Guns for USA liveaboard cruisers

jordanbasset said:
One more thing, specifically in relation to Sandy Hook. The killer in that awful massacre used the weapons his mum had purchased and stored at her home for defence. The killer first killed his mother with the weapons his mum had purchased and stored at her home for defence. The killer then went on to kill all those children and teachers with the weapons his mum had purchased and stored at her home for defence. The killer then committed suicide with the weapons his mum had purchased and stored at her home for defence. You could not have provided a more perfect example to back up the figures I have given above as to why gun ownership is not likely to make you safer.
Click to expand...

That is more of a reason for restricting gun ownership than the consequences of owning one.
Whether those killed owned a gun themselves, or thir parents did, was irrelevant to whether they were killed or not.
The only point where ownership affected the family was in the suicide.
 
jordanbasset said:
Some facts here to back up my claim
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence/gunsinthehome
'The risk of homicide is three times higher in homes with firearms (Kellermann, 1993, p. 1084).
Higher gun ownership puts both men and women at a higher risk for homicide, particularly gun homicide (Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, 2009).
Click to expand...

Maybe those who own a firearm live in a more dangerous environment in the first place.
 
Chalker said:
That is more of a reason for restricting gun ownership than the consequences of owning one.
Whether those killed owned a gun themselves, or thir parents did, was irrelevant to whether they were killed or not.
The only point where ownership affected the family was in the suicide.
Click to expand...

The mother was also murdered by her son, by the guns she purchased for defence, I thought that might also affect the family?
 
jordanbasset said:
Some facts here to back up my claim
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence/gunsinthehome
'The risk of homicide is three times higher in homes with firearms (Kellermann, 1993, p. 1084).
Higher gun ownership puts both men and women at a higher risk for homicide, particularly gun homicide (Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, 2009).
Keeping a firearm in the home increases the risk of suicide by a factor of 3 to 5 and increases the risk of suicide with a firearm by a factor of 17 (Kellermann, p. 467, p. Wiebe, p. 771).

Every time a gun injures or kills in self-defense, it is used:
11 times for completed and attempted suicides (Kellermann, 1998, p. 263).
7 times in criminal assaults and homicides, and
4 times in unintentional shooting deaths or injuries.

Of youths who committed suicide with firearms, 82% obtained the firearm from their home, usually a parent’s firearm (The National Violent Injury Statistics System, p. 2).'

So, I would repeat what I said, If you do purchase a gun you or your family are more likely to be killed by a gun, but the choice is yours.
Click to expand...



I'm with you on this one jordanbasset, it amazes me that people think that more guns/gun ownership means a safer environment!
 
NornaBiron said:
I'm with you on this one jordanbasset, it amazes me that people think that more guns/gun ownership means a safer environment!
Click to expand...

The statistics quoted are a bit disingenuous, though. My A-level Stats teacher would have given them a right rollocking over correlation vs causation. From the same numbers one could just as well conclude that people who already live in unstable and violent places are more likely to buy weapons. Buying the weapon didn't put them at risk of being shot, being at risk of being shot made them buy the weapon.

Personally I think it's a mixture of the two, but the point is that that the numbers support either and as a statistician you have no right to pick one over the other just because it makes a story you're more comfortable with.

See http://xkcd.com/552/

Pete
 
prv said:
The statistics quoted are a bit disingenuous, though. My A-level Stats teacher would have given them a right rollocking over correlation vs causation. From the same numbers one could just as well conclude that people who already live in unstable and violent places are more likely to buy weapons. Buying the weapon didn't put them at risk of being shot, being at risk of being shot made them buy the weapon.

Personally I think it's a mixture of the two, but the point is that that the numbers support either and as a statistician you have no right to pick one over the other just because it makes a story you're more comfortable with.

See http://xkcd.com/552/

Pete
Click to expand...


While I am myself suspicious of statistics, some of those given show a very likely causual link
For example
'Keeping a firearm in the home increases the risk of suicide by a factor of 3 to 5 and increases the risk of suicide with a firearm by a factor of 17'
'Of youths who committed suicide with firearms, 82% obtained the firearm from their home, usually a parent’s firearm (The National Violent Injury Statistics System, p. 2).'

