Common Objects to Defend Your Boat at Sea

[Franziska]

You pull a gun a them? Good chance not to see the next day...

Originally Posted by capn_billl

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ca...%20on%20yachts.

“Kidnap-for-ransom continues to plague the region, which is a trend that has unfortunately continued from 2016,” Pigeon said

OBP estimated that pirates carted off nearly $1 million in stolen goods in attacks in Latin America and the Caribbean.

12 boaters dead after pirate gang attack anchorage.

Guyana President David Granger called the attack a “massacre.”

New York Post

8,000 pirate attacks in the last 10 years, so a little more often than meteorites.

Out of what? 100,000 recreational sailors?

8% is significant.

Sure just innocent fishermen selling fish, but when they climb aboard with weapons out, they aren't going to "sell" you the fish.

[garyfdl]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

Seriously?

Wait A Second!: Second Circuit upholds New York's gun laws under the Second Amendment

Yeah, seriously.

Maybe, if you didn't bang your head so much you'd understand how our court system works...

[Zzmeyer]

"8,000 pirate attacks in the last 10 years, so a little more often than meteorites.

Out of what? 100,000 recreational sailors?

8% is significant." Wow! So for every 12 recreational boaters out there one has been attacked by a pirate. I guess I'm lucky as I have never met a pirate or a victim. Might be that there are 87,000,000 recreational boaters and not 100,000? Drops the percent just a tad. 240,000 drivers in the US were killed in the past 8 years, presumably all driving to their boats to be pirated.

[capn_billl]

Did you read the link?

The 2nd circuit court of appeals has upheld the 2nd Amendment, Zero times, and the NY gun restrictions, Every time.

So you've been arrested, go to court, found guilty, appealed, found guilty again, now what?

Spend life in prison, or file with the Supreme court, which has overturned 60% of 2nd's cases.

That is how our court system works.

[capn_billl]

Are there 87 million boaters in international waters, or are you counting every dinghy, and kayak sitting in a garage?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

There is always that one guy....
Note the large percentage of attacks that ended in Kidnapping or death.

Indeed, there always is one who cherry picks his data. NO, these reports do not indicate a large percentage of attacks ending in "Kidnapping or death." Quite the opposite. Did you actually read what you posted?

Most of what you reference deals with large commercial shipping, and most of your documents are over a decade old. No where does it come close to your assertion that 70% end in cold blooded murder.

What a couple of the relevant link clearly indicate is that piracy and serious crimes are highly localized, which is what has been stated here many times already. Since it's clear where the trouble spots are, the answer is simple for the recreational cruiser: Don't Go There.

As others have said, if you're that scared of the big bad world out there, it's probably best to stay home.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I'm tempted to just call BS here, but I'll give you a chance. Validate this astounding claim. Show me credible evidence that 70% of property crime ends up in "cold blooded murder."

Mike,


I believe your BS call is at least partially correct but perhaps not to the extent or for the reasons you think.


According to Criminal Victimization in the United States published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, victims sustain an injury in 32% of robberies. This is from the 1994 edition which what I was able to find quickly. Other sources that use different methodologies report other, generally higher, rates of injury.



You may find this article insightful and well referenced. While it comes from a pro-self-defense source, many of the references are neutral.



In personal safety circles, the usual statistic that is bandied about is that victims of robberies who comply without resistance are injured or killed in about 40% of cases. The percentage varies from place to place -- for example, it is higher in England where robberies are more typically at knifepoint than in the United States where armed robberies typically involve firearms. Key points to consider:

• Robbery is not a property crime. It is a crime of violence.
• The usual reason for self defense is avoidance of injury rather than preservation of goods.
• Nearly all reliable sources report that armed resistance reduces the likelihood of injury, but the extent to which it is reduced varies from one source to the next. Part of the problem is that analysis is confounded by the fact that victims are more likely to resist if they perceive that they cannot escape injury through compliance.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Jammer

I believe your BS call is at least partially correct but perhaps not to the extent or for the reasons you think.

According to Criminal Victimization in the United States published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, victims sustain an injury in 32% of robberies. This is from the 1994 edition which what I was able to find quickly. Other sources that use different methodologies report other, generally higher, rates of injury.

