4 ms·

Isn't the traditional response to post a few blokes with guns, big guns, and attempt to blow any pirates out of the water? Aren't ship's crew using guns for pro

• philwelch 17y ago
  You'd think so. There must be legal issues with this approach, since you'd have to have deck-mounted machine guns to have much chance. Or maybe, as with everything else described in this article, deck-mounted machine guns wouldn't have enough cost-benefit.
  • __ 17y ago
    Also, weapons on merchant ships can be taken by the pirates and used in future attacks. So unless the weapons allow the crew to consistently prevent hijackings, they're just increasing the pirates' revenue.
• sokoloff 17y ago
  A substantial part of why foreign flagged merchant vessels get easy access to ports is that they are "known" to not be armed. We wouldn't let a <pick a foreign country not too friendly with us> warship steam into Boston Harbor. Same country's oil tanker or cargo ship? Come on in.
  • pbhj 17y ago
    A couple of shoulder-fire rocket launchers and some kalashnikovs wouldn't be hard to stash though, would they? Presumably US flagged vessels are armed?
    • sokoloff 17y ago
      As a general rule, merchant marine vessels sailing under any flag are not armed. The US isn't "special" here. Naturally, US military vessels, including the Coast Guard, are armed.
      • pbhj 17y ago
        What of the right to bear arms then?
        • sokoloff 17y ago
          This is not a governmental restriction, but rather a commercial one. Nothing prevents a shipping company from saying "In order to take a job on my private ship, you are barred from bringing weapons on-board." Nothing prevents a country from saying "If your merchant vessel desires access to our ports, it shall not be armed." The combination of those two (effects, not necessarily codified policies or laws) means that merchant vessels aren't armed.
          • rms 17y ago
            Also insurance companies... premiums go up if your ship is armed.