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

[team karst]

Gosh. I was hoping this thread would be more useful.
Ie: Camo (white or black, daytime/nitetime, etc
How to implement ballistic cover
The value of several points of fire.
Aiming considerations from rolling platform
Is this stuff in the book?
.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by team karst

Gosh. I was hoping this thread would be more useful.
Ie: Camo (white or black, daytime/nitetime, etc
How to implement ballistic cover
The value of several points of fire.
Aiming considerations from rolling platform
Is this stuff in the book?
.

People with actual professional arms experience are telling us in this thread that if deterrence isn't achieved and things progress to an actual firefight, you're screwed. That's pretty useful.

[team karst]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

People with actual professional arms experience are telling us in this thread that if deterrence isn't achieved and things progress to an actual firefight, you're screwed. That's pretty useful.

Yes. Maybe I would freeze, dont know.
I have worked closely with USMC on comm, nvg, concealment and small arms fire control.
I captured some vid with actual small arms action including equipment i was involved with. Clearly these guys are a cut above, and not even special forces. Just trained guys whose goal it is to get the bad guys and protect their own. Amazing to see in action. People like this will not give up when there is still a chance.

[ixnax]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Yes, minimizing their window of opportunity is important and part of why we got away without the need for a gunfight. Our case wasn’t far off Isla Margarita in Venezuela. Many cruisers departing headed out towards their next destination (more than half were intercepted by pirates, sometimes very violently), we headed out straight away from the mainland, minimizing that window of opportunity, still got them going after us. By motorsailing at high speed and demonstrating we would resist with lethal force, they abandoned the chase, probably going to find a softer target.

In some places, like Somalia, the pirates will be in numbers and heavily armed. Not so in the Caribbean where they have rusty shotguns and worn out revolvers. The armed cruiser will be better armed there.

Avoiding isn’t always practical. No pirates attack, even those with rape and murder, stop boats from participating in the ARC. Also, to get to the Suez canal there’s only one route and that’s running the gauntlet. We had to skip visiting San Andres and Providencia because of it being impossible to avoid a pirate infested area on route to our next destination Jamaica.

So in general I agree, avoid, run.

Many cruisers departing headed out towards their next destination (more than half were intercepted by pirates, sometimes very violently), we headed out straight away from the mainland, minimizing that window of opportunity, still got them going after us. By motorsailing at high speed and demonstrating we would resist with lethal force, they abandoned the chase, probably going to find a softer target.


Was there a war going on at the time? Many were leaving and half were intercepted by pirates and some violently? Over what period of time? Half of what number? How many easy targets were on offer to aid in your escape?
Maybe I am not so familiar with your seriousness as a poster but at best this sounds like an extraordinarily unique situation rather than an example.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

People with actual professional arms experience are telling us in this thread that if deterrence isn't achieved and things progress to an actual firefight, you're screwed. That's pretty useful.

Not exactly . . . lots of variables. But more importantly, several people with actual professional arms experience are also telling us that deterrence more often than not works, avoiding escalation into an actual firefight everybody dreads. Again . . . lots of variables, with the skill, training and disposition of the person mounting the defense likely being the most critical. Avoidance/running/etc. is obviously still the best answer whenever possible, with resort to arms always the last resort.

To the extent there's any sort of consensus here, let's be careful not to mischaracterize it for the sake of any one person's personal views. Nobody with any credibility is advocating lethal means by anyone without suitable backgrounds, etc.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

People with actual professional arms experience are telling us in this thread that if things progress to an actual firefight, you're screwed. That's pretty useful.

Dale Carnegie once wrote that the only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it, because if you lose an argument, you lose, and if you win an argument, you lose.

A similar aphorism applies to gunfights.

Nonetheless you may be drawing the conclusion you want to draw. People with self-defense training and experience that includes firearms use tend to be reluctant to give advice in forums like this where they cannot assess the context in which it will be understood. For a person skilled in self-defense who is defending against piracy (or other violence from a prepared and numerically superior adversary), firearms are a uniquely useful tool that improve the likelihood of a favorable outcome to the encounter. They come with tradeoffs. They require cultivation of a certain mindset which in and of itself requires tradeoffs. They do require skill to use effectively and such skill is not casually acquired.

