It's not the jet ski's fault

[vanamp]

I guess you may have missed a couple of my earlier posts:

Your hypothetical example is sophomoronic and juvenile.

And that is what is soooo neat about the 2nd Amendment. Those who don't want to carry, own guns, etc. do not have to. And those who want to can carry, own guns, hunt, even collect them.

ANd those not wanting to own guns should either have a neighbor or friend who does!

Merry Christmas!

Ugh..do I really need to explain this.

My example was intended to be rediculous. I think the "epic fist bump" part should have clued you in on that.

Where in any of my post do I say I am not a gun owner. The topic is having a gun on a wakeboat. I never even said anyone should not bring a gun on their boat. I did however question in what scenario a properly stored gun on a boat would be of any value on a boat.

Bringing a gun into a very dynamic environment when it will offer nearly zero protection seems to me like a bad idea. But maybe the lakes in other parts of the country are not as safe as the ones in my area.

Please don't turn this into a right to bear arms debate. Yes everyone has the right to bring a gun on a boat, just like the guys in bright spandex suits have the right to ride in the traffic lane on a busy road during rush hour.... We all love those guys and the way they choose to exercise their rights don't we.

[wakeboarder3780]

It should be noted that we can't see earlier in the video, but if the jet ski had not turned in a while, the jet skiier had the right of way. Regardless, we're all out for fun, there is no need to get that close to anyone.

It's never in someones "right of way" to intersect (ie run over) a rider being towed. In my state the law clearly lays out that all water craft are to stay 50' from stationary objects, and even further from other vessels above idle speed. In fact in my state, PWC's are required to stay 200' away from vessel and rider underway if jumping the wake (which I would argue this guy was doing). Exactly what point are you trying to make in the above quoted comment? That he had some form of 'right of way'? The driver of that jetski was in the wrong 100% and had no right to do what he did. It's scary to think that even on a forum as focused on safety as this one, you still get people making thoughtless comments like this. It encourages dangerous thought patterns like blaming the victim.

As for the people saying they'd never pull or put a rider in that position (compromised by a jetski), they must live in a different galaxy far far away from mine. In my galaxy my jet skiers can go a lot faster and are more nimble than my 3k lb hauling 23 mph wake barge. Jet skiers can get behind me, on my sides, or literally running circles around me while underway without me having a single say in it. If you think you can prevent this from happening to you, by only going out riding when you don't see jet ski's in the area currently, who's to say they aren't going to come up on you while you are part way through the set? Again, these types of thought patterns fall in the category of blaming the victim and I'm hoping labeling it as such is enough to explain that it's "wrong" to do so.

I don't understand why people make comments that defend, in any capacity, even slightly, the jetski driver.

I don't understand why conversely people blame, in any way, the wronged boat driver / rider.

As for most of the rest of the conversation here a lot of it gets focused on ambiguous words and phrases that simply are not* used in state law documentation. I would encourage everyone who responded in this thread to take 5 minutes and review your state's local laws all of which should be readily available online. There isn't a single law that I'm aware of that would put this jet ski driver in the right.

Edited to remove my initial saltyness

Edited December 27, 2015 by wakeboarder3780

[WINEGRAPEGROWER]

Ugh..do I really need to explain this.

My example was intended to be rediculous. I think the "epic fist bump" part should have clued you in on that.

Where in any of my post do I say I am not a gun owner. The topic is having a gun on a wakeboat. I never even said anyone should not bring a gun on their boat. I did however question in what scenario a properly stored gun on a boat would be of any value on a boat.

Bringing a gun into a very dynamic environment when it will offer nearly zero protection seems to me like a bad idea. But maybe the lakes in other parts of the country are not as safe as the ones in my area.

Please don't turn this into a right to bear arms debate. Yes everyone has the right to bring a gun on a boat, just like the guys in bright spandex suits have the right to ride in the traffic lane on a busy road during rush hour.... We all love those guys and the way they choose to exercise their rights don't we.

