PDA

View Full Version : British ships to arm themselves against pirates


Maestro Pistolero
10-30-2011, 9:30 PM
It's going to require a change in the law, but finally British ships are soon going to be able to be armed against piracy.

AP story (http://news.yahoo.com/britain-allow-armed-guards-combat-sea-piracy-171103093.html)
David Cameron said Britain was reversing its opposition to the use of weapons aboard ships, amid mounting concern about the risks of vessels and crew being seized by pirates — particularly off Somalia's coast.
Cameron's office said the use of weapons on British-flagged ships is banned under firearms laws, but that new rules would be in place within a month.
"The evidence is that ships with armed guards don't get attacked, don't get taken for hostage or for ransom, and so we think this is a very important step forward," Cameron told BBC television during a visit to a Commonwealth summit in Australia, where he discussed the issue with leaders from the Seychelles and Mauritius."


No kidding.

Some maritime groups and insurers have opposed arming ships because of liability issues, and over fears that to do so could provoke an arms race with pirates. Presumably because pirates only bring out the little guns now.

Said chairman Spyros Polemis: "Governments don't like it when we say this, but the reality is that they have ceded control of the Indian Ocean to the pirates."

Now, what to do about the land pirates. Hmmmm.

dipsomaniac
10-30-2011, 9:46 PM
If I was a crew member I'd rather shoot than be a hostage for a year while ship owner, insurance company negotiate my ransom.:59:

Massan
10-30-2011, 9:51 PM
Wasn't there a case some months ago where a British security company had people onboard a merchant ship and was then charged with possessions of firearms in some obscure African country?

otalps
10-30-2011, 10:03 PM
About time British sailors are allowed to act like the once great naval nation they were. A British Ensign used to scare pirates now, probably not so much.:confused:

CCWFacts
10-30-2011, 10:33 PM
Wasn't there a case some months ago where a British security company had people onboard a merchant ship and was then charged with possessions of firearms in some obscure African country?

Yes, in Eritrea. As I pointed out in that thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/archive/index.php/t-483664.html), this wasn't some backwards country being jerks and harassing the good guys. This was some backward country enforcing their clearly written laws on foreigners who were in that country's territory and were committing a crime. If these same Brits had been caught with the same guns in any port in the US or any developed country they would be in a lot of trouble. If these guns happened to be full-auto or NFA weapons (very easy to do, some widely-available UK guns are in fact NFA guns here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Long-barrelled_revolvers_and_pistols)) they would be spending a decade or more on vacation at US taxpayers' expense. If they had shown up with those guns in Taiwan or Singapore, they would be executed.

Eritrea is a sovereign nation and has a right to have its own laws, and the Brits are extraordinarily lucky they got special treatment there, which they would not have gotten in the US or any developed country.

ALSystems
10-30-2011, 10:44 PM
About time British sailors are allowed to act like the once great naval nation they were. A British Ensign used to scare pirates now, probably not so much.:confused:
I guess this is better late than never.

It has utterly confused me that many countries still will not allow merchant ships to defend themselves especially with pirates around.

Veggie
10-30-2011, 11:07 PM
Isn't there some international laws prohibiting guns on merchant vessels? I guess not.

Saym14
10-30-2011, 11:32 PM
DOH! its about time.

wjc
10-30-2011, 11:37 PM
argh!

There be pirates....blast em Mr. Gibbs!

Brianguy
10-31-2011, 1:11 AM
Where do I sign up to kick some pirate *** :chris:

Mulay El Raisuli
10-31-2011, 7:17 AM
Britain?! Those wussies are connecting to reality before us? Before anyone else? I'm stunned.


More from the article:


Lawmakers are debating how legislation could be changed to allow for ships to routinely carry weapons, plans which are being met with resistance from some opposition lawmakers and representatives of Germany's powerful police force, which worries such changes could lead to an overall easing of the nation's strict weapons laws.


Because giving up ANY power is something they just won't do.


Some maritime groups and insurers have opposed arming ships because of liability issues, and over fears that to do so could provoke an arms race with pirates. Other skeptics have worried that if ships from wealthy companies hire expensive security crews, hostage-takers will simply switch focus to softer targets.


Which gives them a great incentive to stop being a "softer target"!


"Private armed guards do not represent a long-term solution," the organization's chairman Spyros Polemis said. "Rather, their use actually signifies a failure on the part of the international community and those governments with significant military forces to ensure the security of maritime trade.


