Spudguns on the high seas

[skyjive]

It seems to me that there are two separate issues here:

1) Legality/effectiveness. I am far from being an expert, but from reading through this thread it seems that actual weapons are not allowed on cargo ships. Now I know we all love our spudguns and we've all shattered some plywood in our day, but who here would really want to face people with actual military weaponry with pneumatics? Remember, this isn't a game, it's your life on the line. If you can't fight back properly, then losing the ransom money is a hell of lot better than getting shot (which is basically why crews mostly just seem to have to let it happen).

2) Morality. Is it ethical to use lethal force against pirates who are not out to kill you, just want to rob you? Well that's for everyone to decide for himself, but I say yes. I think that if I want to get in a boat with my buddies, armed to the teeth with illegal weapons, and go commit massive armed robberies endangering the lives of dozens of innocents, then if they start using the same weapons I have back at me that's the definition of I had it coming. Think about it. A pirate uses lethal weapons in committing a robbery. If the crew uses the same weapons in self-defense, that's clearly justifiable. If the pirates don't want to get shot, there's a very simple solution: go do something legal and peaceful. Granted that might be hard in their home economies, but that's not the fault of the ship crews they're endangering.

[CS]

To clear things up...

I've an idea I'm purposely not mentioning because I'm trying to pitch the design for my own interests. So far have explained the concept to my brother and uncle. Two people I know that wouldn't jerk me around, and both giving high approval. In rough estimation I have a prototype ~1/4 finished. Seeking a little bit more money, but not a expensive design to say the least. Probably be a while before I release details.

(Accumulative of 2 packs, 3 days of methodical thinking, and as every good idea is capped, pure accidental thinking)

[D_Hall]

but who here would really want to face people with actual military weaponry with pneumatics?

Personally? It would depend on the exact details of the engagement. I may very well choose to use the pneumatic if I had a strong position. Or I may choose to go quietly if I felt the hand fate had dealt me was weak. And therein lies the beauty of being armed (however lightly): You can CHOOSE to fight or not. But without any weapons? You effectively have no choice. Personally, I like options.

Is it ethical to use lethal force against pirates who are not out to kill you, just want to rob you?

My personal belief is that it is unethical NOT to use lethal force (given constraints of engagement details). Why? Because if you are in a position to end their career as a pirate but you do not, then you share in the guilt if any future hijackings they may pull. Not guilty in the criminal sense, but rather, the moral sense. Seriously, how could you live with yourself if that pirate were to hijack somebody else when you could have stopped him?

[tghhs]

this discussion is interesting but still we don't really know what could be accepted as non-lethal launcher....

even the original launcher that started this thread is still, according to polish law (and probably to laws in many other countries as well), illegal as it uses compressed air to launch projectiles

If you take this fact into consideration water cannons do make sense as they seem to be the only viable option.
Building a remotely controlled water cannon seems like a good idea to me, as it solves some of problems mentioned in this post while it can be considered legal (at least that's what I think - IDK if they could classify it as a water cannon for riot control... and as such if they could be considered as illegal)

As mention earlier, the conclusion was that an air cannon built from fittings was perfect as it could be denied to what it is. It could all be pulled apart and separately they are nothing strange to have on a big ship.

The valves could be spare parts and as also mentioned the rifled barrel is a "mixing tube" .

You could do something similar to what North Korea did: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/0 ... index.html "We want to launch satellites"

[kenbo0422]

In my opinion, the gravity of the potential consequences precludes any proportional response, no matter how "dishonourable" it might be.

I must agree. Same with a home invader. He doesn't even have to be armed. The mere presence in my home, uninvited is reason enough to suspect the worst. He'll get the entire clip. I've got a wife and a beautiful 15 yr. old daughter that I would do whatever it takes to insure that our home is a haven for them. Even my daughter can plug a 2" target from a hundred yards.

When in international waters, if someone violates your right to just keep on sailing, it isn't with the intention of saying 'hi'. Things like this have escalated to war, depending on the ships involved. I posted it before, in these situations, do unto others (pirates) before they do unto you. It's self preservation and self defense.

