Pirates in Caribean ???
Gaetan Mailloux
Hi
I've seen in tv in the news that they still are reals and quite dangerous
pirates on the sea in our modern time !!
They talk about Caribean, but is there other places where there is
pirates ?
Thank
Bye
Gaetan
Ed Chell
--
Saludos,
Ed Chell
Gaetan Mailloux <ba...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:818cbf$j...@freenet-news.carleton.ca...
wf...@ptd.net
Mailloux) wrote:
>
>Hi
>
>I've seen in tv in the news that they still are reals and quite dangerous
>pirates on the sea in our modern time !!
>
>They talk about Caribean, but is there other places where there is
>pirates ?
>
I'm a ham radio operator. Three yrs ago I got a mayday call from a
sailing vessel off the coast of Caracus. They had come upon an
abandoned US flagged S/V. I patched them thru to the USCG who then
patched us thru to the USAF in Panama. They dispatched a helicopter
and found the S/V had been abandoned for some time. Speculation was,
in that area of the world, pirates had taken the folks off the boat.
AFAIK no one was ever found who claimed the boat.
Harbor Pirate
Indian Navy capturing some pirates.
HP sends from the Spanish MAin
In article <818cbf$j...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
ba...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Gaetan Mailloux) wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I've seen in tv in the news that they still are reals and quite
dangerous
> pirates on the sea in our modern time !!
>
> They talk about Caribean, but is there other places where there is
> pirates ?
>
> Thank
>
> Bye
>
> Gaetan
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
jlrogers
"Ed Chell" <EdC...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:DxQZ3.6610$MZ.5...@ozemail.com.au...
> Try your local chandlery!
> Gaetan Mailloux <ba...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:818cbf$j...@freenet-news.carleton.ca...
> > I've seen in tv in the news that they still are reals and quite
dangerous
> > pirates on the sea in our modern time !!
> >
Bill
World, though. They are a little bit different.
Bill
Gaetan Mailloux wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've seen in tv in the news that they still are reals and quite dangerous
> pirates on the sea in our modern time !!
>
> They talk about Caribean, but is there other places where there is
> pirates ?
>
> Thank
>
> Bye
>
> Gaetan
hkr...@erolsantispam.com
>
> My favorite ride. I like the one at Disneyland better thanthe one at Disney
> World, though. They are a little bit different.
>
> Bill
>
Doesn't the one at Disneyland cruise through a restaurant?
--
Harry Krause
------------
To a cat: happiness is a warm laser printer.
lel...@my-deja.com
It depends on what you consider as a pirate. Is it someone who steals
from your deck or cockpit, usually at night? Or are you thinking of an
armed attack wher the boat is pillaged? The first is a frequent
occurence throught the Caribbean. It also occurs just about anywhere
if poor people are living nearby. The second type occurs also but is
usually restricted to well known areas such as Columbia.
There are fortunately more scares and foolish interpretations than real
occurences. For example a sailboat found adrift, as reported in this
thread, is more likely due to a singlehander falling overboard. A
singlehander was attacked on his boat while at anchor. The fellow had
refused to pay a prostitute, piracy? All criminal happenings a boat
are not necessarily related to piracy.
The danger is real and should not be ignored. In proper perpective
though it is not a major concern and should not deter you from cruising
many areas including the Caribbean.
Salutations
Michel
In article <818cbf$j...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
ba...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Gaetan Mailloux) wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I've seen in tv in the news that they still are reals and quite
dangerous
> pirates on the sea in our modern time !!
>
> They talk about Caribean, but is there other places where there is
> pirates ?
>
> Thank
>
> Bye
>
> Gaetan
>
Gould 0738
The starving locals squat in the mud and watch their kids die of diseases and
starvation. Anchored just offshore is a yacht from a developed nation. The
private owner of that yacht spent an amount equal to the gross national product
of Lower Sanddune to buy and equip it. Stealing much of anything from that
yacht would bring in more money than the desperate villager will otherwise earn
in an entire lifetime, and not everybody has the moral fortitude to resist
temptation. Most poverty motivated pirates probably aren't out to kill anybody,
but just as probably would if necessary.
Drug runners still commandeer vessels to
bring poison to our own poor people, and since many of their henchmen are
addicts
(saves having to pay much in cash) the lives of the boat owners (like the lives
of their ultimate customers) are inconsequential.
Asian pirates can be fairly well organized, and US Merchantmen keep a constant
watch for the approach of small boats in certain waters and have trained the
crew
to repel boarders with many ingenious methods including high pressure fire
hoses.
Boating in underdeveloped nations is usually done most safely with a group of
boats, as experiences of boaters transiting
the Panama Canal will attest. Some might feel that they are OK as long as they
have a gun aboard, but a single boater will almost always be outnumbered and
outgunned by organized armed robbers.
Aside from the odd stolen boat, actual incidents of true piracy are almost
unheard of in US and Canadian waters. (This is where all the isolated and
whacky exceptions get mentioned to prove the rule.....)
As for the piracy in the Bahamas, etc; If I were personally going to boat there
I'd have to charter to do so. I'd seek and follow
the charter operator's advice as to which areas are generally safe. (He doesn't
want to lose his boat anymore than I would want to lose my butt.)
________
Chuck Gould
Float and let float.
hkr...@erolsantispam.com
>
> There is still piracy in many underdeveloped nations, and it's no wonder.
>
> The starving locals squat in the mud and watch their kids die of diseases and
> starvation. Anchored just offshore is a yacht from a developed nation. The
> private owner of that yacht spent an amount equal to the gross national product
> of Lower Sanddune to buy and equip it. Stealing much of anything from that
> yacht would bring in more money than the desperate villager will otherwise earn
> in an entire lifetime, and not everybody has the moral fortitude to resist
> temptation. Most poverty motivated pirates probably aren't out to kill anybody,
> but just as probably would if necessary.
Piracy is just another variation of greed. We have our variations on
piracy and greed in this country, and some of them are just as ugly as
the piracy practiced elsewhere.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Check your altimeter! Pull a lever! Push a button!
hkr...@erolsantispam.com
>
> some seem to take this so lightly, but its a serious problem in Asia, the
> South China sea is a pirate area to watch out for. The Red sea is another
> area full of criminal scum who will destroy you and your boat. Many islands
> of the Philippines and Indonesia have piracy problems. These crooks will
> attack anything that floats.
So...avoid the places like the plague.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Conservative: One who's too cowardly to fight, too fat to run
Steve
>
> Hi
>
> I've seen in tv in the news that they still are reals and quite dangerous
> pirates on the sea in our modern time !!
>
> They talk about Caribean, but is there other places where there is
> pirates ?
Washington DC
TK
wrote:
>There is still piracy in many underdeveloped nations, and it's no wonder.
>
And let's not forget governments. In the early 90s (my Navy days) the
Hydrofoil I was assigned to responded to a distress call from a US
Sailboat that had come under fire from Cuban gunboats. It seems they
were right on the edge of the 25nm boundary that Cuba claims as their
sovereign waters (in violation of international laws).
We don't think the Cubans were trying to do any more than scare them
(which they did quite well) and they were long gone when the calvary
showed up. The whole thing was somewhat ironic since after leaving
the Persian Gulf, I never thought we'd come so close to firing a shot
in anger in our Caribbean backyard.
I guess times have changes since people are starting to talk about
Cuba as a cruising destination.
TK
Larry KN4IM
>
>Hi
>
>I've seen in tv in the news that they still are reals and quite dangerous
>pirates on the sea in our modern time !!
>
>They talk about Caribean, but is there other places where there is
>pirates ?
>
>Thank
>
>Bye
>
>Gaetan
Bad pirates in the islands of SE Asia.....many articles on them in
recent yachtie magazines.
Larry
Hide behind gunwale, pull pin, lob grenade into pirate's boat, don't
look up it's very messy but effective. Use automatic weapons on any
survivors.
Larry KN4IM
>
>Piracy is just another variation of greed. We have our variations on
>piracy and greed in this country, and some of them are just as ugly as
>the piracy practiced elsewhere.
>
>--
>Harry Krause
I thought I met a pirate, once. But, I found out later, he was only a
boat dealer.
yly...@attglobal.net
Il y en a partout !!!
If you can categorize marina operators who indulge regularly in astonishing
gouging as "white collar" pirates , I happen to know a couple of them right
close to my home. They are laughing away to the bank and will not pass a
chance to clean you out once you got your boat hauled out in their yard. To
me, they are just as bad as pirates....and deserve walking the plank...
YML
Gaetan Mailloux wrote in message <818cbf$j...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
WB
South China sea is a pirate area to watch out for. The Red sea is another
area full of criminal scum who will destroy you and your boat. Many islands
of the Philippines and Indonesia have piracy problems. These crooks will
was attacked and used the radio to get assistance in the Red Sea.
Crime/Piracy can occur anywhere and anytime. The Asian pirates are very
well armed, those of you who think they can resist with small arms are being
stupid. The Moro pirates pack 50 caliber brownings, belt fed on outrigger
canoes with huge engines. They are linked my VHF radio to a master ship
that picks up the loot. Rape is common. Indonesia is the same, many
fisherman are so poor that piracy is part of there daily work. This is how
there society has worked for many hundreds of years. Those of you who are
familiar know the drill of cruising in company in Asia, especially in the
South China Sea and Mindanao Islands. Another place to watch out for is off
the coast of Morocco, i was rammed by a fishing boat who came from a mile
astern. Thank god it was dark and i was able to extinguish lights and motor
away. This has area has had numerous reports of the same thing fishing boats
ramming yachts.
