What's Your Opinion? Firearms or Not?

[sneuman]

I can't speak for the Caribbean, but here in "pirate infested" SEAsia, I have spoken to several charter boat and dive captains who have sailed these waters for decades and not one carries a firearm. They've decided it's more trouble than it's worth. 99% have never had a single encounter with a true pirate - they instead describe overzealous locals looking for a handout or officials who want a little kickback to be in "their" waters. It would be unfortunate to meet this sort of annoyance with a completely inappropriate level of force.

Originally Posted by Canibul

Ah, yes, forgive me. I had forgotten that pecularity of living in northern climates....'shrinkage'...

And I thought of a ceremony for crossing the equator.....but not on this family forum....

And for this reason, I am just going to leave this one alone Suffice it to say, unlike Costanza, it's not an issue And anyway, despite popular belief, we do get sunny and warm sailing days north of 25 degrees. I try to take advantage of both of them

[GordMay]

My daughter, Laurie, and son-in-law, Noel, met at the dojo. She was a competitive kick-boxer, whose sensei wanted her to augment her art with Tai Kwon Do training. Noel, a third degree black belt, became her instructor, then husband. Noel is a Detective-Sergeant with the Ontario Provincial Police.
My grandson, Jordan, got his brown belt before he was seven, but then lost interest (they wouldn’t test him for black till he was 10), and dropped out.

He has just now (at 10 y/o) started shooting (.22) under close supervision.

I suppose the armed among us could say that Jordan has transcended his unarmed heritage.

[Canibul]

Ah, the old .22 used to buy ammo in 500 round bricks. Spent many an hour with a Ruger 10/22, a Ruger Mark I Government with the bull barrell, and when I was a teenager I converted one of those Savage .22 rifles with the tubular magazine to full auto...

[BBill]

I can't resist...the same mentality anti gunners have can be used against martial arts for self defense. Martial arts are "dangerous"
if the "owner" doesn't know how, when and where to use them. They actually could be MORE dangerous than a firearm because martial arts can't be locked or left shoreside for safety. Just think how "dangerous" a gun toting martial arts dude would be.

Only kidding.

[kaj lauritsen]

Originally Posted by Pisces

Firearms or not, post your opinion on the poll.

you could use the old addage that people kill people not guns. this is not so. it has been discovered that if you posses a gun your chances of a violent death increase by 48%. also with the peter blake scenerio no one had been injured seriously until sir "arrogance" came storming out playing the hero. you can replace you possesions but not a life.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by BBill

I can't resist...the same mentality anti gunners have can be used against martial arts for self defense. Martial arts are "dangerous"
if the "owner" doesn't know how, when and where to use them. They actually could be MORE dangerous than a firearm because martial arts can't be locked or left shoreside for safety. Just think how "dangerous" a gun toting martial arts dude would be.
Only kidding.

Kidding or not, that gun don’t shoot.
You can point your finger at me, and no matter how “martially dangerous” your hands may be, I won’t feel as threatened, as if you were to point a gun at me.
The typical response to a pointed finger will certainly be much more moderate, than that to a pointed gun.

[Canibul]

I'm a firm believer in the martial arts. But you have to be within reach of a bad guy to use those talents. The guy with a gun has a much longer reach.

[BBill]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Kidding or not, that gun don’t shoot.
You can point your finger at me, and no matter how “martially dangerous” your hands may be, I won’t feel as threatened, as if you were to point a gun at me.
The typical response to a pointed finger will certainly be much more moderate, than that to a pointed gun.

I know you are highly anti-gun but...are suggesting/assuming a gun aboard means it will always be brandished to threaten, shoot or esculate the situation. Why do you assume that? Regardless, with your suggestion/assumption in mind, I can also suggest/assume a martial arts guy won't finger point and will always hit or kick someone to provoke.

In reality, most gun owners will not produce a weapon and martial arts guys won't kick unless they have no other way to survive. Neither group is as paranoid as you seem to think.



B.

