Defending your boat (pirates, angry mobs of fisherman etc)

[2020]

I have developed a non lethal silent (stealth) anti attack device for use on cruisers to defend against pirates and hoards of marauding homicidal fisherman. It has been used extensively for three years now with 100% success. I am willing to sell it to you and your crew for only $500.

https://as1.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/01/86/6...EsS9XpH54E.jpg

[Lee Jerry]

Originally Posted by PippaB

How many cases have there been when guns (or any other semi-violent deterrent for that matter) made the outcome better for cruisers?

Well, there's this classic example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxpQYbOzVQs

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by Lee Jerry

Well, there's this classic example:

Exactly. If you are serious then buy and read the book I linked to. It describes 40 real cases of piracy on bluewater cruisers, exactly what we’re talking about and it describes what works and what not.

People posting that it doesn’t happen simply have the facts against them as the book describes 40 cases and we have lost a number of friends to pirates and none of their deaths are in the book. Also, that wasn’t just in Venezuela. It happens offshore anywhere near Venezuela, Nicaragua, Honduras and even Guatemala. A friend was killed and his wife severely wounded and left for dead while anchored on the Rio Dulce, not 100 yards from a marina. Others were killed in Panama (by a Spanish so called “cruiser” who killed two incl. our friend) and also a Dutch couple at San Andres.

When cruisers rally’s go through the area, they go in a flotilla and get a Navy escort. Now, not decades ago.

The naive reactions are fine for cruisers who stay in EU or US waters, but when you venture out, you will be exposed to piracy, you can not always avoid it and if you don’t have a plan (which is mandatory and regularly trained for by commercial shipping) then you have a big chance you won’t survive it. The chance may be small but we lost 4 friends in 20 years, know about much more cases of people we didn’t know personally, plus many, many friends who were not harmed but lost everything. Plus, not to forget, we were chased by pirates ourselves.

Read the book.

[s/v Jedi]

Also, all you who are posting links about everything but the subject, you bl00dy know the info is all there. Here’s the story about our friends on Sunday’s Child. Tell Nancy about pirates not killing cruisers if you are so sure!

https://www.noonsite.com/report/guat...-2008-updates/

All the cases I described are available when searched on Google.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Giro

None of us should decide what posts should be ignored and what posts should not be ignored. Perhaps it is because I live in the USA, where freedom of speech is still allowed, that I feel the way do. Freedom of speech is still allowed here, currently, at least.

Just to be clear, 'free speech' is not allowed on CF. In fact, it is specifically denied in a variety of ways. See https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ork&page=rules

In particular note - We believe in public freedom of speech but that right does not infer that others have to publish your speech. Cruisers Forum is not a public resource; it is privately owned and we require members to abide by our rules and by the decisions of our staff. If you post outside these guidelines your post may be edited or deleted - this does not violate your right to Free Speech.


Remember, these are the conditions you agreed to when you signed up for free membership to CF.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Giro

None of us should decide what posts should be ignored and what posts should not be ignored. Perhaps it is because I live in the USA, where freedom of speech is still allowed, that I feel the way do. Freedom of speech is still allowed here, currently, at least.

Your freedom of speech in public spaces does not place an obligation on me to pay attention or even notice that you have spoken whether in public or private.

The corollary of freedom of speech is freedom to ignore.

Under ThreadTools there is an option to ignore a thread.

If you click on a particular poster's username in a post or PM there is a menu offering the option to Ignore that member's posts and I assume their threads. Ignoring a member hides all their posts, but quotes of it will still be visible.

Franziska brought up ignoring this thread as a means of avoiding the trainwreck it is likely to become. In the end this thread will likely be closed when it turns into a flame war and various members will likely be sanctioned to varying degrees depending on how rude/insulting they become.

I could be wrong, in the 13-1/2yr I have been on this forum there have been a few like this that just petered out. I'm hopeful this one does, serious cleanup after a bunfight is such a chore for the mods.

As Wotname indicates this is a private venue and members freedom of speech is somewhat restricted compared to a public venue.

In public you can be rude and the topic can drift in whatever direction people want.

Here if you are rude your posts will be deleted and you will be sanctioned.
If the topic drifts away from something related to cruising it will be brought back on topic or the thread will be closed.
If members start discussing ways to circumvent laws those discussions get shut down too regardless of whether or not they are cruising related. You want to bitch about laws, fine. Posts about circumventing laws get deleted. We are not interested in answering subpoenas for member's personal info.

If everybody can avoid being rude and stay on topic, the thread can keep going.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

People posting that it doesn’t happen simply have the facts against them as the book describes 40 cases

Nobody has said that it doesn't happen.

The questions are:

• IF, in your very small number of cases, the cruisers were armed... would it have changed outcomes? With what percentage?
• Does it happen often enough that every cruising Tom Dick & Harry should be losing sleep over it?
• Every offshore cruiser arming themselves on your advice has a cost: being a more attractive target to thieves, risking arrest for violation of local laws, risk of overreacting to non-life-threatening situations, risk of higher harm because of mounting an incompetent defense, stupid people (and their kids or friends) having stupid accidents. Are you not going to harm/kill more cruisers than you save with this advice?

One ballsy smartarse with a shotgun... got lucky. Not too many videos about for when it goes wrong.

When cruisers rally’s go through the area, they go in a flotilla and get a Navy escort. Now, not decades ago.

... seems a more sensible approach to transiting a known problem area than pretending you're Rambo.

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by Lee Jerry

Well, there's this classic example:

I must of missed something
How do they know they were pirates and not some fisherman cruising past for a look or to offer some fish in exchange for whatever?

