Attack Raises Debate on Guns for Sailors

Wall Street Journal ^ | April 11, 2009 | John W. Miller and Paulo Prada

[reaganaut1]

This week's pirate attack on an American vessel in the Indian Ocean has renewed a fierce debate in the shipping industry: Should sailors carry guns?

Many sailors support the idea. But ship owners and naval officials tend to say armed crews would only add to the volatile mix in a hostile environment.

[Americanexpat]

As long as we have a gutless liberal administration these attacks will continue. We need to napalm all Somalia ports and sink every vessel leaving them. Then when we catch them in the act we hang them from the yardarm, no quarter.

[Emmett McCarthy]

Yeah, “Shoot, Shovel and Shut Up” would have that onerous “shovelling” part eliminated, too!

[LoneStarC]

Rather than guns, Obama proposed each ship’s crew should:

1) Attend seminars that promote multiculuralism
2) Carry Extra copies of the Koran
3) UN pamphlets on mediating disputes
4) Contain lyrics to kumbaya
5) Understand that the pirates are actually ‘victims’ and are being exploiting by capitalism
6) Any action taken against the pirates will be considered RACIST”

The above would be a lot funnier if it were a joke......

[Jonny foreigner]

That’s where the armory would come into play. In port or non-international waters, the arms could be locked up. The ship itself is always deemed sovereign US territory, no matter where it is located.

---

no i´m sorry but you are wrong. the ship is not US territory once you enter the territory waters of a forreing country. same as if you would drive your car to canada for example. once you enter a country you are a US citizen who is “guest” in a forreign country and you will have to obey to the laws of this country. try saying a police officer in canada you will not search my car because this is US territory :-) you will earn a good laught while he will search your car that´s all. same goes for ships. so if this kind of weapons are against this countries law they will not care if you have locked them up in an armory or carry them in the open. the result will be the same. you will get arrested because you commited a crime in this country. i will give you another example. i live in austria. so i can get in my car drive to the city of amsterdam (netherlands) and legal can buy and smoke as much pot as i want because it´s legal there. but once i leave the country i will get arrested if i try to take my “totally legal buyed pot” with me back to my country. because in my country it´s against the law to have pot.

[chuckles]

I also wonder how “responsible” he would be, or if the owner of the boat is held responsible. He is just the captain and an employee. The owner is a corporation. On a typical fishing run, he probably has about a $billion in horsepower riding on the deck and I'm sure there would be some high lawyering going on. I don't think they would throw him to the wolves and say they knew nothing about the guns. The guns aren't in his name. I also believe everyone knows him and probably thinks nothing about him doing anything “illegal”. They don't care and don't feel threatened. If he was a drug runner, maybe.

[Dick Bachert]

THIS IS EDWARD TEACH, AKA BLACKBEARD THE PIRATE, BEFORE:

THIS IS BLACKBEARD THE PIRATE AFTER

(WELL, PART OF HIM ANYWAY. GUESS THEY WERE SHORT OF PIKES.) QUESTIONS??? OF COURSE, OLD ED WAS A WHITE GUY -- KILLED BY OTHER WHITE GUYS FOR PIRACY.

COULD RACE, COLOR OR RELIGION BE PLAYING A ROLE IN THE CHANGE IN BEHAVIOR TOWARD THE POOR, DESPERATE, MISUNDERSTOOD MUSLIM SOMALI PIRATES??

PERISH THE THOUGHT!!

[Still Thinking]

Vulcan.

[Titus-Maximus]

Give each guy on the ship this weapon and that should take care of this problem.

Automatic shotgun and grenade launcher, 32 round drum, it would sink their boats. Forget the water hoses, no one is walking in to this fire power.

AA-12

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ebtj1jR7c

[Still Thinking]

i agree that this would work but this is just simple not possible in our world. first (considering they are US citizen for example) you would need a permittion from the US to enter US ports armed with this kind of weapons.

That was a lot of words to say that US law is improperly hampering the actions of US citizens. In the old days, merchant ships were most certainly armed. How then is it now not a practical answer?

and even if you would get this you would not be allow you to enter forreign ports with the same weapons. so how do you trade for example lets say china if they don´t allow your ships into their ports because of this.

Oh, darn, I'd had to see trade with China impeded. We might have to start hiring people for jobs again that are worth having.

[Piquaboy]

BO probably will not let them do that. Those are his sand monkey buddy’s.

[Jonny foreigner]

I also wonder how “responsible” he would be, or if the owner of the boat is held responsible. He is just the captain and an employee....

