Would you shoot ...

[GordMay]

Graham makes a good point about the psycolocical affect of pumping a shotgun.
A professionally knowledgable cruiser (former weapons & tactics specialist) told me that one of the reasons police forces retained the pump-action riot gun was the unmistakable & terrifying sound of "Kir-Klick. Kir-Klick". Likewise, I imagine that the "little red dot" of a laser-scope could be very unnerving, as would the growl of a very large dog, or any sudden loud noise, or bright light in a quiet, dark place .
However, if none of these surprise tactics works; the "Kir-Klick" is the only one that's identified your exact location.
Methinks, the "Kir-Klick" better be immediately followed by a "Ka-Boom" [see ASA, above].
Hope it never comes to that!
OMO
Gord

[graham]

Good points Gordmay!

Gosh, I just wish I could go cruising,(as I am planning to), and the only equipment that I ever needed to deal with other people was a "welcome Aboard Flag", a SS cookout grill, some steaks, good wine and good conversation!

Just the same, a good SS Pump, with assorted ammo variants, is just another piece of equipment to me.
Hope it never has to come out on deck!

[GordMay]

I think we all agree that the safety of crew & ship is our common objective.
This discussion is about how to best achieve the most safety - I say most, because (as with all things) there are "trade-offs" involved here.
For another opinion - See the "IMO" recommendations ...
http://www.imo.org/includes/blast_bi...941&format=PDF
Regards,
Gord

[judgeharper]

Remember that in almost all legal jurisdictions in the world the use of deadly force to protect yourself is only justified if deadly force is being used against you or if there is an imminent danger of deadly force being used against you. In the end your decision will be judged with the clarity of hindsight, not in the fast and stressfull conditions of the action.

In my many years as a law officer, lawyer and criminal district court judge, often

an armed victim is more likely to thwart an attack than to shoot the attacker. Sometimes the mere exhibit of a firearm is more than sufficient to change the attacker's mind.

Remember that if you are justified in your use of deadly force, you are justifiied to continue to use that force until the threat no longer exists. Most law officers interpret this to mean, "Keep pulling the trigger until you hear the click-click!".

As a practical aside, you might remember an old Texas expression, "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight". In other words, it's too late to look for your gun when surrounded by AK-47s.

[delmarrey]

"Sometimes the mere exhibit of a firearm is more than sufficient to change the attacker's mind."



I suppose if I mount something that looks like a rocket launcher on my fore deck, I wouldn't have to worry about being bothered by AK-47's?

[F94Bill]

Hi Folks-
I'm amazed that less than half (in the poll) favor carrying a gun aboard a cruising vessel. Perhaps most replies are from local sailors who re thinking in terms of US coastal cruising? Actually, cruising the coastal waters of the USA or international waters pose two entirely different sets of threats. While the need for guns aboard along US waters seem unnecessary, it seems to be a necessity for world cruising.
There are many reports of attacks upon lone private vessels world wide, especially slow sailing vessels. The object of such attacks varies between robbery and the taking of the vessel itself. Many incidents are preceded by a period of stalking when the pirate observes from a stand off distance. Such incidents in recent years in the lower Antilles and coastal Central America have increased. And, other regions, such as coastal Africa and the Phillipeans are notorious for piracy. In most cases of piracy, there are none left to tell the tale. The crew and passengers are usually murdered.
I believe that the captain of all cruising vessels have a responsibility to his crew and guests to provide armed resistance capability. This should include crew training in gun safety, active firing practice at sea, and a practiced plan of response to piracy alert signals.
What kind of arms? Well, the piracy situ calls for rifles such as the 30.06 capable of 300 yards range. A pair of US sporting guns would be sufficient in the hands of a trained crew. For protection while docked or anchored, a hand gun or shotgun should suffice, along with crew training to warn off any who would attempt to board.

The Captain also needs to acquaint himself with the legal international rights of US documented vessels in foreign ports as to disclosure, search, and siezure of firearms. Generally, a documented US vessel is considered a soverign extension of the USA and not subject to boarding or search except when charged with a criminal act. Of course, the arguement becomes weak when faced with a boarding party from an armed gunboat. So, better to keep guns stowed out of sight.

