For all promoting flare guns for self defense

[cuthbert]

I'm suprised thus far that no one has mentioned that given the propensity for gun owners to inadvertantly shoot their dick off or similar, there hasn't been comment on the risk of a drunken misfire punching a hole in the fiberglass (and maybe killing a fish simultaneously?).

At this point the discussion should veer to the relative benefits of circa 1960 to 1970's early fiberglass boats vs the scourge of the internet seas, to wit- a Beneteau.

Perhaps it is better for the aforementioned dick shot to exit the vessel than to bounce around inside causing mayhem. Avantage la France!

[garyfdl]

So here's a question about flare gun inserts: how do you remove the expended round?

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Group9

I always get amused when people people hold up Europe as an example of what you get when you don't have a lot of personal firearms ownership, when I think of things like the Holocaust, Stalin's Purge, and a lot of other genocides that have occurred over there. I'll take lots of random criminals, committing random crimes, over organized government slaughter, any day.

Although I will admit, that most totalitarian dictatorships, have very low rates of street crime. I still don't want to live in one.

And I apologize for the thread creep, and my contribution to it, away from flare guns for self-defense. I was over at my brother-in-law's house the 4th of July and they were shooting fireworks, and once again I remembered the 20 or so expired handgun flares I have, that I keep meaning to play with an experiment with on the 4th of July every year that I always forget, until I actually see fireworks going off, LOL.

Actually I didn’t advance the point you make about Europe. I actually advanced the point that the European perspective is that the state is specifically charged with personal protection of its citizens not the citizens individually.

I further advanced the point that the exceedingly bloody European history right up to almost present day has perhaps convinced European citizenry that firearm proliferation isn’t a great idea. There is no demand for easing gun laws in Europe in fact the public viewpoint is currently much tougher on firearm ownership that most European national legislation is.

Hence my point that firearm viewpoints are very different. I’m not passing judgement on which one is better , safer , etc etc as that’s just a rabbit hole.

What bemuses me is a discussion on converting flare guns in a country where ordinary firearms can easily be obtained because doing a similar thing where firearms are heavily restricted is very foolish indeed

I suspect the intent of these posts is “ he he look at me giving one to the man and devising a “ clever “ way around national restrictions on firearms “. The reality is that thinking causes you to land in jail when you intended just to go sailing.

[Group9]

Originally Posted by cuthbert

I'm suprised thus far that no one has mentioned that given the propensity for gun owners to inadvertantly shoot their dick off or similar, there hasn't been comment on the risk of a drunken misfire punching a hole in the fiberglass (and maybe killing a fish simultaneously?).

At this point the discussion should veer to the relative benefits of circa 1960 to 1970's early fiberglass boats vs the scourge of the internet seas, to wit- a Beneteau.

Perhaps it is better for the aforementioned dick shot to exit the vessel than to bounce around inside causing mayhem. Avantage la France!

You know someone who had shot their dick off? Well. I don't have a story to beat that.

[NCWDave]

Drops mic.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Like I wrote, if it is self defense where someone tries to kill you, you will be found innocent of the violence used (i.e. it was justified) and you will be found guilty for possession of an illegal gun.

Stunningly bad advice.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by cuthbert

I'm surprised thus far that no one has mentioned that given the propensity for gun owners to inadvertantly shoot their dick off or similar, there hasn't been comment on the risk of a drunken misfire punching a hole in the fiberglass (and maybe killing a fish simultaneously?).

I am with you!

Why think about sinking your own boat when you can flaunt your Wild West machismo with lame fantasies about shooting people and sailing off into the sunset? These are people who seem to actually believe American Westerns and crime movies are reality.

In most countries you will end up in a maelstrom of trouble if you shoot a local, regardless of your justification. You will likely end up in a horrific jail with no civil rights, wishing that they would take five dinghy outboards motors to let you out of there.

[Allied39]

Originally Posted by garyfdl

So here's a question about flare gun inserts: how do you remove the expended round?

They pop right out, no issue.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Paul L

If it was true it would be an interesting statistic, but it isn't true.

Check Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, etc

https://worldpopulationreview.com/st...apita-by-state

This is pretty misleading because there’s a big difference between gun violence and gun deaths As this article states, most gun deaths are suicide. If you remove suicides from the total numbers killed to arrive at the number killed by others, then the numbers of deaths go way down in states cited that have lax gun laws and high gun ownership rates. In states with strict gun laws and fewer guns, the criminals still have guns but law abiding people who want to commit suicide use some other method. This lowers the numbers of people killed by firearms but it has nothing to do with lowering violent crime.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by lestersails

I am with you!