UGH YES!! Please explain again! Clearly my grasp of the written word is lacking. You clearly have not read my posts, as all I did was cut and paste my original post, which you must not have read! duh! So it might be incumbent on you to read my posts, before ugh explaining this again!

and I could care less if you are a gun owner OR not. Has absolutely no bearing whatsoever. Assuming you are or are not a gun owner would be presumptuous. ANd you have no idea if I am a gun owner or not. So I am not sure why you thought that point or attempted point was even worth mentioning?

ANd you are entiltled to your opinion as I am mine....your opinion is just a tad blondehiemers....ok a lot.

the one comment out of all your rambling gibberish, is that "everyone has the right to bring a gun on a boat!" If you had stopped there, but no you have to continue with the sophomoronic and juvenile nonsense with the spandex and the epic nonsense.

After the spandex, I am afraid to even ask why that gun "would offer nearly zero protection?" Maybe you are using the wrong gun? or forgot the bring the bullets? or if the environment were to be static not dynamic? I guess you have a "special" ability to forecast the future or disarm/disable speeding projectiles?

Maybe I had tooo much turkey today and the sleepy stuff in turkey is toying with me.

Merry christmas!

[vanamp]

UGH YES!! Please explain again! Clearly my grasp of the written word is lacking. You clearly have not read my posts, as all I did was cut and paste my original post, which you must not have read! duh! So it might be incumbent on you to read my posts, before ugh explaining this again!

and I could care less if you are a gun owner OR not. Has absolutely no bearing whatsoever. Assuming you are or are not a gun owner would be presumptuous. ANd you have no idea if I am a gun owner or not. So I am not sure why you thought that point or attempted point was even worth mentioning?

ANd you are entiltled to your opinion as I am mine....your opinion is just a tad blondehiemers....ok a lot.

the one comment out of all your rambling gibberish, is that "everyone has the right to bring a gun on a boat!" If you had stopped there, but no you have to continue with the sophomoronic and juvenile nonsense with the spandex and the epic nonsense.

After the spandex, I am afraid to even ask why that gun "would offer nearly zero protection?" Maybe you are using the wrong gun? or forgot the bring the bullets? or if the environment were to be static not dynamic? I guess you have a "special" ability to forecast the future or disarm/disable speeding projectiles?

Maybe I had tooo much turkey today and the sleepy stuff in turkey is toying with me.

Merry christmas!

Since you are such a prude and any attempt I make to keep this conversation light and fun results in you calling me juvenile and sophomoric I will keep this nice and dry for you.

My assumptions:

No one would put a gun safe in plain sight on a Malibu. It would most likely be tucked away in the observers compartment or glove box(right next to the kids floaties and inflatable beach balls....opps that last bit was probably not dry enough for you I should probably prepare to be called juvenile again). This location would introduce a delay when trying to access a gun.

The likelihood of being a victim of violent crime while on a wakeboat is extremely rare. Probably as rare as winning the Powerball.

My opinion (which may change if someone can come up with a scenario that would increase the effectiveness of a properly stored gun on a boat) is:

The risk of a gun accident is higher than the risk of being a victim or violent crime while on a wakeboat AND on the rare chance someone is the victim of a violent crime the delay introduced by the safe storage of the gun would make it ineffective.

Not really sure why you jumped up my butt on this. I don't feel like I am taking a really hard stance on anything here and definitely never called anyone juvenile or sophomoric(your two favorite words).

[Ronnie]

Guys, lets keep this as a friendly discussion otherwise the name calling and disrespecting other members opinions will be cause to lock the thread. Just because a member has a different opinion than yours doesn't make it wrong.

Last warning.

