A change of heart regarding self-defense

[drew.ward]

Originally Posted by sneuman

Since so many American cruisers say they would never leave port without a firearm, what are the stats, anecodotal or otherwise, of what happens when the would-be pirates are met by force?

The stats are pretty simple. There are a few stories of people who have fended off pirates with their guns and many more stories of people who had no guns being killed by pirates.

[Zerokini]

Originally Posted by drew.ward

Ya know,

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet and was key in the original post was that the wife asked if they would be sailing with a weapon. There is one major (actually the primary) thing to keep in mind:

If there is a gun on board, especially with that gun being on the ship for the purpose of self-defense, then EVERY sailor or regular cruiser on that boat needs to be fully trained in the use of that weapon!

A gun is just an inanimate object. But a gun in the hands of an idiot is dangerous as hell. Likewise, someone having a gun to use for self--defense but not being comfortable with it is just a recipe for that person getting hurt or inadvertently hurting someone else.

And finally, the decision to carry a gun is not just about what kind, or where to store, or whether to declare it. The decision must be a bit darker than that. If you are going to carry a gun for defense on your boat you MUST be willing and ready to use that gun to kill someone!

All this BS about warning shots and waving a gun to scare someone is good in theory but not in real life. If you actually need to get out your gun, then the guy you're going to be aiming it at is not a good guy. He won't think about what you're doing; he'll react.

Have a gun to scare them away, but if they don't immediately turn tail, you had better be ready and willing to start firing for real. If your conscience can't handle the repercussions and you think you'd be unsure, don't pick up a gun.

Absolutely agree on the training issue and the preparedness to take a life if necessary. In fact, it goes further than that: If you "brandish" a weapon to scare someone off, and they respond by putting a bullet in you, they'll probably walk: "It's was self-defense, your honor." You never draw a gun unless you need to use it, and if you draw it you'd better use it. Also, remember: There is a corollary to the argument that the gun is "the last resort." The reason the gun is "the last resort" is the fact that having it -- not brandishing it, but having it ready -- gives you time to evaluate the situation a little more calmly and determine as a certainty whether or not using it is necessary.

And BTW: You NEVER EVER use a gun in a self defense situation "to kill someone." You use a gun in a self defense situation to STOP THE ATTACK. If the attacker is killed, that is a side issue, and should be ruled "death by misadventure." In many jurisdictions, even if your self defense was justified, if you say your objective was to kill him in self defense, you are going to spend some considerable time behind bars or worse. You never have a "right" to kill. You do have a right (or rightfully should have the right) to stop the attack. (This is not legal advice. This is the result of my research and is provided for information purposes only. If you need legal advice, consult your own lawdawg or legal beagle.)

I would also suggest the in the real world it will not be possible to adequate train every crew person you happen to take on board. The weapon(s) should be kept under lock and key, and like everything else on board, safety is the captain's responsibility.

[bene505]

Originally Posted by sneuman

The epiphany here seems to be that Venezuelan waters are lawless...

I think you just captured the reason to have a gun on board. You just don't know where that epiphany will take place next. That with an "Ok, I guess it's not safe here either."

[Tellie]

Originally Posted by Zerokini

Absolutely agree on the training issue and the preparedness to take a life if necessary. In fact, it goes further than that: If you "brandish" a weapon to scare someone off, and they respond by putting a bullet in you, they'll probably walk: "It's was self-defense, your honor." You never draw a gun unless you need to use it, and if you draw it you'd better use it. Also, remember: There is a corollary to the argument that the gun is "the last resort." The reason the gun is "the last resort" is the fact that having it -- not brandishing it, but having it ready -- gives you time to evaluate the situation a little more calmly and determine as a certainty whether or not using it is necessary.

And BTW: You NEVER EVER use a gun in a self defense situation "to kill someone." You use a gun in a self defense situation to STOP THE ATTACK. If the attacker is killed, that is a side issue, and should be ruled "death by misadventure." In many jurisdictions, even if your self defense was justified, if you say your objective was to kill him in self defense, you are going to spend some considerable time behind bars or worse. You never have a "right" to kill. You do have a right (or rightfully should have the right) to stop the attack. (This is not legal advice. This is the result of my research and is provided for information purposes only. If you need legal advice, consult your own lawdawg or legal beagle.)

I would also suggest the in the real world it will not be possible to adequate train every crew person you happen to take on board. The weapon(s) should be kept under lock and key, and like everything else on board, safety is the captain's responsibility.

I'll never tell or suggest to anyone to carry a weapon. I still assert it's an individual decision. One that should never be taken lightly nor one taken away by law. I underlined Zeros comment because I believe that to be true. But I also extend that belief to assume anyone that approachs my vessel with a weapon believes the same.

[Palarran]

It's interesting in the two years I've been reading Crusingforum the sentiment has changed from the majority being against guns on board to almost all feeling they are nessary. It worries the hell out of me that it's such an important decission.

My postion - guns worry me, but criminals with guns scare the hell out of me, so I'll lean towards some type of arms aboard.

[Boracay]

I don't believe the underlying assumption of this thread, that all attackers are only interested in killing the crew and seizing the boat.

The number of reported incidents during the last 10 years where this has been proved to be the case is so small as to be almost statistically insignificant (Though not to those involved).

