# So who packs a weapon on board?



## TSOJOURNER

I have allways been an advocate of the 2nd ammendment and believe in the right to personal protection. Of course depending upon where you are cruising having a weapon on board may be more trouble than it is worth (unfortunately) in countries where freedom and the rights of private citizens mean nothing to thier governments.

I personally like the idea of having a weapon on board for personal defense so I have a stainless .38 (usefull for dipatching large halibut) and an 870 Marine magnum (usefull for dipatching 2 legged predators). The 870 will also come in handy for the trip to AK I plan to take sometime in the future. In fact I have had someone go as far as climb on board my boat and open the companionway hatch at which point I made it clear if they didn't leave now they never would. 

Anyway, this is more of a "I wonder who else packs" type of question than an attempt to impose my personal/political views. I strongly believe that those who are uncomfortable or incapable of safely handling weapons should not have anything to do with them untill someone has schooled them on safe handling anyway.

So who's packing what?


----------



## peptobysmol

I'd bring some heat as well.


----------



## painkiller

Oh, boy. Here we go again...


----------



## Wookie1974

Well - I know what you'll say about this, (obvious from your statements) but carrying a weapon MAY keep people from stealing your extra boxes of corn-flakes (upon pain of death - GULP!), but it MAY get you locked up by the (legitamate) authorities in most countries in Europe (and probably the world, but who's counting,) in addition your cries of "give me liberty or give me death!" while awaiting sentencing in the brig WILL NOT be viewed favorably by the local populations - whom are not the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free" you envision them to be.
The whole second amendment thing is an anathema to most of the world, and the attitude of Gun-Toting-Americans is either viewed as frieghtening, or laughable, usually both.
The fact is - people in other countries don't WANT everyone to own guns. (Read: THEY...not their governments, whom are democratically elected in elections arguably freeer than our own.) If people at the marina in Corsica find out you're packing, they will avoid you, probably report you and will view you as a nutty criminal, not a patriot.
The continuing gun-debate in the US is an American issue. When visiting OTHER countries, it is US who impose on THEM when we disrespect their laws. So - if you go somewhere where a gun in private ownership is illegal, or you do not have the permits to carry it - then please leave it at home.

And before you think I'm an anti-gun zealot, recognize that I do own guns (which I left at home in SC when I moved here) , and I do think people should be allowed to own them. I just don't care for the emotion, politics, and hollywood theatrics of the modern American disscussion surrounding them.


----------



## painkiller

Before you guys go too far on this thread, you should probably search for the several other gun threads that already exist and read them thoroughly end to end. Most points have already been made, many insults have been thrown, and at least one person has been asked to stop contributing to the forum. 

So tread lightly.


----------



## smackdaddy

Didn't someone get shot too?


----------



## imagine2frolic

Come on Pain, Let's sit back, and watch people beat their heads against the wall. AGAIN!..hahahahahahahahaha.......*i2f*


----------



## JohnRPollard

painkiller said:


> Before you guys go too far on this thread, you should probably search for the several other gun threads that already exist and read them thoroughly end to end. Most points have already been made, many insults have been thrown, and at least one person has been asked to stop contributing to the forum.
> 
> So tread lightly.


Very true (although to my knowledge no one was asked to leave).

So I agree, let's not turn this into a 2nd amendment debate.

The only thing I'll add is that there ARE places in Alaska and Canada where it would be foolish to venture ashore WITHOUT a gun. A lot of folks who limit their travels to "civilization" don't seem to realize this.


----------



## chall03

Oh dear. Here we go. I should know better........I should walk away......but......



docrn said:


> Anyway, this is more of a "I wonder who else packs" type of question than an attempt to impose my personal/political views.


Oh really didn't you open your post with this??



docrn said:


> Of course depending upon where you are cruising having a weapon on board may be more trouble than it is worth (unfortunately) in countries where freedom and the rights of private citizens mean nothing to thier governments.


I am a citizen of one of those 'countries'. You may of heard of us......we have the Kangaroos and the BBQ shrimp - although people often get us confused with Austria. Now please don't presume to speak on behalf of our freedoms and rights, because for what it is worth the vast majority of our citizens are very happy with Australia's stance on firearms.


----------



## nk235

Wookie1974 said:


> Well - I know what you'll say about this, (obvious from your statements) but carrying a weapon MAY keep people from stealing your extra boxes of corn-flakes (upon pain of death - GULP!), but it MAY get you locked up by the (legitamate) authorities in most countries in Europe (and probably the world, but who's counting,) in addition your cries of "give me liberty or give me death!" while awaiting sentencing in the brig WILL NOT be viewed favorably by the local populations - whom are not the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free" you envision them to be.
> The whole second amendment thing is an anathema to most of the world, and the attitude of Gun-Toting-Americans is either viewed as frieghtening, or laughable, usually both.
> The fact is - people in other countries don't WANT everyone to own guns. (Read: THEY...not their governments, whom are democratically elected in elections arguably freeer than our own.) If people at the marina in Corsica find out you're packing, they will avoid you, probably report you and will view you as a nutty criminal, not a patriot.
> The continuing gun-debate in the US is an American issue. When visiting OTHER countries, it is US who impose on THEM when we disrespect their laws. So - if you go somewhere where a gun in private ownership is illegal, or you do not have the permits to carry it - then please leave it at home.
> 
> And before you think I'm an anti-gun zealot, recognize that I do own guns (which I left at home in SC when I moved here) , and I do think people should be allowed to own them. I just don't care for the emotion, politics, and hollywood theatrics of the modern American disscussion surrounding them.


I have been on sailnet a long time as well as other forums know all about the other gun threads...however for once wouldn't it just be nice if someone could just reply to what the man asked? He simply asked to respond if you carried a gun aboard or not and specifically said did not want to discuss the politics of it. If he wanted to hear someone's opinion on views of America, Europeans (and I guess your qualified to speak for all of Europe and especially the entire marina of Corsica?), other countries laws, and your personal opinions on the subject, or why you moved where, he could have just sat back and read the hundreds of the posts on the threads that have been started to discuss the politics of it. So please do us a favor and chime out.

A simple no I do not carry guns on board would have sufficed.

I own a rifle but I do not carry it on board for myself.


----------



## PalmettoSailor

I have no plans to visit foreign waters in the near future, but weighing the remote possiblity of a "ballistic emergency" against the certainty of having to check into whatever foreign country you visit, I'd err on the side of of the law, even if I disagree with them. Based on the experinences of others, it seems you're far more likely to be vicimized by goverment officials for having a means of self defense, than you are to need the means of self defense. It sux either way, but the odds of having a problem with the law are higher in my estimation and the consequences may be as bad or worse than being robbed.

Its interesting that I've never felt the need to have any of my many firearms aboard the boat. In fact the only reason I might ever have one on board is because I do often carry when traveling and I wouldn't want to leave a firearm in the car. I've traveled the US pretty widely on my Harley and carried a 9mm Khar K9 or .45 cal 1911 every inch of the way, including in juristictions that would throw me under the jail for having the audacity to posses a means of self defense. However, I always felt far more exposed on the bike than I do when on the boat and felt the risk of running afoul of the law was less than the risk of an encounter with some nefarious sort in that case. Everyone that believes in the right of self defense will have to do their own calculus to weigh the risks and take their chances. I believe the laws should not deny the right of self defense but the fact is they do in large measure and carry or not you are taking on a level of risk.

Just a final note about shooting into the water, its a dangerous activity because bullets can skip and travel long distances. There have been cases of people on shore being killed by a ricochet from someone shooting rifles at targets in the water. I can't see much of a reason to be shooting at fish or other targets on the water.


----------



## painkiller

imagine2frolic said:


> Come on Pain, Let's sit back, and watch people beat their heads against the wall. AGAIN!..hahahahahahahahaha.......*i2f*


  I must be getting old. I used to enjoy a good train wreck.


----------



## chall03

Now Pain, where is your sense of fun??

What we need is a thread about someone wanting to circumnavigate in a bluewater production yacht for under 2k preferably a Tartan, who will be 'packing heat' around the globe, his boat complete with Solarstik on the Pushpit, 18 Epirbs for when he runs out of ice and a picture of Obama on one side of the Cabintop and dear Smack on the other


----------



## PalmettoSailor

chall03 said:


> Now Pain, where is your sense of fun??
> 
> What we need is a thread about someone wanting to circumnavigate in a bluewater production yacht for under 2k preferably a Tartan, who will be 'packing heat' around the globe, his boat complete with Solarstik on the Pushpit, 18 Epirbs for when he runs out of ice and a picture of Obama on one side of the Cabintop and dear Smack on the other


Don't forget the Ronca and Manson Supreme.


----------



## Zanshin

nk235 said:


> ...however for once wouldn't it just be nice if someone could just reply to what the man asked...


Yes, I do.


----------



## chall03

nk235 said:


> for once wouldn't it just be nice if someone could just reply to what the man asked? He simply asked to respond if you carried a gun aboard or not and specifically said did not want to discuss the politics of it. ,
> .........


See for me he kinda negated that request when he made the following obviously political, obviously inflamatory statement...



docrn said:


> Of course depending upon where you are cruising having a weapon on board may be more trouble than it is worth (unfortunately) in countries where freedom and the rights of private citizens mean nothing to thier governments.


You can't say something like that and then add but I don't want to get into the politics of it............I mean please.

No I don't carry a firearm. It would be legally difficult/impossible here. If I was cruising internationally, I would think hard about vessel security but there are other safety issues that would concern me a great deal more.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

OH my god!!! Now I am more afraid on you DOCRN than the pirates. You forget to add in your arsenal some granades and rocket lunchers, "dispacht halibut" whats that????

I hope I dont see you in the trades men,.


----------



## painkiller

midlifesailor said:


> Don't forget the Ronca and Manson Supreme.


And a pair of bulldogs!


----------



## Zanshin

In international waters you may only carry armament aboard that your vessel's flag allows. Thus grenades and rocket launchers are out for most cruisers (although I must admit that I'm a Class III dealer and could purchase aforementioned grenades - but legally only keep them on a US flagged vessel).
Thus, when travelling internationally, you will not only need to declare such when entering other countries, but may also be asked to legitimate your possession of such.


----------



## bubb2

chall03 said:


> I am a citizen of one of those 'countries'. You may of heard of us......we have the Kangaroos and the BBQ shrimp - although people often get us confused with Austria. Now please don't presume to speak on behalf of our freedoms and rights, because for what it is worth the vast majority of our citizens are very happy with Australia's stance on firearms.


We in the USA do not think it is very sporting to harvest shrimp for BBQ with shotguns, As I heard it's done down under.


----------



## bloodhunter

Docrn,
Don't carry weapons on board, but I'm sailing in safe waters. Back in 70's when there were real problems with drug runners hijacking boats in the Caribbean, we had weapons aboard when we left Lauderdale. We felt the risk was high enough even though what we were doing was illegal. Don't know what I'd do today. Though I have to admit when some of those overpowered speedboats come by at 50 knots or more 20 feet off my bow I begin to long for a Gatling gun


----------



## erps

We carry around home waters. We don't when we go to Canada and we haven't decided when we head down for Mexico.



> "dispacht halibut" whats that????


large fish routinely shot before they are brought aboard to avoid damage to the boat or injury to the occupants.


----------



## jackdale

JohnRPollard said:


> The only thing I'll add is that there ARE places in Alaska and Canada where it would be foolish to venture ashore WITHOUT a gun. A lot of folks who limit their travels to "civilization" don't seem to realize this.


I just got back from the Broughton's. There are tours for watching bears. In spots where bears could be a problem, we Canadians would ask that you not go ashore and respect the "rights" of our wildlife. Alaska may be a whole different story as it is a whole different country.

Check out this publication for details.

Jack


----------



## chall03

JohnRPollard said:


> The only thing I'll add is that there ARE places in Alaska and Canada where it would be foolish to venture ashore WITHOUT a gun. A lot of folks who limit their travels to "civilization" don't seem to realize this.


Ditto for the northern extremes of Australia. Ok not too many bears around, but the crocs are just as welcoming.

Also If our future cruising plans take us into Indonesia/Papuan waters then we would suddenly be in the cruising outside civilization category and we would have to think long and hard about vessel security.....I don't know if firearms would be our answer though.


----------



## St Anna

1. Chall. Common sense will prevail against a croc - a flare and an oar in the dinghy. Our northern neighbors have a very dim view of us with weapons - they lock you away and forget the key. Or they shoot you.
2. Gooday Erps - still fightin fit?


----------



## chall03

Yeah I have heard horror stories of yachties getting into real trouble in Indonesia. At best I think they take your weapons off you at your port of entry for safe keeping until you leave...

If I come up against a Croc I think the outboard at full throttle would be my most effective defence  I have never fired a gun in my life, the closest I have ever come was paintball and I sucked at that.


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> Ditto for the northern extremes of Australia. Ok not too many bears around, but the crocs are just as welcoming.
> 
> Also If our future cruising plans take us into Indonesia/Papuan waters then we would suddenly be in the cruising outside civilization category and we would have to think long and hard about vessel security.....I don't know if firearms would be our answer though.


I lived in the Solomons for 2 years. Not much piracy back then in those waters. Of course, PNG was always a little nuttier - and better armed.

Still, it would be an incredible area to sail. When you go, post pics dude. It's an amazingly beautiful place...just with insanely bad food.


----------



## chall03

Coconut Yam with Breadfruit??? 

Will do on the pics Smack. Gotta get the right boat first, and save up the freedom chips, then the Shakedown cruise up the east coast....the plans are there though.


----------



## erps

St Anna said:


> 1. Chall. Common sense will prevail against a croc - a flare and an oar in the dinghy. Our northern neighbors have a very dim view of us with weapons - they lock you away and forget the key. Or they shoot you.
> 2. Gooday Erps - still fightin fit?


Greetings St Anna,

Still trying to maintain the appearance of fightin' fit. 'fraid if it goes for more than two minutes though, I'll be pukin' when it's done.


----------



## JohnRPollard

jackdale said:


> I just got back from the Broughton's. There are tours for watching bears. In spots where bears could be a problem, we Canadians would ask that you not go ashore and respect the "rights" of our wildlife. Alaska may be a whole different story as it is a whole different country.
> 
> Check out this publication for details.
> 
> Jack


I wasn't referring to well-travelled eco-tourism locations, where folks go ashore en masse to view satiated grizzlies that have gorged themselves on the salmon run.

I was referring to REMOTE areas, where humans rarely venture and bears are less acclimated to their presence. I read an article a few years back about a sailing couple that nearly lost their lives on the coast of Newfoundland (upper Labrador) to a very aggressive polar bear (which continued the chase even as they fled land in their dinghy). When they told the _Canadian_ authorities about their encounter, the authorities replied that they should never go ashore without a gun, and that it would be wise to have one ready at anchor as well.

The publication to which you linked indicates that bringing a firearm into Canada is no problem at all so long as it is declared. I certainly know plenty of hunters who head north of the border during the season and bring their own equipment.


----------



## MtnMike

To answer the question; yes, I plan on having a couple of firearms on board. I'll have cheapo older guns that I won't miss if they happen to get confiscated along the way. 
For a statement; It's my understanding that if you declare firearms at entry there is ussually no problem. I've not heard of the person that has been arrested for declaring a firearm. It can be a problem if the country you are traveling through wants to keep them at the point of entry and you don't plan on going back that way. But hey, that's the risk.
Do they really arrest you if you declare having firearms in Australia? I was under the impression that they either kept them till you checked out or sealed them in a locker.


----------



## erps

> Do they really arrest you if you declare having firearms in Australia?


From Noonesite:



> Firearms must be declared on entry. All military-type firearms (greater than .22), machine guns, pistols, revolvers, ammunition, as well as flick knives and knuckledusters are prohibited imports, and will be sealed on board or taken into custody at the first port of entry. Arrangements can be made to transport them to the port of departure if sufficient notice is given of that port and the date of departure. Sporting rifles and shotguns may be kept on board if a permit is obtained from the police and there is a suitable storage facility. This last condition also applies if prohibited imports are to be sealed on board.


http://www.noonsite.com/Countries/Australia/?rc=Formalities#Clearance


----------



## bloodhunter

Do any of you Aussies know if our one-hand-opening rigging knives count as flick knives and are prohibited imports to Australia. Got an email from Boye knives a copuple of weeks back asking Boye owners to write their congressmen in opposition to a bill that might classify a one-hand-opening rigging knive as a switchblade and it set me wondering??


----------



## sww914

After about a gazillion gun threads I've decided that it's probably not worth the paperwork nightmare in each foreign port. Usually nothing happens that requires a gun so the equation is out of balance. A lot of hassles to carry around something that I will probably never need. Machetes are cheap and plentiful.
So, no.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

sww914 said:


> After about a gazillion gun threads I've decided that it's probably not worth the paperwork nightmare in each foreign port. Usually nothing happens that requires a gun so the equation is out of balance. A lot of hassles to carry around something that I will probably never need. Machetes are cheap and plentiful.
> So, no.


True. Agreed some government make personal protection so difficult for average people it deters people from carrying on board. I beleive the couple that were raped/hacked to death by some local thugs wish they would have spent a few bucks on some machetes themselves however. Not to mention some martial arts training in machete fighting. Seriously though, I bet this couple would have given anything for a little snubnose .38 in their final moments togethor. 

WOW. My apologies to those of you in countries where you have succesfully eradicated those pesky firarms. I forgot this sight is more of a global forum but I am an AMERICAN and here we believe in the freedom to keep and bear arms and I'm not going to apologize for it.

Anyway I am a 4th generation combat vet and figure I have had my fill of being overseas in screwed up places, so not to worry, I won't be headed to any countries where firearms are not allowed besides Canada but there are ways around that (I'll ship to the AK boarder before I enter CAN waters). I am only intersted in sailing my part of the world Hawaii, AK, US west coast. Really just wanted to hear from sailing GUN OWNERS and see what they carry.

I didn't want this thread to turn into this but I suppose if your country doesn't trust the peasants, err um citizens, with the ability to defend ones self and property maybe you shouldn't bother posting because you have no worthy contribution to make to this particular thread. No point in leaving droppings in my post if you're not allowed to have guns anyway right? Now lets see who can resist the temptation to tell the evil gun owner how wrong he is shall we??

So back to the original intent of my post (for those of you sailing armed in free waters). What do you pack on board?


----------



## St Anna

In response to Aussie laws. 
1. Declare firearms and they will either seize and store until you leave - I am unsure about licensed and onboard lockers. If you leave from a different port to the one you entered ( as one would) you have to pay for the transport of the weapons to the departiure Port. [In New Guinea - you have to go to the Port of entry or lose the stuff] We all know almost every Yank has weapons on board, and so do customs so they obviousy let a lot go undetected. If you act like a clown and tell them your interpretation of your laws whilst in an Australian port, they might feel the need to search more thoroguhly.
2. Certain martial arts blades are prohibited - and the customs website shuld give examples (& photos) of prhitbited imports. 
3. A' rigging' knife wont upset the customs people as its purpose states it is for ' rigging' [ remember- they are not required to think too hard]
4. In response to DOCRN - now we know how cool and tough you are - Do what you want to do, dont step on my toes and its all cool. Please try and resist an urge to throw in a cheap shot in each sentence unless you are after a response - maybe FC thread is where we may meet. PM me if you want. I wont be able to answer for a few days as I dont have internet or phone coverage on the water.


----------



## GeorgeB

I usually pack food, beverages, and extra clothing when I go sailing. It is all but impossible to shoot skeet from the deck of a moving sailboat and I've never felt the need to kill a jet skier or power boater (incidentally, shooting people, or even at people, is illegal in California.) It is also against federal law to shoot, kill or otherwise annoy marine mammals. Having shot off hundreds of rounds (black powder blanks) while doing race committee duty and having plenty of experience with shotguns and salt water, I can tell you that they rust up pretty good (they call it "stainless", not "stain free" for a reason.) Gun stays home. So my question to you is why do you feel the need to "pack"? I docked my boat in down town Oakland Ca. for 15 years and never had a reason to "pack". Heck, the drive to and from was infinitely more dangerous than being on the water.


----------



## St Anna

George - you got it. As much as I am in agreeance with all you say, the occasional jetskier is alive today because I didnt have a firearm on board. Surely, one can just shoot them as a sport, that cant be illegal anywhere can it.

I do have a very sharp Admiral on board. She can be very dangerous. Enough said on that!!


----------



## erps

> So my question to you is why do you feel the need to "pack"? I docked my boat in down town Oakland Ca. for 15 years and never had a reason to "pack". Heck, the drive to and from was infinitely more dangerous than being on the water.


Good question. Police response on land is a fraction of the response time on the water around here. On the remote possibility that you run into trouble, you're more likely to have to deal with it on your own.

I pack all sorts of safety equipment and spare parts to help deal with emergency situations. Can't pack everything though, so it comes down to priorities.


----------



## jldooley

*packing heat *

Ok 2 points:

pt 1, 
I had a friend from Australia visit he my family last year, he was shocked I have an antique shotgun in my house. very friendly about it still curious why. "don't you have police here" was his point

pt 2 
I drink while and or after i sail. I don't mix Alcohol and guns. 
I'd rather drink than rubb my gun.


----------



## erps

> pt 2
> I drink while and or after i sail. I don't mix Alcohol and guns.
> I'd rather drink than rubb my gun.


I imagine that more folks are killed in the U.S. mixing boats with alcohol than mixing boats with personal carry.


----------



## GeorgeB

In my forty years of boating experience, I can't think of a time where having a gun onboard would have had any benefit at all. Remoteness? Slow response times on the water? How does that figure in? Some guy runs his generator all night in a remote anchorage and you do what? Are you planning on shooting off any loose halyards on a neighbor's boat? Do you honestly believe that roving gangs of jet skiers ravage sail boaters a la "Mad Max"? Using the guns and booze argument is like saying "since no boater has died in a thermo nuclear explosion, it should be legal and proper for boaters to be armed with nukes for personal protection." The only act of piracy I've experienced in the USA</ST1 was the occasional boat yard bill. And I suspect that using a gun in negotiations would land you in jail way before the yard knocks off a hundred bucks for gelcoat repair.
<O</O
What is the purpose of packing anyways? If your plan is to disable other boats, don't you need something of a larger caliber? And rapid fire too, so you can get a greater number of rounds on target? Therefore, is the best protection an M60 or 20mm? How about something in the rocket genre - like a lau? If it's close quarters combat, shouldn't you be thinking taser instead? A shotgun blast in your cabin would make a bloody mess of things. Your money is better spent on a ceramic knife - and that is to cut Kevlar or Dymena lines (serrated knives are almost useless for this work) and not for reenacting your favorite scenes from Pirates of the <ST1Caribbean</ST1.<O


----------



## TSOJOURNER

GeorgeB said:


> I've never felt the need to kill a jet skier or power boater (incidentally, shooting people, or even at people, is illegal in California.) It is also against federal law to shoot, kill or otherwise annoy marine mammals.) Gun stays home. So my question to you is why do you feel the need to "pack"? I docked my boat in down town Oakland Ca. for 15 years and never had a reason to "pack". Heck, the drive to and from was infinitely more dangerous than being on the water.


Glad to see you have never felt the need to murder innocent people or harrass marine life George. Are you saying that gun owners do these types of things when they have weapons on board? Common misconception is people with guns aren't responsible or are prone to do the moronic, sadistic acts you have oddly brought up. I am glad you have never "felt the need to pack" and hopefully no one else will ever be happy you didn't "pack" either. Most importantly I respect your decision not to carry.

*Guess I'm just glad we live in a country were we have the choice to carry or not.* Sadly our Aussie friend has no idea what that is like. BTW it is pride that you are detecting and was my reason for not wanting to leave what I like to call "free" waters, not an attempt to show you how cool I am. I don't see any point in trying to be cool or impress people I don't know (or do know for that matter) especially over the net. I am merely looking to hear from like minded individuals.

I do plan to cruise to areas were there are very large bears that see you as food and food (large halibut that can break your leg while thrashing about in a small cockpit) that can hurt you if you don't kill them before you bring them on board. The easist way to do this is a bullet to the brain before yarding it on board.

Look. I am a nurse at a prison. I have dedicated my life to taking care of people and have never taken pleasure in harming others. In a way I wish I was still ignorant about the evil that happens in the world. Seems like many of us (myself included many years ago) live in a bubble. We see violent movies and watch the news showing all of the horrific things that happen to "other people" never considering it could just as likely have been you or your family that was murdered, raped etc., etc.. To me a weapon is an icon for freedom, a hobby, a tool, and form of insurance. You hope you'll never need to use it but it there if you do need it.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

erps said:


> I imagine that more folks are killed in the U.S. mixing boats with alcohol than mixing boats with personal carry.


Yes that is an absolute fact erps.

George your rediculous over the top fantasy responses seem sooooo San Francisco. :laugher

I'm sorry I can't help it. I (like the rest of the country) am waiting for Kalifornia to fall off the continent. Not really  but what is up man? Is there somthing in the water down there that just makes people mental or what? Why would you come up with such an off the wall arguement (killing jet skiers?)???

Maybe liberalism trully is a mental disorder? Ah, we cool George, we cool. At least we all have one thing in common here. We all love to sail! Maybe we should just leave it at that.


----------



## St Anna

DOCRN. 
I have a far free-er way of life than you can imagine.

I would like to think that we are all missing the point in the other person's comments.

Enjoy your sailing. I would love to sail to Alaska, BC and cruise down your west coast. Looks very nice part of the world. Its on the bucket list.


----------



## GeorgeB

Well, I'm certainly glad you understand satire. Because misinterpretations like that could lead to my maiming or death if you cannot discern nuance (and you have your gun in hand). You may find alcohol down the gills a much safer way dispatching a large fish than risking shooting a hole in your boat. I have dispatched 100# halibut with a baseball bat. You have changed the tenets of your original premise - that is what guns do you carry on board? Not "what should I do for bear safety in the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com







Alaska</ST1</st1:State> backcountry?" To answer that, get a 44 magnum in a holster. Those bear wizzers are amazingly effective too. I'm all in favor of celebrating my citizenship and the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1US</ST1</st1:country-region> constitution. In fact I'll show my support of the eighteenth amendment by having a beer after work. People normally demonstrate their patriotism by wearing flag lapel pins and not by packing heat. Just because you can carry a gun mean that you should. Your day job in the prison is infinitely more dangerous than sailing and it would be wildly inappropriate for you to bring a gun to work. So why bring it when you recreate? Rather than misinterpret ting my satire, perhaps you need to examine your own psychology. You are placing an importance on carrying a gun that is way out step with the vast majority of the boating community. You will not find yourself very welcome in this community if you openly declare or brandish a gun. You and I have much different backgrounds. Where I come from guns are tools. I've used them to put meat on the table and I even used them to earn spending cash (shooting coyotes). So I ask myself what would I (or you) use this tool for on a boat? I can't think of a valid use. And remember, I used to spend my weekends in <ST1<st1:City w:st="on">Oakland</st1:City> <st1:State w:st="on">California!</st1:State></ST1


----------



## Cruisingdad

You poor guys need to take after your favorite Moderator here and combine grilling and defense. This is why NO ONE WILL SCREW WITH CD!!!










- CD


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Cruisingdad said:


> You poor guys need to take after your favorite Moderator here and combine grilling and defense. This is why NO ONE WILL SCREW WITH CD!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - CD


OMG! Do they make the less lethal taser version of that? My veggie burgers and shrimp will only leave a bad taste in my mouth if cooked in an implement of death and destruction like that... Oh, yes I need them cooked on the left side of the grill please...

Hah. OK. Lame joke but awesome grill man!


----------



## erps

> In my forty years of boating experience, I can't think of a time where having a gun onboard would have had any benefit at all


I was thinking the same thing about that stupid bell the C.G. requires on my boat the other day when I dug it out of the bottom of a locker for a voluntary safety inspection.



> Remoteness? Slow response times on the water? How does that figure in?


Try calling 911 out on the water if you ever find an intruder on your boat.



> So I ask myself what would I (or you) use this tool for on a boat? I can't think of a valid use.


So the rest of us should rely on your limited life experiences with self defense to make choices for ourselves? I'll take a pass on that and rely on my own judgement and experiences. Let's see, I've had my patrol car shot while it sat in my driveway at home. I've held the hands of men and women who have just been raped, stabbed or beaten. I know about response time, because we, the police, no matter how fast we drive, usually get there after the violence. People are responsible for their own defense. I don't have a problem with folks relying on the "remote risk" plan for their defense. Just don't push that plan on me. I'd bet money that family members of law enforcement have a higher concealed carry rate than average citizens and the thing about concealed carry is, you're not even aware of it.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

GeorgeB said:


> Well, I'm certainly glad you understand satire. Because misinterpretations like that could lead to my maiming or death if you cannot discern nuance (and you have your gun in hand). You may find alcohol down the gills a much safer way dispatching a large fish than risking shooting a hole in your boat. I have dispatched 100# halibut with a baseball bat. You have changed the tenets of your original premise - that is what guns do you carry on board? Not "what should I do for bear safety in the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alaska</ST1</st1:State> backcountry?" To answer that, get a 44 magnum in a holster. Those bear wizzers are amazingly effective too. I'm all in favor of celebrating my citizenship and the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1US</ST1</st1:country-region> constitution. In fact I'll show my support of the eighteenth amendment by having a beer after work. People normally demonstrate their patriotism by wearing flag lapel pins and not by packing heat. Just because you can carry a gun mean that you should. Your day job in the prison is infinitely more dangerous than sailing and it would be wildly inappropriate for you to bring a gun to work. So why bring it when you recreate? Rather than misinterpret ting my satire, perhaps you need to examine your own psychology. You are placing an importance on carrying a gun that is way out step with the vast majority of the boating community. You will not find yourself very welcome in this community if you openly declare or brandish a gun. You and I have much different backgrounds. Where I come from guns are tools. I've used them to put meat on the table and I even used them to earn spending cash (shooting coyotes). So I ask myself what would I (or you) use this tool for on a boat? I can't think of a valid use. And remember, I used to spend my weekends in <ST1<st1:City w:st="on">Oakland</st1:City> <st1:State w:st="on">California!</st1:State></ST1


George it is illegal to brandish a firearm. I carry the shotgun in a waterproof pelican case and the 38 in the overnight bag. Never ever has anyone in the marina or group of sailing friends ever seen the weapons. The OP was who packs a weapon onboard and I did want to avoid the 2nd ammendment thing. Only had a handfull of legit responses to my post. Most responses (yours included I'm afraid) were off topic. Re-read my post George. Guns are tools where I am from also (taken many deer, elk, over the years although I prefer archery).

Needed or not (hopefully not) is a question that cannot truly be answered. No one can predict ones future and is the reason why I never asked the question "should guns be on boats?" but I sure did get some opinions on that particular topic! Sailing in the SF bay area I'd say not so needed. Sailing in remote areas of AK I'd say your dumb if you don't.

I hope you never regret your decision not to carry as I agree the most dangerous part of your weekends are the trip to the boat and back. Oakland has some rough neighborhoods...


----------



## bubb2

docrn;511140
Look. I am a nurse at a prison. I have dedicated my life to taking care of people and have never taken pleasure in harming others. [/quote said:


> You had me right up to and untill the statment above. I marrried a Nurse. You have loss all creidtabley with me. Every time my wife wants to play doctor with me after I have bugger myself up. She says it's not gouing to hurt, I know she liying. She takes great pleasure in my screaming and jumping around. It's a nurse thing!:laugher


----------



## nk235

My view is a gun is a tool on board a boat that can be carried for any purpose whether it self defense, hunting, fishing or any other reason. Its a lot easier and much much more common to hurt someone or do something foolish with a multi thousand pound sailing vessel than a gun carried by someone as a tool aboard the vessel. The OP did not come on here and ask about tactics to defend pirates or anything else. He just wanted to know who carried what guns for U.S. cruising. Carrying a firearm is also perfectly legal in the United States so I can see why carious people would be extremely frustrated with someone from Australia ranting about how everyone who has a gun is an idiot and wants to hurt everyone. Nobody asked anything about Australia gun laws or your opinion on carrying a gun in the USA. 

Obviously you are against them and in your 40 years or whatever have never had a reason to use one and I respect that and would never call you an idiot for not wanting to bring one on your boat - not only for the fact that it is plain rude but also because I don't know anything about how you sail or what you want to use it for. You could have spent your entire life sailing on in an urban protected harbor. Not that there is anything wrong with that or am I implying you did that what so ever but it is a big world and people sail in many different locations - some where having certain tools such as firearms on their boat makes a wise decision and again not saying that they would ever have to even touch it but it is there just as a tool incase you need it. 

Anyway I didn't want to jump in on this thread anymore and I don't want to come off as a jerk but I just don't understand why people have to be-little others especially when they ask about something perfectly legal and practical for their part of the world when the person causing all the trouble lives thousands of miles away.


----------



## tdw

I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again but this USAian thing about guns is seriously weird to many of us non USAians. Seriously weird indeed. (edit - I mean that both from a pro and con viewpoint. I am not just saying that the pro gun lobby is weird I am saying that the need to constantly bring the damn subject up at all, is weird.)

That said and without wishing to cast aspersions on this most moronic of subjects perhaps some of you might like to chip in with an answer to this. "How many times and over how many years have you actually needed to use or even brandish your gun in anger whilst on board ?"

I'd also like to express my thanks to those of you who have cut Australia from your cruising plans because we won't allow you to carry guns in our country. 

ps -Smack...The Solomons...where were you ? I had friends who operated a couple of low key resorts on or close by to Guadalcanal for some years. One was up at a place called Tambea and the other on Tivanipupu. Despite the recent unrest its a fine place the Solomons. Definitely on our list of places to visit.


----------



## GeorgeB

OK., so I think we can agree to disagree on this gun issue. If I follow the thread, you are the only one in this informal poll to openly "pack". (The fellow in Washington hinted, but I believe never really came out and said so much.) You have your answer. I come from <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com







Washington</ST1







<ST1Idaho</ST1</st1:State> to put things into perspective. My nephew is currently into bow hunting, I prefer to chase birds around. My "narrow" experience in sailing covers <st1:State w:st="on">Alaska</st1:State> to the SOC and over to <st1:State w:st="on"><ST1Hawaii</ST1</st1:State>. Many thousands of sea miles and never had the need for a gun on board. Thank you for your concern as I hope never to be a victim of a violent crime. Likewise, I hope you or your love ones are never the victims of a gun related accident. In re-reading your original post (you have to admit you put in a lot of 2nd amendment editorial content in there), you talk to having scared off an intruder on your boat. It would be much more illuminating recounting this experience. On a different note, how long have you owned your Cascade? What are your cruising plans?


----------



## nk235

tdw said:


> "How many times and over how many years have you actually needed to use or even brandish your gun in anger whilst on board ?"


Why would you assume someone would want to use or even brandish their gun in anger? To me THAT is very weird. It is also "weird" for me to understand why people not from the U.S. care to insult or take over a thread of someone asking about something perfectly legal for their own country NOT yours.


----------



## nk235

And as one more side note - I don't think everyone should have the right to own guns and to be honest I wouldn't mind if the USA took up stricter gun laws as there are a lot of wack jobs out there that have them and shouldn't. I am not a gun activist or anything even close. I just don't like how people assume so much and constantly put people down and weirdly assume people want to have a firearm to use out of anger...I know a knife can be used for many more reasons than a gun on board a boat so don't jump down my throat for this one but a knife can just as easily kill someone if the user wanted to...I don't go an assume you want to use your knife out of anger do I?


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Yes I do. A stainless PPK in 380 auto. It is a tool, it isn't displayed or discussed.


----------



## SEMIJim

tdw said:


> I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again but this USAian thing about guns is seriously weird to many of us non USAians. Seriously weird indeed.


*shrug* It's seriously weird to many USAians, as well.

I guess the thing is, tdw, that some of us were brought up with firearms and some were not. To those of us who were: Guns are just... there. No big deal. For some (hunters, law-enforcement officers, military people and so-on) they're a tool use to achieve an end. For others, like me, they're a hobby. (I do have a concealed pistol license, but I rarely carry. Don't feel the need.) To those who were not brought up around firearms, I guess they're strange and scary.

The thing that irks gun-owners is that many non-gun-owners aren't happy just letting us be.



tdw said:


> That said and without wishing to cast aspersions on this most moronic of subjects perhaps some of you might like to chip in with an answer to this. "How many times and over how many years have you actually needed to use or even brandish your gun in anger whilst on board ?"


Never needed to use a firearm in self-defense. Hope I never have to. I would hope I'm sensible enough to never "brandish [my] gun in anger," while on board or elsewhere. Display or use it in self-defense: Yes, if necessary. Brandish in anger: No. Brandishing in anger implies a loss of self-control, and if there's one thing you need whilst wielding lethal force, it's self-control.

Jim


----------



## painkiller

Cruisingdad said:


> You poor guys need to take after your favorite Moderator here and combine grilling and defense. This is why NO ONE WILL SCREW WITH CD!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - CD


The awesomeness of that is beyond comprehension. If I could be so bold as to make one teeny tiny suggestion.........make the cylinder a rotisserie. Think of the possibilities! You can play BBQ Roulette!! Spin that cylinder! What do you get? Will it be chicken? Will it be pork? Brisket?


----------



## johnshasteen

Forget wimpy handguns and antique shotguns, here's what every sailor needs - it was designed for a catamaran, but with a bit of ingenuity it can be adapted to a monohull: On the Wire - Humor


----------



## erps

> I'd also like to express my thanks to those of you who have cut Australia from your cruising plans because we won't allow you to carry guns in our country.


From Noonsite on Australia:



> Sporting rifles and shotguns may be kept on board if a permit is obtained from the police and there is a suitable storage facility.


----------



## SEMIJim

johnshasteen said:


> Forget wimpy handguns and antique shotguns, here's what every sailor needs - it was designed for a catamaran, but with a bit of ingenuity it can be adapted to a monohull: On the Wire - Humor


ROFLMAO! :laugher


----------



## johnshasteen

Forget wimpy handguns and antique shotguns - here is all you'll ever need. It was orginally designed for a catamaran, but with a bit of ingenuity it could be adapted to a monohull: On the Wire - Humor


----------



## TSOJOURNER

johnshasteen said:


> Forget wimpy handguns and antique shotguns - here is all you'll ever need. It was orginally designed for a catamaran, but with a bit of ingenuity it could be adapted to a monohull: On the Wire - Humor


:laugher


----------



## TSOJOURNER

bubb2 said:


> You had me right up to and untill the statment above. I marrried a Nurse. You have loss all creidtabley with me. Every time my wife wants to play doctor with me after I have bugger myself up. She says it's not gouing to hurt, I know she liying. She takes great pleasure in my screaming and jumping around. It's a nurse thing!:laugher


Where not a very fast breed. Tricking our pts is easier than trying to chase them down on foot :laugher ...

Seriously though. Not really.


----------



## St Anna

JOhnshasteen. Love your on the wire humour. See - how can that be illegal?? - if ERP's comrades come out to argue the legalities of a sidewinder - push the red button...


----------



## scottyt

i dont keep one on board locally. i do have a place all picked out for if i go out of country.

george the reason some believe in firearms, its like ins you hope you never need it but want it there when you do. 

nk235, as for wanting more gun laws if you add up every gun law in this country there are more than 20,000 in effect now, yes 20 THOUSAND. now for the wack jobs having them, most of them already cant legally have them, how about inforce the laws we have now instead of writing more that we wont inforce. 

i will stop, i answered the question and veered way off course, damn auto pilot goes out every so often


----------



## tdw

SEMIJim said:


> *shrug* It's seriously weird to many USAians, as well.
> 
> I guess the thing is, tdw, that some of us were brought up with firearms and some were not. To those of us who were: Guns are just... there. No big deal. For some (hunters, law-enforcement officers, military people and so-on) they're a tool use to achieve an end. For others, like me, they're a hobby. (I do have a concealed pistol license, but I rarely carry. Don't feel the need.) To those who were not brought up around firearms, I guess they're strange and scary.
> 
> The thing that irks gun-owners is that many non-gun-owners aren't happy just letting us be.
> 
> Never needed to use a firearm in self-defense. Hope I never have to. I would hope I'm sensible enough to never "brandish [my] gun in anger," while on board or elsewhere. Display or use it in self-defense: Yes, if necessary. Brandish in anger: No. Brandishing in anger implies a loss of self-control, and if there's one thing you need whilst wielding lethal force, it's self-control.
> 
> Jim


Jim, 
You got my drift on the weirdness aspect I think. My views on guns are irrelevent to this discussion and I was not specifically criticising the US laws merely commenting that guns per se do seem to play a bigger part in US minds than in non US.

NK235,
Me I wonder why anyone would brandish a gun other than in anger. Anyone who likes to go around flashing the weapon with no intent to use it comes across as less than a moron to me.

Erps,
Storage Facility being the operative word. I doubt Australians Customs would allow the weapons to be loaded.


----------



## night0wl

You have to understand the context of where the right to bear arms came about. This is a nation founded on open *ARMED* rebellion against power/tyranny. We have, in our very DNA, a distrust for authority and a healthy respect for individualism, and a hatred for "big government" intruding on personal rights/liberties.

In the USA, unlike many other countries, all rights are granted to the people unless EXPRESSLY given to government (be it state and federal). That applies to gun ownership too. What irks many gun owners is that they feel that the gov't is slowly TAKING AWAY their inalienable rights...those guaranteed right there in the Constitution...I suspect these are the same people that would return a dollar if they saw it fall out of your pocket. Good people...but very rigid with right/wrong.

Also, if a government knows that the populace is UNARMED, they are much more likely to take advantage of situations to create more power for themselves. The only "check and balance" to a government run amok is an armed populace that has the ability to place its leaders in their place with a rebellion.

You only have to look at the abuses that our policemen have started to demonstrate once the restrictions to "fight back" by being armed. My bet is that there are more Cop abuses in big cities with tight gun control laws than many areas where gun ownership is akin to a birthright.

Note - I dont own a firearm...but I wholly support the right to bear (any) kind of weapon. Its our heritage and its what keeps my mayor honest and the cops from being too thuggish...

I'm taking off my tin-foil hat now 



tdw said:


> I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again but this USAian thing about guns is seriously weird to many of us non USAians. Seriously weird indeed. (edit - I mean that both from a pro and con viewpoint. I am not just saying that the pro gun lobby is weird I am saying that the need to constantly bring the damn subject up at all, is weird.)
> 
> That said and without wishing to cast aspersions on this most moronic of subjects perhaps some of you might like to chip in with an answer to this. "How many times and over how many years have you actually needed to use or even brandish your gun in anger whilst on board ?"
> 
> I'd also like to express my thanks to those of you who have cut Australia from your cruising plans because we won't allow you to carry guns in our country.
> 
> ps -Smack...The Solomons...where were you ? I had friends who operated a couple of low key resorts on or close by to Guadalcanal for some years. One was up at a place called Tambea and the other on Tivanipupu. Despite the recent unrest its a fine place the Solomons. Definitely on our list of places to visit.


----------



## nk235

tdw said:


> NK235,
> Me I wonder why anyone would brandish a gun other than in anger. Anyone who likes to go around flashing the weapon with no intent to use it comes across as less than a moron to me.


At this point it is obvious you are just trying to incite a response and continue to bring this thread down with answers I wouldn't expect from a 2 year old. I don't understand why or what your problem is. I understand it is not normal for other country's residents to own firearms and therefore one may not be familiar with the uses for a firearm but to put words in other's mouths by saying we are all running around flashing our guns and are morons because we don't intend to use them to kill people really speaks loudly for the type of person you are.

You don't buy an EPIRB because you plan on sinking your boat and getting rescued by the coast guard do you?

You don't buy a fire estinguisher because you plan on lighting your boat on fire do you?

What about flares? Do you go around popping them off on the weekend? I guess you and everyone else on here must be a moron too than for having items on your boat that YOU MAY NEED AT ONE POINT BUT HOPE TO NEVER HAVE TO USE

Either you really are not a bright person or have a mental illness but more than likely you enjoy playing stupid to get a rise out of the people who are trying to discuss what this thread was ment to do. I get it and so does everyone else so just cut the BS and drop it no harm no foul. I have been around on this board for along time as I know you have. I just have never seen you delibritly try to derail a thread like this and it makes me mad tha people can't keep their opinions to themselves.


----------



## chall03

NK235, I think you have misread TDW's Intent completely here. This is obviously a heated issue, like it is everytime it pops up.

The point he has made, and I as an Aussie can only echo him, is just that there are some pretty big cultural differences here between you and us when it comes to firearms. I can totally appreciate the principle of 'the right to bear arms'. I understand it and I certainly am not asking for you or docrn or anyone else to apologise for what you believe. 

We however have just been brought up much differently here. Our approach and philosophy on this is perhaps not even better, just different...

What does upset us Aussie's just a little is that we generally don't preach our philosophy to you guys like it is an absolute blind truth. Often however the opposite is not true.