BBill, I have to say, your comment seems a little inaccurate to me. Considering that the first teaching of marshal arts (all of them) is self control, there is huge difference between the posession of lethal skills and lethal weapons. Any moron can shoot a gun, and there is no requirement that that person aquire skills of self control. Quite frankly, I would feel much more secure around a person who has studied marshal arts, and is in posession of a fire arm, than I would the average gun nut. I would also be much more intimidated when that person decided to use it. It has been my experience that many people WILL brandish a gun as a first line of defence rather than a last act of survival.

[BBill]

Originally Posted by Kai Nui

BBill, I have to say, your comment seems a little inaccurate to me. Considering that the first teaching of marshal arts (all of them) is self control, there is huge difference between the posession of lethal skills and lethal weapons. Any moron can shoot a gun, and there is no requirement that that person aquire skills of self control. Quite frankly, I would feel much more secure around a person who has studied marshal arts, and is in posession of a fire arm, than I would the average gun nut. I would also be much more intimidated when that person decided to use it. It has been my experience that many people WILL brandish a gun as a first line of defence rather than a last act of survival.

Let me clarify...the post I was responding to eluded that a formally trained marshal arts person pointing his finger at someone was less intimidating than a firearm. That's a real no brainer and I agree...except anyone who points their fingers at bad guys in a hostile situation is likely to provoke the bad guy and make matters worse. I was in the merchant marines and chased with a meat cleaver once (no joke). Believe me, pointing your finger at some folks when arguing is going to get you beat up, stabbed or shot. You can't look eye to eye with some of them without causing a fight.

Anyway...exactly what are the "many" experiences you have with guns being brandished? Whatever, my point was the suggestion that the norm in a hostle situation is for a gun owner to brandish a gun is very far from accurate. There are approx 250 million privately owned guns in the USA and we have approx 300 mil pop. Add military firearms to the count and there are likely as many guns as people. Go check my numbers, they are public info published by our gov't. Look around the next time you are with people in public...there is a 95% chance a firearm is present...legal or illegal. Do the math...IF gun owners were as hot headed and irresponsible as portrayed here every person on every block in every city would see a gun their face quite often. Shootouts at the ok corral would be everyday. It doesn't happen.

The survey on this web site is a miniscule sampling to the many boaters who take firearms to the Bahamas. Many, many cruisers carry guns in the Bahamas and you never see one brandished for any reason. I lived aboard 10 yrs on the ICW in FL and cruised 2 of those. Between anchors dragging and generator noise I've seen a few verbal hostilities (one included me) between cruisers...never has a weapon appeared or fists swapped. Brandishing firearms at the drop of a hat is more hype than fact. So is the statement that firearm ownership leads to 48% more chance of a violent death...hogwash that can't be supported with credible data.

BB

BB, I made no mention of "many experiences". I can, however, cite at least three times in my life that I have had a gun stuck in my face. All three were by very serious people. All three had the intention of pulling the trigger. One had a sudden wave of common sense come over him,(He happened to be a cop), one was a member of a certain organization that that takes such things very seriously, and was talked out of shooting by a couple of others holding guns to his head, and one was a little altercation on the road, that was, again, settled by a sudden burst of common sense inspired by some additional partys. I can think of several additional times guns have been drawn around me, once that I was shot at 15 (the bullet only grazed my leg, but scared the hell out of me), and once when my truck was shot north of LA (Pulled a slug out of the fuel tank. So, if you doubt my experience, OK, there it is. If you doubt my familiarity with fire arms, that is your option, but it woud be a real mistake. I can guarantee you that the damage I can do to an attacker with my hands is sufficient to keep me alive. Granted, that person would have to get close enough to me for that to happen, and yes, you are correct, I could effectively blow the hell out of any approaching vessel that I deemed a "threat" if I were carrying a fire arm, however, as you can see from this thread, misunderstandings happen very easily. Somehow, I would hope any intelligent person would consider the risk of killing an innocent person unacceptable considering the low likelyhood of an attack. But, I guess some people are more afraid than others. Your numbers are probably correct. But, if you re-read my post, you will find that I was not stating that all gun owners will start shooting at every arguement, but that it would be more likely for the average gun owner, who is not trained in the proper use of the weapon, not trained in any sort of combat, and has had no specific training on self control since the second grade, is more likely to use a fire arm in an inappropriate way. Your comments equate a trained marshal arts expert (or student for that matter) as a more dangerous, and less controllable weapon than a gun in a locker. This is simply not the case.
As for shoot outs not being a daily occurance, follow the news in Salinas, Ca some time. Or Oakland, Ca, or Detroit, Mich, or Alexandria, Va... Everyone seems to feel they need a gun to protect themselves. From what? Other people with guns! At some point, someone needs to say enough is enough. That is my stand. I do not carry. I meet a dozen like you every day who do carry. Carrying a gun would not make me feel any safer when I meet those people. I respect your right to carry a gun. I respect your right to own a gun. I do not respect your right to judge me for not carrying a gun. Take that as you will. Feel free to start shooting any time you like. I will be sitting on deck with an extra beer in the cooler waiting to offer it to you.