Bill Jones

[Troubledour]

judgeharper raises a good point about the legality of lethal force & it would be wise to know where you stand wherever you may be.

For example, in my state you have every right to stand your ground, you're not required to retreat if it’s possible to do so. It's also perfectly legal to put somebody down that's merely attempting to get into your home or business (we do have case law supporting that premise). Of course, criminal acts that threaten yourself or another with death or serious bodily injury are a no-brainer … but not necessarily elsewhere.

In Massachusetts for example (& possibly other states or countries), you are essentially required to corner yourself & leave yourself with no possible option for escape before you can "reasonably" turn & fight. And there's the hook, most legislation will include language like "reasonable" & "reasonable" will very possibly be determined by a jury of 12 & (or) standing case law & (or) the political leanings & political aspirations of the local prosecutor & NOT necessarily by statutory law.

With that in mind I think you need to be very aware of local standards before introducing something like a firearm into any situation. Actual Legal Standards, btw, not anecdotal anything.

An example of that, if anybody's discussing this subject around here somebody is almost sure to say "don't let 'em get in the door to begin with, but after you do put the mutt down drag him inside so it'll "look" like a clean shooting".

heh, no, no, NO ! The judge can tell you that the surest route to a 2 bunk suite & an altogether too close relationship with some 250lb, 2 digit IQ that immediately takes to calling you "sweetcheeks" is to tamper with a crime scene. Know the standards, know the local case law or take your chances with or without weapons.

This gets back to the necessary training that several others have mentioned. This isn't as simple as deciding "no gun". If no gun, then what ? What would you do to defend your own ? If you do choose to be armed, training isn't optional, it's obligatory that you be capable of using your weapon with precision. Further, you have a responsibility to yourself, your family & the innocent non-combatants around you to KNOW what a "reasonable" response would be wherever you are & to plan & to act accordingly.

This is not an easy issue … "would you shoot" is not an easy question ... there are very reasonably different answers under very different circumstances and certain choices do reasonably dictate certain responsibilities.

For myself, I tend to lean toward the old adage "I'll prefer to be judged by 12 & not buried by 6". Believe this though, I won't be the least bit surprised if I'm someday attacked by someone that ultimately insists on being put down & then, as a result of successful defense, being attacked by the criminal justice system for having done what needed doing.

Once again, there are no easy answers here & ultimate decisions in this area have to be personally determined by what each person can live with.

Troubledour

[GordMay]

F94Bill once whispered in the wind:

"... The Captain also needs to acquaint himself with the legal international rights of US documented vessels in foreign ports as to disclosure, search, and siezure of firearms. Generally, a documented US vessel is considered a soverign extension of the USA and not subject to boarding or search except when charged with a criminal act... "

Bill Jones [/B]

I'm not certain that any Flag (documented vessel or not) offers the protection of "sovereignty", such as (say) an Embassy enjoys.
I'd like to hear any learned opinions on Flag Protection, including any references the author might offer in support of the statement (I could be totally wronge).
Regards,
Gor

[Stede]

F94Bill, and all;

When I sail my boat single-handed offshore, I carry a pistol grip, police style 12 gauge shotgun in my cockpit locker for “sharks.” It doesn’t require a lot of aiming. My first course of action regarding a suspicious looking boat approaching me is to watch them through my binoculars. If I feel like something isn’t right, I place my shotgun in my lap, in full view as they approach. The gun is loaded, and the safety will be off. Not much of a welcoming invite you might say. Well, I believe we live in a dangerous world my friend. Most criminals understand the concept of a 12 gauge shotgun and are not willing to take the chance that they won’t be hit at close range. I believe honest boaters will understand preventative measures in open water, but if not, so be it. When I’m out in open water in an unfamiliar area, no one comes on board my boat. Someone might say, “what about emergencies,etc.” To that I say, “What if the cow really did jump over the moon?” You obviously have to use your own judgment. The Caribbean, Bahamas, and other favorite locales of cruisers, are unfortunately areas known for high drug trafficking. Most criminals, when not “on the job” aren't usually sitting around checking out how the DOW is doing.They're usually consuming massive amounts of alcohol, and drugs.Let me reiterate here that I don’t suggest that my methods are the best. You can place all kinds of “what if” scenarios here and I’m sure that some will question my methods. The bottom line though, is that I don’t let anyone on my boat in open water, and I go by what works for me. If I’m out gunned by some frigging pirates with a cannon on board, then that’s just the way it goes down. I’ll take my chances. If someone that I didn't trust were to ask me for supplies out in open water, I would oblige them if I could, but they would first have to place several boat lengths between them and myself, and then I would leave the supplies floating for them. If that isn’t possible, then I guess it’s just not their lucky day. The question of using lethal force is a sensitive subject, and I don’t know that there is one correct answer. I do what I believe is right for me, and I respect what others feel is right for them.

