gCaptain.com

7 responses so far ↓

• 1 Mr.White // Sep 30, 2008 at 12:14 am

  Weapons are seems to be inevitable onboard a merchant ship on looking the situations around the waters for the past two months. But weapons should be used only for their own safety and there are risks that they may be used for internal conflicts. Thus a security team holding weapons for ship's safety, particularly against the pirate attacks is a wise choice

• 2 Jean Poole // Sep 30, 2008 at 4:30 am

  This is a damned hard question. On one hand one cannot deny that private and commercial vessels ought to have the right to defend themselves. On the other though…there is something that puts me at unease with the idea that a PRC , Russian, Venezuelan , semi-unfriendly owned/flagged ship could enter US waters Overtly carrying weaponry.

  It's the cliched “slipper slope” if one will. I'm all about temporarily arming ships off Puntland or in the Molucca Straits, but those same ships may well be calling Savannah or Long Beach. It gives me pause because somenting in that idea flashes me back to Clintoon trying to give the PRC it;s own USofA military base.

  It wonld also be a hard burden on the USCG to patrol armed vessels in our ports.

  What I am for is a ship-owning nation financed permanent coalition fleet running constant patrol & escort. A pipe dream I know but base it on tonnage transiting hotspots and let Denmark pay its fair share, Geneva too, Better yet, make it a cost borne by Ship Flagging nations! That will promote SOLAS in the bargain because is the Marshall Islands or Cyprus really that fush with cash….

• 3 Marvin // Sep 30, 2008 at 6:17 am

  Weapons must be allowed aboard ships, all ships.
  “Gun Free Zones” invite criminals, because criminals love to attack an unarmed target.
  Train your crew in the use of weapons, secure the weapons in gun lockers, limit the access to the gun lockers. Yes, there should be more than one gun locker.
  A 'security team' only approach, costs more and it invites dishonest security teams to form.

• 4 fdt // Sep 30, 2008 at 7:52 am

  Funny this very question is being discussed on the History Channel as I write this. Here's some of the “expert's” opinions:

  Pros:
  *It's a historic right
  *Companies can afford larger, more powerful guns than pirates

  Cons:
  *Guns can't be used on tankers or LNG ships…there not intrinsically safe! (I'm not joking this was really brought up)
  *Mariners are likely to freeze when face to face with a pirate isnce they have no experience killing people, the priate won't

  Now their discussing the Carnival cruise story. 3 passengers said they wish they had guns with them. There's the sonic gun looks neat!! (commercial break)

• 5 Oats // Sep 30, 2008 at 7:52 am

  Any weapon carries some degree of risk. Tasers can cause harm to the user if not used properly- pepper spray used into the wind will harm you instead of the assailant.

  Training is key- every weapon is merely a tool to protect you from danger. Use it as intended and the outcome will be good 99% of the time. But if you don't train, or don't know how to use it- you will cause yourself and others harm.

  Ships should have some protection other than fire hoses- to protect cargo and crew!

• 6 Kelly Sweeney // Sep 30, 2008 at 12:01 pm

  Ahoy Captain John and gCaptain Shipmates!

  In my latest “A Mariner's Notebook” article in Professional Mariner Magazine (http://www.professionalmariner.com) I give my opinion on merchant mariners and piracy.

  My feeling is that, until governmental authorities make the high seas safe for commercial and recreational mariners, we need to be given the means to effectively defend ourselves and our vessels.

  Smooth Sailin.'

  Kelly Sweeney

• 7 SPOT Messenger Contest - The Results Are In! // Oct 8, 2008 at 8:25 pm

  [...] White for his reply to our recent poll on the use of Weapons during piracy [...]

Leave a Comment