I would also suggest that the following is reasonable in showing gun ownership is not the answer

'Every time a gun injures or kills in self-defense, it is used:
11 times for completed and attempted suicides (Kellermann, 1998, p. 263).
7 times in criminal assaults and homicides, and
4 times in unintentional shooting deaths or injuries.'

If you live in an unstable and violent place then I suggest the killings in self defence would be much higher ratio, clearly they are not.
 
sunshinesailing said:
If we have a weapon aboard I just may be able to get the crazy coming down the pontoon shooting his weapon before he got my wife. I would most likely be killed by him if I didn't have a weapon to get him first. This is not a culture or action I agree with but it could save my wife.
Click to expand...

Is that a likely scenario? If you are really worried by that suggest you find out how many cases there have been of that type. I would guess very few. Random shootings and robberies in public places such as marinas are probably not common. The thrust of the figures quoted so far here suggests much of the gun crime is related either to other criminal activities or domestic - either deliberate or accidental.
 
My assumptions would be ...

If someone comes on my boat, with or without a gun, then they're going to do it when I am least prepared - most likely at night when I am asleep - if only to gain the tactical advantage and give the possibility of an in/out robbery without detection. A crazy coming down the pontoon firing off an assault weapon is very unlikely, as is a random crazy out to assault you - most likely motive is robbery.

Given this assumption, which I believe to be reasonable, I'd consider the following ....

Am I prepared to sleep every night with a loaded gun under my pillow? Is it primed to fire or just loaded? Safety catch on or off? If it's not under the pillow then how do you get to it in an emergency?
How much training do you need until you can get it from safe to ready to fire instinctively? Hand-guns are notoriously innacurate if used in a hurry, especially short nosed revolvers, how much training do you need to be assured a hit? How much bottle do you have to delay so you can aim and take the shot? If you do delay and your opponent just shoots off at random, what if he gets lucky?

When you wake up and find someone in the boat, in darkness, how long is it going to take you to assess wether it is your wife/crew returning from the toilet as opposed to a criminal? Do you draw the gun anyway before asking questions? What if it goes off?

When you assertain it is a stranger do you fire first? What happens to the bullets that miss? Do they hit nearby boats, or people? or even your own family? The fuel tanks? Gas bottles? Below the water line? What if it's the marina staff trying to secure your boat?

When you've got your gun pointed at them, and they've got theirs pointed at you, how rational do you think you are going to be? How rational is the other guy going to be? What might have been a simple robbery and insurance claim could now end in death for someone - who?

I've been involved in miltary exercises (not for real thank heavens) involving both defending and attacking in built up areas as part of training for Sandhurst a long time ago, what became apparent was that it is very much a lottery as to which individuals survive and which not. Guns and bullets don't know who the baddies are. Collateral damage and casualties are expected - tactics and planning, coupled with well trained people can certainly mean your side will succeed, but which individuals will get shot is still a lottery.

Try it out for yourself by going to play Paintball or Laserquest. Even the best man there will get hit multiple times - only with real guns, it's a funeral.

Personally I'd go for floodlights and a loud alarm with a panic button. Give the cornered rat a chance to flee and he'll probably take it without loss of anyones life.

Just my thoughts ....
 
Last edited:
jordanbasset said:
One more thing, specifically in relation to Sandy Hook. The killer in that awful massacre used the weapons his mum had purchased and stored at her home for defence. The killer first killed his mother with the weapons his mum had purchased and stored at her home for defence. The killer then went on to kill all those children and teachers with the weapons his mum had purchased and stored at her home for defence. The killer then committed suicide with the weapons his mum had purchased and stored at her home for defence. You could not have provided a more perfect example to back up the figures I have given above as to why gun ownership is not likely to make you safer.
Click to expand...

No you're quite wrong, in an environment where guns are freely available and are used against anyone for no reason then not having a gun is stupid - yes stupid; you will always be at the mercy of someone with a gun, you will die - dead certain. If you have the means to defend your self you may live - no guarantees. But that does not make anything right. All Sandy Hook demonstrates is that in an environment where guns are freely available they are not safe whatever they were purchased for, they were made to maim and kill and WILL fall into the wrong hands.

The problem with the figures is that the rational conclusion is to ban all guns, we agree but we're not there yet.

UNTIL THE USA SORTS OUT ITS GUN PROBLEM being unarmed is irrational.

we keep well away from the USA.
 