I have boats come up on me like that regularly
I'd be locked up quick smart if I pulled a shotgun on them and rightly so

[PNWSalmon]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

You questioned “angry mobs of fishermen”. I showed them to you, now, instead of admitting they are there and killing, you move and counter ask. Doesn’t work for me.

They’re fighting competing fishermen.

[Mike OReilly]

The problem with these kinds of discussion is that too many people have a poor understanding of statistics and risk assessment. The fact that somethings happened says almost nothing about the rate of the event happening. Without that knowledge, all one can say is, there is a non-zero chance of something happening.

No one has said piracy, and the far more common basic crime, doesn’t happen. It happens everywhere. And there are indeed some places in the world where the rates of both are high. But these are few and far between.

One of the great boons of the cruising life is to be able to choose where you go. Most cruisers simply avoid the well-known danger areas. The first, best, answer to safety is to avoid unsafe areas.

If you insist on putting yourself in harm’s way, then by all means you better have various contingency plans. Certainly, being armed, and well prepared to use a gun, is one tool. But for the vast majority of cruisers, this is simply ill advised.

I cruise in an area where polar bears are known to venture. But way down south here on the NE side of Newfoundland, they are rare. Encounters do happen, but the real risk is small, so no one is packing heat. But for those who venture beyond mid-Labrador waters, carrying a gun, and having a plan to deal with bears, is wise indeed.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Nobody has said that it doesn't happen.

The questions are:

• IF, in your very small number of cases, the cruisers were armed... would it have changed outcomes? With what percentage?
• Does it happen often enough that every cruising Tom Dick & Harry should be losing sleep over it?
• Every offshore cruiser arming themselves on your advice has a cost: being a more attractive target to thieves, risking arrest for violation of local laws, risk of overreacting to non-life-threatening situations, risk of higher harm because of mounting an incompetent defense, stupid people (and their kids or friends) having stupid accidents. Are you not going to harm/kill more cruisers than you save with this advice?

One ballsy smartarse with a shotgun... got lucky. Not too many videos about for when it goes wrong.
... seems a more sensible approach to transiting a known problem area than pretending you're Rambo.

Your points are invalid and not true. I don’t think I gave advice to arm yourself, please quote me on that. Most people should not arm themselves because it would be downright madness. Everyone who has served in uniform or got training with firearms knows the responsibility that comes with it and that they are held to a much higher standard than the unarmed majority of people. Not everyone can take that responsibility, as is shown by the many bad cops and of course all the criminals.

The point I make in this thread is that this discussion doesn’t work on this forum because of unreasonable standpoints that result in activist behavior, like demanding threads are closed or comments one doesn’t agree with are deleted. None of that belongs in respectful discussion.

So instead I point to this book. Yes, it does provide a 100% effective method where in every case it was used it ended in nobody hurt and pirates aborting the assault.

There are no videos of proper resistance to piracy going wrong because it never went wrong. Just like it was claimed that it doesn’t work because there were no videos of it…. until exactly a video of it was posted and now quickly the video gets dismissed as being fake or irrelevant.
People will come up with Peter Blake being shot and killed by pirates because he shot one with a gun. That story isn’t true and it’s discussed as one of the cases in that book of course. Blake was shot not because he used the gun; he was shot because his gun jammed, plus he used it in willy nilly fashion without any plan.

Read.the.book. When you have informed yourself by reading it, I can’t believe one would have any questions left but at least at that point respectful discussion should be possible.

Just to make sure people understand this: if you would consider arming yourself, especially with the world going the way it does for the rest of the century (you know about the declining fertility rate and by the end of the century we only have half the population we have now, right?) then you must be fully qualified with the arm of your choice and also be able to legally own it. If you’re not, then it starts with applying for training whatever way this works in your country. In the US you simply walk into your local gun range and inquire; in stricter countries like Holland you need to go through loops which requires patience and persistence on a level that one needs to be a responsible gun owner anyway. I know of no country where this isn’t possible.

So don’t just get a gun and hide it aboard. It will end badly.

[Bycrick]

Statistics are often a lousy way to justify your preconceptions. Look at the number of boats struck by lightning versus the number of people wanting to know how to keep it from happening. If we used only statistics, nobody would pay thousands of dollars for a life raft that would very likely never be used. Maybe carrying a gun won’t protect me from a bunch of professional pirates armed with automatic weapons and RPGs, but it might protect me from an opportunistic bunch of drunks on a weekend night. It’s all about how people perceive the risk. More people are afraid of flying than are afraid to take a car trip. Yet statistics show …..

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Statistics are often a lousy way to justify your preconceptions. Look at the number of boats struck by lightning versus the number of people wanting to know how to keep it from happening. If we used only statistics, nobody would pay thousands of dollars for a life raft that would very likely never be used. Maybe carrying a gun won’t protect me from a bunch of professional pirates armed with automatic weapons and RPGs, but it might protect me from an opportunistic bunch of drunks on a weekend night. It’s all about how people perceive the risk. More people are afraid of flying than are afraid to take a car trip. Yet statistics show …..

This is an extremely insightful post. Not one that many will appreciate reading I'm sure, but an accurate synopsis of reality and human nature. Imho that is.

[sv_pelagia]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

The problem with these kinds of discussion is that too many people have a poor understanding of statistics and risk assessment.

Well, we certainly confirmed that during the pandemic....

[Bycrick]

Statistics don’t mean much when it’s a personal matter as opposed to an abstract risk. For example, I don’t care how many people are shot this weekend in Chicago. But I might feel differently if I were in Chicago. And then, there’s always the people who think they can force their risk assessment on others, because they know what’s right.