SpudFiles

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:Reminds me of that pick-up line, "excuse me, does this cloth smell of chloroform to you?"

To which the correct answer is: "No, not really - chloroform has more of a sweet smell".

It's not a cannon!!! It's a rescue line/mooring line throwing device!!! Geez, don't you think that would be an allowable implement???

Hey Kenbo, You're in East TN??? I guess you'll be invited to the Southeast Spudjam, if it ever gets off the ground...

Spudjam???

I was mostly under the impression that it was only me and my boys who slung groceries around here. I feel... suddenly... small...

Well, I'm south of Knoxville, and work in Oak Ridge. My house has a good view of the Smokie Mountains. Pretty much the entire East TN area is a 'short drive' in the truck or Miata.

I see you point.. but still if we look at things from the point of view of what is legal and what is not then...
well... sorry to tell you that but such laws are usually very strict, vague and ambiguous

for example I can own an airgun if its muzzle velocity is below 16J, but it has to be commercially made... so you cannot build one yourself (that's illegal - and it will be treated as a weapon so just like a real firearm)

also it is illegal to have parts of firearms... now take that into consideration and what I mentioned before that any airgun which exceeds the limit and/or is home-made is treated as a firearm (of course, they might take into consideration the fact that it's not a firearm per se, though it's not that they have to) and you see where it leads -> a weapon dissembled into parts is still a weapon

it's really very vague... so it's not that difficult for them to ban everything and sent you to prison if they really want to

That was the reasoning behind stock parts that a ship would carry in its repair and engineering section. But, you also have to consider this: How does this company mentioned at the beginning of this thread do it??

Load up some ice slugs and it's a de facto water cannon, sorted

kenbo0422 wrote:Spudjam???

I was mostly under the impression that it was only me and my boys who slung groceries around here. I feel... suddenly... small...

Well, I'm south of Knoxville, and work in Oak Ridge. My house has a good view of the Smokie Mountains. Pretty much the entire East TN area is a 'short drive' in the truck or Miata.

I'm in greensboro NC, we're practically neighbors (3hr's ish drive)...

Back on topic:
How hard would it actually be to hide even a LARGE spudcannon on a freighter??? I mean really, remove the pilotvalve, install a plug, cap the barrel, and call it dry storage for charts, etc. .... Hiding a pneumatic cannon ain't rocket science...

The pirates will have to get close to the ship to board it.

Just let em approach, and when right next to the ship, empty a big bowl of boiling oil or molten metal like they did in the good old days.
You could also just dump some spare parts. A few 4" 6' steel pipes will "slow them down."

Eventually I think the easiest and most non-lethal option is a big (really BIG!) pump that hoses thousands of gallons of seawater onto them.

psycix wrote:The pirates will have to get close to the ship to board it.

Just let em approach, and when right next to the ship, empty a big bowl of boiling oil or molten metal like they did in the good old days.
You could also just dump some spare parts. A few 4" 6' steel pipes will "slow them down."

Eventually I think the easiest and most non-lethal option is a big (really BIG!) pump that hoses thousands of gallons of seawater onto them.

I could imagine the look on their faces when the ship has a tsunami coming out of it. why dont they just put a metal gate around the ship? Or they could pour petrol on the water around them and set it a fire. Actuallt it would be kinda cool to have greek fire or a flamethrower on board.

I keep seeing the words "non-lethal" show up in this thread. Do we actually care whether or not the gizmo is non-lethal? The goal is to prevent hijacking, beyond that, why does lethal/non-lethal matter? Heck, I'd argue that lethal is better!

@Poland, The advantages of going with standard industry stuff is that they aren't pieces of a weapon until such time as they're assembled. They're just standard industrial supplies....You just can't admit on camera (or wherever) what they're for. And heck, if you're really paranoid, you just dump the good overboard before you head home. I mean, suppose it costs $10k. Compared to ransoms and such, that's dirt cheap.

psycix wrote:Eventually I think the easiest and most non-lethal option is a big (really BIG!) pump that hoses thousands of gallons of seawater onto them.

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.

I think we have to accept that by the time the pirates are close enough to be engaged, there are next to no solutions which result in no risk of lethality. Anything but a situation where you can persuade them to disengage is likely to involve at least casualties, if not fatalities (be it for them or you)

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, if they're the kind of sadistic bastards who'd hold people hostage for money (as a bluff or otherwise), then really, they don't deserve the soft fluffy solutions.

@D_hall
yeah I know, I use standard industrial stuff myself...

ok let's assume that the police got a call that I build guns at home... do you really think I wouldn't have any problems if they find a bunch of fittings, valves and pipes in my basement ?

judging what is a weapon and what is not is not as simple as some might think... if I unscrew the pilot valve from the gun, is it still an illegal weapon ? (it's not functional but it looks like a gun)

what if I completely dissemble the gun into separate parts and fittings? well if they know what it is I suspect that they wouldn't just leave me alone

I see your point but it jsut doesn't always work like this... for example,
the police will raid your home if you buy certain chemicals which are almost exclusively used to produce drugs or explosives... what if they find everything you need to produce meth in your house, do you really think they wouldn't do a damn thing because the are not completed products but merely ingredients ?

@Poland,

I completely understand what you're saying about your home... But your home is IN POLAND. Your ship? It's in international waters. It's not in Poland. NOBODY is going to just pop in for a surpise inspection.

Rammifications? The police aren't going to find ANYTHING in your ship because there will be nothing for them to find by the time you make it back to Poland. All you have to do is just throw the damned thing overboard before you return home. The cost of such a system is peanuts compared to the operating expenses of a ship. If it becomes a "one time use" item... So what?

D_Hall wrote:I keep seeing the words "non-lethal" show up in this thread. Do we actually care whether or not the gizmo is non-lethal? The goal is to prevent hijacking, beyond that, why does lethal/non-lethal matter? Heck, I'd argue that lethal is better!

Crime and punishment. Overwhelmingly the crime is piracy, not murder.

At that preemptively using lethal force is reserved for law enforcement/military, not deck hands. HUGE resource gap between the shipping vessel, and the pirates. Seems cowardly to use lethal force, while not first trying non-lethal attempts to thwart the pirate attempts.

Also these concerns of pneumatic legality, quite frankly I don't think any country would really give a damn given the usage. It would make sense to dismount, and possibly dismantle the launcher as you come into port though.

pimpmann22 wrote:At that preemptively using lethal force is reserved for law enforcement/military, not deck hands. HUGE resource gap between the shipping vessel, and the pirates. Seems cowardly to use lethal force, while not first trying non-lethal attempts to thwart the pirate attempts.

It's easy to make such judgements from behind the safety of our monitors. I am confident that in that situation, if it was me who could potentially end up in a situation where my appendages/life depended on a ridiculous amount of money that any government would find hard to justify, I would have absolutely no qualms about using the most lethal means at my disposal to ward these people off, with extreme prejudice.

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