Do you see a valid reason?

[rundownfid]

After reading this article I see no valid reason for not arming the merchant ships that are suffering from piracy? How about you?
http://www.washingtontimes.com...arm-against-pirates/

[rundownfid]

After reading this article I see no valid reason for not arming the merchant ships that are suffering from piracy? How about you?
http://www.washingtontimes.com...arm-against-pirates/

[Wheelgunner840]

If the cargo ships in that area were taking their orders from this forum, there would be no pirates, and the sharks would be well fed.

WG840

[84CJ]

+1 WG

[gunsmith11]

I find it hard to believe that the ships are not armed,,

[Stevens]

C'mon guys, they are only a bunch of sweet sixteen year olds just trying to make a living since the US and Europeans came over and took all their fish away. And don't forget a portion of all they steal will be used to clean up the beaches the developed world polluted.
I spent a good bit of time over there years ago the US and Europe has donated many millions to them over the years (when a million meant something)set up agricultural and fisheries projects, infrastructure, schooling etc etc. The Somalis destroyed it all. Most of the men don't work anyway they love to sit or lie around the tea shops chewing a tree leaf called Qat (pronounced CHAT) which is some sort of mild drug a description follows:
"Qat rooms are traditionally kept dark and hot - in Yemen and Ethiopia observers report that the windows are closed to keep the heat in as this is believed to raise the potency of the qat," says Axel Klein of Drugscope. "Tobacco smoke hangs in the air, qat leaves are placed on dirty carpets and chewed without washing; tea and water is drunk from cups that are not cleaned properly and, as some chat chewers have internal lesions in their mouths, infectious diseases can be passed on."

Perhaps the biggest issue is what the plant is doing to users' heads."The main reason [qat's] causing concern is that quite a lot of people who chew qat regularly get psychotic episodes," says Houghton.

"They can become agitated, aggressive and their psychotic state will worsen. Or they can become manic and reckless," says Palazidou. "While they're chewing qat they're aroused, they don't feel like sleeping, they're hyperactive and they may become psychotic. When the effects have worn off, they feel worn out, they are sleepy, they can be depressed and can even feel suicidal."

This piracy will spread if these guys are not stepped on like the roaches they are.
Steve

[guntownuncle]

In Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book "Infidel", she notes that many of her fellow Somali immigrants to Europe would get upset when they were not "made" doctors or lawyers. They felt that manual labor was beneath them. Nevermind that they were only qualified to herd goats and chew qat. Its no wonder these guys turn to piracy instead of trying to drag their ****** country out of the gutter. Killing them is the only thing that will cure that.

.

[USAF385]

Isn't there some theory that if the pirates know the ships aren't armed... then.. they won't use as much force and the crew will have a better chance of survival?

Maybe. But to me it just sounds like easy pickin's. I say arm them.

[Jst1mr]

There is a long-standing tradition amongst merchantmen that ships shall not be armed....perhaps to guard against the possibility of a crew mutiny/takeover(?). However, just the other day armed helicopters pursued pirates after an unsuccessful takeover attempt - they just followed along until the rats jettisoned their weapons (strong message there, eh). This "response" was to avoid an international incident. I suggest a response much as the famed "Q" ships of WWI vintage - when the arrogant German U boats surfaced so as to sink the merchants with a deck gun (not wasting a torpedo) the "merchants" dropped their disguise panels and blew the U boats away with hidden weapons. Now that's a response with teeth.

[Grayfox]

I recall reading in one of the news stories that there's some sort of international agreement/treaty or some such that forbids commercial vessels from being armed.
I think its time to renegotiate that one.

[InolaOK]

Very simple solution for this problem. Kill them like the animals they are. No quarter.

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

In addition to international laws covering the arming (or not) of merchant ships I firmly agree that it is the man behind the gun that counts rather than the ordnance. Putting firearms in the hands of those without proper training-including fighting as a team-is worse than no arms at all.

[ohiobuckeye]

I don't know of anything that prevents ships from being armed on the high seas, but they would be subject to arrest in almost any country in the world where they attempted to dock. A friend of mine who spends the winters on a sailboat in the Carribean, tells me he would be subject to arrest anywhere he docked if he had firearms on his boat and that he was boarded and checked often.

[Stevens]

Quite a few cruisers sail and power boats carry firearms. The arms and usually all the ammo must be declared. Some countries, Bahamas, and others let you keep them on board, some require you to keep them in a sealed (Bond)
locker on the boat. In some you must turn them over to the authorities on arrival and sign them back out when you leave. These are sometimes lost, especially if you have something very nice and the local LEO takes a fancy to it. I know of no country in the Caribbean where you will be arrested simply for having declared fire arms, for your self defense, on board. Unless one lies about having them and they are found on board, then you are in BIG trouble which might mean confiscation of the arms, maybe your boat, and or maybe a stint in the local jail.
I am talking about something reasonable like a hand gun, and maybe a shotgun, not a case of AR15s or RPG launchers which might come in handy when pirates show up.
Steve

[pred]