[Troubledour]

Sounds like appropriate & reasonable caution to me. You're considering your environment & the simple fact that the unexpected can be expected.

Around here you don't have to get far from town at all before you can reasonably expect to be met by a shotgun or carbine when approaching property where you're not known. This is reasonable caution & shouldn't be confused with that old coot at the edge of town, the guy that likes to sit on the porch in his skivvies with a gaggle of flea bitten dogs, drinking from a jug, shooting at crows & cussing the neighborhood kids.

Troubledour

[Stede]

Troubledour,

Thanks for your response.It's always good to hear from people that keep an open mind concerning gun use. While sailing single-handed, I've been approached by many shady characters in ports offering to sell me everything from drugs, to lobsters caught out of season. I' ve often wondered how hospitable they would be if they were offshore approaching a yacht worth thousands of dollars. I prefer not to bet my life playing "pirate roulette" with these scumbags.

[GordMay]

Troubledour once whispered in the wind:
This is reasonable caution & shouldn't be confused with that old coot at the edge of town, the guy that likes to sit on the porch in his skivvies with a gaggle of flea bitten dogs, drinking from a jug, shooting at crows & cussing the neighborhood kids.

Troubledour [/B]

Aha, there's where I've been going wronge. I DID suffer that confusion. Thanks for clearing that up.
Gord

[Troubledour]

They have crows at sea ? COOL ! I'll have a hobby.

Troubledour

[GordMay]

I think that there ARE conceivable circumstances wherein having a firearm aboard could be useful or even necessary to our survival. Fortunately, those conditions are likely to be rare, and can be (for a large part) avoided.

Most cruisers (that I’ve met) are unwilling, as am I, to, at all times, stand armed guard. We’ve got more enjoyable things to do - and maybe we discount the need to do so out of a naive sense of denial (I don’t think so). Any weapon is (more or less) useless if it’s not “at hand” when needed.

So having evaluated the various trade-offs involved in “carrying”, how may I maximize the potential benefits of being armed?

I must keep the weapon ‘handy’, and be prepared to greet all “potential” bad guys with a loaded gun - and then be prepared to (decide to and then ) use it, and face any resulting consequences (escalated violence, legal, moral ...). The more “hair trigger” my attitude, the greater potential benefit I might derive from my firearm. If I’m not prepared to greet all “suspicious” strangers with gun-in-hand, I’m not likely to be armed when I need to be.

I suspect that most pirates don’t hoist a “Jolly Roger”, allowing you to assess the danger at a distance. They rely on stealth, backed up or followed by overwhelming (& unconscionable) force.

So who’s a “Gun-Totin’ Hilllbilly”, and who’s a prudently armed & self-reliant cruiser?

The hillbilly gunslinger will be seen brandishing his weapon at all approaching strangers, will not offer the time honored aid at sea required by virtue & ethics, and perhaps by law, and will be that belligerent, aggressive personality most of us (I at least) find so offensive.

The self-reliant cruiser, armed with knowledge, skill, judgement, and FIRE-ARMS does not present a danger to those around him - he’s, also, unkikely to derive the anticipated benefit from his armament.

Your deliberate & contemplative writings suggest that you are not a Hillbilly, no matter where you reside, nor how many fire-arms you own. You “read” self-reliant. I must, also say, you read VERY WELL (that is you write, I read you)!