Anyway just some thoughts, to those isolated in cocoon filled with a daily
diet of Disney cartoons.
Bill <Advo...@tds.net> wrote in message news:3837F237...@tds.net...
> My favorite ride. I like the one at Disneyland better thanthe one at
Disney
> World, though. They are a little bit different.
>
> Bill
>
RGrew176
>Piracy is just another variation of greed. We have our variations on
>piracy and greed in this country, and some of them are just as ugly as
>the piracy practiced elsewhere.
>
Always the negative vibes.
Line from one of my favorite movies.
146 days to go.
Karl Denninger
>WB wrote:
>>
>> some seem to take this so lightly, but its a serious problem in Asia, the
>> South China sea is a pirate area to watch out for. The Red sea is another
>> area full of criminal scum who will destroy you and your boat. Many islands
>> of the Philippines and Indonesia have piracy problems. These crooks will
>> attack anything that floats.
>
Or carry a couple of LAW rockets, and display when threatened.
If they don't get the hint, sink 'em.
Hint: Carry TWO - you may have to use the first one. I bet you won't have
to fire twice.
--
--
Karl Denninger (ka...@denninger.net) Web: http://childrens-justice.org
Isn't it time we started putting KIDS first? See the above URL for
a plan to do exactly that!
akheel
Gary S. Colecchio
>It depends on what you consider as a pirate.
Law enforcement considers "piracy" to be an act of theft (e.g:
robbery) at sea. Use of force being the determining factor. Stealing
your stuff in your absence is theft also but is only burlary.
Capt. Gary S. Colecchio
West Palm Beach
"Lie? Me? Never! No,no no, the truth is far too much fun!"
- Captain Hook
Capt. Neal®
pirate. He is only a simple thief who burglarizes boats. He
doesn't have the cojones to be a Pirate.
Respectfully,
Capt. Neal
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary S. Colecchio wrote in message
<3839349...@news.gate.net>...
Gould 0738
>you guys are nuts these guys will out shoot you ten to 1, they heavily
>armed. M40s and RPG7 feature heavily in there arsenals, how can you cruise
>with such an armory without getting thrown in jail?
>
Even so, the advice about carrying grenades and bazookas to duke it out with
pirates probably sounds pretty good about halfway through a bottle of Budweiser
and while swattin' flies on a bass boat. The tiny minority of the NG
contemplating cruises to third world nations will surely know better than to
take the Clint Eastwood movies too seriously.
As for me, there's a lot of boating to do right here at home, and with a
prudent range of only about 1000 miles my boat won't be making transoceanic
voyages
any time soon. Don't have to worry about it in real life; just like most of the
boaters proposing an armed standoff.
Gary S. Colecchio
>Using your definition it is apparent that SAIL LOCO is not a
>pirate. He is only a simple thief who burglarizes boats. He
>doesn't have the cojones to be a Pirate.
>
>Respectfully,
>Capt. Neal
Yes indeed. A different flavor.......
Steve Kuiper, CPA
school of journalism.
--
Steve Kuiper, CPA, MCP
Savile Row Systems Corp.
101 Wymore Road, Suite 550
Altamonte Springs, FL 32714
(407) 774-5616 voice
(407) 774-5619 fax
sku...@sav-row.com
"Software custom tailored for a perfect fit"
--
Gaetan Mailloux wrote in message <818cbf$j...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>
WB
Singapore think you a Terrorist if you have more than one gun.!! RPG7s are
quite common on these pirate vessels. In Laos and Cambodia you can buy them
for 5 us dollars a piece. You cant win!!!
Karl Denninger <ka...@Genesis.Denninger.Net> wrote in message
news:81a4as$353$0...@dosa.alt.net...
WB
armed. M40s and RPG7 feature heavily in there arsenals, how can you cruise
with such an armory without getting thrown in jail?
Larry KN4IM <kayenfo...@nations.net> wrote in message
news:38384bc2...@corp.supernews.com...
> On 21 Nov 1999 09:00:31 GMT, ba...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Gaetan
> Mailloux) wrote:
>
> >
> >Hi
> >
> >I've seen in tv in the news that they still are reals and quite dangerous
> >pirates on the sea in our modern time !!
> >
> >They talk about Caribean, but is there other places where there is
> >pirates ?
> >
> >Thank
> >
> >Bye
> >
> >Gaetan
>
WB
millionares to be robbed. But just go to Opua in New Zealand at the end of
the Pacific milk run and you can understand why. After just crossing the
Pacific many yacht owners fly home, engage a delivery skipper etc, part of
the drill is to replace all rigging, order 3 new dinghies etc etc, Its
astonishing to watch how these wealthy people with huge yachts behave. No
wonder marine operators view us as pot of gold.
<yly...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:38388...@news1.prserv.net...
> Salut Gaetan,
> Il y en a partout !!!
> If you can categorize marina operators who indulge regularly in
astonishing
> gouging as "white collar" pirates , I happen to know a couple of them
right
> close to my home. They are laughing away to the bank and will not pass a
> chance to clean you out once you got your boat hauled out in their yard.
To
> me, they are just as bad as pirates....and deserve walking the plank...
> YML
Bob W6JCW
>Rampant piracy in the Caribbean is a creation of the National Enquirer
>school of journalism.
>
hoor...@my-deja.com
crew of pirates. Actually he thought they were off duty Mexican coast
guard as some of them had uniforms. He was at anchor, alone, at night
and two miles from shore. They told him at gunpoint to jump overboard
and swim for his life. He had no choice. It was only his superb
conditon that allowed him to make it. Just like in the movies, he
found himself on the beach the next morning. He had swam to the sound
of the breakers.
I had another friend who crewed on a long ocean voyge, I believe it was
in the Carrabean, She discovered that the skipper kept a cashe of guns
hidden between the hull and the inner paneling. He wasn't taking any
chances. Probably not a good idea though if you get caught by the law.
bbr...@usa.net
ba...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Gaetan Mailloux) wrote:
>
>
> I've seen in tv in the news that they still are reals and quite
dangerous
> pirates on the sea in our modern time !!
>
> They talk about Caribean, but is there other places where there is
> pirates ?
Yes, they are everywhere. Best to stay home. Keep your doors locked.
--
Bob Brake
bbr...@usa.net
Bruce B. LeRoy
available at your nearest Security World mall store.
According to the author(a counter terrorist expert) the best and most
versatile gun you can have aboard is the 12 gauge pump shotgun. You really
have to be real STUPID to stand up to one of these!
You should also have at least one handgun such as a long barrel .357 or .44
magnum, .45 automatic, or 9mm high power Browning.
Highly recommended reading for any extended cruising into dangerous waters!
"At sea, might makes right. There are not police stations, no places for an
attacked craft to run. The hard truth is, the best defence against pirates
is common sense caution, knowledgeable detterrent tactics, and the
preparation and will to use force if necessary"
Capt. Bruce
SCRA...@webtv.net
just thieves and naredowells that`s all mateeee !
Gould 0738
How does the author propose that the firearms be smuggled past the customs
inspectors? Many of the underdeveloped nations do not allow private posession
of
guns aboard a boat (unless you're a licensed pirate, of course). :-)
Jordan Bigel
Jakdawak
Capt. Neal®
has not besmirched the 'From' column of my newsreader for
most of a year. Why not keep it that way?
Respectfully,
Capt. Neal
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jordan Bigel wrote in message
<81hq89$c...@lotho.delphi.com>...
Steph on Vancouver's Island
bottle of milk should go in an M1 tank. I can guarantee you, you won't get
mugged.
"Jordan Bigel" <jbi...@BIX.com> wrote in message
news:81hq89$c...@lotho.delphi.com...
Chris Davies
Steph on Vancouver's Island <te...@test.com> wrote in message
news:aq%_3.70$973.3...@news.bctel.net...
> Personally, I think anyone who wants to pop down to the corner shop for a
> bottle of milk should go in an M1 tank. I can guarantee you, you won't get
> mugged.
but you may get tank-jacked
Bruce B. LeRoy
Gould 0738 <goul...@aol.comspamkill> wrote in message
news:19991124105918...@ng-da1.aol.com...
From Chapter Two - Shipboard Security Equipment and Weapons page 37
The legalities of carrying firearms must be observed in U.S. as well as
foreign ports.
If you take a firearm to a foreign port, and if the island or foreign nation
in question gives permission in writing to a yatch or ship owner to have a
weapon iwthin their waters or to take
it ashore, all the bases are covered.
But what if you don't have permission?
An American vessel docked in Bermuda, for example, is not going to be
boarded and searched by authorities without good reason. You have to be
doing something wrong for them to want to come and search you. The port
authorities know there are firearms on almost every vessel, and they don't
care.
ref
>>versatile gun you can have aboard is the 12 gauge pump shotgun. You really
>>have to be real STUPID to stand up to one of these!
I'm not so sure that would be the best choice. It wouldn't hurt to have
one available, of course, but the big problem with these is lack
of magazine capacity. Half a dozen shots and you're standing there holding
a worthless piece of metal.
There's also very little penetration ability beyond the outer hull, an
important consideration, unless your antagonist is standing there in a
wide-open center console fishing boat.