----------



## irwin325cc

I sometimes carry when at the dock but very rarely as I don't carry while sailing and dont like leaving my 45 in the locked truck. The last time was right before Ike while preping the boat.
I feel that if boarded by the coast gaurd for a saftey check and they ask if you have weapons on board they will then want to do a more extensive search and keep me from being able to sail that much longer. And just would not consider carrying out side of U.S. waters as I like to keep things simple and that would be to much of a hassel for me, but have no belief one way or another if anyones should or should not. 
Just a little funny fact about dispatching a fish being brought on board, I believe Ernest Hemingway on his first trip to Bimmini never made it there befor having to turn back to FL because he shot hemself in the leg with a 45 Tommygun while trying to dispatch a hammerhead I think or I think it was a hammehead.


----------



## Siamese

I put a Glock .40 cal in my boat bag. It's my usual carry pistol and is legal in the waters we sail.


----------



## poopdeckpappy

I have several items aboard that will ruin your day in a heartbeat (none are firearms); win lose or draw, we are not helpless nor at the mercy of another

GeorgeB;

There was a couple not too long ago from Newport beach Ca. who were selling their boat after years of curising, a prospective buyer ( and two others ) went on a sea trial;The elderly man was over powered and both he and his wife were chained to anchores and thrown ( alive ) OB, their bodies were never recovered.

They curised the world and ended being murdered in their own home waters;


----------



## Capnblu

Doesn't any one else hunt deer or moose?


----------



## irwin325cc

2 legged deer, but they don't take to me going on the hunt with my hand cannon.


----------



## GeorgeB

Wow, eight pages of a “food fight” and not one entry from Smackdaddy. Must be a record. I’m not sure if that couple in MDR would be alive or not if they were “packing heat”. The facts from the several murder trials were they thought that they were selling to a sometime child actor in Hollywood. During the sea trial they (husband a retired sheriff’s deputy?) were overpowered and subsequently tied to an anchor and drowned. This act was an atrocity and may the perpetrators rot in hell. From the commentaries I read, they had no chance, and that a gun would not have made any difference. Does this make me fearful enough to carry a gun while sailing?


----------



## jackdale

Sir Peter Blake was armed with a rifle when he was murdered.



> On 6 December 2001, pirates shot and killed Blake while he was on an environmental exploration trip in South America, monitoring global warming and pollution for the United Nations. The two-month expedition was anchored off Macapá, Brazil, at the mouth of the Amazon delta, waiting to clear customs after a trip up the Amazon river. At around 9 pm a group of six to eight armed, masked robbers wearing balaclavas and crash helmets boarded the Seamaster. As one of the robbers held a gun to the head of a crewmember, Blake sprang from the cabin wielding a rifle. He shot one of the assailants in the hand before the rifle malfunctioned; he was then fatally shot in the back by assailant Ricardo Colares Tavares.The boarders injured two other crew members with knives, and the remaining seven were unhurt.


----------



## poopdeckpappy

jackdale said:


> Sir Peter Blake was armed with a rifle when he was murdered.


see, had blake and crewmembers had handguns he'd still be alive and there would be 6-8 dead anti global warming flat earthers in crash helmets


----------



## Elzaar

To answer the questions ...

I don't own a boat, but charter regularly in Seattle and travel a good bit (sailing and land-based) to Mexico, the Caribbean, etc. We hope to sail for parts unknown in a few years. The question is a bit vague really, so here's my shotgun (pun intended) answer:

The Admiral and I are both in law enforcement (30 years combined). Locally, she nearly always carries, I almost never do. I am big, she is smaller. For human varmints on boat defense in the US, we'd both probably go with a Glock handgun. Fewer metal parts to rust and we know the weapon system. I think I'm safe in saying we would both lock ourselves below and make a racket while calling for other boats or authorities to assist in the event someone came on board against our directions ... then shoot if anyone looked to be successful at entering the cabin.

A Glock, or any handgun, is useless against a grizzly or polar bear. Sure, they make a .50 cal handgun, but I can't imagine trying to hold it steady with a bear coming at me and calmly squeezing off rounds - the barrel would just choke him when he ate it. If we were to travel north to Alaska or to remote regions of British Columbia, I'd carry a shotgun with one or two rounds 00 buck, then rifled slugs if there were going to be grizzlys about. Then again, I ultralight hike in grizzly country and I carry OC bear spray for that - not a gun, but that is more weight and bulk consideration. I think OC bear spray would be a good choice onboard, as well. Spray it out of a forward hatch at anchor and I'd be very surprised if anyone hung around. We just aren't wealthy enough looking to be that tempting a target. If you turn out to be wrong about the boarders' intent you will still be unbelieveably unpopular, but probably not going to prison.

Travelling further is another story and I think we'd decide on a case-by-case basis. If we go to high-risk areas like the PI or across the Indian Ocean, I am strongly considering an AR-15 or something similar. All things being equal a .308 would be better as it could take out an engine at distance. I'd definitely go the route of telling the authorities I had it though. If I was concerned about it being confiscated I'd go used and go cheap.

Back to the shotgun, I think it would have some advantages going abroad for on-boat defense... it is less aggressive (I would guess) to authorities than an assault rifle. The populace in the countryside are more likely to have shotguns for hunting, etc., than assault rifles. Ammunition is likely to be more readily available. All in all a shotgun might get you fewer hard looks from authorities than the rifle or the handgun - but I'm just guessing there. As far as boat defense, I would load the shotgun with bird shot for the first few rounds, then maybe #2 shot. The bird shot would almost certainly not penetrate the hull, but it will certainly stop anyone at short range. Then there is the easily identified sound of a pump shotgun that is likely to clear your decks when no verbal threats can.

I can see the attraction of carrying guns on board, but I really feel people concerned about human problems should look into a good OC spray and the local laws related to them. If your $10 bottle of bear spray gets confiscated, who cares? If you are far wealthier than me, cruising on a $1,000,000 yacht, flashing big money around, sure you might need some serious fire power, but you probably wouldn't need this forum to answer your travel advisory/weapons questions.

I'm trying to skirt the potential flashpoints of this discussion, but I will throw out there that in my experience many cultures do things that we Americans and Europeans (and maybe Aussies, but I don't know) don't immediately read correctly, so the potential for misunderstandings is high. Shooting someone coming onto your boat with something in their hand you perceive to be a weapon can easily just turn out to be completely innocent and reasonable by the local culture's view. Certainly, heinous crimes occur and it would be foolish to act like they don't, but I tend to feel like it's better to have a plan that as much as possible requires my enemy to make an overt step before I can decisively engage them. In my theory anyway, that is the point where they force their way into my cabin. Just climbing into the cockpit won't do it. If it comes to killing someone for trying to steal the outboard for my dinghy, then I suppose I'll be buying a new dinghy motor. In the event that I am suddenly swarmed by someone pulling up alongside I guess I'm screwed, but I can't see myself cruising with my gun on my hip all the time - that's what I want to get away from by cruising in the first place. 

I guess the only other thing I would throw out there is that if you are depending on the police, Coast Guard, or local authorities to come to your rescue you are dreaming. I worked Harbor Patrol for a year in Seattle. There is minimum two minute delay from the time you call 911 until the actual dispatcher gets the actual call to dispatch a Unit. If you need a patrol car, it will be close to three minutes before anyone is even seriously driving from where ever they are to where ever you are - on land. Add that to a marine environment and you can add in a couple more minutes to scramble the boat more than likely if it is night time - which is probably good because at least they are centrally located then. A patrol car might do 70 MPH, but more than likely the boat is coming at less than 40 from God knows where to find an object with no address on it. If you see the police or Coast Guard in less than 7 - 10 minutes you must be sitting in the city harbor. The decision to carry a gun or not is an extremely personal one, but don't build any part of your reasoning on calling for the police or Coast Guard as your first (or only) line of defense - that would be a false assumption.


----------



## Elzaar

I knew there was one other thing ...

My experience has been that what keeps cops from being "thuggish" is that they undergo in-depth background checks, heavy screening, significant training and education, and multiple layers of oversight and civil liability. I can't say that a thought about how well armed someone may be has ever entered my mind on how they should be treated - except possibly to be more aggressive with someone I suspect to be both armed and deceitful, not less so.

I'm not going to say there aren't occasionally bad, or less than ideal, police officers or that they never make mistakes. I just don't believe many of them are minding their p's and q's out of concern over an armed populace. The quickest way to get treated poorly by an officer is the same as anywhere else whether by the McDonalds' counter help or the Customs Inspector - attitude. Everyone will spit in your food if you're a jerk to them.

And that's all I'm going to say about that.


----------



## HatterasJack

Caution!! This craft protected by shotgun three days a week! You guess which three! A wise old state trooper once told me. It is better to be armed and illegal if force is needed than be dead and legal with your loved ones wishing you had!! Only to becoming a statistic. I could care less if others want to refrain from packing, just don't deny the right for me to protect myself and loved ones! Life ,Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness


----------



## painkiller




----------



## painkiller




----------



## painkiller




----------



## damies

chall03 said:


> If our future cruising plans take us into Indonesia/Papuan waters then we would suddenly be in the cruising outside civilization category and we would have to think long and hard about vessel security.....I don't know if firearms would be our answer though.


Last person who sailed Indo waters from Oz with a gun and didn't declare it is still in an Indo jail, so my advice is don't try it.....


----------



## damies

Sorry guys, clearly I went off topic.....

Do I carry a gun on board? No, I don't need to, I don't live in the USA (probably the only country where I might need one)

Do I own a gun? No, See above....

Would I take a gun when sailing? Probably would buy one when I entered USA waters and sell again when I left, but then I am not planing a trip to the USA any time soon 

Now we are back on topic 

Dave.


----------



## SSBN506

I just wish gun owners and non gun people would say it like it is. Don’t give me all this bs about protecting your family or keeping the police in check etc. don’t give me bs about gun owners being nuts and always afraid. I don’t own guns but work with people who do. I live in Candida and work with a company in Taxis a lot. We get on the gun debate every now and then and I always say the same thing. You don’t have to justify to me why you want to have a gun just like you don’t have to justify to me why you have a stamp collection. If you like guns find them pleasing and you are responsible collect and carry them. That is good enough for me. 
If you don’t like guns or have no desire to own one, don’t. But don’t tell me guns are the cause or solution to my or your problems because they are not. There is no shame in saying I like and want to own a gun. Just like there is no shame in saying I don’t like and don’t want to own a gun. Justifying beyond that is difficult at best. Now laws banning guns I am against I like a middle ground myself. I would prefer we spend money finding out why people get to the point they use them on people. For example if we could solve poverty, mental illness and drug addiction we would be rid of 90% of crime.


----------



## WanderingStar

I don't routinely carry a gun off duty, either ashore or afloat. On the few occasions I've needed to take any action, attitude and appearance sufficed.
I did once have pistol on board during an encouter with a smartass duck hunter. I was sailing in Great South Bay in late fall. There was a clamboat with two guys acting as a tender for a layout boat with decoys. They were in touch by radio. As I passed the clamboat, the hunter asked on the radio " What the f is that sailboat doing? tell him I'll sight in my shotgun on his sail!" His friends looked alarmed and replied "he can hear you". I told them "Tell him to fire away, but be forewarned, I shoot back, and I'm not using birdshot" They apologised.


----------



## MorganPaul

> I did once have pistol on board during an encouter with a smartass duck hunter. I was sailing in Great South Bay in late fall.


People are a bit more civilized on the north shore of LI.


----------



## Cruisingdad

docrn said:


> I have allways been an advocate of the 2nd ammendment and believe in the right to personal protection. Of course depending upon where you are cruising having a weapon on board may be more trouble than it is worth (unfortunately) in countries where freedom and the rights of private citizens mean nothing to thier governments.
> 
> I personally like the idea of having a weapon on board for personal defense so I have a stainless .38 (usefull for dipatching large halibut) and an 870 Marine magnum (usefull for dipatching 2 legged predators). The 870 will also come in handy for the trip to AK I plan to take sometime in the future. In fact I have had someone go as far as climb on board my boat and open the companionway hatch at which point I made it clear if they didn't leave now they never would.
> 
> Anyway, this is more of a "I wonder who else packs" type of question than an attempt to impose my personal/political views. I strongly believe that those who are uncomfortable or incapable of safely handling weapons should not have anything to do with them untill someone has schooled them on safe handling anyway.
> 
> So who's packing what?


I have a 12ga flaregun and 25mm flaregun. Undoubtedly, they are only good at close range. Undoubtedly, I would only be using them at close range if used to kill. I do not, have not, and will not carry any other weapons on board.

- CD


----------



## JimMcGee

*Carry the proper weapon*

Funny this thread came up as I've been thinking a lot about this issue lately.

In fact after much soul searching I recently brought a weapon aboard my Catalina 30. I hope I'll never have to use it, but won't hesitate to fire a warning shot across the bow of the next power boat who's wake endangers the coke in my cup holder !

On the downside it does make it difficult to haul the anchor up, but the added security is worth it.










I love the smell of black powder in the morning! 

Jim


----------



## JohnRPollard

JimMcGee said:


> Funny this thread came up as I've been thinking a lot about this issue lately.
> 
> In fact after much soul searching I recently brought a weapon aboard my Catalina 30. I hope I'll never have to use it, but won't hesitate to fire a warning shot across the bow of the next power boat who's wake endangers the coke in my cup holder !
> 
> On the downside it does make it difficult to haul the anchor up, but the added security is worth it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love the smell of black powder in the morning!
> 
> Jim


Jim,

I'm not sure a bowchaser is the best solution -- the recoil could really slow you down. I'd go for the traditional broadside -- fire as she bears on the up roll.


----------



## JimMcGee

JohnRPollard said:


> Jim,
> 
> I'm not sure a bowchaser is the best solution -- the recoil could really slow you down. I'd go for the traditional broadside -- fire as she bears on the up roll.


John,
I'm cruising not racing, so I'm not really concerned if I loose a little speed.

And it makes it easier to aim - just point the bow at the target ! 

Jim


----------



## Cruisingdad

Guys, I am all for these debates. We have them enough, that is for sure. But we need to keep it above the belt. And nck235, I think you really missread what TDW wrote earlier. He does NOT incyte threads, he is a moderator here. Challo did a good explanation so I won't further elaborate. Please don't be so defensive. TDW is a great person and very even tempered. We're all friends here.

Now, I answered the original question in the thread above. I also mean to give my feelings on a few of the unrelated aspects that have come up in this thread. 

First of all, your gun (or weapon) ownership in the US IS limited. Go try to buy a SAM, or large caliber automatic machine gun, or a tank, or a F-22. They will not even return your calls. You are limited to relatively small caliber firearms. The military and police have access to large caliber, and patriot missles, and nuclear weapons, and smart bombs, etc. So, explain to me excatly how a guy with a .22 is going to defend himself from his government?? You are not. That is dillusional. They could kill any one of you and you would never even know it happened. So that whole notion about our guns keep our government in check is a load of crap. When the 2nd was written, that might have been true. But we are long past those days. That is the same reason that Iraq and countless other countries stayed in the control of dictators. It was not because their citizens had no weapons. It was because there was no way they could match their governments firepower. And need I even mention that these men and women of the military (and police) are trained and educated to kill and use these weapons?? So scratch that whole "I need guns to protect myself and family from our governmet" stuff off your reasons to bear arms. 

Second - I use and own weapons. We have a nice little piece of land in East Texas (as many of you know). We have cattle out there and I have kids and a worthless bulldog. As such, I shoot snakes and coyotes and boar and anything else that I consider a threat or nuisance. I do go bird hunting periodically and enjoy missing skeet. I believe in the right to bear arms. I use them. But let's be honest: a handgun is really good for nothing but defense from another person or for killing another person. That is about its only use. I would like to see one of you hit a running hog or snake with one of those things. And as has been mentioned before, I don't think a handgun would kill a grizzly or large bear (I used to deep woods backpack). More likely would just piss him off. SO lets make sure we all agree that a hangun is to kill people. It has no other reasonable or good use.

Third, your right to bear arms is a US right - not a universally given right. You go into another man's house, you repsect his rules. Just as I would not take my guns to a country (Mexico for example, Australia for another) where they were unwelcomed, so would I not want a Pakistani coming here with a SAM or AK-47. Respect another man's house. The same can be said for us, not to degrade us for bearing weapons. It does not mean you have to understand it. It certainly does not mean you have to like it. But "his" rules are "his" rules. So be it.

Lastly, I just don't get why this subject is so hotly debated. It's just a gun. WIth some replies you would think we were going to invade another country with our .22 or (on the opposite side) that other countries were trying to get us to change our constitution. They just don't understand why Americans feel they need to bear arms. That's all. The conecept is foreign to them. Don't be so defensive about it. Your guns aren't going anywhere.

My opinions,

- CD


----------



## Cruisingdad

JimMcGee said:


> Funny this thread came up as I've been thinking a lot about this issue lately.
> 
> In fact after much soul searching I recently brought a weapon aboard my Catalina 30. I hope I'll never have to use it, but won't hesitate to fire a warning shot across the bow of the next power boat who's wake endangers the coke in my cup holder !
> 
> On the downside it does make it difficult to haul the anchor up, but the added security is worth it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love the smell of black powder in the morning!
> 
> Jim


Now ya talking!!!

- CD


----------



## JimMcGee

Cruisingdad said:


> Now ya talking!!!
> 
> - CD


Cruising Dad, you mean your Catalina doesn't have one of these?

Jim


----------



## Cruisingdad

JimMcGee said:


> Cruising Dad, you mean your Catalina doesn't have one of these?
> 
> Jim


I replaced it with the gun-grill seen earlier.

- CD


----------



## erps

> So scratch that whole "I need guns to protect myself and family from our governmet" stuff off your reasons to bear arms.


Brian, I can see how you came to that conclusion but I politely disagree. I would just point out that our military and law enforcement folks are citizens themselves.

I would also point out that people with small arms and determination helped drive America out of Vietnam and Russia out of Afghanistan.


----------



## Kallisti

“It is not advisable to venture unsolicited opinions. You should spare yourself the embarrassing discovery of their exact value to your listener.” 

That being said;

I would rather have my firearm and not need it, than need it and not have it.


----------



## JimMcGee

Cruisingdad said:


> Guys, I am all for these debates. We have them enough, that is for sure. But we need to keep it above the belt. <SNIP>
> 
> ...
> 
> So, explain to me excatly how a guy with a .22 is going to defend himself from his government?? You are not. That is dillusional.
> 
> <SNIP>
> ...
> 
> But let's be honest: a handgun is really good for nothing but defense from another person or for killing another person.
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> My opinions,
> 
> - CD


One of the more well reasoned posts I've seen on this subject.

Like so many things in US politics this has become a religious debate with guns as a sacred object.

Jim


----------



## SSBN506

erps said:


> Brian, I can see how you came to that conclusion but I politely disagree. I would just point out that our military and law enforcement folks are citizens themselves.
> 
> I would also point out that people with small arms and determination helped drive America out of Vietnam and Russia out of Afghanistan.


Why cant you just have a gun because you want and like them and are doing no real harm with them. Why sum 1 in 10000000 reason as justification?

I suppose without the people on either extremes of the argument we wouldn't end up somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Cruisingdad

erps said:


> Brian, I can see how you came to that conclusion but I politely disagree. I would just point out that our military and law enforcement folks are citizens themselves.
> 
> I would also point out that people with small arms and determination helped drive America out of Vietnam and Russia out of Afghanistan.


I respectfully dissagree. In fact, your examples prove the opposite.

Using Russia and Afghanistan as an example, the Afgans were losing that war badly. Russia had all but taken them over. Then the CIA (fed by Charlie Wilson) got involved and began arming the afghans with much more spohisticated weapons. Only when they were armed and trained on those weapons did they start mounting a defense against the Russians. The weapons they used were not what you or I could buy today (and for good reason). Losses mounted exponentially until it was not worth it for the Russians anymore.

Regarding Vietnam - they too were being fed weapons and training via China. Am I wrong? But the reason that war was lost had little to do with the Americans ability to win it. It was a political war. Do you agree?

These are my opinions - but remember, I am pro-guns. I am just very negative on taking them where they are not watned.

Brian


----------



## JimMcGee

For that matter the American colonists didn't have comparable weapons either (just look at Washington's won/lost record). We were supplied with weapons by the French, and we would never have won our independence if England wasn't pre-occupied with fighting the French in multiple locations around the globe. 

And lets not forget the decisive battle at Yorktown was won because the French Navy kept the British bottled up while Washington laid siege to Conrwallis; and nearly half of Washington's Army were French Army regulars (7,800 Frenchmen, 3,100 Militia, and 8,000 Continentals).

The idea that the American colonies repelled the most powerful military in the world with a few hunting rifles has no relation to reality. 

Signing off to go BBQ some burgers. 

Not packing anything more deadly that ketchup & mustard,
Jim


----------



## erps

> The weapons they used were not what you or I could buy today (and for good reason). Losses mounted exponentially until it was not worth it for the Russians anymore.


It could be you're right Brian. If there was an armed revolution in the U.S., I'm sure the revolutionary fighters would confine themselves to only weapons they can purchase legally. The government hates it when the paperwork isn't right.


----------



## erps

> The idea that the American colonies repelled the most powerful military in the world with a few hunting rifles has no relation to reality.


I agree. I also think the idea that the American colonies could have repelled the most powerful military in the world without small arms seems equally ridiculous. Didn't the battle at Concord start when the British sent troops there to seize the militia's weapons?


----------



## Cruisingdad

erps said:


> It could be you're right Brian. If there was an armed revolution in the U.S., I'm sure the revolutionary fighters would confine themselves to only weapons they can purchase legally. The government hates it when the paperwork isn't right.


Oh, don't take me that way, Ray. You and I agree on most things. I think we even agree on weapons.

My point was that the weapons we currently carry would be useless and we would have to have modern weapons. SO I don't see where owning a .22 to protect ourselves from the government has any relevance. And if it comes to a revolution, whehter we have a law that allows gun or not will not change whether we get them. Who cares about the laws at that point? But I would wager that if there were a revolution, it would not be won from the average citizen. It would be won because a good portion of the military and police force fought against each other.

I can do a heck of a job missing skeet, but I am not a trained soldier and woud not which end of a rocket launcher to hold up. That is why I feel that owning a weapon has no relevance to fending off your government.

- CD

PS On a side not, I actually feel that a hundred years ago, an armed population might have been able to pose a threat to its government. A rifle was a rifle and I do not feel the technology was that much different between them. THey lacked the highly sophisticatd weapons of today. There were no F-22's and patriot's and laser guided weapons. We simply would have no defense against that. What would be important would be the support of other countries to supply us arms and military defections (and weapons) to our side.


----------



## lancelot9898

Cruisingdad said:


> Using Russia and Afghanistan as an example, the Afgans were losing that war badly. Russia had all but taken them over. Then the CIA (fed by Charlie Wilson) got involved and began arming the afghans with much more spohisticated weapons. Only when they were armed and trained on those weapons did they start mounting a defense against the Russians. The weapons they used were not what you or I could buy today (and for good reason). Losses mounted exponentially until it was not worth it for the Russians anymore.
> 
> Regarding Vietnam - they too were being fed weapons and training via China. Am I wrong? But the reason that war was lost had little to do with the Americans ability to win it. It was a political war. Do you agree?


While I find agreement with most of what you say above, I will disagree about the signifiance of having access to small weapons. An unarmed population will more than likely be subserveant to the powers that be while an armed population will more than likely be capable of resistance. That was the case in Afganistan with the Russians and while all battles may have been won by the Russians, they could not win the war. Getting the Afgans more spohisticated weapons was the turning point and to that I agree.

The Vietnam situation was somewhat different in that we were at war with another country, but could not fully attack that country. Having better weapons and better training may give you victory after victory in battle, but it does not mean that you will win the war as Vietnam proved.


----------



## poopdeckpappy

Pain, this tread is about guns on boats, NOT texting while driving a train

Please stay on topic


----------



## Cruisingdad

lancelot9898 said:


> While I find agreement with most of what you say above, I will disagree about the signifiance of having access to small weapons. An unarmed population will more than likely be subserveant to the powers that be while an armed population will more than likely be capable of resistance. That was the case in Afganistan with the Russians and while all battles may have been won by the Russians, they could not win the war. Getting the Afgans more spohisticated weapons was the turning point and to that I agree.
> 
> The Vietnam situation was somewhat different in that we were at war with another country, but could not fully attack that country. Having better weapons and better training may give you victory after victory in battle, but it does not mean that you will win the war as Vietnam proved.


Agreed with almost everything you said - esp Vietnam. We could have won that war. Our ability to win that war had nothing to so with why we lost it. I also believe that the armed population, as armed, had nothing to do with why they won. They were prepared to use tactics we were not won. For example, if we have just stood back and lit the place up with nukes, they would have lost. Period. Now I am not in any way saying that is what we should have done. I am simply making the point that it could have been won (at considerable cost including WWIII). Same with teh russinans - they COULD have won, but at what cost?

And if you are talking about keeping weapons for defense of your country, it would seem to me that a high powered rifle would be of a lot more benefit than a handgun. If a trained solider gets close enough to you that you gotta pull out the handgun, you are probably going to die.

Boy - hasn't this thread taking a turn!?? They always do when discussing guns. They always end up the same way.

And by the way everyone - I am NOT an expert on this. I am simply providing my opinions. THat is all... my opinions. I am not saying anyone else is wrong. Ray and all may very well be right. It is simply my view on the matter.

Brian


----------



## erps

> Oh, don't take me that way, Ray. You and I agree on most things. I think we even agree on weapons.


I think we do too Brian. I just didn't agree with your opinion that the 2nd was no longer useful for the purpose of keeping a government honest. After all, if we start picking apart a right because we probably couldn't prevail against an evil government, we could use the same logic on all our other rights. Freedom to assemble and petition the government, forget it, the government could kill you and you wouldn't even know it. It's the old slippery slope argument. Where rights are concerned, it's one to pay attention to.


----------



## Cruisingdad

erps said:


> I think we do too Brian. I just didn't agree with your opinion that the 2nd was no longer useful for the purpose of keeping a government honest. After all, if we start picking apart a right because we probably couldn't prevail against an evil government, we could use the same logic on all our other rights. Freedom to assemble and petition the government, forget it, the government could kill you and you wouldn't even know it. It's the old slippery slope argument. Where rights are concerned, it's one to pay attention to.


I can see your point.

Brian


----------



## PalmettoSailor

Cruisingdad said:


> Guys, I am all for these debates. We have them enough, that is for sure. But we need to keep it above the belt. And nck235, I think you really missread what TDW wrote earlier. He does NOT incyte threads, he is a moderator here. Challo did a good explanation so I won't further elaborate. Please don't be so defensive. TDW is a great person and very even tempered. We're all friends here.
> 
> Now, I answered the original question in the thread above. I also mean to give my feelings on a few of the unrelated aspects that have come up in this thread.
> 
> First of all, your gun (or weapon) ownership in the US IS limited. Go try to buy a SAM, or large caliber automatic machine gun, or a tank, or a F-22. They will not even return your calls. You are limited to relatively small caliber firearms. The military and police have access to large caliber, and patriot missles, and nuclear weapons, and smart bombs, etc. So, explain to me excatly how a guy with a .22 is going to defend himself from his government?? You are not. That is dillusional. They could kill any one of you and you would never even know it happened. So that whole notion about our guns keep our government in check is a load of crap. When the 2nd was written, that might have been true. But we are long past those days. That is the same reason that Iraq and countless other countries stayed in the control of dictators. It was not because their citizens had no weapons. It was because there was no way they could match their governments firepower. And need I even mention that these men and women of the military (and police) are trained and educated to kill and use these weapons?? So scratch that whole "I need guns to protect myself and family from our governmet" stuff off your reasons to bear arms.
> 
> Second - I use and own weapons. We have a nice little piece of land in East Texas (as many of you know). We have cattle out there and I have kids and a worthless bulldog. As such, I shoot snakes and coyotes and boar and anything else that I consider a threat or nuisance. I do go bird hunting periodically and enjoy missing skeet. I believe in the right to bear arms. I use them. But let's be honest: a handgun is really good for nothing but defense from another person or for killing another person. That is about its only use. I would like to see one of you hit a running hog or snake with one of those things. And as has been mentioned before, I don't think a handgun would kill a grizzly or large bear (I used to deep woods backpack). More likely would just piss him off. SO lets make sure we all agree that a hangun is to kill people. It has no other reasonable or good use.
> 
> Third, your right to bear arms is a US right - not a universally given right. You go into another man's house, you repsect his rules. Just as I would not take my guns to a country (Mexico for example, Australia for another) where they were unwelcomed, so would I not want a Pakistani coming here with a SAM or AK-47. Respect another man's house. The same can be said for us, not to degrade us for bearing weapons. It does not mean you have to understand it. It certainly does not mean you have to like it. But "his" rules are "his" rules. So be it.
> 
> Lastly, I just don't get why this subject is so hotly debated. It's just a gun. WIth some replies you would think we were going to invade another country with our .22 or (on the opposite side) that other countries were trying to get us to change our constitution. They just don't understand why Americans feel they need to bear arms. That's all. The conecept is foreign to them. Don't be so defensive about it. Your guns aren't going anywhere.
> 
> My opinions,
> 
> - CD


The debate is heated becuse those on one side of the argument want to take the guns out of the hands of the folks on the other side. No gun proponent is trying to put a gun in the hands of someone that doesn't want one.

If you don't like and don't want guns, fine, but keep your hands off mine.

I also disagree with you regarding the efficacy of an armed and determined populace. Afganistan is the most recent example. They stood up to the best military technolgy the Russians had for years and now are doing the same againt our best technology. Also you assume that the goverment would retain all that hardware, while a normal distribution of the population would have some troops bring their toys to the "rebel" side.


----------



## JimMcGee

Well, I'm back from my BBQing and I put the tongs away so I can't be accused of brandishing a weapon. 



erps said:


> I agree. I also think the idea that the American colonies could have repelled the most powerful military in the world without small arms seems equally ridiculous. Didn't the battle at Concord start when the British sent troops there to seize the militia's weapons?


And the Boston massacre was the result of thrown snowballs.

Ray, with all due respect I think you missed the point I was trying to make. I was agreeing with CruisingDad that the idea of keeping guns to keep the government at bay isn't really a valid argument. This is especially true when it comes to hand guns.

To my knowledge there has never been a revolution won by citizens bearing small arms, let alone packing six shooters. Yet I have often heard it argued that America wouldn't exist if it wasn't for "citizen soldiers with guns" as an argument for hand guns.

The fact is George Washington had little or no faith in his militias. They tended to fall apart in the face of the enemy (with a couple of notable exceptions). It was the trained soldiers of the Continental Army that kept him in the fight.

As for today just look at Iraq. Our troops cut through the Iraqi Army like a hot knife through butter. The vast majority of casualites have been through unconventional tactics such as IED's. Stand up to the US Army with a rifle and you're a dead man.

Interestingly unarmed populations *have *been successful at toppling governments in the past fifty years...go figure. 

Now enough of this serious stuff. I need to go polish my new brass canon.

Jim


----------



## TSOJOURNER

tdw said:


> I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again but this USAian thing about guns is seriously weird to many of us non USAians. Seriously weird indeed.....
> I'd also like to express my thanks to those of you who have cut Australia from your cruising plans because we won't allow you to carry guns in our country.


As a newbie, cruiser-wannabe, I have enjoyed reading so many posts these past months as I try to gleam new information and opinions on boats and cruising. I have enjoyed the back and forth discussion on many issues and never felt compelled to interject an opinion.........until now....and to this post.

While I am sure CD is right and you are a fine person, this post simply smacks of the typical anti-American and anti-gun-toting-cowboy views I have witnessed from the French. With all respect, please at least be cognizant that without those gun-toting-cowboys of 1941 America, you would likely be writing your posts today in Japanese..........or German, or more likely, not at all. Fair Winds.


----------



## JimMcGee

erps said:


> I think we do too Brian. I just didn't agree with your opinion that the 2nd was no longer useful for the purpose of keeping a government honest. After all, if we start picking apart a right because we probably couldn't prevail against an evil government, we could use the same logic on all our other rights. Freedom to assemble and petition the government, forget it, the government could kill you and you wouldn't even know it. It's the old slippery slope argument. Where rights are concerned, it's one to pay attention to.


I couldn't agree more about the slippery slope. That's why I can't understand why more people aren't outraged about the Patriot Act and about the restrictions on assembly and protest instituted by the previous administration. During the '08 political conventions protestors weren't allowed anywhere near the politicians and many were arrested on bogus charges for what amounted to peaceful assembly.

I worry far more about restrictions on free speech than restrictions on handguns.

And before the insults start flying I'm not a left winger, a socialist or a communist -- but I do read a lot of history...

I'm done with this thread. Time to go sailing.

Jim


----------



## Kallisti

With all respect, please at least be cognizant that without those gun-toting-cowboys of 1941 America, you would likely be writing your posts today in Japanese..........or German, or more likely, not at all. Fair Winds.[/QUOTE]

Rock on Cowboy:gunner


----------



## JimMcGee

RockyMtn said:


> As a newbie, cruiser-wannabe, I have enjoyed reading so many posts these past months as I try to gleam new information and opinions on boats and cruising. I have enjoyed the back and forth discussion on many issues and never felt compelled to interject an opinion.........until now....and to this post.
> 
> While I am sure CD is right and you are a fine person, this post simply smacks of the typical anti-American and anti-gun-toting-cowboy views I have witnessed from the French. With all respect, please at least be cognizant that without those gun-toting-cowboys of 1941 America, you would likely be writing your posts today in Japanese..........or German, or more likely, not at all. Fair Winds.


OK, I know I said I was done with this thread, but when I hit post I saw this response that had just come in.

First it wasn't Cruising Dad who wrote the post you quoted. Second I have to ask where you witnessed this behavior by the French?

Also can you draw the line of logic for me from our being able to fend off an attack by a foreign power in 1941 to the ability of someone to buy a handgun?

Jim


----------



## erps

> Ray, with all due respect I think you missed the point I was trying to make. I was agreeing with CruisingDad that the idea of keeping guns to keep the government at bay isn't really a valid argument. This is especially true when it comes to hand guns.
> 
> To my knowledge there has never been a revolution won by citizens bearing small arms, let alone packing six shooters. Yet I have often heard it argued that America wouldn't exist if it wasn't for "citizen soldiers with guns" as an argument for hand guns.


I don't know why a person would limit themselves to handguns while arguing the 2nd is necessary to guard against an unjust government. The 2nd has no such limit. You can buy a .50 cal Sniper rifle on Ebay capable of taking out aircraft and armored personel carriers.



> Interestingly unarmed populations have been successful at toppling governments in the past fifty years...go figure.


I know, I was thinking the same thing. Iran and Poland a while back ago and I think the current Iranian government is a little nervous right now.


----------



## JimMcGee

erps said:


> I know, I was thinking the same thing. Iran and Poland a while back ago and I think the current Iranian government is a little nervous right now.


Their actions speak volumes. They're very worried.

I was in Romania a couple of days after the Romanian revolution ended. It was essentially an unarmed uprising. Ironically Nicolae Ceauşescu was in Iran when the revolution broke out and he returned to his death.

I'm thinking this thread has strayed a _loooong_ way from sailing...

Jim


----------



## YARDPRO

I have something to add to this thread......

We had a terrifying experience when i was younger and camping on a barrier island ( i live in the outer banks of NC)...

My wife and I (then just a girlfriend) were at our campsite at the waters edge when a group of drunks came wandering in... they were just belligerent and loud and we finally got them to leave. During the night my wife got up and left the tent to go relieve herself and was grabbed by two of the guys that were there earlier. I herd her yell and grabbed the .38 police special that i always took when we camp. As i ran to her I saw they were trying to pin her down. I began yelling and one guy stood up and faced me waving a fish fillet knife a me....
I trained my fired a shot above his head, and trained the weapon at him.. he and his friend ran as fast as they could...

That was the last time my wife ever went camping. We just bought our first sailboat, a 30' sagitta. We had out first weekend trip to cape lookout two weekends ago, and you had better bet We were armed.

After that incident we travel armed wherever we go. She has a concealed carry permit and carries a 380 everywhere. 

so for all of you who say... oh nothing will happen, why take a gun....

same for an epirb.. how many of you have been lost at sea?? but you still carry an epirb.


----------



## painkiller

RockyMtn said:


> With all respect, please at least be cognizant that without those gun-toting-cowboys of 1941 America, you would likely be writing your posts today in Japanese..........or German, or more likely, not at all.


HAH HAH HAH HAH!!! I knew it was only a matter of time before THAT was brought up in this thread. Pure comedy. Wait, has anyone used the phrase "jack-booted thugs" yet? If not, it's coming soon...


----------



## TSOJOURNER

JimMcGee said:


> OK, I know I said I was done with this thread, but when I hit post I saw this response that had just come in.
> 
> First it wasn't Cruising Dad who wrote the post you quoted. Second I have to ask where you witnessed this behavior by the French?
> 
> Also can you draw the line of logic for me from our being able to fend off an attack by a foreign power in 1941 to the ability of someone to buy a handgun?
> 
> Jim


1. First, I acknowledged CruisingDad's earlier testimonial to TDW as being a moderator and a fine person. I never said CD made the quote.

2. In responce to your first question: France.

3. I never tried to draw any line of logic between any foreign power and the ability to buy a handgun. I only responded to what I believe was a clear jab at Americans and their gun ownership rights by TDW. If you will re-read his post, he stated this was clearly a "USAian" thing and that he appreciated the gun carrying (re: American) crowd from avoiding Austrailian waters. Just read what he wrote. I only took issue with that statement and I would surmise there are still many Austrialians who remember how welcome the gun-toting American were 65 years ago. They have a right to establish their own laws to fit their country and their wonderful people, but history is unchangeable. If you don't appreciate what American did in the S. Pacific, that's fine, but at least acknowledge it.


----------



## erps

YARDPRO said:


> I have something to add to this thread......
> 
> We had a terrifying experience when i was younger and camping on a barrier island ( i live in the outer banks of NC)...
> 
> My wife and I (then just a girlfriend) were at our campsite at the waters edge when a group of drunks came wandering in... they were just belligerent and loud and we finally got them to leave. During the night my wife got up and left the tent to go relieve herself and was grabbed by two of the guys that were there earlier. I herd her yell and grabbed the .38 police special that i always took when we camp. As i ran to her I saw they were trying to pin her down. I began yelling and one guy stood up and faced me waving a fish fillet knife a me....
> I trained my fired a shot above his head, and trained the weapon at him.. he and his friend ran as fast as they could...
> 
> That was the last time my wife ever went camping. We just bought our first sailboat, a 30' sagitta. We had out first weekend trip to cape lookout two weekends ago, and you had better bet We were armed.
> 
> After that incident we travel armed wherever we go. She has a concealed carry permit and carries a 380 everywhere.
> 
> so for all of you who say... oh nothing will happen, why take a gun....
> 
> same for an epirb.. how many of you have been lost at sea?? but you still carry an epirb.


and that brings it back home. We discuss lighting protection, fire protection, ditch bags, medical kits and emergency navigation but when it comes to sextants and personal protection, sleeves start getting rolled up. Thanks for your story.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

painkiller said:


> HAH HAH HAH HAH!!! I knew it was only a matter of time before THAT was brought up in this thread. Pure comedy. Wait, has anyone used the phrase "jack-booted thugs" yet? If not, it's coming soon...


Your tone sounds familiar. Are you perhaps.....er.......FRENCH?!

It was George Santayana who said:

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."


----------



## GeorgeB

Now it is my patriotic duty as an American to carry a gun on board? Is the revolution starting this weekend? How will this get communicated to me out on the water and what is my assignment? What do I do with my race crew? Arrest them as counter revolutionaries? Whoops, I forgot - I'm that chardonnay sipping girlie-man from Kalifornia that you guys seem so afraid of. Does that make me the enemy? Come on guys, I want to play too!

We all must make our own risk assessments and for me, violent crime on the water is way low on the list. I'm not a Pollyanna and I do take steps to lesson my exposure to this already low probability. In the ocean races that I participated in this year, there have been two boat sinkings, a broken boom and steering gear and a dismasting. Survival and safety at sea is of infinitely greater importance to me and my loved ones. That risk is real and (thank god) the risk of violent crime is theoretical. Do I prepare for the real or theoretical? What is more important for me to carry in my jacket pocket - a Glock? Or a hand held radio

And for my friend from Idaho</ST1 can I add "black government helicopters" and "secret government directions on the backs of traffic signs"?


----------



## erps

> Now it is my patriotic duty as an American to carry a gun on board?


Nope. Make you're own choice.

How do you feel about voting for unconstitutional laws though? I see your town keeps getting sued for passing laws that deny others from making their own choice. We're you for violating the rights of others?


----------



## SEMIJim

Cruisingdad said:


> ...or (on the opposite side) that other countries were trying to get us to change our constitution. They just don't understand why Americans feel they need to bear arms. That's all. The conecept is foreign to them. Don't be so defensive about it. Your guns aren't going anywhere.


Would that were so, CD, but, just as USAian anti-gunners aren't happy leaving you and I to our firearms, people elsewhere in the world aren't happy with the fact the U.S. has a Constitutionally affirmed RKBA. Read up on George Soros, Rebecca Peters and the U.N. small arms treaty attempts, some time.

Jim


----------



## SEMIJim

midlifesailor said:


> The debate is heated becuse those on one side of the argument want to take the guns out of the hands of the folks on the other side. No gun proponent is trying to put a gun in the hands of someone that doesn't want one.


Precisely. Anti-gun people aren't satisfied with _themselves_ not having guns. They aren't happy until other people don't (can't) have them, either.

Imagine how you'd feel, as a sailor, if people who didn't grok sailing (and you know there is plenty of _those_) were trying to take our sailboats away, because they didn't think we "needed" them? You'd all be pretty damn upset about it, and rather mystified as to why they wouldn't just leave us the hell alone to do our thing.

(No, I'm not saying sailboats are analogous to firearms.)

Jim


----------



## SEMIJim

erps said:


> You can buy a .50 cal Sniper rifle on Ebay capable of taking out aircraft and armored personel carriers.


No, you cannot. eBay has an anti-gun policy. As for taking out aircraft with a .50 BMG: Good luck trying to hit a moving aircraft with _any_ rifle, much less something as big, heavy and ungainly as a .50 BMG. It won't "take out" an APC, either, tho its rounds _may_ penetrate the armor.

Jim


----------



## erps

> No, you cannot. eBay has an anti-gun policy. As for taking out aircraft with a .50 BMG: Good luck trying to hit a moving aircraft with any rifle, much less something as big, heavy and ungainly as a .50 BMG. It won't "take out" an APC, either, tho its rounds may penetrate the armor.


Re ebay: my bad Jim. I googled Barrent .50 cal earlier today and saw several ebay hits. I didn't read them close enough though and see now that they for replicas and t-shirts. So instead of ebay, here is a place that sells them:
https://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/411534932

As to the capabilities of the rifle:



> While the round can be used in sniper rifles similar to the Barrett M82A1/XM107, it has the equivalent firing power of a 20 mm projectile to include such targets as helicopters, aircraft, light armour vehicles, ships and light fortifications, and can ignite JP4 and JP8 military jet fuel.


Helicopters are aircraft, aren't they?

Mark 211 .50-caliber Multipurpose Ammunition


----------



## GeorgeB

Facetiousness isn't lost on you guys (But seriously, if the revolution is on, I wanna play too and I do own some serious firepower!). As to my town voting in some unconstitutional laws, I agree with you, my town should not enter into an agreement to build a stadium for the 49ers - San Francisco can keep the team! To the uninitiated, there is more than one city in the Bay Area and my little burg happened to be ground zero to our little digital revolution. Whereas I sail by "Baghdad by the Bay" most every weekend, I only touch ground there maybe once or twice a year. Pray tell, what recent outrages have Gavin and his cabal foisted on this fair land?


----------



## Capnblu

Last year in september in Port renfrew a man was attacked by a bear in his boat alongside the wharf. As the bear was mauling the victim, two men came to his aid and each used a 2' gaff to try to pull the bear off of the man. My father and mother were just a little way down the wharf tying up when they heard someone yelling "BEAR ATTACK". My dad grabbed a crappy little hammer, and a 6" knife, and went and killed the bear. He had just turned 67. I guess what I wanted to say, is when something happens, either you are going to use what is available, or stand there screaming. Regardless of the country you are in. A gun would have been very handy, but no-one had one.


----------



## erps

> Pray tell, what recent outrages have Gavin and his cabal foisted on this fair land?


Proposition H. What do you call it when politicians knowingly pass laws that they know will be thrown out?



> Even San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who supported Preparation H, admitted that, "*It clearly will be thrown out.... It's so overtly pre-empted*. I'm having a difficult time with it, and that's my one caveat. ... It's really a public opinion poll at the end of the day."3


A Tale of Two Referendums


----------



## SEMIJim

erps said:


> Helicopters are aircraft, aren't they?


Yes, but actually _hitting_ a moving target like that with a weapon like that is another matter entirely.

Jim


----------



## erps

> My dad grabbed a crappy little hammer, and a 6" knife, and went and killed the bear. He had just turned 67.


WOW! Your dad is a hero.


----------



## erps

SEMIJim said:


> Yes, but actually _hitting_ a moving target like that with a weapon like that is another matter entirely.
> 
> Jim


Agreed. I think they're parked more than they're flying though.


