyond me. But, since I’m always up to a challenge, let me see if I can explain it to your “New York Time Book Review Closeted Liberal mind.”
If you really had understood my point, you probably could have come up with a bit better analogy. Let’s see. Suppose you walk down the street of downtown Kabul with a shirt that says “America Rules, Osama Sucks” Now, let’s further assume that you get what is likely coming to you walking around that neighborhood with that shirt. Would you try and make the point that you did not deserve what you got just because of the shirt or would you (or more likely your next of kin) realize that you did a very dumb thing in a dangerous area and what happened was not all that surprising.
Same thing here – walking around rural PNG without an armed escort is just looking for trouble. It doesn’t make what happened right – it was very wrong – but it could have been avoided simply by using a little common sense (or taking some armed guards).
To answer your questions, no, she was not “asking for it” but her poor judgement put her into a situation that she couldn’t have avoided. What do you think the odds are that she will be found out in rural PNG bird watching without guns and/or guards the next time?
I’m not sure what your other question has to do with anything. If I’d been one of the rapists would I have used a gun? Can’t say as I don’t see myself ever being in that sort of situation.
One other thing – please don’t do the liberal news media thing and use the word, “alleged”. Call these thugs what they are – rapists – there’s no alleged about it.
She’s lucky her hair wasn’t hacked off at the neck line. Randy
time to go raze a village
for the natives’ sake, hopefully a loved one of mine doesnt encounter such a terrible event in that country.
I wish all US “academics” could undergo similar brushes with lessons of real life. Maybe then they wouldn’t be indoctrinating entire generations into being subservient, willful fools. Idle, comfortable, safe lives are poison to a free society.
FOAD. I’m an academic.
You wish something like this to happen to someone? what kind of person wishes something like this on a person?
Do unto others as you would do unto yourself.
Oh, you mean the college professors that I go target shooting with and hold regular discussions about the importance of the 2nd Amendment and a manageable size of government?
Generalizations rarely do more than illustrate the ignorance and stupidity of their user. (Yes, that is a generalization; this is an exception).
FOAD +1
Would I like to have more fellow academics with worldly
experience and a healthy dose of realism? Definitely.
But your assertion that a “brush” of real life wound
change opinion or thinking is at best a red herring.
The outcome will always be different. Kathy Boudin
was the get away driver for the Weather Underground.
After 22 years in prison, she is rewarded with a
professorship at Columbia. She still espouses the same
rhetoric that fellow professor Bill Ayers does.
Obviously the “reality” of prison hasn’t phased her at
all. Maybe you should get more active in asking the
whys and hows a professor gets hired rather than
wishing ill on everyone.
This would have not been a Defensive Gun situation. It would be more like an armed patrol situation. Not one damn thing they could have done being ambushed like that. Except die. This is in now way like the streets of Chicago or any other city.
Seems like even the wilds of the jungle are not safe from the most savage and cruel of the predators.
Terrible ordeal… maybe the guide should have been armed? It’s true that in an ambush, the odds are often not in your favor… but being completely unarmed and unaware the area certainly did help things either.
I’m curious about the woman. I’ve met many students/profs
who’ve gone overseas for research. In my experience about
2/3 have little to no idea what they’re in for. For some, places
like Papua or the savannahs of Africa have only been seen on
National Geographic and appear to be pristine utopias. I’ve
also met several grad student and even a couple of assistant
profs that, because they’ve had one or more problem free trips,
actively avoid and even show disdain for basic safety concerns.
Did this happen in part do to the woman’s choices in personal
safety? Did she or her husband ignore advice or warnings?
Did they ask someone local or from the State Dept. about
safety concerns? Did they, knowingly or unknowingly, make a
huge faux pas or commit a crime?
Am I trying to provide justification for the rape? Absolutely not.
But just because she has some of my sympathy doesn’t mean I
don’t want to know the whole story.
They say it was here 4th trip in the article, if memory serves. She also had guide.
Gary Player tells a story about playing gold in South Africa. His caddy carried his bag and a large bore rifle. You never knew when a large cat, pack of hyenas or a Cape Buffalo would decide to wander across the fairway. These ecotopias around world come with deadly threats from two and four legged predators. One of the reasons my career didn’t advance as far as it might have was my basic requirement for flush toilets, running water and a population that was fluent in English. Much of the world makes the Southside of Chicago look like Arlington, Virginia. You go there at your own risk because you get paid to do it.
Hmmm… methinks that “Mandela’s credit card” would be good to have in addition to the rhinoceros gun.
I note that the d is adjacent to the f.
Methinks that doing more than “stand up and say no more violence against women” is in order here.
I feel awful for this woman and her husband.
BY ALL MEANS, trust the local fauna to benevolent, and the police to protect you from harm.
While they’re at it, PLEASE trust hippos to be safe to pet and feed in along rivers.
I’d rather die emptying the contents of my AR into a gang of rapists than submit to them. I’m a woman, I get to say that.
Mina,
We would live in a much better world if all men and women had even half of your resolve and courage to stop violent, evil people. Sadly, we “sheepdogs” are a minority.
Please continue to share your message with others.
I prefer the term “border collie” 😉
My wife only carries a 7 round .357. She gets to bludgen the last two to death.
And lest you think I’m exagerating, she told the sales person “I want the 686, not that Ultralite thing. I want something heavy enough to beat them to death with if I run out of ammo.”