My choice would be a centerfire semi-auto, say a .223 Colt Sporter or
Mini-14, with an aftermarket 100-round magazine and FMJ bullets, which at
close range can zip *completely through* your typical fiberglass boat,
effectively making it transparent to gunfire. Imagine a would-be pirate
frantically puckering up in the cabin or cockpit of his vessel, with FMJ
rounds zipping through it and ricocheting all over the place.
Ron M.
Doug Kanter
> If you are worried about pirates, read "High Seas Security" by Frank Camper
> available at your nearest Security World mall store.
>
> According to the author(a counter terrorist expert) the best and most
> versatile gun you can have aboard is the 12 gauge pump shotgun. You really
> have to be real STUPID to stand up to one of these!
>
> You should also have at least one handgun such as a long barrel .357 or .44
> magnum, .45 automatic, or 9mm high power Browning.
>
> Highly recommended reading for any extended cruising into dangerous waters!
>
> "At sea, might makes right. There are not police stations, no places for an
> attacked craft to run. The hard truth is, the best defence against pirates
> is common sense caution, knowledgeable detterrent tactics, and the
> preparation and will to use force if necessary"
>
> Capt. Bruce
A good, lightweight sniper rifle is a nice choice as well, for distance.
Hemingway swore by Mannlichers for knocking down lions, and many urban police
SWAT teams carry them. They're simple, compact, dependable, and legal to buy
anywhere in the U.S, as long as you observe whatever waiting period's necessary
in your locale. If you get questioned by non-U.S. authorities after an
incident, get in the officer's face and ask him where the $&#@$ he was at the
moment you had to use the thing. On the boat, keep it wrapped in oiled
cheesecloth. At home, any gun range is suitable for practicing with the gun.
Doug
Doug Kanter
Just lock it up properly and safely, same as any intelligent person would do at
home, and keep the ammo in a separate place. Exhibiting care may also lead an
officer to say "Be careful and have a nice day".
Doug
CMLRICHARDS
probs with pirates also so be careful in south china sea. mike
David
Doug Kanter wrote:
Yes...a REALLY good idea is to shoot someone, and then get "in the face" of a
foreign law enforcement officer. Foreign officials are ALWAYS quite impressed with
American machismo.When the other convicts in that foreign jail are through raping
you, let us know how your tactics worked out.
The ONLY thing to do in the unlikely event that you ever are faced with using a
weapon in a foreign jurisdiction is use it, leave the scene as quickly as
possible, and be ready to dump the evidence in the deepest water you can find.
David
hkr...@erolsantispam.com
And don't forget to file that Environmental Impact Statement to cover
your dump. No need for one in South Carolina waters, according to Larry
of Goodwill.
--
Harry Krause
------------
STRESSED spelled backwards is DESSERTS.
dws
countries is NOT recommended. It greatly complicants your travel. If you
already are not an expert in the use and the abilty to deal with the reasons
a gun would be required, chances are you will not be able to. You might
shoot an inocent boat boy bringing you vegtables. They do climb on your boat
at times. And lastly anyone truly trying to overtake your boat generally has
more people with more fire power. If you read the real reports you will find
there are very few attacks on private yachts.
Doug Kanter
> >in your locale. If you get questioned by non-U.S. authorities after an
> >incident, get in the officer's face and ask him where the $&#@$ he was at the
> >moment you had to use the thing. On the boat, keep it wrapped in oiled
>
> Great idea genius. Have you ever been in a Turkish prison, Son?
>
No.....only a Cuban one. And, please pay attention to the word "If". Only a
chump would let it get that far.
Doug
bmc...@ti.com
I was just in Cancun. Lots of pirates. All of them trying to sell
timeshares, or whatever they are now callled. ;^}
Bill
Eugene Gruender
>
> I hope few people take this advice. Carring guns of any kind to other
> countries is NOT recommended. It greatly complicants your travel. If you
> already are not an expert in the use and the abilty to deal with the reasons
> a gun would be required, chances are you will not be able to. You might
> shoot an inocent boat boy bringing you vegtables. They do climb on your boat
> at times. And lastly anyone truly trying to overtake your boat generally has
> more people with more fire power. If you read the real reports you will find
> there are very few attacks on private yachts.
If you are wondering about the gun thing, here's something to read about
the subject:
http://pw2.netcom.com/~jkb/mlcs/mlcs-12.html
Gene Gruender
Rainbow Chaser
Lew Hodgett
>
> I hope few people take this advice. Carring guns of any kind to other
> countries is NOT recommended. It greatly complicants your travel.
At one time in my life, I was considered an excellent marksman with
rifle, shotgun or pistol.
Somewhere is a box full of metals to prove it.
A few years ago, tried a little experiment.
Took my Model 12 Winchester shotgun and some throw away beer bottles
and went about 5 miles out into a deserted part of Lake Erie. There
was about a 2 ft chop that afternoon.
Threw the beer bottles over board and tried to shoot them with the
shot gun. Probably missed about 90% of them from a distance of not
more than 50 ft.
Based on that little test, I figured a gun on board a small boat was
about as useful as a set of breasts on a boar hog.
Took the shotgun home and left it there.
Lew
S/A: Challenge (Under Construction, still fairing in the Southland)
Visit:<http://home.earthlink.net/~lewhodgett> For Pictures
jlrogers
of flares: legal, lethal, and colorful, especially white phosphorus. A
line gun with the right projectile is also useful, but the preferred
projectile is harder to disguise.
--
To reply, replace "yyy" in my e-mail address with swbell.
"Lew Hodgett" <lewho...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:384D4759...@earthlink.net...
Karl Denninger
jlrogers <dd...@yyy.net> wrote:
>I say again, the best defense is an excellent flare gun and the right kind
>of flares: legal, lethal, and colorful, especially white phosphorus. A
>line gun with the right projectile is also useful, but the preferred
>projectile is harder to disguise.
Yeah, and its even legal to get those "rotary magazine" flare guns (they
look kinda like a tommy gun with an overside magazine).
If you need to use lethal force, consider what a couple of these into
a persuer's cabin or engine area will do.
The only problem is that they will not penetrate a hull. You have to get
them INSIDE the boat for them to do what you want (either start a fire,
seriously injure someone, or both). To do that you need to get pretty
close before unleashing them on your attacker.
Ideally you want to be able to:
1. Supress their attempt(s) to fire at you such that they can't hit you
- non-lethal smoke works pretty well for that, assuming you're being
persued (off the stern). You can't shoot or chase what you can't see.
The biggest problem with this is that you need REALLY BIG smoke
devices to obscure enough area to be useful, and they burn out
somewhat quickly. Little "toy" smoke bombs won't do it.
2. Disable their vessel - this requires something that will penetrate
the hull and either start a fire or do enough physical damage to
stop or sink the attacker. This is a somewhat-tall-order in legal
munitions; a 7.62mm NATO-caliber rifle is probably your best bet,
with a hi-cap magazine and tracer ammunition. The tracer ammunition
has two purposes - one, it lets you see where your fire is REALLY
going, and two, it lets the person you're shooting at KNOW YOU ARE
FIRING AT THEM - that you're actively resisting. Nothing makes
people think twice about what they're doing quite like a bunch of
visible flaming balls coming in their general direction.
If you don't CARE about legal a LAW rocket definitely will do the
job (with one shot, if you don't miss). The bigger problem here is
that at any rational distance (to prevent them from accurately
shooting at YOU!) accuracy from a boat deck while underway is going
to suck, no matter how good a shot you normally are.
Finally, if someone's hell-bent on marauding they may have armored
the cockpit with Kevlar or even hardened steel. You probably
haven't done that, which means they can shoot you in the cockpit
more easily than you can shoot them. Not a good thing.
Also remember that when you're being persued your FUEL TANK and
ENGINE are pointing towards THEM, while THEIR bow is pointing
towards YOU. This means a poor aspect ratio for your shot (much
harder to hit) AND a lack of vital systems in the target area, while
their fire towards you has both vital systems to hit AND a better
aspect ratio (your flat stern!) NOT A GOOD COMBINATION. If you
can get the "bad guys" to turn broadside to you then you have the
advantage, but of course they aren't going to want to do that.
3. Stop the marauders PERSONALLY. At close ranges (under 50-100')
nothing beats the old reliable 12 ga shotgun with 00 buckshot.
However, at that range they can easily shoot back, which you wish
to avoid if possible.
If whoever is after you gets aboard someone is going to die. Your
odds suck in that situation, and since you don't want the "who" to
be YOU, your efforts should be concentrated around not having
that part of the situation happen!
4. CALL FOR HELP. This means HF/SSB radio, as well as VHF, and
USE IT if threatened - BEFORE you start getting shot at.
--
--
Karl Denninger (ka...@denninger.net) Web: http://childrens-justice.org
Isn't it time we started putting KIDS first? See the above URL for
a plan to do exactly that!
Jordan Bigel
Only a chump would consider it a rational strategy to get up in the face of
a foreign law enforcement official - unless you're tired of cruising...
>No.....only a Cuban one.
My condolences. While ensconced there, did you find it effective to get up
in the face of the guards when there was something you wanted from them?
Just curious.
J.
Doug Kanter
Forgetting logistics for the moment, the rules of dealing with a deadly attack
are the same regardless of where you are. If you find an armed intruder in your
home, and you don't feel he'll be amenable to a discussion about leaving, you
empty your gun into said intruder, and deal with the legal consequences later.
The other option is absurd: Attempt to reason with an armed intruder, and get
killed for your trouble.
