 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsBoatsPaddle BoatsSailingCruisingBuildingElectronics Related Topics CarsMotorcyclesMore Topics ... |
Boat Forum / Cruising / July 2009Zak gets interviewed
He's almost around: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=7983809 > He's almost around: > > http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=7983809 A heck of an adventure for someone that young... for anyone really.  Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com > He's almost around: > > http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=7983809 I have followed him from the start, but get turned off by all the praying and worshiping. Takes away from his achievement. It has opened my eyes to all the Jesus worshipers and how they see the world. "Do hard things" is a good slogan, but it seems to them that it's part of belief in fairy dust and worshiping idols. I was also turned off by his calling daddy when the forestay came loose. Did he really have to ask what to do? Should he, if this is his achievement? The pirate story isn't believable, he probably saw a fishing boat. Too quick with the guns. Guns and God aren't a sane combination. >> He's almost around: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Guns and God aren't a sane combination. Yes! I was thinking that the "pirates" were curious fisherman. If they wanted to get him, they would have. They could clearly out run him. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >>> He's almost around: >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Yes! I was thinking that the "pirates" were curious fisherman. If they > wanted to get him, they would have. They could clearly out run him. Look at his interview for how it turned out, "I turned and then they turned." He should realize by now it was foolish to assume they were a threat. He was too quick to get his gun. In a situation like that I can see fishermen shooting him to protect themselves. The world view of Christians should concern all of us who have an immunity from seeing everything as a threat. Those are the people who still think W was a good thing. The only ones. >>>> He's almost around: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Those are the people who still think W was a good thing. The only ones. I didn't think he had a gun. I don't recall that in the ABC interview. Is it on his website somewhere? I would think that, given his boat and general situation, the better approach would be to act friendly, keep going without changing course, dissuade them from coming along side by basically not stopping, keep waving and acting friendly, etc. I sure as heck wouldn't brandish a weapon. While not anywhere near the same situation, when we were in Belize at anchor, a fishing boat dropped their hook near us. We were the only boat in the lagoon. They were all in their teens or slightly older. We sort of ignored them, but acknowledged there presence by watching them come to rest. They immediately boarded their skiff and motored over. Made us nervous for sure. They wanted soda and books if we had any. We gave them both and later heard them ready some bodice-ripper outloud to each other. The next day they offered (and we accepted) their invitation to take us to their traps and fishing camp. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com JG, I watched the ABC interview. There was a mention of pirates but no mention of a gun. Perhaps Jim can clear this up. His web-site has a tentative arrival date of 7/14 Dave M. >>>>> He's almost around: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > The next day they offered (and we accepted) their invitation to take us to > their traps and fishing camp. He had a big, very powerful gun, and I'm proud of my gun model ignorance. It was a .357 (was that a Pontiac engine?) It was a gun that was capable of doing far more damage that you might want to do. I know how powerful that weapon was. I had a neighbor who fired one through a car (both sides), all the way through a house, and kept going. Could have killed a lot of people, and ruin a lot of people's lives. His dad was too quick to tell him to "Get your gun." I'd rather he said, "Zac, Keep a clear head and know where your gun is." But, get your gun was what he said. It's all on the blog. He dumped it when he got to Central America because he was scared of Mexican gun laws. I really had a new view of things after that. I might be safer in Mexico. >>>>>> He's almost around: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > I might be safer in Mexico. You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you. Eric Hoffer quote The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. Another Eric Hoffer >>>>>> He's almost around: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > I might be safer in Mexico. I'm not a proponent of guns on boats. Ultimately, I don't believe it'll help the situation, and I would never have one. To each his own, and to each his own ability to deal with the gun laws of the various countries. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com Jim, I went to Zac's blog and read the Oct. 5 pirate story, no pistol. But other sources on the net do seem to think that Zac was armed with a .357 and a flare gun. Here's a post that seems to quote Zac's blog but contains the sentence "Then I grabbed my 357 and jammed some bullets into it" Perhaps someone is re-writing the blog posts on Zac's site. Strange. Dave M. Oops, forgot to cite the post. http://clearpointweather.blogspot.com/2008/10/pirates-in-indian-ocean.html Dave M. > Oops, forgot to cite the post. > > http://clearpointweather.blogspot.com/2008/10/pirates-in-indian-ocean.html > > Dave M. Sounds like a bunch of bs to me. I think he just panicked, which seems reasonable for a 17-year old. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >> Oops, forgot to cite the post. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Sounds like a bunch of bs to me. I think he just panicked, which seems > reasonable for a 17-year old. Which is a good reason a 17 year old should not have that powerful a weapon, or maybe any weapon. I know, our soldiers are in that are range. They have supervision and have more than a few examples of being heavy handed with weapons. Somebody wrote: > Which is a good reason a 17 year old should not have that powerful a > weapon, or maybe any weapon. As someone who grew up using firearms, even have a bunch of metals from NRA Junior programs while I was still in high school, to prove that I could hit what I aimed at by the time I was 12 or so, a 17 year old having firearms is NBD, IMHO. Having said that; however, show me anybody, including myself, who claims to be able to hit a bull in the a.s from 20 ft from the deck of a small boat (under 50 ft), with moderate waves (3-4 ft), and I'll show you a teller of tall tales. I wasted a lot of rounds in my Model 12 trying to shoot empty beer bottles floating in the open waters of the Great Lakes under such conditions. Leave the firearms at home before someone comes on board and takes your firearm away from you and places it where the moon doesn't shine. Lew > Somebody wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Lew Good advise. >> Somebody wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Good advise. Definitely. I'm a decent shot with my .38 Special (S&W, mod. 67-1), but to hit a moving target from a moving platform is quite a task. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >>> Somebody wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Definitely. I'm a decent shot with my .38 Special (S&W, mod. 67-1), but to > hit a moving target from a moving platform is quite a task. I heard soe seals could do that. But I take Lew's advice as sound. I have a flare gun aboard. But the rest stay home. Richard > I heard soe seals could do that. > But I take Lew's advice as sound. > > I have a flare gun aboard. > But the rest stay home. A 25mm flare shell makes a penetration a little larger than 25mm on entry into the human body, but burns its way thru the body until who knows how big the hole is coming out the back side. Lew >> I heard soe seals could do that. >> But I take Lew's advice as sound. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Lew And it's legal to carry aboard - anywhere! >>> I heard soe seals could do that. >>> But I take Lew's advice as sound. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> > And it's legal to carry aboard - anywhere! I have flares and a flare gun. I guess I'm set to fend off pirates! Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >>>> I heard soe seals could do that. >>>> But I take Lew's advice as sound. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I have flares and a flare gun. I guess I'm set to fend off pirates! Nope. YOU will need a lot bigger armament. Because you would be a much bigger target. Besides, there aren't many pirates in Texas. Damned Fool place to take up that kind of work... >>>>> I heard soe seals could do that. >>>>> But I take Lew's advice as sound. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Besides, there aren't many pirates in Texas. > Damned Fool place to take up that kind of work... Heh... I'm not that big physically, and I doubt they can see my ego. lol I'm not going to comment on foolishness in Texas. lol Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >A 25mm flare shell makes a penetration a little larger than 25mm on >entry into the human body, but burns its way thru the body until who >knows how big the hole is coming out the back side. And you know this how? I suspect that the projectile will not penetrate much. It is not lead, it is a pellet of fireworks, and the stuff used is not dense. Casady >>A 25mm flare shell makes a penetration a little larger than 25mm on >>entry into the human body, but burns its way thru the body until who [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Casady I was going to post the question about how dangerous flares actually are? I've seen the movie scenes about the guy getting shot with the flare and I also recall seeing something like "myth busters" that showed that flares are really not very dangerous at all. Does anyone know any facts about the question? Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) >>>A 25mm flare shell makes a penetration a little larger than 25mm on >>>entry into the human body, but burns its way thru the body until who [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Bruce > (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) I don't know about the 'facts", but from personal experience I "know" that a 12 gauge flare fired at a guy wearing a denim jacket will usually bounce off and scatter. Regards, JR >>>>A 25mm flare shell makes a penetration a little larger than 25mm on >>>>entry into the human body, but burns its way thru the body until who [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >Regards, > JR That is roughly what the "myth busters" show that I vaguely remember showed. By the way, a S. African bloke here builds a sort of slide action device using stainless pipe or tubing that will fire either 12 gauge flares or shotgun shells. It is a couple of pieces of tubing that slide together. You drop the shell in one tube and slide the other over it. Slam the two tubes together hard enough and the thing fires. He reckons that since it is in the flare kit and is logically a part of the kit it will get past an inspection where a cut down shotgun wouldn't. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) > And you know this how? I suspect that the projectile will not > penetrate much. It is not lead, it is a pellet of fireworks, and the > stuff used is not dense. My only experience was with a 12GA flare shell.fired at a concrete block wall about 60-70ft away.. It exploded on contact with pieces bouncing back in our general direction. Previous test with a .22 rim fire, long rifle hollow point, didn't penetrate a concrete block wall either. Nothing very scientific about either test. Lew >Somebody wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Lew A recent issue of Cruising World had an article about Fatty Goodlander learning the hard way that a gun on board is more trouble than it is worth. He ended up dismantling the (very nice and expensive) gun and throwing it overboard. >Having said that; however, show me anybody, including myself, who >claims to be able to hit a bull in the a.s from 20 ft from the deck of >a small boat (under 50 ft), with moderate waves (3-4 ft), and I'll >show you a teller of tall tales. Once they put a hand on the rail, they are no longer moving with respect to the gun. Once they are still attempting to board after a shot in the air, they are clearly pirates. You have to remember there are lots more fishermen than thieves. You don't want to harm, or even unduely threaten a guy merely with fish for sale. Mossberg makes a stainless steel shotgun just for mariners. Handguns need to be very, very, very non obvious. In the words of some singer ' I hid it like contraband' Hide your roscoe like it was a kilo of the white stuff. The shotgun is for sharks, thats your story, and have a couple of rods and reels. Like the thrift store ball bat on the back seat floor. Add a thrift shop softball so your lawyer will have something to work with. The cops can be sure its a weapon but juries go by reasonable doubt. You need fishing tackle for it to be a shark gun. By the same token guys in fishing boats are allowed one AK47 per boat, for the net with a shark in it. You could use a pike I suppose, but guns are the popular for that. One gun per boat, its probably for sharks. One gun per person is suspicious to say the least. Casady On Jul 8, 10:33 am, Richard Casady <richardcas...@earthlink.net> wrote: > On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:00:56 GMT, "Lew Hodgett" > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > respect to the gun. Once they are still attempting to board after a > shot in the air, they are clearly pirates. Yeah I LMAO at commets of the gun scared thinking the only way to use a gun is wave it in the air and think it going to scare off anyone. You have to remember there > are lots more fishermen than thieves. You don't want to harm, or even > unduely threaten a guy merely with fish for sale. Smartest thing said in this thread. Mossberg makes a > stainless steel shotgun just for mariners. a 410 snake charmer is staineless as well, Handguns need to be very, > very, very non obvious. In the words of some singer ' I hid it like > contraband' Hide your roscoe like it was a kilo of the white stuff. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > with. The cops can be sure its a weapon but juries go by reasonable > doubt. Most good fishing stores sell a 2 ft aluminum ball bat just for sharks. You need fishing tackle for it to be a shark gun. By the same > token guys in fishing boats are allowed one AK47 per boat, for the net > with a shark in it. I agree. AK47s are all over Mexico and Belize There is no problem packing weapons aboard as long as you declare them to customs. It's a boat security tool. Joe You could use a pike I suppose, but guns are the > popular for that. One gun per boat, its probably for sharks. One gun > per person is suspicious to say the least. > Casady On Jul 8, 10:33 am, Richard Casady <richardcas...@earthlink.net> wrote: > On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:00:56 GMT, "Lew Hodgett" > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > respect to the gun. Once they are still attempting to board after a > shot in the air, they are clearly pirates. Yeah I LMAO at commets of the gun scared thinking the only way to use a gun is wave it in the air and think it going to scare off anyone. You have to remember there > are lots more fishermen than thieves. You don't want to harm, or even > unduely threaten a guy merely with fish for sale. Smartest thing said in this thread. Mossberg makes a > stainless steel shotgun just for mariners. a 410 snake charmer is staineless as well, Handguns need to be very, > very, very non obvious. In the words of some singer ' I hid it like > contraband' Hide your roscoe like it was a kilo of the white stuff. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > with. The cops can be sure its a weapon but juries go by reasonable > doubt. Most good fishing stores sell a 2 ft aluminum ball bat just for sharks. You need fishing tackle for it to be a shark gun. By the same > token guys in fishing boats are allowed one AK47 per boat, for the net > with a shark in it. I agree. AK47s are all over Mexico and Belize There is no problem packing weapons aboard as long as you declare them to customs. It's a boat security tool. Joe You could use a pike I suppose, but guns are the > popular for that. One gun per boat, its probably for sharks. One gun > per person is suspicious to say the least. > Casady There's frequently a big problem packing weapons. If you're visiting one or two countries, then you might be able to figure out the regs. If you're doing some long distance cruising, there are too many issues in too many different places. It's not worth the hassle for the slightly chance the weapon would be a benefit. 99.999 percent of the time there's either no problem and no reason to carry one or there isn't anything you can do. This is true even off the Somali coast. While there has been a significant increase in piracy, the vast, vast majority of ships never have a problem. Look it up if you don't believe me. If you want a "boat security tool," lock your boat when you leave it and lock your dinghy/engine at night. Leave a light on. Talk to your companions on nearby hooks... check in with each other regularly via a net. When ashore, respect the local customs and be mindful of your environment. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com It's not worth the hassle for the slightly chance the > weapon would be a benefit. 99.999 percent of the time there's either no > problem and no reason to carry one or there isn't anything you can do. 99.999 percent of the time you do not need a liferaft or an EPIRB why hassle with it, it's expensive and time consuming.. This > is true even off the Somali coast. While there has been a significant > increase in piracy, the vast, vast majority of ships never have a problem. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > -- > "j" ganz @@www.sailnow.com Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Southerner? Here is a little test that will help you decide. The answer can be found by posing the following question: You're sailing offshore with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an pirate in a skiff comes along side, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you. You are carrying a Glock in cal. 45 ACP, and you are an quality shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do? THINK CAREFULLY: Democrat's Answer: Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? Should I call the coast guard? Why is this ocean so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have beach clean up day and make this happier, healthier ocean that would discourage such behavior. This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus. Republican's Answer: BANG! Southerner's Answer: BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click. Reload. Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Son: "Can I shoot the next one? Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Golden Sabers?" Wife: "You ain't takin' that to the Taxidermist! > Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Southerner? > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > THINK CAREFULLY: I realize this is a joke, but it is based upon a scenario that NEVER happens, and never did happen, and never will, except in your mind. It's really Muslin bashing. Guess that's what pisses me off about our trying to protect ourselves from whatever threat we think we are protecting ourselves from. Reality takes a back seat to creative thinking. Searching elderly people at the airport, searching people's shoes. The Muslim's aren't coming to get you, maybe you aren't based in reality enough to own a gun. > > Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Southerner? > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Guess that's what pisses me off about our trying to protect ourselves > from whatever threat we think we are protecting ourselves from. Jim, please dont bother protecting yourself. > Reality takes a back seat to creative thinking. Searching elderly > people at the airport, searching people's shoes. Reality is a terrorist (muslim) tried to blow up a plane full of good people with a shoe bomb. Sorry if the airport security making you take off your shoes troubled your superior self, but Im glad they take the job of protecting others seriously. > The Muslim's aren't coming to get you, maybe you aren't based in reality > enough to own a gun.- Hide quoted text - Maybe you are to sensitive to own a gun, or can't take a joke Jim. And BTW many millions of teens serving in the military have no problem becoming fire arms experts. And after military service many become police ect. But I'm sure some a.shole can find one or two bad examples in every large group and try to use that for a warped anti gun stance. Most idiots who can not properly master a firearm are dropped in boot camp. You like bashing the military? Did you serve in the military? Don't worry Jim, them military teens are not coming to get you. Joe On Jul 9, 10:27 am, Jim <j...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Joe wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Guess that's what pisses me off about our trying to protect ourselves > from whatever threat we think we are protecting ourselves from. Jim, please dont bother protecting yourself. > Reality takes a back seat to creative thinking. Searching elderly > people at the airport, searching people's shoes. >Reality is a terrorist (muslim) tried to blow up a plane full of good >people with a shoe bomb. Sorry if the airport security making you take >off your shoes troubled your superior self, but Im glad they take the >job of protecting others seriously. Come one. You seriously believe that taking off your shoes is going to protect you? Our Federal buildings are unprotected... recent CNN report. Our chem plants are unprotected. > The Muslim's aren't coming to get you, maybe you aren't based in reality > enough to own a gun.- Hide quoted text - >Maybe you are to sensitive to own a gun, or can't take a joke Jim. >And BTW many millions of teens serving in the military have no problem >becoming fire arms experts. And after military service many become >police ect. So now you're claiming Zac is an expert? Now that's funny! >But I'm sure some a.shole can find one or two bad examples in every >large group and try to use that for a warped anti gun stance. Most >idiots who can not properly master a firearm are dropped in boot >camp. Like Tim McVeigh? >You like bashing the military? Making things up again? >Did you serve in the military? What's that got to do with anything?? Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com > On Jul 9, 10:27 am, Jim <j...@hotmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > protect you? Our Federal buildings are unprotected... recent CNN report. Our > chem plants are unprotected. Are you Jim? Or is he your puppet? Are you just standing in for Jim? Im more worried about points of access like airports. I went to the Federal bldg here lately and they had many guards doing very good work. They even seemed a bit agressive, but thats good. > > The Muslim's aren't coming to get you, maybe you aren't based in reality > > enough to own a gun.