I have the luxury of living, working, and sailing in areas that are largely free of violent crime. I try not to judge the decisions of people who lack this luxury.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Jammer

Dale Carnegie once wrote that the only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it, because if you lose an argument, you lose, and if you win an argument, you lose.

A similar aphorism applies to gunfights.

Nonetheless you may be drawing the conclusion you want to draw. People with self-defense training and experience that includes firearms use tend to be reluctant to give advice in forums like this where they cannot assess the context in which it will be understood. For a person skilled in self-defense who is defending against piracy (or other violence from a prepared and numerically superior adversary), firearms are a uniquely useful tool that improve the likelihood of a favorable outcome to the encounter. They come with tradeoffs. They require cultivation of a certain mindset which in and of itself requires tradeoffs. They do require skill to use effectively and such skill is not casually acquired.

I have the luxury of living, working, and sailing in areas that are largely free of violent crime. I try not to judge the decisions of people who lack this luxury.

This is a really important point which should be obvious but important to emphasize. Regardless of our backgrounds (except maybe highly trained military), nobody really knows how they will react if/when the time comes. They may like to think -- and may be correct -- that they will be able to respond appropriately, but it is a very different matter when actually confronted. But probably safe to say that someone who only sails in safe, protected waters and is already predisposed against firearms out of inexperience/fear/politics/personal philosophy are likely poor judges of the decisionmaking process of others.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Nobody with any credibility is advocating lethal means by anyone without suitable backgrounds, etc.

This isn't a forum of people with suitable backgrounds; its a forum of cruisers, one of whom - the OP- with no indication that they have a suitable background, has asked for tips for defending their boat against "pirates, angry mobs of fisherman etc". Any answer that doesn't stress the suitability part... is advocating.

As per Jammer:

For a person skilled in self-defense who is defending against piracy (or other violence from a prepared and numerically superior adversary), firearms are a uniquely useful tool that improve the likelihood of a favorable outcome to the encounter. ... They require cultivation of a certain mindset which in and of itself requires tradeoffs. They do require skill to use effectively and such skill is not casually acquired.

This pretty clearly says to me that the person without these prerequisites... should probably not contemplate ever entering into a firefight. They'd be screwed, very likely. Hard to conclude otherwise.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

This isn't a forum of people with suitable backgrounds; its a forum of cruisers, one of whom - the OP- with no indication that they have a suitable background, has asked for tips for defending their boat against "pirates, angry mobs of fisherman etc". Any answer that doesn't stress the suitability part... is advocating.

As per Jammer:

This pretty clearly says to me that the person without these prerequisites... should probably not contemplate ever entering into a firefight. They'd be screwed, very likely. Hard to conclude otherwise.

Hard to conclude anything really, especially if you've never been in a situation as vulnerable as your boat, and maybe your life and lives of loved ones, being threatened. I don't presume to know the makeup and background of thread viewers, but we've already heard from several who cite law enforcement, military and personal experience, and it would be foolish to try and label others as "Rambo's," fat & middle-aged, or other silly stereotypes for which we have no way of knowing.

Everyone seems to agree that lack of suitability is problematic, so no disagreement there. I wouldn't be so bold, however, to "conclude" that this means you're automatically "screwed." Perhaps with the images we all have of fast boats of Somali's with AK's, but that's not what most of us are concerned about. Instead it's the local opportunist(s) at the anchorage who may not be well armed or trained and as scared as you are. You also left out the potential benefits of deterrence, with at least one poster pointing out that 99% of the time this carries the day. It's not unreasonable to assume, as others have pointed out, that perpetrators generally prefer to take the path of least resistance.