On a boat, if you know you're able to stop the attack, you do so, and deal with
the consequences later. If you feel the incident may've been observed or heard,
you keep all evidence intact. If you're quite sure the incident was not
observed, you
Really....what other options do you have? If you don't get into a scuffle to
begin with, you're not likely to meet the local gendarmes. If they board you to
inspect, and find a weapon, you didn't do a good enough job of hiding it. Do
not pass "Go", try harder next time. If you are attacked, the whole game
changes, and the opinion of the authorities becomes largely irrelevant. If
you're being shot at, are you really going to take the time to think about
whether you'll upset the local sheriff, before you decide to defend yourself?
Doug
Doug Kanter
> job (with one shot, if you don't miss). The bigger problem here is
> that at any rational distance (to prevent them from accurately
> shooting at YOU!) accuracy from a boat deck while underway is going
> to suck, no matter how good a shot you normally are.
>
Well.....we're talking "realistically" here. :-) Where's your average walkin'
around slob supposed to come up with a Law rocket??? Explaining a pistol permit
to most wives is difficult enough. A small rocket would likely mean a tradeoff,
say, "rocket in return for divorce". Hiring an armed bodyguard would be cheaper
than the divorce.
Doug
Karl Denninger
Doug Kanter <dougk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> If you don't CARE about legal a LAW rocket definitely will do the
>> job (with one shot, if you don't miss). The bigger problem here is
>> that at any rational distance (to prevent them from accurately
>> shooting at YOU!) accuracy from a boat deck while underway is going
>> to suck, no matter how good a shot you normally are.
>>
>
>Well.....we're talking "realistically" here. :-) Where's your average walkin'
>around slob supposed to come up with a Law rocket???
Well, I DID say if you didn't care about it being LEGAL :-)
You definitely are going to have problems with the local gendarme (and
not-so-local gendarme) with one of these. On the other hand, it is
definitely a "one shot" weapon from the standpoint of stopping anything
that "pirates" are likely to use - as long as you don't miss.
Terry Schell
Doug Kanter wrote:
>
<snip>
> Forgetting logistics for the moment, the rules of dealing with a deadly attack
> are the same regardless of where you are. If you find an armed intruder in your
> home, and you don't feel he'll be amenable to a discussion about leaving, you
> empty your gun into said intruder, and deal with the legal consequences later.
> The other option is absurd: Attempt to reason with an armed intruder, and get
> killed for your trouble.
<snip>
This will land you in prison in most countries.
You are expected to ask the question: can *I* exit in such a way that I
am not harmed? If the answer is "yes" yet you still chose to "empty
your gun" your days of freedom will be over. There are very few places
in the world where you can defend your property with deadly force...
although in most you can defend your personal safety.
<snip>
>
> On a boat, if you know you're able to stop the attack, you do so, and deal with
> the consequences later. If you feel the incident may've been observed or heard,
> you keep all evidence intact. If you're quite sure the incident was not
> observed, you
<snip>
Frankly, the idea of 'attack now and think later' is idiotic. Thinking
about consequences costs very little compared to the alternative.
>
> Really....what other options do you have? If you don't get into a scuffle to
> begin with, you're not likely to meet the local gendarmes. If they board you to
> inspect, and find a weapon, you didn't do a good enough job of hiding it. Do
> not pass "Go", try harder next time. If you are attacked, the whole game
> changes, and the opinion of the authorities becomes largely irrelevant. If
> you're being shot at, are you really going to take the time to think about
> whether you'll upset the local sheriff, before you decide to defend yourself?
>
If you hide a weapon so well that inspectors cannot find it, you are
going to have a hard time finding it in the middle of a dark night
without being discovered by those who have boarded your boat. Your plan
appears to be based more in bravado than a realistic analysis of the
threats to cruisers and the costs of various response strategies.
Doug Kanter
> Doug Kanter wrote:
> > Forgetting logistics for the moment, the rules of dealing with a deadly attack
> > are the same regardless of where you are. If you find an armed intruder in your
> > home, and you don't feel he'll be amenable to a discussion about leaving, you
> > empty your gun into said intruder, and deal with the legal consequences later.
> > The other option is absurd: Attempt to reason with an armed intruder, and get
> > killed for your trouble.
> <snip>
>
> This will land you in prison in most countries.
>
Do you actually believe that the laws in some countries require that you do nothing if
your boat is boarded by someone who's not obviously a legal representative? If you
were armed, and capable of ending an attempt to board your vessel, are you saying you
would not at least threaten with a weapon, and at worst, use it?
> You are expected to ask the question: can *I* exit in such a way that I
> am not harmed? If the answer is "yes" yet you still chose to "empty
> your gun" your days of freedom will be over. There are very few places
> in the world where you can defend your property with deadly force...
> although in most you can defend your personal safety.
>
It's obvious that you should determine whether you can exit and not be harmed. This
is a moral question, not a legal one. The first choice is not to kill. Only a
psychopath would think otherwise.
> > On a boat, if you know you're able to stop the attack, you do so, and deal with
> > the consequences later. If you feel the incident may've been observed or heard,
> > you keep all evidence intact. If you're quite sure the incident was not
> > observed, you
> <snip>
>
> Frankly, the idea of 'attack now and think later' is idiotic. Thinking
> about consequences costs very little compared to the alternative.
>
I suppose we could argue about definitions, but, if you're at sea and someone attempts
to board your vessel, you are defending, not attacking. And, and if your family's
aboard, anything goes. Anything at all. Perhaps we're thinking of different
scenarios here. I think that if someone boards your vessel in a marina, they're
probably interested in stealing or vandalism. But, at sea, where there are no
witnesses, it's another story.
> If you hide a weapon so well that inspectors cannot find it, you are
> going to have a hard time finding it in the middle of a dark night
> without being discovered by those who have boarded your boat. Your plan
> appears to be based more in bravado than a realistic analysis of the
> threats to cruisers and the costs of various response strategies.
Not really.
Bottom line: You're always better off alive, dealing with the legalities, than being
found dead in your boat. And no, I'm not an NRA robot, nor do I buy their drivel.
Doug
David (Dragon) Fiedler
news:82ovn9$q8i$0...@dosa.alt.net...
> In article <384FE9CB...@earthlink.net>,
> Doug Kanter <dougk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> If you don't CARE about legal a LAW rocket definitely will do
the
> >> job (with one shot, if you don't miss). The bigger problem
here is
> >> that at any rational distance (to prevent them from accurately
> >> shooting at YOU!) accuracy from a boat deck while underway is
going
> >> to suck, no matter how good a shot you normally are.
> >>
> >
> >Well.....we're talking "realistically" here. :-) Where's your average
walkin'
> >around slob supposed to come up with a Law rocket???
>
> Well, I DID say if you didn't care about it being LEGAL :-)
>
> You definitely are going to have problems with the local gendarme (and
> not-so-local gendarme) with one of these. On the other hand, it is
> definitely a "one shot" weapon from the standpoint of stopping anything
> that "pirates" are likely to use - as long as you don't miss.
Which is why heatseekers are so much more effective :-)
--
David (Dragon) Fiedler
Learn all about recording, mixing, and making your own
music CDs, MP3s, and tapes at http://homerecording.com
Get your questions answered on our BBS
at http://homerecording.com/cgi-bin/Ultimate.cgi
Karl Denninger
>
>
>Doug Kanter wrote:
>>
><snip>
>
>> Forgetting logistics for the moment, the rules of dealing with a deadly attack
>> are the same regardless of where you are. If you find an armed intruder in your
>> home, and you don't feel he'll be amenable to a discussion about leaving, you
>> empty your gun into said intruder, and deal with the legal consequences later.
>> The other option is absurd: Attempt to reason with an armed intruder, and get
>> killed for your trouble.
><snip>
>
>This will land you in prison in most countries.
That beats being dead in any country.
>You are expected to ask the question: can *I* exit in such a way that I
>am not harmed?
That decision is not one you can rationally decide in any way other than
"no" in a closed cabin or closed bedroom (in your home) if the intruder is
in there with you.
If you wake up as he is attempting entry, you have no option but to discharge
the weapon when he comes through the door if you have reason to believe he
is armed.
Only an IDIOT allows a bad guy to get the drop on him, and if he DOES get
the drop on you then your weapon is useless and you are very likely to die.
If the gun is drawn, you do not attempt to draw. If you have a BEAD ON HIM,
and he attempts to raise a weapon or in any way gives you reason to believe
he is maniuplating one, you shoot. Period. End of discussion.
I'll be tried by twelve before I'm carried by six, and that goes double if
my family is with me.
>There are very few places
>in the world where you can defend your property with deadly force...
>although in most you can defend your personal safety.
If the intruder is in your cabin you are not defending your property.
You are defending your family's safety.
Second, if someone is shooting at my vessel their intentions are known
and I'm quite comfortable saying that they're not coming calling to ask
for a cold beer!
>> On a boat, if you know you're able to stop the attack, you do so, and deal with
>> the consequences later. If you feel the incident may've been observed or heard,
>> you keep all evidence intact. If you're quite sure the incident was not
>> observed, you
><snip>
>
>Frankly, the idea of 'attack now and think later' is idiotic. Thinking
>about consequences costs very little compared to the alternative.
If you have such an "encounter" with a demonstrated hostile party offshore
(they shoot at or are attempting to ram, grapple and/or board you) there
is only one course of action available to to - you shoot.
SOMEONE is going to be shark food - the only question remaining is who gets
the honors.