- Hide quoted text - [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So now you're claiming Zac is an expert? Now that's funny! No. I was claiming that Jim was being bias against the many millions of young men in our military by pointing out one or two bad seeds to tarnish the millions that do excellent work. I thought he was a real a.shole when he claimed "many cases of heavy handed examples" Do I think Zac should be able to carry a gun in open waters? Yes. Is he a gun expert? I have no ideal. > >But I'm sure some a.shole can find one or two bad examples in every > >large group and try to use that for a warped anti gun stance. Most > >idiots who can not properly master a firearm are dropped in boot > >camp. > > Like Tim McVeigh? Uhh he used a bomb. have you Jon ever been through a military weapons training class? If so why do people fail the course > >You like bashing the military? > > Making things up again? talking to Jim > >Did you serve in the military? > > What's that got to do with anything?? ZOOM right over your head Jon. Take some Midol Joe > -- > "j" ganz @@www.sailnow.com- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > Come one. You seriously believe that taking off your shoes is going to > protect you? Our Federal buildings are unprotected... recent CNN report. > Our > chem plants are unprotected. >Are you Jim? Or is he your puppet? Are you just standing in for Jim? I think Jim's doing fine on his own. Are you not interested in the facts? > Im more worried about points of access like airports. I went to the >Federal bldg here lately and they had many guards doing very good >work. They even seemed a bit agressive, but thats good. Yeah, well, according the GAO, they're not doing what they should. > > The Muslim's aren't coming to get you, maybe you aren't based in reality > > enough to own a gun.- Hide quoted text - [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So now you're claiming Zac is an expert? Now that's funny! >No. I was claiming that Jim was being bias against the many millions >of young men in our military by pointing out one or two bad seeds to >tarnish the millions that do excellent work. I thought he was a real >a.shole when he claimed "many cases of heavy handed examples" Do I >think Zac should be able to carry a gun in open waters? Yes. Is he a >gun expert? I have no ideal. Based on what? Why is it that if someone criticized something about the gov't that equals anti-military or non-patriotism? There are many cases of heavy-handed examples from the military. So what? Should we just sweep that under the rug? Carrying a gun in open waters isn't the problem. All countries have rules and regs. When you visit them, you have to deal with them. Take a guess about if he is or isn't an expert.... > >But I'm sure some a.shole can find one or two bad examples in every > >large group and try to use that for a warped anti gun stance. Most > >idiots who can not properly master a firearm are dropped in boot > >camp. > > Like Tim McVeigh? >Uhh he used a bomb. But he and his kind are a much greater threat in the domestic arena. >have you Jon ever been through a military weapons training class? >If so why do people fail the course Has nothing to do with the question. People fail basic math classes. What's that got to do with the price of beans in China? > >You like bashing the military? > > Making things up again? talking to Jim > >Did you serve in the military? > > What's that got to do with anything?? >ZOOM right over your head Jon. >Take some Midol Ah, ok. Now it's personal attack time? I get it. > -- > "j" ganz @@www.sailnow.com- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >I was claiming that Jim was being bias against the many millions >> of young men in our military by pointing out one or two bad seeds to >> tarnish the millions that do excellent work. There are too many examples of war not being what we are told to believe it is. Like the photos of abuse that were blamed on "one or two bad seeds," that isn't how it happens. >I thought he was a real >> a.shole when he claimed "many cases of heavy handed examples" I thought your "Muslims are coming to get us" joke showed you to be a die hard right wing nut, or, just "a.shole," in your language, will do nicely. And your "joke" provided proof. >Do I >> think Zac should be able to carry a gun in open waters? Yes. Is he a >> gun expert? No one 17, and maybe no one, should carry a weapon as powerful as the one he had on a boat. The bullet can go through more than you might want. It would only take one mis-fired shot to go through the bottom of a boat. >I have no ideal. You have no idea. An ideal is something else you don't show yourself to have. > I was claiming that Jim was being bias against the many millions > of young men in our military by pointing out one or two bad seeds to > tarnish the millions that do excellent work. There are too many examples of war not being what we are told to believe it is. Like the photos of abuse that were blamed on "one or two bad seeds," that isn't how it happens. I thought he was a real > a.shole when he claimed "many cases of heavy handed examples" I thought your "Muslims are coming to get us" joke showed you to be a die hard right wing nut, or, just "a.shole," in your language, will do nicely. And your "joke" provided proof. Do I > think Zac should be able to carry a gun in open waters? Yes. Is he a > gun expert? No one 17, and maybe no one, should carry a weapon as powerful as the one he had. The bullet can go through more than you might want. It would only take one mis-fired shot to go through the bottom of a boat. I have no ideal. You have no idea. An ideal is something else you don't show yourself to have. Leaving politics aside, isn't whether or not to have a firearm on board a personal decision? Do you fear for yourself that a cruiser may carry a firearm? It doesn't bother me. Whether or not I'd carry one myself when cruising I can't answer. Probably not, because I'd most likely be out-gunned, and the danger might outweigh the benefit. I mean, you don't bring a .357 to an AK-47 fight. But I'm not really sure. Thing is, it doesn't bother me that others may choose to arm themselves. I don't intend to pirate anybody. --Vic > Leaving politics aside, isn't whether or not to have a firearm on > board a personal decision? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > --Vic Whether to have a gun, or not is certainly up to debate. If you go by statistics, and you should in Las Vegas at least, guns aren't problem solvers. But this isn't really the issue here. The issue is one of a 17 year old armed with a very powerful weapon. A weapon that would do far more damage to everything involved than would be necessary. 17 year olds, no matter what you say, do not have the life experience to make good decisions with guns. That gun, if fired in a position that a scared teenager would have been holding it, probably pointed down, awaiting the "quick draw," would have ended his trip very quickly as the boat would have had a very large hole in it. I'd say he would have been lucky to just have killed his boat, it looks like innocent fishermen had that gun pointed their way. A lot of lives are ruined every day by a teenager with a gun. Most cruisers are middle aged. They MIGHT have more experience dealing with quick life/death decisions. 17, no way, a bad idea. The size of the gun proves to me it wasn't thought out very well by rational people. > > Leaving politics aside, isn't whether or not to have a firearm on > > board a personal decision? [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > - Show quoted text - The size of the gun proves nothing, except you know nothing about guns. More people are killed with .22's than any other caliber. A 357 is OK for sinking boats if you put enough rounds near the water line...And Jim,,that's the waterline of the attacking boat not your own...duh. Zac would know that, seems to complicated for you to deal with. Doing your made up quick draw BS. You must have been a real basket case at 17. Joe >>> Leaving politics aside, isn't whether or not to have a firearm on >>> board a personal decision? [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Joe There was no attack. Just a scared teenager with a gun, who probably was seconds from making a huge mistake. I can't help but notice that you regress into name calling when your argument is lacking substance. >>>> Leaving politics aside, isn't whether or not to have a firearm on >>>> board a personal decision? [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >There was no attack. Just a scared teenager with a gun, who probably >was seconds from making a huge mistake. Since he did not "make a mistake" he was not "seconds away from making a mistake". And, since he didn't shoot it is logical to believe that he was never in any danger of making a mistake. He was simply "prepared". >I can't help but notice that you regress into name calling when your >argument is lacking substance. >>>>> Leaving politics aside, isn't whether or not to have a firearm on >>>>> board a personal decision? [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] >> I can't help but notice that you regress into name calling when your >> argument is lacking substance. Good thing they didn't try to sell him some fish. >>>>>> Leaving politics aside, isn't whether or not to have a firearm on >>>>>> board a personal decision? [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] >> >Good thing they didn't try to sell him some fish. The point is that they didn't and he didn't so all of the thrilling suppositions are just that. Nothing happened. Why make wild statements about what didn't happened? A tsunami MIGHT have happened and sunk the fishing boat - but it didn't. Should we be agonizing about big waves? >>>>>>> Leaving politics aside, isn't whether or not to have a firearm on >>>>>>> board a personal decision? [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > have happened and sunk the fishing boat - but it didn't. Should we be > agonizing about big waves? It's time to end this as we don't agree, and never will, until? You have no problem with a kid with a powerful gun, I do. Enough said. >>>>>>>> Leaving politics aside, isn't whether or not to have a firearm on >>>>>>>> board a personal decision? [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > >You have no problem with a kid with a powerful gun, I do. Enough said. You seem to have some sort of phobia about guns. But no, I'd have no problem with a kid that I had raised with a gun of any sort. I had my own .22 rifle when I was 12 years old and haven't shot anyone yet. We let 16 year old kids drive big powerful automobiles - which kill more people then guns, by the way - with no qualms. Never a mention about this kid running loose with a 300 HP, four door, people killer, is there. But a GUN! Oh My God! A Gun! Why not talk about a baseball bat? Easy enough to whack a bloke with an aluminum bat. Or a kitchen cleaver - favored weapon in the old Tong Wars. Have a look at the chef's knife out there in the kitchen. It is a bigger knife then the commandos carried.... Edward V became king of England in 1461, at the age of 19, after raising an army and leading it to victory in the Battle of Towton but apparently modern youth are a far more delicate breed and must be protected from themselves. Pitiful! hmmm, interesting. when i was 17 i was being trained by my uncle sam in the uses of powerful weapons. he seemed to think i was old, mature, grown up enough to handle them. turns out i was. i have weapons on my boat, in my home and on my person at all times. if you have ever needed a weapon to keep yourself or family alive, you understand what i mean. regards, j.d. > hmmm, interesting. when i was 17 i was being trained by my uncle sam in > the uses of powerful weapons. he seemed to think i was old, mature, grown > up enough to handle them. turns out i was. i have weapons on my boat, in > my home and on my person at all times. if you have ever needed a weapon to > keep yourself or family alive, you understand what i mean. regards, j.d. And, because you were "matrure" enough to have them at that age, that means all those 17 are? Hardly. It's a fact that a young person's brain isn't fully mature (on average) until they're in their mid-20s. I disagree with your assertion that you have them "on ..your.. person" at all times, unless you never have to go on a plane trip, visit a Federal (or State) building, or a bunch other places where they're restricted. Are you a cop or in the military? When was the last time you needed a weapon to "keep yourself or your family alive"? Where you on your boat? What were the facts? I own guns and I see their place in society. I choose not to carry them aboard, especially if I'm going to another country. You can choose differently of course. The problem is that some people have decided that if someone chooses not to carry a gun, that means they must be labelled as weak, ineffectual, or "liberal," which is complete bs. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com > > hmmm, interesting. when i was 17 i was being trained by my uncle sam in > > the uses of powerful weapons. he seemed to think i was old, mature, grown [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > all those 17 are? Hardly. It's a fact that a young person's brain isn't > fully mature (on average) until they're in their mid-20s. Spelling Nazi, what about this 14 YO that just passed away? Was he mature enough? Youngest Marine to get MoH dies After lying about age to join Corps, he covered 2 grenades with his body on Iwo Jima By Chris Talbott - The Associated Press Posted : Monday Jun 9, 2008 19:05:37 EDT JACKSON, Miss. — Jack Lucas, who at 14 lied his way into military service during World War II and became the youngest Marine to receive the Medal of Honor, died of cancer in the pre-dawn hours Thursday in a Hattiesburg, Miss., hospital. He was 80. Jacklyln “Jack” Lucas was just six days past his 17th birthday in February 1945, when his heroism at Iwo Jima earned him the nation’s highest military honor. He used his body to shield three fellow squad members from two grenades, and was nearly killed when one exploded. “A couple of grenades rolled into the trench,” Lucas said in an Associated Press interview shortly before he received the medal from President Truman in October 1945. “I hollered to my pals to get out and did a Superman dive at the grenades. I wasn’t a Superman after I got hit. I let out one helluva scream when that thing went off.” He was left with more than 250 pieces of shrapnel in his body and in every major organ and endured 26 surgeries in the months after Iwo Jima. “By his inspiring action and valiant spirit of self-sacrifice, he not only protected his comrades from certain injury or possible death but also enabled them to rout the Japanese patrol and continue the advance,” the Medal of Honor citation said. In the AP interview, written as a first-person account under his name, he recalled the months he spent in a hospital. “Soon as I rest up, I imagine I’ll run for president,” the story concluded. “Ain’t I the hero, though?” Big for his age and eager to serve, Lucas forged his mother’s signature on an enlistment waiver and joined the Marines at 14. Military censors discovered his age through a letter to his 15-year- old girlfriend. “They had him driving a truck in Hawaii because his age was discovered and they threatened to send him home,” said D.K. Drum, who wrote Lucas’ story in the 2006 book “Indestructible.” “He said if they sent him home, he would just join the Army.” Lucas eventually stowed away aboard a Navy ship headed for combat in the Pacific Ocean. He turned himself in to avoid being listed as a deserter and volunteered to fight, and the officers onboard allowed him to fight the Japanese. “They did not know his age. He didn’t give it up and they didn’t ask,” Drum said. Born in Plymouth, N.C., on Feb. 14, 1928, Edwards was a 13-year-old cadet captain in a military academy when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. “I would not settle for watching from the sidelines when the United States was in such desperate need of support from its citizens,” Lucas said in “Indestructible.” “Everyone was needed to do his part and I could not do mine by remaining in North Carolina.” After the war, Lucas earned a business degree from High Point University and raised, processed and sold beef in the Washington, D.C., area. In the 1960s, he joined the Army and became a paratrooper, Drum said, to conquer his fear of heights. On a training jump, both of his parachutes failed. “He was the last one out of the airplane and the first one on the ground,” Drum said. He was diagnosed with a form of leukemia in April and spent his last days in the hospital with family and friends, including his wife, Ruby, standing vigil. > I disagree with your assertion that you have them "on ..your.. person" at > all times, unless you never have to go on a plane trip, visit a Federal (or > State) building, or a bunch other places where they're restricted. Are you a > cop or in the military? When was the last time you needed a weapon to "keep > yourself or your family alive"? Where you on your boat? What were the facts? Why doubt the man? > I own guns and I see their place in society. I'm curious. If they are not for protection in the one place you only yourself to rely on, where else is a more proper place? I choose not to carry them > aboard, especially if I'm going to another country. You can choose > differently of course. The problem is that some people have decided that if > someone chooses not to carry a gun, that means they must be labelled as > weak, ineffectual, or "liberal," which is complete bs. No the problem is if you carry a gun, some snot nose weak liberal has a problem with it, and assumes you are a "right wing nut". Joe > -- > "j" ganz @@www.sailnow.com On Jul 13, 12:38 pm, "Capt. JG" <jg...@sailnow.invalid> wrote: > "jds" <ssss> wrote in messagenews:4a5b6ae5$0$194$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com... > > hmmm, interesting. when i was 17 i was being trained by my uncle sam in [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > all those 17 are? Hardly. It's a fact that a young person's brain isn't > fully mature (on average) until they're in their mid-20s. >Spelling Nazi, what about this 14 YO that just passed away? >Was he mature enough? What's your problem joey. I didn't correct your spelling. Could you possibly find an example of a rec. vehicle being attacked whereby it was protected by a teenager with a gun in the last 10 years? I bet there's one or two. << unrelated crap removed >> > I disagree with your assertion that you have them "on ..your.. person" at > all times, unless you never have to go on a plane trip, visit a Federal [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > yourself or your family alive"? Where you on your boat? What were the > facts? >Why doubt the man? Because it's sounds like bs. Why do you believe him? Last I checked this is usenet. > I own guns and I see their place in society. >I'm curious. If they are not for protection in the one place you only >yourself to rely on, where else is a more proper place? ?? Their place in society is protected by the Constitution. I don't think a boat in foreign waters qualifies, but as I've said many times, feel free. I choose not to carry them > aboard, especially if I'm going to another country. You can choose > differently of course. The problem is that some people have decided that > if > someone chooses not to carry a gun, that means they must be labelled as > weak, ineffectual, or "liberal," which is complete bs. > No the problem is if you carry a gun, some snot nose weak liberal has a problem with it, and assumes you are a "right wing nut". ?? Please show me where I said you're a right-wingnut with respect to this discussion. I didn't. You're the one who starting flinging your sh*t. > -- > "j" ganz @@www.sailnow.com Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com > On Jul 13, 12:38 pm, "Capt. JG" <jg...@sailnow.invalid> wrote: >> "jds" <ssss> wrote in messagenews:4a5b6ae5$0$194$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com... [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > ?? Please show me where I said you're a right-wingnut with respect to this > discussion. I didn't. You're the one who starting flinging your sh*t. Temper, temper! Ha ha! It looks like Gaynze forgot to take his meds again. (Either that or an LSD flashback?) Wilbur Hubbard >> No the problem is if you carry a gun, some snot nose weak liberal >has a problem with it, and assumes you are a "right wing nut". In your case, it's an easy call. >> hmmm, interesting. when i was 17 i was being trained by my uncle sam in >> the uses of powerful weapons. he seemed to think i was old, mature, grown [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And, because you were "matrure" enough to have them at that age, that means > all those 17 are? Hardly. Haha. Now you're trying to entirely change the argument. You were claiming Zak shouldn't have a gun because he is 17. The only way that argument works is if *no* 17 yo's are old enough to use guns safely, because if some are, Zak might be one of them. Now you are using the straw man tactic to change the opponents argument when you realize the side you are on is wrong. Lame. Stephen >>> hmmm, interesting. when i was 17 i was being trained by my uncle sam in >>> the uses of powerful weapons. he seemed to think i was old, mature, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Stephen No, I never said that. That was Jim I believe. Haha. You need to re-read what I said. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >>>> hmmm, interesting. when i was 17 i was being trained by my uncle sam in >>>> the uses of powerful weapons. he seemed to think i was old, mature, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > No, I never said that. That was Jim I believe. Haha. You need to re-read > what I said. Let's both reread what you said: >>> And, because you were "matrure" enough to have them at that age, that >>> means all those 17 are? Hardly. You didn't write this? Put the bong down, dude. Stephen >>>>> hmmm, interesting. when i was 17 i was being trained by my uncle sam >>>>> in the uses of powerful weapons. he seemed to think i was old, mature, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Stephen I never said that Zak is or isn't mature enough. I said "just because you (jds) was mature enough at 17, that doesn't mean all 17 year olds are." If you're having trouble following the line of reasoning, I'm not going to be able to make it more clear. Sorry. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >>>>>> hmmm, interesting. when i was 17 i was being trained by my uncle sam >>>>>> in the uses of powerful weapons. he seemed to think i was old, mature, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I never said that Zak is or isn't mature enough. I said "just because you > (jds) was mature enough at 17, that doesn't mean all 17 year olds are." No one ever said all 17 yo's are mature enough. You just tried to change the argument to that. Can you see what you did now? > If you're having trouble following the line of reasoning, I'm not going to > be able to make it more clear. Sorry. You understand yet? Stephen >>>>>>> hmmm, interesting. when i was 17 i was being trained by my uncle sam >>>>>>> in the uses of powerful weapons. he seemed to think i was old, [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Stephen It was a question to the other person. Not a statement. Try again. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >>>>>>>> hmmm, interesting. when i was 17 i was being trained by my uncle sam >>>>>>>> in the uses of powerful weapons. he seemed to think i was old, [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > It was a question to the other person. Not a statement. Try again. Either you're really clueless about what you're doing or you are just hoping no one else notices. Either way, I'm starting to feel sorry for you, so I'll drop it. Stephen >>>>>>>>> hmmm, interesting. when i was 17 i was being trained by my uncle >>>>>>>>> sam in the uses of powerful weapons. he seemed to think i was old, [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Stephen I think you're "dropping" it because you're giving up. But, you're not a quitter, right? Are you related to Palin? Ok, that was mean. Sorry. So, you believe that guns are appropriate on a boat in foreign waters? Do you have experience with this? If so (or if not), please tell us why you think they're appropriate on recreational vessel. Or, don't I suppose. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >>> hmmm, interesting. when i was 17 i was being trained by my uncle sam in >>> the uses of powerful weapons. he seemed to think i was old, mature, grown [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >argument works is if *no* 17 yo's are old enough to use guns safely, >because if some are, Zak might be one of them. Some 12 year olds know more about politics and current events than many 40 year olds. I guess we should lower the voting age to 12. heck, maybe five is old enough. After all, it only takes one example to prove something on your planet. I'm sure there is at least 1 five year old that could qualify. >Now you are using the straw man tactic to change the opponents argument >when you realize the side you are on is wrong. Lame. > >Stephen >>>> hmmm, interesting. when i was 17 i was being trained by my uncle sam in >>>> the uses of powerful weapons. he seemed to think i was old, mature, grown [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > prove something on your planet. I'm sure there is at least 1 five year > old that could qualify. How about instead of trying to determine an age to descriminate people at, you base it upon competence, which occurs at different ages for different people? >> Now you are using the straw man tactic to change the opponents argument >> when you realize the side you are on is wrong. Lame. >> >> Stephen >>>>> hmmm, interesting. when i was 17 i was being trained by my uncle sam in >>>>> the uses of powerful weapons. he seemed to think i was old, mature, grown [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >at, you base it upon competence, which occurs at different ages for >different people? Risky as it sounds, I think you should retain the right to vote. >>>>>> hmmm, interesting. when i was 17 i was being trained by my uncle sam >>>>>> in [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Risky as it sounds, I think you should retain the right to vote. Now that's funny. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com > I disagree with your assertion that you have them "on ..your.. person" at > all times, unless you never have to go on a plane trip, visit a Federal > (or State) building, or a bunch other places where they're restricted. Are > you a cop or in the military? drug enforcement agent, retired in march. my office was in a federal building. when flying, as long as i was carrying out my job, i carried. if it was a pleasure trip i wouldnt. could have, but didnt. When was the last time you needed a weapon to "keep > yourself or your family alive"? Where you on your boat? What were the > facts? myself?? too many to count. the june before last my wife of 39 years and i were out driving around in our z06. some mutt at a stop light thought he wanted our car and my wife. for some reason known only to god, i didnt kill him, but he wont be jacking anyone else for a while. i keep a shotgun on the boat and my sidearm, a .45 acp. its none of my business if you own weapons or not. this is america and the choice is yours. thats your right. when you kiss your wife goodnight and turn out the lights to go to bed, do me a favor. give a passing thought to the people that carry weapons to keep you and yours safe. people like me. now, call me anything you wish. sleep tight. regards, j.d. >> I disagree with your assertion that you have them "on ..your.. person" at >> all times, unless you never have to go on a plane trip, visit a Federal [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > building. when flying, as long as i was carrying out my job, i carried. if > it was a pleasure trip i wouldnt. could have, but didnt. So, DEA retired. Do they still let you carry your weapon into Fed or State buildings or get on a plane with one? I doubt it. > When was the last time you needed a weapon to "keep >> yourself or your family alive"? Where you on your boat? What were the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > kill him, but he wont be jacking anyone else for a while. i keep a shotgun > on the boat and my sidearm, a .45 acp. So, you weren't on your boat. You carry the shotgun and the sidearm on your boat, but do you travel to foreign ports? I doubt it. If so, please let us know which ones. > its none of my business if you own weapons or not. this is america and the > choice is yours. thats your right. when you kiss your wife goodnight and > turn out the lights to go to bed, do me a favor. give a passing thought to > the people that carry weapons to keep you and yours safe. people like me. > now, call me anything you wish. sleep tight. regards, j.d. In my home? I'm not concerned about it, but as I've said before I own several weapons. Not sure what this or honoring law enforcement personnel has to do with taking boats with guns to foreign shores, but please feel free to tell us. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com > So, you weren't on your boat. You carry the shotgun and the sidearm on your > boat, but do you travel to foreign ports? I doubt it. If so, please let us > know which ones. Carrying a Firearm, aboard a Vessel in International Trade is no "Big Deal" if you follow the International Conventions, and Treaties, put in place by the IMO. (International Maritime Organization - part of the United Nations) Specifically, you must have a "Customs Locker" that meets IMO Requirements, you MUST Declare any Firearms, to the Customs Officials, upon entering any Foreign Port, and comply with the IMO Conventions for such situations. Is it a "Hassle", Yes, and, No, and Maybe. Some folks do it, some folks don't. US Flagged, and US Military Ships, routinely travel to many Ports of Call, in many different Countries, and they don't seem to have much of a problem, complying with the IMO Conventions. Of course what country would want a 5" Autoloader Pointing at their Customs Shed, ready to reduce it to rubble....... >> So, you weren't on your boat. You carry the shotgun and the sidearm on >> your [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the IMO Conventions. Of course what country would want a 5" Autoloader > Pointing at their Customs Shed, ready to reduce it to rubble....... Yup... I never said it was impossible. I said that I thought it was a bad idea and not worth the hassle. Also, I don't believe Zak was involved in "International Trade" nor would most people here, but you never know. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >> hmmm, interesting. when i was 17 i was being trained by my uncle sam in >> the uses of powerful weapons. he seemed to think i was old, mature, grown [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >all those 17 are? Hardly. It's a fact that a young person's brain isn't >fully mature (on average) until they're in their mid-20s. You are correct in that some 17 year olds aren't mature enough to make decisions, but neither are some 20, 30, 40, 50,.... year olds. Physical age is hardly a gauge of mental maturity. If it were the daily news would read much different then it does. If your supposition is correct why are we allowing people younger then 17 drive cars? Have a look at the statistics and see who are killing the most people? Car drivers or gun owners? I suggest that a great deal of the supposed immaturity of the youth today is really the fact that they are cosseted and cuddled by their parents and never have to make a decision. So they never do learn to do so. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) >>> hmmm, interesting. when i was 17 i was being trained by my uncle sam in >>> the uses of powerful weapons. he seemed to think i was old, mature, [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Bruce > (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) I made no claim that 17 year olds should not be allowed to have a gun. I stated a fact about the mature brain. This has little to do with whether or not one should take a gun aboard. I think it's a bad idea, and I stated my reasons. If you disagree, that's your choice. If you want to get into a discussion about whether or not someone should get a drivers license or the immaturity or maturity of youth, that's best done in another newsgroup. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >>>> hmmm, interesting. when i was 17 i was being trained by my uncle sam in >>>> the uses of powerful weapons. he seemed to think i was old, mature, [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >discussion about whether or not someone should get a drivers license or the >immaturity or maturity of youth, that's best done in another newsgroup. The paid captain of a 4 million dollar luxury yacht was just released after 127 days in a mexican jail. Authorities, while conducting a drug search, discovered his boss's gun. >>>> hmmm, interesting. when i was 17 i was being trained by my uncle sam in >>>> the uses of powerful weapons. he seemed to think i was old, mature, [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >discussion about whether or not someone should get a drivers license or the >immaturity or maturity of youth, that's best done in another newsgroup. Just as discussion of guns is more logically done in rec.guns..... Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) >>>>> hmmm, interesting. when i was 17 i was being trained by my uncle sam >>>>> in [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Bruce > (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Well, that's true, but the discussion was about guns on boats, which is a legitimate topic, as long as it doesn't (which it did) devolve into political bs. A better question would be... if you're decided to have a single gun aboard, what should it be? I was thinking my .38 Special would be fine, but I would put shotgun pellet rounds in it. No reason to blow a hole in the hull. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >>>>>> hmmm, interesting. when i was 17 i was being trained by my uncle sam >>>>>> in [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > what should it be? I was thinking my .38 Special would be fine, but I would > put shotgun pellet rounds in it. No reason to blow a hole in the hull. We agree. My original point, that many didn't see my way, is that a .357 is way too powerful to have on a boat. In the hands of a 16 year old is a side issue. You can do a lot of unintended damage with a gun that powerful. You might be safer without it. >>>>>> hmmm, interesting. when i was 17 i was being trained by my uncle sam >>>>>> in [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] >what should it be? I was thinking my .38 Special would be fine, but I would >put shotgun pellet rounds in it. No reason to blow a hole in the hull. Probably as good a pick as any. The point is that you can only defend against one or possibly two people who come aboard and even then only is they are unarmed. You simply aren't going to defend your boat against a "pirate Boat" by yourself as any "pirate boat" is going to have a couple of M-16's at a minimum and no matter what you have it isn't going to be enough - unless you are awful, awful, lucky. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) >A better question would be... if you're decided to have a single gun aboard, >what should it be? I was thinking my .38 Special would be fine, but I would >put shotgun pellet rounds in it. No reason to blow a hole in the hull. Your shot load is for snakes inside a range of ten feet. If it won't penetrate the average hull it isn't enough gun to defend yourself with. The 38 Special is considered to be on the light side for shooting people. Casady >>A better question would be... if you're decided to have a single gun >>aboard, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Casady People in the US keep saying that e.g. in the Cops show. "It's only a .38" etc etc. I have two of them, one is my target gun, the other a backup. I'd hate to be anywhere in front of the two I shoot. The proj is heavy and hard and doesn't half mess up the target. By contrast, my .22 self-loader is fairly puny. But I'd back my .38s to drop someone at 25 metres. (24 meters or 26 meters I wouldn't know, but at 25 I'm good.) Hoges in WA >>>A better question would be... if you're decided to have a single gun >>>aboard, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > (24 meters or 26 meters I wouldn't know, but at 25 I'm good.) > Hoges in WA I use to use "Norma" rounds in my .38 for a bit extra ummph. I was told that they're a bit hotter than +P but less than the non-recommended +P+. Now, I chamber either the +P or shotgun rounds. If I go target shooting, then I go to the normal round, since it's easier on the .38. I have to say that using the shotgun round on a person would not be pretty. It might not kill them, probably wouldn't unless you got lucky, but it would likely disable them, especially if they were hit in the upper-chest/face. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com On Jul 9, 10:06 pm, Jim <j...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Vic Smith wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >The size of the gun proves nothing, except you know nothing about >guns. More people are killed with .22's than any other caliber. A 357 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >You must have been a real basket case at 17. If all you can do is personally attack someone, there's not much to discuss Joe. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com > Whether to have a gun, or not is certainly up to debate. If you go by > statistics, and you should in Las Vegas at least, guns aren't problem [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 17 year olds, no matter what you say, do not have the life experience to > make good decisions with guns. People are individuals. Ageism is no better than racism. Just like there are 21 year olds, 30 year olds and 50 year olds who shouldn't have a gun, there are plenty of 17 years olds with more than enough of everything it takes to use guns safely. A 17 year old with the maturity to be the youngest human being to ever sail around the world is obviously a very strong candidate for one with adequate maturity to use a gun wisely. > That gun, if fired in a position that a scared teenager would have been > holding it, probably pointed down, awaiting the "quick draw," would have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'd say he would have been lucky to just have killed his boat, it looks > like innocent fishermen had that gun pointed their way. They could easily have been pirates who got close enough to see that Zacks boat wasn't worth pirating and then left. There probably aren't too many other people who would have any reason to approach and follow a boat like they did. Regardless, a gun on a small sailboat is probably the best guarantee of never being bothered by pirates. If pirates are thinking about boarding a small cruiser, surely they suspect the effort won't be worth it. Firing a few warning shots their way if they get too close (no marksmanship necessary) will surely tip the scales toward the side of them deciding to wait for a bigger and safer fish to rob. Stephen >> Leaving politics aside, isn't whether or not to have a firearm on >> board a personal decision? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >weapon that would do far more damage to everything involved than would >be necessary. Lets be rational about things. It is not a particularly powerful handgun. And what difference does the "power" really make anyway. I had an Uncle who used to shoot dear out of season (well, in season too) but his gun of choice was a .22 rifle. One shot, one deer. >17 year olds, no matter what you say, do not have the life experience to >make good decisions with guns. What decision? Whether to fire the weapon, or not? Probably as qualified as anyone else of the same intelligence. The answer, "when he needs to protect himself". >That gun, if fired in a position that a scared teenager would have been >holding it, probably pointed down, awaiting the "quick draw," would have >ended his trip very quickly as the boat would have had a very large hole >in it. Nope. It would put a 0.375 inch hole in the boat. >I'd say he would have been lucky to just have killed his boat, it looks >like innocent fishermen had that gun pointed their way. We'll never know as we weren't there, were we? >A lot of lives are ruined every day by a teenager with a gun. > >Most cruisers are middle aged. They MIGHT have more experience dealing >with quick life/death decisions. 17, no way, a bad idea. That is a ludicrous suggestion. Is there some reason that a middle aged bloke who's life's experience may well be watching TV any more qualified to determine when his life is in danger then a young guy? >The size of the gun proves to me it wasn't thought out very well by >rational people. Your continual mention of how BIG the gun is seems to indicate that you really do not know much about guns and thus shouldn't be commenting on them. The fact is that a .357 is, today, a mid power cartridge. > Leaving politics aside, isn't whether or not to have a firearm on > board a personal decision? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > --Vic I think that's right. My decision is to not carry a firearm. I think it's a mistake, and I've stated why, but to denegrate someone for either deciding to do so or to not do so, is not appropriate to the discussion. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com >> On Jul 9, 10:27 am, Jim <j...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I was claiming that Jim was being bias against the many millions >> of young men in our military by pointing out one or two bad seeds to >> tarnish the millions that do excellent work. There are too many examples of war not being what we are told to believe it is. Like the photos of abuse that were blamed on "one or two bad seeds," that isn't how it happens. > I thought he was a real >> a.shole when he claimed "many cases of heavy handed examples" I thought your "Muslims are coming to get us" joke showed you to be a die hard right wing nut, or, just "a.shole," in your language, will do nicely. And your "joke" provided proof. > Do I >> think Zac should be able to carry a gun in open waters? Yes. Is he a >> gun expert? No one 17, and maybe no one, should carry a weapon as powerful as the one he had on a boat. The bullet can go through more than you might want. It would only take one mis-fired shot to go through the bottom of a boat. > I have no ideal. You have no idea. An ideal is something else you don't show yourself to have. > >> "Joe" <steelredcl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > it is. Like the photos of abuse that were blamed on "one or two bad > seeds," that isn't how it happens. You could have just said, NO I never served my country and do not have a clue Jim > > I thought he was a real > >> a.shole when he claimed "many cases of heavy handed examples" > > I thought your "Muslims are coming to get us" joke showed you to be a > die hard right wing nut, or, just "a.shole," in your language, will do > nicely. It was a liberals bend over and take it joke, not a muslim bashing joke. Hit a raw nerve Jim? Are you such a racist you think only muslim people praise Allah before they attempt murder? > And your "joke" provided proof. I'm a right wing nut because I'd rather be able to defend myself and crew?.. Ok Whats that make you? a fudge packing left wing liberal cry baby douch bag perhaps. > > Do I > >> think Zac should be able to carry a gun in open waters? Yes. Is he a > >> gun expert? > > No one 17, and maybe no one, should carry a weapon as powerful as the > one he had on a boat. The bullet can go through more than you might want. Is this your gun Jim? http://apathetic-usa.com/images/Liberal_Gun.jpg > It would only take one mis-fired shot to go through the bottom of a boat. > > > I have no ideal. > > You have no idea. An ideal is something else you don't show yourself to > have. I know its hard for you to follow along Jim, I have no ideal if Zac is a gun expert or not. I have an ideal you are a douch bag. See...... you are wrong again Joe >>>> On Jul 9, 10:27 am, Jim <j...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > I was claiming that Jim was being bias against the many millions [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Joe Joe; You are full of assumptions and you leave little room for actual facts. You make it up as you go. What you think is funny isn't. Your ignorance is clear to all except you. I would say you are very religious and vote for, well, we will leave politics out of this. I'll make an assumption of my own: You think Sara Palin is a sensible, smart woman. Enough said. > I'll make an assumption of my own: > You think Sara Palin is a sensible, smart woman. Then she opens her mouth and dispels all doubt. Lew >> I'll make an assumption of my own: >> You think Sara Palin is a sensible, smart woman. > > Then she opens her mouth and dispels all doubt. > > Lew As does Joe. > >>>> On Jul 9, 10:27 am, Jim <j...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > I was claiming that Jim was being bias against the many millions [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > Joe; > You are full of assumptions and you leave little room for actual facts. The facts are Zac made it around and packed a gun, and no one was hurt, murdered or pirated...Thats the facts Jimbo.... cry about it all you want... > You make it up as you go. What you think is funny isn't. Your > ignorance is clear to all except you. All...you mean you and Jon right? If you are speaking for someone else let me know. A think you are full of assumptions and leave little room for facts. > I would say you are very religious and vote for, well, we will leave > politics out of this. I'd say you are wrong ..a clear trend on your part. Religion for the most part is a tool use by people to oppress and control others. I do think there is a higher power. Havent been to church in 20 years except for a few wedding and funerals. I'll make an assumption..You were an abused raped catholic alter boy, that's why you hate religion right ? 'll make an assumption of my own: > You think Sara Palin is a sensible, smart woman. What has that to do with guns or cruising? I'd assume she is better looking than any woman you have ever been with, and smarter. But thats not saying much as women like men who can protect them... not toss them to the pirates with guns while begging for mercy. Joe > - Show quoted text - >..a clear trend on your part. Religion for the > most part is a tool use by people to oppress and control others. We agree on something. Yes it is a clear trend on my part. The praying and worshiping detracts from Zac's accomplishment. God is real to small children and those babbling about religion among the mentally unstable. Everyone else knows, but might be scared to admit the truth. > I'll make an assumption..You were an abused raped catholic alter boy, > that's why you hate religion right ? Didn't take long to revert to name calling. The way you throw around the term "Liberal" as a swear word tells me where your beliefs lie. I do hate religion, because it's a tool used to control people who mean well, but often serve a master other than the one they think they are serving. As you said, oppress and control is what religion does best. Religion is, evil. > >..a clear trend on your part. Religion for the > > most part is a tool use by people to oppress and control others. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > babbling about religion among the mentally unstable. Everyone else > knows, but might be scared to admit the truth. > > I'll make an assumption..You were an abused raped catholic alter boy, > > that's why you hate religion right ? > > Didn't take long to revert to name calling. name calling? WTF... your hate of religion has to be based on personal experience. It's clear you are gulliable and most likely abused by someone using religion as a tool. Why else would you garnish such a hate of religion to call it "Evil" Did someone pistol whip you too? > The way you throw around the term "Liberal" as a swear word tells me > where your beliefs lie. the way you throw around "right wing" as a swear word shows me where your beliefs lie....SO WHAT? BFD > I do hate religion, because it's a tool used to control people who mean > well, but often serve a master other than the one they think they are > serving. As you said, oppress and control is what religion does best. You seem consumed with hate. > Religion is, evil. No it is not, neither are guns. It's people like you that "hate" that are Evil. People like you who would judge millions of religious people as a group, not people by their own merits You are a hypocrite Jim. You defend the poor Muslim people from a joke ..yet you hate religion and call it "Evil". Got news for you Jim....Muslim is group of people who follow a religion of Islam. Do you "Hate" them too? Joe > Religion is, evil. Nah, it is simply the biggest con in the history of the planet. Fed by man's unwillingness to accept the fact that death is the end. Lew >> Religion is, evil. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Lew I had a good friend decide to join a cult years ago. Lead me to read Steve Allen's old books he wrote about his son's experiences with Christian cults, and a few books on mind control (this was before the Net made it so easy.) Very interesting subject, mind control. There are the basic four tenets of mind control. Organized religion uses all of these, and uses them well. http://www.ex-cult.org/fwbo/MC20mins.htm The interesting thing to me is that mind control does not work on you if you are aware it is being used. Everyone should know what these tactics are to protect themselves. My old friend's cult has become one of the largest, and fastest growing "churches" that many belong to today. They are unaware of the reasons their church got so powerful. Yes I hate religion as it is a tool used in a predictable way, to gain control over, mostly, the weak. Zac might out grow of his need for religion, and that cross on his boat bottom will be an embarrassment that will live on in pictures. I'm embarrassed for him. Looking to God all the time ruined Zac's trip for me. And calling daddy all the time on the phone. When your head stay goes, get out on deck and fix it, don't call daddy and ask him what to do, unless daddy gets some of the credit. >>> Religion is, evil. >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > When your head stay goes, get out on deck and fix it, don't call daddy > and ask him what to do, unless daddy gets some of the credit. To get the fires going, and (some) people thinking, here's a web site that you might find interesting, if you have an open mind. http://www.rickross.com/groups/icc.html This is the cult I referred to. Today they have so much money that they bought Pepperdine University. The founder, Kip McKeon was bounced in '97, and they attempted to clean up their image. Hate to say it, but Zac's followers remind me of those I knew who were under the influence of the cult. I'll bet they are. Donate to the church often, they need your money. Get out Zac, while you can. > >>> Religion is, evil. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > I had a good friend decide to join a cult years ago. Can you blame him? If you were a "good friend" I'd join any cult just to get away from you. You are such an self centered, all controlling, know-it-all a.shole I'd join the heavens gate, or Jim Jones club and share the kool aid to end the misery. With friends like you who needs enemys? > > Zac might out grow of his need for religion, and that cross on his boat > > bottom will be an embarrassment that will live on in pictures. > > > I'm embarrassed for him. OMG how will he ever get pass the shame of it all? > > Looking to God all the time ruined Zac's trip for me. And calling daddy > > all the time on the phone. That was most likely his prime goal...ruining the trip for you. After all you are the center of the universe. > Donate to the church often, they need your money. Did your best friend give all his money to a church instead of you? Joe >> There are too many examples of war not being what we are told to believe >> it is. Like the photos of abuse that were blamed on "one or two bad >> seeds," that isn't how it happens. > > You could have just said, NO I never served my country and do not have > a clue Jim Didn't do well in Critical Thinking, did you? Trying to take the argument in a meaningless direction is an easily recognized tactic, called a "Red Herring." http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html Description of Red Herring A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form: Topic A is under discussion. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A). Topic A is abandoned. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim. You might want to read up on some of the other fallacies at that web site. They work on people who aren't aware of the tactic. >> I thought your "Muslims are coming to get us" joke showed you to be a >> die hard right wing nut, or, just "a.shole," in your language, will do [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Joe Unfortunately, your idea of a "Bend over and take it" joke says a lot about you. Any one who would say such a thing has some serious issues. Don't play well with others, do you? It is Muslim bashing. Your misspellings and misuse of words says volumes about where you are coming from. > Your misspellings and misuse of words says volumes about where you are > coming from. Spelling Nazi a person who freaks out when a little spelling mistake has occured or has be a constant little a.shole about it. person a: here's my thesis for the pythagoream theorem persin b: OMG PYTHAGOREAM! JIHAD! Whew... you need to look in the mirror at least one more time. If this the best you have, you've got a long way to go to be a real person. On Jul 9, 8:06 pm, Jim <j...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Joe wrote: > > On Jul 9, 1:19 pm, "Capt. JG" <jg...@sailnow.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > it is. Like the photos of abuse that were blamed on "one or two bad > seeds," that isn't how it happens. You could have just said, NO I never served my country and do not have a clue Jim > > I thought he was a real > >> a.shole when he claimed "many cases of heavy handed examples" > > I thought your "Muslims are coming to get us" joke showed you to be a > die hard right wing nut, or, just "a.shole," in your language, will do > nicely. It was a liberals bend over and take it joke, not a muslim bashing joke. Hit a raw nerve Jim? Are you such a racist you think only muslim people praise Allah before they attempt murder? > And your "joke" provided proof. I'm a right wing nut because I'd rather be able to defend myself and crew?.. Ok Whats that make you? a fudge packing left wing liberal cry baby douch bag perhaps. > > Do I > >> think Zac should be able to carry a gun in open waters? Yes. Is he a > >> gun expert? > > No one 17, and maybe no one, should carry a weapon as powerful as the > one he had on a boat. The bullet can go through more than you might want. Is this your gun Jim? http://apathetic-usa.com/images/Liberal_Gun.jpg > It would only take one mis-fired shot to go through the bottom of a boat. > > > I have no ideal. > > You have no idea. An ideal is something else you don't show yourself to > have. I know its hard for you to follow along Jim, I have no ideal if Zac is a gun expert or not. I have an ideal you are a douch bag. See...... you are wrong again Joe Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com > Whew... you need to look in the mirror at least one more time. If this the > best you have, you've got a long way to go to be a real person. Oh my gosh..did it make you blush Jon? Jims a dick. No wonder you are always rushing to butt in on his behalf. Jimbo attacked the military, Zac's decision, his parents judgement, guns, sara palin, anyone who follows a religion, homeland security, .ect ect..ect. That may be fine with you but I find it offensive enough to call him an a.shole on behalf of every 17 YO who ever served in the military. On behalf of Sara. On behalf of every person who attends a church or practices a religion. And BTW just who are you to be judging me? You go look in a mirror..... if you can stand it. Joe Get a life. On Jul 9, 11:43 pm, "Capt. JG" <jg...@sailnow.invalid> wrote: > Whew... you need to look in the mirror at least one more time. If this the > best you have, you've got a long way to go to be a real person. Oh my gosh..did it make you blush Jon? Jims a dick. No wonder you are always rushing to butt in on his behalf. Jimbo attacked the military, Zac's decision, his parents judgement, guns, sara palin, anyone who follows a religion, homeland security, .ect ect..ect. That may be fine with you but I find it offensive enough to call him an a.shole on behalf of every 17 YO who ever served in the military. On behalf of Sara. On behalf of every person who attends a church or practices a religion. And BTW just who are you to be judging me? You go look in a mirror..... if you can stand it. Joe Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com > I'm a right wing nut because I'd rather be able to defend myself and > crew?.. Ok > Whats that make you? a fudge packing left wing liberal cry baby douch > bag perhaps. A fudge packing left wing liberal cry baby douch bag who'd rather take it up the a.s and watch the rest of his crew take it up that a.s than defend them. Stephen >> I'm a right wing nut because I'd rather be able to defend myself and >> crew?.. Ok [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Stephen Wow, name calling in the extreme. Always thought you were better than that. >> I'm a right wing nut because I'd rather be able to defend myself and >> crew?.. Ok [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Stephen Sounds like you. Did I miss something? Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com The subject title seems to say Zac was Muslim bashing. He wasn't, sorry to have made that error. > The subject title seems to say Zac was Muslim bashing. He wasn't, sorry > to have made that error. You're sorry all right. Do you bash all teens, or just the ones sailing the world or in the military that make you look like a sniveling coward? Joe >> The subject title seems to say Zac was Muslim bashing. He wasn't, sorry >> to have made that error. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Joe Easily rattled, aren't you? I hope you don't have a gun with that temper. I didn't bash Zac, but I'll tell anyone to their face that they are not safer with a gun. Quick with the name calling. What a piece of work you are. A coward is one who hides behind a gun. On Jul 8, 1:50 pm, "Capt. JG" <jg...@sailnow.invalid> wrote: It's not worth the hassle for the slightly chance the > weapon would be a benefit. 99.999 percent of the time there's either no > problem and no reason to carry one or there isn't anything you can do. >99.999 percent of the time you do not need a liferaft or an EPIRB why >hassle with it, it's expensive and time consuming.. Because the first is a matter of hassling with the legalities of multiple countries; whereas, the EPIRB and raft might actually save your life. Why bother with a PFD? I noticed that your and yours were wearing them during your rescue. This > is true even off the Somali coast. While there has been a significant > increase in piracy, the vast, vast majority of ships never have a problem. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > "j" ganz @@www.sailnow.com Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com > On Jul 8, 1:50 pm, "Capt. JG" <jg...@sailnow.invalid> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Because the first is a matter of hassling with the legalities of multiple > countries; whereas, the EPIRB and raft might actually save your life. Are you claiming a gun used by someone who knows how to use it can not save a life? And btw what hassles and expense have you had clearing weapons in any country? I've cleared weapons in many countries including Mexico and it did not cost a penny, and the only time conusming part was giving customs 24 hr notice of departure so they could return the weapon if it was removed from the vessel or to get tehm to remove their lock from the weapons locker. > Why bother with a PFD? I noticed that your and yours were wearing them > during your rescue. Damn right, I bother with providing my crew with every tool that can help save lifes and protect the boat and crew. Even if it is costly and time consuming... Thats the point. Even the Belize military suggested we should be packing offshore. Bet this fellow wished he had a gun http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2338215.ece http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/04/13/somalia.pirates.revenge/ Joe > This > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > -- > "j" ganz @@www.sailnow.com On Jul 9, 11:38 am, "Capt. JG" <jg...@sailnow.invalid> wrote: > "Joe" <steelredcl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Because the first is a matter of hassling with the legalities of multiple > countries; whereas, the EPIRB and raft might actually save your life. >Are you claiming a gun used by someone who knows how to use it can not >save a life? And btw what hassles and expense have you had clearing [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >could return the weapon if it was removed from the vessel or to get >tehm to remove their lock from the weapons locker. Never said that. You're just ranting. Re-read what I wrote and get back to me. If you don't have the weapon, what good is it doing you in a Mexican lockup?????????? > Why bother with a PFD? I noticed that your and yours were wearing them > during your rescue. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/04/13/somalia.pirates.revenge/ Re-read your comment: "But I'm sure some a.shole can find one or two bad examples in every large group and try to use that for a warped anti gun stance. " Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com > On Jul 9, 11:38 am, "Capt. JG" <jg...@sailnow.invalid> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Never said that. You're just ranting. Re-read what I wrote and get back to > me. You implied it when you said and I qoute " whereas, the EPIRB and raft might actually save your life." That implys that a gun it not in the class of a raft or epirb in the life saving ability. It's not a rant. It's more like you just do not have the ability to feel comportable using that specific tool ie: Gun. You and Jim seek bad examples to flout because you feel it's more dangerious to you than any would be attacker. And thats OK Jon. Whats the hassle? Your going to go through the legal steps entering any ones waters. you should throw your knives over too, > If you don't have the weapon, what good is it doing you in a Mexican > lockup?????????? You are in town..ashore and the local officals "police" prevent rouge gangs from attacking you or your crew to the most part. Many Marinas provide security,. and other sailors with keep an eye on your boat. In open waters there are not police (anyone) close enough to be of any use. Hope this helps. > > Why bother with a PFD? I noticed that your and yours were wearing them > > during your rescue. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "But I'm sure some a.shole can find one or two bad examples in every > large group and try to use that for a warped anti gun stance. " Problem is it's growing and growing, you can google up 1000's of recent attacks. The owner of Mr Bean did not have a gun, neither did the pirates, they used another tool a hammer. It's all about proper training on how to use a tool. Joe > -- > "j" ganz @@www.sailnow.com- Hide quoted text - > - Show quoted text - > Never said that. You're just ranting. Re-read what I wrote and get back to > me. >You implied it when you said and I qoute >" whereas, the EPIRB and raft might actually save your life." So you're now claiming that a gun is more likely to save your life? You need to look at some facts occasionally. >That implys that a gun it not in the class of a raft or epirb in the >life saving ability. It isn't in the case cited. > It's more like you just do not have the ability to feel comportable >using that specific tool ie: Gun. You and Jim seek bad examples to >flout because you feel it's more dangerious to you than any would be >attacker. And thats OK Jon. Now you're just making things up, and you're supposing things that you know nothing about. > Whats the hassle? Your going to go through the legal steps entering >any ones waters. And, now is a gun a useful tool if it's locked away by the authorities until you leave? > you should throw your knives over too, I'm not going to bring a knife to a gunfight. lol > If you don't have the weapon, what good is it doing you in a Mexican > lockup?????????? >You are in town..ashore and the local officals "police" prevent rouge >gangs from attacking you or your crew to the most part. Many Marinas >provide security,. and other sailors with keep an eye on your boat. Huh? I thought we were talking about guns on boats. Now you want to carry one around town? Or, are you just making my argument for me? >In open waters there are not police (anyone) close enough to be of any >use. Hope this helps. In open waters, carrying one is just fine, but if you think you're going to stop heavily armed pirates of Thailand, you're looney. > > Why bother with a PFD? I noticed that your and yours were wearing them > > during your rescue. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "But I'm sure some a.shole can find one or two bad examples in every > large group and try to use that for a warped anti gun stance. " >Problem is it's growing and growing, you can google up 1000's of >recent attacks. I can google up 1000s of other things also. Doesn't make it a legitimate case for bring weapons aboard a boat that has no reasonable chance of either needing one or being able to use it to your advantage. >The owner of Mr Bean did not have a gun, neither did the pirates, they >used another tool a hammer. It's all about proper training on how to >use a tool. As I've said repeatedly (oh wait, you said it), one can always find an example that fits a particular view. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com > Jim, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Dave M. That account is (was) on his blog for the supposed pirate incident. I'll go back and see if I can find it. If I were the moderator of that blog (his mom) I'd delete the gun incident, because it appeared to not be handled with care. I would think a scared 17 year old with too big a gun would be trouble in the making. > Jim, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Dave M. I reread the blog for that incident, no mention of the gun. But there are many comments that have been removed by the moderator, and a few references remain, like this one: "Great job. A 357, bulletproof glass and a shield of protection from the Most High God. . ." Religion justifying violence. What a world we have. >> Jim, >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Religion justifying violence. What a world we have. I forgot the link, 1/3 of the way down: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1496489450166516267&postID=594751037933 1220496 > Jim, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Dave M. Going back and re-reading, the blog has been sanitized. The original post was edited and fair number of the comments have been "Deleted by Moderator." I'm the guy who did well in college because I remember what I read and where I read it. I have won many an argument with a professor or two about test questions. I'll paraphrase what I remember as to the events according to the blog. Zac called daddy on the satellite phone when he saw what he thought was a threatening boat. It came his way and didn't show on his radar. It might have been steering an erratic course (setting a net?) Daddy said to get his gun and load it, which Zac did. The boat turned away and all was ok. There were quite a few comments to this, like who has the biggest weapon wins. The worst of those comments were deleted. My guess is the fishermen were either setting nets or thinking about selling Zac some fish. A wooden boat not appearing on radar should not surprise anyone, especially someone circling the globe. > Jim, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Dave M. Going back and re-reading, the blog has been sanitized. The original post was edited and fair number of the comments have been "Deleted by Moderator." I'm the guy who did well in college because I remember what I read and where I read it. I have won many an argument with a professor or two about test questions. I'll paraphrase what I remember as to the events according to the blog. Zac tried to call daddy on the satellite phone when he saw what he thought was a threatening boat. It came his way and didn't show on his radar. It might have been steering an erratic course (setting a net?) Daddy said to get his gun and load it, which Zac did. Maybe Zac didn't get his dad on the phone and "Get the gun" was fatherly advise to cover all situations. The boat turned away and all was ok. There were quite a few comments to this, like who has the biggest weapon wins. The worst of those comments were deleted. My guess is the fishermen were either setting nets or thinking about selling Zac some fish. A wooden boat not appearing on radar should not surprise anyone, especially someone circling the globe. >>>> He's almost around: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >Those are the people who still think W was a good thing. The only ones. Keep politics out of here, idiot. >>>>> He's almost around: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Keep politics out of here, idiot. Sorry, but. . . The discussion led to protecting yourself with force. I'm one who believes that sometimes, in the act of protecting yourself, if you appear to be a threat to the other guy, it can escalate into someone being killed. The attitude, expressed in the comments on Zac's blog, is one of "I have the right to shoot first if I THINK you are a threat." In the hands of a 17 year old, this might not turn out well. Someone pointed out our soldiers are in that age range, but they have some supervision and there are many documented cases of bad turnouts. As someone in the comments of the blog said (and I paraphrase), "The biggest gun wins, game over." To which I add, "Game over, Life over, and it might be yours." I was in horror at reading the comments from people with a belief in religion wanting to shoot first, possibly innocent people. There are a lot of people on that blog who believe Zac "saved" himself with a big gun. But nothing of the kind happened. I stand by my last sentence, because of the belief held by some that you are safer being the bully. No matter the results, as long as I "feel safe" nothing else matters. I'm glad I'm not one of them. Sorry I mentioned a specific lightning rod. >>>>> He's almost around: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Keep politics out of here, idiot. I crossed the line a bit too far, sorry. >> Keep politics out of here, idiot. > >I crossed the line a bit too far, sorry. I shouldn't have called you an idiot and I apologize for that. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.