This is why it's a complicated personal decision best left to the individual cruiser to judge the pros & cons for themselves, based on information that is presented as objectively as is possible on a forum. It's only when highly personal views on the issue of firearms generally are inserted into the discussion that these threads go south. Otherwise it's a concerning issue for many of us who have the inclination and opportunity to venture beyond our safe and secure local waters, and have thus never had to contemplate the need for lethal force.

[ixnax]

Originally Posted by Exile

Hard to conclude anything really, especially if you've never been in a situation as vulnerable as your boat, and maybe your life and lives of loved ones, being threatened. I don't presume to know the makeup and background of thread viewers, but we've already heard from several who cite law enforcement, military and personal experience, and it would be foolish to try and label others as "Rambo's," fat & middle-aged, or other silly stereotypes for which we have no way of knowing.

Everyone seems to agree that lack of suitability is problematic, so no disagreement there. I wouldn't be so bold, however, to "conclude" that this means you're automatically "screwed." Perhaps with the images we all have of fast boats of Somali's with AK's, but that's not what most of us are concerned about. Instead it's the local opportunist(s) at the anchorage who may not be well armed or trained and as scared as you are. You also left out the potential benefits of deterrence, with at least one poster pointing out that 99% of the time this carries the day. It's not unreasonable to assume, as others have pointed out, that perpetrators generally prefer to take the path of least resistance.

This is why it's a complicated personal decision best left to the individual cruiser to judge the pros & cons for themselves, based on information that is presented as objectively as is possible on a forum. It's only when highly personal views on the issue of firearms generally are inserted into the discussion that these threads go south. Otherwise it's a concerning issue for many of us who have the inclination and opportunity to venture beyond our safe and secure local waters, and have thus never had to contemplate the need for lethal force.

In the US we have a horrible problem of not only proliferation of gun ownership but a near complete relaxation of rules in some states. In many locales, open carry has made free speech subordinate to armed speech. It's become a near banality to read that another father shot his daughter thinking she was a crook breaking in not his kid just coming home for a surprise visit. If we've done nothing else we've certainly proved that most everyone who believes they should have a gun for self defense has already proved they should not.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by ixnax

In the US we have a horrible problem of not only proliferation of gun ownership but a near complete relaxation of rules in some states. In many locales, open carry has made free speech subordinate to armed speech. It's become a near banality to read that another father shot his daughter thinking she was a crook breaking in not his kid just coming home for a surprise visit. If we've done nothing else we've certainly proved that most everyone who believes they should have a gun for self defense has already proved they should not.

I respect your views but fear this is exactly the sort of highly personal one that is well off-topic and causes these threads to go south. Hopefully the mods can deal with this individually as opposed to penalizing everyone who considers this relatively uncontentious discussion useful.

[Don C L]

Nice to see the thread has remained for the most part useful and informative.

I have resisted joining in but perhaps my one and only anecdotal experience with an area with a reputation for piracy, quite a while ago, will be a useful addition. I have mentioned it before in other threads but in 1981 I was hired to join the crew on a yacht delivery from Sri Lanka to Hong Kong. It was a Frers 65 so plenty fast. We were going through the Strait Of Malacca which at the time had a reputation for the possibility of encounters with Thai pirates, or others looking for an easy target. It probably would have been a good place to avoid for a slower cruiser. We had heard some pretty alarming tales of Thai pirates at the time. The skipper who was very experienced in yacht deliveries planned to keep moving at 10 knots, either sailing or motoring. He did bring guns: an M-16, a pump action shotgun and a hand gun. But the skipper conceded in a gunfight we'd probably not do well. They were for discouraging anyone from thinking about it. (We had heard the Thai pirates carried RPGs, but who knows.)

We made the trip to Singapore without any incident and didn't even see any fishing boats closer than 2 or 3 miles. Once in Singapore we could see in the papers that ships anchored off were often boarded by armed pirates. Since Lloyds would not insure a ship if it carried guns, these opportunists knew they wouldn't meet armed resistance. As far as we could gather they would rob the crew and leave them unharmed and they were not organized nor "Thai pirates." I don't know what it is like now but I'd bet the Singapore government has that situation well under control now.