I'll call for help, yes, but I'm also going to resist. If I don't resist
then I die. If I do resist I may still die, but that beats the near-certain
odds of death if I don't resist.
>If you hide a weapon so well that inspectors cannot find it, you are
>going to have a hard time finding it in the middle of a dark night
>without being discovered by those who have boarded your boat. Your plan
>appears to be based more in bravado than a realistic analysis of the
>threats to cruisers and the costs of various response strategies.
There are four classes of weapons, in order of range:
1. Very close assault. Pistols, pepper spray, knife, frying pan, fire
extinguisher, etc. Nearly hand to hand or hand-to-hand combat.
Sprays are useless in YOUR OWN cabin, as you'll gas yourself along
with the bad guy (and if there is a second bad guy, you just
incapacitated yourself - not good). In general, sprays are pretty
useless in any enclosed space as the risk of getting yourself is
at least equal to that of getting the bad guy (unless you can get
a mask on first). If you CAN get a mask on then discharging a
spray is EXTREMELY useful, as it creates a "safe zone" into which
the attacker cannot remain without protective clothing of their own.
In the situation where a bad guy enters your cabin, you shoot when
you are able to do so without risk of penetrating cabin walls and
hitting other members of your party (or shooting a hole below the
waterline in your own boat.) Period.
If you don't have a firearm, you use what you have. Don't forget
things like fire extinguishers - up close and personal one of those,
successfully aimed at the head, can severely incapacitate an attacker
(not to mention the additional value of hitting him over the head
with it after you blind him with the spray!)
2. Close assault. 12 ga short-barrel shotgun and repeating flare gun.
The first will penetrate fiberglass, the second will not. The
second will start fires, the first will maim or kill. Neither
will get through any kind of armor and neither are very accurate.
If you have a long enough cabin and a clear shot nothing sounds
quite like a pump action being racked. If the door starts to swing
open and the bad guy hears "clackity-clack!" he'd be an IDIOT to
come through the door - if he does, you provided fair warning and
the lead sandwich he receives is well-deserved.
3. Moderate distance. 7.62mm NATO rifle with tracer ammunition and a
high-capacity clip. Semi-automatic. Lots of stopping power, legal
almost everywhere, ammo easily available worldwide. Will penetrate
mild steel and fiberglass, and will ALSO disable engines. Tracer
ammo will start nice fires if you manage to hole the fuel tank
of your persuer with a few rounds. Very useful for doing damage
to the BOAT you are being persued by as well as the crew.
A few rounds of tracer ammo across the bow makes your intent to
resist crystal clear. If they keep coming after that little
demonstration you can rely on the fact that they intend to kill you
and you should react accordingly.
LAW Rocket (if you don't care about legal). Will stop anything you
shoot it at, provided you don't miss. Carry multiple disposables
or older style "launcher" and multiple projectiles. Someone else
said "heat seaking" - the problem with these is cost. LAW rockets
are cheap, although very illegal; heat-seaking rockets of any kind
are beyond even more well-healed cruisers. The NATO versions are
not very large; the tube is collapsed and "extends" to firing
position. If you point one of these at a persuer there is no
question possible what you intend to do and the consequences to
their vessel and crew if they keep coming :-)
In this category also go non-lethal things like smoke canisters,
which are also legal. "Marker" smokes are worthless; you want
dense, white smoke devices. They're not hard to make (materials
are not illegal) and I suspect that you can obtain them commercially
as well (although I haven't tried as of yet).
4. Long range. Civilians can't afford these. You're talking
wire-guided things, water-borne projectiles (ie: torpedoes),
"smart weapons", etc. Most heat-seeking devices fall into this
category as well.
The other thing you need is a working SSB/HF radio if you're offshore, and
you need it TUNED TO AN ACTIVE CHANNEL. If the shit hits the fan you don't
have time to dial through the bands looking for someone to holler at!
Add to that a HAILER that can be paralleled so that the bad guys KNOW
you are calling for help.
If you get attacked offshore and the marauder is serious about the assault
someone is going to die. The only question is who it will be. Having a
marauder sink your boat and leave you in the water is just a slow death
instead of a fast one (don't expect them to leave your liferaft or EPIRB
in one piece when they depart!)
No thanks. If I get to have a say in such a situation, I prefer that the
other guy be the one who becomes shark food.
"Inspectors" are only going to give your boat a thorough examination
(sufficient to discover hidden weapons) if they have reason to believe
you're doing something illegal to begin with (primarily if they think you
might be running drugs.)
The final thing to remember:
You only have to worry about being prosecuted if you live.
Jordan Bigel
>> Only a chump would consider it a rational strategy to get up in the face of
>> a foreign law enforcement official - unless you're tired of cruising...
>>
>> >No.....only a Cuban one.
>>
>> My condolences. While ensconced there, did you find it effective to get up
>> in the face of the guards when there was something you wanted from them?
>> Just curious.
>>
>> J.
>
Doug Kanter wrote:
>Forgetting logistics for the moment, the rules of dealing with a deadly
>attack
>are the same regardless of where you are. If you find an armed intruder in
>your
>home, and you don't feel he'll be amenable to a discussion about leaving,
>you
>empty your gun into said intruder, and deal with the legal consequences
>later.
>The other option is absurd: Attempt to reason with an armed intruder, and
>get
>killed for your trouble.
>
>On a boat, if you know you're able to stop the attack, you do so, and deal
>with
>the consequences later. If you feel the incident may've been observed or
>heard,
>you keep all evidence intact. If you're quite sure the incident was not
>observed, you
>
>Really....what other options do you have? If you don't get into a scuffle
>to
>begin with, you're not likely to meet the local gendarmes. If they board
>you to
>inspect, and find a weapon, you didn't do a good enough job of hiding it.
>Do
>not pass "Go", try harder next time. If you are attacked, the whole game
>changes, and the opinion of the authorities becomes largely irrelevant. If
>you're being shot at, are you really going to take the time to think about
>whether you'll upset the local sheriff, before you decide to defend
>yourself?
>
>Doug
>
>empty your gun into said intruder, and deal with the legal consequences
>later.
I'm not going to argue with that point Doug. All I'm saying is that when you
get to the "...deal with the legal consequences..." stage, I don't believe that
getting 'in the face' of ANY law enforcement official (esp. in a foreign
country)
is going to be, ahhh, productive.
J.
Scott Perkins
someone standing in my way with one in each hand would make me
think twice !!! Flare guns are good too, both are allowed on boats by
any government.
Scott
Gene Gruender
Scott Perkins wrote:
Not true.
Gene Gruender
Rainbow Chaser
David Smalley
Scott Perkins wrote:
>
> I plan on carrying a couple of spear guns for fishing and protection,
> someone standing in my way with one in each hand would make me
> think twice !!! Flare guns are good too, both are allowed on boats by
> any government.
>
> Scott
--
DAVe
Steven Shelikoff
>
> Spear guns are now illegal in the Bahamas.
And flare guns are illegal in Mexico.
Steve
--
/ / /
\ \ \ mailto:shel...@averstar.com
/ / /
Doug Kanter
> David Smalley wrote:
> >
> > Spear guns are now illegal in the Bahamas.
>
> And flare guns are illegal in Mexico.
>
> Steve
Any idea why? Were they being used as weapons?
Doug
baxter
> David Smalley wrote:
> >
> > Spear guns are now illegal in the Bahamas.
>
> And flare guns are illegal in Mexico.
>
> Steve
>
> --
> / / /
> \ \ \ mailto:shel...@averstar.com
> / / /
I find it hard to believe that the Mexican government has banned this
most basic piece of marine safety equipment. Do tankers and freighters
and the like dump their equipment overboard before entering Mexican
waters? Not too likely.
As for spear guns, well I don't know, but it would seem more likely that
the mere possession of one of these while transiting Bahamas' waters is
ok, while being in the water with one is not, but who knows?
Cheers
Martin
Terry Schell
Doug Kanter wrote:
>
> Terry Schell wrote:
>
> > Doug Kanter wrote:
> > > Forgetting logistics for the moment, the rules of dealing with a deadly attack
> > > are the same regardless of where you are. If you find an armed intruder in your
> > > home, and you don't feel he'll be amenable to a discussion about leaving, you
> > > empty your gun into said intruder, and deal with the legal consequences later.
> > > The other option is absurd: Attempt to reason with an armed intruder, and get
> > > killed for your trouble.
> > <snip>
> >
> > This will land you in prison in most countries.
> >
>
> Do you actually believe that the laws in some countries require that you do nothing if
> your boat is boarded by someone who's not obviously a legal representative? If you
> were armed, and capable of ending an attempt to board your vessel, are you saying you
> would not at least threaten with a weapon, and at worst, use it?
Not only do I "believe" it, I know it. In most countries (and in most US
states) you cannot use deadly force to protect property. This means you
cannot shoot someone simple for being aboard without permission, nor can
you shoot someone who is exiting your boat with your possessions in tow.
And if you were in possession of that firearm without declaring it to
customs... it won't even matter if you were defending yourself. You
will be doing time. You will argue "better alive in jail than dead on
your boat"... and while this is certainly true, it is simpleminded. It
treats the situation as if there are only two outcomes "you're in jail
or you are dead" when there are many more outcomes likely, e.g., you
lose your radio, cash and dingy and are both alive and out of jail.
You will find that foreign countries take a dim view of guests killing
the locals; even the local criminals.
