Modern Piracy and International Law Restrictions

[Raziaar]

Strange title thread, but I am curious what you all think. We have had discussions about gun laws, and most people are against guns. I am against guns, and I don't like guns.

However... when it comes to modern piracy in shipping lanes, against vessels... I am currently undecided. Inspired by History Channels "return of the pirates", a show about modern piracy, I ask you what your opinion is.

From 1993-2003, apparently violent piracy has TRIPLED.

With that said, when pirates take over a shipping vessel, they usually kill the crew, or throw them overboard, and kidnap the captain for ransom. The ways they are trained to defend against piracy are things like shining spotlights into the approaching vehicles, using special sound devices, or blasting them with a water hose... or trying to create waves by sharp turns to swamp/ram the incoming vessels. Basically non violent methods. Apparently despite these efforts, it keeps happening, and is escalating.

What do you feel? Should ship crews be able to have weapons onboard to defend against pirates? Should they be allowed to hire groups to defend their ships against pirates, with armed weapons?

International law currently forbids it, with the belief that weapons onboard a ship would be at high risk of escalating the situation to more serious extremes... and also dangerous depending on the cargo being transfered, such as ships carrying explosive gases and liquids, etc..

What are you think about the international shipping firearm laws?

 

[PvtRyan]

Filthy lies:

Pirates were peace loving explorers and the Christian persecution of them now causes CO2 levels in the atmosphere to rise.

 

[Sebastian]

I would pirate any vessle that came along too if all they did to ward me off was blast me with some sound and spray some water. Its pretty much shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[Raziaar]

I would pirate any vessle that came along too if all they did to ward me off was blast me with some sound and spray some water. Its pretty much shooting fish in a barrel.

The sound thing can actually be fairly effective in some situations against pirates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seabourn_Spirit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_range_acoustic_device

 

[15357]

I think more patrols by naval warships would be better.

 

[gick]

I should imagine that carrying weapons aboard ship would create all sorts of complications, like making it a hell of a lot easier to smuggle weapons to other countries.

 

[Raziaar]

I should imagine that carrying weapons aboard ship would create all sorts of complications, like making it a hell of a lot easier to smuggle weapons to other countries.

It's mainly the ship crews that desire to be able to have weapons to ward off pirates... because they are the ones that are getting killed by being executed when captured, or thrown overboard, oftentimes murdered and then thrown overboard.

 

[Gray Fox]

Why not have ship mounted weapons, but forbid weapons that can be carried.
They could be 5.5 milmiter caliber flare bullets, so to do relativly little damage and yet have a high scariness factor. And let the crew carry non lethal weapons.

 

[Solaris]

International law?
There is no international law, in international waters you can do pretty much what you want.

 

[Raziaar]

International law?
There is no international law, in international waters you can do pretty much what you want.

Bleh... they mentioned something about not being allowed to carry firearms on vessels do to some law. I can't remember which exactly.

International Maritime Organisation maybe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Maritime_Organization


http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2115238&C=landwar

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/Display...eworld_September615.xml&section=theworld&col=


It might of been something specific to the straight of Malacca too... which is in the region that alot of piracy happens.

 

[kirovman]

Piracy is the new Catholicism.