----------



## Capnblu

Ya, I told him last year he wasn't allowed to bring the 7mm moose hunting, he had to use his tack hammer, and his steak knife! hahaha. I now win the "I have a COOLER Dad than you contest", most days. My sister and I heard the report on the radio, and looked at each other and said "Probably Dad", when we later found out we were right, it wasn't much of a shock. I always felt like he had my back, turns out he might just have yours too.


----------



## erps

> My sister and I heard the report on the radio, and looked at each other and said "Probably Dad", when we later found out we were right, it wasn't much of a shock.


Now that's funny and a testament to your dad's character.


----------



## night0wl

One thing I've always wondered about the anti-gun lobby. If their viewpoints were so popular/populist in this country, why not go about to change the 2nd amendment? The Constitution has always been a living document....?

I suspect they'd realize quickly that they're in the minority


----------



## scottyt

i really want to start a gun discussion thread, this one is way off course.

that said there are many misconceptions about firearms that get spread by anti gunners. the now famous 50 cal is one of them... oh no it could shoot down an air plane, well a 22 lr will go thru an aircrafts skin too. oh no it can light jet fuel on fire, well so can a coast guard mandated flare.

you want to talk about stupid stuff how about selling stab proof knifes in england, nothing a simple grinder cant fix in a min or two.stabb proof knife, they say it can cause a mortal wound, they forgot slashing. the guy who invented it wants normal knives banned.


----------



## erps

> One thing I've always wondered about the anti-gun lobby. If their viewpoints were so popular/populist in this country, why not go about to change the 2nd amendment? The Constitution has always been a living document....?
> 
> I suspect they'd realize quickly that they're in the minority


Yep.


----------



## jackdale

night0wl said:


> One thing I've always wondered about the anti-gun lobby. If their viewpoints were so popular/populist in this country, why not go about to change the 2nd amendment? The Constitution has always been a living document....?
> 
> I suspect they'd realize quickly that they're in the minority


The ERA was never passed. I expect that constitutional change is not that easy.


----------



## night0wl

jackdale said:


> The ERA was never passed. I expect that constitutional change is not that easy.


Never said it was *EASY*...but possible. And the right thing to do rather than to legislate in open defiance of the the Constitution. Or by activist judge.

Its been done in the past...why not here. ERA failed because simply put, there wasn't enough support for it. You have to have more than moral high ground to change the law of the land...


----------



## jackdale

I guess the practical approach is a version of of "When in Rome ..."

Recognizing cultural and legal differences among countries is essential to cruisers. I remember my trips to Turkey where I learned that it was not cool violate the cultural norms. In more traditional villages women were advised to keep their shoulders covered and wear skirts. Adult Turkish men wore pants, shorts were for little boys. In The Gambia, where I taught, you did not touch anyone with your left hand.

At the same time, your legal rights as a citizen of your own country do not apply when visiting another. If you can agree to that have a great visit; if not, stay home.

For example, in Canadian waters I can dump my holding tank just about anywhere, in US waters I am off to the pump out station.

Jack


----------



## TSOJOURNER

> The only thing I'll add is that there ARE places in Alaska and Canada where it would be foolish to venture ashore WITHOUT a gun.


Don't bring your guns to Canada - they are illegal and we don't want them or the attitudes that go with them.


----------



## GeorgeB

Help me out there EPRS, Not being a San Franciscan, I have no idea what you are talking about. What the heck is Proposition H and what am supposed to be for or against? Once again, the only controversy in my burg is whether or not to use public financing to build a professional football stadium (I’m against it so what does that make me? I’m so confused now).


----------



## scottyt

Sailormann said:


> Don't bring your guns to Canada - they are illegal and we don't want them or the attitudes that go with them.


actually depending on the type of license the person has they can get full auto gun mailed to there house

from wiki


> Licencing of firearms owners
> A sample of Possession-Only License
> 
> There are three classes of firearms and firearm licences: non-restricted, restricted and prohibited. Prohibited firearms are not actually prohibited, they simply require a prohibited licence to obtain. New prohibited licences are available only at the discretion of the Chief Firearms Officer of a province or the Federal Government of Canada.
> 
> * Non-restricted licences allow a person to own and use most semi-automatic and manual action rifles and shotguns, but no handguns. Rifles and shotguns that do not meet length requirements are classed as restricted. Some rifles and shotguns are classed as restricted by name.
> * Restricted licences allow a person to own most handguns and some restricted semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Handguns with barrels shorter than 104 mm are classed as prohibited. Some handguns are classed as prohibited by name.
> * Prohibited licences allow a person to own firearms classified as prohibited, including fully automatic firearms. Generally, these licences are not commonly available and may only be issued by the CFO of a province or the Federal Government. Otherwise, to possess one, the licence must be grandfathered as of December 1, 1998.
> 
> The licence required to purchase and own a firearm in Canada is the Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL). This is the same licence used for both restricted and non-restricted firearms with a small variation in the application. In order to be eligible to obtain a non-restricted PAL, the applicant must have completed and passed the Canadian Firearms Safety Course (CFSC). For the restricted PAL (which includes handguns) the applicant must have passed both the CFSC and the Canadian Restricted Firearms Safety Course (CRFSC). Most courses offer the CFSC or a combined course that includes both the CRFSC and the CFSC.[8]
> 
> [e


----------



## tdw

CD,

Thanks for your defence, I was about to circle the wagons just in case. 

JK235, I am not trying to incite anything. I may be thinking thoughts that would lead me to having to ban myself but we'll leave that alone for now.

Really BRANDISH was the operative word. The rest you can work out for yourself with a bit of luck.

To that extent even my comment re not coming to Australia was said in an Australian context, in that we as a nation are generally relieved when our visitors come unarmed. Simple as that. No big deal and no we don't think that all USAians are gun toting homicidal maniacs. 

What CD says is all too true, and it was the point I was trying to make in my original post. Guns are a hot issue in the US, they are not in many, maybe even most other parts of the world. 

Rocky Mtn, there was nothing anti USA American in what I said at all. Both you and JK235 should try and read my post with a somewhat less defensive attitude.

As for the reference to WWII....


----------



## jackdale

scottyt said:


> actually depending on the type of license the person has they can get full auto gun mailed to there house
> 
> from wiki


\

From Canada Border Services Agency



> Prohibited firearms include:
> 
> * handguns with barrels less than or equal to 105 mm (4.14 inches) long;
> * handguns designed or adapted to discharge a 25 or 32-calibre cartridge;
> * firearms adapted from rifles or shotguns by sawing, cutting or any other alteration, that, when adapted in this way, are less than 660 mm (26 inches) long or have a barrel that is less than 457 mm (18.5 inches) long;
> * automatic firearms, whether or not altered to fire in the manner of a semi-automatic firearm; and
> * firearms prohibited by regulations.





> Canadian residents
> 
> Canadian residents cannot, under any circumstances, import prohibited firearms newly acquired outside Canada.


Jack


----------



## poopdeckpappy

Erps, I think that was preperation H and the acticle was " A Tale of Two Rearendings


----------



## Capnblu

Sorry Sailormann, guns are not illegal in Canada, restricted weapons maybe. You can buy ammunition at Canadian tire for pete sake. Take a PAL course, buy any gun you want.


----------



## scottyt

jackdale said:


> \
> 
> From Canada Border Services Agency
> 
> Jack


your right jack you cant import new ones same way in the US they cant make new full autos for cilivians, the ones that are in canada or made in canada with the proper license can be bought and sold

there are guns that americans cant buy but canadians can norinco m1a are an example.

i am not saying the laws in either country are right or wrong just what the laws are.


----------



## scottyt

to the mods

i think this thread is too far off course, and it should be moved to the politics section, and i am just as guilty as some others are

or lets start a new one there


----------



## SSBN506

I don’t see a lot of people saying that guns should be banned. Just people saying they don’t like the pro gun people saying they are such a big deal. “Saying thing like I have guns to keep governments in check”. “I am freer then you are because I have a gun”. “My family is safer than yours is because I have guns.” 

If the wording of the first post had been something like. “For the boaters out there who decide they want to carry a gun on board and their laws allowed it what do you carry” this discussion would not be like this. 

I haven’t seen any of the people say guns should be banned in the US and try to make arguments why. Just they don’t by the arguments gun owner justify as their reason for owning them because the reasons suggest if you don’t have a gun you are doing sum disserves to your country and family.


----------



## chall03

scottyt said:


> to the mods
> 
> i think this thread is too far off course, and it should be moved to the politics section, and i am just as guilty as some others are
> 
> or lets start a new one there


I think there are a fair few threads like this there already


----------



## SEMIJim

Sailormann said:


> Don't bring your guns to Canada - they are illegal and we don't want them or the attitudes that go with them.


First of all: No, they aren't necessarily illegal. (Tho I suspect you wish they all were.) Secondly: You speak for all Canadians, do you? That will come as quite a shock to the thousands of Canadians that own firearms, shoot and hunt with them. (Incl. the estimated thousands that have felt your Government's failed registration program ridiculous and have simply ignored it.)

Btw: To kind of get back on-topic: I don't carry or have firearms aboard, other than the CG-mandated flare pistol, when we sail. About half the area of the lakes and rivers in which we sail are Canadian waters, and the Canadian government takes a dim view of undeclared firearms brought into their country--even if it is only because you crossed an invisible line in the water. I respect their wishes and I wish to keep my property.

Jim


----------



## eherlihy

WOW! Four pages and still going strong.. I started reading this thread yesterday, and got pulled away before I could finish...

Here are my $0.02:
I don't own a gun, and probably never will - except a pellet rifle (is this considered a firearm?) for the damn squirrels that keep raiding The Admiral's garden.

However, *I would like to thank those of you that DO carry guns on your vessel*. You are providing the "shadow of doubt" in the mind of those who may wish to do harm to me, my companions, or my posessions. Thus, I have a lower likelyhood of an "incident," and it costs me nuthin'.


----------



## erps

> Help me out there EPRS, Not being a San Franciscan, I have no idea what you are talking about.


Sorry for the confusion. San Francisco passed a handgun ban a few years ago. There is evidence the mayor knew it couldn't be defended in court but committed resource to the law's defense anyway. The NRA sued, won and was awarded attorney fees from the city. I recollect reading a quote from the mayor indicating he knew the law was indefensible. When I looked for it yesterday, the hit I found was from a blog from a pro-gunner calling the bill "preperation H." instead of Proposition H.

NRA-ILA ::

San Francisco Pays NRA $380,000 for Successful Proposition H Lawsuits

Total Tab to City for Unsuccessful Defense of Illegal Gun Ban Approaches $800,000


----------



## WanderingStar

LMAO. That's where I sail now. Though I wish I'd had at least a water balloon when a punk on a jetski sprayed my yawl.


----------



## erps

> What CD says is all too true, and it was the point I was trying to make in my original post. Guns are a hot issue in the US, they are not in many, maybe even most other parts of the world.


TDW aren't guns a hot issue in Canada and Austrailia too? Why else would citizens of those countries feel compelled to weigh in if it wasn't an issue?


----------



## JimMcGee

*The Real Disconnect*

Just getting back to looking at this thread.

Rocky Mtn - My question was how do you get from this thread to WWII. There's no line of logic you can draw other than chest thumping. And as some have pointed out that doesn't add anything to the conversation.

The real disconnect is that there really are multiple Americas, but not in the way that the Fox News commentators would have you believe.

There is rural America where rifles are tools used for recreational hunting and to control pests.

There is urban America where guns are a tool used by criminals - and no - having your own gun does not make you safe in these places. Not even close. In fact there are places in our cities where the cops won't go. For people who live in fear of criminals every day getting the guns off the street would make their lives significantly better.

Then there's suburban America that can come down on either side of the issue depending on whether they're tied more to an urban or rural lifestyle.

What gets lost in this religious conversation about guns is any hope of a reasonable compromise or duscussion. Just look at the posts here.

Somewhere in the past 20 years we lost the ability to have rational political discussion.

Now I'm living on the boat this week, so I need to get off the laptop and re-run the lines to my fuel tank. The one thing that is probably even less fun than talking about guns on a sailing web site.


----------



## SSBN506

erps said:


> TDW aren't guns a hot issue in Canada and Austrailia too? Why else would citizens of those countries feel compelled to weigh in if it wasn't an issue?


I would say it is a barley worm issue in Canada at best from both sides. I think a majority of people don't want more or less gun laws in Canada, aside from a vocal minority on both sides.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

tdw said:


> Rocky Mtn, there was nothing anti USA American in what I said at all. Both you and JK235 should try and read my post with a somewhat less defensive attitude.
> 
> As for the reference to WWII....


I suggest you read your own post. here are YOUR words:

"I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again but this USAian thing about guns is seriously weird to many of us non USAians. Seriously weird indeed... I'd also like to express my thanks to those of you who have cut Australia from your cruising plans because we won't allow you to carry guns in our country."

Let everyone else judge for themselves if this tone is anti-American.

With these statements coming from a "moderator" on this site, I think I will quietly withdraw and return to cruisersforum.com.

Fair Winds


----------



## jackdale

erps said:


> TDW aren't guns a hot issue in Canada and Austrailia too? Why else would citizens of those countries feel compelled to weigh in if it wasn't an issue?


erps

You like Gallup polls. This one compares Canadian and US attitudes to gun laws.



> In considering whether the general public should be allowed to own guns, Americans and Canadians are likely to hold opposite viewpoints. Gallup recently asked Americans, "Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?" Almost two-thirds (65%) said no while about a third (32%) said yes*. Last year, Canadians were asked, "For each of the following groups, please indicate whether or not you think they should be allowed, by law, to own a gun: the general public." A majority of Canadians (63%) said they do not believe that the general public should be allowed to own a gun, while 36% said it should**. While subtleties in question wording do not allow for a country-to-country comparison (the U.S. question asks about a "ban" which people are less likely to favor and probably understates opposition to gun ownership, while the Canadian question asks about not "allowing" people to own guns; also, the U.S. question is limited to "handguns" while the Canadian question refers more generally to "guns"), Canadian support for private gun ownership is lower than in the United States.












Jack


----------



## erps

Thanks Jack,

By that reference, it appears the issue is even less settled up your way, with the percentage between the two sides closer than down here.


----------



## camaraderie

Always good to cite a 2002 survey when a REPUBLICAN was in office and no ones gun ownership rights were threatened to make a point. Here's the historical trend of opinion till OCTOBER OF 2008 in the USA
from Gallup:









Support for stricter gun laws in the USA is lower than it has been since the question started being asked. Note that the people wanting things kept JUST as they are is also at the highest level ever.


----------



## jackdale

erps said:


> Thanks Jack,
> 
> By that reference, it appears the issue is even less settled up your way, with the percentage between the two sides closer than down here.


In answer to your second question


> Why else would citizens of those countries feel compelled to weigh in if it wasn't an issue?


I think that Canadians might be upset by Americans who think that their Second Amendment rights stand in Canada. The OP seemed disturbed that he might not be able to bring his arsenal into Canada. The handgun is prohibited. The shotgun might also be prohibited as I believe the barrel under 18.5 inches.

I respect American law when I am in American waters. I no longer take classes or skippered charters to the San Juans. I obey US holding tank laws. I understand that I cannot import oranges, apples and potatoes.

Jack


----------



## erps

> I think that Canadians might be upset by Americans who think that their Second Amendment rights stand in Canada. The OP seemed disturbed that he might not be able to bring his arsenal into Canada.


I think you're right. It's my understanding that the right to bear arms in Canada and America can be traced back to English common law. It appears that Canadians are upset with other Canadians too, who would strengthen that right.



> Our right to keep and bear arms in our own or the country's defense comes from exactly the same place as the American one -- English Common Law, the English Bill of Rights 1689, the writings of Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries on English Law, and others. All these laws (and indeed the full body of English Law), became part of Canadian law on our Confederation in 1867 with the affirmation of the British North America (BNA) Act.
> 
> We have this Right, though our government is attempting to suppress it and deny citizen's their age-old right to self-defense with the egregious and unconstitutional (not to mention horrendously expensive) Firearms Act and other proposals.
> 
> It leads one to wonder why the government so wants an unarmed and defenceless populace


RKBA. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Canada. gun ban, gun control, handgun ban, C 68, gun registry, long gun registry, handgun registry, confiscation, gun rights, self defense, public safety, gun facts, gun myths


----------



## jackdale

erps said:


> I think you're right. It's my understanding that the right to bear arms in Canada and America can be traced back to English common law. It appears that Canadians are upset with Americans and Canadians who would strengthen that right.


That right from the Bill of Rights 1689 only applied to Protestants and was conditional.



> That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;


We might have a hard time with that as we have a right to freedom of religion and do not permit discrimination based on religion.

Jack


----------



## erps

jackdale said:


> That right from the Bill of Rights 1689 only applied to Protestants and was conditional.
> 
> We might have a hard time with that as we have a right to freedom of religion and do not permit discrimination based on religion.
> 
> Jack


Actually, if you read down to Blackstone's commentary on English law, you will find:



> "Personal security" equates to "security of the person", that is, the right to be free from assaults or other violence perpetrated by the State or others.
> 
> To preserve these from violation, it is necessary that the constitution of parliaments be supported in its full vigor; and limits certainly known, be set to the royal prerogative. And, lastly, to vindicate these rights, when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts and law; next to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; *and lastly to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense.*
> 
> And all these rights and liberties it is our birthright to enjoy entire; unless where the laws of our country have laid them under necessary restraints. Restraints in themselves so gentle and moderate, as will appear upon farther enquiry, that no man of sense or probity would wish to see them slackened.


----------



## jackdale

That is Blackstone's commentary. It is not common law.

The Bill of Rights was codified. Therefore, also not common law.

BTW - we Canadians have security of person included as one of the three fundamental rights, along with life and liberty. It has been the basis of many decisions by the Supreme Court.


----------



## Cruisingdad

RockyMtn said:


> I suggest you read your own post. here are YOUR words:
> 
> "I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again but this USAian thing about guns is seriously weird to many of us non USAians. Seriously weird indeed... I'd also like to express my thanks to those of you who have cut Australia from your cruising plans because we won't allow you to carry guns in our country."
> 
> Let everyone else judge for themselves if this tone is anti-American.
> 
> With these statements coming from a "moderator" on this site, I think I will quietly withdraw and return to cruisersforum.com.
> 
> Fair Winds


TDW is NOT anti-american, period. I chose him personally to represent sailnet here and would not have done so if I ever thought him anything but a class act. I simply do not understand how you can confuse his not understanding guns and their atittudes in America to being Anti-American for God's sakes.

Andrew is a class act and I am proud he is here. I also respect his views on everything, even if I do not agree with all of them. I also respect your views, even if I do not agree with them. It always amazes me when peopel get personal and take things personally when discussing differnt view points. No doubt that has led to more wars that can be counted.

And I will say something else: Of all people where I expect a cooler head and reasonable attitude to prevail without knee-jerking, it is in those who are strong proponents of carrying weapons. When you do not, you give all kinds of amunition to those who actually DO want to take our guns away - of which Andrew (TDW) is not one.

- CD


----------



## Bene505

eherlihy said:


> ...However, *I would like to thank those of you that DO carry guns on your vessel*. You are providing the "shadow of doubt" in the mind of those who may wish to do harm to me, my companions, or my posessions. Thus, I have a lower likelyhood of an "incident," and it costs me nuthin'.


Best sentence I've ever read on any forum. Agreed. All it takes is a few ready people to give criminals doubts (and governments doubts too) when they want to attack.

Otherwise we sit like a pile of cleaned and cooked shrimp on a buffet table. To others, we'd simple be value that's there for the easy taking.


----------



## SSBN506

Bene505 said:


> Best sentence I've ever read on any forum. Agreed. All it takes is a few ready people to give criminals doubts (and governments doubts too) when they want to attack.
> 
> Otherwise we sit like a pile of cleaned and cooked shrimp on a buffet table. To others, we'd simple be value that's there for the easy taking.


The government doesn't need you to be unarmed in the modern era. People have figured out other people will gladly give up their freedoms if it gives them the illusion of security. It is much easier to manipulate people then force them. The fact that sum people pick political parties like sports teams or religion and support them to the bitter end scare me more then a gun or lack of ever will.


----------



## nk235

Cruisingdad said:


> TDW is NOT anti-american, period. I chose him personally to represent sailnet here and would not have done so if I ever thought him anything but a class act. I simply do not understand how you can confuse his not understanding guns and their atittudes in America to being Anti-American for God's sakes.
> 
> Andrew is a class act and I am proud he is here. I also respect his views on everything, even if I do not agree with all of them. I also respect your views, even if I do not agree with them. It always amazes me when peopel get personal and take things personally when discussing differnt view points. No doubt that has led to more wars that can be counted.
> 
> And I will say something else: Of all people where I expect a cooler head and reasonable attitude to prevail without knee-jerking, it is in those who are strong proponents of carrying weapons. When you do not, you give all kinds of amunition to those who actually DO want to take our guns away - of which Andrew (TDW) is not one.
> 
> - CD


Look this is hopefully my last post on this subject as I love visiting Sailnet and really think it is a great place and I appreciate the work you and the other mods do on here to keep it going. Also if you ever look back on some of my posts you will see I am not a trouble maker in any way shape or form. However with that in mind TDW may be a great person and class act but some of the coments he made on here were just either plain stupid or made to try and piss off those which he opposes. I don't need to quote everything he said but saying more than once that he doesn't understand why people would not brandish a gun other than in anger or that people who carry guns with no intent to use them on somebody are morons. I think we can all agree that even THE MOST naive of people can understand there are many more uses for a firearm than cold blooded murder so how can anyone honestly act like those are the words of a mature adult? I don't mind people having different opinons what so ever but please don't act like he is some saint


----------



## tdw

nk235 said:


> Look this is hopefully my last post on this subject as I love visiting Sailnet and really think it is a great place and I appreciate the work you and the other mods do on here to keep it going. Also if you ever look back on some of my posts you will see I am not a trouble maker in any way shape or form. However with that in mind TDW may be a great person and class act but some of the coments he made on here were just either plain stupid or made to try and piss off those which he opposes. I don't need to quote everything he said but saying more than once that he doesn't understand why people would not brandish a gun other than in anger or that people who carry guns with no intent to use them on somebody are morons. I think we can all agree that even THE MOST naive of people can understand there are many more uses for a firearm than cold blooded murder so how can anyone honestly act like those are the words of a mature adult? I don't mind people having different opinons what so ever but please don't act like he is some saint


NK235,
I think you should put my original reply to the original poster into context. If you read the original post, it concerned carrying guns on board for self defence and , perhaps incorrectly, I took that to mean self defence against people. Guns for hunting or sport didn't seem to be part of the discussion.


----------



## camaraderie

RockyMtn said:


> With these statements coming from a "moderator" on this site, I think I will quietly withdraw and return to cruisersforum.com.


Yeah...go where this thread would have been cut off after the 3rd post. Better yet...join in with Sully for complete freedom of speech and real American values.


----------



## camaraderie

TDW is a screaming liberal freak ...and a good guy! He is not anti-American...he is anti-anything to the right of Nancy Pelosi!   
That said...it is traditional here that the mods opinions are their own opinions and when they post, they post as members not mods unless plainly addressing a governance issue. Their opinion posts carry no more weight than anyone elses' (especially CD's opinions). 
So...argue with Fuzzy because he is a communist lackey...but don't get your knickers in a bunch because he is a person ...errr wombat... besides a mod.


----------



## smackdaddy

camaraderie said:


> Yeah...go where this thread would have been cut off after the 3rd post. Better yet...join in with Sully for complete freedom of speech and real American values.


Good lord, Cam. You're like a freakin' broken record as you bark at members around here. I'm losing track of which forums you're bashing and pimping. Just 6 months ago you were all in love with Sully's site...



camaraderie said:


> Since Sailnet will no longer allow ME or ANYONE else to post negative comments whether true or not about vendors or manufacturers as a matter of policy....
> 
> ...I have some new policies as well.
> 
> 1. Since I am not allowed to post on all sides of an issue related to boating here...I will no longer post here on ANY issue related to boating here OR privately in PM's. I will simply hang out in off topic with my friends and discuss all sides of those issues since they are not moderated. Anyone wishing MY opinion about anything boating related may find me at Boating, Sailing and Cruising Forum: For Cruisers - BY Cruisers where I can say what I want.
> 
> 2. I will no longer recommend the sailnet store to others. I will no longer encourage the support of a place that does not support at LEAST the ability to post FACTS.
> 
> Sorry Rob...but your post today went too far and I am done supporting you.
> CruisingDad/JRP/Jeff_H... none of this is directed at you guys...I know how hard you work behind the scenes to avoid stuff like this. You do what you HAVE to do. No hard feelings.


Do you get royalties for this stuff?

Just leave it alone, dude. Let the mods handle it.


----------



## chall03

Smack it took you 180 posts to get here?? Your really getting slow my boy  
I think it's kinda unfair to throw back in Cam's face his very early recommendation of stuffers. You know that when he posted that Stuffers was actually a great site, why wouldn't he recommend it? The freedom of speech violating, lying, baseball-wielding tyrancy only became apparent after this. I think your just stirring the ****e on this one buddy.



Cruisingdad said:


> It always amazes me when peopel get personal and take things personally when discussing differnt view points. No doubt that has led to more wars that can be counted.
> 
> And I will say something else: Of all people where I expect a cooler head and reasonable attitude to prevail without knee-jerking, it is in those who are strong proponents of carrying weapons. When you do not, you give all kinds of amunition to those who actually DO want to take our guns away - of which Andrew (TDW) is not one.
> 
> - CD


CD, I have given my stance on firearms before. I like TDW am an Aussie who was not raised around guns, and I do not have the greatest understanding of 'the right to bear arms' debate.

It was however your rational explanations in the last 'firearms' thread to pop up that helped me to think a bit more about it and to understand more why you guys do carry around firearms, and that well to put it bluntly your not all gun wielding ********, but rather there are alot of good responsible folk who carry firearms. You helped me understand that in your town, in your country it is quite appropriate and culturally acceptable to do so. Once again though what people need to understand here is that for some of us non-americans this culture is totally foreign.......we don't have a 2nd amendment here, I have never shot a gun in my life. The only people In Australia with guns are farmers, cops and criminals....


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*around any dangerous thing....*

you need some training not to get hurt... Weather driving a car or with Firearms.... There are also reasonable rules on this stuff... Texas has had such rational rules for quite a while..

--jr


----------



## tdw

erps said:


> TDW aren't guns a hot issue in Canada and Austrailia too? Why else would citizens of those countries feel compelled to weigh in if it wasn't an issue?


Erps,

Guns are a hot issue in Australia but nowhere near as emotive an issue as the US. Yes, farmers and sporting shooters have guns but it is far more of a surprise to find a gun owner than not. Right now there is a debate going on about culling of feral imported wildlife and whether or not that should be opened up to amateur hunters. Chances are the hunters will not win that one. A very different situation I believe to that which exists in the US.

That is why I said non USAmericans often find the broohaha the subject seems to incite in the US to be somewhat weird. Weird as in strange, odd, out of the ordinary. It is largely an alien concept to us. I certainly did not intend to set off the somewhat acrimonious debate that I obviously have and to be frank about it I should have known better. Fact is that I, like many Australians get quite hot under the collar when non Australians say they will not come to our country unless we allow them to carry arms. My viewpoint is that it is far better for all concerned that they don't come here at all.

Anywho, there you go. It is really hard to believe that I am being accused of anti Americanism. Sure there are things about the USA that I don't like , that is hardly surprising, but in truth how many of you are going to defend Brittney Spears ? See I told you. No one nation is perfect.... and any nation that gives the world Hank Williams, John Kennedy O'Toole, Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistlestop Cafe, SailHog, Rod Stevens, Ted Brewer, Bob Perry (even if he was born in Oz) , Groucho Marx, 1952 Ford Twin Spinner Custom, USS Missouri (see I'm not even a total peacenik) , Jackson Pollock, the Coronado Hotel, Frank Lloyd Wright, Dashiell Hammett......ah me....the road goes on forever but the party has to end.,






and no I'm not taking the piss.

As Cam said I am somewhat to the left of centre politically , a card carrying atheist and have levelled more than my fair share of criticism at US foreign policy over the years but in the main I still like the place a lot and have thorougly enjoyed my all too infrequent visits.

and I don't do nasty things to small furry animals no matter what SailHog might reckon.

your food can be pretty ordinary though and your beer really and truely sucks. Did I mention Brittney Spears ? Dick Cheney ? brrrr....now that's scarey.....

all in all though,,,,,,

ps - Smack....love you man but settle......Cam was in fact being protective....hold your fire.....

ah ****e, now we are back to guns......


----------



## Stillraining

I have always only looked at this one way...

Say in the example years ago when some kook entered a McDonalds with an automatic and started killing innocent people just sitting eating.....Where was the one level headed law abiding concealed weapon permit carrying citizen?.. to dust him and save a few of thoes poor souls or die trying...sometimes the old American West's ways are still the best...

I hope it is always my right to defend my loved ones lives. Unfortunately the way its going I will be the one in Jail, the Kook will get community service and a government paid lawyer to sue me for wrongful interference...God Help us!

When we cruise to Canada I dont carry..its their country ,their laws..when I cruise here at home I may or may not but I like the choice...and if I ever needed the defence and didnt have it ..the only one I could blame would be me.


----------



## chall03

tdw said:


> but in truth how many of you are going to defend Brittney Spears ?


Hey Wombat you leave Britney out of this...


----------



## smackdaddy

We'll trade you Sailhog for Britney Spears any day, dude.


----------



## ottos

tdw said:


> your food can be pretty ordinary though and your beer really and truely sucks.


No you've done it !

When you visited, you must have been drinking in the wrong places. Over the last decade or so there has been an awakening in the form of micro-breweries across the country that are making truly world-class beers. My personal favorite right now is Storm King Stout. I don't know what you drank before, but you don't have to limit yourself to Bud, Coors and Miller anymore.

Storm King Stout - Victory Brewing Company - BeerAdvocate


----------



## Culinary411

Does a speargun count? Fish fear me...women love me....lol !


----------



## Stillraining

ottos said:


> No you've done it !
> 
> When you visited, you must have been drinking in the wrong places. Over the last decade or so there has been an awakening in the form of micro-breweries across the country that are making truly world-class beers. My personal favorite right now is Storm King Stout. I don't know what you drank before, but you don't have to limit yourself to Bud, Coors and Miller anymore.
> 
> Storm King Stout - Victory Brewing Company - BeerAdvocate


Thanks Ottos:

The boy is deluded.... or is that *diluted* to be sure.. If he ever comes for a vacation, I will have planted aboard a staple of some of our best local stuff as well. The tide will turn be sure about that.


----------



## smackdaddy

I was watching an episode of a great show you all should see..."Mad Men". It's about the NY advertising industry in its late '50s heyday. Apart from making thin ties and martinis extremely cool again, another thing they do very well is contrast the general social view from that day with ours (e.g. - women smoking and drinking while pregnant, driving drunk, no seat belts, child restraints, etc.). It's fascinating.

In last night's episode, one of the young account execs brings a .22 rifle to the office after buying it during his lunch break - just because he always wanted one. He carries it unwrapped into the building, past the "security" desk in the lobby, up the elevator, into the office. Then with his other young buddies, pretends he's "hunting" the women in the office. Aiming at the ones he likes and winking.

The women, and everyone else in the room completely ignore him. They just roll their eyes. Guns were just for war and hunting at that point. No connection to public violence.

Interesting perspective. They were trusting something.


----------



## painkiller

I generally prefer TV fiction as a primary reference of history as well.


----------



## smackdaddy

Heh-heh. Don't make me deconstruct "The Love Boat" and how it applied to the breakdown of the socioeconomic underpinnings of Malaysia during the '80s.


----------



## SEMIJim

painkiller said:


> I generally prefer TV fiction as a primary reference of history as well.


ROFL! :laugher


----------



## AE28

This discussion being brought to you by the folks at
Front Sight Firearms Training Institute.


----------



## tdw

Stillraining said:


> Thanks Ottos:
> 
> The boy is deluded.... or is that *diluted* to be sure.. If he ever comes for a vacation, I will have planted aboard a staple of some of our best local stuff as well. The tide will turn be sure about that.


Yeah ....OK......so you have finally managed to get it right.....first become the Evil Empire and then make a decent beer......down here we went about it the other way round.....admittedly the beer has softened our desire for world wide domination but we'll get back to that after we have sobered up ........


----------



## erps

> Fact is that I, like many Australians get quite hot under the collar when non Australians say they will not come to our country unless we allow them to carry arms. My viewpoint is that it is far better for all concerned that they don't come here at all.
> 
> Anywho, there you go. It is really hard to believe that I am being accused of anti Americanism.


I never thought that of you TDW. Actually, the NRA has Australia to thank for swelling their ranks. It was the Australian gun registration then subsequent gun destruction that scared the heck out of gun owners here. It was a preview of what some would do to us in the U.S.


----------



## knothead

YouTube - From my cold dead hands


----------



## tdw

Erps,
I should have been more specific in my reply. Only the first paragraph was a reply to your post...the rest was a non specific ramble......


----------



## Izzy1414

smackdaddy said:


> ....In last night's episode, one of the young account execs brings a .22 rifle to the office after buying it during his lunch break - just because he always wanted one. He carries it unwrapped into the building, past the "security" desk in the lobby, up the elevator, into the office..


Growing up back in the 60's and 70's out here in the wild west we always took guns to school. Rifle(s) always in the gun rack. Thought nuthin' of it. Dad gave me my first hand gun in Jr. High........Boy, do I miss the good ol' days :gunner


----------



## Stillraining

Izzy1414 said:


> Growing up back in the 60's and 70's out here in the wild west we always took guns to school. Rifle(s) always in the gun rack. Thought nuthin' of it. Dad gave me my first hand gun in Jr. High........Boy, do I miss the good ol' days :gunner


Im with ya!

Me and my best bud use to walk down town with 22 revolvers in western holsters strapped to our legs..walk into Elys Hardware and by shells..or into the store and by an ice cream...we could not have been but 12 the first time we did that...and Im only 52...man things have gone down hill in 40 years..

Then there were all the many, many days we would walk all over the place..shotguns in hand hunting and shooting some winged table fare..people didnt give us a second glance...but maybe to stop and coment on the nice grouse or ducks we shot.

Guns have never been a thing to show off with for us..they have been like a fishing pole...a tool used for a purpose..albeit needing a bit more respect.

I can tell in less then 1 minute if I want to hunt or go shooting with an individual just by the way they handel that firearm in that first minute...sadly most have not a clue about them and a bit of a silly macho gunslinger Rambo attitude with them...

My favorite quote of all time is:

" I'v been watchin guns all my life and I havent seen one jump off the shelf and shoot any one yet"

I dont know who coined it..but it's dead on.

Soft on the criminal we have to blame for all our woes im afraid..that and to many generations of folks not properly trained in there handling or use has made them fearfull of them or cavalier with them.

But Im digressing..yes we carry on board sometimes...no more often then say up riding horses in the mountains or a late night trip for my wife in the car somewhere though..its a hit and miss thing for us...as I said I just want the choice...


----------



## TSOJOURNER

> The publication to which you linked indicates that bringing a firearm into Canada is no problem at all so long as it is declared. I certainly know plenty of hunters who head north of the border during the season and bring their own equipment


The only firearms that may be brought into Canada are long guns and, in the case of Olympic competitors who have received specially issued waivers, target pistols. Nothing else. Ever. The firearms must be declared and appropriate documentation provided upon entry.

Let me reiterate my previous statement: If your idea of a good time involves shooting something - stay home!


----------



## TSOJOURNER

> Sorry Sailormann, guns are not illegal in Canada, restricted weapons maybe. You can buy ammunition at Canadian tire for pete sake. Take a PAL course, buy any gun you want.


You don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## Capnblu

So nice of you to speak for yourself, (only) sailorman. Remember to lock your doors, and turn out the lights, the boogie man might be coming.


----------



## Capnblu

Sailormann said:


> You don't know what you are talking about.


Really?


----------



## SEMIJim

Sailormann said:


> Let me reiterate my previous statement: If your idea of a good time involves shooting something - stay home!


The next time one of the Canadian yacht clubs overnights at our club, and they urge us to join our club next time our club organizes a visit to theirs, I'll be sure to tell them "But Sailormann told me that if I enjoy shooting, stay home." 

Jim


----------



## davidpm

What I hear from several people is that they want the option of carrying a gun just in case they need it for defense from animal or man. I can understand that. If someone has competence in using a gun and has the confidence that the risk of having a gun on board is less than the risk of not having one, it is understandable that they don't want their safety diminished by, to them, arbitrary laws.

If I got the above thinking accurate then perhaps it would be safe to say that the issue is that our pro-gun SN members want to have the freedom to judge for themselves, as captain, the risk of having a gun on-board just like they decide when to replace the standing rigging or when to replace a thru-hull fitting. All decisions that directly effect the safety of the boat and crew.

I would like to make a distinction between captains that want to preserve the freedom to carry guns and those who actually do carry a gun. The distinction is important to my next question because those who do carry guns on board have made the the risk decision that a gun on board makes them safer.

So i have a question to those of you who regularly carry guns on board in the US.
Do you personally always wear a life jacket when on board your boat in all conditions and insist on all your crew wearing a life jacket?
If you do not insist on wearing life jackets what are your perceived risks that would cause you to not wear a life jacket but carry a gun.
For example how many Innocent lives would have been saved if every-one was as well trained as you in gun handling and carried to protect against aggression in US waters plus how many would be saved by wearing life-jackets.

Just asking. 
If someone is very cautious. Wears a life jacket, replaces standing rigging every few years and carries a gun that to me could be interpreted is a consistent safety first position.
If however someones actions do not reflect their verbal concerns for safety it is difficult to not look for other motivations.

Please do not take the above question to mean that in any way I am prepared to successfully defend all or even most of my decisions with completely consistent logic. It is part of the human condition that we often make an emotional decison and after the fact back it up with the best "logic" we can invent, myself included.


----------



## erps

> So i have a question to those of you who regularly carry guns on board in the US.
> Do you personally always wear a life jacket when on board your boat in all conditions and insist on all your crew wearing a life jacket?


I don't personally always wear a life jacket, but I always have a life jacket at hand should it be needed, and I don it when conditions warrant it.



> If you do not insist on wearing life jackets what are your perceived risks that would cause you to not wear a life jacket but carry a gun.


I don't insist that my passengers wear life jackets in benign conditions and I don't insist that they carry guns. I see the point you're trying to make, but I don't think it accurately illustrates the issue.

Let's ask your question in another way. If a captain makes judgment calls on what kind of safety equipment he should have on board, at what point should he start questioning a third party telling him he can't carry life jackets on board, a life raft, a flare gun or a gun?



> the issue is that our pro-gun SN members want to have the freedom to judge for themselves, as captain, the risk of having a gun on-board just like they decide when to replace the standing rigging or when to replace a thru-hull fitting. All decisions that directly effect the safety of the boat and crew.


I think that's accurate and then it went sideways when you started looking for hidden agendas or motivations.



> For example how many Innocent lives would have been saved if every-one was as well trained as you in gun handling and carried to protect against aggression in US waters plus how many would be saved by wearing life-jackets.


Good point. I'm sure that far more people die because they chose not to wear a life jacket than die because they chose not to carry for self defense. The question I have for you, is how many innocent lives are you willing to forfeit by denying someone a life jacket or a means for self defense? Also, I suspect that a lot of folks die by a fall in their bath tub. At what point do we start banning bath tubs?

Anyway, all this stuff is just opinions of lay people. I suppose the Coast Guard are experts on marine safety. Wonder what their practice is?


----------



## Stillraining

davidpm said:


> Just asking.
> If someone is very cautious. Wears a life jacket, replaces standing rigging every few years and carries a gun that to me could be interpreted is a consistent safety first position.
> If however someones actions do not reflect their verbal concerns for safety it is difficult to not look for other motivations.
> Please do not take the above question to mean that in any way I am prepared to successfully defend all or even most of my decisions with completely consistent logic. It is part of the human condition that we often make an emotional decison and after the fact back it up with the best "logic" we can invent, myself included.


 I think this is the crux of the matter for anit-gun people...it is hard for you/ them to truly believe that I as an individual, that wants to be able to carry a firearm for protection dosent have some hidden ajenda or is somehow off kilter in the head and deserves to be watched and monitored so I dont hurt someone. We as "Right to bare arms" believers will be the fist to admit some people should not be alowed to own a firearm..but that can not be a blanket law for everyone..

Some people should not have a drivers licence and in ownership of a car either and we take that right away form them if they kill to many people with that licence or car... but you and I may still buy and own that lethal weapon careening down the highway at 70 MPH 3' away from another fellow you are trusting your life with..by his or hers decition and competence with that deadly weapon...If everyone had a side arm strapped to there leg you would be desensitized to that as well.

I will go back to the fear. It is the fear of what you think I am going to do with my gun that bothers you..*you dont trust me *is what it boils down to. Not with the same trust you have with the driver of that 18 wheeler 30' off your rear bumper and the pearl you are actually in by being in that spot is far greater then I will ever pose you or any one that dosent intend bodily harm to me or my beloved fellow mankind first.

I might of even gotten a thank you from you had you and your family been in that McDonalds and I was there to stop that kook one millisecond before spraying your family with bullets...But I still might not have changed your fear..and there for your opinion on this whole matter.

Fear..it what motivates most people in any direction of choice...Mine is fear of failing to protect, what ever it takes...and yes for me that means Life jackets when short handed or in inclement weather on the water...

I have forgotten a gun when I intended to bring one ..I have forgotten to don the kids in deteriorating weather as well...No *"Ulterior motives"* with either action..Im not perfict just trying to be the best protector of my family as I can...and be prepaired...FWIW I also realize a firearm in the bilge is of no use on deck if needed..nothings perfict.

I hope you have a little less fear of me in the future..It is trully my hope.


----------



## SEMIJim

erps said:


> I suppose the Coast Guard are experts on marine safety. Wonder what their practice is?


ROFL! :laugher "I have got to get me one of these!"

We see those, both CG and CBP, all the time 'round here. Now some of you may not see it, this being a sailing site and all, but they are seriously cool boats.

Jim


----------



## Izzy1414

SEMIJim said:


> ....Now some of you may not see it, this being a sailing site and all, but they are seriously cool boats.


Duh, what sailor among us wouldn't think how much fun it would be to go for a spin on one of those things and go have a talk with that dude that just about knocked us out of our boat in the no wake zone.


----------



## therapy23

Stillraining said:


> I think this is the crux of the matter for anit-gun people...it is hard for you/ them to truly believe that I as an individual, that wants to be able to carry a firearm for protection dosent have some hidden ajenda or is somehow off kilter in the head and deserves to be watched and monitored so I dont hurt someone.
> 
> I will go back to the fear. It is the fear of what you think I am going to do with my gun that bothers you..*you dont trust me *is what it boils down to. Not with the same trust you have with the driver of that 18 wheeler 30' off your rear bumper and the pearl you are actually in by being in that spot is far greater then I will ever pose you or any one that dosent intend bodily harm to me or my beloved fellow mankind first.
> 
> .


Yep.


----------



## davidpm

erps said:


>


Red rubber bumper all around the boat. Now we are talking safety equipment.


----------



## POLKA247

Hey those guys gave us a safety check last fall. We were off of Whidbey Island heading for Port Hadlock. I offered them the breakfast I was cooking. Nice guys very professional. Both of those guns were maned at during the check. 
Yeah it was great to see them zip after the next boat. Very, very fast boat. 
No high jack intended. I'm for free choice.


----------



## Flybyknight

Oh yes,
I'm locked, cocked, and ready to rock.
Now having said that, I have been raised to always look for Jesus, especially amongst the least of us, and to abide by, and live by the _
Golden Rule.
Dick 
_


----------



## mitiempo

Yes, a speargun and a flare pistol. I wouldn't want either pointed at me.
Brian


----------



## gene80

I'd carry as well.


----------



## patrickstickler

Better to have it and never need it, than to need it and not have it.


----------



## seafrontiersman

I carry a small .357 on my hip to and from the boat and I keep a 12 ga. Mossberg aboard at all times, I live and sail in Florida. However, I would NEVER carry a firearm into another country's waters if their laws prohibit it. In my opinion, the chance of winding up in some third-world hellhole prison is much better than the possibility of having to use it on a bad guy.


----------



## painkiller

davidpm said:


> Red rubber bumper all around the boat. Now we are talking safety equipment.


That "bumper" looks like painted aluminum to me.

I don't carry aboard and I don't actually own any firearms. I helped a friend on a coastal-US delivery and he had a weapon on board. I took my boat on a coastal-US trip and one of my crew carried a firearm. I had no problem in either case.

I fully support an American's right to own, carry, and conceal firearms and use them in defense (and sport, of course).

I enjoy shooting. I think it's a valuable skill for anyone to have. I'd love to own some weapons. I don't, though, because a weapon would be one more thing to maintain and I'm lazy.


----------



## jerryrlitton

It has been said before but an armed society is a polite society.