Karl Denninger
>
>Not only do I "believe" it, I know it. In most countries (and in most US
>states) you cannot use deadly force to protect property. This means you
>cannot shoot someone simple for being aboard without permission, nor can
>you shoot someone who is exiting your boat with your possessions in tow.
There is a HUGE difference between exiting my boat with possessions in tow
and entering my cabin at night while I am asleep.
The second is prima-facie evidence of intent to do great bodily harm or
worse to the occupants, and is justification everywhere in this country for
the use of deadly force.
>And if you were in possession of that firearm without declaring it to
>customs... it won't even matter if you were defending yourself. You
>will be doing time. You will argue "better alive in jail than dead on
>your boat"... and while this is certainly true, it is simpleminded. It
>treats the situation as if there are only two outcomes "you're in jail
>or you are dead" when there are many more outcomes likely, e.g., you
>lose your radio, cash and dingy and are both alive and out of jail.
>
>You will find that foreign countries take a dim view of guests killing
>the locals; even the local criminals.
Yeah, well, Chicago takes a dim view of pistol possession too (they're
flatly illegal to own these days in the city limits).
Guess what? The law is selectively enforced.
Besse Jones, an old lady confined to assisted movement (a wheelchair) was in
her home a couple of years ago when two hoodlums broke down her back door
and proceeded to start pushing her around the house, robbing her by forcing
her to show them where the silver and jewelry in the home were.
She got to the couch, where she had stashed a LOADED .38, managed to get the
gun, and shot the hoodlums, killing one and injuring the second who dove out
a window to escape the little-old-lady-turned-marksman.
The city tried to prosecute her for the illegal ownership and discharge of
the firearm. The uproar of protest killed that plan quite handily.
If there is some asshole in my cabin at 3:00 AM I'll take my chances with
being tried by the local authorities. I far prefer that to my chances with
the undertaker.
Eugene Gruender
>
> Steven Shelikoff wrote:
>
> > David Smalley wrote:
> > >
> > > Spear guns are now illegal in the Bahamas.
> >
> > And flare guns are illegal in Mexico.
> >
> > Steve
>
> Doug
Well, in Cayman they confiscate your spear gun (and spears) so you can't
spear fish.
Gene Gruender
Rainbow Chaser
JGarner
>
> Steven Shelikoff wrote:
>
> > David Smalley wrote:
> > >
> > > Spear guns are now illegal in the Bahamas.
> >
> > And flare guns are illegal in Mexico.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > / / /
> > \ \ \ mailto:shel...@averstar.com
> > / / /
>
> I find it hard to believe that the Mexican government has banned this
> most basic piece of marine safety equipment. Do tankers and freighters
> and the like dump their equipment overboard before entering Mexican
> waters? Not too likely.
>
> As for spear guns, well I don't know, but it would seem more likely that
> the mere possession of one of these while transiting Bahamas' waters is
> ok, while being in the water with one is not, but who knows?
>
> Cheers
> Martin
Probably flares are OK but flare guns not. I (think I) remember reading
in a Jamaican cruising guide that flare guns are not legal in JA.
I have also heard of spear guns being illegal in places, but never a
Bahamian sling. Or maybe that was a Singapore sling?
baxter
>
>
> Probably flares are OK but flare guns not. I (think I) remember reading
> in a Jamaican cruising guide that flare guns are not legal in JA.
> I have also heard of spear guns being illegal in places, but never a
> Bahamian sling. Or maybe that was a Singapore sling?
Now I'll drink to that, and being as how it's Friday afternoon, I'm gonna go
do just that, I'outa here!
Cheers
Martin
Karl Denninger
Igor <ig...@Algebra.Com> wrote:
>Karl Denninger <ka...@Genesis.Denninger.Net> wrote:
>* 2. Disable their vessel - this requires something that will penetrate
>* the hull and either start a fire or do enough physical damage to
>* stop or sink the attacker. This is a somewhat-tall-order in legal
>* munitions; a 7.62mm NATO-caliber rifle is probably your best bet,
>* with a hi-cap magazine and tracer ammunition. The tracer ammunition
>
>A typical 7.62x39 bullet will EASILY penetrate a fiberglass hull and is
>also likely to damage the engine sufficiently. You are underestimating the
>energy that rifle bullets carry.
No I don't. That's why I prefer the 7.62mm to the AR-15; the latter is
designed to maim and kill people, and the bullets carry a LOT less kinetic
energy (not to mention being more inclined to "tumble" rather than stay
stabilized due to the different rifling characteristics.)
The point is that people frequently are more interested in the AR-15 than
the 7.62mm caliber; the former is basically a .223; it was designed for
anti-personnel use and is not up to the job when it comes to firing on
*things* rather than *people*.
Other hunting calibers intended for real game (ie: deer) are up to the job
as well, but 7.62mm is a standard caliber and easily available worldwide.
Ammunition availability is a real factor.
This caliber is also available in tracer, while hunting ammunitions are not,
and I consider the value of tracer ammunition to be very, very high indeed
in a personal combat situation.
>* has two purposes - one, it lets you see where your fire is REALLY
>* going, and two, it lets the person you're shooting at KNOW YOU ARE
>* FIRING AT THEM - that you're actively resisting. Nothing makes
>* people think twice about what they're doing quite like a bunch of
>* visible flaming balls coming in their general direction.
>
>Very true.
Exactly. If you miss your target the entire value of your fire is the
visible demonstration that you can and will use force to resist.
Nothing does that as well as tracer ammunition.
hkr...@capuantispam.net
>
> Karl Denninger <ka...@Genesis.Denninger.Net> wrote:
> * 2. Disable their vessel - this requires something that will penetrate
> * the hull and either start a fire or do enough physical damage to
> * stop or sink the attacker. This is a somewhat-tall-order in legal
> * munitions; a 7.62mm NATO-caliber rifle is probably your best bet,
> * with a hi-cap magazine and tracer ammunition. The tracer ammunition
>
> A typical 7.62x39 bullet will EASILY penetrate a fiberglass hull and is
> also likely to damage the engine sufficiently. You are underestimating the
> energy that rifle bullets carry.
>
> * going, and two, it lets the person you're shooting at KNOW YOU ARE
> * FIRING AT THEM - that you're actively resisting. Nothing makes
> * people think twice about what they're doing quite like a bunch of
> * visible flaming balls coming in their general direction.
>
> Very true.
>
> char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
> http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov
It is not a trivial task to hit a moving target from a moving target,
especially if the targets are small boats at sea and the occupants of
the other boat are shooting back.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Elvis stamp to be printed on tiny squares of velvet.
Steven Shelikoff
>
> Steven Shelikoff wrote:
>
> > David Smalley wrote:
> > >
> > > Spear guns are now illegal in the Bahamas.
> >
> > And flare guns are illegal in Mexico.
> >
> > Steve
>
> Doug
I don't know why. But even just the 12 gauge shells can get you into trouble.
Karl Denninger
You're right, its not.
However, the same issue applies to them as you - they operate under the same
handicap as you do in this regard, which is the good news.
The truly bad news is that if you're being persued their aspect ratio is
horrible for you, and reasonably good for them. Further, they get to shoot
at vital parts of your boat (the engine) while you get to fire at their
non-vital cabin and galley.
Its a LOT easier to hit their boat than to hit the people on the boat!
Disabling their vessel is better in many ways than killing a couple of
their crew, in that it ends the attack while hitting crew members may
or may not do the same thing.
I'd shoot for the boat unless they were actively firing upon me, in which
case you have to aim for the shooter(s).
Frankly, if you're truly paranoid about such things, a Kevlar sandwich
on the inside of the transom (providing bullet resistance for the engine
compartment and fuel tankage) is probably not a bad idea at all (but is a
bit expensive). At least then the odds with regards to ship damage are
even, and if you design it properly you can even use it as a shield behind
which you can lay or crouch while firing.
hkr...@capuantispam.net
One problem is that the bad guys are likely to have fully auto
weapons...and by spraying out those bullets, they are more likely to hit
something than you are.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Famous last words: Let's take the shortcut, he can't see us from there.
jlrogers
illegal in Mexico and other places. There are other flare guns that are not
illegal.
--
To reply, replace "yyy" in my e-mail address with swbell.
"Doug Kanter" <dougk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:385126ED...@earthlink.net...
hkr...@capuantispam.net
>
> hkr...@capuantispam.net <hkr...@capuantispam.net> wrote:
> * Igor wrote:
> * >
> * > Karl Denninger <ka...@Genesis.Denninger.Net> wrote:
> * > * 2. Disable their vessel - this requires something that will penetrate
> * > * the hull and either start a fire or do enough physical damage to
> * > * stop or sink the attacker. This is a somewhat-tall-order in legal
> * > * munitions; a 7.62mm NATO-caliber rifle is probably your best bet,
> * > * with a hi-cap magazine and tracer ammunition. The tracer ammunition
> * >
> * > A typical 7.62x39 bullet will EASILY penetrate a fiberglass hull and is
> * > also likely to damage the engine sufficiently. You are underestimating the
> * > energy that rifle bullets carry.
> * >
> * > * has two purposes - one, it lets you see where your fire is REALLY
> * > * going, and two, it lets the person you're shooting at KNOW YOU ARE
> * > * FIRING AT THEM - that you're actively resisting. Nothing makes
> * > * people think twice about what they're doing quite like a bunch of
> * > * visible flaming balls coming in their general direction.