[psycix]

You have an interesting definition of non-lethal.
Myself, I find small boats with thousands of gallons thundering into them tend to sink. I also tend to find that people miles out to sea without a boat don't tend to do so well.

The term non-lethal is just there to relax some people behind the desks. Tell em the water doesn't kill and they will believe you, because its just water.

The main problem of ship defense is the legality of it. If it wasn't tankers would be equipped with machineguns and we wouldn't have this topic.
Non-lethal equipment will hopefully satisfy the laws of multiple countries while still providing adequate firepower.

[jeepkahn]

Even the Decimater can be replicated for less than $100usd and if you built the components and stored them apart, you could prolly build 50 of them for less then $50usd each(due to volume buying), and 1" ball bearings are also extremely cheap, so you could build 50 deci's and thousands of bearings for less than what it costs a freighter per hour of fuel...

And drown'd pirates tell no tales!!!

[jimmy101]

The commercial ships can be armed. They were armed in the past (WW2 for example). And, the ship can carry armed guards, which is legal.

The problem with arming the ships (a 0.50 would have no problem sinking most pirate boats) is that you get into an arms race.

Pirates have AK-47's
Ship arms with 0.50's
Pirates get RPG
Ship arms with guided rockets
Pirates acquire torpedoes ...

Eventually, you get to the point where the pirates may well shoot first, and with sufficient firepower to kill pretty much everyone on board a vessel.

The vessel can't really shoot first since they have no legal standing for firing on another vessel until that vessel fires first.

[POLAND_SPUD]

but they won't kill the crew or sink the ship because they couldn't make a profit out of it

[ramses]

Even my daughter can plug a 2" target from a hundred yards.

damn. I assume that is with a scoped rifle, from prone or a bench.

anyway, being the capitalistic bastard that I am, I got thinking about a service to be offered by residents of a country that allows firearms. They could "live" on a ship parked just in international waters, and when a ship came that wanted weapons, the weapons could be sold in international waters, carried by the oil tanker or whatever, and then returned to a separate ship owned by the same company just before entering the waters around the destination country.

Neither country has to allow weapons of any type, because the weapons are never possessed under their jurisdiction. Protection is provided at a fraction of the cost of an armed escort. Essentially, this is a one way rental car, only in the form of a .50 machinegun, guided rockets, etc.

Now if someone actually does this, I will be rather upset, as I lost my opportunity to make a bunch of money (even though I am only 15).

[D_Hall]

The commercial ships can be armed. They were armed in the past (WW2 for example). And, the ship can carry armed guards, which is legal.

They can be armed in international waters, sure. What they can't be is armed when they enter the territorial waters of certain countries. And it turns out that "certain countries" is quite a few.

The point being that sure, you can have guns out in the deep blue, but when you pull into any of a number of ports, if they find out that you have guns (via customs inspection or whatever), you're screwed.

Such inspections weren't of a particular concern during WW2.


Sort of edit: Before I hit submit I decided to do some googling. I looked at Jamaica because it's firearms laws are known to be pretty draconian. And they are. Interestly enough, however, there is a specific exemption for firearms on ships.
Other things I found... Mere possession of a firearm in China is punishable by 3 years in prison. I can't find any exeptions for ships, but that's an awful tough thing to google for!

[jackssmirkingrevenge]

Instead of arming commercial shipping, why not bring back the Q-ship?

[kenbo0422]

Even my daughter can plug a 2" target from a hundred yards.

damn. I assume that is with a scoped rifle, from prone or a bench.

Naw, she does it lookin in a mirror shooting between her legs.

While walking.

Uphill.



EDIT: Oh, actually at a bench or prone. She's zeroing in at a 1000yds with the bigger stuff.

Qships? Now that's an interesting idea. It would surely be effective, especially if it was 'slow' and easy looking.

[psycix]

Q-ships aren't efficient.
Out of the thousands of ships that pass, only one gets attacked by pirates.

An interception unit to re-capture ships captured by pirates would be more effective.

[jackssmirkingrevenge]

An interception unit to re-capture ships captured by pirates would be more effective.

A single AC-130U gunship orbiting the pirate base would be even more effective