----------



## barnakiel

So, once the aforementioned amendment referred only to the US. Now we can see it covers the whole world! You yanks go everywhere with your weapons, make terrible mess and then every white is regarded as a jerk everywhere we go. THANKS!!!!

But if you are coming to my country then please leave your weapons at home (yours) or better yet stick it up () and shoot.

I apologize for the language and imagery used. I simply hate to listen to yet another American stating: "... I have a big gun onboard ... I am not afraid ..." Sure they are not. Other people are.

b.


----------



## jerryrlitton

Do you live in a place called Utopia by any chance dude? I think you must or you have your head so far up you cannot see past your belly. Which is it?


----------



## LWinters

*Cruising, Dogs, and Guns*

What I hate most about this discussion is the lack of non political, first hand experience that enters the conversation. I am on a circumnavigation and yes I have a weapon. The post below is from my blog at Sailing for SOS = Helping Children Find Home and I am cutting and pasting to keep from typing it all again. I'll say this today, twin bulldog thread aside, an animal on board is the better of the two forms of self defense on my boat.

If you want to stir up controversy in the cruising community just bring up the subject of cruising with guns on board. I can't count the number of times I'd tell people about my plans only to hear the words, "better take a big gun" immediately from the listener. I grew up in the Midwest hunting from the time I was a kid and firearms were very much a part of our lives. That said, I've also seen the other world view where guns simply do not have any place in daily life. I respect both viewpoints and have become very sensitive to the fact that nowhere else in the western world will you find a "gun culture" like in the States. It's also considered extremely bad form to even discuss firearms as a topic of general conversation. I watched one Texan take great offense when at a dinner table he was simply asked to change the subject from how many rifles, shotguns, and pistols he had back home. No one cares.

During my preparation I searched high and low for real information on how difficult it was to cruise with a pistol on board. Mostly people injected the topics with their open personal viewpoints on a polarizing subject instead of providing real factual information. Mostly, I've seen two ways to cruise with a weapon if you are going to take one. Some people will find a secure hiding spot on the boat and never declare it. That can have extremely serious complications if you are boarded and the weapon is discovered. In Belize, it's three years mandatory jail time. The other method is to simply go through the hassle and check the weapon into each country you visit. So far, I've done both.

I hate to admit it, but I took the road of non-declaration when I checked into Mexico. They never asked if I had firearms and I never volunteered the information. That seemed fine and dandy until the day the bored Navy troops from Xcalak came to board and inspect my boat. If you think I wasn't nervous when they were opening drawers and pulling up cushions you'd be dead wrong. Fortunately, I've got a pretty good hiding spot, but I don't like having to play the smuggler.

Checking the dog into Mexico was a cake walk. The local vet simply looked at the health certificate from the States and made up a Mexican version then gave it a stamp. Twenty minutes later Georgia, my Siberian Husky was legally in Mexico.

Belize was a different story. As I waited outside the customs and immigration office I struck up a conversation with another cruising couple who were checking out of Belize. They mentioned a dog and indicated I should simply not declare her. So now I am smuggling dog meat and guns? As I worked through the paperwork I started to follow their advise and the precedent I'd set in Mexico for the pistol. However, the customs officer wanted to see the original boat title and gave me three forms to take with me to fill out while I was retrieving the title from the boat. He'd also gotten specific directions on exactly where I was anchored. I thought I was going to be boarded.

As I ran through the paperwork back on the boat there were clear boxes for the importation of firearms and animals. I stepped up knowing I was probably going to make my life very difficult and checked one each for guns and animals. At least now if I was boarded I could show that I was still in the process of declaring both contraband items.

Back at the customs office I pull out the paperwork and immediately the customs officer says, "you have a gun on board"? At this point I am committed and reply in the affirmative. He actually smiled and said he wished I'd told him earlier as it would have saved me a walk. No problem, the customs office will just need to hold onto the weapon until 24 hours before I check out of the country. Amazingly, I then go back, get the pistol, and walk down the streets of San Pedro with a .45 semi-auto handgun. Back at the office for the third time now and check everything in, get my cruising permit with notation that upon checkout I'll receive the pistol and ammunition. They didn't even take a look at the dogs papers. It really couldn't be easier and now I don't have to worry about jail time or fines.

One thing I did learn was that if I had a secured lock box I may have been able to keep the firearm on board. Customs would seal the lock box with a legal decal that wasn't to be broken until I was into international waters. That would be the way to go in my opinion and I'll be looking for one in the next big city I go to.

When I checked out of Belize everything was handed over in the same order I'd checked it in with no problems at all. Again, I walked down the streets of San Pedro with a .45 and two boxes of shells as I headed for the boat.

I can't say if I'd carry the gun onboard again were I leaving from the U.S. tomorrow. I won't tell you that you should or shouldn't carry one. My only purpose with this post is to fill in the void of information that existed when I was trying to answer that question for myself.

Whatever your choice, know how taboo the subject is in international company. I'd suggest making your choice and keeping it to yourself.

Lee


----------



## therapy23

It seems to me that the most danger is when close to shore and "visiting".
What good is it if you don't have it on board with you?


----------



## Capnblu

Barnekiel, sounds to me like you are probably regarded as a jerk, without the help of Americans. Regardless of your color. Sorry if I hurt you feelings. (not really)


----------



## dailywarren

I'm a brand new member and this is (I think) my very first post.
Touchy subject, apparently, although I don't understand why unless poking in other people's business is part of your "culture".
"Protecting cornflakes"...chip on shoulder.
"Confusing Austria with Australia"...huge chip.
I've read through the previous forums on nauti gun control and found it less than informative and occasionally vitriolic, so I'd love to hear some actual stories or useful suggestions.
For instance, how about a high-test fishing line tied to a hook on the hull beneath the water line on one end and a quick-release snap hook on the other? During a famous Venezualean coastal "inspection" (average cost = $200 and may include your radio and/or wife) you could secure the weapon and dump it over the side, to be retrieved and thoroughly cleaned later.
Anyone else have something useful, or thoughts on this suggestion?


----------



## dailywarren

Quick post: I had no IDEA there were already 23 pages on this thing. So before someone accuses me of clubbing seals and lying through my teeth I am re-reading all the pertinent info (but still...about that secured-line dum idea?)


----------



## dailywarren

Mmmmm, kay. Did my homework, read the thread.
Smug prevails.
Loved the "gun owners should have the coolest heads of all" statement and the killing the bear with the claw hammer. Awesome. I HATE claw hammers.
2nd Amenders: take as good of care of the weapon you ARE as the weapon you WEAR. I teach Tai Chi (the real stuff, Chen-style) so I'm a close, personal guy. But is brandishing the tongue better than brandishing the weapon?
I hope the spelling and grammar reflects the intensity of the issue that was thoroughly un-addressed and not the 'smarts' on either side.
Canadians: your country is an American social experiment...and that's a quote from a Canadian. Why else does 90% of your population live on the American border?
Australians: I thought you guys were tough? I watched all those lousy Croc Dundee movies for nothing! Sorry, I mean Rodney Ansell: CROCODILE DUNDEE KILLED BY GUN-CONFISCATING POLICE
You're probably just Chinese Real Estate-to-be anyway.
Everyone else...love ya, man! (snicker)
Out of 23 pages (and I want my hour of life back reading this tripe) I think like 4 people answered the man's question, so allow me:
Do I carry? None of your business, but were I to travel internationally the answer is yes and it's still none of your business. Orders to NOT come to your country are not appreciated but won't be reciprocated. Besides, if you lock me and a unarmed defenseless person in a room alone only one of us can MAKE the other agree with him.
Population statistics indicate that: 1.) most of you are over 50, 2.) western civilization is in decline and in 50 years this issue will be moot, and 3.) Bugs Bunny ALWAYS outwitted the armed and brandishing Yosemite Sam....so brains first, my keyboard heroes.
Oh, and Poopdeck Pappy has the coolest boat in the universe and PainKiller just really bugs me and I can't quite figure out why. Can I buy you a beer, PK?
TERRIFIC MODERATING, by the way. Thank you for the forum and the thread.


----------



## painkiller

dailywarren said:


> Oh, and Poopdeck Pappy has the coolest boat in the universe and PainKiller just really bugs me and I can't quite figure out why. Can I buy you a beer, PK?


I have that effect on people. And I'm even worse in person! And yeah, you can buy me a beer.


----------



## saildork

Marginally off topic but I've often wondered...has anyone here ever mounted a cannon on the foredeck? Not as a defensive weapon mind you, but for fun, nostalgia, ceremonial purposes? 

And while we're at it, how about cannons thru the portholes?


----------



## lancelot9898

LWinters said:


> . I'll say this today, twin bulldog thread aside, an animal on board is the better of the two forms of self defense on my boat.
> Lee


Your post is one that makes the most sense of any on this thread and I totally agree. I lived aboard my sailboat for over 20 years and met many world cruisers. One in particular from New Zealand stated the same thing as you about dogs. They had a white German Shepard named Pero and it was worth its weight in gold. However they also crusied with a rifle and had like you to endure the hassles of checking it in at customs. One place where they brought it out was about 15 miles off shore from one of the islands in the Carribbean when aproached by a small boat with a large outboard and two "fishermen" asking for water. No fishing gear was aboard, but there were a couple of macheties on the floor. The white German Shepard was barking like mad as the "fishmen" rode along side the boat asking for water and when they acted like they wanted to board even with the dog and all, Alex asked Kay to go below and bring the rifle up. He did not point the rifle at them but merely sat behind the wheel with rifle pointed in the air. They finally got the idea and promplty turned their boat and sped away.

The decision to carry or not is a highly individual decision and while I carry while back packing in the wilderness there are other times in remote regions that I do not. The most dangerous animal be it on land or on sea is the human variety.


----------



## sifucarl

Are you a sheep...or a sheepdog?

If you want to be a sheep, that is okay, but understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and yours are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest. If you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision to prepare yourself for the moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.
LTC (RET) Dave Grossman(edited)

If you want to read the whole article visit On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs


----------



## erps

That sheepdog analogy is used all the time in law enforcement.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Fatty just did an article in the new Cruising World on this. It is worth a read for those seriously considering packing or not packing.

- CD


----------



## painkiller

Check out the July L&A, too. An article about the flare gun conversion kits and a story from cruisers who were attacked unprovoked off Venezuela. The assailants approached and began firing. There was no opportunity to just let the robbers take what they want and leave.


----------



## RhosynMor

Rhosyn Mor is a Brit boat, so we do not carry guns on board. I have no opinion as to if you should carry guns or not, thats up to you.... we do know cruisers who carry guns, and do not judge them on that basis. We understand however that we are self sufficient and should not leave ourselves utterly defenseless, there is nothing we can do on Rhosyn Mor about people firing at us from a long ways off, but if they board, they might be in for a bit of a shock, creative minds cruising have a LOT of time to work out how to defend themselves  
fianlly, just as we europeans do not like having americans views on guns foisted on us, we should not do the same thing to americans, both views are valid


----------



## MoonSailer

No easy answers. But if it is legal having a gun onboard just gives you another option on how to deal with a situation. IMHO nonviolent is the way to go. But as I learned in grade school just because I don't want to fight doesn't mean the class bully doesn't want to fight. When I hit the bully in the face with my geography book he left me alone. Heck he was a good 8" taller than me and outweighed me by 40 pounds. The big geography book gave me an edge.


----------



## xort

sifucarl said:


> Are you a sheep...or a sheepdog?
> 
> If you want to be a sheep, that is okay, but understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and yours are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest. If you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision to prepare yourself for the moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.
> LTC (RET) Dave Grossman(edited)


Very nicely put, thanks for sharing


----------



## xort

My concern is that if you shoot someone outside the boat, you will likely get charged with murder. So you wait until they are inside the boat? What is it like discharging a 38 or shotgun inside a small enclosed space?


----------



## Zanshin

Xort - self-defense laws and use of force are different in each country and each state. The inside-or-outside aspect is of secondary interest, for the USA one can usually use the "If you or a reasonable person placed in the same situation were afraid for their life" then use of force to stop the threat is justified. The inside or outside the boat is more a matter of legal interpretation on whether you had an option to using force, i.e. if escape might have been an alternate solution as opposed to using force (be it lethal or otherwise). Discharging a small arms firearm in close quarters will affect your ears but not otherwise impact you. Pepper spray, OTOH, when used indoors will probably affect you almost as much as the pepperee; and you will spend a lot of time and money making your boat insides livable again.


----------



## mitiempo

xort - loud with a 38 and with a shotgun add cleaning blood and guts and fixing woodwork etc if you shoot a bit wide. In the US if someone enters your house to rob you and you shoot him you're protecting your home. In Canada in the same situation unless he has a weapon you're going to jail.
Brian


----------



## AE28

Zan...
I'm not sure pepper spray is legal in Canada?
???
Paul


----------



## LarryandSusanMacDonald

Personally have not touched a gun since I left Viet Nam. Never will. Also, if I had a gun on board, Suzi would probably shoot me. Accidentally, of course.

Seriously, though, when we were first married and were dirt dwellers, I had a job which took me to work at three in the morning. One morning, when the computer wasn't working (Happened often, this was 1970) (Really) I came home at about 5:00 AM. Suzi had had a bad dream and thought someone was trying to break into the house. I came in through the back door, quietly and did not turn on a light so as not to wake her. She was awake though and sitting in the corner with a butcher knife. 

That was close enough for me. Suzi is a force to be reckoned with. If she had had a gun...

Count me lucky to be alive and I fall resoundingly in the no guns for me category.


----------



## erps

> I came in through the back door, quietly and did not turn on a light so as not to wake her. She was awake though and sitting in the corner with a butcher knife.


Good illustration. Wonder what Suzi was thinking about her choices in defensive tools while her back was pressed against the wall though?


----------



## Sandflea

Howdy All,

My knowledge of sailing is nill but of firearms quite extensive for 10 years in the Army. If I were to select a personal defense sidearm that would be used in close quarters, it would be a .40 S&W semi automatic with hollow point rounds. Many police organizations are moving this direction because it provides excellent stopping power and the hollow point will not travel completely through your target thus minimizing the chance for collateral damage. If your target is of the human variety, be prepared to deal with the consequences, moral and legal, of taking a life.

If I were to chose a firearm for hunting, many shotguns have alternate barrels, chokes and shells for a wide variety of applications, too many to get into. I would look into one such multi application rifle/shotgun setup. Any firearms dealer can point you in the right direction for what application you are considering.

Of course, I would suggest that if you do decide to arm yourself for personal defence, that you attend a Close Quarters Combat course and master your weapon. Hope this helps anyone considering the carrying of a firearm. 
All that being said, when I do begin cruising, the only guns I plan to have on board are of the flare and spear variety.

Take Care,

Ben


----------



## MoonSailer

Pretty much the only legal defense for shooting someone is self defense and you had no other reasonable alternative. I read about a guy who shot someone breaking into his home. He admitted that he could have left out of the back door. He was convicted of murder. Of course being in jail is often preferred to being dead!!!! Not to mention having your loved ones murdered. But if you shoot someone don't expect to be treated as a hero. On the other hand I read of an old man and his wife who used a gun to stop a burgler in their house. While they were waiting for the police the robber told about his lousey life and the old man laid down his weapon. The burgler grabbed the gun and shot the husband and wife. The old man died but the wife lived to tell the tale. FWIW the burgler was caught and convicted of murder. Take home lesson.... if you are kind hearted and don't shoot the criminal ..don't think that they will return the favor.


----------



## erps

> Pretty much the only legal defense for shooting someone is self defense and you had no other reasonable alternative


might want to look into that further (if you're in America). You will probably find it's more like a reasonable fear of death or grevious bodily injury.


----------



## nordr

Politics-free response: .38 revolver. Nobody needs a shotgun on the water and a semi-auto is like an over-engineered boat; too many moving parts too far away from a qualified mechanic.


----------



## seafrontiersman

nordr:

Couldn't disagree with you more about the shotgun, it has four distinct advantages:

1. Great firepower at close range.
2. Relative simplicity and robust action.
3. Buckshot won't travel half a mile and kill somone.
4. The sound of someone racking a shell in a shotgun
scares the fertilizer out of bad guys.

I've done over a hundred boarding when I was with the Navy and I was issued a shotgun so I keep one aboard my little slice of heaven. I do agree about having a revolver though I personally use a .357.

Fair winds and following seas!

Michael


----------



## jerryrlitton

Sandflea said:


> Many police organizations are moving this direction because it provides excellent stopping power and the hollow point will not travel completely through your target thus minimizing the chance for collateral damage.
> 
> Ben


Of course hollow points will travel through a body. Not all the time obviously. You always need to know where the round may go before it stops. I agree with the rest of it though.

Jerry


----------



## nordr

seafrontiersman said:


> nordr:
> 
> Couldn't disagree with you more about the shotgun, it has four distinct advantages:
> 
> 1. Great firepower at close range.
> 2. Relative simplicity and robust action.
> 3. Buckshot won't travel half a mile and kill somone.
> 4. The sound of someone racking a shell in a shotgun
> scares the fertilizer out of bad guys.
> 
> I've done over a hundred boarding when I was with the Navy and I was issued a shotgun so I keep one aboard my little slice of heaven. I do agree about having a revolver though I personally use a .357.
> 
> Fair winds and following seas!
> 
> Michael


seafrontiersman,

I should clarify. My boat (22') is small enough that stowing, retrieving, and then aiming a shotgun is a dangerous endeavor with two people onboard. If I were in the berth and just pointed it at the companionway, sure-I'd **** my pants if I were trespassing. I tend to bunk in the saloon, though, and prefer stowing the revolver under the chart table.

A friend has a 36', which I would feel much more comfortable stowing a shotty in.


----------



## Sandflea

nordr said:


> Politics-free response: .38 revolver. Nobody needs a shotgun on the water and a semi-auto is like an over-engineered boat; too many moving parts too far away from a qualified mechanic.


The vast majority of semi-auto handguns are modeled after the old 1911 .45 which are easy to disassemble, reassemble, perform a functions check and reload. Personally, as a professional soldier, I can do all of that in under a minute, blindfolded or in pitch black conditions. I am not bragging, just making the point.. If they are too complicated, then obviously the user has not had enough training and experience to handle one. I would rather 15 rounds ready to fly and not need them than have 6 rounds and wish i didn't have to pause for a reload.

"Of course hollow points will travel through a body. Not all the time obviously. You always need to know where the round may go before it stops. I agree with the rest of it though."

Very true Jerry, hollow points aren't assured to stop in your target, but more likely to than any other round, ball ammo for example. The shooter always needs to be aware of their surroundings.

A firearm is a tool. There are many variants of this tool, all designed for a variety of applications and user experience. Finding the right firearm for yourself is only a small part of the self defense/ hunting subject questioned in this thread. If you decide to carry a firearm, you should be responsible enough to master the tool, especially if used for self defense. So, what are you going to do this weekend? Go sailing or go to the firing range? Food for thought...
Take Care!

Ben


----------



## Elzaar

A shotgun or .38 in an enclosed space will be loud, but if you are like most people it'll sound like a pop gun if you have adrenaline going ... tunnel vision applies to your ears, as well. I can't say what the actual physical effects are. In the instance that I decide I have to shoot someone in my boat interior, potential hearing loss is probably not going to be high on my list of concerns. I do have some minor hearing loss, but that is from a .50 cal machine gun going off in my ear, not handguns or shotguns. The real life shootings I've been around for sounded like cap guns. The .50 was training when I forgot to put in earplugs on a live exercise and felt like someone was hammering my ear with a hammer.

OC spray cleans up pretty easily. It is organic and if water-based (as most are) it will go away mostly through evaporation and a wipe down, with fabric put through a washing machine. I'm not sure what it would take to get it out of foam and you might have to replace anything absorbent that got totally soaked. CS is a chemical compound and would pretty well toast a boat interior. It is also illegal to possess just about anywhere as an individual, so it's unlikely you'd be using it. SWAT teams try not to depoy either sooner than they have to, but OC spray (at least here) is seen as an inconvenience to neighbors whereas deploying CS is seen as we're buyng the house/apartment/whatever. I agree you would not want to deploy OC in a boat interior if you could avoid it unless you had on a protective mask or at least very good eye protection - like you might have for fiberglass work anyway. A damp rag across your nose and mouth will also help. Check out anarchist' protest websites for a score of homemade solutions. OC works primarily by causing swelling in mucous membranes and eyes. It is harder on some people than others and you can build up some limited resistance through exposure. If you were going to try to deploy it in a boat interior I'd think the best strategy would be to back into your forward cabin and deploy it into the main cabin before quickly closing and locking the door and opening the forward hatch if that was an option.

Let's face it, if all hell breaks loose and you really are fighting for your life your best tool is a gun, but I suggest OC as a possible option for those who are maybe not willing or able to carry a gun, but wanting some level of protection. I'd also point out that it is a continuum of force options for sailors just like police - let people see you on the boat, verbally make clear what you want and what you will do if they don't comply, use OC spray if you have it, then use lethal force if you have to. The more of those steps you can point to having used before you finally shot someone, the better your defense will be if you do. The family may claim their son was merely coming aboard to sell you fish or ask for water, but if the people on the shore heard you yelling to get off the boat, stay out of the cabin (maybe even broadcast over a keyed VHF microphone), then he came through a cloud of OC in the cockpit and his shirt is soaked with OC spray where he's lying with bullet holes in his chest on the floor of your cabin with more OC soaked into the salon cushions - it's going to be a tougher sell for them.

I'm not trying to offer any editorializing or value decisions here. I think there are many ramifications from the decision of how you want to live, what hassles you want to deal with, logistics involved, whether an individual can actually make the decision to kill, and whether they can live with having done so. Those are all individual personal decisions. I'm just trying to give practical input on options to consider.

I think someone else has already mentioned this - but the biggest suggestion I would make to anyone is to have a plan and at least walk through it a few times. It's your home, you know the layout, you know where the tools are to defend yourself. Be mentally prepared to do whatever you have to to win and visualize doing so with a clear decision point that triggers the transition for you. That is probably why I use the attempt to enter the cabin. It is a clear threshold, it is your home in any culture, it is at your strongest defensive point tactically.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## Elzaar

If you're going to carry a revolver, don't assume it's foolproof. The cylinder will freeze up in wet - especially salty - conditions in fairly short order. A revolver will not fire at all if the cylinder won't rotate. A semi-auto will also be finicky if not well maintained, but will give you one shot (assuming you keep one in the chamber). It's all personal preference, but I prefer the shotgun even in a boat ... you can control the penetration by what rounds you load in what order. Pistol grips, folding stocks, variety of barrels all give you more options depending on your intended uses. I taught my ex - just sit in the corner and point toward the door/hatchway. With non-slug rounds it's about impossible to miss. OTOH, all guns are going to require care and maintenance. What is the effective (accurate) range of a speargun anyway?


----------



## mitiempo

10 feet underwater is normal - in air probably 50 feet
Brian


----------



## mitiempo

Here's a good choice from Mossberg:


----------



## TSOJOURNER

docrn said:


> So who's packing what?


None of your business! Or, come on board uninvited and find out.

Now for the unsolicited editorial... so, here I am reading this thread and listening to Johnny Cash sing "I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die". That story was being told from prison by the way. On CNN are hysterical responses to an inconsiderate who insists on excersing his Second Ammendment rights during a Presidential Town Hall meeting. Not what I would consider a wise move, however at least he had the foresight and "intelligence" to advise the appropriate authorities of his intentions. I'm sure he could have cared less about what the fearful of everything were panicking about - not to mention what those from other "peaceful" lands might have been gasping and recursing about. So, here is my response to those of you who have never set foot on a piece of Urban American concrete, and also to those here in The States who hide in their own sanctuary -

We recently hosted two couples, at different times, from Spain who were touring the Cowboy Capital of the World - Bandera, Texas. If you do not assume everyone here is carrying, you will sooner or later have an epiphany regarding this. Do note residential property crime is essentially non-existent here. Texas law allows one to chase anyone holding your stuff across the entire state only to shoot them in the back to retrieve your belongings. Now that's what I call excersing your rights. The cops can't do it. One less bad guy too. Both couples, one mid-twenties and one fortyish, were from Madrid (very large city), and both very progressive and both having somewhat different views. The older couple had no problems with American gun laws. The younger couple was quite taken aback when we advised them we have firearms in the house. I think they wanted to leave, but soon came to their senses realizing we were not going to shoot them and take their stuff. During some discussion regarding the gun thing, this couple was totally floored to find out that carjackings take place - IN THE STATES! - EVERY DAY! We had trouble not laughing as I tried to explain there are carjackings in San Antonio alone most every day. Probably at least fifty per day in the States. As they were retrieving their lips from the floor, we could see the beginnings of that epiphany. The older couple were obviously better informed, and more comfortable in their knowledge, than the younger Utopian Peaceniks. Don't get me wrong. I want world peace too. And I will work for it. But get a grip! Melting down my heaters will not make it happen, and it ain't gonna happen in my lifetime. And yes, I do feel "Imagine" was one of the greatest songs ever written. Or "Tick-Tock", and "Chapel of Love" DOH! Sorry!

We are afraid of what we don't understand. And some hide and lash out in response that. If I am afraid of something, I set out to find why and correct it - if possible. If you are one of the former, I suggest you get a grip, read up on some real-world stuff, educate and prepare yourself accordingly for what can really happen, and be confident that you are prepared to confront what might really come your way one day when you least expect it. Perhaps then you won't be so quick to judge others for their diligent preparation. From what I hear, no one is ever prepared to kill another. And, short of human annihalation, bad guys and guns are not going away. So what do we do? I am not afraid, I am prepared... as best I can be. Too bad for the other guy. If he were educated as I was, he never would have brought that knife to a pistol fight (cr. Chris Knight) or even considered encroaching his ways on my life. ...same for the Peaceniks.

Nuff said I guess. Thanks for allowing me to "step in it".


----------



## AE28

Interesting first post!!!
Paul


----------



## chall03

nuffoftexas said:


> None of your business! Or, come on board uninvited and find out.
> 
> Now for the unsolicited editorial... so, here I am reading this thread and listening to Johnny Cash sing "I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die". That story was being told from prison by the way. On CNN are hysterical responses to an inconsiderate who insists on excersing his Second Ammendment rights during a Presidential Town Hall meeting. Not what I would consider a wise move, however at least he had the foresight and "intelligence" to advise the appropriate authorities of his intentions. I'm sure he could have cared less about what the fearful of everything were panicking about - not to mention what those from other "peaceful" lands might have been gasping and recursing about. So, here is my response to those of you who have never set foot on a piece of Urban American concrete, and also to those here in The States who hide in their own sanctuary -
> 
> We recently hosted two couples, at different times, from Spain who were touring the Cowboy Capital of the World - Bandera, Texas. If you do not assume everyone here is carrying, you will sooner or later have an epiphany regarding this. Do note residential property crime is essentially non-existent here. Texas law allows one to chase anyone holding your stuff across the entire state only to shoot them in the back to retrieve your belongings. Now that's what I call excersing your rights. The cops can't do it. One less bad guy too. Both couples, one mid-twenties and one fortyish, were from Madrid (very large city), and both very progressive and both having somewhat different views. The older couple had no problems with American gun laws. The younger couple was quite taken aback when we advised them we have firearms in the house. I think they wanted to leave, but soon came to their senses realizing we were not going to shoot them and take their stuff. During some discussion regarding the gun thing, this couple was totally floored to find out that carjackings take place - IN THE STATES! - EVERY DAY! We had trouble not laughing as I tried to explain there are carjackings in San Antonio alone most every day. Probably at least fifty per day in the States. As they were retrieving their lips from the floor, we could see the beginnings of that epiphany. The older couple were obviously better informed, and more comfortable in their knowledge, than the younger Utopian Peaceniks. Don't get me wrong. I want world peace too. And I will work for it. But get a grip! Melting down my heaters will not make it happen, and it ain't gonna happen in my lifetime. And yes, I do feel "Imagine" was one of the greatest songs ever written. Or "Tick-Tock", and "Chapel of Love" DOH! Sorry!
> 
> We are afraid of what we don't understand. And some hide and lash out in response that. If I am afraid of something, I set out to find why and correct it - if possible. If you are one of the former, I suggest you get a grip, read up on some real-world stuff, educate and prepare yourself accordingly for what can really happen, and be confident that you are prepared to confront what might really come your way one day when you least expect it. Perhaps then you won't be so quick to judge others for their diligent preparation. From what I hear, no one is ever prepared to kill another. And, short of human annihalation, bad guys and guns are not going away. So what do we do? I am not afraid, I am prepared... as best I can be. Too bad for the other guy. If he were educated as I was, he never would have brought that knife to a pistol fight (cr. Chris Knight) or even considered encroaching his ways on my life. ...same for the Peaceniks.
> 
> Nuff said I guess. Thanks for allowing me to "step in it".


Feel free to step in whenever you like. This site thrives on unsolicited editorials. 
As far as they go, yours was one of the more reasonable and well constructed. I am from Australia, things are alot different here to Texas and so my views on this are probably more aligned with the younger Utopian Peaceniks. What you say however does makes alot of sense. My mind is by no means made up on this but I do take your point.

Welcome to Sailnet.


----------



## NolaSafari

I live in New Orleans, of course I carry a gun sometimes two. Whats the problem?


----------



## imagine2frolic

nuffofTexas,

I put a capitol T there, because it is what Texas deserves. Imagine is a great song, and my boat is named exactly that, because it would be great if we could all get along. Unfortunately the bad guys are nothing less than predators, and in my mind deserve what they get....hopefully all bad!

Well said, and many great points. I like the way Texas thinks when it comes to the bad guys. I only wish the rest of the country would catch on. If the law abiding citizen has his weapons taken. Only the bad guys will be carrying, and they will be mighty bold. We can't let that happen.

As far as the original question. Some countries it's illegal, and *DO NOT *get caught. Others allow it, just live by their rules. It's a personal decision to carry. For some it may be wrong, but for others it may right........*i2f*


----------



## jerryrlitton




----------



## sarafinadh

a weapon on board?

oh of COURSE I pack... what a silly question... I actually have a few...

my Rapier wit,
a keen edged tongue,
irony discharged thru double barrels,

sarcasm aside I actually do really count on talking my way out of most trouble...

Safe is a state of mind, not a location on a google map.


----------



## jerryrlitton

Sometimes "State of mind" can blind a person if their eyes are closed. I do appreciate a "rapier wit" however I would not rely on it too heavily when the talking is through.

Jerry


----------



## sarafinadh

ahhh... well for me it goes without saying that positioning yourself so that you avoid being vulnerable is part of that state of mind.

imitating ostriches is not.

47 years of city living has left me with highly refined situational sensitivity and as I am teaching my 16 year old daughter;

you have to make yourself safe no matter where you are. no particular place is safe or dangerous in and of itself. some places have more apparent risk, but bad stuff happens everywhere. How you position yourself will be a big factor in whether or not the bad stuff happens to you, or someone else.

All that aside I don't have any objection to actual black iron weapons, I am just not experienced in their use and feel that my weapons of choice serve me better. I have no doubt that should I ever anticipate a situation where being armed would be advantageous I would, after having been trained in their use, have no trouble at all shooting dead someone who wanted to do something bad to me or mine. but I'm mean that way ; -)

Most likely in a cruising situation... Himself and I will have about 60 lbs of high strung canine with us. She isn't very welcoming if we are not very welcoming... so I don't think I would buck the global trend towards discouraging personal weapons of the percussive type.

just sic Cara on 'em.


----------



## jerryrlitton

chall03 said:


> Feel free to step in whenever you like. This site thrives on unsolicited editorials.
> As far as they go, yours was one of the more reasonable and well constructed. I am from Australia, things are alot different here to Texas and so my views on this are probably more aligned with the younger Utopian Peaceniks. What you say however does makes alot of sense. My mind is by no means made up on this but I do take your point.
> 
> Welcome to Sailnet.


I used to work in NT (Darwin) which by the way is VERY close to TX as far as attitude was concerned. Needless to say I felt very at home there.


----------



## jerryrlitton

sarafinadh said:


> ahhh... well for me it goes without saying that positioning yourself so that you avoid being vulnerable is part of that state of mind.
> 
> imitating ostriches is not.
> 
> 47 years of city living has left me with highly refined situational sensitivity and as I am teaching my 16 year old daughter;
> 
> you have to make yourself safe no matter where you are. no particular place is safe or dangerous in and of itself. some places have more apparent risk, but bad stuff happens everywhere. How you position yourself will be a big factor in whether or not the bad stuff happens to you, or someone else.
> 
> All that aside I don't have any objection to actual black iron weapons, I am just not experienced in their use and feel that my weapons of choice serve me better. I have no doubt that should I ever anticipate a situation where being armed would be advantageous I would, after having been trained in their use, have no trouble at all shooting dead someone who wanted to do something bad to me or mine. but I'm mean that way ; -)
> 
> Most likely in a cruising situation... Himself and I will have about 60 lbs of high strung canine with us. She isn't very welcoming if we are not very welcoming... so I don't think I would buck the global trend towards discouraging personal weapons of the percussive type.
> 
> just sic Cara on 'em.


Sara, I do agree with you when you say that you have to make yourself safe no matter where you are and your mind is far the better weapon then an inanimate object such as a pistol, can of mace etc. However I am all about options and training in all available options. Maybe being retired USA dude and a former Federal cop has educated me a bit. I still think having more options and not needing them is still better then the inverse.

Jerry

(From TX)


----------



## chall03

jerryrlitton said:


> I used to work in NT (Darwin) which by the way is VERY close to TX as far as attitude was concerned. Needless to say I felt very at home there.


I am in Sydney, but you are probably spot on there with Darwin.......do you get crocs in Texas???? I have only been up there twice but did actually like the place and people and great deal.


----------



## therapy23

chall03 said:


> do you get crocs in Texas???? I have only been up there twice but did actually *like the place and people *and great deal.


Texans are more like Australians than most other Americans. They just have not had their guns taken away _yet_.

I don't think there is a large croc population there. Haven't been there in a while though.


----------



## downeast450

Somewhere in my shed is my departed adult son's BB gun. It is a "vintage" one that was manufactured as an exact replica of an AK-47 without any orange tips of anything that would make it possible to discriminate it from the real weapon. I have considered taking it along for display to discourage opportunist thugs. I would much rather have to explain what it is to a Coast Guards Man and have it discourage some crazy SOB from picking on me.

I have never shot at another human being. I suppose in the properly desperate circumstances I could if I had no other choice for self defense. I have a permit to carry. The first gun I ever owned is standing in the corner behind me. It is a J.C. Higgen's single shot 22 rifle. I bought it when I was 12 for $13.00. I have owned guns since then. I know what they are. I don't want to have to decide to use one for self defense but using the BB gun as a message seems like an idea.

What do you think?

George


----------



## TSOJOURNER

downeast450 said:


> I don't want to have to decide to use one for self defense but using the BB gun as a message seems like an idea.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> George


Are you suicidal? A message to whom? I'm new here and don't know you, so I'm thinking this is really a troll. Didn't someone say something about bringing a knife to a pistol fight? Please tell me you're not that stupid. If this is so, you absolutely should not carry anything. Trust your instincts, and legs, to get you the hell out of there. And get that stupid BB gun out of the house before you decide to try and "scare" someone with it.

...after my last somewhat "encouraging" post to this thread, I guess I had to write this so as to maybe keep George's widow from suing me.


----------



## MacGyverRI

A BB gun will probably get you killed.

I have a 26mm military surplus flare gun (1" bore = 4 gauge) that I also have a 26 mm to 12 ga. shell adapter for.

12 ga. flares (a lot cheaper than 25/26 mm) or a regular shotgun shell fits in the adapter and since the gun (steel) and adapter (machined aluminum) are made for heavy loads, it doubles as a great flare gun and one hell of an intimidating looking actual weapon. Short range is great, distance isn't good.

I have used BB and #9 shot loads to test my old one and both spread well but 00 Buckshot or slugs kick a tad too much....










$39 + shipping.
German 26.5MM Geco Flare Gun - Very Good Part #FLARE-GECO2


----------



## southwindphoto

Now I can see where it might get “sticky” traveling abroad, but isn’t there some kind of international law. I know the Bahamas has no problem with it if you’re a licensed USCG Captain.


----------



## southwindphoto

Now I can see where it might get “sticky” traveling abroad, but isn’t there some kind of international law.


----------



## downeast450

Stupid indeed! 

I agree it would not be smart to show up at a gun fight with a BB gun. I am not planning to show up at any gun fights at all and that is the point. Remember the cruising couple who were boarded off Nam last March? She survived but the thugs cut his throat and threw him over board. They were local construction workers who saw an opportunity, stole an inflatable and rowed out to the yacht with knives to steal money and or credit cards. That is the type of piracy being encountered most often today. I was in Singapore when it happened and it occurred to me that if those thugs had seen an AK-47 (replica) hanging in reach in the cockpit they might have aborted their plan. It would also be a legal "decoration". My interest in suggesting a decoy is averting the need to add one of my guns to the gear aboard my boat. I appreciate your concern for my wife.

I have considered building a couple of secret compartments on the boat in strategic locations to stash a Glock or two for emergencies.

Stay safe and avoid dangerous situations. I guess you don't believe that there is any value to be gained from using a deterrent decoy? It isn't an invitation to a shoot out, but a warning, "Don't mess with this boat". What would be your reaction to seeing an obviously well armed boat, attack it?

George


----------



## scottyt

george hidden compartments can get you in a lot of trouble with the US coast guard


----------



## downeast450

I am having trouble getting anyone to consider the point I was originally trying to make; that of displaying a potential counter threat to some bad actor who is making a decision about targeting my boat; without violating any laws or increasing the risks to me. I agree that having an illegal gun stashed is not a good idea. I can carry in those states that honor my concealed weapons permit but those locations are not the ones we are concerned about.

As someone who grew up in NY in the 60s I learned that appearance is 90+% of an effective personal defense. If you look vulnerable you are much more likely to invite the attention of some creep who is looking for an opportunity. If you look like you are capable of returning any bad behavior you might be the recipient of, the potential "perp" will look elsewhere for someone to hassle. Sending the message that I might be a bad choice of a score has certainly saved me in many potentially "dangerous" situations. All of those kinds of human interactions were dependent on the impression I brought to the situation. Since personal demeanor isn't something you can count on being interpreted by some thug looking at your boat through binoculars an apparent reverse threat might discourage some threats.

Why not send a message? I am not suggesting that we hang mock ups of Claymores from our rails. That might not be a bad idea though. How about fenders that look like anti personnel mines? I may have a good idea here. Ha!

George


----------



## sarafinadh

Downeast, I get your thought process. My own follows it to some extent... The part about making sure the bad stuff happens to someone else, not you and yours. And the concept of being able to (in a totally legal fashion) make a show of force that would deter some percentage of bad guys is appealing.

My own common sense tells me it would work. After all if *I* were going to make a hit on a boat I would plan on doing it when I hoped no one was aboard. The appearance of someone toting a formidable weapon would cause me to rethink my plan and I would be making my way to shore or back to my own boat post and haste.

But the point here might be that it is not someone like you or I who we would be facing. and every person I have ever discussed the options of armed vs unarmed has had some consistent comments.

Don't carry a weapon if you don't know how to use it.
Don't carry a weapon if you are not prepared to use it.

The thought seems to be that the presence of weapons may escalate the tension in a situation. If you pull your gun, they may pull their gun (or knife or whatever) and then what are you going to do? Hit them over the head with the stock of your fake?

I don't know.

The idea of a perfectly legal and common flare gun that you can convert to an up close shotgun seems more appealing to me. Getting it thru customs shouldn't present a problem. Some brief research reveals that the company which was making the adapter seems to no longer be in business/offering that product. So that may not be a viable option, I don't know.

This got me reading a bit and there have been some pretty grim situations with private yachts being attacked, but I would guess petty and or amateur attacks at anchor are more common risks than high speed chases with pirates in the gulf of Aden. Against a group of professional baddies very few of us would stand a chance. Good reason to not sail that area unaccompanied. That would be the "making yourself safe" part of my philosophy.

This IS a complicated subject. And there is no clear *right* answer, as there is no way to know exactly what you are preparing to face. And hindsight will always be so 20/20, if you are alive to see it.

I don't know what I want to do when we head out. We will be (most likely) sailing the Pacific and Caribbean. There is some tiny chance of a trip to Australia, but that is in the very faintest stages of possibility. In those areas I don't know...

One interesting idea is that you carry a very CHEAP gun until you get to port and then you throw it away. Avoids the customs issue. but only good for the first leg of the trip.


----------



## downeast450

Thank you for listening to what I thought I was suggesting. I didn't think my idea included redirecting the thugs to others who might not appear as vulnerable as I but I suppose it would result in the predator seeking other prey. 

I chose to live in rural, coastal, Maine for 25 years. One of the "strengths" I discovered that was important to my success in that "frontier" was appearing to be willing and capable of returning any transgressions with enthusiasm and finality. 

My first day in my coastal farm, on a dead end dirt town road, a very threatening individual cruised by my front door in his old pickup, grinned, turned around in my yard and left his tire marks in the grass as a greeting. I followed him back to his house and left him a donut in his yard as a response. I never saw him again. 

Appearing and being willing to defend yourself is a normal survival trait exhibited by any successful member of this Animal Kingdom. Being willing to shoot someone who is threatening your life is certainly the bottom line. I would like to think that sending the message that, as a target, I would be a very bad choice is what I will try to engineer in the hope that it will eliminate the need for the ultimate confrontation. Perhaps , as a former boat builder, I can secrete the final solution in such a way that my wife and I will be the only ones capable of revealing it. It won't be a cheap solution but as capable a one, or two, as I can manage.

Be safe, take care of your selves and enjoy the world.

George

George


----------



## MacGyverRI

sarafinadh said:


> The idea of a perfectly legal and common flare gun that you can convert to an up close shotgun seems more appealing to me. Getting it thru customs shouldn't present a problem. Some brief research reveals that the company which was making the adapter seems to no longer be in business/offering that product. So that may not be a viable option, I don't know.rt of my philosophy.


12-Gauge Converter from ORION

It's still avail. and in stock!


----------



## mitiempo

It won't work and would probably destroy the flare gun. Here are a few interesting links that relate to this. The best answer to the question I read is please video it so you can watch it when you get out of the hospital.

Flare gun conversion - THR

ATF Online - Fire Launcher Inserts

The first is a shooters forum where someone asked if it were possible.
The second from the ATF describes the legality and discusses a letter from Orion suggesting what would happen to the flare gun - it would be destroyed on firing. The adaptor is for 12 gauge flares only.
Brian


----------



## MacGyverRI

mitiempo said:


> It won't work and would probably destroy the flare gun.
> Brian


FWIW, I don't have a plastic flare gun nor did I suggest a "cheap plastic flare gun" (see my prev. post pic) that costs more than a real flare gun.

A Military surplus gun is all steel and it's made to shoot high powered military "white star flares" around the clock in a firefight etc..

Police or ATF will only nab you if you're dumb enough to carry it around the streets loaded.


----------



## mitiempo

The link you posted is for a plastic adaptor for a plastic flare gun to adapt it to fire 12 gauge flares. Hence its 4.19 cost.
Brian


----------



## HoofingBootneck

sarafinadh said:


> Don't carry a weapon if you don't know how to use it.
> Don't carry a weapon if you are not prepared to use it.


Wise words indeed... Many people have been killed with their own weapons.


----------



## southwindphoto

Thinking about this subject more I did some web research and came upon these website columns

Guns On Board | MaritimeSecurity.com
A "real world" look at the issue of carrying firearms on your vessel

The Maritime Executive Magazine :: Are Guns the Answer to Attacks on Vessels? ::
Are Guns the Answer to Attacks on Vessels


----------



## Cruisingdad

I have heard that even the 12ga flare guns and 25mm flare guns are outlawed in many countries. Still, that is my solution.

Also, I believe ti was siggested that a fake gun be used to deter boardings. I am more concerned about what the authorities would think. I do agree that seeing a 'AK-47' hanging from the bimini would ward off most thieves who would rather find an easy target. However, I believe a Bull Mastif might be a better deterrent.

I would also be concerned about having a fake weapon visible in heavy drug trafficking areas like Columbia, Venez, Mexico, etc where there seem to be "turf's". It might actually be a magnet for the wrong type! 

I still think that those that might wish to take a weapon into a country that specifically does not allow it, would be bettter off purchasing and training a dog for defense (and that would NOT be an English Bulldog... let me tell ya!). I tis wierd, but I have found a lot of people that looked like thugs had a natural aversion to dogs. At the very least, they would know that boarding your boat would have serious concequences and there would be a fight. That's enough to keep most people away.

Just my opinions. 

- CD


----------



## chall03

problem CD is that if you headed down here our quarantine laws are such that getting a dog into the country is harder even than getting in a semi automatic


----------



## poopdeckpappy

heres the answer to the problem

American Technology Corporation - LRAD 100X



> Optimized driver and wave-guide design ensures clear and
> loud voice communication so every syllable is understood. *The warning tone
> provides a non-lethal deterrent, shapes behavior, and supports intent determination
> *while preserving time for force escalation.


