Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

I know exactly what I am talking about. The NRA types need to diss the
police to justify their need for weapons. They do it all the time. It
makes the sane gun owners look bad. GOA types are worse. [GOA = Gone
On Arrival]

Jim Yanik wrote in message ...
(miso) wrote in
om:

It never fails. Those who spit on the cops are members of the NRA or
GOA.

That's hilarious,considering the NRA -runs- many police training
programs,and many police are NRA members.
IOW,you don't know what you're talking about.


iespam (N329DF) wrote in message
...
Wouldnt a cannon on a police helicopter solve a lot of
problems for law enforcement?


Let's see, the average cop on the street can't hit a thing with a
side arm unless he fires 10+ shots, and you want to give them a
cannon ?
Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Riding member of the
2003 world champion drill team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
GWRRA,NRA,GOA

I know exactly what I am talking about. The NRA types need to diss the
police to justify their need for weapons. They do it all the time. It
makes the sane gun owners look bad. GOA types are worse. [GOA = Gone
On Arrival]

Hey Miso,
You better check your facts, I did not dis the cops, just stating facts, the
average cops knows nothing bout the arms they carry, have barely enough
training in how to use them, and have the worse hit to rounds fired in a stress
fire situation. There is a reason cops carry hi-cap magazines, they need them
to hit anything. The average citizen that carries for protection, in a stress
fire situation, hits thier target more often, using fewer shots fired. The
average citizen knows more about firearms than the cop on street. I had to
explain to a cop once on how to clear and safe a model 1911 .45 automatic, a
gun that has only been in continous production since lets see, 1911.

Now about me and the cops, I ride with the current World Champion Motorcycle
Drill Team, one of our leaders is a Phx police detective, I have ridden with
the Mesa PD motors, The California Highway Patrol motors, Tucson Police Motors
I also have person friends in the Arizona Dept of Public Safety, and the
Glendale PD.
So I have spent more time supporting the cops than you have spent on tapping
on your keyboard.

I am awaiting your appology


Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Riding member of the
2003 world champion drill team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
GWRRA,NRA,GOA

"N329DF" wrote in message
...
Hey Miso,
You better check your facts, I did not dis the cops, just stating facts,
the
average cops knows nothing bout the arms they carry, have barely enough
training in how to use them, and have the worse hit to rounds fired in a
stress
fire situation. There is a reason cops carry hi-cap magazines, they need
them
to hit anything. The average citizen that carries for protection, in a
stress
fire situation, hits thier target more often, using fewer shots fired. The
average citizen knows more about firearms than the cop on street. I had to
explain to a cop once on how to clear and safe a model 1911 .45 automatic,
a
gun that has only been in continous production since lets see, 1911.

Speaking solely from personal experience (cop for 25 years), I never shot
below a 95 with any handgun I carried (S&W Model 28 357, S&W Model 29 .44
Magnum, S&W Model 4006 .40 cal) and usually shot a 98. I shot a 100% course
with the AR-15, open sights, over ranges of 50-200 yards, firing at
silhouette targets, every year for five years. These courses were Law
Enforcement Academy designed and approved, timed, and monitored.

The civilians I know who shot in high stress situations managed to hit a
relative about half the time, and that was because they were too sleepy to
duck. Two officers I know personally were engaged by a civilian who stood
at the top of an enclosed staircase in an apartment, and fired six rounds at
them as they climbed the stairs. He missed both officers. He was aiming.
(They were really p....ed when they got to the top of those stairs... deaf,
but pi...ed.)

Very rarely does the armed citizen who fires and misses ever tell anybody
about it. Their reporting standards are nothing like the reporting
standards used when an officer discharges a weapon. I would advise a bit of
caution when trying to compare data under those circumstances.

grin I remember a deer hunter who claimed to have killed a large buck
with a single shot. His cousin in another group mentioned in passing that
they had heard many rounds... "He must mean he only hit him once, I guess."

Don H.

"Don Harstad" wrote in message
...

"N329DF" wrote in message
...
Hey Miso,
You better check your facts, I did not dis the cops, just stating facts,
the
average cops knows nothing bout the arms they carry, have barely enough
training in how to use them, and have the worse hit to rounds fired in a
stress
fire situation. There is a reason cops carry hi-cap magazines, they need
them
to hit anything. The average citizen that carries for protection, in a
stress
fire situation, hits thier target more often, using fewer shots fired.
The
average citizen knows more about firearms than the cop on street. I had
to
explain to a cop once on how to clear and safe a model 1911 .45
automatic,
a
gun that has only been in continous production since lets see, 1911.

Speaking solely from personal experience (cop for 25 years), I never shot
below a 95 with any handgun I carried (S&W Model 28 357, S&W Model 29 .44
Magnum, S&W Model 4006 .40 cal) and usually shot a 98. I shot a 100%
course
with the AR-15, open sights, over ranges of 50-200 yards, firing at
silhouette targets, every year for five years. These courses were Law
Enforcement Academy designed and approved, timed, and monitored.