Marsupial said:
No you're quite wrong, in an environment where guns are freely available and are used against anyone for no reason then not having a gun is stupid - yes stupid; you will always be at the mercy of someone with a gun, you will die - dead certain. If you have the means to defend your self you may live - no guarantees. But that does not make anything right. All Sandy Hook demonstrates is that in an environment where guns are freely available they are not safe whatever they were purchased for, they were made to maim and kill and WILL fall into the wrong hands.

The problem with the figures is that the rational conclusion is to ban all guns, we agree but we're not there yet.

UNTIL THE USA SORTS OUT ITS GUN PROBLEM being unarmed is irrational.

we keep well away from the USA.
Click to expand...

This is obviously a very emotive subject with strong opinions on both sides.

For what it's worth I consider that it is irrational to have a gun if you are not properly trained to use it on a regular basis. Whilst serving with the RAF we were required to undergo refresher training three or four times a year, every year, that's quite a time and financial commitment to make. It's amazing how the skills degraded within three months if the weapon wasn't touched during that time.

IMHO having a gun in a volatile situation will only serve to inflame that situation. Surely if you're not seen as a threat you are more likely to escape with your life.
 
NornaBiron said:
This is obviously a very emotive subject with strong opinions on both sides.

For what it's worth I consider that it is irrational to have a gun if you are not properly trained to use it on a regular basis. Whilst serving with the RAF we were required to undergo refresher training three or four times a year, every year, that's quite a time and financial commitment to make. It's amazing how the skills degraded within three months if the weapon wasn't touched during that time.

IMHO having a gun in a volatile situation will only serve to inflame that situation. Surely if you're not seen as a threat you are more likely to escape with your life.
Click to expand...

If you think that fine, but the number of undefended people killed every year in the USA would disagree (If they could). In a volatile situation might is right, fire power wins EVERY TIME, it's what international relations is based on.

Training

In another life I was a safety officer for a gun club, we didn't have any incidents during the 10 years I was there, as with anything if you don't know how to use a piece of machinery it will hurt you or someone else, but that's not a reason for not getting trained and not arming yourself when you are in a threatening environment.

Keeping Safe

I take it you can read a weather forecast, a life saving skill? defending yourself from lunatics with guns is no less a lifesaving skill than defending yourself from stormy weather the stakes are the same.

The Future

When the guns are all rounded up in the USA we can let the law enforcement agencies take care of gun crime as we do in the UK. Here only outlaws have guns and they seem to use them on each other, not a bad thing in my book.
 
Marsupial said:
No you're quite wrong, in an environment where guns are freely available and are used against anyone for no reason then not having a gun is stupid - yes stupid; you will always be at the mercy of someone with a gun, you will die - dead certain. If you have the means to defend your self you may live - no guarantees. But that does not make anything right. All Sandy Hook demonstrates is that in an environment where guns are freely available they are not safe whatever they were purchased for, they were made to maim and kill and WILL fall into the wrong hands.

The problem with the figures is that the rational conclusion is to ban all guns, we agree but we're not there yet.

UNTIL THE USA SORTS OUT ITS GUN PROBLEM being unarmed is irrational.

we keep well away from the USA.
Click to expand...


First mate and I are frequent visitors to the USA-and not just tourist hotspots. In the 30 plus years of travelling the West Coast from San Diego to Seattle, the Northern Mid West around the Great Lakes and much of rural Florida we have never had any problems with feeling unsafe.
Being "Streetwise" is important here. There are places in Oxford where I would not go after midnight and the same applies in other countries. The fact that so many firearms are in circulation and are so easy to obtain in the USA is a direct cause of the 10,000 plus lives lost to guns every year there. To argue otherwise is foolish.
I read or heard recently that most weekends an average of three visitors or gun dealers are killed at Gun Shows due to accidents.
I have been a shooter-shotgun and rifle. I cannot imagine why anyone considers an automatic rifle with a large capacity clip is required to safeguard ones person. My-addmitedly small- experience of automatic weapons is that the aim goes high on auto. I strongly suspect that it is the military "Macho" look that sells them, rather than how effective they would be if used in anger. Guns only have one purpose-to kill or severely injure. Practice at the range is leading to that end.
I had enough trouble knocking deer over 20 years ago-so much so that I stopped killing animals and birds for sport. My life would have to be in critical and obvious danger before I could contemplate using a gun on another Human.
The argument is lost statistically-few guns= few gun related deaths. Lots of guns= lots of gun related deaths.
The American people must make up their minds soon. I hope they choose restriction of gun ownership but I expect they will not. Whatever they do, IMHO there is no need to avoid the USA as deaths of visitors by shooting is very small.
 