----------



## Elzaar

southwindphoto said:


> Thinking about this subject more I did some web research and came upon these website columns
> 
> Guns On Board | MaritimeSecurity.com
> A "real world" look at the issue of carrying firearms on your vessel


Good link, Southwind. The #4 or finer shotgun shells sound about right. Makes me think a test at the Range with some fiberglass might be in order.


----------



## southwindphoto

Elzaar said:


> Good link, Southwind. The #4 or finer shotgun shells sound about right. Makes me think a test at the Range with some fiberglass might be in order.


I like his idea of a Remington stainless 870 12 ga.

I've never been anywhere other than the Bahamas in a boat. And they allow USCG licensed Captains to bring weapons so long as you declare them and how many rounds you're bringing. So I always just carry my Glock 9mm.

But other countries I'm sure have different procedures, and requirements, and before I would travel there, I'd make sure I did some research to find out what they are.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Good Lord! All the guy asked was if you carried guns onboard. I don't when I'm daysailing. I do when I'm cruising. I'm not a bluewater sailor and have no plans to cruise outside of the U.S. Firearms are tools, nothing more. To those of you who choose not to carry firearms, that's cool. It's your decision and choice and I respect that. I hope that you respect my choice to carry a firearm. See, no problem. Live and let live.


----------



## sarafinadh

well.

Good lord indeed...

all we did was answer him.. and then discuss a number of corollary issues... I don't think anyone here said anything about carrying weapons being a poor choice. only that it might not be their choice.

so I don't see that there was a problem. not sure why you did. public forums are bad places to go if you have no interest or patience with varying thoughts about topics, or with thread drift...

shift happens...


----------



## TSOJOURNER

One other thing. Gun's aren't the only answer. Winch handles, knives, etc can be just as effective if the bad guy actually ends up in the cabin. I keep a hatchet onboard also. Cheap, legal, useful in many ways, not the least is splitting the skull of someone who is trying to kill you.


----------



## jerryrlitton

HoofingBootneck said:


> Wise words indeed... Many people have been killed with their own weapons.


 That about sums it up for me. WTG Sara.


----------



## smackdaddy

Isn't a fake AK just as bad as a BB gun? As for using a winch handle...I'm thinking bad idea. There is a reason it didn't make it into the prison weapon hall of fame.


----------



## jerryrlitton

smackdaddy said:


> Isn't a fake AK just as bad as a BB gun? As for using a winch handle...I'm thinking bad idea. There is a reason it didn't make it into the prison weapon hall of fame.


I agree the fakes are a bad idea. However you have to be prepared to use everything on hand when there are NO other options. You need to be able and willing to fight hard, deadly and with no reservations. Remember this is when there are NO other options. Depending on the circumstances, clean up the mess, make sure there was no videos and pictures. And leave the A.O.


----------



## smackdaddy

I'm with you Jerry. If I'm going to go down, it'll be swinging for the fences. I'd just rather have even a machete in my hand than a winch handle or butter stick. But that's just me.


----------



## seafrontiersman

Rodger that SD! I remember Reginald Denny, the truck driver nearly killed during the LA riots, on his knees begging for mercy while those animals beat his brains out.

Not yours truly!

Remember this: You ALWAYS have the right to self defence, it's just a matter of the tool you use to do it with. I've handled guns safely since I was a child and the use of that particular tool isin't a problem for me. People unfamiliar with firearms may well be safer and defend themselves more effectively with another tool.

Anyway, the key is not to get into situations where you have to throw down in the first place if you possibly can, a tall order in some parts!


----------



## southwindphoto

Options are good.. Sheep have none


----------



## JimMcGee

*Get a Grip People*

I was surprised to see this thread still going after so long. I read a few of the most recent posts, posts with people talking about the best tool to grab if you're fighting for you life.

I think you folks need a reality check.

*If you're sailing in the states chances are you'll go your whole cruising life and your only attackers will be no-see-ums and dive bombing sea gulls. That's reality* (though I've longed to fire a broadside at the occasional power boater).

Now if you sail into a dicey urban area or in the third world your best defense is common sense - otherwise known as street smarts. I've traveled quite a bit overseas including some not-so-nice places and have always done OK. ALWAYS be aware of your surroundings. Listen to the hair on the back of your neck. If something doesn't feel right leave - leave now - don't try to reason it out - get out, listen to that little voice. If you ignore that little voice you're in trouble.

Also lets be honest. No matter what the weapon, most people simply aren't that good in a fight. Why? Because they've never had to be. Cops do constant weapons training, yet most miss their targets the first time they're in a real situation. Chances are you won't do much better.

Your best bet is to avoid conflicts, avoid areas that are known to be dangerous, use common sense, listen to that little voice.

Yes there are bad places and bad people. But most of the world is really a pretty safe place, and most of the people you'll encounter will be OK if not down right friendly.

Frankly I think this whole thread is completely over blown. So much bluster over something so unlikely.

Jim


----------



## JimMcGee

seafrontiersman said:


> Rodger that SD! I remember Reginald Denny, the truck driver nearly killed during the LA riots, on his knees begging for mercy while those animals beat his brains out.
> 
> Not yours truly!


SeaFrontiersman, I used to be a "lumper" and occasional driver when I was in college. A lumper is a guy who rides along in a tractor trailer and does the unloading (and hustles as many other loads as he can on the dock). Great cash job when you're a dumb college kid who thinks it's all good excercise.

When the LA riots went down the guy I drove with called me and asked "who's the dumbest sum'b*tch in the world".

Without hesitation I answered Reginald Denny. When a bunch of gang bangers jumps in front of your truck in a lousy neighborhood you never stop -- you down shift. I had that mantra beat into my head from day one. They scattered everytime they heard that diesel rev up! 

Jim


----------



## MoonSailer

Good point Jim, I have only been sailing 33 years so not much experience but I have never felt the need for a gun!!!! We have awakened with bass boats fishing a little too close but all they did was smile and wave. 
Size matters!!!! Speed matters. With a club I would do alright with a 5'10" slow guy....but a quick 6'6" would probably kick my butt. But my wife with her little 380acp could probably take down the guy. Unless you have recently been in a street fight you had better do a reality check on your abilities or you may go to the hospital to have a winch handle removed from your butt!!! Johns Hopkins student kills apparent burglar with sword - CNN.com

Interesting use of a sword in self defense. I have a ghurka(sp) that will cut a tree limb thicker than my wrist in one chop. Shorter and easier to use in close quarters like a boat.


----------



## YARDPRO

jerryrlitton said:


> That about sums it up for me. WTG Sara.


Yea, but MANY more are killed with other peoples guns....

if you do carry a firearm, you MUST have the nerve to use it...

if you have a firearm close by and will not use it, the other guy probably will...

there are a lot of thugs out there that will test you.

In my situation i posted earlier, the guy still came at me after i pointed the gun at him....

now them hearing it go off just over thier head, will instill some fear...


----------



## jerryrlitton

I just took a CHL class and I was a cop before and retired Army. One thing did stick out in the class. "FEAR FOR LIFE" nothing else is worth it. No other reason to pull the trigger and it has been said here numerous times. If you have a firearm you need to be committed totally learning how to use it and have a willingness to use it.

Jerrry


----------



## primerate84

Agreed, Jerry. I live in Ohio and have a concealed carry permit. As part of the required instruction before you are issued a CCP is the knowledge of when to use the gun and when not to. This was given by the sheriff and deputies. If someone breaks into your house (or boat) and wants to steal your microwave, you cannot shoot him to protect property. Only if you think your life is in danger can you defend yourself. The point they stressed was don't get the permit or pull the gun if you don't think you can pull the trigger in a life or death situation. (That is in your opinion in Ohio due to the Castle Doctrine, but if you shoot the guy in the back, the grand jury is going to question whether it was life or death.) 

And you must be prepared for any situation. You read of trained professionals like police getting shot with their own guns.


----------



## Martinini

I have a 45, 9mm and a 32 automatic-- one of which I take everywhere.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Hi docrn,

I don't think it is wise to carry firearms in countries where you know they are illegal or are unsure. Tyranny or not that will land you in the slammer if you use it or are caught with it, even in self defense.

Before you get mad at me you should know that I was raised on a farm and I have shot lots and lots of game in my time. Still do. I went from the farm to the Marines as a gun toting grunt. I joined the NRA in the early 80's and am an ardent supporter of OUR 2nd amendment. That's the problem, when you leave our borders there is no 2nd amendment. The tyrants still rule many countries and in others the citizens themselves don't want guns.

Why don't you use field impedient weapons such as flare guns and spear guns for protection? Maybe consider other pneumatic options. Have multiple mounts on the bulkhead inside for easy access, and a couple in "discreet" areas. Whole lot safer ..... for you.

Best regards,

Maury


----------



## Guest

madness

to me the sea is about getting away from society's ills

dolphins just need smiles
not guns

-JD


----------



## erps

> dolphins just need smiles
> not guns


I don't disagree with your sentiment, but would point out that dolphins have teeth and eat smaller fish and will take on a shark to protect their young.


----------



## Martinini

New Ohio gun laws going into effect 
Ohio now has the Castle Doctrine and new rules on where one can carry concealed handguns:


A new Ohio law signed into effect this week, not only gives property owners the right to shoot intruders, but it's also changing Ohio's concealed carry law.


SO YOU CAN SHOOT a Burgler in Ohio since 2008 when the Law changed.


----------



## hardalee22

I'm mounting a machine gun up at the spreaders for next season. This thread is just silly. I for one refuse to live my life in such complete fear of others that I feel the need to carry a gun around all the time. In the home is one thing. On my sailboat? Come on...


----------



## ttam

That's why every charter comes with a cannon, right? I found a single shot from a 9 pound bow chaser is all it takes to get that other guy away from my mooring ball. 

Seriously. I only travel armed with my cunning wits. And the only problems that it can't save me from, a pack of smokes and a smile can.


----------



## MoonSailer

Prosecutors: Teens used machete, knife in N.H. mother's murder | NECN

It is just plain silly to think that anyone would want to harm anyone...not. 
Ghastly Details In Conn. Home Invasion - CBS News

Only a paranoid person is afraid of being harmed by others.


----------



## agrainofsand

If you need to protect ypurself a 12g flair to the face would surely stop and intruder and are legal.


----------



## erps

or it might just make him mad:

YouTube - man shoots himself in head with flare gun


----------



## cb32863

*Second Amendment*

I am wondering how many of my fellow Americans know the full text of the second amendment.....


----------



## goboatingnow

These "gun" threads are just bizarre



> I have a 45, 9mm and a 32 automatic-- one of which I take everywhere.


Why in gods name would you do that, what do you fear and if its real why do you live there.

As a non-american, though I have lived in the US for several years and I have many relatives their, I just dont understand the whole guns on boats debate. I have guns, a rifle and a shotgun, why, I like to shoot clay pigons and the remington .22LR was the gun I learned on my fathers lap to fire. But I never consider them anything other then like a fishing rod. I would never use them for personal protection. I live in a society where I dont need to.

Equally I can legally carry a gun on board. But why & for what. Why is it that Americans ( USAians) fear everything. When I met Americans, personal security seems to dominate their thinking, especially anywhere foreign. Why. In most developed democracies, the people empower the police forces to protect them so that they dont have to do it themselves and by and large the police do a reasonable job of it.

I just dont get the fear thing, I have sailed all over the place and in general its very safe and you avoid the dodgy areas just as you avoid them in a big city. I have never ever seen a circumstance on a boat that would have been improved by the use of a firearm.

Please by all means wander around the US bearing weapons as obviously you live ( or think you live) in a society nearing total collapse. But dont bring them with you sailing foreign , then you give us all a bad name.


----------



## MoonSailer

Mexican Drug Lord's Terror Reaches Alabama | The Birmingham 10 - Top Ten Lists of the Best Restaurants, Businesses, Services, and Everything Else You Can Imagine in Birmingham, AL

It is a dangerous world. I think that the biggest danger for sailers is being at the wrong place at teh wrong time or having a boat that drug importers may want to use. Of course if you have a pretty wife and daughter their is a market for young women. But I agree that generally we are pretty safe from attack while boating.

Teen recounts horror of sex slavery - TODAY People


----------



## jackdale

MoonSailer said:


> Mexican Drug Lord's Terror Reaches Alabama | The Birmingham 10 - Top Ten Lists of the Best Restaurants, Businesses, Services, and Everything Else You Can Imagine in Birmingham, AL
> 
> It is a dangerous world. I think that the biggest danger for sailers is being at the wrong place at teh wrong time or having a boat that drug importers may want to use. Of course if you have a pretty wife and daughter their is a market for young women. But I agree that generally we are pretty safe from attack while boating.
> 
> Teen recounts horror of sex slavery - TODAY People


Stay at home. Lock yourself up. Build a fortress.

In the words of Ken Rogers "leave your guns at home."

Those who live in fear are not free.


----------



## jerryrlitton

goboatingnow said:


> I would never use them for personal protection. I live in a society where I dont need to.


So, where is this utopia anyway? _Where is it where violent crime is zero? I believe I would live there if I knew where it was. I don't think we live in fear of our lives however most of us who know better know that the world can be a violent place and we are maybe a touch more realistic as to it's ways, that's all. 
You say that you would never use them for personal protection...so if a member of your family was threatened with death or other heinous activity and you had your 22LR your dad taught you to shoot in your hands you would just watch? That's a very bold statement. Then you would hope that when they were done they would just walk out leaving you un-harmed? I think sheep are a lot like that. 
Jerry
_


----------



## goboatingnow

> So, where is this utopia anyway? Where is it where violent crime is zero? I believe I would live there if I knew where it was.


Nowhere is violent crime zero, but I do not feel threatedned by it, have never it and neither have my friends. I just dont see the point of firearms for personal protection in a modern democratic state with a functionng law enforcement sector. There smply isnt justification, Theres even less justification bring those firearms onboard a boat and particulary into another countries terrority.

Please dont post links to specific crimes, everyone can search the internet and find a particular incident,. But it doesnt justify the gun argument as most of these people didnt have guns, and wouldnt know how to use them. Either you arm the population and do away with law enforcement or you let the professionals get on wth the job.



> so if a member of your family was threatened with death or other heinous activity and you had your 22LR your dad taught you to shoot in your hands you would just watch?


Actually I beleive I would as I think waving a gun around would get them killed


----------



## jerryrlitton

"Functioning" is a rather abstract word. I am not sure where you live but we as a whole do not have a very good "functioning" LE system, and I was one of them. Hence my advocacy on firearms for personal protection. The world is a violent place and we just have to be aware that it exists. Being naive will get you and yours killed. Expect the best from people however be prepared for the worst.

Jerry


----------



## erps

> Please dont post links to specific crimes, everyone can search the internet and find a particular incident,. But it doesnt justify the gun argument as most of these people didnt have guns, and wouldnt know how to use them. Either you arm the population and do away with law enforcement or you let the professionals get on wth the job.


Are those the only two choices you could come up with? Would the opinion of the professionals have a bearing on your opinion?



> According to the 13th annual survey that was sent to 21,000 sheriffs and police chiefs across the country, by the National Association of Chiefs of Police, the vast majority of officers believed that citizens should be able to buy guns.
> 
> Responding to the question, "Do you believe any law-abiding citizen should be able to purchase a firearm for sport or self-defense?" *Ninety-Three percent of officers responded affirmatively.*


Second Amendment Foundation Online

I would bet money that police officer's family members have a higher concealed carry rate than the average citizen.


----------



## MoonSailer

Choosing to defend yourself is a personal choice. Some people (sheep?) prefer to have the police (guard dog) protect them from harm. That is a great choice. Some people like to defend themselves. That is OK too. Both are valid choices and fortunately most of us will never be attacked or killed. Even people with guns may not be able to defend themselves in all situations. Again most of us will never have to deal with a home invasion. But crime does happen. I worked with a lady who was devastated when her Mom was murdered in Houston. She lived in an apartment and someone broke in and cut her throat. robbery seemed to be the motive. I met a Colonel in the USAF a former POW who had his home invaded in North Carolina. He and his wife wear tied up. His wife died and he had horrible scars on his wrists where he struggled to try and free himself. Fortunately his daughter became concerned after a couple of days and set him free. Stuff does happen and thankfully we are free to defend ourselves here in the USA most places. I would love to live in a place where I was safe.


----------



## MoonSailer

As to posting specific crimes. Why do you think that people want to protect themselves??? Listen to the news read the paper. Every day there are accounts of violent crimes. Birmingham Alabama is a dangerous city with a high murder rate. There have been murders on the University of Alabama's campus even with the UAB police roaming the streets. Some punks tried to rob my boss as he walked to the parking deck. A coworker of my wife's was forced to take money from an automatic teller to give to robbers and was still beaten. She was walking to her car after a day at work. It is really insulting for someone to say that if you want to defend yourself that you are paranoid. READ the Newspaper and you will see that police protection usually involves trying to catch the murderer not stopping the murder. It would be cold comfort to know that the person who murdered your loved one was caught. Better to have a living happy loved one.


----------



## Guest

Gun-toting soccer mom, husband shot dead - CNN.com

this says it all

guns so often = motherless children

the epic sadness continues under the flag waving second amendment

-JD


----------



## southwindphoto

It’s all about choices. 

You have your opinion and I have mine, and thank God in the good old USA we are allowed those choices. The problem is when we leave this country, and its 2nd amendment.


----------



## MoonSailer

*Sometime you don't need your own gun*

Texas Man Kills Home Intruder With His Own Gun - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

Here is a cool story where gunmen break into a home and the family defends itself. One bad guy shot and killed with his own shotgun. The second bad guy shot and captured. Even pregnant a women can be a force for good.

It is sad about the murder suicide. Would it be any happier if the woman had been beaten to death or maybe stabbed with a knife??? People have been killing each other since Cain and Able. A gun just gives the smaller person a better chance.

Maybe this young woman would still be alive if she had a gun. Do we now outlaw rocks??

ABQNews: Updated at 7:25am -- Juarez Man, Sons Arrested in El Paso Woman's Death


----------



## jjf82usa

Guys I love my guns but you can only shoot 1 person at a time. (I have a Kimber shoot tiny groups quick{paper plates are great targets}) So better than bringing a knife to a gunfight,phone it in. After seeing good tools rust and cheap ones stay pristine I don't think I'd like my guns there. As a real bummer if someone does cap you he has 2 guns now. Shouldn't that guy blasting around the planet be in a Hunter?


----------



## jerryrlitton

stpetersburgsailor said:


> Gun-toting soccer mom, husband shot dead - CNN.com
> 
> this says it all
> 
> guns so often = motherless children
> 
> the epic sadness continues under the flag waving second amendment
> 
> -JD


 Actually it does not say a thing, other then some people should not be allowed to carry a firearm nor carry sharp objects. The investigation appears not completed as of yet.

Jerry


----------



## erps

> It's all about choices.


and protecting that choice.


----------



## MoonSailer

Homeowner shot by police alleges conspiracy to cover mistake - Phoenix Arizona news, breaking news, local news, weather radar, traffic from ABC15 News | ABC15.com

Interesting case where the police protect the bad guy. The homeowner caught a burgler inside of his house and was holding him for the police. Even after the police were told repeatedly that the homeowner had the gun the police immediately shot the homeowner in the back without any warning!!! I guess it is safer to be a criminal than an honest homeowner. The crook will be out on the street long before the homeowner recovers if ever.


----------



## Superpickle

357 & Full auto AK47 from the RVN


----------



## St Anna

105mm M2A2 Light Field Howitzer. Picked ut up cheap - came with spare barrel and 3 bombardiers. I can use splintex at 10km.


----------



## MoonSailer

Elderly Homeowner Shoots And Kills Intruder - Brewton Alabama - WKRG.com

This is cool. An elderly couple defends themselves against an armed intruder with multiple convictions. I hate to read about anyone dying but I'd much rather read about the bad guys dying instead of police find elderly couple murdered in their bedroom.


----------



## jerryrlitton

WRS | Staring down the barrel of Swiss gun traditions


----------



## MoonSailer

Neat link!!! I agree the first step to taking away people's freedom is to take away their weapons. Most countries throughout history have oppressed their citizens and restricted weapons to the ruling class. The USA is kind of an accident because early in our history weapons were required and then ownership became a matter of law. In places like England or Japan common people have never had the freedom to own weapons.


----------



## denverd0n

Something of a tangent to this thread, but I just read last night that the UK is considering outlawing the traditional glass pint mug, and dictating the use of plastic instead, because the glass ones can cause serious injuries when used as a weapon during a brawl.

I will leave you to draw your own conclusions as to whether this is a reasonable, effective, and perhaps even brilliant way to deal with the societal problem of people who injure other people, or whether it is one of the most incredibly STUPID things you have ever heard! Of course, such a law is only the logical and predictable point that we must eventually come to when we start down the path of thinking that the way to solve this particular societal problem is by banning inanimate objects that people sometimes choose to use to harm others with.


----------



## bloodhunter

*You've got to be kidding*




denverd0n said:


> Something of a tangent to this thread, but I just read last night that the UK is considering outlawing the traditional glass pint mug, and dictating the use of plastic instead, because the glass ones can cause serious injuries when used as a weapon during a brawl.


 How can you drink decent beer from plastic. Anyway the alcohol is dangerous for a variety of reasons so I suppose it's just a mtter of time vefore they outlaw that too


----------



## erps

A link regarding denver's post

BBC NEWS | UK | Pubs warn over plastic pints plan


----------



## MoonSailer

Let them get real safe and restrict beer to 4oz paper cups. This will cut down on DUIs. Maybe water down the beer too. You can never be too safe. Maybe just near beer??? What about pool cues??? Maybe make them out of light weight PVC pipes with a nice soft foam covering. Then they have to do something about bare knuckles. Maybe big soft mittens???


----------



## goboatingnow

> In places like England or Japan common people have never had the freedom to own weapons.


Thats not true, most western style democracies allow you to posses guns, what mainly controlled, unlike the US, is the type of firearms. Its not about freedom, in most of Europe for example, it is the general public that force increased gun control( such as a ban on pistols, and large calibre fireams). Its not about governments controlling it, its the public. This is a point that US gun advocates simply dont understand.

The fact is that the public , in most western democracies want gun control and quite severe gun control at that. If fact if you polled such citzenry they would actually opt for a complete ban.


----------



## jerryrlitton

Guns in America - Freakonomics Blog - NYTimes.com

Refutations of Popular Gun Myths

molonlabe


----------



## joethecobbler

when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

What better way to assure no resistence to gov't supression than to have an un-armed population incapable of resisting tyranny.

-see recent history-


----------



## MoonSailer

goboat you need to read some history. Or look at Israel right now. Jews can own guns Palestinians caWhere do you think not. Israel is a democracy?? where do you think Kung-fu came from??? Oppressive government did not want armed citizens. Traditional Wing Chun Kung Fu - Grandmaster William Cheung's World Wing Chun Kung Fu Association


----------



## bobwebster

I carry a screwdriver onboard, and a well-oiled hammer. While these may not present much of a threat to humans or grizzlies, in the proper hands they can do serious damage to marine electronics.


----------



## jerryrlitton

At one time a firearm was an everyday item along with a very large knife. Eventually we have civilized ourselves out of some everyday items in the hopes of stupid people not being able to hurt themselves or others. I can see other everyday items being outlawed out of fear and ignorance. I do not smoke however cigarettes will be next, with a stoke of a pen. That is an example on how easy it is to change our "freedoms" which our disappearing rapidly. Maybe it will be red convertibles next followed by sharp screwdrivers. Case in point; How Could It Be Against the Law to Spread Public Information? | | AlterNet You can stick a live frog in boiling water and he will jump out. However if you stick a live frog in cold water and turn up the heat you will kill him. Does anyone see the analogy there? 
I love my country however I fear my government.










Jerry


----------



## jerryrlitton

I know this is thread hijacking but check this out.

Be Truly Free


----------



## jerryrlitton




----------



## chall03

This thread is still going?? Oh Dear.
Although I do love it when everyone gets all antzy.

Moonsailer comparing guns and beer is kinda drawing a fairly long bow don't you think??

I guess you Americans do like ya guns. It is just funny to me cause here is Australia, we just don't care. 

It isn't actually that we are having our civil liberties violated over here, it isn't that we are being controlled and denied freedom by our government.........we basically petitioned our government to make sure that to own a gun here is damn hard if not impossible and by enlarge we are all kinda down with that....your average Joe doesn't want one and isn't interested.

Now I'm not saying this to inflame, or suggest that America's 2nd amendment is wrong, heaven forbid, I am just saying isn't it kinda interesting how cultural differences and very different perspectives change an issue??


----------



## sailingdog

She's got a lot of very valid points.


----------



## jerryrlitton

Luby's massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is where and why we have a CCL in TX.


----------



## erps

> I guess you Americans do like ya guns. It is just funny to me cause here is Australia, we just don't care.


It was the Australian gun ban that got me to join the NRA. The video clips of Australian gun owners lamenting their loss was moving.



> we basically petitioned our government to make sure that to own a gun here is damn hard if not impossible and by enlarge we are all kinda down with that....your average Joe doesn't want one and isn't interested.


when something isn't recognized as a right, a majority is free to take away from a minority.


----------



## Capnblu

Canada is scrapping their long gun registry, billions of dollars to register and push it through, and now they will no longer have the data for all the legitimate gun owners. I guess they can just look at the list of citizens whom didn't register to know who the real problems really are, or could be.


----------



## jerryrlitton

chall03 said:


> This thread is still going?? Oh Dear.
> Although I do love it when everyone gets all antzy.
> 
> Moonsailer comparing guns and beer is kinda drawing a fairly long bow don't you think??
> 
> I guess you Americans do like ya guns. _It is just funny to me cause here is Australia, we just don't care. _
> 
> It isn't actually that we are having our civil liberties violated over here, it isn't that we are being controlled and denied freedom by our government.........we basically petitioned our government to make sure that to own a gun here is damn hard if not impossible and by enlarge we are all kinda down with that...._your average Joe doesn't want one and isn't interested._
> 
> Now I'm not saying this to inflame, or suggest that America's 2nd amendment is wrong, heaven forbid, I am just saying isn't it kinda interesting how cultural differences and very different perspectives change an issue??


I really cannot find a better definition of apathy.
Jerry


----------



## sailstoo

No. I don't keep a gun on my boat.


----------



## erps

> we basically petitioned our government to make sure that to own a gun here is damn hard if not impossible and by enlarge we are all kinda down with that....your average Joe doesn't want one and isn't interested.


and once the average Joe doesn't care, it gets easier and easier



> AUSTRALIA will join China in implementing mandatory censoring of the internet under plans put forward by the Federal Government.......The plan was first created as a way to combat child pornography and adult content, *but could be extended to include controversial websites* on euthanasia or anorexia.


Mandatory censorship on web | Herald Sun

wonder if the average Joe would care if the right to protest was taken away?

There is an autistic lady who does consultations for slaughter houses to design the assembly line from the cow's perspective so the cows don't get all upset as they move down the line to their demise. Wonder if she if she does any consulting work for governments?

BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon


----------



## St Anna

Posting ones thoughts is a very poor method of communicating. 

To this average Joe, your comments are condescending and patronising. Are you asking for a response from the other side of the PAcific?

Do you feel we can comment on your way of life in a similar vein? 

We have news bulletins which start 
'Only in America...' and always are about the basic idiocy of your nation and its dumbing down of the population; or its incredible hypocrisy. Should we be so ignorant to judge you based on that? We or my circle dont!

You can do what you want in your backyard, shoot up coke, shoot up people who piss you off, after all, it's your god given right (so why punish the 'perp'?). 

I dont care as long as you stop shoving it down my throat.


----------



## erps

St. Anna,

Was that directed at me?


----------



## St Anna

Yeah mate. We've talked in the past - stop bagging Ozzies when the thread is about carrying weapons on a yacht. I am off now - lets PM if we are going to have a stand up arguement.
regards


----------



## chall03

jerryrlitton said:


> I really cannot find a better definition of apathy.
> Jerry


Because I was born in a different country to you, raised differently with different beliefs, you feel I am apathetic towards an issue that is basically a domestic US affair?

Well I really cannot find a better definition of arrogance.

Now If your definition of apathy is not caring, then yes I think I made it quite clear that personally I don't care about having a 'right to bear arms' . 
Why? Because I just don't want a gun! Most people in Australia don't , we don't think about them, we don't talk about them, and we don't protest over them.

I also wouldn't care if my government banned poker-dot dresses car seat covers, cause once again I and most people here don't have them and don't want them.

My point is again THAT OUR CULTURE IS DIFFERENT


----------



## erps

> I dont care as long as you stop shoving it down my throat.


who are the ones shoving something down another's throat?

a person who makes choices for himself but doesn't push it on anyone else,

or a person who makes choices for themselves and then pushes those choices on others?


----------



## chall03

ERPS, Damn you must have the Internet censorship link bookmarked!
I do care about that issue a great deal. Alot of people here do and therefore I can't see it getting through parliament.

Hey I never said my country was perfect.

Incidentally I never said I had a problem either with your 2nd amendment. In the context of the US, your bill of rights, how your country was established, and a general 'gun awareness' amongst the average joe. I understand and appreciate it.

Australia however is a very different country.


----------



## erps

> I also wouldn't care if my government banned poker-dot dresses car seat covers, cause once again I and most people here don't have them and don't want them.


what happens when they want to start banning something you do want?


----------



## knothead

St Anna said:


> I dont care as long as you stop shoving it down my throat.


How can you possibly feel as though anyone is shoving anything down anyone's throat when you, personally and of your own free will, choose to log on, select and read with your own presumably self motivated eyes something that is typed on an internet message board? 

I like you St. Anna but get real.


----------



## erps

> Hey I never said my country was perfect.
> 
> Incidentally I never said I had a problem either with your 2nd amendment. In the context of the US, your bill of rights, how your country was established, and a general 'gun awareness' amongst the average joe. I understand and appreciate it.
> 
> Australia however is a very different country.


Chall, I respect that. I wouldn't have had even jumped back in this if you had said that "we voted a ban on guns here and *I* really don't care, because* I *really don't care for guns." The fact is that you have citizens in your country that did care and still do.


----------



## chall03

erps said:


> Chall, I respect that. I wouldn't have had even jumped back in this if you had said that "we voted a ban on guns here and *I* really don't care, because* I *really don't care for guns." The fact is that you have citizens in your country that did care and still do.


Sure, but even in the US minorities lose out to the majority consensus, that unfortunately is a by product of democracy....No one has absolute freedoms....sadly.

We have same sex couple's here and in the US(well most parts) that care about getting married, both our countries have denied them that right as well...we have people here who also wish to recreationally use Marijuana as part of their lifestyle and we deny them that right, as do I believe most states in the US....

My point is that yes ok there are some here who do care about gun ownership, they however are here very much the overwhelming minority and compared to the debate over there the whole issue here is a major non event.....


----------



## erps

> Yeah mate. We've talked in the past - stop bagging Ozzies when the thread is about carrying weapons on a yacht.


I was offering a counterpoint made by one of your mates. Ozzyland was brought in by another, not by me.


----------



## chall03

Yeah guilty as charged. I need to stop reading this thread I think.



knothead said:


> How can you possibly feel as though anyone is shoving anything down anyone's throat when you, personally and of your own free will, choose to log on, select and read with your own presumably self motivated eyes something that is typed on an internet message board?
> 
> I like you St. Anna but get real.


I think the shoving down the throat St Anna was referring to was in context of some posts above, St Anna was perhaps suggesting American ideas and philosophies were being shoved down Australia's throat.....


----------



## erps

> My point is that yes ok there are some here who do care about gun ownership, they however are here very much the overwhelming minority and compared to the debate over there the whole issue here is a major non event.....


I understand that point and I would suggest that it depends on whose shoes you're standing in when deciding whether it is a non-event or not. And for what it's worth, I've observed that in our past conversations on this that you've exhibited an ability to empathize with others and I appreciate that.


----------



## chall03

Ditto ERPS. From what I know of you on here your a very good man. 
Hey I'm not going to say anything different you have a gun    

This is a really interesting debate for me, at the base of it I believe is the fact you and I were probably brought up very differently on this. Now if i can stretch that point further I believe Americans and Australians on this point generally have been brought up with very different perspectives.

Anyway it's Sunday here, and it is mean't to be varnishing sunday for me so i'm off.


----------



## St Anna

This is post 371. If Sigmund Freud had been able to read any of the above 370, he would have become a plumber!

As for the comments above. Yep, guilty as charged. Wont happen again.


----------



## jerryrlitton

JPFO- 2a-today-download or view

A little history lesson.


----------



## missmargaree

To the original question,no, I don't usually have a firearm onboard but without one,feel like I'm missing something which may be usefull .... like an anchor! Canada


----------



## Architeuthis

docrn said:


> So who's packing what?


While traveling in your great country I was not allowed to 'pack' so did not. I did take comfort in knowing that most around me were. That is a good thing because your average person is responsible to vote (not always the right way IMO!) and can be called upon if needed.

Now that I am in a land where I can 'pack' so I sometimes do. Presently a 30-30 but I will be getting a gun just for the boat.

It is somewhat risky to travel in certain areas without a gun. In the past, for me, this was due to polar bears which often take an interest in anything different. Nothing like a lone person to look different.

For Polar Bear I used a single shot 12 gauge with a slug. I needed something that would work at extreme temps, like -50c. I often traveled with a Mini-14 which was great fun to use but I would not feel comfortable with it if I was being charged (most are fake but you do not know that at first).

I've had a 30-30 since I was a kid so that one is kind of my default fav but now I'm thinking maybe a 30-06.

A single shot shotgun is cheap and very reliable. When I go ashore in bear areas that will do fine. I can also use it to shoot bangers and flares.

On the other hand a 30-06 has a wide range of ammo choice. I am thinking a pump action would be the best all round choice. An M1 would be sweet but that would be heavier and longer. Shorter and lighter is better.

I do not have to decide until next year so until then I'll be comparing different options and looking for opinions.


----------



## wind_magic

chall03 said:


> I also wouldn't care if my government banned poker-dot dresses car seat covers, cause once again I and most people here don't have them and don't want them.
> 
> My point is again THAT OUR CULTURE IS DIFFERENT


I'd be willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of things you are interested in are things that most people are not interested in. Sailing is a good example. The only things we all have in common are eating, sleeping, and bodily functions. Pretty lame target for individual freedom I think.  It's a different philosophy, you are right about that, by protecting the minority the majority is protected, because we are more a part of various minority groups than we are any majority. Don't let them get rid of those polka-dot seat covers ...


----------



## Dobreski

Not me.


----------



## missmargaree

*so who is packing?*

Shorter and lighter is better (imo) I do a lot of quadding and always pack Winchester1300 w/ pistol grip.Nice and short and works well even at minus 25!


----------



## Architeuthis

I left Fort Mac to avoid the -25c stuff and do the sailing stuff. Of course I still want the gun to work when needed. The pistol grip is nice but I can't hit the board side of a 797 with it so it'll be a standard stock for me. 

Being on the west coast with storm after storm I'm thinking I need something that can handle being wet, all the time!


----------



## chall03

wind_magic said:


> I'd be willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of things you are interested in are things that most people are not interested in. Sailing is a good example. The only things we all have in common are eating, sleeping, and bodily functions. Pretty lame target for individual freedom I think.  It's a different philosophy, you are right about that, by protecting the minority the majority is protected, because we are more a part of various minority groups than we are any majority. Don't let them get rid of those polka-dot seat covers ...


Windy we could go round and round here.....
Now I do absolutely agree with you in principle.....I do agree that individual freedoms should be protected...no argument.

As i said above though we would all also be kidding ourselves if we believed that we are 'free' in either your country or mine to do whatever we please....gay marriage?? Euthanasia?? Abortion? Recreational Drug use??
Pick your issue...

Poker dot dresses don't kill people.....just saying.


----------



## jerryrlitton

The Ultimate Adventure Cruise


----------



## denverd0n

chall03 said:


> Poker dot dresses don't kill people.....just saying.


But boats do... just saying.


----------



## Architeuthis

denverd0n said:


> But boats do...


And at a much higher rate than firearms. In most countries boats, canoes even swimming pools are much often much much more dangerous than firearms.

But people wanting gun control, at least those not motivated by politics, are not interested in logic or reason. It is emotional reasoning, not rational reasoning being used.

The conflict occurs when one tries to rationally discuss emotional issues without first agreeing on the parameters.

Which might mean no arguments from a single case. For example not using the single case of the Maersk Alabama who took on pirates unarmed and almost got everybody killed. Then took on pirates armed and everybody, but some pirates, got to go home with little problem and no delay.


----------



## seafrontiersman

This might be of some service to people who have already decided to carry...Taurus makes a revolver called "the Judge" which is stainless steel, chambers .41 magnum and .410 shotgun rounds. This seems like a really good option for sailors because of the buckshot option.

My Chief Mate bought one and he loves it....I've been a good boy this year and Santa might just bring me one for Xmas!


----------



## wind_magic

Hollywood is as much to blame for gun control as anything. The simple truth is that most people, especially urban people, have never actually used a gun, maybe never even seen a gun. Some of them have never even seen a real knife. But everyone has seen movies, and most people's "reality" about guns comes from whatever they've seen in movies, not just about what guns are or how they are used, but about the people who have them and use them. In Hollywood guns are a tool of theatrical drama, not just a boring tool that sits in the gun cabinet most of the time and only comes out when it is needed. Hollywood uses the gun in the same way it uses swords, so that the antagonist can get knocked around at the end of the story. It has nothing to do with the reality of guns or gun ownership. The boring truth is that most people can't shoot a can at 50 yards with a pistol.


----------



## chall03

denverd0n said:


> But boats do... just saying.


And here in Oz that is why we have laws that require people to have licenses for boats...... as we do for guns....

Thats kind of my point....


----------



## jerryrlitton

chall03 said:


> And here in Oz that is why we have laws that require people to have licenses for boats...... as we do for guns....
> 
> Thats kind of my point....


So since you have had the license requirement for boats, there has been no more boat related deaths?

That is my point.

Jerry


----------



## jerryrlitton

wind_magic said:


> Hollywood is as much to blame for gun control as anything. The simple truth is that most people, especially urban people, have never actually used a gun, maybe never even seen a gun. Some of them have never even seen a real knife. But everyone has seen movies, and most people's "reality" about guns comes from whatever they've seen in movies, not just about what guns are or how they are used, but about the people who have them and use them. In Hollywood guns are a tool of theatrical drama, not just a boring tool that sits in the gun cabinet most of the time and only comes out when it is needed. Hollywood uses the gun in the same way it uses swords, so that the antagonist can get knocked around at the end of the story. It has nothing to do with the reality of guns or gun ownership. The boring truth is that most people can't shoot a can at 50 yards with a pistol.


YouTube - McKenzie -11yo Girl Sets New Record for Field Stripping AR15

YouTube - gixxerguy811's Channel

Think 10 yards. It is all about training, not so much what you carry. Here is an 11 year old girl whose father thought enough, was responsible enough and cared enough about the future and reality of his daughter. I seriously think this girl will have no inclination to take a weapon to school and go on a rampage. I think if she came across a weapon she would know enough to leave it alone or if she had to she would know enough to safely check the weapons status while keeping it clear of people. Not to mention when she gets older she will probably have less of a possibility to be a victim of a violent crime. Should this not be what we ultimately want for each other? If anyone here thinks for an instant that she is now equipped to be a terrorist or a violent person then you will also think a woman is equipped to be a prostitute&#8230;is that stupid or what? Carrying a weapon is a personal choice and not to be made by a 3rd person or a government. Yes, movies have very little to do with reality and the "news" is regretfully far worse. It is all about education and practice, practice and practice. Use your own mind and try to ignore the "downloads" from our government sponsored media. I know this has not a thing to do with the thread however try to forgive me.
Jerry


----------



## wind_magic

Jerry, I am trying to assume that you were just speaking in general and not actually responding to the text in my post that you quoted.  I agree with everything you just said.


----------



## jerryrlitton

I am responding in general and I also agree to everything you said except most of us with training have a hard time with a can at 50 yards shooting a pistol.

Jerry


----------



## wind_magic

You are right I would have problems hitting a can at much shorter distances too.


----------



## jerryrlitton

chall03 said:


> Because I was born in a different country to you, raised differently with different beliefs, you feel I am apathetic towards an issue that is basically a domestic US affair?
> 
> Well I really cannot find a better definition of arrogance.
> 
> My point is again THAT OUR CULTURE IS DIFFERENT


Actually I was born in the UK.
I spent 6 months working in Oz (mostly in NT) and found that most of you all have the same some concerns and gripes we have in the US. As a whole we are not that much different.

Jerry


----------



## chall03

Look on that Jerry I don't agree. 

Perhaps I should clarify, That when I say our cultures are different I mean that as societies on the whole, you will find when it comes to the arms discussion specifically there is a gaping chasm in terms of ideals and yes also apathy between Australia and the US. 

The NT is a great place, I hope you had a ball while you were over here.

Now I have been posting on this thread now for 7 months. Prior to this thread I have gone more than a round or two on this issue here already, It has been an interesting discussion folks, but I reckon i'm done. 

Truth be told I am more into rum than guns. 

If you do want to discuss anything further with me feel free to PM.


----------



## lancelot9898

seafrontiersman said:


> This might be of some service to people who have already decided to carry...Taurus makes a revolver called "the Judge" which is stainless steel, chambers .41 magnum and .410 shotgun rounds. This seems like a really good option for sailors because of the buckshot option.
> 
> My Chief Mate bought one and he loves it....I've been a good boy this year and Santa might just bring me one for Xmas!


How long has he had the gun and how well is it holding up under that sort of firepower and enviroment? As a kid I had a 410 shorgun which doesn't have much kick, but in a pistol I think it might be pretty substantial. Just like to hear more about his experieince in using it. I also understand that you can alternate the loading of the chambers. I'm also not sure if the 410 gage has much stopping power.....but then the other round makes that a moot point.


----------



## jerryrlitton

I daresay rum is a little more civilized than beating on each other. I did have a ball there thank you. I also spent a little time in Melbourne and did some flights out of Geraldton (did I spell that correctly?) on the west coast. Great bunch of people all over. I also flew a helo across the Simpson desert and stopped at Alice Springs. Those of us who have never been there have no idea how large Oz really is. I will drink to you on that one.
Jerry


----------



## SSBN506

I personally think the biggest problem with SUM pro gun people is the way they present the argument. When you start off by saying people who don’t have guns or countries who don’t allow guns are not free or are sheep like the very first post you are off to a bad start. There are 4 types of people on most issues. People for it, against it, just don’t care and on the fence. If you start with what I would consider an insult people will go on the defensive.
If for example you start off by saying”I know everyone is not as smart as me because I have a university degree and my opinion on animal rights is ….” I automatically put most people on the defensive and the will probable fight with me on whatever you stance is because I insulated them. 
When you say “not all countries are as free as mine and I don’t want to be a sheep and my opinion on gun control is ….” All the people who don’t care one way or the other will turn on you. You won’t change any minds with that statement and in the marketplace of ideas that should be your objective. 
If I were to ask the question the first post asked I would ask like this. I personally carry a gun and have always felt better carrying one. I carry a …. What do other boaters who carry have? I don’t think this post would go so nuts. 
I know I am beating a dead dog but this one will apply to Americans. In Canada we are lucky to have more freedom then sum countries and can travel to Cuba. What is your favorite resort on Cuba for those of you who don’t allow you government to oppress your right to travel. Again this is a very insulting way to talk and is more a shoot and Americans and not a honest question. 

Now you can’t stop people from posting like this but a pro gun person I wouldn’t think reinforcing this type of talk will help the cause.


----------



## Architeuthis

SSBN506 said:


> In Canada we are lucky to have more freedom then sum countries and can travel to Cuba. What is your favorite resort on Cuba for those of you who don't allow you government to oppress your right to travel. Again this is a very insulting way to talk and is more a shoot and Americans and not a honest question.
> 
> Now you can't stop people from posting like this but a pro gun person I wouldn't think reinforcing this type of talk will help the cause.


Many pro-gun people are also emotional about it and express their feeling emotionally. Rational discussions about firearms are rare in part because of this but mainly due to the fact that there are so many other much more dangerous things that restricting them, and not other items, always comes down to emotion and emotion is insulting.

It must also be rather individual as I fail to see why your question, even stated as it was, would be insulting. Canada does have more freedom of movement and travel than the U.S. and Canada does not restrict Canadians travel with re-entry requirements. Pointing out that another country oppresses their citizens by restricting their travel, with exit or entry visas or passports while asking about a country subject to such restrictions should not be insulting.

Edit: Would you be insulted if someone asked a similar question about carry laws for handguns?


----------



## SSBN506

Architeuthis said:


> It must also be rather individual as I fail to see why your question, even stated as it was, would be insulting.


It may not be insulting to many people but my thinking would be If you want to change minds of the neutrals you wouldn't want to sound insulting. I think the problem could also be may pro gun people are trying to give the anti gun people a shot in the arm with more aggressive statement. My question is when trying the change the mind or the fare left do you freak out the people who are not far left. They are the people who would be much easier to sway.