How deep runs our basic disagreement? While I try to maintain (or strive towards) an intellectual approach to these debates; I’m certain that my cultural & other biases underlie (& colour) much of my declared viewpoint. Perhaps my “Maple Leaf” is showing here (I’m Canadian). No, you are not likely to “convert” me - but I sincerely want to learn from your argued point-of-view. I’ve very little to learn from those who agree with me! I’ve found your writings to be intellectually stimulating, and very intriguing (especially your very well-turned phraseology - you are, indeed, a talented writer).

I approve of civility, tact, and open-mindedness in any debate. I also understand that simple declarative statements elicit counter-arguments, which form the basis of PROGRESSIVE argument. I like the Hegelian dialectic, where one proposes a Thesis, another replies with an Antithesis, and a Synthesis results.

Very best regards,
Gord

[Troubledour]

Thanks for the kind comments. I can't think of anyway to extend this, or any particular point in doing so, but thought I'd post the messages behind your above post. Didn't see any reason not to & I thought others might enjoy your own turn of phrase, "there be crows here". I know I did.

Troubledour

=============================================

GordMay wrote on 02-10-2003 06:26:
The old charts used to say "There Be Dragons Here", incating unknown /unchartedterritory.
Perhaps modern charts could be marked "There be Crows Here", indicating my current anchorage.

Actually, that's exactly how I visualize the (very few) macho gun-totin' cruisers - as hillbilly varmint killers - and I'm every bit as fearful of them, as I am of 'pirates' etc.

I DID enjoy your turn of phrase, and must admit that (I suspect all of us - certainly myself) are forced into radical declaratives by the very nature of concise posting on a forum. It's very difficult to fully delineate a complex position, without going to book-length.

I'm certain that most firearms advocates are not the hillbilly types (that I satarise them); nor are we unarmed wimps quite as pacifist as we might appear.

Anyway, I enjoy your postings.

Regards,
Gord

=============================================

Re: dragons & crows

Thanks, excuse the delay, I haven't been watching for private messages & when I did spot it I had to find the inbox.

Clearly we do have different views on this topic & that's fine. If there's anything that distresses me it's the prevalence of the "bubba's" that more than validate your own viewpoint.

I have a strong belief in personal responsibility & self-reliance. While I seriously doubt that those core beliefs are at odds with those of sailors in general, or cruisers in particular, I am equally certain that we'll all define & apply those common traits differently as the individuals that we are.

Not sure what else to say, aside from the fact that we pretty much beat this topic to the limit in the forum. It’s clearly a polarizing issue but I’m not sure that it needs to be. If we all apply whatever we believe conscientiously & with regard to our neighbors, there should be no problem. One of my hopes for cruising is that I’ll find people that will do exactly that.

Troubledour

=============================================

advocates

Ok, I said we'd beaten it pretty good but something that occurred to me while I was outside dealing with neighbors that ended up being cuffed & stuffed ... I think the firearms advocates do bear watching. A more reasoned advocacy is one of peace, mutual respect & support (thereby mitigating a "need" for crime), tolerance for the differences that should make us interesting to one another, etc.

These would be laudable goals & the fact that we haven't achieved the above shouldn't keep us from striving for the above. We have to bear in mind, however, that we in fact have not achieved those goals. There are those that would do us harm, randomly, indiscriminately & for no apparent reason beyond the fact that they can.

The people that I don't believe you need to be concerned about are those that want & work for better but recognize that we live in an imperfect, often violent world. I count myself among those people & if you've read all of my posts on this topic you know that I see weapons of any sort as only a last ditch effort at surviving the potential failures of other options.

"There be dragons here" ... welp, I've seen dragons & I've dealt with dragons. I've tried to avoid dragons, I've tried to charm dragons, I've tried to educate dragons, I've tried to ignore dragons, & yes, I've responded far more harshly to a couple of dragons but when confronted with still more dragons I simply fall back to the beginning & try again.

I am indeed a "gun totin' hillbilly" & have been all my life. I'm not sure why it's important to me that you understand this, I'm not trying to "convert" you. I would like to think that you see the distinction between those that advocate goodwill & see the occasional necessity of a weapon as only the last option in a sequence of failures & those that simply advocate GUNS, MO' GUNS without remorse or regret.

Troubledour