> * >
> * > Very true.
> *
> *
> * It is not a trivial task to hit a moving target from a moving target,
> * especially if the targets are small boats at sea and the occupants of
> * the other boat are shooting back.
> *
>
> You just need more practice and firepower:)
>
> Seriously, an armed occupant shooting in the general direction of the
> pirates should be enough to persuade them to back down.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
> http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov
I used to practice a lot, from the back of a 43-footer with a 12 gauge
shotgun and a clay pigeon launcher.
--
Harry Krause
------------
A hug warms the soul and puts a smile in the heart.
Steph on Vancouver's Island
to get hard-ons musing about their firepower and their "constitutional
rights"
Give it a rest.
<hkr...@capuantispam.net> wrote in message
news:38514135...@capu.net...
> Igor wrote:
> >
> > Karl Denninger <ka...@Genesis.Denninger.Net> wrote:
> > * 2. Disable their vessel - this requires something that will
penetrate
> > * the hull and either start a fire or do enough physical damage to
> > * stop or sink the attacker. This is a somewhat-tall-order in
legal
> > * munitions; a 7.62mm NATO-caliber rifle is probably your best
bet,
> > * with a hi-cap magazine and tracer ammunition. The tracer
ammunition
> >
> > A typical 7.62x39 bullet will EASILY penetrate a fiberglass hull and is
> > also likely to damage the engine sufficiently. You are underestimating
the
> > energy that rifle bullets carry.
> >
> > * has two purposes - one, it lets you see where your fire is
REALLY
> > * going, and two, it lets the person you're shooting at KNOW YOU
ARE
> > * FIRING AT THEM - that you're actively resisting. Nothing makes
> > * people think twice about what they're doing quite like a bunch
of
> > * visible flaming balls coming in their general direction.
> >
> > Very true.
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> >
char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
> > http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov
>
>
> It is not a trivial task to hit a moving target from a moving target,
> especially if the targets are small boats at sea and the occupants of
> the other boat are shooting back.
>
>
>
Karl Denninger
>>
>> Frankly, if you're truly paranoid about such things, a Kevlar sandwich
>> on the inside of the transom (providing bullet resistance for the engine
>> compartment and fuel tankage) is probably not a bad idea at all (but is a
>> bit expensive). At least then the odds with regards to ship damage are
>> even, and if you design it properly you can even use it as a shield behind
>> which you can lay or crouch while firing.
>
>
>One problem is that the bad guys are likely to have fully auto
>weapons...and by spraying out those bullets, they are more likely to hit
>something than you are.
Wrong. Full automatic weapons make lots of noise but are horribly
inaccurate. They're good for *suppressive* fire (intended to scare rather
than hit things) and will hit things if you have a LOT of targets, but
unless the bad guys have a STABILIZED gun (mounted on the deck) I'd FAR
prefer them to be toting Uzis than 7.62mm NATO rifles!
If they DO have a stabilized deck gun you're fucked. In that case you had
better have something like a LAW rocket or you're going to be dead. But in
that particular kind of situation you're dead anyway.
Karl Denninger
jlrogers <dd...@yyy.net> wrote:
>There are flare guns that will take a 12 gauge shotgun shell. These are
>illegal in Mexico and other places. There are other flare guns that are not
>illegal.
Modern "signalling" guns are chambered such that they will not accept a 12ga
shotgun shell. There is a "repeater" version of these available (that is
legal in the US) that uses a "cylinder-style" magazine. Its big, but legal
and looks to be darn effective if needed for offensive use.
Karl Denninger
>* the 7.62mm caliber; the former is basically a .223; it was designed for
>* anti-personnel use and is not up to the job when it comes to firing on
>* *things* rather than *people*.
>
>I am willing to bet that a .223 will penetrate a typical fiberglass hull
>and then break parts such as exhaust manifolds and so on.
7.62mm NATO will penetrate the BLOCK of most engines. A .223 will get
through the hull, but the AR15 in particular is rifled so as to produce
TUMBLING bullets, particularly after initial impact.
In fact the AR15 is not designed to kill - it is designed to do maximum
INJURY. The reason is that an INJURED soldier on the other side is actually
a greater liability than a DEAD soldier (think about it and the reason for
this is obvious).
Yes, the .223 from an AR15 will kill. But when that particular firearm was
being designed they gave great consideration to causing maximum injury -
rather than maximum lethality.
>* This caliber is also available in tracer, while hunting ammunitions are not,
>* and I consider the value of tracer ammunition to be very, very high indeed
>* in a personal combat situation.
>
>Too bad tracer ammo is illegal here.
That just means you need to hide that box of ammo particularly well ;-)
Karl Denninger
>* horrible for you, and reasonably good for them. Further, they get to shoot
>* at vital parts of your boat (the engine) while you get to fire at their
>* non-vital cabin and galley.
>
>But you can shoot at their bodies, can you not?
Yes, but its damn hard to hit their bodies.
Disabling the vessel is usually easier. Consider the cross-section of
vital things in both an engine room and a person. Which is easier to
hit from a heaving deck?
If you can get a tracer round into their FUEL TANK they're all done for the
day. Unfortunately the fuel tankage is probably below the waterline and
thus nearly impossible to hit. But the engines are probably ABOVE the
waterline and relatively vulnerable, assuming you can get a shot at the side
or transom of the boat.
The big problem is that unless they turn broadside you're not going to
get a shot at any part of the vessel that is vital to their continued
persuit. The bad news is that they get lots of free shots at YOUR
vessel's vital components. This is why its not a bad idea to consider
some kind of ballistic armor (ballistic cloth, for example) right behind
the transom if you think you might be subject to such attacks, and the
rear and side walls of the cockpit (for the same reason).
Now if the guys on deck are shooting at YOU, then you have little option but
to aim for them. However, the most effective way to "win" if you're being
chased is to disable their transportation.
The point is not to kill them (unless you have to); it is to escape with
your own hide in one piece and stop the attack. You only shoot at them if
it is the most effective means of accomplishing the goal of preserving your
own hide.
jlrogers
> Isn't it time we started putting KIDS first?
Not only first, but directly in front of the on-coming traffic.
Jürgen Exner
news:385132F8...@ford.com...
> baxter wrote:
> > Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> > > David Smalley wrote:
> > > > Spear guns are now illegal in the Bahamas.
> > > And flare guns are illegal in Mexico.
> in a Jamaican cruising guide that flare guns are not legal in JA.
> I have also heard of spear guns being illegal in places, but never a
> Bahamian sling. Or maybe that was a Singapore sling?
Please define "illegal".
- It is illegal to drive a car in all countries I'm aware of (unless you
have a drivers license).
- It is illegal to own a flare gun in Germany (unless you have a licence).
- It is illegal to own morphium in all countries I'm aware of (unless you
have a permit to conduct e.g. pharmaceutical research or you doctor
prescibes it to you as a pain relief).
As for e.g. flare guns in Mexico: Maybe they are illegal for boats under
Mexican flag (I don't know). Now, for boats under other flags, Mexican
authorities have no control over what equipment is
required/allowed/recommended on foreign boats (maybe some country requires
flare guns as mandatory safety equipment for boats under their flag?).
If flare guns are outlawedHowever, for Mexican waters they may outlaw flare
guns. That simply means, that at the port of entry you have to declare the
flare gun and customs my either seal it in a closed locker on board or in
the worst case you will have to deposit the flare gun with customs for the
duration of your visit to Mexico.
BTW this is similar to Germany, where one requirement for a flare gun permit
is to own a seagoing yacht. Of course this is a problem if you charter
yachts. Therefore you will get the permit even as charter captain, but
during the time of the year where you are not actively on a chartered yacht
you have to deposit the gun at a licenced gun dealers shop.
jue
--
Jürgen Exner
Doug Kanter
> Frankly, if you're truly paranoid about such things, a Kevlar sandwich
> on the inside of the transom (providing bullet resistance for the engine
> compartment and fuel tankage) is probably not a bad idea at all (but is a
> bit expensive). At least then the odds with regards to ship damage are
> even, and if you design it properly you can even use it as a shield behind
> which you can lay or crouch while firing.
>
Jeeeeeeeeez.....these are pleasure boats we're talking about here. This is
beginning to make the Great Lakes look pretty good, even if the fish ARE loaded
with dioxin, PCB, mercury and God knows what else.
Doug
Jordan Bigel
>David Smalley wrote:
>>
>> Spear guns are now illegal in the Bahamas.
>
Steven Shelikoff wrote:
>And flare guns are illegal in Mexico.
>
>Steve
>
>--
>/ / /
>\ \ \ mailto:shel...@averstar.com
>/ / /
>
Seriously? Flare guns illegal? On foreign boats too?
What does everyone do - throw them overboard
before you check in?
I don't beleive this is true Steve. You blowing smoke?
J.
Steven Shelikoff
>
> >David Smalley wrote:
> >>
> >> Spear guns are now illegal in the Bahamas.
> >
>
> Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> >And flare guns are illegal in Mexico.
> >
> >Steve
>
> What does everyone do - throw them overboard
> before you check in?
I guess they just surrender them and get them back when you leave.
Karl Denninger
>* get a shot at any part of the vessel that is vital to their continued
>* persuit. The bad news is that they get lots of free shots at YOUR
>* vessel's vital components. This is why its not a bad idea to consider
>* some kind of ballistic armor (ballistic cloth, for example) right behind
>* the transom if you think you might be subject to such attacks, and the
>* rear and side walls of the cockpit (for the same reason).