Even if someone is out right wrong about something attacking them will not only hinder them changing there mind it will probably make them dig in deeper just to fight you. I am not saying anyone is doing this in this forum I just always thought the PR of the pro gun people was flawed.

If all the pro gun people are calling you not free and sheep and saying they want guns to stop the government from doing what it wants it makes them kind of sound like a nut and not a club I want to be part of.

I don't think you have to have a reason to own a gun beyond i want one i am aloud to have one and here is my license proving i am responsible. The marketplace of ideas will take care of the limits and both sides should fight for their ideas. I have just always questioned the strategy of the pro gun lobbies and thought they were shooting themselves in the foot. lol


----------



## SSBN506

Architeuthis said:


> Edit: Would you be insulted if someone asked a similar question about carry laws for handguns?


I am not insulted by those types of questions i just don't take the ideas of the people who make all the seriously. I will still take that person seriously just not that idea because as you stated they are talking on emotion. If that someone is trying to sway me they will probably fail as i am not fare left or far right on gun control. I will not lobby for more or less gun control in Canada at this time as both sides taken to their extremes are unappealing to me.

I would be willing to join ether side depending how far they try to push. I am not for an ought right ban but am also not for removing all restrictions on gun ownership.

I do think in my opinion Canada was slipping to far to the anti gun side but it is sliding back just a bit. but i don't want it sliding to far to one side or the other.


----------



## erps

> I will still take that person seriously just not that idea because as you stated they are talking on emotion.





> I will not lobby for more or less gun control in Canada at this time as both sides taken to their extremes are unappealing to me.


Unappealing? That sounds like an emotional response, doesn't it?


----------



## jerryrlitton

chall03 said:


> Because I was born in a different country to you, raised differently with different beliefs, you feel I am apathetic towards an issue that is basically a domestic US affair?
> 
> Well I really cannot find a better definition of arrogance.
> 
> Now If your definition of apathy is not caring, then yes I think I made it quite clear that personally I don't care about having a 'right to bear arms' .
> Why? Because I just don't want a gun! Most people in Australia don't , we don't think about them, we don't talk about them, and we don't protest over them.
> 
> I also wouldn't care if my government banned poker-dot dresses car seat covers, cause once again I and most people here don't have them and don't want them.
> 
> My point is again THAT OUR CULTURE IS DIFFERENT


Here is a message from UK and Australia. Check this out...

YouTube - USA NEXT FOR GUN CONFISCATION??? TAKE THEIR ADVICE!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Superpickle

chall03 said:


> Because I was born in a different country to you, raised differently with different beliefs, you feel I am apathetic towards an issue that is basically a domestic US affair?
> 
> Well I really cannot find a better definition of arrogance.
> 
> Now If your definition of apathy is not caring, then yes I think I made it quite clear that personally I don't care about having a 'right to bear arms' .
> Why? Because I just don't want a gun! Most people in Australia don't , we don't think about them, we don't talk about them, and we don't protest over them.
> 
> I also wouldn't care if my government banned poker-dot dresses car seat covers, cause once again I and most people here don't have them and don't want them.
> 
> My point is again THAT OUR CULTURE IS DIFFERENT


Very very Dangerous attitude and , i might add, "Apathetic"
"Its not My stuff they are Banning, So, I dont CARE"

Wait till they want to mess with something YOU want to have.. Like a Freedom or two.. that is IF you have any left, by that time..

You have a Very Liberal Attitude and its NOT what we want HERE.. 
If you are happy with it , and it seems you are, Fine ! 

I tell ya, I am More than willing to take up Arms to Fight for Every Last Freedom we have. Against the Government of THIS country , if Nessasary, and More than willing to KILL for it as well.. Thats "NOT", Apathy !

I think most of the Countrys that have a Liberal Government have Already Dis-Armed its people, so theres No sence in fighting , you have no means to do so..it was Given away Long ago..

I for one, am NOT willing to Roll over and play Dead and get it in the End by ANY Government..


----------



## seafrontiersman

lancelot9898 said:


> How long has he had the gun and how well is it holding up under that sort of firepower and enviroment? As a kid I had a 410 shorgun which doesn't have much kick, but in a pistol I think it might be pretty substantial. Just like to hear more about his experieince in using it. I also understand that you can alternate the loading of the chambers. I'm also not sure if the 410 gage has much stopping power.....but then the other round makes that a moot point.


The weapon has about as much recoil as a Ruger Blackhawk .44 magnum which is pretty managable even in my rather small hands and sounds like the crack of doom, it also has a big muzzle flash. The Mate has had it soaked in fresh and salt water on several occasions and he states that it's still in pristine condition. The weapon is stainless and rubber (Pachmyer grips I think) so there isin't much to break/rust. I think buckshot in a .410 at 10 feet or so would be more than effective against bad guys.


----------



## Architeuthis

Superpickle said:


> I tell ya, I am More than willing to take up Arms to Fight for Every Last Freedom we have.


You have a last freedom? It isn't from the government or police. I've just spent a year in the US and I love Americans but cry at what they've lost.

Americans live in a police state and it isn't just that every trip on an interstate is recorded by the government, it is the shear number of police and enforcement agencies that are out there monitoring them, I mean you.

Seriously it is too late to save your freedoms it is time to take some back. I counted no less than half dozen enforcement, police, agencies in one port I was in. Each one of them had the full black and white police boat, firearms up the wazoo, and I swear that flak jackets must be a fashion statement because every person with a set of flashing lights wears them.

We literally never made a trip into town without seeing at least one, normally many, police cars, some county, some city, some state, some federal and those are just the ones with colors and lights.

How is it you got to this point without ever taking up arms to stop it, or at least bitching about it (our fav method)?


----------



## Petar

docrn said:


> I have allways been an advocate of the 2nd ammendment and believe in the right to personal protection. Of course depending upon where you are cruising having a weapon on board may be more trouble than it is worth (unfortunately) in countries where freedom and the rights of private citizens mean nothing to thier governments.
> 
> I personally like the idea of having a weapon on board for personal defense so I have a stainless .38 (usefull for dipatching large halibut) and an 870 Marine magnum (usefull for dipatching 2 legged predators). The 870 will also come in handy for the trip to AK I plan to take sometime in the future. In fact I have had someone go as far as climb on board my boat and open the companionway hatch at which point I made it clear if they didn't leave now they never would.
> 
> Anyway, this is more of a "I wonder who else packs" type of question than an attempt to impose my personal/political views. I strongly believe that those who are uncomfortable or incapable of safely handling weapons should not have anything to do with them untill someone has schooled them on safe handling anyway.
> 
> So who's packing what?


Sailing is about enjoyment and not warfare. If you like warfare, sail to Iraq or Somalia. leave rest of us in peace and tranquility.


----------



## Architeuthis

SSBN506 said:


> ..... Even if someone is out right wrong about something attacking them will not only hinder them changing there mind it will probably make them dig in deeper just to fight you. ..


This is true I've seen it myself on issues where I not only knew they were wrong but could show they had the basic science and facts wrong. Attacking them just made them put their hands over their ears and say LALALALALA.

As for the guns to fight the government, I can't see it myself. Guns are no longer the best weapon. East Germany and Soviet Russia fell without guns and they were the biggest baddest SOBs on the block.

But, as I suspect you would agree, guns are needed to defend against many other threats. Of course some of those are people but not always. I've traveled quite a bit in polar bear country. Once while ski-dooing near Churchill we stopped for lunch. We were close to but not yet in the polar bear denning area. After setting up a little camp and getting a fire going I mentioned that we were getting pretty close to the polar bears. I felt pretty far away from the shotgun on the ski-doo. The guy I was with agreed and then showed me a handgun he was carrying in a pocket of his parka.

Whoa der, totally illegal, not allowed! It was not even registered just incase it got lost. If it was found by the police would mean years in jail but the owner explained to be that it was better than being too far away from the shotgun as you often are when spending lots of time in certian areas.

It turns out that lots of otherwise very law abidding people carry illegal guns because they would rather be alive than dead right and that IMO isn't right.

But of course such discussions are not possible if the other person has been so insulted they cannot reason.


----------



## Architeuthis

Petar said:


> Sailing is about enjoyment and not warfare.


A gun is a tool, the #1 warfare weapon is the media. Do you ban such communication on your boat? (maybe you do, good on ya but that trip does not sound like fun to me)


----------



## chall03

Superpickle said:


> Very very Dangerous attitude and , i might add, "Apathetic"
> "Its not My stuff they are Banning, So, I dont CARE"
> 
> Wait till they want to mess with something YOU want to have.. Like a Freedom or two.. that is IF you have any left, by that time..
> 
> You have a Very Liberal Attitude and its NOT what we want HERE..
> If you are happy with it , and it seems you are, Fine !
> 
> I tell ya, I am More than willing to take up Arms to Fight for Every Last Freedom we have. Against the Government of THIS country , if Nessasary, and More than willing to KILL for it as well.. Thats "NOT", Apathy !
> 
> I think most of the Countrys that have a Liberal Government have Already Dis-Armed its people, so theres No sence in fighting , you have no means to do so..it was Given away Long ago..
> 
> I for one, am NOT willing to Roll over and play Dead and get it in the End by ANY Government..


Yawn.

Firstly, 
If you bothered to read the thread You would find that ERPS has already picked me up on my 'I don't care' statement oh about 30 posts ago.... Jerry about 20 posts ago....and Windy a couple of times in the middle.

Secondly
I have explained and clarified my post about 28 posts ago....

Thirdly,
About 5 posts ago I expressed my desire to no longer participate in this thread and so would appreciate it if you would therefore all stop quoting me.

PARTICULARLY IN RED. In future I would prefer Blue 

Fourthly,
It is extremist fundamentalists like you Superpickle, who make me very glad my country controls who or who doesn't get to carry a weapon.

Fifthly,
I readily admit that when dealing with this issue for me emotion certainly plays a role. Therefore this will definitely be my absolute LAST post here. This thread is in the General Interest/Cruising Living aboard forum. There are folk here who wish to simply discuss what they carry on board. This discussion and my presence here is only going to compromise this thread further.


----------



## wind_magic

chall03 said:


> Thirdly,
> About 5 posts ago I expressed my desire to no longer participate in this thread and so would appreciate it if you would therefore all stop quoting me.
> 
> Particularly in Red. In future I would prefer Blue.


You can unsubscribe from the thread and then you won't see any more responses, I've done that a few times on threads I just got sick of seeing.


----------



## chall03

Thanks Windy I might try that.........

damn I just posted again didn't I??


----------



## SSBN506

erps said:


> Unappealing? That sounds like an emotional response, doesn't it?


I never meant to suggest their should be no emotion and apologize if it seemed that way. I was only suggesting checking your (not you personally) emotions when trying the change someones mind.


----------



## erps

I absolutely agree.


----------



## Superpickle

chall03 said:


> Thanks Windy I might try that.........
> 
> damn I just posted again didn't I??


:laugher :laugher :laugher



Funny.. Yup. im a Nut case, and on Prozac too.. Good thing 

As for Guns. I have none. I would have Used it long ago if I hadnt gotten rid of them.. So, in That case, im Self Regulating


----------



## chall03

Damn self imposed ban already broken so here goes. 

Look Superpickle Truce. 

But just remember I live in Australia.....
Some things here are different some things are not....
I care alot about freedom and about alot of things. But we don't actually have a 2nd amendment...most of us have never even heard of it.....


----------



## SSBN506

chall03 said:


> Damn self imposed ban already broken so here goes.
> 
> Look Superpickle Truce.
> 
> But just remember I live in Australia.....
> Some things here are different some things are not....
> I care alot about freedom and about alot of things. But we don't actually have a 2nd amendment...most of us have never even heard of it.....


I wish we would copy the model you have for you amateur athletes. In terms of results it has been amazing and i bet it fosters a lot of national pride. I hope it is still around after you hosted the Olympics and wasn't just for then.


----------



## chall03

It is still around SSBN506. Although there is always continuing discussion about to what level government should be funding/supporting the effort.

It is as you say a tremendous source of national pride.


----------



## Jace2

*Thanks for fairness*

I haven't read all the posts for this one, but it seems that the moderators aren't as liberal here on Sailnet as those on Cruisers Forum. Those guys are screamers!

I am an American, and I have guns and am pro second amendment - for the Aussies, that's where a government trusts its people to have guns and therefore, can't become a dictatorship and take them over.

To answer dcrn's question, my right of protection comes from God, not a government. I will carry wherever I go and simply keep it hidden. Because I'm a law abiding citizen, keeping in mind that's God's laws override man's - and yes, I mean the only _real_ God there is - and not a criminal, I will only use my gun for dire self defense. There is a reason America is the most powerful, the most prosperous, and the most free country on the planet in a mere 200 years, + or -, surpassing countries that have existed for centuries in just about _ALL_ things!

You Aussies, Brits, and other Europeans should take a lesson from US, and then perhaps you won't need our help in fighting back totalitarian regimes like Hitler and such.

Keck


----------



## erps

> You Aussies, Brits, and other Europeans should take a lesson from US, and then perhaps you won't need our help in fighting back totalitarian regimes like Hitler and such.


I for one don't mind learning from other folks, but I certainly identify with the distates of being lectured on a subject. I think that's the point that Chall was making and I think that's a pretty typical of people all over the world.


----------



## Droofus

Simple question.
Simple answer.
The gun locker has at least: 12 gauge and or .38 special.


----------



## Superpickle

chall03 said:


> Damn self imposed ban already broken so here goes.
> 
> Look Superpickle Truce.
> 
> But just remember I live in Australia.....
> Some things here are different some things are not....
> I care alot about freedom and about alot of things. But we don't actually have a 2nd amendment...most of us have never even heard of it.....


Cheers Mate.. :thewave: :thewave:

Hey, No Problem  
Im full of Crapp most of the time anyway.. and Cornfused and angrey and i dont get enough Nooky at home..


----------



## damies

Jace2 said:


> I am an American, and I have guns and am pro second amendment - for the Aussies, that's where a government trusts its people to have guns and therefore, can't become a dictatorship and take them over.


We don't need guns to protect us from a dictatorship.....



Jace2 said:


> To answer dcrn's question, my right of protection comes from God, not a government. I will carry wherever I go and simply keep it hidden. Because I'm a law abiding citizen,


In most countries those 2 sentences are a contradiction, as it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon. Which is it, are you a law abiding citizen or do you carry a concealed weapon? can't have it both ways!



Jace2 said:


> keeping in mind that's God's laws override man's


When did you join JI (Jemaah Islamiah)?

That is exactly the problem Indonesia is facing, In a country that tolerates islamic law (so called Gods law) in parallel to the countries laws, but with constitutional direction that the indonesian law will prevail when there is a conflict. The problem encountered is that some radical muslim groups have started saying that islamic law overrides indonesian law for muslims. That talk has landed several clerics in jail when they tried to enforce it. (so it should)



Jace2 said:


> and yes, I mean the only _real_ God there is


At the risk of being off topic here.....

Which one ? The Christians and Muslims worship the same one, so I will assume you mean that one? The beginning of the bible and the koran are basically the same book, just later on they stray off in different directions, I have read both and disagree with both!

Being an American I will assume you call yourself a Christian? I will remind you that Jesus preached that you should follow the laws of the land you are in.

Also remember this is a sailing forum not a religious forum, please stop shoving your religious rhetoric down our throats.



Jace2 said:


> There is a reason America is the most powerful, the most prosperous, and the most free country on the planet in a mere 200 years, + or -, surpassing countries that have existed for centuries in just about _ALL_ things!


Look at history a little further back, Every empire has it's day (100 - 500 years or so) and then fades to oblivion, the American empire has had it's time and is showing signs of crumbling.....

As for most free? how can you say you are free and feel the need for a gun to protect yourself? Most Americans I know living here in Australia will tell you they feel more free in Australia because you don't need to cary a gun to protect your self.



Jace2 said:


> You Aussies, Brits, and other Europeans should take a lesson from US, and then perhaps you won't need our help in fighting back totalitarian regimes like Hitler and such.
> 
> Keck


Australia has already become too much like America, it is already referred to by some as the 53rd state of America.

Personally. I think the only time you are really free is in international waters (bringing it back to sailing )


----------



## dailywarren

Seriously, guys - we're lucky that sailnet even ALLOWED this discussion. Their bandwidth, after all. The bottom line is that people have a human right to defend themselves. Anyone who disagrees is ... "first up against the wall when the revolution comes."


----------



## scottyt

damies said:


> In most countries those 2 sentences are a contradiction, as it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon. Which is it, are you a law abiding citizen or do you carry a concealed weapon? can't have it both ways


actually is iirc 40 states it is legal to carry concealed. they have what are called shall issue laws, as in they shall issue the permit to carry with exceptions like being a felon. 2 states actually dont even require permits, if you are in the state and you want you carry concealed. also a lot of states allow you to open carry with no permit.

as for the not needing a gun to protect from a dictatorship. thats the reason why the US has the second amendment, it was the reason it was written in the first place. now as for needing to carry, its like ins you would rather have it and not need it than not have it and need it.

no needs to carry but i like the fact that i can ( where allowed ). the state i live in does not allow it, unless you are connected politically. heck they basicly say we are not allowed to save our own lives, we have to wait for the police.

there was a law suit years ago where a woman called the cops about an exboyfriend who called her, saying "he was on the way to kill the girl". the 911 operator told her "well call us when he gets there", well she did and by the time the cops got there she was dead. her family sued and the judge said "the police are not there to protect you, they are there to arrest the killer and clean up the mess". as they say the police are mins away when seconds count.

on the internet is a pic i like it shows a young teenage girl sitting at home with a rapest out side looking in. it asked you what you wanted to use to protect your daughter, it gave 3 choices, a phone, a condom or a gun. you decide


----------



## rgberry53

yes i do but its pellet pistol. i do have other firearms but even here in san diego i wouldnt have them on board since the local authorities freak out if you tell them you have a firearm on board. they assume the worst and its just a big hassel. besides i only use them to hunt with and i dont hunt while sailing lol.......

be safe


----------



## Jace2

dailywarren said:


> Seriously, guys - we're lucky that sailnet even ALLOWED this discussion. Their bandwidth, after all. The bottom line is that people have a human right to defend themselves. Anyone who disagrees is ... "first up against the wall when the revolution comes."


That's funny.


----------



## Jace2

Washington D.C. and New York has the most restrictive gun laws in the country ... and the highest murder rates! Alaska and Arizona allow any kind of carrying, open or concealed ... and they have by far, lower murder rates.

Sad to say, but predators, human or animal, seek out the weakest victims. The gun in the hands of the well trained handler is among the strongest. So those of you relying on someone else to protect you, good luck. I will rely on myself ... and my gun. And, the only ones that need fear me, are predators.

And for the record, simply stating that I'm a Christian and letting someone know from where I get my rights isn't shoving my religion down anyone's throat. Telling someone they're not allowed to mention God or Christianity _IS!_


----------



## rgberry53

Very well put!


----------



## jackdale

Jace2 said:


> And for the record, simply stating that I'm a Christian and letting someone know from where I get my rights isn't shoving my religion down anyone's throat. Telling someone they're not allowed to mention God or Christianity _IS!_


Would you please point out in the New Testament where the right to bear arms originates?

The New Testament also does not give you the right to overthrow tyrants; quite the contrary.



> 1 Timothy 2:1-2, which reads in the NIV:
> 
> I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone
> For kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.


Remember this was written in the time of Nero.



> Romans 13: 1-7 (NIV)
> Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. *The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. *For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.


By the way, neither the Declaration of Independence or the US constitution was written in the hand of God.


----------



## bloodhunter

FYI New York has one of the lowest violent crime rates among the big cities in the U.S. according to the latest FBI stats and has been that way for a number of years with 580 violent crimes and 6.3 murders /100,000 population.
Dallas the largest Texas city has more than double the murder rate and 50 pct more violent crime. 
Highest murder rates are New Orleans, St Louis,Baltimore, Detroit and then D.C.
But who cares about facts?


----------



## erps

> Would you please point out in the New Testament where the right to bear arms originates?


don't know if this qualifies, but might be relevant.



> Jesus continued: "But now, if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don`t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." Luke 22: 35-36.


was there a waiting period and back ground checks for swords back then?


----------



## jackdale

erps said:


> don't know if this qualifies, but might be relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus continued: "But now, if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don`t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." Luke 22: 35-36.
Click to expand...

Ray

That is way out of context.

NIV



> 49When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" 50And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.
> 
> 51But Jesus answered, "*No more of this*!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him.


----------



## Jace2

How did the debate go from constitutional rights to bear arms to Divine rights to beat arms?

I never said the has the second amendment written in it. The American Constitutions does. God commands a man to take care of his family. If you have a family, and no gun, you're failing in that responsibility.

If you look in the book of Daniel, you will find this principal. Do all that the government commands unless it demands that you do something against the word of God, or it forbids you to do something that the word of God commands.

*jackdale*
_The New Testament also does not give you the right to overthrow tyrants; quite the contrary._

Check the O.T. You will find that God had many of His people go in and "Take the land" killing all who inhabited it.

*jackdale*
_By the way, neither the Declaration of Independence or the US constitution was written in the hand of God._

So, you're saying that if our country were to return to the horrors of enslaving black people, we should all just say, "Oh well, not right to overthrow a government."? I say if such and evil were to rise in one's country, that it is immoral for the people _NOT_ to take such a despicable government over, and if necessary, for violent force! And why? Because such slavery as that in 19th century America, and present day Africa, are abominations to man and God.

(for those of you who will say that the bible approves of slavery, the word in Greek for slavery is _doulos_, but the same word is used for servant, as in employee. God is in favor of the kind of _doulos_ that one is under when working to pay off a debt, make a living, and such other means. He is not in favor of the kind of _doulos_ found in Americas form, nor that which is found in Africa today.)


----------



## Jace2

jackdale, baby, talk about _out of context!_

And tell me, just how many of those states you cited have Alaska's and Arizona's open carry laws? Oh yeah, that's right. _NONE!_


----------



## jackdale

Jace2 said:


> jackdale, baby, talk about _out of context!_
> 
> And tell me, just how many of those states you cited have Alaska's and Arizona's open carry laws? Oh yeah, that's right. _NONE!_


You are right. What context are you talking about?

I have nothing about any state's open carry laws.

BTW - For a Christian I expected that you would place more emphasis on the New Testament.


----------



## erps

jackdale said:


> Ray
> 
> That is way out of context.
> 
> NIV


I don't know if it is or not. I'm not a Bible scholar. It's easy enough to google and find references concerning the Bible being both for and against self defense.

You asked about the New Testament and the right to bear arms. Jesus advised some guys that if they didn't have a sword to sell their cloak and buy one. I dunno. Why would Jesus recommend fellows to buy swords?



> "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" 50And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.


Sounds like Jesus had armed men in his company. They were following him weren't they? Seems like he could have forbid them from carrying arms if he wanted to.

I'd rather not argue about what the Bible says on the subject myself Jack, but you brought it up and here is a preacher who thinks Jesus was for using arms for self defense based on the passages above.

Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters


----------



## erps

Another pro self defense/bearing arms piece based on the OT and NT.

What Does the Bible Say About Gun Control?


----------



## jackdale

Ray

Both you and the pastor should read the rest.



> 51But Jesus answered, "*No more of this*!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him.


A few others:



> You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
> -Matthew 5:38-42, NIV





> But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
> -Luke 6:27-31. NIV


Sort sounds like something Gandhi said.


----------



## jackdale

erps said:


> Another pro self defense/bearing arms piece based on the OT and NT.
> 
> What Does the Bible Say About Gun Control?


That is one hell of a stretch.


----------



## wind_magic

The argument you guys were having before was about natural law vs. man's law. The founding fathers did believe in natural law, that being the law that arises naturally from the human condition, and indeed the condition of all creatures on this earth. The basic thought is that no matter what laws man puts into place, there is a law that transcends it that includes the basic rights we have in the Bill of Rights and others. Said another way (I have posted this before) - stick your hand into a hole with a wild animal in it and you'll probably get it chewed up pretty good. Pass a law that it is okay for humans to stick their hands in holes with animals in it, stick your hand in again, and see if you get a different result. People, animals, we all the basic rights such as breathing air, enjoying some privacy where we live and sleep, not being bothered and harassed all the time, being safe, defending ourselves and our property, etc. Pass all the laws you want, but beware, passing laws that are contrary to natural law is a sure way to create a lot of criminals, because human beings will do what human beings do, and that includes defending themselves when attacked.


----------



## erps

> That is one hell of stretch.


Could be a stretch. I'm aware of the turn the other cheek stuff. You seem to know your Bible. Does Jesus say you should let someone murder you?


----------



## jackdale

Jace2 said:


> How did the debate go from constitutional rights to bear arms to Divine rights to beat arms?


When you brought up the God given right argument.



> I never said the has the second amendment written in it. The American Constitutions does. God commands a man to take care of his family. If you have a family, and no gun, you're failing in that responsibility.


Nonsense. No guns in my house and the family is safe and protected.



> If you look in the book of Daniel, you will find this principal. Do all that the government commands unless it demands that you do something against the word of God, or it forbids you to do something that the word of God commands.


Like Timothy or Romans - New Testament





> *jackdale*
> _The New Testament also does not give you the right to overthrow tyrants; quite the contrary._
> 
> Check the O.T. You will find that God had many of His people go in and "Take the land" killing all who inhabited it.


What does this have to do with tyranny. God permitted the Isrealites to invade the land of Canaan. Sounds like Manifest Destiny

*jackdale*
_By the way, neither the Declaration of Independence or the US constitution was written in the hand of God._



> So, you're saying that if our country were to return to the horrors of enslaving black people, we should all just say, "Oh well, not right to overthrow a government."? I say if such and evil were to rise in one's country, that it is immoral for the people _NOT_ to take such a despicable government over, and if necessary, for violent force! And why? Because such slavery as that in 19th century America, and present day Africa, are abominations to man and God.


Huh - no. Where did you get this stupid idea?



> (for those of you who will say that the bible approves of slavery, the word in Greek for slavery is _doulos_, but the same word is used for servant, as in employee. God is in favor of the kind of _doulos_ that one is under when working to pay off a debt, make a living, and such other means. He is not in favor of the kind of _doulos_ found in Americas form, nor that which is found in Africa today.)


I know, I know.


----------



## jackdale

Wind

I do subscribe to Locke's concept of natural law and the rights of life, liberty and (property, happiness, security, whatever you think the last one should be.) I have problems equating natural law as God's law.

An all-knowling god would have foreseen the advent of guns and included that somewhere.


----------



## erps

> Nonsense. No guns in my house and family is safe protected.


Do you have other means of defending them or rely on the police? Please don't take this as a flippant question, just wondering if you believe in self defense and so it's just the tool that we're discussing.


----------



## wind_magic

jackdale said:


> Wind
> 
> I do subscribe to Locke's concept of natural law and the rights of life, liberty and (property, happiness, security, whatever you think the last one should be.) I have problems equating natural law as God's law.
> 
> An all-knowling god would have foreseen the advent of guns and included that somewhere.


You have a very small concept of God, sir.


----------



## jackdale

erps said:


> Do you have other means of defending them or rely on the police? Please don't take this as a flippant question, just wondering if you believe in self defense and so it's just the tool that we're discussing.


Defending them from what?

The home invasions that occur around here are drug related. The murders tend to be among gang members or related to family violence. I live in a condominium complex in which we know our neighbours. The only crime we have had was opportunistic, one of my neighbours left his vehicle unlocked and someone took some CDs.

Yes, I rely on the police for much of my protection. Remember in Canada we can only use reasonable force in the prevention of a crime.

Basically I refuse to live in fear. BTW - that also applies to my sailing which, as you might sense, can be very risky.


----------



## wind_magic

erps said:


> I can pull up examples of Chicago council members getting caught with firearms that they prohibited their citizens from possessing. Some people are going to take care of business, whether the law allows them to or not.
> 
> edit:
> I can't find the article I read about the Chicago council member getting caught with a gun. I may need to retract this statement if I don't find it soon.


Erps, I think you mean Detroit


----------



## jackdale

erps said:


> Could be a stretch. I'm aware of the turn the other cheek stuff. You seem to know your Bible. Does Jesus say you should let someone murder you?


I think he is silent on the matter for others. But his own actions speak volumes.


----------



## erps

> Defending them from what?
> 
> The home invasions that occur around here are drug related. The murders tend to be among gang members or related to family violence. I live in a condominium complex in which we know our neighbours. The only crime we have had was opportunistic, one of my neighbours left his vehicle unlocked and someone took some CDs.


Your neighborhood sounds just like mine.



> Yes, I rely on the police for much of my protection.


Thanks for the explanation.


----------



## erps

wind_magic said:


> Erps, I think you mean Detroit


That could be. I found an article about several Detroit council members who have CCW permits, but I recollect reading an article where a council person's home was burglarized and it was determined that a pistol was stolen, and they guy lived in a town that prohibited pistol possession. It was on the NRA website last month, but it's not there now. The article was an example of the laws being made for the little people, not the leaders.

Detroit Council members carry guns for safety | detnews.com | The Detroit News


----------



## krozet

Can someone lock this thread please? It is no longer anywhere near what the OP asked and is quickly deteriorating into garbage like 'god demands I have a gun to protect my family....' What BS! I'm pretty sure that god commands that you don't kill another person and defend you're family doesn't mean shoot someone. If you are too lazy or stupid to properly 'defend' you're family then sure, you would rely on a gun.

Perfect example of why fundamentalist christians are so similar to jihadist muslims. Pick the parts of there particular religious book to listen too and ignore the parts you don't agree with or conflict with what you want.


----------



## erps

> If you are too lazy or stupid to properly 'defend' you're family then sure, you would rely on a gun.


Just curious, what's the proper non-lazy way?


----------



## krozet

erps said:


> Just curious, what's the proper non-lazy way? To rely on someone else?


Well the last time I moved I contacted the local police to find crime stat's for the area and was able to pick where to look for a house based on where the crime was statically likely to happen. Since this is not fool proof to stop all crime I installed motion activated lights on my garage, back door, side door and side walkway. If I still didn't feel safe I could install an alarm system or break proof doors, a extra set of locks, security camera...

Sure this all would cost more in time and money but at least I don't have to kill someone to feel safe.

Of course crime is going to happen and you can only do so much to feel safe and doing all this sounds ridiculous to me but if I felt unsafe and needed to protect my family I would find a way to do it that would not involve me relying on a bullet and the real potential of killing someone for that protection.

To be honest, if I felt unsafe to the point where i needed security systems / new doors... I would just move. If you feel so unsafe in you're home that you need a gun you need to move anyway, what kind of area is that for a family anyway?


----------



## wind_magic

krozet said:


> Sure this all would cost more in time and money but at least I don't have to kill someone to feel safe.


Fifty seven year old Donna Jackson didn't want to kill anyone either ...

911 Call, Intruder Shot


----------



## Maverick1958

First off I LOVE GUNS, but pretty much all the hair has been beat off this horse on about EVERY blog and web site you can find. Maybe it would be better to just ask who everyone voted fore in the last election, that way we could have some fresh opinions...


----------



## chall03

Anyone here yet to take a whack???


----------



## krozet

Like I said, *Lock The Thread.*


----------



## SSBN506

This is all getting bit nuts. It is a shame the pro gun people are using the bible and scare tactics to push a pro gun agenda. As I stated before many pages ago the ante gun people only seem to be against being told they are some way irresponsible and not protecting there family if they don't have a gun. 
Could the issue be if you have and want a gun and think it will help or make you feel safe that is fine? If you are a law abiding citizen you should have the right to choose if you want one or not. But don't go telling people god wants you to have it and everyone daughters will get raped if you don't. This is why sum pro gun people look so unappealing. Stick to the pro choice argument and the right to decide if you want one or not. If you don't want or feel you need a gun in your house you have every right in the world. There real question is do we need the government telling us we shouldn't have one? Do we need to be protected from ourselves? If the answer is yes or no what will society except as the lines. Every country is deciding this all the time and sliding both ways. 
*Stop making rational gun owners look so bad to people who don't want have ore even need guns.*


----------



## JohnRPollard

krozet said:


> Like I said, *Lock The Thread.*


As far as I know, none of the SN moderators follows this thread (myself included). We rely on members to report problems if they arise here. At this point there have not been any recent complaints, so there's no reason I'm aware of to lock the thread.

Seems like a waste of time to me, but if folks want to beat their heads against the wall arguing about this, have at it. Just keep it civil and disagree/debate respectfully (which appears to be what most folks are doing). My advice to folks that don't like this thread -- just stay out of it. We have plenty of good sailing threads running. Here you go, check out this beauty:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/general-discussion-sailing-related/60646-bcs-gulf-islands-wallace.html


----------



## Architeuthis

> Lock The Thread.


Reminds me of people who want gambling outlawed. When I ask why they say it is because some people can't stop gambling. So? I can't stop spending money on boats should boats be outlawed......oops never suggest such a thing because of course the answer is yes.

It seems like a simple thing, stop posting to the thread, or even looking at it. Of course there will be those who are unable to do this.

So should all of us give up what ever it is that has us returning to the thread?

This is very relevent to this thread.

Many people do not believe that they can be responsible gun owners. They fear killing people, without cause, just because the gun forces them or something. Or other people can not be responsible. Whatever the reason they would choose to outlaw all guns.

Very similar thinking. Rather than address the person having problems they blame an inanimate object. This is a very old problem. Many people think inanimate objects have power, power over the mind of man and they choose to punish the object rather than the person.

We still struggle with the results of such stuperstition and it shows in our gun laws.


----------



## Jace2

*But ir's fun!*

First of all, I like debates such as this. As long as those in the debate are rational and apply logic, it's informative, and gives us things to think about that we may not have considered.

The problem comes in when someone who doesn't care about logic and reason. Someone who can't help themselves, putting forth only an emotional rant.

On "feeling safe." When a man is asleep next to his wife in bed in the middle of the night, his children soundly comfortable in their little princess or race car beds, the doors locked, the alarm on, the sensors activated, he "feels safe." Even though there are two low lifes crouching just outside his door, preparing to kick the door in and kill him and his children ... just like what happened to Dr. Pettit, Cheshire, Connecticut. Had he a gun within reach of his bedside, instead of three women burned to death by these animals, there would've been two dead animals. Locks, sensors, alarms, all of those made poor Dr. Pettit "feel" safe.

But he wasn't!


----------



## SSBN506

Jace2 said:


> First of all, I like debates such as this. As long as those in the debate are rational and apply logic, it's informative, and gives us things to think about that we may not have considered.
> 
> The problem comes in when someone who doesn't care about logic and reason. Someone who can't help themselves, putting forth only an emotional rant.
> 
> On "feeling safe." When a man is asleep next to his wife in bed in the middle of the night, his children soundly comfortable in their little princess or race car beds, the doors locked, the alarm on, the sensors activated, he "feels safe." Even though there are two low lifes crouching just outside his door, preparing to kick the door in and kill him and his children ... just like what happened to Dr. Pettit, Cheshire, Connecticut. Had he a gun within reach of his bedside, instead of three women burned to death by these animals, there would've been two dead animals. Locks, sensors, alarms, all of those made poor Dr. Pettit "feel" safe.
> 
> But he wasn't!


Just to point out if you have a gun your safety in't guaranteed. Saying look at these people who died if they had a gun they would be alive i would say is not a logical argument. Also most of these people could have a gun but chose not to. Your not suggesting the government make it against the law not to have a gun by your bead for you safety are you?

In my town a girl blew half her face of with dads shot gun in his bedroom. Another shot his son who had locked himself out of his house and was breaking in after a night of drinking. If you want a logical argument to argue, say a gun may make you safer or make you feel safer but it is more important to have the option to have one or not. Let the individual decide if they are safer or not. Don't tell people they need a gun to be safe. Just tell them you should have the right to have a gun if you want one.


----------



## Jace2

SSBN506 said:


> Just to point out if you have a gun your safety in't guaranteed. Saying look at these people who died if they had a gun they would be alive i would say is not a logical argument. Also most of these people could have a gun but chose not to. Your not suggesting the government make it against the law not to have a gun by your bead for you safety are you?
> 
> In my town a girl blew half her face of with dads shot gun in his bedroom. Another shot his son who had locked himself out of his house and was breaking in after a night of drinking. If you want a logical argument to argue, say a gun may make you safer or make you feel safer but it is more important to have the option to have one or not. Let the individual decide if they are safer or not. Don't tell people they need a gun to be safe. Just tell them you should have the right to have a gun if you want one.


Oh I agree with you on the point that you should have the choice to own a gun or not. Of course I'm not saying the government should MAKE you have a gun. I'm a conservative Christian, I don't think the government should be able to MAKE you do anything (save a couple of common sense things like MAKE you sit in a cell if you break the law).

Statistically, the number of people who accidentally injure themselves with a gun doesn't even make blip on the screen compared to the number of people who protect themselves with a gun.

Let me bottom line it, here. As Shane said, _"A gun is a tool, Marion, just like an axe or a shovel. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that."_

If you choose to rely on the good nature of man and not have a gun, that's foolish. But, since this country (USA) is still a semi-free one, you have that right. What you don't have the moral right to do, is tell me that _I_ can't have a gun. The minute man stops brutalizing women, children, and other weaker men, that's the minute I'll stop keeping a gun, as there will no longer be the need for one.

Man's heart is black. That's what the Bible says. From living on this Earth lo these many years and seeing the murderous and barbaric nature of mankind in general with all of the rape, abuse, and heinous acts committed by this creature known as 'Man,' I've seen that axiom proven accurate. And until Jesus Christ returns and cleanses him of all his waring evil, I will continue to protect myself and my family from him with whatever means is necessary. Right now, the most inexpensive and reliable way to do that is to own a gun.

I suggest you do the same.


----------



## SSBN506

Jace2 said:


> Oh I agree with you on the point that you should have the choice to own a gun or not. Of course I'm not saying the government should MAKE you have a gun. I'm a conservative Christian, I don't think the government should be able to MAKE you do anything (save a couple of common sense things like MAKE you sit in a cell if you break the law).
> 
> Statistically, the number of people who accidentally injure themselves with a gun doesn't even make blip on the screen compared to the number of people who protect themselves with a gun.
> 
> Let me bottom line it, here. As Shane said, _"A gun is a tool, Marion, just like an axe or a shovel. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that."_
> 
> If you choose to rely on the good nature of man and not have a gun, that's foolish. But, since this country (USA) is still a semi-free one, you have that right. What you don't have the moral right to do, is tell me that _I_ can't have a gun. The minute man stops brutalizing women, children, and other weaker men, that's the minute I'll stop keeping a gun, as there will no longer be the need for one.
> 
> Man's heart is black. That's what the Bible says. From living on this Earth lo these many years and seeing the murderous and barbaric nature of mankind in general with all of the rape, abuse, and heinous acts committed by this creature known as 'Man,' I've seen that axiom proven accurate. And until Jesus Christ returns and cleanses him of all his waring evil, I will continue to protect myself and my family from him with whatever means is necessary. Right now, the most inexpensive and reliable way to do that is to own a gun.
> 
> I suggest you do the same.


I don't believe in any gods but I can agree with you statement on guns. I would love to see the stats on accidental shooting vs intruders stopped with guns. I have never run across that. But that I suppose would very from place to place. I guess I am lucky to live in a much safer place than you must if you have to have one to be safe where you are.


----------



## Jace2

There's no such thing as a safe place. Only higher or lower odds.


----------



## SSBN506

Jace2 said:


> There's no such thing as a safe place. Only higher or lower odds.


I agree that is why I said a "safer" place not a safe place. We have more accidental shooting than repealed home invasions in my town. Or we did, with new gun safety laws people are handling them in a much more responsible manner now a days from when I was a kid.


----------



## jackdale

> The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders or assailants may well be misrepresented. *A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998)*. Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of intimate partners such as a spouse are more likely to use a gun to threaten their intimate partner. (Rothman et al, 2005). Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009). *It would appear that, rather than beign used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.*


Source - FIREARMS TUTORIAL


----------



## SSBN506

jackdale said:


> Source - FIREARMS TUTORIAL


That is why the argument of guns for safety is so flawed and i don't like it when people make it. Saying you are safer with a gun i just don't buy and i have guns. Well i have rifles not hand guns. The way they are stored locked up in my basement in a safe would make them useless in a home invasion.

But i look at it like this more people die from drowning and i bet every one of them wished they had a mini scuba tank on them. But i am not going to start caring one on the off chance I am taped underwater.

I am of the strange world of being ok with gun ownership but not buying the silly reasons people give for owning them. Owing something because you want it is ok with me. just give everyone the information and let them decide for themselves.


----------



## J36ZT

*To pack heat or not to pack heat?*

I don't know how people can think it is their "God given right" to carry a gun. So, let's leave God out of this! My choice to carry a gun was/is based on the potential threat level. If I was not living aboard my boat, I certainly wouldn't carry a gun onboard. The likelyhood of having to use it would be too small as compared to the trouble of packing it.

But, I do live on my boat and I do have a 20g shotgun (pump action). Yes, I keep it loaded. I assume most criminals desiring to do me harm will have a gun. The playing field is even if I have one too. When the criminals stop packing heat, so will I.

A gun is nothing more than a tool, and (in my opinion) should be viewed as such...nothing more. Guns, knives, chainsaws, cars, axes, etc., do kill people. Should we make all of them illegal? What we need to do better is hold those that use these things as weapons to kill or threaten others more accountable.

Reality in the US is guns are too easily obtained by criminals. I'll be the first to admit there are simply too many guns and many of them have no business being available to the public. Who really needs that full-auto AK47 or modified AR15? These weapons are best left in the hands of our military and special police units.

Now, I hope to never have to use my gun in self defense. I hope the sound of chambering a round is enough. I hope I never have to point it at anyone...and hope to God I don't have to pull the trigger. But, make no mistake, I'm prepared to do so if need be.

Since I started living onboard... I surprised one person boarding my boat from a small rowboat at 1:00 AM, I was grabbed by the shoulders and shoved around (nearly thrown into the water), my life was threatened by someone pounding on the side of my boat and yelling "You'd better come out here... I'm going to get you." In addition, two people were shot (one killed) in a parking lot at the opposite side of the marina (supposedly over a drug deal gone bad). So, I'd say there is a credible enough threat to warrant me having a gun...in the current situation (I don't do drugs by the way).

I think the UK did things right. Long ago, they took guns off their streets. It's virtually impossible to find a gun in the UK now...for criminals as well. I certainly wouldn't even consider having a gun in the UK.

Before some of you think I'm a crackpot, I'll tell you a bit about me. I was in the US military for 25 years. Yes, I've been to war (Bosnia, near Afganistan, and Iraq). I was a Medic and I've seen my share of what guns can do (as well as knives, chainsaws, cars, axes, bombs, etc).

So, before you pass judgement on us "gun-toting Americans," it might be best if you consider our circumstances and the environment we're in. And, for the gun advocates...realize many countries don't have the gun problems that the US does and the vast majority of people in these countries that have guns are the criminals.

Sorry you guys and gals got my long version...

Skipper, J/36 "Zero Tolerance"


----------



## zz4gta

Jackdale and SSBN506,
please quote a study that hasn't been disproven again and again. Kellerman's "gun study" is a joke. A quick google search will provide how he came up with those numbers and why they are flawed.

GunCite - Gun Control Web Site: A Gun in the Home


----------



## jackdale

How about these numbers?



> In 14% of all murders, the victim and the offender were strangers.
> 
> * Spouses and family members made up about 15% of all victims.
> 
> * About one-third of the victims were acquaintances of the assailant.
> 
> * The victim/offender relationship was undetermined in over one-third of homicides.


Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide trends in the U.S.: Victim offender relationship

Some of the tables do not translate well.

But some 2005 statistics

Gun Non -gun
Intimate 824 685 
Other family 463 778 
Friend/
Acquaintance2538 1543 
Stranger 1712 607 
Undetermined 5808 1732

So of the homicides that could be determined:

Family and friends used guns 3825 times and non-guns 3006 times - guns win.

Do those numbers make everyone happier?


----------



## Pilot11

I don't have a dog in this fight, about who is right and who is wrong. I can only speak for me and mine.

But in answer to the OP, I do carry a 9MM on my person concealed, and I carry a .40 Cal Glock 23 when in my vehicles. All vehicles, including my boat. 

Most who post here have never had the pleasure to see the business end of a .357 Magnum up close, with evil intentions on the mind of the holder! I hope none of you ever do.

Just for the record I am over 6'2" and weigh 220lbs and have always been able to handle myself. I am now north of 60 years old and I have no intention of ever facing the 'loose' side of our society again without a weapon.


----------



## SSBN506

zz4gta said:


> Jackdale and SSBN506,
> please quote a study that hasn't been disproven again and again. Kellerman's "gun study" is a joke. A quick google search will provide how he came up with those numbers and why they are flawed.
> 
> GunCite - Gun Control Web Site: A Gun in the Home


For me i don't really care if owning a gun is more or less dangerous stylistically or not. All I care about it the right to decide for yourself. I would think it is more dangerous to have one. Just like is you have a fast sports care you are probable more likely to get a speeding ticket or even lose control of the care. But again all i care about is you have the choice. Sailers are probably more likely to dye of drowning or blunt force trauma. but as saleors we accept that risk.