What a tool! Self protection is the ONLY viable long-term solution. Even if having the navies of the world sitting off the coast of Somalia actually worked, they simply CANNOT afford to sit there forever.


The Raisuli

Mesa Tactical
10-31-2011, 7:34 AM
Isn't there some international laws prohibiting guns on merchant vessels? I guess not.

Who needs international laws when virtually every port in the world has local laws against privately owned weapons?

Stonewalker
10-31-2011, 8:04 AM
What a tool! Self protection is the ONLY viable long-term solution. Even if having the navies of the world sitting off the coast of Somalia actually worked, they simply CANNOT afford to sit there forever.

The Raisuli

And to bring this into broader context, self-defense is the only viable option in the vast majority of situations. Police will never be able to stop crime, and honestly I would not want to live in a place where they "could" and where there are given technology and resources by leaps and bounds in order to gain that sort of control, like London.

VictorFranko
10-31-2011, 8:21 AM
Isn't there some international laws prohibiting guns on merchant vessels? I guess not.

As I remember, the law does not prohibit guns on merchant vessels at sea, the law prohibits the merchant vessel from entering port with guns on board.

kermitz
10-31-2011, 9:11 AM
It's about damn time. I don’t understand why they haven't done this before instead of letting their employees and cargos getting taken hostage for huge ransoms.

rod
10-31-2011, 9:18 AM
I work in the maritime industry and have seen many changes being made quietly. There are a lot of shipping companies that are transiting the worlds oceans armed now days. The Brits are just the latest in a long list of countries that are taking up arms against pirates.

Maestro Pistolero
10-31-2011, 9:56 AM
Hey, a new business opportunity! Anyone want to start a floating arms vault business for ships while they go into port?

ALSystems
10-31-2011, 10:46 AM
I think a gun turret on the bow would be more useful.

Wernher von Browning
10-31-2011, 11:11 AM
I think a gun turret on the bow would be more useful.

Actually, the following is too complex / too large a caliber to waste for the job, but...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP6GpAnmAPU
I like the first comment.

This is probably all anybody would need -- one front, one rear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w5rJSAT6FU

It would prevent this sort of nonsense from happening at American taxpayer expense:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2011/Oct-05/150518-somali-pirate-leader-sentenced-to-life-in-prison.ashx
and
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/10/03/somali-sentence-hijacking.html

(File under "There Ain't No Justice").

So these monkeys go from piracy and living on the edge of starvation, to a nice long life and three squares a day courtesy of all of us...

Minigun would fix that.

So would hanging them at the nearest port. Or tying them to an anchor and dropping it.

Furthermore, I think it only makes sense to take the fight to them, instead of waiting for them to attack a ship. Obliterate anything that comes out of that coast. ("But what about de po' starving pipples o' Somealien?" "TS.")

Mulay El Raisuli
10-31-2011, 11:26 AM
And to bring this into broader context, self-defense is the only viable option in the vast majority of situations. Police will never be able to stop crime, and honestly I would not want to live in a place where they "could" and where there are given technology and resources by leaps and bounds in order to gain that sort of control, like London.


Yup. Each argument proves the other to be true.


The Raisuli

Wernher von Browning
10-31-2011, 11:42 AM
Hey, a new business opportunity! Anyone want to start a floating arms vault business for ships while they go into port?

Might prevent this.
http://www.eaglespeak.us/2011/02/somali-pirates-security-firms-dump.html

But then, AKs are cheap.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,444103,00.html

Somewhere I saw your idea of offloading the security personnel and their equipment before entering port, but can't find any mention of it now. If the pirates can have "mother ships," so can security.

Stonewalker
10-31-2011, 12:21 PM
Hey, a new business opportunity! Anyone want to start a floating arms vault business for ships while they go into port?

I had this idea when I first learned how it was effectively impossible for merchant ships to carry arms. You're looking at a significant startup cost. Ships and crews in as many major hubs as possible, stocking each ship's armory, accounting methods...