[Alan Wheeler]

GUY'S GUY'S, Guy's, this argument is a little out of control. The real "wood has been lost among the trees".
The question that first needs to be posed is, "who is the enemy that we need to defend against"????? If the majority answer Pirates!! then most of you are all wrong. You have a greater chance of being struck by lightening than being boarded by Pirates. And that's a fact. And yet how many have made any prorities toward lightning protection???
I'm just putting this issue in perspective folks. I wasn't going to wade into this argument as it has been discussed with no real result for years here on this board. But oh well, I'm in it now.
Sooooo, over those years of discussion, many similar themes seem to come up.
We have the paranoid few that think that anything that moves should be shot at first then assessed for threat value. Hell, I remember some dipstick that had some high power gun mounted to the deck. They had a "target" on the Radar that was over the Horizon. The Target seemed to follow them, so they shot at the target and watched it change course and disapear from the screen. That guy was sure it was Pirates. Yeah right.
Then you have the "I don't care where in the world I am, my boat is my (country of origin) soil and I have a right to defend it". Well that's fine and dandy, but in some parts of the world, your boat is not considered such and you can be brought before the country you are in, judicial authorities and sentanced in accordance with their laws. In some waters, you have fishermen that don't see ownership of property quite the same way and will happily and inocently step foot on your boat to see if they can enter into a trade of fish for cigerretes or something of similar appeal. I believe a few fishermen have been thought of very differently and have never returned home.
And it goes on and on. There are always going to be two views to this argument guys. It's like politics, there will always be fores and againsts. My view is,
Is property ever that valueble it is worth risking your life over?
Are other peoples lifes that worthless that it is better to shoot first than take a risk they were wanting to be friends?
Remember, if you are a cruiser out there seeing the world, you have embarked on a journey to experiance other lands and cultures. That entails a certain responsability to actually protect that culture or land your are visiting. Kinda like going to the pacific and obeying certain "rules" that stop corals from being damaged by anchors and such. It's just that the Coral in this instance is another culture.

[seafox]

Bang bang to that....

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by Alan Wheeler

Remember, if you are a cruiser out there seeing the world, you have embarked on a journey to experiance other lands and cultures. That entails a certain responsability to actually protect that culture or land your are visiting

I agree wholeheartedly. I appreciate that when folk come from an enviroment were being armed is a good thing / prudent then it can be hard to accept that not everywhere in the world is the same. I have not travelled too far by boat culturally (only England, France and Spain), but non boat wise I have "been around a bit" outside of Europe.

A lot is also to do with perception. Alan, as you are in / from NZ I will mention a story from a good few years ago when I spent a few months or so in NZ (no boat though ), I was in Marlborough (a small town) where a well intentioned local was warning other folks about the "dangers" of a certain area in Christchurch (mainly concerning Drugees and Hookers and general lawlessness) - at first I was a bit p#ssed off that I had missed the more interesting bits, but after a while I realised it was the area I had already stayed in, and on a scale of 1 - 10 for "bad" it would (for me) rank as a 2 (and for someone from the worse areas of the States, it would be 10 points less than that!). In fact even I found it fairly dull. Apart from the pub crawl involving a Transexual Maori (built like a rugby player!), a dwarf and.............an Australian. ( ). Of course my perception of "Normal" may differ from others.