Piracy off the coast of Somali is serious business -- one source has reported that pirates were paid over $150 million in ransom just from November 2007 to November 2008.
Why the prevalence of the piracy? Because the area in question is enormous -- over a million square miles -- making it very difficult for navies to patrol. Also, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a specialized agency of the United Nations, prefers military action to be initiated by nations, rather than by the individual ships.
As I watched the saga of the Maersk Alabama unfold, I could not help but notice a parallel to the gun rights debate in this country.
Consider this: Various organizing bodies prefer that individual ships' defense against piracy be limited to escape measures; should a ship be taken captive by pirates, the preferred course of action is to let national governments' militaries and hostage-negotiation personnel handle attempts to recover the personnel and the ship.
Translation: If piracy is threatened, undergo escape or defensive -- but nonviolent -- measures to prevent a ship takeover. However, if such actions are unsuccessful, do not resist with force. Leave follow-up negotiations and any potential military responses to the countries' armed forces. Do not try such efforts yourselves.
How similar to the current, state-supported approach to crime: Undergo preventive measures -- install security systems, locks, etc. -- but, should an invader enter, or threaten to enter, your home, try contacting 911 and wait for the police response.
In both situations, waiting for the so-called 'cavalry' to arrive is, all-too-frequently, going to be too late. By the time a country's navy, or a precinct's police force, is able to respond to the crime, the aggression has already occurred -- and any casualties tend to be weighted unfavorably to the unarmed parties.
However, should a merchant ship, or a person's home, be stocked with people trained to respond to aggression with aggression, not only does the ship or home stand a better chance to remain secure, but the chance of future attacks is reduced, as would-be criminals will pass up an armed camp in favor of a defenseless one.
Such a stance, however, is not favored by States, because that takes power and authority out of their hands, and into the individuals' hands -- thus limiting their reliance on the State for protection. (And what authority wants to yield influence and power?)
Posts
It should also be noted that the insurance carriers for the shipping lines inrease insurance rates if the crew is armed. Their rationale is that they may be sued by someone if a crew member fires a weapon (Like who a Somali warlord?). This is ridiculous, merchant ships were armed in WWII, no one feared Hitler was going to sue in court although Eric Holder might just have allowed it if he had been Attorney General at the time. Inetersting to speculate. Regarding home defensse, note the occasional bumper sticker that says "dial 911 and wait to die". Armed intrusion into homes has been documented as being higher in countries such as Great Britain where you are generally not allowed to keep arms at home with a few exceptions and the U.S. where you are. Right to carry states in the U.S. also have lower crime rates. Even theough the liberal masses cannot come to grips with this, it is simple, if you have to wonder if your victim may be armmed and maybe even better than you, you will think twice and maybe forgo the crime. The Armed Citizen, a column in the NRA's magazine is filled with stories of people who saved themselves in their homes from attcking invaders while waiting for the police (I personally know of a disabled ex cop who did this in his home after he dialed the police and the intruder got in before they arrived). Back to Somalia, Obama is being tested as was Carter who failed miserably with the Iranian hostage crisis, mysterioulsy alleviated within days of Reagan taking office. You can bet if Reagan was still in office this never would have been tried by the Somali's.
ReplyDeleteIts this simple:
ReplyDeleteWhy carry a gun? Because the average response time to a 911 call is over 4 minutes. The response time of a .44 magnum 240 gr bullet is 1542 ft/sec.
Good analogy...........
ReplyDelete