Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

"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.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"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. 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.

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.

Jim Doyle

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"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.

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.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.

Jim Doyle

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net






--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

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

Okay, look.. I don't want to come off sounding like some chest-beating
right-wing arsehole, but.... look at what you just wrote. Given the choice
between self defense in her own home and placing herself at the mercy of a young
male intruder, the woman in question should throw herself on the mercy of the
intruder for *fear* that *he* might be armed.

I'm sorry, but that's loathesome. Is this what you would choose for your own
wife or mother?

And since I'm in a state of high dudgeon at the moment, here's a link on violent
crime for the year in question from -- no, not some NRA think tank, but The
Economist:

http://www.economist.com/displayStor...tory_ID=513031

Britain doesn't come off too well.

Here's another link from the Bureau of Justice. More Americans kill themselves
with firearms than use them to commit any sort of crime. (Nothing to be proud
of, for Christ's sake, but revealing).

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm

And at any rate, this is all so much ****ing in the wind. The primary causes of
crime are demographic and economic: The more jobless young men you have running
around, the bigger the spike in crime. Demographers have been pointing this out
for a long time, but they don't seem to make much of a dent in the whole
crime/punishment/gun debate. I'm convinced culture also plays a part, as fuzzy
and un-quantifiable as that may sound. I live in rural northern California,
where we have no shortage of mean/stupid druggies/alcoholics/just plain crazies,
and where the percentage of people on some kind of state support is in the
double digits, and where pot and meth are to be easily manufactured and
purchased, and where absolutely every house has *several* longarms in it...

.....and yet out of 150,000-odd people, we had something like 380 violent crimes
in 2001, including two murders (neither of which were gun-related). Which was
damned alarming, because most years it's zero. I know that doesn't fit your
prejudices -- about firearms in general, or about my people, or about the
society we live in -- but there it is.

Make of it what you like, city boy.

(miso) wrote in
om:

I know exactly what I am talking about. The NRA types need to diss the
police to justify their need for weapons.

No,we realize that the police are not always around to protect us,so it
falls to ourselves to do so,and we want the best tools for the job.
Clue;the 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting or "sporting purposes".

You still don't know what you're talking about.

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





--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Come on, you know the 2nd amendment refers to a state militia. What
part of "well regulated" don't you understand.

Getting back to the Gone On Arrival dude, he made a blanket statement
that cops can't shoot. Read it and enjoy the odor of the company. He
hates cops, pure and simple, and that attitude is very common in the
NRA and Gone On Arrival crowd.

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

I know exactly what I am talking about. The NRA types need to diss the
police to justify their need for weapons.

No,we realize that the police are not always around to protect us,so it
falls to ourselves to do so,and we want the best tools for the job.
Clue;the 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting or "sporting purposes".

You still don't know what you're talking about.

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

(miso) wrote in
om:

Come on, you know the 2nd amendment refers to a state militia. What
part of "well regulated" don't you understand.

And just WHAT does it say about that "well-regulated militia"? That it's
necessary to a free state,NOTHING more.It does not require membership in
any militia to keep or bear arms. And it goes on to state that the RIGHT is
"of the PEOPLE",not a militia.Learn to read.
Further,most of the Founders writings indicated that they intended that
every free man be armed.(if they choose)

Getting back to the Gone On Arrival dude, he made a blanket statement
that cops can't shoot. Read it and enjoy the odor of the company. He
hates cops, pure and simple, and that attitude is very common in the
NRA and Gone On Arrival crowd.

How would you know that's the attitude of the "NRA crowd"?
Did you do a survey? Where's your source for this?
You know nothing about the NRA or what they are for.
I suspect the same goes for GOA and it's members.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

In article ,
(miso) wrote:

Come on, you know the 2nd amendment refers to a state militia.

Nonsense; it refers to "the people", and notes "militia" as one reason
why the people should not be disarmed.

The militia, at the time, was defined as the citizenry in general,
capable of bearing arms for defense of themselves and the state ("state"
being a term of art referrring to a sovereign nation).

What part of "well regulated" don't you understand.

Define it for us.

As used at the time the 2nd was written.

(A timepiece can be "regulated", a shotgun can be "regulated", a
flintlock mechanism can be "regulated". In all cases, adjusted to peform
to a minimum standard.)