Whenever I hear someone talk about the Military switching over to Glock I just roll my eyes. The next step after pistols have failed is hand to hand. A 1911, like the 686, is a piece of steel that can be used as bludgeon. Even the aluminum framed M-9 is suitable for cracking heads. The Glock and similar pistols are just plastic toys with the magazine is done.
Smart lady. I never thought of that, but a very good point.
Is gun, is not supposed to be safe. Is heavy,heavy is good, if gun not work you can hit them with it. Boris the blade.
Hmmm… I’m going to be a linguistic nit-picker.
While there is in this country a supposed ban on cruel and unusual punishment, does the ban apply if the punishment is unusual but not cruel? Or the reverse?
For example, does the ban prevent tying down a convict and having puppies lick him for ten hours?
Rapists, I feel, should upon DNA proof of guilt face the wery worst that medical science can devise, for as long as they can be kept alive to experience it.
I believe the interpretation is that both cruel AND unusual are
banned. In this case the “and” is a conjunction not a qualifier.
FYI the licking thing was an actual torture used in Rome and
medieval Europe. People would be put in leg stocks and have
their feet soaked in salt water. Goats or sheep would then be
let in the lick the salt. Depending on the person this could
cause asphyxia via laughter, occasionally resulting in death.
Okay I guess I’m going to be the absolutely, horribly insensitive one and I’m shocked that nobody else has already said it. Yes, this is terrible and I’m sorry for even thinking it… but….
9 guys raped her. Starting the clock at the start of the ambush, stripping and tying up the guys, cutting her hair off, and all of the gang raping the whole ordeal took 20 minutes? Even if the raping started immediately, 9 guys in 20 minutes is a little… I mean… right?
The story says they were scared off by something they heard in the woods, not that they finished.
Let me say it here Johnny, you are one sick puppy with a twisted sense of humor. And had I not been at work for the last 8 hours I would have made the same comment hours ago. What was she, attacked by a pack of jackrabbits?
Perhaps three-pump-chumps?
Honest, dig up pics of the PNG slightly-beyond-cro-magnon native “hotties”. Not too shocking the rapists were overly enthused by the prospect of an exotic blonde. Although rape is still generally about power, there always remains the sexual component. Especially for those who are eagerly awaiting “sloppy 5ths”…
I’m reminded of the Sydney Aus. woman who earned a living teaching University courses on Enviromental Appreication, a doctorate acredited course (1989).
The highly educated Professor took a flight to Kakadu WHP, rented a kayak and ignoring warnings from the local rangers (twice) VENTURED ALONE into dangerous waters. It was apparent that she ignored the territorial grunts from large male crocks as she continued to intrude into their space. Her death was not swift nor painless, it may have taken as much as 20 minutes before her rag-doll body sucumbed to oxygen starvation, but that was after a 10 minute scrambble for her life as she tried to climb a nearly verticle mud riverbank. She died alone and childless, one of Darwin’s little noted victory’s.
This is hy women without a Male Partner fall prey to mis adventure and visa-versa
Stone age people with stone age mentality.
Stupid stupid woman. She visits there multiple times. Gets raped and her blonde hair cut off and she says its not a story because shes white. It sure is.
White women get raped all the time in the 3rd world. A woman got raped by a Haitian man she worked with and then wrote an article about the ordeal and how she was grateful for the experience because she could now fully understand their rage at whitey.
Cultural Marxism is a blindfold on reality.
Now that I’ve had some time to ponder this, if PNG was an armed society, this would not have happened. Not because these three could have stopped a 9 man rape gang, but because the rape gang wouldn’t have existed in the first place. The locals, protecting themselves and their families, would have already killed these men.
F.Y.I.
Absolutely nothing stops a similar event from happening in the U.S. — especially in remote locations. Yet another among countless reasons to be armed at all times.
Friendly suggestion: when you are out in extremely remote locations — especially with female family members — be heavily armed. At a minimum carry a large caliber handgun with two spare magazines (total of at least 36 rounds of ammunition) and have a rifle handle whenever possible. Remember the saying, “The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to your rifle.” If 5 or more attackers choose you, that 36 rounds of handgun ammunition isn’t going to last very long. Oh, it is also extremely helpful if multiple members of your family/party are armed as well.
When you are in the wilderness you also have to account for the four legged predators as well. Be sure you bring something that can take down the largest threat. If you are in any kind of bear country you want to be carrying something larger than a 223, i.e, shotgun with a rifled barrel or at a minimum a rifle chambered in 270 Winchester.
I agree w/ alot of the words used here but it appears many here have not spent serious time in a 3rd world country. If you used force to defend your life (0r life of another) against a native when you are not one . . . you had better be prepared to battle their legal system as well – or flee.
The DGU rules that apply here will get you life in what passes for a prison or killed. You have to shoot to kill anyone in the vicinity – armed or not, wounded or not, putting up a fight or not. If one of the BG’s turns and runs unarmed he could still tell a prosecuter. You will not get any kind of fair treatment.
I got jumped in a 3rd world country in 05. Had I killed or even seriously hurt the guys who did it – I would have been on trial had I stuck around. Forget that at least one was under some kind of influence. Forget the fact that they attacked me. Forget the fact that foreigners had been attack close to that area.
Hmm. And why wasn’t the guide armed? I mean…oh screw it. This is an atrocity and could have been a much different outcome if the victims were armed. Period.