----------



## zz4gta

jackdale said:


> How about these numbers?
> 
> Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide trends in the U.S.: Victim offender relationship
> 
> Some of the tables do not translate well.
> 
> But some 2005 statistics
> 
> Gun Non -gun
> Intimate 824 685
> Other family 463 778
> Friend/
> Acquaintance2538 1543
> Stranger 1712 607
> Undetermined 5808 1732
> 
> So of the homicides that could be determined:
> 
> Family and friends used guns 3825 times and non-guns 3006 times - guns win.
> 
> Do those numbers make everyone happier?


Yup, those are numbers, and they have nothing to do with what we're discussing. What that tells me are that guns are used to kill people rather than other weapons. I think that's obvious.

To answer the OP, if I'm spending the night on the hook in a remote location, or near a rowdy bar scene, then I'll carry my XD .45 on the boat.


----------



## zz4gta

SSBN506 said:


> For me i don't really care if owning a gun is more or less dangerous stylistically or not. All I care about it the right to decide for yourself. I would think it is more dangerous to have one. Just like is you have a fast sports care you are probable more likely to get a speeding ticket or even lose control of the care. But again all i care about is you have the choice. Sailers are probably more likely to dye of drowning or blunt force trauma. but as saleors we accept that risk.


I agree with you. I have no problems with people not wanting to own a gun, as long as they don't try to tell me that I can't.


----------



## jackdale

My answer to the OP.

I avoid places where I think a gun would necessary. They are probably not good vacation spots.


----------



## erps

> For me i don't really care if owning a gun is more or less dangerous stylistically or not. All I care about it the right to decide for yourself. I would think it is more dangerous to have one.


If that were true, would it translate that cops would be safer not to carry?


----------



## jackdale

erps said:


> If that were true, would it translate that cops would be safer not to carry?


Ray

The vast majority of British police are unarmed.

Interesting comparison:



> Police in the U.S. are almost always armed; 230 died in the line of duty in 2001, compared to about 70 in Britain in the last 30 years. And avoiding an arms race with criminals (virtually all guns are illegal) has helped keep Britain's firearm-murder rate to less than one-thirtieth the U.S. level.
> 
> Read more: Guns And Bobbies - TIME


But it is hard to put the lid back on Pandora's box.


----------



## wind_magic

jackdale said:


> Ray
> 
> The vast majority of British police are unarmed.
> 
> Interesting comparison:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police in the U.S. are almost always armed; 230 died in the line of duty in 2001, compared to about 70 in Britain in the last 30 years. And avoiding an arms race with criminals (virtually all guns are illegal) has helped keep Britain's firearm-murder rate to less than one-thirtieth the U.S. level.
> 
> Read more: Guns And Bobbies - TIME
> 
> 
> 
> But it is hard to put the lid back on Pandora's box.
Click to expand...

Aren't there like 5 people in the United States for every 1 person in the UK ? So that's more like 230 died in the U.S. and a normalized 350 died in the UK, right ?


----------



## jackdale

wind_magic said:


> Aren't there like 5 people in the United States for every 1 person in the UK ? So that's more like 230 died in the U.S. and a normalized 350 died in the UK, right ?


No

230 per year in the US
70/30 = 2.33 per year in the UK (70 deaths over 30 years)

A factor of 100 difference

Accounting for your population figures, a factor of 20 times.


----------



## wind_magic

jackdale said:


> No
> 
> 230 per year in the US
> 70/30 = 2.33 per year in the UK (70 deaths over 30 years)
> 
> A factor of 100 difference
> 
> Accounting for your population figures, a factor of 20 times.


I see. Well don't I look like a complete ass who has been disarmed by your argument, I guess there is nothing left to do but to give up my perspective and start pushing gun control.


----------



## jackdale

wind_magic said:


> I see. Well don't I look like a complete ass who has been disarmed by your argument, I guess there is nothing left to do but to give up my perspective and start pushing gun control.


Even I admit that the US will likely never adopt strict gun controls. It is too late - remember Pandora's box.

I lived in Houston for a year; I have a sense of the issues.


----------



## erps

jackdale said:


> Ray
> 
> The vast majority of British police are unarmed.
> 
> Interesting comparison:
> 
> But it is hard to put the lid back on Pandora's box.


Jack,

Is that your evidence that arming police makes them less safe? If you would like, I can provide links that show since Britain has been banning citizens from possessing firearms, firearm crime and hot robberies have gone up. As you point out, British Police were known for only carrying night sticks. Since disarming legal citizens, the police force has had to arm their cops, hence your qualifier that the majority do not carry firearms.

Gun Control's Twisted Outcome - Reason Magazine


----------



## jackdale

erps said:


> Jack,
> 
> Is that your evidence that arming police makes them less safe? If you would like, I can provide links that show since Britain has been banning citizens from possessing firearms, firearm crime and hot robberies have gone up. As you point out, British Police were known for only carrying night sticks. Since disarming legal citizens, the police force has had to arm their cops, hence your qualifier that the majority do not carry firearms.


I would be interested to see the links.

When did Britain disarm their citizens?

When did Boobies start carry firearms?



> In the United Kingdom, the majority of police officers do not carry firearms, except in special circumstances. This originates from the formation of the Metropolitan Police Service in the 19th century, when police were not armed, partly to counter public fears and objections concerning armed enforcers as this had been previously seen due to the British Army maintaining order when needed. The arming of police in the United Kingdom is a perennial topic of debate.
> 
> Most officers are instead issued with other items for personal defence, such as Speedcuffs, Extendable "ASP" Baton, and incapacitant sprays such as PAVA or CS spray. While not a "normal" firearm, CS spray is subject to the same rules and regulations as a projectile firing firearm under Section 5 (b) of the Firearms Act 1968.[1].


 Talkolice use of firearms in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While British Police do think that more training is necessary,



> The response rate was high and the message emphatic. * An overwhelming majority of 82 per cent stated that they do not want all officers to be routinely armed on duty. *This is particularly significant given that there has been almost no change in police officers' opinions since we conducted the previous surveys in 2003 and 1995, and this despite the massive rise in gun related crime.


 Police Federation of England & Wales


----------



## SSBN506

erps said:


> If that were true, would it translate that cops would be safer not to carry?


I intended to say statistically more dangerous. Some people are much safer and sum are more reckless. I am not saying every gun owner (myself included) is dangerous. But statistically I am more like to shoot myself then someone without a gun. But I am well aware of that and take the steps not to be a statistic. Statistically I am more like to drown being a sailor then someone without a boat. But it is not an inevitability. I should also say the average person. A cop or a solder would not be in that category.

I think we both can agree we should be free to make the choice. We as people are far from perfect. Hell, there are people out there who still smoke and that can and probably will kill you. I wonder if all non smokers are against guns and all smokers are pro gun? But that is silly.

My goal in life is not to live as long as I can, but to live as happy as I can.


----------



## erps

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by erps View Post
> Jack,
> 
> Is that your evidence that arming police makes them less safe?





> In the United Kingdom, the majority of police officers do not carry firearms, except in special circumstances.


Jack, I'm still trying to determine whether you think that disarming the police makes them safer.



> When did Britain disarm their citizens?


"the government passed the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 which means that as of 1997 handguns have been almost completely banned for private ownership,"

Gun politics in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> When did Boobies start carry firearms?


In the history of the Yorkshire Police department they mention getting their first armed response vehicle around 1996.


> In 1993 someone came up with the bright idea of overcoming the continual problems of manpower shortages by introducing cardboard policemen. In August, one was placed in Morrisons in Ripon as a deterrent to shoplifters - inevitably it was stolen.
> 
> By 1996 we had moved on to asp batons and rigid handcuffs and were the first force in the country to train and equip our officers with CS spray.
> 
> We also claimed yet another first with the opening of the country's first joint civil and military police station at Catterick Garrison and we introduced our first Armed Response Vehicles.


North Yorkshire Police : History of Policing and North Yorkshire Police

Who is responsible for "self" defense?


----------



## jackdale

erps said:


> Jack, I'm still trying to determine whether you think that disarming the police makes them safer.I cannot determine the feeling of all policeman. 82% of British police does not wish to be armed routinely. I am unsure of their motications.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is responsible for "self" defense?
> 
> 
> 
> That varies. Where are you? What are you defending? Life? Property? Check out Self-Defense Laws, Gun Laws, Legal Information On Self Defense for an overview of some self-defense laws.
> 
> In Canada reasonable force may be used to repel an assault. Crimes against property vary. You cannot used use deadly force to prevent a thief from fleeing, for example. Nor can you use deadly force to prevent a crime against property.
> 
> In Texas deadly force can be used in many more circumstances.
> 
> The key things for sailors visiting other countries is to remember to adhere to the laws and customs in force in the country / state / province you are visiting.
Click to expand...


----------



## erps

> Who is responsible for "self" defense?





> That varies. Where are you? What are you defending? Life? Property? Check out Self-Defense Laws, Gun Laws, Legal Information On Self Defense for an overview of some self-defense laws.


I thought the answer was self evident, after all, it's called self defense.


----------



## jackdale

erps said:


> I thought the answer was self evident, after all, it's called self defense.


But it is not self-evident.


----------



## erps

jackdale said:


> But it is not self-evident.


Interesting.

Wind magic spoke earlier of animals biting back when you poke a stick at them. A spot I never want to find myself in is between a bear and her cub. I don't know how much of a brain a bee has, but start messing with a bee's hive and see what the reaction is.

We are in totally different worlds Jack. I can't even comprehend that it's not self evident to someone that they are ultimately responsible for their own safety. I totally understand someone weighing the risks and choosing different strategies and tools to meet their responsibility, but to not even be aware of it, that just caught me off guard. So you proved me wrong. It's not self evident that one is responsible for their own safety.


----------



## jackdale

erps said:


> Interesting.
> 
> We are in totally different worlds Jack. I can't even comprehend that it's not self evident to someone that they are ultimately responsible for their own safety. I totally understand someone weighing the risks and choosing different strategies and tools to meet their responsibility, but to not even be aware of it, that just caught me off guard. So you proved me wrong. It's not self evident that one is responsible for their own safety.


One clear and relevant example: As the skipper of a vessel I am responsible for the safety of my crew.


----------



## erps

> One clear and relevant example: As the skipper of a vessel I am responsible for the safety of my crew.
> __________________


You're not arguing that this relieves your crew for looking out for their own safety though, right?


----------



## jackdale

erps said:


> You're not arguing that this relieves your crew for looking out for their own safety though, right?


That is correct. Not does it relieve the crew of looking out for me when necessary.


----------



## hanleyclifford

I have read the statement of a retired coastguardsman who said that firearms may be carried on documented vessels from US port to US port without regard for state or local laws provided the guns remain aboard. Can anyone provide additional comment or reference on this?


----------



## blackjenner

weapons aren't always firearms, unless you are a 70 year old woman.

Don't get soft. It will serve you other ways too.


----------



## blackjenner

Oh goody a gun thread when someone asked of weapons. Do you folks ever think beyond six shooters or Glock 27 pistols?

Yes, that is disdain in my voice, and for good reason.


----------



## carl762

And, that good reason for your disdain is??? Just curious.

To answer the OP's question, I carry a 45 pistol legally in both Oregon and Washington, and about six other states in the U.S. On board, I will be carrying some sort of pistola, after I check with the Coast Guard and Sheriff's River Patrol. I would really rather keep life simple, and some of the arguments against guns on a vessel make real good sense.


----------



## blackjenner

carl762 said:


> And, that good reason for your disdain is??? Just curious.


That's a completely fair question, actually.

First, my apology. I should have said, "some folks," not "you folks." That was hasty of me.

Now, on to your question.

I believe that everyone should have the ability, legally and morally, to protect themselves from threats of grave bodily injury or death. I believe that we have a right to use deadly force to do so. This is especially true of those who don't have martial arts experience or aren't generally strong.

That said, I find it amusing how so many people, generally, think that a handgun is a magic talisman of sorts. Of these many people, a large fraction of them don't know how to use them properly. They don't practice. They don't train. They aren't competent. They are often more dangerous with a firearm than without.

These are the people that I both pity and have disdain for. I pity them because they don't take responsibility for their own safety and I have disdain for them that, because they don't take responsibility they are often a danger to others.

So, I guess my disdain is based on people treating firearms as a cure all, a replacement if you will, for developing a good security mindset and becoming capable of more than walking into a gun shop and buying a $500 paperweight manufactured by Glock in Austria.

To the competent, responsible, trained and responsible people, my hat is off and my respect is kindly offered.


----------



## hanleyclifford

*Firearms on Boats*

Gentlemen - My question relates to the US law concerning firearms and documented vessels. I have been boarded several times by the USCG having firearms in my possession, and have had no difficulties. From what I gather the USCG is primarily interested in whether the firearm is LEGALLY in the country. What makes me nervous is LOCAL officials. Hence I ask if anyone has knowledge about whether documented vesels enjoy immunity from local ordinances provided the firearms remain aboard?


----------



## nerys

That is an interesting question. I had always assumed that when you are on a boat flying your countries flag that the boat is considered sovereign soil of your nation. ie IN your boat rules of your nation preside OUTSIDE your boat rules of the nation your a guest of prevail.

ie even if not in the "US" if the firearm does not leave the vessel, Is this not ok? I have no idea never really thought about it.


----------



## jackdale

nerys said:


> That is an interesting question. I had always assumed that when you are on a boat flying your countries flag that the boat is considered sovereign soil of your nation. ie IN your boat rules of your nation preside OUTSIDE your boat rules of the nation your a guest of prevail.
> 
> ie even if not in the "US" if the firearm does not leave the vessel, Is this not ok? I have no idea never really thought about it.


Nope. The laws of the country into which you clear are the laws in force, on and off the boat.

Here are the Canadian restrictions:

BSF5044 - Importing a Firearm or Weapon Into Canada


----------



## nerys

so how do the large vessels that traverse international waters deal with the rules?


----------



## jackdale

nerys said:


> so how do the large vessels that traverse international waters deal with the rules?


I do not know. Maybe someone else with that experience can let us know.


----------



## SuenosAzules

*Weapons Aboard...*

Keep in mind that when you are out to sea, miles from land, crossing cuban waters, or mexican coasts, that you are there Police, Fire Response, and the Hospital all in one. There is no help coming for you in international waters with any resonable amount of time when you are calling Mayday on a 20 watt VHF radio.

With that being said, I would highly suggest anyone transiting a large crossing to carry a weapon. As I always say, better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. When I go underway to another island I carry three weapons aboard. Typically one shotgun, and two pistols. All of them are stainless steel and you must clean them at least once every two weeks to keep them free of corrosion. Salt air is a killer on gun parts.

I have not had any run ins with pirates, however I have heard some modern day Caribbean sea stories from other cruisers that brandishing a firearm was enough to deter a fast appraoching vessel not answering their radio when hailed. I can also tell you that during my years in the Coast Guard I had read internally over the years of a few vessels being found afloat in the Caribbean completely abandoned and stripped, with no owners ever found which never made it to the mainstream news. I can not speculate, but I could give you some multiple choice answers on what may have occured onboard.

I would feel naked and vulnerable without having a firearm aboard 100 miles out to sea. Just be sure if you arrive in another country you check your weapons in with customs. You can get them back when you depart.

And as Forrest Gump says, That's all I have to say about that.


----------



## remetau

We have neither need nor desire to carry a firearm onboard our vessel. We feel that violence begets violence and pulling a firearm will most likely escalate into further violence.


----------



## blackjenner

SuenosAzules said:


> Keep in mind that when you are out to sea, miles from land, crossing cuban waters, or mexican coasts, that you are there Police, Fire Response, and the Hospital all in one. There is no help coming for you in international waters with any resonable amount of time when you are calling Mayday on a 20 watt VHF radio.
> 
> With that being said, I would highly suggest anyone transiting a large crossing to carry a weapon. As I always say, better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. When I go underway to another island I carry three weapons aboard. Typically one shotgun, and two pistols. All of them are stainless steel and you must clean them at least once every two weeks to keep them free of corrosion. Salt air is a killer on gun parts.
> 
> I have not had any run ins with pirates, however I have heard some modern day Caribbean sea stories from other cruisers that brandishing a firearm was enough to deter a fast appraoching vessel not answering their radio when hailed. I can also tell you that during my years in the Coast Guard I had read internally over the years of a few vessels being found afloat in the Caribbean completely abandoned and stripped, with no owners ever found which never made it to the mainstream news. I can not speculate, but I could give you some multiple choice answers on what may have occured onboard.
> 
> I would feel naked and vulnerable without having a firearm aboard 100 miles out to sea. Just be sure if you arrive in another country you check your weapons in with customs. You can get them back when you depart.
> 
> And as Forrest Gump says, That's all I have to say about that.


I completely agree with everything you posted. I would likely do something very similar while traveling, especially outside US waters.

For the record, I have never traveled unarmed and have been armed right up to the extent that local laws allow.


----------



## nerys

Many times the only CORRECT answer to violence is violence. IF someone has already decided they are GOING to commit violence against you the ONLY way you are going to stop them is with violence. Period. Directly or Indirectly. 

Calling the police is an ACT of violence Getting arrested is VIOLENT and being put in jail is VIOLENT these are all violent responses

If someone is pointing a gun at you there is no violence begets violence. They have already begotten the violence.


----------



## hanleyclifford

*minimizing violence*

Nerys - I think you have missed the point that remetau was making. By not carrying a gun on the boat, in the event of an attack those folks will actually be succeeding in their purpose. The pirates will kill them without a fight which will result in the minimum amount of overall violence.


----------



## nerys

Sure except that if I present myself armed there is at least now a chance they will decide "not worth it" and move on to an easier target 

ie EVEN LESS overall violence.

its a sad truth but the only solution to violence is violence or at least the threat of violence.

he is just being utopian. alas we do not live in a utopian world.


----------



## n8kraft

When I go to sea I like to bring:
5" 64 caliber gun
MK 38 Mod 2 25mm Machine guns (pt and stbd)
4 Browning .50 cal machine guns
4 240B 7.62 machine guns
1 Phalanx CIWS
96 VLS Missiles
6 SVTT
A helo detachment with stinger missiles
A variety of M-14, M-16, and M9s for my friends and I to shoot

Oh, by the way, I'm in the U. S. Navy stationed aboard USS Momsen, DDG-92. USS Momsen (DDG-92) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When I go sailing I just bring my wife and my dog and some beer. If someone's trying to rob me I'd offer them a beer. They'd sit down, we'd talk about sailing and they'd be hooked. Maybe even tell them a real sea story.


----------



## jerryrlitton

remetau said:


> We have neither need nor desire to carry a firearm onboard our vessel. We feel that violence begets violence and pulling a firearm will most likely escalate into further violence.


Just because you have a weapon (firearm) does not mean you have to "pull" a firearm. It is an OPTION. It is better to have it and not need it then the inverse. Unless you feel that you and yours do not feel secure in the fact you would actually know when to use it or if you even had the ability, mindset or training required to use it safely and effectively, leave it at home.

Jerry


----------



## jerryrlitton

hanleyclifford said:


> Nerys - I think you have missed the point that remetau was making. By not carrying a gun on the boat, in the event of an attack those folks will actually be succeeding in their purpose. The pirates will kill them without a fight which will result in the minimum amount of overall violence.


So by overall "less violence" is measured how? So the law abiding crew is dead, raped, tortured with no injury to the bad guys is better? Sheeple.


----------



## Patient

SuenosAzules said:


> Keep in mind that when you are out to sea, miles from land, crossing cuban waters, or mexican coasts, that you are there Police, Fire Response, and the Hospital all in one. There is no help coming for you in international waters with any resonable amount of time when you are calling Mayday on a 20 watt VHF radio.
> 
> With that being said, I would highly suggest anyone transiting a large crossing to carry a weapon. As I always say, better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. When I go underway to another island I carry three weapons aboard. Typically one shotgun, and two pistols. All of them are stainless steel and you must clean them at least once every two weeks to keep them free of corrosion. Salt air is a killer on gun parts.
> 
> I have not had any run ins with pirates, however I have heard some modern day Caribbean sea stories from other cruisers that brandishing a firearm was enough to deter a fast appraoching vessel not answering their radio when hailed. I can also tell you that during my years in the Coast Guard I had read internally over the years of a few vessels being found afloat in the Caribbean completely abandoned and stripped, with no owners ever found which never made it to the mainstream news. I can not speculate, but I could give you some multiple choice answers on what may have occured onboard.
> 
> I would feel naked and vulnerable without having a firearm aboard 100 miles out to sea. Just be sure if you arrive in another country you check your weapons in with customs. You can get them back when you depart.
> 
> And as Forrest Gump says, That's all I have to say about that.


Wow, great post!

A firearm is a tool and like any tool the effectiveness relies on the user's knowledge of how to use it. That is a well known and often spoken statement, I will however talk about _when_ it should be used.

I do not consider myself a gun nut, but after a few events involving home invasion while living in the city I ended up purchasing a firearm to protect myself. That act alone is not enough however, so I took the time and spent the money to seek out training. During my training I began to slowly wipe away my preconceived notions about Firearms. Specifically after attending a lecture about the legality and use of a firearm when defending one's self. It was very enlightening and the law is quite clear on the definition of "Being in immediate danger of one's life"

To apply that methodology to a cruising sailor that traverses unsafe waters is simple. When you have a firearm you are automatically introduced to the concept of "Situational awareness". Owning a firearm and learning how to use it not difficult, it is _when_ to use that poses a problem for most people. Situational awareness brings along the premise that there are varying degrees of threat to your life.

For instance, a skiff approaching you from the stern is not enough to warrant brandishing a firearm. Actually, you should _never_ brandish a firearm at all, you either draw it to shoot or do not. During the above situation you should always be calculating exactly what would need to happen for you to use your weapon. A skiff approaching, not a threat. A skiff approaching with armed men, a potential threat. A skiff approaching with men firing at you, a conclusive threat that requires action.

The universal law about situational awareness is that you need an option in order for it to exist. Without a weapon nearby, it doesn't matter if the Skiff's occupants have ill intentions, because you couldn't do anything about it anyways. However, having a firearm allows you to plan for that event. It is that option that is makes the difference.

I am not going to defend crazed gun owners, because I think many of them do not weigh out degrees of intent to warrant the use of their firearms, but rather argue to no end about theirs rights to have them instead. That's ok, but in the case of the transient sailor, the use of a firearm is clear, to kill before you are hacked to death by machete.

Do not be deceived by the idea that just because someone has a firearm that they MUST use it. There are people such as SuenosAzules and I that speak the contrary. Its all about options and knowing when to use those options.


----------



## ehmanta

I have read quite a few of the fire arm debate threads on this site as well as others like the SSCA. One variation that I have not seen....High-powered hunting slingshots......These may not be real effective against seriously armed bandits, but could be real effective against petty criminals who are looking for an easy target. I would guess that any authority inspecting your vessel would laugh at seeing it and not care if you have it or not....??? 
Used effectively, they can kill or serverely hurt someone where they would think twice before attempting anything else. You could probably even figure out other types of projectiles that could make noise and scare them. 

Just thinking.....


----------



## remetau

nerys said:


> Sure except that if I present myself armed there is at least now a chance they will decide "not worth it" and move on to an easier target
> 
> ie EVEN LESS overall violence.
> 
> its a sad truth but the only solution to violence is violence or at least the threat of violence.
> 
> he is just being utopian. alas we do not live in a utopian world.


You are right; I live in a utopian world. I don't have this irrational fear that everybody is out to kill me or steal my boat.


----------



## jerryrlitton

remetau said:


> You are right; I live in a utopian world. I don't have this irrational fear that everybody is out to kill me or steal my boat.


Not everybody. Just one. I make it my job to find out who he is before he harms me or the ones I am responsible for. I would have a difficult time living with myself if I thought that I failed and I could have won. So lots of range time with practical practice. Keep my eyes open, brain engaged and do not wear those rose-colored glasses that are so popular with the sheeple lately. 
Jerry


----------



## nerys

Over 90% of "legal" incidents where guns are drawn by citizens the gun is never fired.

MOST criminals have the presence of mind to realize gun means dead and they stop.

I have never had to draw a firearm. Short of a shotgun I don't even OWN a handgun or similar weapon.

I hope I never have to use one. but to think I will never have a chance at needing to is patently silly.

We live in a VERY aggressive world folks. They are not nice they are not friendly. I don't care about the 99% of folks who are nice friendly decent folk who want to say hello.

it takes only one to "end" your life.

Boating around the Delaware or the jersey shore? I would never carry a firearm. There is just no need. the probability of an encounter is just so small and help so plentiful.

If I were to try some serious distance or open ocean travel. I would never do so without at least SOME level of protection.

There is a difference between irrational fear and sensible precaution. Your desire to label ANYONE who disagrees with you as irrational points to your thoughts as actually being irrational. I am not saying you are irrational but your statements do tend to leave that impression.

If you alone. Ok whatever you want. Your a free sentient being. With family. I have a duty to protect them.

The only answer to violence is violence.

Let me give you an example.

I am going to ROB you. Your objective is to STOP me from robbing you.

I have already decided I WILL rob you.

Find me a non violent solution to this problem? I contend their is no non violent solution.


----------



## blackjenner

Patient said:


> Wow, great post!
> 
> A firearm is a tool and like any tool the effectiveness relies on the user's knowledge of how to use it. That is a well known and often spoken statement, I will however talk about _when_ it should be used.
> 
> I do not consider myself a gun nut, but after a few events involving home invasion while living in the city I ended up purchasing a firearm to protect myself. That act alone is not enough however, so I took the time and spent the money to seek out training. During my training I began to slowly wipe away my preconceived notions about Firearms. Specifically after attending a lecture about the legality and use of a firearm when defending one's self. It was very enlightening and the law is quite clear on the definition of "Being in immediate danger of one's life"
> 
> To apply that methodology to a cruising sailor that traverses unsafe waters is simple. When you have a firearm you are automatically introduced to the concept of "Situational awareness". Owning a firearm and learning how to use it not difficult, it is _when_ to use that poses a problem for most people. Situational awareness brings along the premise that there are varying degrees of threat to your life.
> 
> For instance, a skiff approaching you from the stern is not enough to warrant brandishing a firearm. Actually, you should _never_ brandish a firearm at all, you either draw it to shoot or do not. During the above situation you should always be calculating exactly what would need to happen for you to use your weapon. A skiff approaching, not a threat. A skiff approaching with armed men, a potential threat. A skiff approaching with men firing at you, a conclusive threat that requires action.
> 
> The universal law about situational awareness is that you need an option in order for it to exist. Without a weapon nearby, it doesn't matter if the Skiff's occupants have ill intentions, because you couldn't do anything about it anyways. However, having a firearm allows you to plan for that event. It is that option that is makes the difference.
> 
> I am not going to defend crazed gun owners, because I think many of them do not weigh out degrees of intent to warrant the use of their firearms, but rather argue to no end about theirs rights to have them instead. That's ok, but in the case of the transient sailor, the use of a firearm is clear, to kill before you are hacked to death by machete.
> 
> Do not be deceived by the idea that just because someone has a firearm that they MUST use it. There are people such as SuenosAzules and I that speak the contrary. Its all about options and knowing when to use those options.


Another awesome post on the subject from someone who has truly thought out the issues.

My complements.


----------



## boatman61

As stated by some Hollywood character... most likely a GI S/M or its equivelant in the Marines....
This is your Rifle..... this is your Gun(Whack between the legs)... the Rifles for fighting.. the gun is for Fun....
The rifles at home...
I'm here to have FUN....


----------



## CalebD

Now that is funny. 
The biggest arsenal at sea would be the submariners and AC carriers who carry nukes. I'm gonna bet that they carry a large cache of small arms as well as torpedoes among other weapons.
When I go sailing in the US there is always the flare gun, fireworks and beer. Did I mention beer? Sometimes smelly farts will get unwanted guests to leave your boat rather quickly.



n8kraft said:


> When I go to sea I like to bring:
> 5" 64 caliber gun
> MK 38 Mod 2 25mm Machine guns (pt and stbd)
> 4 Browning .50 cal machine guns
> 4 240B 7.62 machine guns
> 1 Phalanx CIWS
> 96 VLS Missiles
> 6 SVTT
> A helo detachment with stinger missiles
> A variety of M-14, M-16, and M9s for my friends and I to shoot
> 
> Oh, by the way, I'm in the U. S. Navy stationed aboard USS Momsen, DDG-92. USS Momsen (DDG-92) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> When I go sailing I just bring my wife and my dog and some beer. If someone's trying to rob me I'd offer them a beer. They'd sit down, we'd talk about sailing and they'd be hooked. Maybe even tell them a real sea story.


----------



## Arch_NME

I'm a live aboard and I own a small 380. It's on my boat because well that's where I live and where everything I own is. I keep it wrapped in a heavily oil soaked rag inside a plastic case to prevent corrosion. I bought it for everyday carry but don't really carry it that often. It's really for the land pirates of inner city Baltimore though and not the high seas. 

I would take it with me if i went anywhere though. What else am I going to do with it? Laws be damned, besides that's what the gun is for isn't it, if someone tries to arrest me I'll just shoot them, lol.

Nah... seriously though, someone once told me that most places if you are worried about it you can just declare it at customs and they will hold it for you till you leave. Not sure if I would trust that though.


----------



## jackdale

Matthew 26:52


----------



## wind_magic

jackdale said:


> Matthew 26:52


Selflessness is born out of strength, not a sense of worthlessness or weakness. Do you put the sword aside out of mercy and a desire to help a criminal feed his family, or do you lower it out of fear ? One is selfless giving that could help someone, the other is being a doormat that breeds criminals and promotes lawlessness.


----------



## bljones

Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
But don't fetishize it. It is a tool, and only that. I have no beef with those who like to collect firearms because they are amazing pieces of machinery, but if you feel a need for a personal arsenal, a weapon for every occasion, and you honestly believe that you NEED more than one long gun, one hand gun and one shotgun, well, I feel sorry for anyone who lives that scared.


----------



## svpegasus

I live aboard and have 2 pistols. I am thinking of getting a crossbow or spear gun for cruising. I here a spear gun is not concidered as a weapon, not that I would like to be on the recieving end. I do a lot of traveling on my motorcycle and I always carry then. Sometimes the evil is not someone trying to do you harm but a something. I wouldn't want to be hiking and cross a hungary carnivor.


----------



## tager

I have spent over 4 months sleeping out in the backcountry. The only thing that would attack you with the intent of eating you would be a cougar. You wouldn't have a chance to get your gun out either. 

Bears are actually pretty relaxed animals if you let them be. 

Honestly the best weapon to have for fighting a cougar would probably be a large fixed blade knife in a quick-draw sheath and a lot of knife-fighting skill. 

Because if you are being attacked, you aren't going to know until the cougar is biting your neck.


----------



## jerryrlitton

Sooooo if you are being bitten by a cougar you will be able to draw and use your fixed blade knife and not your pistol? Where do you keep your pistol, in the bottom of your pack? Keep your pistol across your chest and be aware. Your chances of survival will be greatly increased. (Mainly from being aware.)

Jerry


----------



## bljones

tager said:


> Because if you are being attacked, you aren't going to know until the cougar is biting your neck.












We all know what a big problem cougars are on boats.


----------



## DesivoDelta

Hi Everyone,

Being "armed" doesn't necessarily need to mean packing a gun. Personally, I would stowa few good blades aroung the boat. Holding a cutlass or Bowie would make a strong visual deterent, without have to deal with the issues and dangers associated with carrying/discharging firearms.

As much as I believe in personal freedoms and protections, when we travel to another country, we're in their home and their guests. Respecting their rules and cultures goes a very long way in maintaining a good reputation for cruisers.

When you do check in with the authorities, I'm sure you can claim them as fishing implements.


----------



## SirRealism

tager said:


> Because if you are being attacked, you aren't going to know until the cougar is biting your neck.


Mmmm, cougars biting my neck...


----------



## blackjenner

jackdale said:


> Matthew 26:52


This is one of the reasons most of these discussions tend to be pointless; simplistic and naive answers to real problems.

"Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword away! All who use a sword will be killed by a sword."

My sword is put away, until needed. Anyone who bring a sword to me and mine shall surely be put to a sword -- period. I shall not seek violence, but I shall not fall in the face of it.


----------



## blackjenner

tager said:


> I have spent over 4 months sleeping out in the backcountry. The only thing that would attack you with the intent of eating you would be a cougar. You wouldn't have a chance to get your gun out either.
> 
> Bears are actually pretty relaxed animals if you let them be.
> 
> Honestly the best weapon to have for fighting a cougar would probably be a large fixed blade knife in a quick-draw sheath and a lot of knife-fighting skill.
> 
> Because if you are being attacked, you aren't going to know until the cougar is biting your neck.


If one were to walk through the woods with less sense than a deer, I guess you have a point.


----------



## wind_magic

tager said:


> I have spent over 4 months sleeping out in the backcountry.


Sounds like a story! 

What kind of gear ?


----------



## casioqv

I carry various knives for cleaning fish... that's it.

The best way to deal with an armed thief is to let them leave with your possessions, and keep your life. If they're not armed- then you shouldn't need a firearm to deter them. I can't imagine any realistic situation where the outcome would be objectively better for myself if I were to have a firearm.

Realistically, I've had excellent luck deterring theft by not inciting envy. When I travel, I make sure to appear at least as poor as the average local. This usually saves me money also, and helps me make friends with the local people.

As for wildlife, it's only dangerous if you're *really* stupid. Wild animals seem to have a lot more survival sense than humans, and avoid conflict at all cost. Don't harass bear cubs, and don't go swimming covered in blood and dressed in a seal costume :rofl:


----------



## jerryrlitton

SirRealism said:


> Mmmm, cougars biting my neck...


LOL "I don't care who you are, that was funny"


----------



## tager

Casioqv I like your style. 

@ everyone who thinks I am a goon: I was talking in reference to the guy who kept 2 handguns on his bike when he went camping. Even if it sounds funny, I am going to stick with my statement that a knife is the best weapon against a cougar. 

@blackjenner: What makes you think you have more sense than a deer? They are professional prey animals, who work all day every day. Cougars are extremely sneaky. The only way I knew that I was being stalked was from knowledge of habitat, and the warning calls of the birds and chipmunks. Consistently uphill of me, and behind me. 

It was a combination of backpacking and bike touring around the PNW, everywhere from the continental divide at Glacier NP Montana, as far south as Florence, Oregon, and up to Vancouver BC. I spent weeks in Olympic National park, a part of which is known cougar country. Backpacking I carried a very light kit: Hennessy Hammock, Silnylon Fly, Spectra cord, Blue Foam Pad, Alcohol BeerCan Stove, Small swiss army knife, minimal fishing kit, filtration bottle, waterproof boots, pants, jacket, cotton tees, journal, first aid kit, socks, hat, compass, map. 

100% Cotton Tees are still the best shirts. They don't make you smell like poly ones. 

The best piece of gear was the journal. The worst piece of gear was the compass. I never used it, but it could have come in real handy if I got confused.


----------



## jerryrlitton

casioqv said:


> I carry various knives for cleaning fish... that's it.
> 
> The best way to deal with an armed thief is to let them leave with your possessions, and keep your life. If they're not armed- then you shouldn't need a firearm to deter them. I can't imagine any realistic situation where the outcome would be objectively better for myself if I were to have a firearm.
> 
> Realistically, I've had excellent luck deterring theft by not inciting envy. When I travel, I make sure to appear at least as poor as the average local. This usually saves me money also, and helps me make friends with the local people.
> 
> As for wildlife, it's only dangerous if you're *really* stupid. Wild animals seem to have a lot more survival sense than humans, and avoid conflict at all cost. Don't harass bear cubs, and don't go swimming covered in blood and dressed in a seal costume :rofl:


I agree with about everything here except the part ref "The best way to deal with an armed thief is to let them leave with your possessions, and keep your life." Some armed thieves want to hurt you badly and or kill you. That is who they are. I prefer to have the option of fighting them or just letting them have my gear. Not every thief is of the Robin Hood variety.

Jerry


----------



## erps

> Even if it sounds funny, I am going to stick with my statement that a knife is the best weapon against a cougar.


If that were true, I would expect that cougar hunters would be using knives instead of rifles when hunting cougars. Who would know better?


----------



## erps

blackjenner said:


> This is one of the reasons most of these discussions tend to be pointless; simplistic and naive answers to real problems.
> 
> "Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword away! All who use a sword will be killed by a sword."
> 
> My sword is put away, until needed. Anyone who bring a sword to me and mine shall surely be put to a sword -- period. I shall not seek violence, but I shall not fall in the face of it.


for sure.



> and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.


Luke 22:36 He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.


----------



## casioqv

tager said:


> What makes you think you have more sense than a deer?


Humans always think they're better at everything. In reality, we're really only better than most species at making tools- and even that doesn't do us much good because we're not any good at deciding which tools we should make/use.



tager said:


> It was a combination of backpacking and bike touring around the PNW, everywhere from the continental divide at Glacier NP Montana, as far south as Florence, Oregon, and up to Vancouver BC


I've also spent a lot of time outdoors in the PNW. In the rare instances where I've encountered a large predator- I had to remain very silent to observe them. The slightest noise always scares them off- with the exception of one curious young coyote. I had to run towards him and yell to scare him away.



tager said:


> 100% Cotton Tees are still the best shirts. They don't make you smell like poly ones.


I've had better luck with wool. Not cheap initially, but they're really everything the BS high-tech outdoor clothing claims to be. Never smells, dries fast, insulates just as well wet, keeps you cool and dry when it's hot, and lasts a lifetime. No plant or synthetic fiber can compete with one that's evolved specifically for keeping mammals comfortable outdoors in any temperature.



jerryrlitton said:


> Some armed thieves want to hurt you badly and or kill you. That is who they are. I prefer to have the option of fighting them or just letting them have my gear. Not every thief is of the Robin Hood variety.


Perhaps, but I think it's much more common that a thief wants your stuff, and *may* be willing to hurt you badly or kill you if necessary. As soon as you're wielding a weapon, you're putting them on the defensive and forcing them to decide. Unless the thief also happens to be a psychopathic killer, they're likely aware of the added risk and consequences of escalating a situation into violence.

I was robbed at gunpoint once, by a drunk idiot at a hotspring in the forest at night whom needed a flashlight to find his car. I was out one $5 plastic flashlight, but hey- if I had been armed then maybe my family could have gone on to inherit the flashlight from me, that same very day.


----------



## jackdale

erps said:


> for sure.
> 
> Luke 22:36 He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.


Ray

You had better read Luke 22:36 in context; including what followed later as described in Matthew 26:52 and following.


----------



## Arch_NME

casioqv said:


> I was robbed at gunpoint once, by a drunk idiot at a hotspring in the forest at night whom needed a flashlight to find his car. I was out one $5 plastic flashlight, but hey- if I had been armed then maybe my family could have gone on to inherit the flashlight from me, that same very day.


You know, just because you have a gun on you doesn't mean you have to pull it out everytime something happens. You could have had a gun in your pocket that whole time and the situation would have been exactly the same, or you could have shot the ******* in the back after he walked off with your flashlight. The gun isn't going to jump out at anyone all on it's own. I can't even think of how just having a gun on your person would ever put you in more danger. Though maybe pulling it out to use it sometimes would, of course the flip side is sometimes it makes you safer to pull out a weapon. You got to judge each situation on a case by case basis. Having it on you in the first place allows you to do that though.

Though, you do bring up another interesting point perhaps it's a good idea that everyone should be disarmed except me. Then if I ever need a free flashlight or whatever I won't have to worry.


----------



## casioqv

Arch_NME said:


> I can't even think of how just having a gun on your person would ever put you in more danger.


True, if you never use it then it will never put you in more danger. I'm not personally in the habit of purchasing and carrying things I plan to never use.



Arch_NME said:


> Then if I ever see you and need a free flashlight or whatever I won't have to worry.


I'd probably just give it to you if you asked nicely, and I would have for him as well. If I found myself so attached to some material possession that I'd consider shooting somebody to keep it, then it would be necessary to dispose of it long before that became necessary, for my own mental health.


----------



## jackdale

The death of Sir Peter Blake shows the effectiveness of being armed.



> On 6 December 2001, pirates shot and killed Blake while he was on an environmental exploration trip in South America, monitoring global warming and pollution for the United Nations. The two-month expedition was anchored off Macapá, Brazil, at the mouth of the Amazon delta, waiting to clear customs after a trip up the Amazon river. At around 9 pm a group of six to eight armed, masked robbers wearing balaclavas and crash helmets boarded the Seamaster. As one of the robbers held a gun to the head of a crewmember, Blake sprang from the cabin wielding a rifle. He shot one of the assailants in the hand before the rifle malfunctioned; he was then fatally shot in the back by assailant Ricardo Colares Tavares. The boarders injured two other crew members with knives, and the remaining seven were unhurt.


Notice that he was the only one who was armed.


----------



## Arch_NME

Just because you might not have used a gun in that situation though doesn't mean it would never be useful to have one. Also just letting people do or have whatever they want doesn't always make you safe. People can be cruel.


----------



## casioqv

Arch_NME said:


> People can be cruel.


This hypothetical situation of some cruel and violent boarding party that could be effectively and safely deterred via a gun is probably about as likely as your boat being sunk by a meteor. I'm sure it's happened, but I'm not going to go strap metal plates to my deck to protect myself from it.

I think people carry guns because of an irrational fear of the unknown, and a lack of confidence in their ability to think through a potential crisis. Unfortunately, a gun doesn't do anything to make up for that. It's the adult equivalent of hugging a teddy bear to protect you from the monsters under the bed: an utterly ineffective solution, to a problem that doesn't exist.


----------



## Arch_NME

jackdale said:


> The death of Sir Peter Blake shows the effectiveness of being armed.
> 
> Notice that he was the only one who was armed.


Well, **** happens...

Obviously he shouldn't have broken out the rifle in that situation, knowing what we know now about the survival of his crew poor working order of the rifle. Hindsight is 20/20 though.

I'm too lazy to locate an example but I'm sure someone somewhere has used a gun to positive effect.


----------



## Arch_NME

casioqv said:


> This hypothetical situation of some cruel and violent boarding party that could be effectively and safely deterred via a gun is probably about as likely as your boat being sunk by a meteor. I'm sure it's happened, but I'm not going to go strap metal plates to my deck to protect myself from it.
> 
> I think people carry guns because of an irrational fear of the unknown, and a lack of confidence in their ability to think through a potential crisis. Unfortunately, a gun doesn't do anything to make up for that. It's the adult equivalent of hugging a teddy bear to protect you from the monsters under the bed: an utterly ineffective solution, to a problem that doesn't exist.


Fine, fine, you got me, guns are mostly just useful for feeling like badass, bullying people that don't have guns, and sometimes for revenge. That's good enough reason for me to have one though. Also, people would laugh at me if I just carried a teddy bear.


----------



## therapy23

Arch_NME said:


> 1
> You got to judge each situation on a case by case basis. Having it on you in the first place allows you to do that though.
> 
> 2
> 
> Though, you do bring up another interesting point perhaps it's a good idea that everyone should be disarmed except me. Then if I ever need a free flashlight or whatever I won't have to worry.


1
How many of those type of situations have you had to "judge"? I mean, how many times have you decided not to pull it and how many times have you pulled it? If you pulled it, how many have died?

2
That is funny. :laugher I don't care who you are.


----------



## jerryrlitton

jackdale said:


> The death of Sir Peter Blake shows the effectiveness of being armed.
> 
> Notice that he was the only one who was armed.


Jack, he was not the only one armed, at least one of the pirates was armed right? His rifle did malfunction. What would have happened if he was not armed? Also we were not there. We can what if this to death. Up until the very end he was doing all and best he could do at the time. I am not going to second guess the man.

Jerry


----------



## bljones

jackdale said:


> The death of Sir Peter Blake shows the effectiveness of being armed.
> 
> Notice that he was the only one who was armed.


No, the death of Sir Peter Blake demonstrates the importance of taking care of your tools, and practicing using them. If his rifle hadn't failed, the outcome would have been entirely different.


----------



## jerryrlitton

Exactly.


----------



## mdbee

*Interesting logic*

I suppose you would also like to see all the police stop carrying also?

Some of us carry guns because It's better to have one and not need it, than to need it and not have it. Hopefully I will never need it but if I do, it will be my decision to make and one that I will have the option of making.



casioqv said:


> This hypothetical situation of some cruel and violent boarding party that could be effectively and safely deterred via a gun is probably about as likely as your boat being sunk by a meteor. I'm sure it's happened, but I'm not going to go strap metal plates to my deck to protect myself from it.
> 
> I think people carry guns because of an irrational fear of the unknown, and a lack of confidence in their ability to think through a potential crisis. Unfortunately, a gun doesn't do anything to make up for that. It's the adult equivalent of hugging a teddy bear to protect you from the monsters under the bed: an utterly ineffective solution, to a problem that doesn't exist.


----------



## casioqv

mdbee said:


> I suppose you would also like to see all the police stop carrying also?
> 
> Some of us carry guns because It's better to have one and not need it, than to need it and not have it. Hopefully I will never need it but if I do, it will be my decision to make and one that I will have the option of making.


