GUNS

[sneuman]

Gee, wonder how that could have happened!

eskfreedom, we are not ALL wankers. I got your point, and I agree with it. THere is another thread that would be far more appropriate for continuing the discussion on gun control and if guns should be carried. Your initial question was well answered by GORD, but I would go a step further and invite comments by anyone who has actually dealt with cruising with guns to relate their experience with customs officials. I think that is a very important topic, and regardless of whether I choose to cruise with a firearm, there are definitely some, such as yourself, who will. This information is valuable to those people. It really doesn't matter if guns are good or bad. It also doesn't matter if you believe they should or should not be carried on a boat. The only relevant point here is how you will be received in foreign ports WHEN you enter WITH guns on board.

[CaptainK]

eskfreedom.

I know what a "wanker" is.

You need to chill out dude.

We have so-called gun fanatics (including myself). But, each and every one of us has our version of wanting to. Or not wanting to carry guns aboard boats.

I for one would only want to carry in self defense. And only "just" for that.

But I prefer actually not to really carry one due to the major headache it brings with the authorites.

That's my two cents.

[eskfreedom]

I'm chilled man. In fact I'm about as chilled out as I ever want to be up here in Oregon. It's June and it was 43 degrees today!

[Alan Wheeler]

Hey GMac, I reckon us Kiwis would be safe. We just need to fly a very large Black flag with the silver fern on it and we should be right. Ummm, as long as the Allblacks haven't just kicked the Pirates home team butt that is. Like, we may not be safe cruising Irish waters at the mo.

[sneuman]

Well, now I'm on the wrong side of the gun nuts and the Macgregor owners. Sure hope they aren't the same people!

[hellosailor]

GMac --
"I thought there were more states in the States than 50. Why am I thinking 53"
Have you been reading the secret White House Planning Guide for Iraqi Statehood?<G> No, last time I checked fifty states, one "District", and some dozen "insular whatevers" which include the odd possessions and war prizes like Puerto Rico and Guam.
Nations divided by a common tongue and all that good stuff, the meaning of "State" seems to have wandered over the years.
"If someone wants to do serious harm to you," Yes, which is why a lot of folks would say that there is an ulterior motive behind blaming guns for violence, i.e. proclaiming the effect of violence is the cause of it, and then conveniently ignoring the real causes, like a lack of self-restraint, a societal tolerance for violence and poor self-control, etc. Sailing tends to require some tolerance, patience, self-control, and the ones who blow it and start screaming often find themselves doing it alone, so maybe there's some correlation there.<G>
"if a baddy wants to knock off your house... to carry a gun if they think one is in the house." Well, there's an old saying about folks who show up at a gun fight carrying knives. (i.e., stupid.) Since the days of club and fang there has always been a reason for obtaining "superior force" and in the realm of hand weapons, the gun is often as superior as a force can get, so things tend to focus on it.
"More guns = more times they will go off. " Nice theory and to some extent true, you can't use what you don't have. On the other hand, you've never met a more civil, respectful, crime-free crowd than the one at a gun range. Leave you car parked with the keys in the ignition and the payroll on the seat, because no one is going to steal it.<G>
All of which comes back to the same societal problems on land or on sea. If there are bad guys being TOLERATED or SANCTIONED by a society, those bad guys will attempt to obtain and use superior force (guns, missiles, whatever) against anything they define as prey. If attacking dainty little yachts flying US flags resulted in massive US naval response (curiously enough, the Barbary Pirates in the same part of the world caused our Navy to be created for that purpose) then the pirates would learn "Don't attack those boats, it costs too much. Attack the French boats instead."
Yes, it can be that simple. But absent a radio link to a convenient air cap patrol from the nearest carrier, you have fewer choices. To be armed, and perhaps killed as a result, or to be unarmed. And perhaps robbed then killed as a result. That's a personal choice that anyone in that situation has to decide for themselves. Guns being only one type of weapon, and one that are very problematic when you cross international boundaries. Before there were guns, pirates used swords and arrows and other things. The Greeks and Romans fought major naval battles without guns, the modern pirates would manage to do the same.
-------------------
sneuman-
"The original poster said "
My apologies for being sucked into a digression. If I respond to you, as you've responded to me, are we still digressing? Transgressing? Or simply having a conversation?
"YOU posted incorrect information. The stats may not be to your liking, but I assure you they are accurate (U.S. CDC) - I can't help that."
I was quoting the Department of Justice Uniform Crime Statistics from the past 20-odd years. You are quoting the Center for Disease Control, which is odd since "guns" aren't a disease, although the misuse of them may reflect a mental health problem among the general population. Only the latter would be proper ground for a CDC involvement.
Statistics can and do disagree, when they are kept by different sources, from different data, for different purposes. So yes, we an both be accurate--and still have an apparent conflict.
"To reiterate (CDC stats for 2003 - most recent year for complete state - Gun deaths):"
"If you want to check for yourself, here's the link:
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html"
When I searched from that link, I wound up at http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe
and when I asked it for deaths from "violent" causes in 2003, it said 16,900+ suicide by firearm, 11,900+ homicide by firearm, for all ages, in all states, in 2003.