Yes, this seems to be true in the USA. I'm not sure how we extrapolate that to global cruising rates, but lets just use it. Unfortunately your source is over-simplifying this stat. According to a more comprehensive analysis (one of many):

The most recent data on robbery victims and their injuries, obtained from the NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey) in 2006, indicate slightly more than 1 in 3 of the victims of a robbery suffered an injury. Closer examination of that data indicates about 7% of the victims had their injuries cared for at a hospital.

In other words, most were very minor injuries. I'm not downplaying the trauma of a robbery, but simply stating 1/3rd result in injury doesn't provide the full picture.

But the claim I was disputing is this ridiculous statement that "As far as those who say "they just want money, hand over your valuables, and you will be fine. That works in about 30% of the attacks, and of course the 70% who were murdered in cold blood after handing over their money aren't here to discuss it."

From the paper:

In examining the proportion of robberies that become homicides, clearly such a situation is relatively rare. In the late 1970s, when at the peak of the rate, there were about 4.5 robbery-homicides for every 1,000 robberies recorded in the UCR data. In contrast, by the beginning of the millennium, the number had declined to approximately 2.6 robbery-homicides for every 1,000 robberies. Thus, the long-term trend is for decreasing lethal violence both in raw numbers as well as in the rate of robbery-homicides.

2.6 per 1000 is a FAR CRY from the claim of a 70% murder rate.

I don't know what "personal safety circles" are. I do know that most police recommend non-resistance to robberies. Surely you're not suggesting police know that this is bad advice, and that it will result in more injury and death?

Both papers make it clear that robbery situations are dynamic and hard to generalize. In the scary scenarios provided in your source, it's clear fighting back is the only option. But these are intentionally extreme and clearly not representative of actual reality (as shown in the data).

Again, I'm not trying to suggest violence is never warranted, or that some criminal acts don't end in serious injury or death. No one is saying that. What most of us are saying is that it's not a common occurrence in the cruising world. And there are good ways to reduce your risk to near-zero without needing to see the world through a paranoid lens of fear (not saying this to you Jammer ... to others perhaps).

[introverted]

Originally Posted by zamber

As soon as he said author of The Tesla Conspiracy...

[garyfdl]

First capn_billl said:

Originally Posted by capn_billl

A Federal law you will need to take your case to the Supreme court to enforce.

Then capn_billl said:

Originally Posted by capn_billl

Did you read the link?

The 2nd circuit court of appeals has upheld the 2nd Amendment

capn_billl,

Should a person run afoul of Federal law, and wish to go to court, their 1st 'stop' is Federal DISTRICT Court (not the SCOTUS). Should said DISTRICT Court find you guilty, and you disagree, you may file an appeal to the second 'stop' the Federal CIRCUIT Court. Should they agree with the DISTRICT Court, you may then submit your case to the SCOTUS. However, be advised, the SCOTUS receives thousands of appeals a year. They only address the most significant of those cases, usually around 100 or so.

Bottom line: Cases do not go to the SCOTUS straightaway (as you posited in your first post - but almost got right in your second post). And even if a case makes it to the SCOTUS review stage, it has have a damned small chance of it ever being heard by the SCOTUS.

I learned this stuff back in the 6th grade.

[CarlF]

60% of US gun deaths are the owner committing suicide

Only 1/3 of American adults own a gun - the percentage has been going down since the WWII veterans (who could take their guns home after the war) have been dying of old age.

Compared to Europe the US is a huge place with vast rural areas. If I lived in a rural part of the country I would own a gun for hunting and protection from wild animals. But where I live in Boston only a tiny minority own guns.

I've lived in the US for 65 years and can not name a single person I know who ever was involved in a crime where a gun was used (either by the criminal or the victim).

In my 40 years of cruising in Canada, US East Coast, Bahamas and Eastern Caribbean, I've never carried a gun on my boat and never had need for one. Nor have I ever needed "self defense" I only know one cruiser who said he carried a gun - a handgun. He spent a night in a Bahamian jail because of a foulup with the paperwork at customs.

Maybe I've just been lucky.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I do know that most police recommend non-resistance to robberies. Surely you're not suggesting police know that this is bad advice, and that it will result in more injury and death?

The best way to respond to violence directed at oneself (robbery, rape, assaults with a motive other than robbery) is controversial; recommendations and individual decisions are based as much on personal values and background as they are on objective facts (as we have seen in this thread).


The statistics are muddied by the fact that most attempted robberies that are deterred by the intended victim responding with a weapon are not reported to police. There is ordinarily no benefit to either party involved, or to any witnesses present.



