Mike G wrote:

In article 1111736083.af4857891b0ce7311315567dd6261fe2@teran ews,
says...
So when say two robbers, with a grown knife between their teeth, row
to your boat, you'd just shoot them by surprise instead of giving them
other thoughts by letting them take a look at your 12 ga.?
The term "warning shot" isn't in your vocabulary?



You've either have to be kidding or have watched way too much Mr.
Roger's neighborhood.

Along with the knife in the teeth maybe they will have a hook for a left
hand.

Does the term "AK47" ring any bells?

Mike,

Take a look at the message I responded to. I just tried to picture a
hypothetical situation for sake of argument. I see no need to
ridiculize it, perhaps you could try to add something of value to the
discussion...

But I must say this thread is getting more and more informative... LOL

To me it looks like _some_ of the posters in favor of having a weapon
on board are incapable of proper reading, lack _any_ sensible empathy
or even the slightest bit of attention for the content of the
arguments they read, are agressively tense and trigger happy...
Hmm, what is that smell... fear ? xenophoby ? Anyway, it explains to
me to some extent the at times very uptight discussions typical for
this subject.

Len wrote in
news:1111782081.4515138e0f4014f7db098cab704cd6d7@t eranews:

Hmm, what is that smell... fear ?

Those will be the alive ones, after the firefight is over.....

In article 1111782081.4515138e0f4014f7db098cab704cd6d7@teran ews,
says...
perhaps you could try to add something of value to the
discussion..


Perhaps you missed or couldn't read my original post, which, I belive,
contained a bit more useful information for the OP then row boats and
knives in the teeth.

Let me summarize it for you in simpler terms.

If someone is so uninformed about fire arms, their various potentials,
and the kinds of people who use them for criminal purposes in truly
lawless area's of the world, the really bad bad guys, one would probably
be better off without one.

Really bad bad guys are very skeptical of good guys who stand around
waving a gun and firing warning shots rather then putting it to the use
it was intended for in those kind of situations. It's a morals thing.
They don't have any and count on the fact you do.

Too even suggest that giving away an advantage by waving a gun or firing
"warning shots" at really bad bad guys is a disserves to the OP and
deserves the reply I sent.

Making the decision to buy a firearm is a very serious one and the
person making it has to understand that by having it they must be up to
the task of taking a life or three. They also have to understand that
there are people out there that don't give a damn one way or another
whether they live or die and just waving it around and firing warning
shots will just lead to the bad guys backing off and blowing said fat
dumb and happy gun owner's ass off with an AK 47 or Browning MG. Sure,
they'd rather not, but only because it might mess up a nice boat they
can convert into money and not for any concern for the target of their
ire.

Just in case there is any doubt on this matter next time one of the
cable TV channels runs the tape of the L.A. bank hold up of several
years ago, Watch it.

--
Mike G.
Heirloom Woods

www.heirloom-woods.net

Mike G wrote:

If someone is so uninformed about fire arms, their various potentials,
and the kinds of people who use them for criminal purposes in truly
lawless area's of the world, the really bad bad guys, one would probably
be better off without one.

Your premature and flawed conclusions are based on my picture of a
hypothetical situation you just don't want to address, cause it brings
up the need to think, to weigh your decisions and choose your conduct
with thought.

All you do in this discussion is avoid the nuances and refer to the
very easy situation in which really bad bad pirates should be shot
legitimetly by surprise.

Now let me put this in simple terms for you... Are you really too
simple to understand there are situations possible a) forcing you to
get your gun but b) do not legitimize blasting everyone around to
hell?

Well, if so good luck to us all then. Imo it's guys like you that are
better off without a gun.

You guys are both making totally different points, and purposfully avoiding
the point that the other is making. It seems to me that both points
have merit if you'll stop to consider for a moment.

At the risk of stepping in between you for a moment, let me see if
I can summarize what both of you are saying.

Point 1: In a really bad situation with determined armed intruders,
waving a gun around is a bad strategy that will probably get you
shot. Therefore if you are going to carry a gun you'd better have
examined yourself before hand, and be ready to shoot/kill someone
if you have to pull out the gun. If you cannot do this you should
not carry a gun.

Point 2: There are some situations where the intruder is not determined
or a professional, and the sight of a weapon will deter them into leaving
the scene. In this case you may be able to avoid a potentially problematic
encounter with the local police where you have to explain why you killed
one of their citizens.

These points are not mutually exclusive.

Don W.


Len wrote:
Mike G wrote:


If someone is so uninformed about fire arms, their various potentials,
and the kinds of people who use them for criminal purposes in truly
lawless area's of the world, the really bad bad guys, one would probably
be better off without one.


Your premature and flawed conclusions are based on my picture of a
hypothetical situation you just don't want to address, cause it brings
up the need to think, to weigh your decisions and choose your conduct
with thought.

All you do in this discussion is avoid the nuances and refer to the
very easy situation in which really bad bad pirates should be shot
legitimetly by surprise.

Now let me put this in simple terms for you... Are you really too
simple to understand there are situations possible a) forcing you to
get your gun but b) do not legitimize blasting everyone around to
hell?

Well, if so good luck to us all then. Imo it's guys like you that are
better off without a gun.

Don W wrote:

You guys are both making totally different points, and purposfully avoiding
the point that the other is making. It seems to me that both points
have merit if you'll stop to consider for a moment.
Don,

Thanks Don, for a 100% correct summary.
Still, the conviction of some around here that not-firing is equal to
"need for training" or "You are too much a wuss and will miss the real
bad guys" imo leads to concern regarding their basic moral mentality.