Its intriging to see the various reasons for both pro and con on here but some of them are, I think unfortunate. As Peter Blake found out so tragically and my own experience would seem to indicate, there is no point in carrying firearms unless you are prepared to go to war. And I mean that term in very much a litteral sense. Most of the pirates of today (in places like the strait of Malacca, off Yemen and Aden etc. are carrying AK47s and the like. A shotguns range is, at sea with someone who really knows how to use it, about 100 yards on a good day with a calm sea. As an instructor for the pistols we used to use once said (truthfully) that if your target was more the 50 yards away, throw the silly weapon - you'll have a lot better chance of a hit. Granted we now use a far superior weapon but believe me, by the time you try to sight and the guy with the AK, you'll have a heap of holes in you.
What this would appear to indicate is that if you show up with a weapon - and the bad guys are serious - you're going to draw fire by someone who is probably a lot better armed than you are. And as someone else has pointed out - appearing with a weapons dramatically increased the level of force in the situation. A few years ago, one of our ships got a Pan pan from a yacht that was being shadowed. The ship deployed their helo who flew right in over both the yacht and the pirate vessel. The pirates (if that is what they were) didn't leave at all and stayed right there until the frigate showed up over the horizon.
A year or so before that, we had a suspicous radar contact close to within a 1000 yards of us (at night) as we were headed into Saigon. At the time we had the heavy machine guns mounted as well as fire hoses rigged and they disengaged. Warships sail with only their running lights on so we didn't know at the time whether we were simply a traget of opportunity which, when idendified, suggested discretion as the better part of valour or if they were just inoccently on a converging course and for some other reason veered off but very few vessels in that areas could move that the speed these guys were.
A few years ago I would have said that I'd carry a weapon(s). My choice at the time was an SMG (Submachine gun) any one of a few would have worked well but I would probably have picked a sterling as they are only 19 inches long with the butt plate folded and their rate of fire (abut three rounds per sec)would be have been able so keep someone at about two hundred yards unless they were awfully serious about boarding me. Now? I doubt I would carry anything other than a flare/spear gun. First, the thing would be a pain to explain. Those friendly governmental agents would likely frown rather seriously on the SMG and anything less would, in all probability wind up like Peter Blake's unfortunate experience. The other thing is that most people with firearms tend to take some (security) comfort from them which means that when they feel threatened, out come the guns which, as mentioned by others, drives up the show of force. As cruisers we are first and foremost guests in other countries and it seems to me that we shouldn't be waving guns in our hosts faces. Especially until we are darned sure that they are a threat and that is generally only going to be known when they jump aboard your boat. further more, if you shoot a native without awfully good cause, a lot of jails the like of which you may well (rightfully) be spending a long time in, are not up to western standards. I got a chuckle a few years back when I read in an forum much like this of one person who felt he would bring a gun aboard only when he was sailing in areas of a higher threat - like some of the areas in Canada. Living here, with a crime rate so low that in comparison to where this gent was it was almost non-existant, I had to laugh. Not at his solution becuase he obviously was serious, but because at the time I would have been carrying in wht I considered the high threat area of the eastern seaboard of the US. That area he felt was a low threat!
What all this would appear to suggest is that some people live more in fear, or at least real distrust, of others and perhaps these are not the best mind sets for international cruisers. Its interesting that a number of people are quite prepared to take the risk of those dangers meted out by Mother Nature - like typhoons and hurricanes which have killed a lot more people that pirates, but live in mortal fear of those they are going to visit and learn about. Most of the really accomplished cruisers (Pardeys?) say don't even think of carrying. The other reason not to carry would appear to be that if you do, you can expect, at least from any serious pirate, to be seriously outgunned as you escalate the show of force.
I certainly can't claim to have the definitive answer but I think a lot of both the evidence and the logic indicates that not carrying is the best course. That said, it must also be realized that there are areas of higher threat as noted by the IMO. So convoying, Rallying etc should still be a considered course of action. And if you are boarded it wouldn't hurt to have that insert for the flare gun....
Cheers, Doug