I decided it was outside my realm of "possible" at this point :chris:

rp55
10-31-2011, 12:27 PM
Reading the article brought to mind the scene from the 2005 remake of King Kong where the Captain of the ship (SS Venture as I recall) goes into his stateroom, lifts up his rack and underneath are all those pretty little Thompson guns (model 1926 I believe) all in a row, along with a crate of fully loaded drum magazines. Nothing like a little old school ship self defense.
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j302/rpwhite55/guns/1926.jpg

Tacobandit
10-31-2011, 12:37 PM
Maybe not having arms on the ship but what about hiring smaller more tactically advantage ships with armed personal to trail the cargo ship that way you could take the fight to the pirates and there will be a less likely event of any non-armed crew casualties.

Maestro Pistolero
10-31-2011, 12:50 PM
I had this idea when I first learned how it was effectively impossible for merchant ships to carry arms. You're looking at a significant startup cost. Ships and crews in as many major hubs as possible, stocking each ship's armory, accounting methods...

I decided it was outside my realm of "possible" at this point :chris:

Yes. It would require a team-building coordination with multi-billion dollar corporations. A team of maritime law experts, security and terrorism experts and contractors, ship builders (think armored car on the water). etc.

Quite an undertaking, but it could be extremely lucrative in the end.

ALSystems
10-31-2011, 1:18 PM
This is probably all anybody would need -- one front, one rear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w5rJSAT6FU

I was thinking of just a mount for a 30 caliber automatic would be enough.

A Dillon Minigun is extremely effective. I want one too. ;)

oni.dori
10-31-2011, 1:37 PM
Isn't there some international laws prohibiting guns on merchant vessels? I guess not.

From what I understand, there is. It is some commie NATO disarmament BS. That is why it has taken so long to get to this point. Everyone was more scared of being prosecuted than dying, now it has gotten so bad, they realize they have the inherent HUMAN right to protect life and limb. I see some potentially LARGE forced changes to international (and even some local) laws because of this. People around the world are slowly waking up to the fact that self defence is a human RIGHT, not privilege.

IntoForever
10-31-2011, 1:59 PM
Now, what to do about the land pirates. Hmmmm.
We need to vote them out next election.

vincewarde
10-31-2011, 3:04 PM
<<<<<Some maritime groups and insurers have opposed arming ships because of liability issues, and over fears that to do so could provoke an arms race with pirates. >>>>>

In order to utilize anything much bigger than what they have now (AKs, RPGs, etc) the pirates would have to use much larger vessels. This would make them easier to catch.

Hopefully these ships will be armed with more than just small arms. A fast firing 20-40mm canon mounted in the bow and on the stern would do nicely. This was a common setup on merchant ships during WW2 - although a 5 inch gun was also on board in most cases.

Today most people don't know that there were battles between German surface raiders and US merchant ships during the war. Of course, adding the guns prevented uboats from using their deck guns to sink ships, forcing them to use torpedoes which were expensive and in limited supply.

Wherryj
10-31-2011, 3:38 PM
Actually, the following is too complex / too large a caliber to waste for the job, but...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP6GpAnmAPU
I like the first comment.

This is probably all anybody would need -- one front, one rear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w5rJSAT6FU

It would prevent this sort of nonsense from happening at American taxpayer expense:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2011/Oct-05/150518-somali-pirate-leader-sentenced-to-life-in-prison.ashx
and
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/10/03/somali-sentence-hijacking.html

(File under "There Ain't No Justice").

So these monkeys go from piracy and living on the edge of starvation, to a nice long life and three squares a day courtesy of all of us...

Minigun would fix that.

So would hanging them at the nearest port. Or tying them to an anchor and dropping it.

Furthermore, I think it only makes sense to take the fight to them, instead of waiting for them to attack a ship. Obliterate anything that comes out of that coast. ("But what about de po' starving pipples o' Somealien?" "TS.")

While a phalanx would be nice, even a couple of Browning 50 cals would do the job nicely.

Gryff
10-31-2011, 4:17 PM
3-4 man team. One with a Barrett, one or two with M249s, one with M4 w/M203. All have M4s or SMGs as secondary weapons.

With proper training, a small team like this could tear pirates to shreds.

Wernher von Browning
10-31-2011, 6:42 PM
3-4 man team. One with a Barrett, one or two with M249s, one with M4 w/M203. All have M4s or SMGs as secondary weapons.

With proper training, a small team like this could tear pirates to shreds.


Yes, but they have to be reminded that shredding is encouraged.

This story
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/01/world/main6354292.shtml
makes for good reading except for one little detail -- too much time and effort spent taking prisoners.

Gryff
10-31-2011, 8:05 PM
Yes, but they have to be reminded that shredding is encouraged.