Foreigners visiting the United States cannot obtain a gun licence and own firearms, only citizens and resident aliens. Laws also vary from state to state. I suggest you research immigration and gun licence laws. There is plenty of information (and some good advice) about securing one's boat on this forum; it just needs to be searched for. If you're still concerned, then I would suggest having a chat with the local police or sheriff 's department, either by going to your nearest precinct/office, or approaching them on the street, voicing your concerns, and asking for their advice. Trust me, they won't be in the least bit impressed that you're thinking about buying a firearm and - if you get a friendly officer - will also give you some good advice. Personally, I have for the most part found American law enforcement friendly and helpful if one is respectful and polite.

As someone has already stated, being street smart - both personally and in making sure your yacht is secure - is the best option. And I'm speaking as one who believes in the right to bear arms. My opinion? DON'T.
 
I was brought up with shotguns and rifles and have in long past spent many a day shooting and then eating what I shot.

Would I carry firearms on board, no way. Far too risky and as said what happens when it goes wrong, and a panic situation it will!

Shooting paper targets is not the same as shooting a human being, do you really have the nerve and the guts to do it? I know I couldn't.

Can you live with aftermath, you'll be arrested as foreign national in the US and possibly a face life in prison or a death penalty - you shot one of them remember, with an illegal weapon in their country.
You'll be responsible for a death and your family will be hounded out of the US.
Your life and your families life is fuooked after this for all your life.

Add to this they may very well have innocent.

You call Cowboy.
 
Sailed up and down the east coast of the States for the last 8 / 10 seasons. Walked around Miami etc while getting permits, Never needed or wanted a firearm. Must admit though that some (American) liveaboards/ crusers that we have spoken to when asked if they are 'packing hardware' have simply said "of cource" Therefore you are aware of the stuation and act with care and a degree of caution.
 
Pah! All very theoretical. We've done that thread loads of times

it would be MUCH more ybw-style to go in with :

I am thinking of getting a gun, with a budget of about £1500. Do you think i could get a reasonable secondhand automatic submachine gun for this much, whatever that means, or a couple of Uzi's? Or I must say I quite fancy a secondhand classic like a S+W BUT ... the wife is thinking that we if both have to use it then a lighter and more modern .38 would be a better bet? I haven't had much training but I did do Gunmaster theory a few years ago. I was planning to keep it in the bedroom - is that the usual place? I reckon the automatic weapons will be much better upwind, surely?

See? Much more ybw-ish. Then all the naysayers can chime along while others bash on about olde v new guns and some others drone about the training as well. Much better. Steve101 anyone?
 
Last edited:
TimBennet said:
I lived on board for years in both Florida and Washington State, plus years cruising up and down the coasts.

I can't think of a place I felt safer than the USA. Even gates and fences around marinas and boatyards were unusual as boaters aren't seen as being rich and upper class as they are in the UK.
Click to expand...

+1

I sail in the USA. Drive, Camp, Walk, ride busses. planes trains and automobiles. I dont live there and don't want to. I have allways found the different areas of USA friendly and wellcoming.

I have never felt the need to carry a gun.

I have been asked on entering a California state park by the young lady ranger "how many fire arms have you" she then burst out laughing. "Of course you don't have any, your Canadian" she told me I was probabaly the only person in the camp ground that night with out one.


My wife and I have walked at night in perfect safty around down town Seatle, Tacoma, Portland, San Fransisco, Las Vegas, New Orleans, Batton Rouge, Norfolk Virginia.

I have witnessed more viloence in London, Glasgow, Newcastle, than I have ever encountered in USA.

Although last week walking past a bar in USA two guys stopped thier convesation and said "hey white people" they were friendly.
It would appear we were the only ones arround.

I have never been to Florida, The place is full of unarmed Canadian Snow birds.

My licence plate and flag indicates to any observant American I am an unarmed, non dangerouse, naieve, left wing, pinko socalist, tree hugging Canadian.

Apparrently it does not indicate potential victim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top