The safest course of action is to run up a white flag, surrender and to negotiate an outcome acceptable to all parties.

Criminals (even the psychotic ones) know that bloodshed or death is going to have a very undesirable outcome for them.

Any firefight is going to have an unhappy ending.

Guns are for the police and the military.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by drew.ward

The stats are pretty simple. There are a few stories of people who have fended off pirates with their guns and many more stories of people who had no guns being killed by pirates.

But the story linked to from the original post was a perfect example of someone dealing with the situation without a firearm.

[Ziggy]

Originally Posted by Bash

My guess...is that a Contessa 32's PHRF handicap would take a fairly huge hit with that sort of layering.

Safety first!

[Zerokini]

Originally Posted by Boracay

I don't believe the underlying assumption of this thread, that all attackers are only interested in killing the crew and seizing the boat.

I hope you are right. Stupidity can be a capital offense.

Originally Posted by Boracay

The number of reported incidents during the last 10 years where this has been proved to be the case is so small as to be almost statistically insignificant (Though not to those involved).

And, as a result of almost everyone adopting the position you have adopted (including, I might add, governments), the statistics are increasing. Aside from the fact that your argument is invalid: If someone points a gun at you, their intent is to kill you. End of story. Maybe you can beg and plead and give them your eleven-year-old daughter or your wife or your family heirlooms and/or especially your personal sovereignty and dignity and get away with it, or maybe not. The point is, because you have adopted the position you express above, you are leaving that decision up to the guy(s) pointing the gun at you. You have voluntarily put your life, and the life of your loved ones and/or crew, into the hands of someone who has already demonstrated that they would just as soon kill you all as look at you. Do you think that is real bright? If your negotiations break down and you lose people that mean your very life to you because you didn't stand up for them, how are you going to feel about yourself? On the other hand, if you prepare yourself, and fight, and lose anyway, at least you can't say it was your fault. Or maybe you can, human beings being perverse that way, but no one else worthy of your time could say so.

Originally Posted by Boracay

The safest course of action is to run up a white flag, surrender and to negotiate an outcome acceptable to all parties.

And die. Or worse, lose those who love you, and your personal honor in the process.

Originally Posted by Boracay

Criminals (even the psychotic ones) know that bloodshed or death is going to have a very undesirable outcome for them.

No. You cannot fathom the workings of the psychotic mind; that's why we use the word "psychotic." Nor can you fathom the workings of the mind that does not understand, or even conceive, of consequences, or moral responsibility, or the value of life. There are people who have grown up in this world without love and without care for anything but the pleasure of the moment. Like Billy the Kid, they could shoot you down without a second thought and turn and ask their buddy, "Wanna go over to the saloon for a drink?" Such people exist for no other reason than the fact that their victims have more respect for human life, even theirs, than they do. Otherwise they'd be dead already.

Originally Posted by Boracay

Any firefight is going to have an unhappy ending.

No question about that. But there are degrees of unhappiness.

Originally Posted by Boracay

Guns are for the police and the military.

Oh. You mean those government thugs that have perpetrated 12 genocides in the last 100 years, after first gratefully taking the advice of those who told them they couldn't govern the way they wanted to unless they first disarmed all the civilians?

You do what you want to, Boracay; I will keep and bear arms to help ensure your right and mine to make that kind of decision for yourself.

[Zerokini]

Originally Posted by sneuman

But the story linked to from the original post was a perfect example of someone dealing with the situation without a firearm.

The story linked to from the original post was a perfect example of pure, unadulterated luck. Or pure, unadulterated Divine Providence, if you happen to be religious.

Speaking of Divine Providence reminds me of the guy whose house was threatened by the nearby flooding river. As the water rose and rose, he first climbed up on the dining room table, then up to the second floor, then up to the roof. Meanwhile a motorboat came by to rescue him, and later another boat, and later a helicopter, but he waved each one away, saying "I got the Lord watching out for me!" Finally he was swept away and drowned, and when he appeared before his Maker he was very upset. "But Lord, I always trusted you to watch out for me, and you let me down!" And the Lord said, "I sent you two boats and a helicopter! What the heck did you want?"

The purpose of firearms is to restrain evil. Only evil-doers would deprive us of their benefit.

[SaltSeaSailor]

It's times like these that I ask myself WWJD?

as in what would Joshua do?....
....Slocum that is.

[SaltSeaSailor]

Now, along with fire, abandon ship, man-overboard, and where is the bottle opener drills my crew will practice anti-boarding drills, In my mind it will look something like this...

YouTube - Tall Ships Cannon Duel

[Christian Van H]

Originally Posted by SaltSeaSailor

It's times like these that I ask myself WWJD?

as in what would Joshua do?....
....Slocum that is.

He'd use tact....I mean tacks!

[Zerokini]

Originally Posted by SaltSeaSailor

Now, along with fire, abandon ship, man-overboard, and where is the bottle opener drills my crew will practice anti-boarding drills, In my mind it will look something like this...

Thanks, Salty; that was fun! As long as it's not real, it can be fun.

[Zerokini]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Look here: http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ntry-1641.html

I just realized I never said "Thank you" for this information. So, thank you to you and thanks to Gord May as well for posting it.

It looks like Fred Bastiat was right: Regardless of its established ideals, the purpose of government is to destroy rights to the benefit of the governors.