[JohnnyDefacto]

there are some excellent gun safes out there that allow for quick deployment of a fully loaded and chambered firearm. One safe I use at home takes about 2 seconds for me to access it and have it in my hand, loaded. I can think of a few good places on my my boat to put this very same safe that would be so quick that no matter how fast the flat-billed-brah approached me, I would be ready for him/her. With that said, I chose not to carry on me when on the boat 99% of the time, but there are times when I cannot secure my firearm at a camp sight so I can choose to secure it on my boat (as if it was my truck) when I am not carrying it. I just do not think it is so ridiculous to be ready to provide protection no matter how "rare" or "unlikely" it is that a situation would arise. It has been said that it is better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war. If you guys who choose to use "luck" or "unlikeliness" to protect yourself continue to justify your stance by pointing at and arguing against the other side, do not be surprised by the amount of pushback you get, even on a wakeboat forum. And the shore spike as a weapon made me laugh. Mine is under a bunch of crap cuz I rarely use it, but even if it was under a bench seat and out of the protective bag, it would still be slower to deploy than my locked and loaded firearm in a bio safe mounted almost anywhere in a boat, and it would still be about one million times more useless. I do agree that while on a boat, the throttle is your best friend, point the boat away from the threat and throttle up.

[Jimmypooh]

Jet skis are never allowed behind my boat while I'm towing. I'm happy to drop the wedge and fill ballast for them when I don't have a rider, but I will not allow jumping when I'm pulling. Even the most experienced or focused jetskier can still miss a skiier that has fallen. Why risk that? Don't put yourself, your skiier, or anyone else in that position.

It should be noted that we can't see earlier in the video, but if the jet ski had not turned in a while, the jet skiier had the right of way. Regardless, we're all out for fun, there is no need to get that close to anyone.

It's never in someones "right of way" to intersect (ie run over) a rider being towed. In my state the law clearly lays out that all water craft are to stay 50' from stationary objects, and even further from other vessels above idle speed. In fact in my state, PWC's are required to stay 200' away from vessel and rider underway if jumping the wake (which I would argue this guy was doing). Exactly what point are you trying to make in the above quoted comment? That he had some form of 'right of way'? The driver of that jetski was in the wrong 100% and had no right to do what he did. It's scary to think that even on a forum as focused on safety as this one, you still get people making thoughtless comments like this. It encourages dangerous thought patterns like blaming the victim.

As for the people saying they'd never pull or put a rider in that position (compromised by a jetski), they must live in a different galaxy far far away from mine. In my galaxy my jet skiers can go a lot faster and are more nimble than my 3k lb hauling 23 mph wake barge. Jet skiers can get behind me, on my sides, or literally running circles around me while underway without me having a single say in it. If you think you can prevent this from happening to you, by only going out riding when you don't see jet ski's in the area currently, who's to say they aren't going to come up on you while you are part way through the set? Again, these types of thought patterns fall in the category of blaming the victim and I'm hoping labeling it as such is enough to explain that it's "wrong" to do so.

I don't understand why people make comments that defend, in any capacity, even slightly, the jetski driver.

I don't understand why conversely people blame, in any way, the wronged boat driver / rider.

As for most of the rest of the conversation here a lot of it gets focused on ambiguous words and phrases that simply are not* used in state law documentation. I would encourage everyone who responded in this thread to take 5 minutes and review your state's local laws all of which should be readily available online. There isn't a single law that I'm aware of that would put this jet ski driver in the right.

Edited to remove my initial saltyness

You, and many others who quoted me must have missed my comment one post above. It seems you're reading a bit too much into my second comment. I made it just to iterate that no one had even mentioned right of way. Many areas right of way does not need to be yielded just be cause the other boat has a rider in tow. I clarified that you couldn't see earlier in the video and that IF he hadn't turned.... I guess selective reading gives people the right to lash out if they want. Safe riding everyone. And I will clarify again, when boating there is no need to get close to anyone.

[wakeboarder3780]

You, and many others who quoted me must have missed my comment one post above. It seems you're reading a bit too much into my second comment. I made it just to iterate that no one had even mentioned right of way. Many areas right of way does not need to be yielded just be cause the other boat has a rider in tow. I clarified that you couldn't see earlier in the video and that IF he hadn't turned.... I guess selective reading gives people the right to lash out if they want. Safe riding everyone. And I will clarify again, when boating there is no need to get close to anyone.

If writing a logical response is "lashing out" i fear for the world. Perhaps in the future if you dont want that to be a "focus" don't write it or write it more clearly.