You're welcome to read http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm to find out what the correct agency has to say about guns and gun crime. Are guns often used in crimes? Sure. But as a million or so Hutus and Tutsis might have told you, before they were slaughtered with cheap machetes from China, guns are not the problem. Crime is the problem.
"Ok, ignore the raw numbers in my above post (i misread the link) - but the jist is still the same:"
Is it? You're lumping suicide and homicide numbers together, for a start. So let's subtract the 1242 suicides, and we find there were only 698 deaths from all other forms of gun violence, including police shootings, in Florida that year. You can play all sorts of games with statistics, don't confuse depression and old age with violence and crime.
I know the source of my stats. As Galileo supposedly said "Nevertheless it turns".
Gun deaths? Sure, but first look at the number of people drowned in wading pools, bathtubs, or at sea. Home fires, killed by smoking in bed. Kids chasing balls an bicycles into traffic. Drunk drivers. Put it all in perspective...and guns are a tool, like any other. Only a poor worker blames the tools.
==================
eskfreedom, my formal apologies if you feel your thread was hijacked. A little humor: See, we hijacked it without guns!<G>

[sneuman]

well, you said Florida's rate went down after "must carry" - so please point me to the relevant stats. I don't see a state by state breakdown on the Web site you cite.

The CDC has long kept stats on gun violence - they may differ from other agencies, but they are no less valid.

[GordMay]

The current acrimonious debate doesn’t serve any useful cruisers’ purpose, and certainly doesn’t address the original question*.

* Just wondering for those of you who DO have guns aboard. How much do you get hassled? What ports to avoid? How much paperwork is involved? Do you declare them or just keep them hidden? Any info would be great thanks!
P.S. I am not trying to start a gun debate here so please don’t start telling me not to take my guns or all about the safe alternatives. Like I said I AM going to take my guns.

Please play nice, children.

[sneuman]

hellosailor, first I'd like to point out that yours was the first post to turn this into a debate on gun control. prior to your post, we had all stepped lightly in deference to the original poster.

on the stats, please feel free to slice them any way you want. homicides/legal interventions:

CDC:
Florida - "must carry":
rate: 5.9
"Toughest gun laws in u.s.":
Mass - 2.19
Hawaii - 1.67

Specifically, you said: "When Florida passed a "shall carry" concealed carry law, armed robberies overall went down while they went up in the rest of the US."

that assertion was and is incorrect.

[sneuman]

sorry Gord May, guess our posts crossed paths. I, for one, promise to refrain from calling anyone a "wanker."

[hellosailor]

sneuman-
"well, you said Florida's rate went down after "must carry" "
I've never said "must carry", why do you keep putting those words in my mouth? Florida has what is called a "shall carry" law. Shall and must are two different words, and the phrase "shall carry" does not mean that "everyone shall carry guns" it is the generally used shorthand for "everyone shall be issued a concealed carry permit unless there is specific reason to not issue one".
I'm sure you think you know the facts, perhaps you could tell me how someone who knows the issues could so grossly misquote the CDC stats the way your earlier message did? Even I can remember when a stat is roughly 30-40,000 versus 140,000. Or a similar gross order of magnitude out of spec.
Florida passed their "shall carry" law in 1987. If you want to examine stats to see how that affected things--you should know that you won't find any relevance in the 2003 national stats, you need to look at the late 80's and early 90's.
"Before the law, Floridians were about 36 percent more likely to be murdered than other Americans; after a few years, the Florida rate was equal to or slightly less than the national rate. As for other violent crimes, Florida was the worst state in the nation both before and after the new law. Florida's overall violent-crime rate, however, rose much more slowly since 1987 than did the national violent-crime rate. " from http://www.policyreview.org/jul96/labs.html one of the many citations you can find online in may places by many people who bothered to check the sources.

Or try http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/fsac/ the State of Florida directly.
And http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/fsac/Cri...df/fed_ucr.pdf which compares Florida to the other states going back to the 70's. Remember, the law changed in 1987. You'll need to drill down some 20 pages to get that far back.

"that assertion was and is incorrect."
So far the only incorrect assertions I've seen, are your creation of a fictional "must carry" monster, and a fictional CDC citation.

[sneuman]

Look, hellosailor. The Web link you pointed to is a pro-gun site, so I will take anything I read there with a giant grain of salt. Unfortunately, stats for comparison aren't available immediately after 1987. But they are available in recent years - years in which Florida's crime rate has been well above average. So, even if (as you assert) the "shall carry" law reduced crime in Florida, it stopped working.

San Antonio Express News, 1997 report "Guns in America":

http://www.chron.com/content/chronic.../gunside1.html

"In Florida, which in 1987 instituted its concealed-carry law, critics of the Lott study point to the year 1993 when Florida had the highest rate of violent crime in the nation."

[sneuman]

and The Washington Post, April 26, 2005:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042501553.html

"Hammer stresses that violent-crime rates in Florida have dropped since the right-to-carry law was signed. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement reports that violent crimes dropped from 1,136 per 100,00 residents in 1989 -- two years after the law went into effect -- to 727.7 per 100,000 in 2003.

Her opponents counter that Florida's drop is not tied to the gun law and note that national violent-crime rates have been trending down. More important, Gelber and others say, is that Florida still ranked second in the nation, behind only South Carolina, in violent crime in 2003, according to U.S. Census Bureau statistics.

[BC Mike]

The problem is that the US folks keep quoting US statistics when answering posts regarding THE REST OF the World. TROTW generaly does not give two stuffs about US statistics. The US has a problem with killing their fellow citizens, whatever the means, but guns are a big part. This does not happen in TROTW, so why would anyone be interested in exporting US ideas on the subject. This is a global forum. US folks are welcomed in most places around the world with one caution. Please leave the US opinion of guns and the right to bear arms back in the states. These other places are sovereign nations and will govern themselves how they feel fit. They do not need US input, especially US beer. I am not saying the US is devoured of logic or good ideas. Small block V8s were a good invention, there must be more.
Michael