Somali Pirates

[Roger Perry]

While I understand your point (I think), what is the logical extension of that?
Does Obama, through the Navy, need to put extra reources there in the Gulf to protect Americans/intersts?
And even if he does, don't you think the situation would be similar to court rulings here, that the polce have no legal obligation to respond to protect you?

Or does it make even more sense to for private parties, who legally can't be armed & have no commercial intersts in being there, to stay the hell out of that area if at all possible?
{Though I would venture a 'guess" that, as in many gun controlled areas in our country, there are some that do carry "illegal" weapons and would rather take the risk of being "tried" than "buried".}

And how should we decide the priorites of who gets the protection of the limited resources?

I wouldn't mind seeing (or not seeing as the case may be) some American submarines patroling the area and taking out a "Mother ship" or two.

[dnf777]

Exactly. Another consideration is if they're caught with illegal weapons or ammunition they face confiscation of their sailboat. The vast majority of cruisers go unarmed.

That's not true. On international waters, there is no governing body to make arms "illegal". Upon entering a port, you must declare your weapons, pharmaceuticals, fresh fruits, or whatever else the host country requires for entry. Some will issue a permit for posession, others will not allow at all. It differs for each country.

[Blackstone]

I saw an interview with the ex-husband of one of the women. He said she was aware of the danger. He said she contacted him and gave him instructions on what to do if something happened to them. If it was that dangerous, why go?

[Blackstone]

Unless you are a recognized military entity, it is a violation of Maritime Law to be armed on International waters especially if you want to have free pass into foreign ports. Going into another countries port armed will get you a really long stay in that country. This is why even the large cargo ships don't hire mercenaries to protect them. So their being completely unarmed really wasn't a choice but a necessity.

Personally, I would rather be caught with my gun than without it. If I can't carry weapons, then I'm not going.

[Hew]

That's not true. On international waters, there is no governing body to make arms "illegal". Upon entering a port, you must declare your weapons, pharmaceuticals, fresh fruits, or whatever else the host country requires for entry. Some will issue a permit for posession, others will not allow at all. It differs for each country.

I have no idea what you find to be untrue in what I said. Very few countries that cruisers go to will allow you to clear in weapons and allow you to keep them on board. Most ban them alltogether. Some will keep them for you until you check out of the country (which might not be at the same location you checked into the country or they may conveniently become "lost"). So, if you're not allowed to keep the weapons on board they're useless for self-protection. To be useful for self-protection, you must keep them; thus making them illegal. If you get caught with an illegal firearm or ammunition, most countries will confiscate your sailboat. Because of all those hassles, there are very few cruisers who bother with weapons. Because of all those hassles, there are very few commerical vessels (tankers, freighters, etc.) that bother with weapons. I'm not sure what you think is untrue about any of that.

[M&K's Retrievers]

I have no idea what you find to be untrue in what I said. Very few countries that cruisers go to will allow you to clear in weapons and allow you to keep them on board. Most ban them alltogether. Some will keep them for you until you check out of the country (which might not be at the same location you checked into the country or they may conveniently become "lost"). So, if you're not allowed to keep the weapons on board they're useless for self-protection. To be useful for self-protection, you must keep them; thus making them illegal. If you get caught with an illegal firearm or ammunition, most countries will confiscate your sailboat. Because of all those hassles, there are very few cruisers who bother with weapons. Because of all those hassles, there are very few commerical vessels (tankers, freighters, etc.) that bother with weapons. I'm not sure what you think is untrue about any of that.

'cause he said

[dnf777]

I have no idea what you find to be untrue in what I said. Very few countries that cruisers go to will allow you to clear in weapons and allow you to keep them on board. Most ban them alltogether. Some will keep them for you until you check out of the country (which might not be at the same location you checked into the country or they may conveniently become "lost"). So, if you're not allowed to keep the weapons on board they're useless for self-protection. To be useful for self-protection, you must keep them; thus making them illegal. If you get caught with an illegal firearm or ammunition, most countries will confiscate your sailboat. Because of all those hassles, there are very few cruisers who bother with weapons. Because of all those hassles, there are very few commerical vessels (tankers, freighters, etc.) that bother with weapons. I'm not sure what you think is untrue about any of that.

I'm sorry. Since the thread was about a private cruising yacht, I assumed your comments referred to private boaters, when you said "cruisers". If you were referring to Carnival Cruise Lines or the like, then I'll take your word for it.

As for the "vast majority", I don't know if there are even any stats to check, but if you follow the "firearms on board" threads on the sailing nets, I'm not so sure about that. Just like here, to a lesser extent, there are those who are passionate about self defense and right to carry. I wouldn't say they're a "vast minority".

take care

ps...I'm not sure four people could have successfully defended themselves against 20+ pirates anyway....maybe could have taken a few with them, but who knows?

pps...MK, thank you for your intelligent, useful comments, again.

[road kill]

Personally, I would rather be caught with my gun than without it. If I can't carry weapons, then I'm not going.

If I were going to sea, in those waters, I'd prefer a .50 cal.
(been there, done that)


The equalizer, you know, reach out and touch someone!

RK

[ducknwork]

ps...I'm not sure four people could have successfully defended themselves against 20+ pirates anyway....maybe could have taken a few with them, but who knows?

Depends on the arsenal on board...


As far as the no weapons thing, do most countries search your boat upon entry? I suspect on a boat that size, there are PLENTY of places to hide a few AKs. There is no way in hell that I would venture that direction unarmed, regardless of laws, because the pirates sure don't care what any law says.

[BrianW]

...I'm not sure four people could have successfully defended themselves against 20+ pirates anyway....maybe could have taken a few with them, but who knows?

Depends on the arsenal on board...

And if they followed Col. Cooper"s "Principle of Personal Defense" ie
Be Alert; Act with Decisiveness, Aggressiveness, & Speed; Keep your Cool; Be Ruthless; Achieve tactical Surprise - one might be surprised what a minority of defenders could do!
(Though a Barrett 82A1 wouldn't hurt to have at all )

There is no way in hell that I would venture that direction unarmed, regardless of laws, because the pirates sure don't care what any law says.

That's what all "goblins" count on, that the "law abiding" will remain that way and "if we just do what they say Martha, maybe they won't hurt us?!?"

Ok so now the pirates are vowing revenge -
Pirates vow revenge (from MSNBC)
Two Somali pirates who spoke with Reuters by telephone Tuesday said the hostages were ordered killed since the pirates themselves were under attack by U.S. forces.
"Our colleagues called us this morning, that they were being attacked by a U.S. warship," Mohamud, a Somali pirate, told Reuters. "We ordered our comrades to kill the four Americans before they got killed."
Pirate leader Farah, speaking from Bayla, a pirate haven in the northern semi-autonomous region of Puntland, vowed to avenge the deaths and capture of his comrades.
"I lost the money I invested and my comrades. (awww) No forgiveness for the Americans. Revenge. Our business will go on," he said, adding he had spent $110,000 so far in the hijacking, including on weapons and food and salaries.-

In my view that's a declaration of war, whether it's from a recognized leader of a country or not. So what does the CinC do now?

Inform Congress, followed by an EO declaring the pirates "a clear & present danger"?
Maybe then have one of our "highly ethical reporters" (like the one that called Gov. Walker) call Farah for an "interview" followed by a Predator/Hellfire lock on to his cell phone signal?
I hate to say it but Roger's suggestion of having a mother ship "develop a mysterious & permanent leak" doesn't sound half bad either.