I don't care if the police carry them- and I think anyone should have the right to, but I reserve the right to ridicule people for needing the false sense of security it provides, and wasting time/money on something so useless, and more likely dangerous to yourself then helpful. I'm not opposed to guns, I'm opposed to the irrational and fearful philosophy that people use to justify carrying them. It seems like a crappy way to live, and a likely cause of much violence.

If you have a rifle for hunting or are a police officer that's one thing, but if you carry a handgun on your sailboat and you're not cruising Somalia it's a neurotic disorder.


----------



## bljones

casioqv said:


> I don't care if the police carry them- and I think anyone should have the right to, but I reserve the right to ridicule people for needing the false sense of security it provides, and wasting time/money on something so useless, and more likely dangerous to yourself then helpful. I'm not opposed to guns, I'm opposed to the irrational and fearful philosophy that people use to justify carrying them. It seems like a crappy way to live, and a likely cause of much violence.
> 
> If you have a rifle for hunting or are a police officer that's one thing, but if you carry a handgun on your sailboat and you're not cruising Somalia it's a neurotic disorder.


Stats say you likely will not be in a car accident today... but you wear your seatbelt. Just in case.

Stats say you will likely not fall overboard today, but you carry flotation devices and practice MOB procedures anyway.  Just in case.

Stats say you will likely not have your car rifled while at the mall, but you lock it anyway. Just in case.

I agree that living scared is a lousy way to live. But living prudent isn't. Having a weapon on board when sailing beyond home waters is like having a flare gun, a life raft, jacklines, harnesses, a radio... it's all there, just in case.
I will repeat, a gun is a tool. There is a huge difference between keeping a gun on board as a "just in case" tool and sailing strapped with a Desert eagle .50 in a custom tooled holster hanging from the drawstring of your speedo and an aft cabin converted to an armoury.
I reserve the right to ridicule those who fail to see that there may be a middle ground between teddy bear carrying obliviots and gun fetishists. No, everybody isn't out to get you, the world is primarily a pretty good place, most people are friendly, but just in case....

oh yeah, keep a knife for the cougars. Just in case.


----------



## casioqv

bljones said:


> Stats say you likely will not be in a car accident today... but you wear your seatbelt. Just in case.
> 
> Stats say you will likely not fall overboard today, but you carry flotation devices and practice MOB procedures anyway. Just in case.
> 
> Stats say you will likely not have your car rifled while at the mall, but you lock it anyway. Just in case.


Bah, I've known plenty of people who've been in car accidents, fallen overboard, or had their cars broken into. Those are reasonably likely events, worth taking pro-active measures for. What you're suggesting is an absurd fantasy with no realistic probability. It's never happened to anybody I know. Has such a situation even happened to anybody on this forum?


----------



## Minnewaska

This thread is testimony to the debate and divisiveness in this country over this issue. 554 replies over 9 months and still going (on a sailing forum!).
-


----------



## jerryrlitton

casioqv said:


> If you have a rifle for hunting or are a police officer that's one thing, but if you carry a handgun on your sailboat and you're not cruising Somalia it's a neurotic disorder.


I think the Somalia part would prove to be your downfall, the firearm as a back up weapon of would be prudent. Casioqv, just because you have it does not mean you have to use it. You brain with it's knowledge and experiences is still the best weapon hands down. Think of your weapon like a 17mm socket in the corner of your tool box. Probably never will be used, however if you need a 17 mm socket not much else will do in some cases. If it is used just once it is well worth it. 
Handguns are a tool, inanimate objects, nothing more or less. Like most all tools they will require training and practice. In order to take a life in an actual emergency they will require LOTS of training and a proper mindset. So does and life jacket and a parachute because in an actual emergency you will be immersed in a very stressful situation. If you do not think for one iota you will not be in any condition to function in that kind of stress where you may need a parachute, life jacket or handgun then you have several choices; 1st you have to come in grips with yourself, "hey self, I may be in a situation later on in life where it is possible I may actually have to use a parachute, life jacket or a firearm". (That is probably the most important part) Then you can either get educated in the uses for those tools, practice a lot in practical situations and hope for the best and be ready for the worst. Or you can lock yourself in your house and hope you do not live in Chicago or DC where bad guys have been known to kick in your door and kill you. BTW both Chicago and DC have the most draconian anti gun laws and both of them have one of the highest crime rates.......I wonder if there is a correlation there.

Jerry

PS don't sail close to that part of the world (Somalia) at all.


----------



## erps

> I'm not opposed to guns, I'm opposed to the irrational and fearful philosophy that people use to justify carrying them. It seems like a crappy way to live, and a likely cause of much violence.


I'm not opposed to guns either. I'm opposed to the irrational fear of guns and the philosophy of those that would impose their views on others by limiting the choice of others.



> What you're suggesting is an absurd fantasy with no realistic probability. It's never happened to anybody I know.


Lucky you. I've had two friends killed on duty and at least four others involved in gun fights.


----------



## w1651

And now let the games begin. 

I have been looking at this same subject for a circumnavigation I want to do. On the one hand I think a weapon on board is the best defense in certain situations.
HOWEVER: Do to the fact that most countries don't allow them, a well placed flare is also a great response to a threat and legal in other countries The flare gun, not using it at the wrong time or place i mean. I won't be packin a flare gun walking through the streets of Hong Kong. I have to say the best coarse for me is new flares and lots of them. 
But Being smart enough not to get in that situation to begin with. PRICELESS


----------



## casioqv

erps said:


> Lucky you. I've had two friends killed on duty and at least four others involved in gun fights.


Getting in a gun fight isn't the same thing as being in a situation where having a gun improves the outcome. I'm sure most anybody could become involved in a gun fight today with the "right" choices.

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
Isaac Asimov (as Salvor Hardin)


----------



## casioqv

jerryrlitton said:


> I think the Somalia part would prove to be your downfall, the firearm as a back up weapon of would be prudent.


I'll keep that in mind next time I'm cruising Somalia in my Catalina 22. Nice Gandhi quote BTW.


----------



## w1651

casioqv said:


> Getting in a gun fight isn't the same thing as being in a situation where having a gun improves the outcome. I'm sure most anybody could become involved in a gun fight today with the "right" choices.
> 
> "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
> Isaac Asimov (as Salvor Hardin)


I understand how you feel but tell anyone that has been violated by violence that the person doing it to them was incompetent and you might get shot.


----------



## jerryrlitton

I would think violence would be the last refuge of anybody. Think about it.


----------



## erps

> Getting in a gun fight isn't the same thing as being in a situation where having a gun improves the outcome.


You're right. If they hadn't been armed, it wouldn't have been a fight, they would have been victims of murder. Having a gun vastly improved the outcome for all four.

BTW, why do you feel compelled to argue and "ridicule" the choices of others?


----------



## casioqv

erps said:


> You're right. If they hadn't been armed, it wouldn't have been a fight, they would have been victims of murder. Having a gun vastly improved the outcome for all four.


Well I have no idea about some specific situation your friends were in but I tend to think that most potential gun fights are likely to without injury on either side, if either side hadn't been armed.



erps said:


> BTW, why do you feel compelled to argue and "ridicule" the choices of others?


I enjoy a good philosophical debate. In addition- I think it does potentially affect me, or at least people beyond the one whom choses to carry. I think the guns people carry for self defense are most likely to be fired accidentally, or out of confusion/mis-understanding and I'd prefer if less people chose to carry them.

I don't fundamentally believe that a person has a "right to their opinion" without facing challenge or argument (I'm not talking about laws here), especially if that opinion is based on ignorance or irrational fear, and potentially endangers other people.


----------



## 42ndstreet

No ones opinion matters. Buy a gun if you like, don't if you don't. This is America.


----------



## blackjenner

casioqv said:


> I don't care if the police carry them- and I think anyone should have the right to, but I reserve the right to ridicule people for needing the false sense of security it provides, and wasting time/money on something so useless, and more likely dangerous to yourself then helpful. I'm not opposed to guns, I'm opposed to the irrational and fearful philosophy that people use to justify carrying them. It seems like a crappy way to live, and a likely cause of much violence.
> 
> If you have a rifle for hunting or are a police officer that's one thing, but if you carry a handgun on your sailboat and you're not cruising Somalia it's a neurotic disorder.


that would matter if those of us who are trained and experienced in the proper use of this particular tool cared about your opinion.

FYI: former police officer and security professional here.


----------



## erps

> I don't fundamentally believe that a person has a "right to their opinion" without facing challenge or argument (I'm not talking about laws here), especially if that opinion is based on ignorance or irrational fear,


I agree.



> I think the guns people carry for self defense are most likely to be fired accidentally, or out of confusion/mis-understanding


Most likely? So is that more often than not? I challenge that statement. Show me where guns carried for self defense are most likely to be fired accidentally or out of confusion.


----------



## blackjenner

casioqv said:


> Well I have no idea about some specific situation your friends were in but I tend to think that most potential gun fights are likely to without injury on either side, if either side hadn't been armed.
> 
> I enjoy a good philosophical debate. In addition- I think it does potentially affect me, or at least people beyond the one whom choses to carry. I think the guns people carry for self defense are most likely to be fired accidentally, or out of confusion/mis-understanding and I'd prefer if less people chose to carry them.
> 
> I don't fundamentally believe that a person has a "right to their opinion" without facing challenge or argument (I'm not talking about laws here), especially if that opinion is based on ignorance or irrational fear, and potentially endangers other people.


Funny how you seem to confuse ridicule with challenging an informed opinion.

This is why I find most threads on this subject pretty futile and useless; basically being nothing but entertainment on the willful ignorance of most of the populace.

Thanks for the grins.


----------



## erps

> Buy a gun if you like, don't if you don't. This is America.


Agreed, but there is a small segment of the population that would "infringe" on other's right to make that choice. If they would just leave others alone with their choice, it wouldn't be much of an issue.


----------



## casioqv

blackjenner said:


> that would matter if those of us who are trained and experienced in the proper use of this particular tool cared about your opinion.


In that case, I apologize for taping your eyelids open, and physically forcing you to read my posts. :eyeroll:



blackjenner said:


> Funny how you seem to confuse ridicule with challenging an informed opinion.


No confusion here, I'm doing both.


----------



## jerryrlitton

casioqv said:


> Well I have no idea about some specific situation your friends were in but I tend to think that most potential gun fights are likely to without injury on either side, if either side hadn't been armed.


I agree entirely, your logic is impeccable. Without either side being armed it would be difficult to call it a gunfight.

Jerry


----------



## remetau

So for those who do pack a firearm onboard, what are some of the scenarios that you feel you need to be armed?


----------



## erps

remetau said:


> So for those who do pack a firearm onboard, what are some of the scenarios that you feel you need to be armed?


I haven't decided whether to carry or not, but if I found myself in this situation, a firearm would have evened the odds IMO.



> According to information posted on the family Web site, the couple had docked in the harbor, away from the marina, and were preparing dinner when they heard a knock outside the cockpit. Dan answered the door to find four men with machetes.
> 
> Nancy and Dan "were prodded in the chest with the machetes as the assailants demanded U.S. dollars and the access to either the sailboat or the dinghy," according to the family's online account. "Nancy was held in a separate compartment as Dan grabbed his own machete and fought to his death."
> 
> Read more: Murder in Guatemala ends couple's retirement dreams: Alaska News | adn.com


another one:



> A British man sailing with his wife off the coast of southern Thailand was allegedly beaten to death and thrown overboard by pirates trying to steal their vessel, Thai police said today.


British man 'killed by pirates in Thailand' - Telegraph

Now I'll turn the question around back to you. For those unfortuneate enough to find themselves in such senarios, what would be the justification to deny them a tool that might save their life?


----------



## therapy23

w1651 said:


> , *a well placed flare is also a great response to a threat *


BS!

YouTube - shoots himself in the head with a flare gun


----------



## remetau

erps said:


> Now I'll turn the question around back to you. For those unfortuneate enough to find themselves in such senarios, what would be the justification to deny them a tool that might save their life?


*I never said anything about denying tools to anybody.*

I just wanted to know what you find so threatening in the world to justify carrying a firearm.

Chances of this of ever happening to you is probably less than winning the lottery, and most likely in the first case, if the guy would have been willing to give up some cash, then he would still be alive.


----------



## sailingdog

A well-placed flare in addition to the supply of liberally spread gasoline is a good defense...


----------



## bljones

sailingdog said:


> A well-placed flare in addition to the supply of liberally spread gasoline is a good defense...


Torch the boat to save the boat?


----------



## Freesail99

I think you need to ask yourself when was the last time you raised your hands to anyone. When was the last time you didn't walk away from a fight and if you did walk away, do you really think you'll really use a gun? I think you're kidding yourself.


----------



## jerryrlitton

therapy23 said:


> BS!
> 
> YouTube - shoots himself in the head with a flare gun


That is Darwinism at work, the fellow just added chlorine to the gene pool.

LOL ref torch the boat to save the boat. Kind of like using Bengay for jock itch.

have to add that I saw the BEST bumper sticker I ever saw today. Let me try to reproduce it for you all to get the full effect.... Vote with your head not with your heart my friends.

11.6.12
The first chance we get to get rid of Barack.


----------



## jerryrlitton

Freesail99 said:


> I think you need to ask yourself when was the last time you raised your hands to anyone. When was the last time you didn't walk away from a fight and if you did walk away, do you really think you'll really use a gun? I think you're kidding yourself.


There is your 1st mistake, you do not use a firearm in a fight. You only use it to save your life. Let me throw a quote or two out;

SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


----------



## jackdale

Just a quick question for the OP:

Is this a question for those who cruise in US waters only or are you wanting to include the rest to the world? The former and the latter are two very "different kettle of fish."


----------



## Freesail99

It isn't a mistake, talk is cheap. Chances are if you walked away from a fight you will not use a gun to defend yourself. You may even have that same gun turned on you. There are people who do and people who watch others do. 

The penal code? Should I read that and hope for the best?


----------



## erps

remetau said:


> I just wanted to know what you find so threatening in the world to justify carrying a firearm.


I don't find the world that threatening and personally haven't decided what I'm going to do yet. I do value self reliance though, whether it's packing spare parts, tools and other self rescue devices. I value my life more than my boat. Why wouldn't I also want to carry the tools to protect it as well.



> Chances of this of ever happening to you is probably less than winning the lottery, and most likely in the first case, if the guy would have been willing to give up some cash, then he would still be alive.


the article said:



> "*Nancy was held in a separate compartment* as Dan grabbed his own machete and fought to his death."


I'm guessing the first guy was worried about loosing more than cash. As far as chances go, I'm guessing we all have different tolerance levels for risk. I think Freesail also makes a good point that people are not all cut from the same cloth, although I would not underestimate the instinct of a mother/father to protect their young, whether s/he has ever walked away from a fight or not.


----------



## jackdale

Ray

Would / do you feel any less safe in Desolation Sound and opposed to Puget Sound? 

Jack


----------



## erps

jackdale said:


> Ray
> 
> Would / do you feel any less safe in Desolation Sound and opposed to Puget Sound?
> 
> Jack


Hmmm. I don't consider either to be unsafe. The closest thing we saw to violence up in B.C. was a domestic at Egmont while we were tied to the dock. Then there was the cougar that was shot up at Refuge Cove, but I read about that in a newspaper clipping on their bulletin board. There are some docks down in south sound that I would avoid though.

edit:

this illustrates a mom's instinct to protect her kids. This mom went after a cougar with a cleaning rag!



> Mom fends off cougar with cleaning rag in second B.C. attack
> 
> The Globe and Mail - British Columbia | 2009-01-05
> Pinned face down in the snow by a cougar, seven-year-old David Metzler Jr. was already bleeding from wounds to his scalp and back when his mother came running from the church, armed with nothing but a scrub rag.


----------



## jerryrlitton

Freesail99 said:


> It isn't a mistake, talk is cheap. Chances are if you walked away from a fight you will not use a gun to defend yourself. You may even have that same gun turned on you. There are people who do and people who watch others do.
> 
> The penal code? Should I read that and hope for the best?


No, the best defense is common sense and experience, however experience takes a long time sometimes.


----------



## sailingdog

bljones said:


> Torch the boat to save the boat?


I was more thinking of using the gasoline on the water around their boat... and igniting using a flare gun so that my boat could be a safe distance away...but if you want to burn your boat to save it...that's your choice.  :laugher :laugher

Didn't think leadmine sailors were all that bright, and this just seems to prove it.:laugher :laugher :laugher


----------



## jackdale

How exactly are you going to pour gasoline around their boat? Maybe sail a circle around it. Or do you envision launching jerry cans towards them?


----------



## remetau

*Gas launcher*



jackdale said:


> How exactly are you going pour gasoline around their boat? Maybe sail a circle around it. Or do you envision launching jerry cans towards them?


Here ya go:

Edit: I knew those two 18 year olds from the fight thread would come in handy!


----------



## w1651

jerryrlitton said:


> I agree entirely, your logic is impeccable. Without either side being armed it would be difficult to call it a gunfight.
> 
> Jerry


Your right but if you sail to Briton you better Bring a shank or a longer knife then the guy that's trying to shank you has. 
Disarming the population does not necessarily make it safer. Statistics world wide prove this.
It is not one big happy world or country unfortunately. Look at china recently with the people going into schools with meat cleavers in hand. I'm not saying they should have had a gun. But don't go thinking disarming solves all the evils in this world either.


----------



## w1651

sailingdog said:


> A well-placed flare in addition to the supply of liberally spread gasoline is a good defense...


Point well taken.


----------



## w1651

sailingdog said:


> I was more thinking of using the gasoline on the water around their boat... and igniting using a flare gun so that my boat could be a safe distance away...but if you want to burn your boat to save it...that's your choice.  :laugher :laugher
> 
> Didn't think leadmine sailors were all that bright, and this just seems to prove it.:laugher :laugher :laugher


What about two eighteen year old girls a mollintof **** tale and a rubber band. Or would you rather try to use a potato launcher?


----------



## jackdale

w1651 said:


> Disarming the population does not necessarily make it safer. Statistics world wide prove this.


Arming the population does not seem to make it safer.



> Many people feel that having a gun provides greater safety for them and their family. Actually, having a firearm in the home escalates the risk for death or injury, while using it to shoot someone who endangers the household is much less common. The resultant injuries, deaths, emotional turmoil, and/or disabilities lead to greater utilization of health care and legal/police services. Payment for these expenses is provided by higher insurance premiums and tax rates. This financial aspect has become a part of our country's current political concern over firearm ownership rights, gun violence or regulation, health care costs, the economy, and taxes.
> 
> Key Points
> 
> * The presence of a gun in the home results in more deaths to the owner and/or family members than to intruders.
> 
> * Suicide rates are escalated by firearm availability.
> 
> * Gun-related violence raises health care utilization and costs.
> 
> * Gun-related violence increases criminal justice system expenditures.
> 
> * Shootings result in higher costs to taxpayers and for insurance premiums.
> 
> * Gun-related violence leaves a legacy of grief and hardship.


Do Guns Provide Safety? At What Cost? : Southern Medical Journal


----------



## fparry

JohnRPollard said:


> The only thing I'll add is that there ARE places in Alaska and Canada where it would be foolish to venture ashore WITHOUT a gun. A lot of folks who limit their travels to "civilization" don't seem to realize this.


Heck, I have places within two blocks of my marina I would frequent without a gun.


----------



## jackdale

JohnRPollard said:


> The only thing I'll add is that there ARE places in Alaska and Canada where it would be foolish to venture ashore WITHOUT a gun. A lot of folks who limit their travels to "civilization" don't seem to realize this.


John

I spend a lot of my time in some of those areas of Canada. I have never even thought about carrying a gun. The only attack with which I am familiar occurred in Port Renfrew. Ray has indicated that a cougar was hot shot near Refuge Cove. Hikers have had encounters in parks near Calgary.

Foreign visitors to Canada cannot bring a gun without the proper paperwork.

(BSF5044 - Importing a Firearm or Weapon Into Canada)

In some of those areas, such as parks, firearms are prohibited.


----------



## bljones

sailingdog said:


> Didn't think leadmine sailors were all that bright, and this just seems to prove it.:laugher :laugher :laugher


I asked a question since your post was exact in materials but vague on execution, sort of like tacking a trimaran. Then you misinterpreted my question as a statement confirming the outcome, so really, it looks like maybe tricycle pilots aren't all that bright.

we really need a "tardmaran" smiley. :gunner


----------



## w1651

jackdale said:


> Arming the population does not seem to make it safer.
> 
> Do Guns Provide Safety? At What Cost? : Southern Medical Journal


Agreed but that is not the question either. The question was do you sail armed or not. I originally wrote I will not then this whole thing blew up because people didn't read the question and let emotions get in the way of their judgment. 
I think it's better they don't arm themselves.


----------



## bljones

jackdale said:


> Ray has indicated that a cougar was shot near Refuge Cove.


He should have used a knife. A knife is the correct tool for dispatching cougars, apparently.


----------



## w1651

I don't know the cougars at my favorite watering hole are more then welcome around me. I kinda like the it when I get them to purrrrrrrr!


----------



## erps

> Arming the population does not seem to make it safer.


especially for the bad guys.


----------



## jackdale

erps said:


> especially for the bad guys.


Ray

Did you read the key points?

Here is something from the report itself.



> Out of 395 fatalities occurring at a family home where a gun was present, suicide accounted for 333 cases (84%); 41 were domestic violence homicides, and 12 were accidents, *while only nine were shootings of an intruder.* Presence of a firearm in the home reportedly results in death or injury to household members or visitors over 12 times more often than to an intruder.


Can we expect the numbers to be different from those who are sailing / living aboard?


----------



## erps

Jack,

I didn't read it. I've read how similar studies have been discredited several times and frankly this wasn't worth my time.

For instance:



> Suicide is the leading cause of death among gun owners in the initial years of acquisition.


real life translation:

a non gun owner is considering suicide. They go and acquire a gun and follow through. They now become a statistic to be used by the anti-gunners.

I don't think we should ban the use of items because some people misuse them. If we applied that type of logic to other tools/items, then automobiles should go before firearms. Autos accounted for over 43,000 accidental deaths in 2002 compared 776 accidental deaths with firearms.

Death Statistics Tables


----------



## jackdale

Sorry that you pre-judged the article.

The Southern Medical Journal is peer reviewed. I can find nothing that discredits it, the authors or its findings.


----------



## erps

jackdale said:


> Sorry that you pre-judged the article.
> 
> The Southern Medical Journal is peer reviewed. I can find nothing that discredits it, the authors or its findings.


Well let's take a look at something. The study says:



> Guns, purchased for protection, paradoxically result in increased rates of injury or death to the owners and their families


Real world translation: you're in a bad neighborhood where you NEED a gun for protection, your risk is already higher. Of course there are going to be higher injury and death rates.



> Since firearm possession is related to a high occurrence of domestic violence, restriction of access is sometimes suggested as a prevention policy


Real world translation: you get caught up in an abusive relationship, your life is threatened, you buy a gun for protection.

This is peer reviewed science? I pre-judged it before I read it. Just by reading a few of these little facts, it looks like it was a pretty accurate judgement.


----------



## erps

Jack,

Try googling "more guns, less crime" by John Lott for the other side of the coin.


----------



## erps

Jack,

You specifically pointed out the suicide rate with firearms in the study. I just looked up suicide rates by country. Doesn't look like our "firearm culture" is the problem.


----------



## erps

Jack,

How come that study doesn't mention statistics on how many "saves" there have been with firearms, or how many crimes were thwarted with just the defensive display of a firearm by an armed citizen? I think it's because they weren't looking for stats like that.


----------



## Stillraining

Ray...ever thought of running for NRA presidency?...you would do a great job.

You get my vote!


----------



## w1651

jackdale said:


> Ray
> 
> Did you read the key points?
> 
> Here is something from the report itself.
> 
> Can we expect the numbers to be different from those who are sailing / living aboard?


If I'm not mistaken the worst offenders are the owners themselves in this report. What a suicide rate.


----------



## jerryrlitton

Some of you all are blaming the gun for the suicide or the homicide rates. That is like blaming a pencil for mistakes. There is still some responsibility the owner/user has to assume. Some of you may also blame McDonalds for coffee burns. Get with it people, man up and assume some responsibility for YOUR actions. By that I mean if you have one, TRAIN how to use it, when to use it, when to put it away so no unauthorized persons can handle it. Train kids so IF they come across one they will know to leave it alone, get away or if they are advanced they will know how to safely check it's status, unload it and call an TRAINED adult. 
Check this out YouTube - McKenzie -11yo Girl Sets New Record for Field Stripping AR15 (you may need to paste it on your browser)
This girl is 11 years old. Difference is she had proper training from an adult who actually cared enough to teach her correctly. Do you think you could learn? Probably but you have to want to learn. You did notice not once did the weapon jump up by itself, not once did SHE point it at some one, trigger control was good. Now check this out...There are three basic rules of weapon control, they will and I guarantee if they are followed NOBODY will get shot by accident. Of course there are those among us who insist on adding chlorine to the gene pool.
Rule 1. Always assume the weapon is loaded, treat it as such.
Rule 2. NEVER point the weapon at something you do not wish to destroy.
Rule 3 Always keep your finger OFF the trigger until your target is identified and you are ready to shoot.
Now check out this one..

YouTube - gixxerguy811's Channel

This girl more then likely go through school not bringing a weapon to class, not getting in any trouble, have very good self esteem and grow up to respect others herself and not be afraid of the dark. I have to ask you all, what kind of people are you?
Now, those of you all who still do not get it please leave the rest of us alone. When the wolf knocks on your door what are you going to do? The choice is yours.....as always.

Jerry


----------



## jerryrlitton

One more thing I want to add to the unconvinced. If and when the gun laws get sooo bad (Think England, Thailand, Japan, Australia, Germany, Russia etc) and we are forced to give them up (I mean REALLY forced) Do you think all the guns will simply disappear? Get a grip, I mean will all your violent crimes end? Look at the above countries; check out THEIR violent crime stats. Here is what you will have accomplished , you will freaking INVITE the bad guys to kick in your door because they will know you are unarmed, they will beat the crap out of you with baseball bats, while you cower in the corner I want you all to think about how it was, in the last moments of your consciousness you will wish you were not so impotent. How it was when you were a citizen and not a subject. Look at the worlds history people. Don't muck it up.


----------



## erps

The study mentioned a couple pages back indicates:



> Documentation evidences that the presence of guns and injuries are correlated... and are thus related to medical attention and disability costs.


I imagine our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq could put this information to good use. Just think how much safer they would be without their small arms. Just having them in the vicinity is apparently hazardous.

Along the same line, I've noticed that the presence of fire helmets and fire trucks are directly correlated with fire related injuries. Seems pretty clear that fire trucks need to be further restricted.


----------



## w1651

And glazed donuts cause fat cops. bagels and locks cause dead fish etc...etc...


----------



## wind_magic

tager said:


> It was a combination of backpacking and bike touring around the PNW, everywhere from the continental divide at Glacier NP Montana, as far south as Florence, Oregon, and up to Vancouver BC. I spent weeks in Olympic National park, a part of which is known cougar country. Backpacking I carried a very light kit: Hennessy Hammock, Silnylon Fly, Spectra cord, Blue Foam Pad, Alcohol BeerCan Stove, Small swiss army knife, minimal fishing kit, filtration bottle, waterproof boots, pants, jacket, cotton tees, journal, first aid kit, socks, hat, compass, map.
> 
> 100% Cotton Tees are still the best shirts. They don't make you smell like poly ones.
> 
> The best piece of gear was the journal. The worst piece of gear was the compass. I never used it, but it could have come in real handy if I got confused.


This sounds like it was a lot of fun, Tager. I don't have a Hennessy but I do like the design from what I have seen of it, and I think sleeping in a hammock during warmer weather is a great idea. I agree on cotton clothing, all the "wisdom" about poly clothing being better outdoors because it dries faster and all that is just marketing hype from people who want to sell you expensive gear. If it's raining it doesn't matter what your shirt is made of, if you don't have a shelter up, you are going to be cold and wet.


----------



## pistonbully

Not that I want to revive an old thread here , but I am just now catching up on it. I must say up until this post I was fully planning to bring my .45 with my when I go to sea, it just seems fool hearty to not be armed in this day and age in such a vulnerable position. But many of you are right about that fact that most countries would rather just throw you in jail for having it vs the odds of actually having a "Ballistic emergency" (As one member so eloquently put it). 

I think I may just leave it at home instead and figure out a bit more of a legal way to defend my self if the need may ever occur. And kudos to those as well who pointed out the many dangers of shooting into the water. 

Question though, If I was packing a pistol onboard. Is anyone ever going to know unless I show them? I know they all come on to your boat at different ports but are they really searching? Or just taking a peak around? I would think maybe if it were put away as it really should be and not even near being out in the open. would it be found? Or even looked for? Just wondering.


----------



## Minnewaska

How would anyone really know the answer to that question? You're asking the odds of being caught. Depends on how hard they look. Who knows how hard they will look or how well you will hide it.

I wish I could carry aboard, although, I'm well trained for the _very few_ circumstances that it would be useful.

What I find notable is that all those that desire to arm/defend themselves will find another way.


----------



## hanleyclifford

Curious that no one seems to object to 12 gauge flare pistols, or any sort of flare for that matter, just sayin'.


----------



## MacGyverRI

hanleyclifford said:


> Curious that no one seems to object to 12 gauge flare pistols, or any sort of flare for that matter, just sayin'.


Like this modified one?


----------



## pistonbully

Minnewaska said:


> How would anyone really know the answer to that question? You're asking the odds of being caught. Depends on how hard they look. Who knows how hard they will look or how well you will hide it.


You are right it's impossible to answer. I more or less meant on a normal basis ,, are they ripping stuff apart? or just looking for Fruits veggies and animals.. Sure if they suddenly think I'm a coke smuggler i'm going to be getting torn apart.. But i meant normal searches.


----------



## mitiempo

"are they ripping stuff apart?"

The problem is you never know until you arrive.


----------



## blackjenner

pistonbully said:


> You are right it's impossible to answer. I more or less meant on a normal basis ,, are they ripping stuff apart? or just looking for Fruits veggies and animals.. Sure if they suddenly think I'm a coke smuggler i'm going to be getting torn apart.. But i meant normal searches.


I'm not a customs officer or a cop in a foreign country. I am, however, a former Seattle Police Officer. Here is what I can tell you.

No, they aren't prescient but given reason, they will search. What is the reason? Well, how good a citizen are you? Do you have all your papers? Are they all in order? How good are you at lying and looking calm about it. How are you at poker? Can you look just nervous enough but not too nervous.

I can't tell you what will set off a full search. I can tell you that, if they think you are hiding something, and they are determined, they will find it.

I will tell you that your normal cop will be less trained and less diligent than customs. I would not ever screw with customs. They have almost unlimited power and you have zero rights.

So you have to ask yourself, what is worth hiding, and where. Will you risk it?

I can tell you that, when I go offshore, I will think long and hard about going armed. I don't know yet. Like you have expressed, I have some real problems about going out in the big empty world without some way of defending myself. Now, that doesn't mean a gun. It could be many things but, I will not go unprepared.

Good luck with your decision.


----------



## SlowButSteady

Let's assume you have a weapon on board and either never get searched, or never get very thoroughly searched. If you never have to use the gun, there most likely will never be any consequences. However, that's isn't why you smuggled an illegal firearm into another country in the first place. What happens if you actually shoot someone, or even just scare someone off by waving a pistol around? NOW you are probably going to have to answer some very tough and important questions posed to you by some people who probably won't look to kindly upon foreigners trafficking weapons into their country (and "trafficking weapons" is how their legal system will look at your actions). 

IF you wind up shooting a real thug, the local officials MIGHT look the other way with regards to the weapon, or they might not. In many parts of the world one MIGHT be able to grease a few palms and get out from under the local legal system without too much trouble, but I wouldn't count on it. Or, the local constabulary MIGHT be grateful to you for getting rid of someone who has been a problem for a long time, but I wouldn't count on that either. Even if they are secretly happy that they have one less local ne'er-do-well to worry about, they are likely to frown on your shooting one of their own and/or see an opportunity to extract a whole lot of cash from some "rich gingo yachtie". In any case, they are much less likely to get in trouble for throwing a gun-running, cowboy, americano into jail than they are for looking the other way (and in many parts of the word, once you are in their legal system it ain't easy to get out of their legal system)

But, what if you panic and shoot some kid who's trying to pinch your dingy or its outboard at 2am? Do you think that the local officials are going to "look the other way" in that case? What if the kid is the nephew of the mayor or police captain? You just shot (maybe killed) a relative of a local official in a foreign port with a weapon you aren't even supposed to have. What do you think your chances are of seeing US soil any time soon? Do you think the US Embassy is going to do much for someone who knowingly smuggled a gun into the country and then shot a local over an outboard (or even the whole boat)?

The bottom line is that if you bring a firearm into many countries without declaring it you will be risking a world of hurt. If you never have to use it, you might very well get away with it --- but, that isn't why you brought it. If you use it UNDER VIRTUALLY ANY CIRCUMSTANCES you will very likely loose your freedom for a very long time, and your boat forever.


----------



## damies

*Dogs.....*

Don't know about other countries, Australia and New Zealand Customs officials bring sniffer Dogs on board who are trained to sniff out drugs, weapons etc. How do you fancy your chances against a sniffer dog?


----------



## benajah

erps said:


> The study mentioned a couple pages back indicates:
> 
> I imagine our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq could put this information to good use. Just think how much safer they would be without their small arms. Just having them in the vicinity is apparently hazardous.
> 
> Along the same line, I've noticed that the presence of fire helmets and fire trucks are directly correlated with fire related injuries. Seems pretty clear that fire trucks need to be further restricted.


I did three tours in Afghanistan and Iraq as an infantryman and obviously guns have a place there, even Among the population.
Back home, I do own a handgun, but it stays in the lock box until I put on a pack and head off hiking in bear, cougar, meth lab, and pot growing country.
On a boat, the most likely place you will need it is in a harbor. US harbors have local police, and it's best not to tote guns into foreign countries.
While I am certainly no stranger to gun violence, feel comfortable carrying one in the woods, I just don't think they have any place on a boat. In us waters, you are pretty safe. Foreign places it's likely illegal even if you aren't so safe. Besides, in most circumstances a baseball bat can be effective as a handgun.


----------



## pistonbully

SlowButSteady said:


> Let's assume you have a weapon on board and either never get searched, or never get very thoroughly searched. If you never have to use the gun, there most likely will never be any consequences. However, that's isn't why you smuggled an illegal firearm into another country in the first place. What happens if you actually shoot someone, or even just scare someone off by waving a pistol around? NOW you are probably going to have to answer some very tough and important questions posed to you by some people who probably won't look to kindly upon foreigners trafficking weapons into their country (and "trafficking weapons" is how their legal system will look at your actions).
> 
> IF you wind up shooting a real thug, the local officials MIGHT look the other way with regards to the weapon, or they might not. In many parts of the world one MIGHT be able to grease a few palms and get out from under the local legal system without too much trouble, but I wouldn't count on it. Or, the local constabulary MIGHT be grateful to you for getting rid of someone who has been a problem for a long time, but I wouldn't count on that either. Even if they are secretly happy that they have one less local ne'er-do-well to worry about, they are likely to frown on your shooting one of their own and/or see an opportunity to extract a whole lot of cash from some "rich gingo yachtie". In any case, they are much less likely to get in trouble for throwing a gun-running, cowboy, americano into jail than they are for looking the other way (and in many parts of the word, once you are in their legal system it ain't easy to get out of their legal system)
> 
> But, what if you panic and shoot some kid who's trying to pinch your dingy or its outboard at 2am? Do you think that the local officials are going to "look the other way" in that case? What if the kid is the nephew of the mayor or police captain? You just shot (maybe killed) a relative of a local official in a foreign port with a weapon you aren't even supposed to have. What do you think your chances are of seeing US soil any time soon? Do you think the US Embassy is going to do much for someone who knowingly smuggled a gun into the country and then shot a local over an outboard (or even the whole boat)?
> 
> The bottom line is that if you bring a firearm into many countries without declaring it you will be risking a world of hurt. If you never have to use it, you might very well get away with it --- but, that isn't why you brought it. If you use it UNDER VIRTUALLY ANY CIRCUMSTANCES you will very likely loose your freedom for a very long time, and your boat forever.


Nuff said, My guns shall stay in the states. I was already thinking I would just have my brother hold on to them for me. I'll just speer the bastard trying to steal my dingy at 2am!


----------



## Jace2

Hey Piston, nice to talk to you again.

But I gotta take a different view than you. If it's at all possible, I'll have a firearm with me on my boat. Those Christian missionaries a few months back, yes, the dead ones, didn't have a firearm. If they did, it's most likely they would be alive, as pirates are inherently predators seeking the weak and unarmed to prey on.

Don't know, to each his own, but as for me and my boat, I will trust in God-

and my weapon!


----------



## pistonbully

I hear you Jace, Believe me I really really really want to have my pistol at the very least. And I think eventually I may. But I will wait until i'm in more hostile waters or planning to be and just pick up another tactical 12 gauge before leaving on that trip and roll with that. I can check it in at customs if i'm really worried about a certain country wanting to charge me instead of letting me defend myself. I can always try to explain the 12 gauge away as a "Recreational skeet shooter". and see how it goes from there.


----------



## jerryrlitton

Very good post, PB. However things happen in unplanned places. If we actually KNEW things would happen we would not go at all so I personally recommend always having your Tac 12 with you, along with good training for you and your crew. Along with a good SOP of course.

Jerry


----------



## Jace2

Good thinking PB.

Along those lines, Jerry, there is a weapon made by Marlin called a Guide Gun. It's a beautiful piece in SS in a 45-70 cal. Better have plenty of cash, though. It's up there. 

My uncle, who was a dealer, told me the 45-70 caliber was made so that the chamber can accept, along with the center fire solid bullets, a 4-10gauge shotgun round. I plan to try to get a Black bear in Alaska at some point, so such a big round would be of good use, and it severs well as protection against Grizzlies. With that rifle taking the 4-10 shotgun round as well, I can get some small game too, when it's available. 

Now, I was thinking. If the authorities in foreign waters would look at a shotgun, especially one of such a small round as the 4-10, as rather mild when it comes to guns, I would merely say, "Yeah, got that there little shotgun for rabbits and ducks, in case I run out of provisions" and not show them the 3+ inch long projectiles that will blow a hole the size of a dinner plate in a 9 foot Grizzly, and hope they are ignorant enough of American firearms to buy it. 

It's a chance, but hey, so is life.


----------



## ftldiver

Jace, the problem is you often need to declare the EXACT amount of ammo you have aboard, and again when you clear out.

-word is a .38 round is worth 5 bucks in nassau.... some might want to pad the kitty with (illegal)
ammo sales...

if you declare the gun, declare the ammo too. 

(a friend of friend got caught when he declared some long guns but forgot to declare the ammo -cost big bucks to get the boat back....).


-ymmv


----------



## jorapazu

Here in Venezuela it is strongly recomended, that said, you better be aware and willing to use it and use it well, otherwise it is safer not to have one on board and let them rob you.


----------



## Jace2

Yeah, *ftldiver*, that's a good point. It all boils down to just how comfortable I am with the thought of pirates taking my boat. I'm sure your friend did have to pay a lot to get his boat back, and I don't want to minimize such an inconvenience. He's probably lucky he had the money for it.

I keep thinking of the case of that doctor in Connecticut where his wife and daughters were raped, killed, and burned by those two low-lifes. Those scum promised that they wouldn't hurt them. All they wanted was money, so they said. Well, imagine that. They lied.

I don't know. I guess I'll have to make the decision when I actually go to foreign seas.

I hope I make the right one. With God's help, I will.


----------



## Jace2

Actually, if I could be guaranteed that that's _all_ they're going to do - rob me - I wouldn't need a gun. It's the whackos who like to torture people that drives my intentions for carrying.


----------



## Bene505

erps said:


> Agreed, but there is a small segment of the population that would "infringe" on other's right to make that choice. If they would just leave others alone with their choice, it wouldn't be much of an issue.


Perfect. Maybe we need a new thread, something like this:

*I'm stepping off the boat to live on land for awhile. Should I be prepared to infringe on other people's right to be armed?*​
Regards,
Brad


----------



## jackdale

Bene505 said:


> Perfect. Maybe we need a new thread, something like this:
> 
> *I'm stepping off the boat to live on land for awhile. Should I be prepared to infringe on other people's right to be armed?*​
> Regards,
> Brad


That would a US based forum, I presume.


----------



## tdw

I'm not entering into this debate yet again. Nothing I say is going to change anyone's opinion on the subject and no matter how silly I think it is to carry a gun into another country where it is illegal to do so you will all do what you will do. So be it. 

But

Why would anyone WANT to kill a Black Bear ? OK, so if a BB is aiming to have you for breakfast then defence is an argument etc etc but I am utterly perplexed as to why anyone would choose to wantonly pursue and kill for what, pleasure ? What kind of sick truck kills something for nothing other than the thrill of it ?


----------



## SEMIJim

tdw said:


> Why would anyone WANT to kill a Black Bear ? OK, so if a BB is aiming to have you for breakfast then defence is an argument etc etc but I am utterly perplexed as to why anyone would choose to wantonly pursue and kill for what, pleasure ? What kind of sick truck kills something for nothing other than the thrill of it ?


I don't hunt, but I know plenty of people that do. And, yes, most of them hunt for the challenge of taking their own game. Are they "sick?" I dunno. I don't think so. I don't appreciate their interest in hunting, but I don't think they're "sick."

I'm reminded of this: "Jimi got high, and Jimi's dead. I went huntin', and I'm still Ted." - - Ted "Motor City Madman" Nugent (Hendrix had ridiculed Ted's lifestyle.)

Jim


----------



## erps

> What kind of sick truck kills something for nothing other than the thrill of it ?


I dunno. I'm not a hunter, although I do like to catch an occasional fish and eat it.

One of our past presidents hunted big game.



> He later wrote a detailed account in the book African Game Trails, where he describes the excitement of the chase












Theodore Roosevelt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## jackdale

erps said:


> One of our past presidents hunted big game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theodore Roosevelt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Orwell describes shooting an elephant as well. (Shooting An Elephant by). More disgust than excitement, but this one might have justified.


----------



## tdw

I fear I am more Orwell than Teddy .. be that Nugent or Roosevelt.

Ray,

I've been known to catch the odd fish, kill and eat it as well. I can even understand people who hunt e.g deer to eat and I fully understand hunting for clothing, food and the like. 

It is hunting purely for the supposed joy of killing that I cannot for the life of me understand.


----------



## Myt4

I am a new guy and should probably keep my mouth shut....but what the heck. 1st off to the original question- I am new to sailing but when or if the time comes to go outside of our waters yes I will carry. That said it will be something of no great value incase it gets taken. Most likely a tarus judge effective for predatory animals both two and four legged. If i need something bigger im probably screwed any way. Although i would do my homework and follow the recieving countries rules ( unless they say no guns, then ill take my chances)As for hunters...well I are 1. We are not all bad. I have grown up hunting and fishing and we do not kill what we don't eat. My dad made sure that was a lesson not forgotten at an early age as did his. Personally I am just as happy with a doe as a monster buck. The doe typically tastes better but the horns are nice once in a while too. As for using a tazer for self defense....well some people especially on certain drugs are not effected much. As a Seabee we trained with them and unfortunately found out first hand what they do and don't do to you. Most of us me included dropped but a few did not. So yes I think they are useful in a pinch but donot replace a bullet. I hope I do not need either but if I do I prefer the option. At the very least a good bow will be with me never know when the chance to get my own dinner may come up.


----------



## AnderCranster

I believe that I'd want to have something if I was sailing with my family in international waters. 

I wouldn't hesitate for one single second to rid the world of a pirate.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't lose one single second of sleep over it either.


----------



## GalileoX

I carry a basic Taurus M92 9mm. I only have access to lakes so salt is not an issue but I think it would be generally a bad idea to expose it to a a marine environment. I think I would like to get the Model 870 Special Purpose Marine Magnum shotgun. Boating and skeet shooting in one trip! What fun! Well, at least I suspect it will be fun, See I just bought my first boat, a 85 US Yacht 25 and I'm going for my first sail in a couple of weeks.


----------



## tomperanteau

12 gauge here. I will take it on the boat when we sever the lines.


----------



## jrd22

I only pack heat when halibut fishing. Unfortunately, I've never needed it:-((


----------



## tonejunkie99

I carry 2 AR15's, 2 Cobray M11-9 SMG's, and 2 Glock 9mm pistols, 2000 rounds of ammo and a 12 gauge pump shotgun... Im not a drug smuggler, trafficer or anything of the sort, I just dont want to be a victim like the members of Joe-Cool or the couple in Somolia, if I my wife and I go down, im gonna take a few with me, and make them regret their decision to prey on pleasure craft...


----------



## mitiempo

tonejunkie

What is your intended route? The countries you are visiting should be notified of your impending arrival. Either to hold your weapons and ammo while you are there or in some cases to get a cell ready.


----------