This story
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/01/world/main6354292.shtml
makes for good reading except for one little detail -- too much time and effort spent taking prisoners.

Agreed. Piracy was always dealt with by immediate execution. Modern mentality ought to be that the armed civilian ship does everything it can to stop the attack and completely insure their safety, and then leave the clean up to whatever naval vessel that feels like stopping.

Which Way Out
10-31-2011, 8:30 PM
Yea there's no private yachts out there with retired seals on them for security with hidden false compartments....none at all..............;)

Fjold
10-31-2011, 8:45 PM
They recognize that merchant ships need to be able to protect themselves, why can't they see that the people do also?


The way that some armed merchant ships are carrying weapons is to also carry a skiff that they load all the weapons on to with a couple of crew members before the merchant ship enters a country's territorial waters. When the merchant ship leaves port they just pick up the skiff once they're back in international waters.
.

a1c
10-31-2011, 9:48 PM
From what I understand, there is. It is some commie NATO disarmament BS. That is why it has taken so long to get to this point. Everyone was more scared of being prosecuted than dying, now it has gotten so bad, they realize they have the inherent HUMAN right to protect life and limb. I see some potentially LARGE forced changes to international (and even some local) laws because of this. People around the world are slowly waking up to the fact that self defence is a human RIGHT, not privilege.

NATO has NOTHING to do with this, and there is no "international law" banning arms on ships in international waters (or even out at sea for most countries).

thenodnarb
10-31-2011, 11:33 PM
They recognize that merchant ships need to be able to protect themselves, why can't they see that the people do also?


The way that some armed merchant ships are carrying weapons is to also carry a skiff that they load all the weapons on to with a couple of crew members before the merchant ship enters a country's territorial waters. When the merchant ship leaves port they just pick up the skiff once they're back in international waters.
.

this

4Defense
11-01-2011, 12:01 AM
Are you kidding me? Sometimes those cargo ships won't leave port until 2-4 days later.

What are those crew on the skiff gonna do? Practice rowing while they wait for the mother ship to come back to pick them up?

You have any idea what it takes to get one of those cities moving? Yeah, it's gonna stop in the middle of the ocean to pick up a skiff, then start up again. Right!

Mulay El Raisuli
11-01-2011, 5:17 AM
Hopefully these ships will be armed with more than just small arms. A fast firing 20-40mm canon mounted in the bow and on the stern would do nicely. This was a common setup on merchant ships during WW2 - although a 5 inch gun was also on board in most cases.

Today most people don't know that there were battles between German surface raiders and US merchant ships during the war. Of course, adding the guns prevented uboats from using their deck guns to sink ships, forcing them to use torpedoes which were expensive and in limited supply.


Those fights didn't really go well though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_of_6_June_1942

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

OTOH, Somali pirates aren't crackerjack seamen wielding 15cm cannon. And the arms carried by the Liberty ships did keep the U-boats submerged.


They recognize that merchant ships need to be able to protect themselves, why can't they see that the people do also?


Actually, they (meaning most of the world & ESPECIALLY the UN) don't recognize that ships have a need to protect themselves. That's the problem. As personal self defense is recognized, that will help the cause of ship defense. Conversely, as the idea grows that ships are best protected when they are self protected, that will help the cause of personal self defense.


The way that some armed merchant ships are carrying weapons is to also carry a skiff that they load all the weapons on to with a couple of crew members before the merchant ship enters a country's territorial waters. When the merchant ship leaves port they just pick up the skiff once they're back in international waters.


It would take more than a skiff. As 4Defense points out, ships can stay in harbor for a while. It doesn't cost all that much to stop & retrieve a boat just off-shore, but just carrying a boat big enough to carry a couple of crewmen (along with the guns & ammo that necessitate this in the first place), & in reasonable comfort for a few days might be a problem.


The Raisuli

Dave A
11-01-2011, 11:46 PM
Keep in mind that the UN is pushing the idea of disarmament of civilians, which I believe would include any merchant marine vessel that is not in some countries navy. They certainly are not going to support arming merchant marine vessels, as there are too many small countries that are part of the UN and that is the only way they have any power against the larger countries.

I don't know how the British or any other civilian vessel gets around this ridiculous idea that pirates should be tolerated. Probably just another part of the grand Socialist idea of sharing the wealth among those less fortunate.