>
>If you think about this, you can do just as well with an iron plate.
>
>igor
IF your boat can take the weight without upsetting its trim.
Thin mild steel, or iron, is not very bullet-reflective. Its also HEAVY.
Tempered steel is a good bullet stopper but is difficult to machine.
Thus the use of ballistic cloth which is both light and easy to handle.
--
--
Karl Denninger (ka...@denninger.net) Web: http://childrens-justice.org
Terry Schell
Karl Denninger wrote:
>
> In article <38512A9C...@uwf.edu>, Terry Schell <tsc...@uwf.edu> wrote:
> >
> >Not only do I "believe" it, I know it. In most countries (and in most US
> >states) you cannot use deadly force to protect property. This means you
> >cannot shoot someone simple for being aboard without permission, nor can
> >you shoot someone who is exiting your boat with your possessions in tow.
>
> There is a HUGE difference between exiting my boat with possessions in tow
> and entering my cabin at night while I am asleep.
>
> The second is prima-facie evidence of intent to do great bodily harm or
> worse to the occupants, and is justification everywhere in this country for
> the use of deadly force.
>
<snip>
People have been killed all over the USA when they were mistaken for
burglars. The killers usually do time for manslaughter or murder. I
read about a case recently in the midwest... I will see if I can dig up
a web reference. Only a couple of states actually have blanket
provisions equating entering a dwelling with evidence of eminent bodily
harm.
Many countries (particularly those with strict gun control laws) do not
consider an intruder in your home to be "prima-facie evidence of intent
to do great bodily harm". You don't have a universal right to shoot
people who are trespassing, even if they are in the process of
committing a property crime.
<snip>
> If there is some asshole in my cabin at 3:00 AM I'll take my chances with
> being tried by the local authorities. I far prefer that to my chances with
> the undertaker.
>
<snip>
What if that "asshole" is just a 10-year-old boatboy come to steal your
cash or CDs... or a drunk sailor who scampered up the wrong transom...
or DEA agents who are moving in to search your vessel... or a friend
playing a practical joke... These people are no threat to your life.
Just because there is an "asshole in your cabin at 3:00 AM" doesn't mean
you are about to be killed. In fact, some boats seem to always have an
asshole in the cabin.
Karl Denninger
>
>
>Karl Denninger wrote:
>>
>> In article <38512A9C...@uwf.edu>, Terry Schell <tsc...@uwf.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >Not only do I "believe" it, I know it. In most countries (and in most US
>> >states) you cannot use deadly force to protect property. This means you
>> >cannot shoot someone simple for being aboard without permission, nor can
>> >you shoot someone who is exiting your boat with your possessions in tow.
>>
>> There is a HUGE difference between exiting my boat with possessions in tow
>> and entering my cabin at night while I am asleep.
>>
>> The second is prima-facie evidence of intent to do great bodily harm or
>> worse to the occupants, and is justification everywhere in this country for
>> the use of deadly force.
>>
>
><snip>
>
>People have been killed all over the USA when they were mistaken for
>burglars. The killers usually do time for manslaughter or murder. I
>read about a case recently in the midwest... I will see if I can dig up
>a web reference. Only a couple of states actually have blanket
>provisions equating entering a dwelling with evidence of eminent bodily
>harm.
Again, there is a difference between a person in your HOUSE and one in
your BEDROOM (cabin).
A trespasser in your BEDROOM is presumed, in most states, to have intent
to do great bodily harm or worse. I know of *NO* state where you'll find
12 people to convict you if you're in your locked bedroom (or cabin),
someone breaks in, and you plug them.
We're not talking about someone who has accidentally stumbled into your
boat. We're talking about violating a cabin or door behind which you or
your family are sleeping.
The law in the United States permits the use of deadly force in defense
of your life or that of your family. I don't want to travel to any country
that does not recognize that same right, because I don't consider rights
like that to come from a government - the right to self-defense is a basic
human right and cannot be revoked by a government.
>You don't have a universal right to shoot
>people who are trespassing, even if they are in the process of
>committing a property crime.
I didn't say that I did.
However, if you break into my CABIN, you're no longer a threat to my
property. You are now a reasonable threat to my life and safety, and I
am authorized to use deadly force to stop you.
>> If there is some asshole in my cabin at 3:00 AM I'll take my chances with
>> being tried by the local authorities. I far prefer that to my chances with
>> the undertaker.
>>
><snip>
>
>What if that "asshole" is just a 10-year-old boatboy come to steal your
>cash or CDs... or a drunk sailor who scampered up the wrong transom...
>or DEA agents who are moving in to search your vessel... or a friend
>playing a practical joke... These people are no threat to your life.
>Just because there is an "asshole in your cabin at 3:00 AM" doesn't mean
>you are about to be killed. In fact, some boats seem to always have an
>asshole in the cabin.
In my CABIN, after coming through a locked cabin door?
Yeah, right.
Better go look up those laws again before you go breaking into anyone's
place of repose (whether floating or not) while they're sleeping. Coming
into someone's bedroom unannounced is asking to be filled with lead and
the person who does so will not go to jail for it - at least not in this
country.
You're welcome to argue with me from the position of daisy-pusher, if you'd
like, but I choose to be the one smelling those flowers.
Steph on Vancouver's Island
"Terry Schell" <tsc...@uwf.edu> wrote in message
news:38516F83...@uwf.edu...
>
> What if that "asshole" is just a 10-year-old boatboy come to steal your
> cash or CDs... or a drunk sailor who scampered up the wrong transom...
> or DEA agents who are moving in to search your vessel... or a friend
> playing a practical joke... These people are no threat to your life.
> Just because there is an "asshole in your cabin at 3:00 AM" doesn't mean
> you are about to be killed. In fact, some boats seem to always have an
> asshole in the cabin.
How true.
It's safer being around pirates than some of these jackasses
hkr...@capuantispam.net
I have to agree with that...
--
Harry Krause
------------
You make ends meet... and they hate each other!
Jordan Bigel
>> Isn't it time we started putting KIDS first?
>
jlrogers wrote:
>Not only first, but directly in front of the on-coming traffic.
>
>
Armed with LAW rockets I presume...
Jordan Bigel
>>cash or CDs... or a drunk sailor who scampered up the wrong transom...
>>or DEA agents who are moving in to search your vessel... or a friend
>>playing a practical joke... These people are no threat to your life.
>>Just because there is an "asshole in your cabin at 3:00 AM" doesn't mean
>>you are about to be killed. In fact, some boats seem to always have an
>>asshole in the cabin.
>
Karl Denninger wrote:
>In my CABIN, after coming through a locked cabin door?
>
>Yeah, right.
Do you really sleep in a room behind a locked door?
Scott Vernon
Scott Vernon
Plowville Pa. ..where we sleep with the doors unlocked & the windows
open(in the summer).
Karl Denninger wrote in message <82s5bv$7tv$0...@dosa.alt.net>...
>In article <82s2sq$o...@lotho.delphi.com>, Jordan Bigel <jbi...@BIX.com>
wrote:
>In a harbor full of potentially-hostile people? You bet I do.
>
>Just as I do in a hotel full of potentially-hostile people. Its roughly
>the same situation as far as I'm concerned.
>
>In my own house? Yep. Behind bolted entry doors, with the alarm armed
>as well. I also have perimeter sensors and pretty-clear warnings that
>make it rather clear to anyone with intelligence greater than flypaper
>that (1) the house knows they're there, (2) it has probably alerted the
>occupants. In the summer months you get quite the surprise if you
>approach my residence from the rear at night (freezing weather prohibits
>one of the tie-ins; in the winter you only get mildly surprised :-)
>
>If they're STILL stupid enough to continue coming, they deserve what
>they get.
>
>When I obtain a larger cruising boat it'll be similarly equipped to
>the house, with similar defensive measures intended to make sure that
>(1) nobody boards or attempts to board it at night without my knowing
>about it, (2) anyone who DOES board will have a surprise or two AND
>ought to be able to figure out that Mr. Owner is waiting for them,
>(3) they are at a severe disadvantage should a fight break out, and
>(4) the only intelligent path at that point is to go pick on
>someone else's yacht.
>
>--
>--
>Karl Denninger (ka...@denninger.net) Web: http://childrens-justice.org
John Lane
>Karl, you live in NY, right?
I don't know where Karl lives, but I have lived in NY for 20 years now and I
wouldn't even DREAM of the nearly insane level of "defense" that he seems to
have set up. Jeez, if I was that scared I'd move to another country. I
lived on the Upper West Side, the Upper East Side, the West Village, the
East Village, and the Central Village over the years. I now live in the
suburbs, which is FAR more dangerous than living in the City, and I STILL
don't fret it anywhere NEAR that level. Moreover, I have anchored in many
harbors in this region in my sailboats, and I have never locked a boat from
the inside when I was sleeping on it. If I felt that worried about things,
I just don't think I'd want to be around here. Truth is, the likelihood of
anyone bothering you is very low. I've also been in many parts of the
Caribbean, and 99% of the time I felt perfectly safe and relaxed (why else
go there?). On the few occasions when I was a little worried, it never
amounted to anything. Of course, trouble can strike anywhere, anytime,
including in the least likely places. That's life. But good God if you
have to have a god damn arsenal and a moat around your damn house. . . well,
methinks maybe you are perhaps a bit . . . um. . . misguided.
Mark