I may be a bit confused here. Please someone enlighten me.
It seems like the pirates are like Vespa scooters pulling over an armored 18 wheeler.
In the pics I saw I saw the pirates had small boats, And the Good guys had really big boats.
If the pirates shot up the big boat, It would sink therefore thwarting the pirates attempt to get anything.
If a guy in a scooter wanted me to pull over and I was in a Suburban, Even if he had a gun, I think I would just steer torward him.
I believe the tankers and the such should be able to carry something to keep them safe, Like a device to launch bowling balls or something to sink Pirate ships and leave them to sink or swim.
What am I missing?
Peter

[7.62foryou]

A seven-hour chase Sunday by a U.S. and Canadian warship helped thwart an attack on a Norwegian oil tanker, but the Canadians released the seven pirates they captured.

I hope they had rope around their necks when they were "released" . Released? The neutaed are running the world. Let pirates go? What's the matter with those canucks? To quote a line from We were soliders "Kill all they send until they send no more" There's only about 1500 pirates if what I read is correct. That shouldn't take long. I can't see those boats they're in holding up so well to a pair of .50 cals or a 20MM chain gun. Seems to me it's money well spent. Plus the crew gets some practice.

[Gutpile Charlie]

Not being armed in insane. If I remember correctly, during WWII, merchant ships were armed? Why not now?

If some country doesn't like armed ships coming into their harbors, then to hell with them. We don't have to do business with them.

[george minze]

When are we going to get some balls and do the right thing. Kill them! period! and let the endangered fish eat. How long did it take the seals to get approval to step on these bugs.

[Wickahoney]

Well in watching this and other events it is real clear that, One, there are very very few US flagged vessels. The Canadians let the bad guys go because their laws only allow them to actually arrest pirates that are attacking Canadian Flagged vessels. Something there aren't a lot of.

The vast majority of the commercial vessels don't want to be armed and do not see it as their job or their responsability to be armed at all..

They will attempt to thwart the pirates but if boardered have orders to not fight back. The Americans were under orders by the owners of the ship to attempt to get away till boarded. Once boarded they crew hid in the bowells of the ship hoping the pirates couldn't find them and thus couldn't sail the ship anywhere. The Captain that was captured and then "saved" his crew by offering himself as a hostage for the release of his crew was a spur of the moment thing and it only happend because the pirates found him in his hiding spot.

Nearly all the owners and insurers of the merchant ships I've seen interviewed do not want to be armed nor do they want to be put in the position of fighting back "Not our job".

There is no maritime law that allows the flagging nation to order the vessels to be armed and or to fight back.

Seems most are simply complacent and willing to negotiate and pay the ransom when and if captured.

Given their position even to include not sailing out of harms way because it "burns too much fuel" it is real hard to sympathize with the ships/shippers and I'm not sure how much I care when they seem so uninterested in their own welfare and safety.

RWT

[okie john]

Here are the new rules:

1. All US merchant ships traversing the Gulf of Aden will have trained, armed crews. If you cannot afford such a crew, you may not operate in the Gulf of Aden.
2. These crews will sink all approaching skiffs.
3. These crews will sink all mother ships on sight.
4. Any pirates who are taken captive for any reason will be turned over to the nearest US Navy ship for a quick, humane execution and burial at sea.
5. The US Navy will immediately begin airstrikes against pirate land bases.
6. Shipping companies requiring one rescue operation will be billed for their cost. Shipping companies requiring additional rescues will be billed for their cost plus an additional 15% for every repeat occurrence. (115% for a second rescue, 130% for a third rescue, 145% for a fourth rescue, etc.)
7. Ships owned by companies that pay ransom after 21 APR 09 may not dock in US ports.
8. Countries that do not allow armed merchant ships to dock may not trade with the US.


Okie John

[Gutpile Charlie]

Damn Okie John! That makes sense!

Why can't others see that?

[jlrhiner]

I agree with most everything said, but I gotta tell you, that bowling ball launcher, he he he, I'm on the way to the shop now!

[mwtdvm]

I know of no country in the Caribbean where you will be arrested simply for having declared fire arms, for your self defense, on board.

Cayman Islands are a "little paranoid" about guns and ammo. Last year they seized a sailboat for having some 25 acp on board. Don't know if it was a failure to declare or they just had it..

OOPS, Just found this...
On boarding of vessel by Customs Officials for clearance all FIREARMS, SPEAR GUNS, HAWAIIAN SLINGS, BOWS, CATAPULTS or other manually operated weapons which are capable of projecting arrows or other missiles which is restricted or prohibited must be declared and surrendered to CUSTOMS.

British Colony... Nuf said..

to keep OT, hang em High!

[Marshall 357]

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH SHOOTING,AS LONG AS THE RIGHT PEOPLE GET SHOT. I say they are a bunch of IDIOTS. ONLY A TOTAL FOOL WOULD SEND A SHIP OUT TO SEA KNOWING FULL WELL WHAT IS GOING ON OUT THERE WITHOUT WEAPONS ! HOW stupid can people be?