Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:




Speaking as an ignorant grunt, does it not scare you ****less that
a 'citizen' is armed in the first place? It's hardly as if he's
fending away Indians from the homestead.

Yeah,like there aren't any criminals running loose preying on
ordinary decent citizens. (ODC's) A person was shot twice with a
small caliber gun in the building next to mine,in my apartment
complex. I heard the gunshots,saw the crooks driving off,gave a
report to the police about it.There's a lot of people who
successfully defend themselves with
firearms
every year(in the US).

Even in the UK,Jill Dando,BBC commentator,was shot and killed on the
London
street,in front of her home.George Harrsion was nearly knifed to
death in his home,even with high security.His wife was also wounded
by the burglar.

Do you expect a elderly lady to defend herself against
larger,stronger young thugs unarmed?
Do you believe that police can be everywhere,to protect
everyone,24/7/365? It's not so.

I see your point, and sincerely, it is convincing. I just think of the
two alternatives - granted a defenceless lady has no capacity to fend
off a burglar and there is no way the police can prevent him from
breaking and entering - which is a sorry state of affairs. However,
were that lady armed with a 9mm, any sensible burglar would still go
to her home taking a pistol with him.

If he believed that she owned a gun,perhaps he would.However,I have read
of
many such attempts where the lady or old guy was still able to get to
their
gun and either run off the crook,hold them for police,wound them (and they
get caught seeking medical treatment),or kill the crook,even after being
shot themselves.Allowing citizens firearms to defend themselves increases
the risks for the criminals,often to the point they pick some other crime
to commit.And it's far better than just hoping the criminal has good
intentions towards you.

Which is the safer situation for
the lady, neither are pleasant, but I would argue the former.

Replying to Matt Gunsch, I looked into the details:

In the UK for the year 2001 - 2002, there were 23 firearm deaths. In
2000 (not the same year, but close enough) 66% of the 15,517 murders
in America were caused by firearms - that's about 10,000. Even
accounting for the relative population sizes of the two countries,
you're still several orders of magnitude out - and that does not
include the number of accidental deaths caused by firearms in the same
time period.

Yes,but you still ignore the other *non-gun* crime that people in the UK
must endure.For instance,your at-home burglaries are much higher than in
the US.Also,your gun-crime IS increasing.

Firstly, I'd rather be punched than shot, so I'll happily endure the other
non gun crimes in the UK. I have not, in my posts, stated that the UK is
some crime free haven, nor that the US is some 'Escape from New York' style
war-zone. Really, bad people exist in all societies, just in some quite a
few of them have guns.

You are incorrect to state that at-home burglaries are much higher in the
UK. 1,309 domestic burglaries occur per 100,000 population in the US
equating to a 1.3% chance of your VCR ending up in someone's swag bag each
year. Where as in England there is an average of 14.5 domestic burglaries
per 1,000 households - being conservative and assuming just two persons per
household (the average is actually a little over three) - that's 14.5
incidents per 2,000 population, i.e. a 0.73% chance of being burgled.

Simply put, you are at least twice as likely to be burgled in the US than
UK, (although obviously it depends greatly upon the area in which you live,
since these burglaries will not be spread evenly throughout either country's
populace).

http://www.cobras.org/usastats.htm
http://society.guardian.co.uk/social...761948,00.html



I see the reasoning behind a free choice to carry a gun in America,
and being a realist I would most likely keep a gun were I to live
there. I just think it a shame that so many are empowered with deadly
force that are so willing to use it.


Hey,sometimes it's a good thing to shoot a criminal.

Now tell me you're joking; that's just a ridiculous statement. It's never a
good thing to shoot anyone.

It's not as if each citizen receives a thorough briefing on the law when
they purchase their pistol, nor have they been deputised to shoot perps by
the local sheriff . As the judge, jury and literally the executioner, you're
doing as much a disservice to the public as the chap you've just shot. The
most basic appreciation of rudimentary criminal justice yields at least
that.

They either get caught
on the spot,or while seeking medical care for their wounds,or get
killed.And thus they commit no further crimes.A service to the public.

But in a free society,it should be the individuals choice to use firearms
to defend themselves.

Is it correct then that in a free society one person has the right to take
the life of another? Even if that guy is caught red handed rifling through
your smalls, it's indefensible.

Jim Doyle