Why are private ships still not permitted to carry weapons?

[bilbus]

With all the attacks by pirates why not let these ships defend them selves?

 

[UtahBill]

IT certainly wouldn't take much.....some 12guage shotgun slugs thru the bottoms of the pirate boat hulls is enough....

 

[bilbus]

or a few assault rifles.

There are less pirates, and they need to board the ship, that by it self is not easy. Mush harder when you have incoming fire.

 

[bhkad]

Ron Paul suggests bounty hunting!

http://www.debatepolitics.com/Death...ff-pirates-bounty-hunters.html#post1057991940

Good idea!

 

[dirtpoorchris]

Because if you let them carry weapons then the military industrial complex doesn't get its share after this little scenario has played out.

 

[Shewter]

Because if you let them carry weapons then the military industrial complex doesn't get its share after this little scenario has played out.

Wouldnt doubt it.

Seriously though, to arms. The **** what anyone else says. What's going to happen if you destroy a somali pirate...erm.... dingy?

"If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it... does it make a sound?"

 

[Khayembii Communique]

The crew are allowed to carry small arms, as far as I was aware.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

depends on maritime law and the ports of call.

 

[Vader]

depends on maritime law and the ports of call.

**** the ports of call!

Until the Somali pirate ****bags cease their attacks, I say arm those ships to the teeth... and tell the politicians to go **** themselves!

Life > Politics

Politicians = Confused asshats out for a profit.

Somali Terrorists = worthless ****bags who need to get delt with

 

[Dayton3]

Historically, people are reluctant to allow civilian merchant crews to be armed because they are afraid they will take to pirating themselves.

The old "Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum" variety.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Historically, people are reluctant to allow civilian merchant crews to be armed because they are afraid they will take to pirating themselves.

The old "Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum" variety.

If I'm not mistaken international law prevents civilians from arming themselves no matter the port of call.

 

[Vader]

If I'm not mistaken international law prevents civilians from arming themselves no matter the port of call.

Because of the situation ... I would say international law needs to be waived.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Because of the situation ... I would say international law needs to be waived.

I don't agree with it personally.

I don't recognize international law especially laws of control regarding the ocean. Which no one owns.

 

[Jerry]

depends on maritime law and the ports of call.

I was of the impression that a ship at sea was considered the sovereign land of it's mother country.

If that is so, then a ship should be able to carry whatever its mother country will allow, and the ports of call would have no more say about it then they could dictate to that mother country directly what arms it may have within its own boarders.