The pirates got what they deserved...kidnapping a US citizen...seriously what did they expect?
JustAMom:
"I heard on a news report that one reason why many merchant vessels don't carry any weapons is that they travel to ports all over the world and in some cases can't enter ports with weapons on board as it would violate the gun laws of some nations.
Does that sound plausible?"
Here is a WSJ article addressing this very subject. I am almost positive that they are not as knowledgeable as LineInTheSand, however, they are definitely much more enjoyable to read.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123940951424510221.html
There is nothing in that article about international law. It is also important to remember, in general I'm talking about small arms, not mounted deck guns. Also, you can read, they are talking about opposition from unions, not the IMO. You can determine all of this without even having to read in between the lines...yes it's that easy.
Thanks for the video Goose115th. Interesting - I am sure being inspected in every port would significantly slow down a ship. The video does make a good point that a couple of hand guns are no match for an AK-47 or a RPG.Many ports would balk at allowing in armed commercial ships. The U.S. government worries commercial shipping with armed sailors could pose a terrorism risk in U.S. ports.
Shipowners also maintain that unless they arm seafarers with heavy weaponry, they'd be no match for pirates, who have been known to carry rocket-propelled grenades and automatic rifles.
http://abcnews.go.com/search?searchtext=why aren't ship crews armed&type=
Directly addresses this issue of unarmed ship crews.. first result under video results
JustAMom, I think you have solved the issue. International law can be very confusing. Not only is it laws by the ILC, United Nations, IMO, etc. where a nation must be a member for it to apply, but also customs, treaties, resolutions, declarations, etc. both explicit and implicit. I have also heard the term "international law" used to generally describe laws of other nations. While Timbucktoo's law not to allow firearms aboard vessels entering it's ports might not construe international law in its most strict sense, it would apply in the definition that the USMMA Captain seemed to use. So, instead of getting wrapped up in definitions, I suppose it would be safe to say that some countries do not allow foreign vessels to enter their country with firearms aboard. Actually, since 9/11, I think the US might be one of those.
Listen to the video again. Adm Allen is saying there is no international law or treaty to require ships to be armed. In fact, he sounded like he was against it - that it would pose more problems.
The "international law" in the previous posts was more referring to the port requirements of different countries. That an armed ship entering some ports would face difficulties due to local gun laws. That some might be prevented from entering altogether and others would be required to undergo time consuming thorough inspections.
As far as small arms - hand guns and such, I would think they would be no match against these pirates who have shoulder-fired grenade launchers and AK-47's.
Is IMO - International Maritime Organization?
What I got from Adm Allen's concluding remarks is arming the ships is not the answer but providing protection for them is.
"Talking to terrorists/pirates should NEVER be an option; other than the initial communication of: "Dude, you screwed up. Release the hostage right now or get ready to be blown to hell". And make the statement clear so others decide in the future that it's probably not a good idea to do similar actions."
That's pretty much how I feel.
I was under the impression that merchant ships weren't allowed to have 'heavy' weaponry (for me 'heavy' = mounted turrets; not AK-47s, handguns, and the like); wasn't one of the main reasons we got involved in WWII because we started mounting guns on our merchant ships -- who were all being sunk and raided by pirates and Axis forces? I may have the wrong world war.