Why think about sinking your own boat when you can flaunt your Wild West machismo with lame fantasies about shooting people and sailing off into the sunset? These are people who seem to actually believe American Westerns and crime movies are reality.



In most countries you will end up in a maelstrom of trouble if you shoot a local, regardless of your justification. You will likely end up in a horrific jail with no civil rights, wishing that they would take five dinghy outboards motors to let you out of there.

You seem to be having a pretty lame fantasy yourself regarding people believing Wild West movies and flaunting their machismo. Nobody has suggested that they want to do that. But I guess you have the right to enjoy any fantasy that you choose.

You’re undoubtedly right that it would be a very unpleasant experience to say the least to be imprisoned in a foreign country. But what responsible gun owners like Jedi advocate is to use their gun only when the only other alternative is to allow them or their loved ones to become a victim of violent crime. I know that’s pretty far from your fantasy but that’s the sort of situation this discussion has been about. It’s not machismo, it’s using an effective tool in a last ditch effort to stop something bad from happening, knowing that the aftermath of the situation will be very difficult. But as bad as it’s likely to be, it’s better than allowing your family to be brutalized, raped, or killed.

If I were cruising in the Caribbean with guns onboard I’d still take all other precautions I could think of such as avoiding islands with high crime and anchoring near others and leaving lights on and locking my companionway and leaving the area if I even caught a whiff of danger, but if despite all my best efforts to avoid danger, it came to me, I’d rather have the means to fight back effectively than become a victim or to watch my wife become a victim.

I’m not advocating for or against carrying guns onboard because it’s unlikely a cruiser will ever need one and it’s a bit of a PIA to have to properly store it and report it, and because lots of cruisers don’t have the proper training or knowledge to use one effectively and appropriately, but it’s a viable means of protection for some cruisers and has nothing to do with machismo.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Stunningly bad advice.

If that advice is so stunningly bad, then you must have a much better alternative about how best to handle the situation where you are alone in an isolated spot and someone seems determined to violently attack you? So, what is your stunningly better advice?

Of course no one can know in advance what determination a jury might make, but I think that’s sort of irrelevant if you reserve using your guns for situations where it looks like you’re going to be killed if you don’t use them.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6….

[garyfdl]

Originally Posted by Allied39

They pop right out, no issue.

So, there's an ejector, like on a single shot rifle/shotgun or double barreled shotgun?

[Group9]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

This is pretty misleading because there’s a big difference between gun violence and gun deaths As this article states, most gun deaths are suicide. If you remove suicides from the total numbers killed to arrive at the number killed by others, then the numbers of deaths go way down in states cited that have lax gun laws and high gun ownership rates. In states with strict gun laws and fewer guns, the criminals still have guns but law abiding people who want to commit suicide use some other method. This lowers the numbers of people killed by firearms but it has nothing to do with lowering violent crime.

There is another statistic that also accounts for most of the murders in Louisiana Mississippi and Florida. But it is that thing of which we do not speak, but nevertheless is one of the major factors and how many gun related murders you are going to have. To put it nicely, when your state has high percentages of the demographic that commits an outsized number of the murders then you're going to have more murders.

The FBI crime statistics lays it all out for anyone who wants to actually look at it and come to their own conclusion.

[Group9]

And there are a lot of ways to manipulate statistics. When the shock trauma center was put into service in Baltimore, they saved a lot of people and turned them into mere shooting victims, many of whom would have been homicide victims. The city of Baltimore immediately declared that their homicide rate was going down, without mentioning that they're shooting rate was going up, and people were just getting saved that would have died before and that crime was basically the same or increasing.

[OutOfControl]

Originally Posted by Group9

And there are a lot of ways to manipulate statistics. When the shock trauma center was put into service in Baltimore, they saved a lot of people and turned them into mere shooting victims, many of whom would have been homicide victims. The city of Baltimore immediately declared that their homicide rate was going down, without mentioning that they're shooting rate was going up, and people were just getting saved that would have died before and that crime was basically the same or increasing.

A previous link in this thread attempted to correlate strict gun laws with lower firearm deaths.
However the article states the following,

"But while the correlation is clear, there is little hard evidence of cause and effect."

"While the cause and effect may seem intuitively obvious, there are apparently other factors behind the difference in gun-related deaths from one state to another."

"Researchers have speculated on possible explanations. Separate research, for example, has shown that gun-related suicides are higher in rural areas. Rates of gun deaths in rural states may also be higher because delays in getting medical treatment could lead to higher mortality rates from gun-related injuries."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/27/stat...stacks-up.html