---

if he is the captain he is direct responsible for everthing that might happens on his ship. (law of the sea). if they can prove the company of the guilt too, fine. they will take them to court too. but anyway the captain is the first one who will have to take the responsibility. because as a captain you have several special rights (and of course there for you have several duties). this means as captain you are direct resbonsible for what ever happens on your ship. even if you might didn´t know this will not save you because law says you have to know it. it´s your job.

[Jonny foreigner]

That was a lot of words to say that US law is improperly hampering the actions of US citizens. In the old days, merchant ships were most certainly armed. How then is it now not a practical answer?

---

no this have been a lot of words telling that the US law has only jurisdiction in the US. and not for the world. btw. i didn´t say this could not be an answer for the current pirate “problem” i only said this will not happen because of international law. (US has agreed to this too).

you said: Oh, darn, I’d had to see trade with China impeded. We might have to start hiring people for jobs again that are worth having.

---

again this is your personal observation. and china was just a example (i stated this). you could see this for trade in generall. “we” are in no position to establish a thing like “armed merchant vessels” because of international law right now. so what is the solution? no trade at all?

[Gandalf_The_Gray]

Fire hoses work really well,

A fire hose is good for boats right along side out to maybe one hundred feet. What do you do about the boat with the RPG gunner when they stand off at several hundred yards and offer to poke a hole in you at the water line?.

Your arguments against arming a "pick-up" crew of assorted nasties is well taken. Small arms are problematical in effectiveness for people insufficient training. So instead of arming the sailors, why not arm the ship?

I would propose to place one or two ISO standard shipping containers with a roll up door similar to those corrugated fire doors in the seaward side of the container, just above deck level on both sides of the deck. I would load each container with a 25 or 30mm chaingun. These automatic cannon can fire single shots, low rate auto fire at 100 rpm, and 200 rpm at high rate. They allow you to switch from high explosive to incendiary rounds with the flip of a switch. The best part is that they are capable of remote control from the bridge thus keeping the crew away from mischief.

The solution I propose would add one or possibly two additional bridge personnel as ordnance officers and maybe not even that if you could use the port & starboard lookouts as remote gunners. The containers would be modular allowing you to swap out your ordnance with minimum fuss and bother for maintenance and repair and perhaps even reload of the container mounted magazines.

Regards,
GtG

[Gilbo_3]

hey Travis, just the man I wanted to ask...

what is the coastal range of all these anti gun countries...???

why not simply run small escort craft alongside the cargo ships up to the 'border', or simply offload arms and have long range cover from this perimeter ???

Im sure its a complicated situation for my simple thought...but I cant see any sane sailor floating into this hijack zone unarmed...you couldnt pay me enough...

[chuckles]

Well, he’s 73 and he’s been doing this since he was about 24( got out of the Navy), and so far so good. He took a year or two off as a car salesman back during the time they had a luxury tax on boats, but other than that, he’s been a yacht captain.

[Kickass Conservative]

Sounds like it’s time for another unbiased ABC News Gun Special with Diane Sawyer.

They can call it “If I Only Had a Battleship”.

[gandalftb]

Sure, weapons can be maintained in any environment, by professional soldiers. We are talking about seamen here, most of whom have no weapons training and minimal interest in doing so.

We need to be practical here. The boat owners are not going to pay for guards on board and the sailors are not competent to handle and maintain weapons.

[gandalftb]

I agree with your thoughts on having an ordnance or weapons officer on board. That can be done with American and a number of European crews that are professionally trained merchant seamen.

Either the captain or first mate would be sufficient to determine the armed resistance. But complicated weapons that have to be maintained in a salty environment would really be problematic. The boat owners are not going to give up any cargo space to weapons.

Sure if the pirates want to use RPG's they will, but it's bad for business to disable or destroy a ship, no payday. Piracy is a business.

Fire hoses can discharge 2,000 GPM easily 300 feet and fill one of those skiffs. What about a smoke screen?

[SWAMPSNIPER]

We have evidence that a bunch of semi-savage Somali pirates are able to maintain and use weapons in that environment.

[Star Traveler]

Well, making the shipping companies pay for their own protection certainly makes better sense than making the American taxpayer pay for a problem that the U.S. never created in the first place.

The U.S. hasn’t been paying ransoms like the other shipping companies and the countries that they are from, have been doing for years. They are the ones who have created this mess in the first place.

There’s no way the American taxpayer should have to pay for our military to take care of problems created by other countries and their shipping companies. No more *bailouts* and *especially* not for other countries and foreign companies...

So, sure..., make the companies take care of themselves...