The civilians I know who shot in high stress situations managed to hit a
relative about half the time, and that was because they were too sleepy to
duck. Two officers I know personally were engaged by a civilian who stood
at the top of an enclosed staircase in an apartment, and fired six rounds
at
them as they climbed the stairs. He missed both officers. He was aiming.
(They were really p....ed when they got to the top of those stairs...
deaf,
but pi...ed.)

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.


Very rarely does the armed citizen who fires and misses ever tell anybody
about it. Their reporting standards are nothing like the reporting
standards used when an officer discharges a weapon. I would advise a bit
of
caution when trying to compare data under those circumstances.

grin I remember a deer hunter who claimed to have killed a large buck
with a single shot. His cousin in another group mentioned in passing that
they had heard many rounds... "He must mean he only hit him once, I
guess."

Don H.

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 00:07:47 +0100, Jim Doyle wrote:

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.

Indians, government, it's all the same.

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

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.


well you are a ignorant grunt. I would rather have a armed populas vs a unarmed
one, I would rather be standing over a dead criminal that broke into my house
vs have cops standing over my dead body cause they could not get there in time.
A armed person is a citizen, a unarmed person is a subject


Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Riding member of the
2003 world champion drill team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
GWRRA,NRA,GOA

"N329DF" wrote in message
...
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.


well you are a ignorant grunt. I would rather have a armed populas vs a
unarmed
one, I would rather be standing over a dead criminal that broke into my
house
vs have cops standing over my dead body cause they could not get there in
time.
A armed person is a citizen, a unarmed person is a subject

I guess that's borne of the amount of firearms used in crime (from
burglaries, robberies to muggings etc.) in the USA.

I am not on the troll here, I'm genuinely interested. Not too long ago I
visited the US and for a couple of nights stayed with a family - the father
kept a loaded AR15 (I think that was the designation, it was a semi
automatic version of the M16) and Browning 9mm for home protection. I saw no
need in that, apparently there'd not been a burglary in the neighbourhood
for over ten years - yet he slept beside these guns and freely admitted that
he'd shoot any burglar he found in his house, regardless of whether he was
carrying a gun or not.

There's protection - which I understand - and then there's taking the law
into your own hands, which can only become very dangerous for all involved,
burglar and homeowner alike.

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.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/a...nd_crime.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3112818.stm

Which is the safer society?

We both live in different situations - given the amount of gun crime in
America I understand your point of view, I just think it sad that people are
so ready to use deadly force. I see no defence for that.

Jim Doyle



Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Riding member of the
2003 world champion drill team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
GWRRA,NRA,GOA

Jim Doyle wrote:


I am not on the troll here, I'm genuinely interested. Not too long ago I
visited the US and for a couple of nights stayed with a family - the father
kept a loaded AR15 (I think that was the designation, it was a semi
automatic version of the M16) and Browning 9mm for home protection. I saw no
need in that, apparently there'd not been a burglary in the neighbourhood
for over ten years [...]

Did it ever occur to you that one possible reason there
had been no burglaries there in the preceeding twelve years
is because many of his neighbors were similarly armed? (And
the burglars would naturally seek less-dangerous territory?)

Just wondering...

"Jim Doyle" wrote:

Not too long ago I
visited the US and for a couple of nights stayed with a family - the father
kept a loaded AR15 (I think that was the designation, it was a semi
automatic version of the M16) and Browning 9mm for home protection. I saw no
need in that, apparently there'd not been a burglary in the neighbourhood
for over ten years - yet he slept beside these guns and freely admitted that
he'd shoot any burglar he found in his house, regardless of whether he was
carrying a gun or not.


Wow! ten years you say?...sure can't argue with success can you?
--

-Gord.

"Jim Doyle" wrote in message ...
I guess that's borne of the amount of firearms used in crime (from
burglaries, robberies to muggings etc.) in the USA.


Gun Control's Twisted Outcome: Restricting firearms has helped make
England more crime-ridden than the U.S. By Joyce Lee Malcolm.

http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml



I am not on the troll here, I'm genuinely interested.


You will not get all the answers by comparing numbers of deaths.

There is a legacy of social differences in the US and UK regarding
immigration patterns of foreigners and treatment of minorities, and
crime rates can be traced back to this. The British avoided some of
these problems when they abandoned their colonies and the people in
them -- which meant they obviously abandoned attendant social problems
along with it. The rainy island of Britain is not exactly ideal for
large plantations, with the sun not shining very often. Unlike the
deep south of the United States, large British-owned plantations were
more common in their colonies, where slaves and indentured servants
could be carefully hidden from polite society in London.

Britain is not quite the melting pot of cultures that is America, but
it might be in the future. And the associated troubles are sure to
follow.