When we were at the docks and the customs guys came aboard they were going through the usual things to declare and when it came to guns the skipper decided it was better to declare them than have them found. The young guy with the clipboard looked up in shock. Bringing guns into Singapore could have been really big trouble for us. But, and I can only guess it was because of the local piracy occurring, he just said he understood and that he was putting down "none." Looking back I am astonished at our luck there.

So as far as defending oneself, what I came away with from that skipper going through THAT area at THAT time was: Keep moving as fast as possible, have some way of showing you are not powerless and avoid known hazardous areas. And KNOW the area. In some places fishermen may approach to see if you want to buy a fish or a lobster, not to rob you.

This seems to be the consensus arising here as well now.

[BG305]

Originally Posted by Simi 60

I didn't pretend to know what was going on at all
I made a suggestion of what could be going on.

There was no evidence provided that they were actually pirates
All that was shown was a boat approaching and a Muppet blazing away with a shotgun.

Just because a boat comes near does not make them a pirate.



.

Well not you, but your comment call on VHF is not going to work if they don't speak the same language

Have you ever ran up on a SV in a panga without knowing the captain of that SV? I will go out on a limb here and say almost 100% of the members on this forum have never done something like that. The answer why, none of us are pirates.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by Exile

Perhaps with the images we all have of fast boats of Somali's with AK's, but that's not what most of us are concerned about. Instead it's the local opportunist(s) at the anchorage who may not be well armed or trained and as scared as you are. You also left out the potential benefits of deterrence, with at least one poster pointing out that 99% of the time this carries the day. It's not unreasonable to assume, as others have pointed out, that perpetrators generally prefer to take the path of least resistance.

I had sort of assumed that the premise of the OP was high seas defense. In an anchorage, the situation is different.


On the high seas, the flag state of the vessel being attacked would have jurisdiction; judicial repercussions against the vessel's crew would be unlikely if use of force were at all reasonable and a good-faith effort at regulatory compliance were made (i.e. the weapons involved were lawfully owned and carried). In an anchorage, local jurisdiction would prevail, and judicial repercussions would be a real risk. At the same time, violence against cruisers at anchor is comparatively rarer, and the odds of a response from other cruisers or law enforcement to a telephone or radio report of a robbery in progress are better (though far from a guarantee).


I don't think I would plan to use firearms in self-defense in an anchorage except maybe in a jurisdiction where doing so is accepted and where I had citizenship, residency, or some other connection that would provide fairer treatment under the law. For me, that would in practice only include the southeastern states and a patchwork of other areas. Anchorages in these areas aren't particularly prone to violent crime.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Jammer

I had sort of assumed that the premise of the OP was high seas defense. In an anchorage, the situation is different.


On the high seas, the flag state of the vessel being attacked would have jurisdiction; judicial repercussions against the vessel's crew would be unlikely if use of force were at all reasonable and a good-faith effort at regulatory compliance were made (i.e. the weapons involved were lawfully owned and carried). In an anchorage, local jurisdiction would prevail, and judicial repercussions would be a real risk. At the same time, violence against cruisers at anchor is comparatively rarer, and the odds of a response from other cruisers or law enforcement to a telephone or radio report of a robbery in progress are better (though far from a guarantee).


I don't think I would plan to use firearms in self-defense in an anchorage except maybe in a jurisdiction where doing so is accepted and where I had citizenship, residency, or some other connection that would provide fairer treatment under the law. For me, that would in practice only include the southeastern states and a patchwork of other areas. Anchorages in these areas aren't particularly prone to violent crime.

I agree about anchorages in other countries and it's one of the reasons I opted not to have a firearm onboard. Good chance of being in possibly bigger trouble if you had to use it, or even threatened to use it.

I didn't realize violence against cruisers at anchor was rarer than at sea, and had always assumed the opposite. But then I never contemplated sailing in known hot spots such as the Malacca Straights, Venezuela, parts of C. America, Red Sea, etc.