It is my experience (having several friends and relatives in law enforcement) that police have a bias towards reliance on police response to crime. They believe that it is best for society, and in many cases the individual, to let the police do the policing. Further, most are not experts in statistics or criminology, and make recommendations based on personal experience which they view through the lens of their profession. They are also jaded by constant exposure to entirely fictitious claims of self-defense when dealing with the adult version of playground fights.


On the other hand, most law enforcement in the USA carry firearms while off duty, some going to considerable lengths to do so (either in terms of paperwork and authorization or carrying when it is technically unlawful for them to do so), out of a belief that it improves their safety.

[svGenesis]

Cans of tuna fish and cans of soup!

[33trippindaisy]

Originally Posted by 33trippindaisy View Post
my question will always be "What do you tell your wife after they hurt her and she asks YOU why you didn't stop them"......that IS my answer and always will be.

My question is: "You really think women are incapable of protecting themselves and need a man to do it?" Looks like that live-fire exercise with out hearing protection affected more than your hearing...

Thanks for the question, though I don't appreciate the little attack thats not necessary for a valid discusion. Hopefully you do not regularly insult those Veterans who volunteer to Serve and Protect you and all of our citizens. I identified myself as both a Veteran of the Military and of Law Enforcement and base my comments on actual life experiences. Maybe they are different than yours, but they do not warrant such vulgar snipes.

But lets look at the question you asked. I will use my own wife as an example of a woman who needs no man to "defend" her though my own chivalry would require my action non-the-less. In her case when needed.

My wife is a retired Police Officer with 90% of her time spent in the most undesired places and Districts in Little Rock, Arkansas. She was designated "Officer of the Year", County wide, as well as Officer of the Month a several occasions. Our Department had over 750 members so we were considered small by some and large by others. The violence in Little Rock earned itself a Documentary shown Nationwide on TV. It is certainly no joke, and can be like the OK Corral on occasion. She has shot 100% Expert on both Pistol and Riot Shotgun every time she has had to qualify, which is every quarter for our Department. I don't want her after me with a gun in any circumstance.

She is a small woman, roughly 5'4" and about 120 pounds. I have seen her execute handcuffing an unruly male suspect on three occasions (which I hated watching) and her deft and smooth execution of her takedown and cuffing amazed me. Lets say practice makes perfect.

Telling on myself, on one occasion before we were Police Officers and we very young we found ourselves in the middle of a bar room brawl. We headed for the door, but some woman jumped in front of her and grabbed her hair clearly ready to strike. The right hand to the nose my wife delivered would have made Mike Tyson smile. Surley this lady had no idea my wife's Dad was a career Green Beret soldier with no sons, just a little girl with a desire to protect her siblings, and a desire to understand fighting. When the mob allowed me out the doorway, the first thing I saw was my wife on the hood of a car, a bouncer punching her in the face, and her fighting like a wildcat. She tore off his shirt, kicked him in the gonads and kept fighting until the Police rolled in, which was mere seconds later.

I wished I could have helped her but it seemed like I was fighting six or seven people myself. We never found out "why" the fight started or who started it, but it was a mess. She held her own, despite a bloodied and messed up face and head she received in the battle. I knew right then I was married to a woman who would fight. 40 years later I still believe that.

This thread is interesting, as it shows us all to be different, both in perceptions and in beliefs. Thats okay for me. I don't poke fun at people for being different. My wife and I both grew up on military bases as our fathers were both career Military men. Maybe that bends us towards the idea of protecting others. Maybe thats why we both spent our entire adult lives in danger, preferring to be in danger to serve others. I do understand that many do not serve, nor do they ever have the calling to do so. Thats okay, we'll do it for you. Thats our job, and our Duty. We chose it willingly and proudly.

But again, back to the OP and the question.......I have enjoyed the thread, it has been revealing, funny, absurd, and yet at times informative. Seems like a good one to me. But I am but one person, and enjoy the perspective of others. I have no need to sling mud for your choices as they are yours. Still yet the "Rule" is......Choices and Consequences....it is as real as real gets.......be safe, enjoy your life, but never forget.......somebody's child is out there giving of themselves for you and for me!

[Tetepare]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

As others have said, if you're that scared of the big bad world out there, it's probably best to stay home.

I'm considering it. Last week I tried my kid's skateboard and almost died. They should ban those darned things, at least for use by those over 50.