Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message
...
Well, there is a definite historical culture clash between Brits
and Americans concerning personal ownership of firearms (and that
alone is hard to overcome) - but it actually goes much deeper than
the legal mechanics of private gun ownership.

I believe that to be only a recent (i.e. past century) issue. Until WW2 I
think it was legal for UK residents to own firearms, but as someone else
said they were mainly long-barrelled weapons for sport or hunting. The hand
gun has no other purpose than to shoot other people.

Being a Brit myself, I actually wish we did have the right to bear arms, at
least on our own property, and the legal back up to use them if necessary.
But, (and this is where I give the US population credit they deserve but
very often don't get), is that I don't believe the UK population has the
respect for those weapons tha they deserve. They've just not been part of
our social landscape. If they were to legalise the ownership of hand guns
tomorrow in a similar manner to US laws, gun crime and accidental shootings
would (I believe) go through the roof as the current generation overcame the
novelty value of owning a "piece".

Si

"Simon Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message
...
Well, there is a definite historical culture clash between Brits
and Americans concerning personal ownership of firearms (and that
alone is hard to overcome) - but it actually goes much deeper than
the legal mechanics of private gun ownership.

I believe that to be only a recent (i.e. past century) issue. Until WW2 I
think it was legal for UK residents to own firearms, but as someone else
said they were mainly long-barrelled weapons for sport or hunting. The
hand
gun has no other purpose than to shoot other people.


It still is legal to own long arms, shotgun certificates arent that
hard to get and even rifles can be had as long as they
arent military assault weapons. As a child of the 50's weapons
brought back as trophies from WW2 were not uncommon.
The father of one school friend had at least 2 german machine
pistols as well as a Luger.

Being a Brit myself, I actually wish we did have the right to bear arms,
at
least on our own property, and the legal back up to use them if necessary.
But, (and this is where I give the US population credit they deserve but
very often don't get), is that I don't believe the UK population has the
respect for those weapons tha they deserve. They've just not been part of
our social landscape. If they were to legalise the ownership of hand guns
tomorrow in a similar manner to US laws, gun crime and accidental
shootings
would (I believe) go through the roof as the current generation overcame
the
novelty value of owning a "piece".


In rural areas shotguns are commonplace and the stringent regulations
regarding their storage are the result of 2 factors

1) Accidental discharges of 'unloaded' weapons

2) Theft

There was a period in the 70's when rural farms were the source of
firearms for city based villains, far from protecting their owners
from burglary they attracted unwelcome attention.

Keith

From: "Simon Robbins"


The hand
gun has no other purpose than to shoot other people.


Where did you get that idea? There are entire categories of competion using
handguns (ever heard of the Olympics?) and many hunter use them as a greater
challenge than long guns.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In message , Simon Robbins
writes
"Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message
...
Well, there is a definite historical culture clash between Brits
and Americans concerning personal ownership of firearms (and that
alone is hard to overcome) - but it actually goes much deeper than
the legal mechanics of private gun ownership.

I believe that to be only a recent (i.e. past century) issue. Until WW2 I
think it was legal for UK residents to own firearms,

I owned firearms until 1997. Still could now, shotguns, rifles or
repeating handguns, if I had the time and spare cash.

Trouble was, having concentrated on Practical Pistol, it would have been
a fairly awkward shift in both hardware and technique to go over to
shooting black-powder pistol (even if a LeMat makes a fairly awesome
weapon: nine rounds of soft lead .36" ball plus a shotgun, any intruder
still standing after *that* has earned the right to pillage while I
reload: if I wanted one I could get one, legally and fairly easily)

but as someone else
said they were mainly long-barrelled weapons for sport or hunting. The hand
gun has no other purpose than to shoot other people.

That's its design role, just as the role of a sword is to kill people
(hence no more sports fencing) and the bow had no purpose other than
turning living creatures into dead meat (so no more archery either).

For that matter, let's ban the javelin from athletics (throwing spears
were only ever designed for killing!).

Sports grew out of military competition: so we should also ban all
martial arts from boxing onwards (dedicated to learning how to batter an
opponent insensible!)

Being a Brit myself, I actually wish we did have the right to bear arms, at
least on our own property, and the legal back up to use them if necessary.

Closer than you might think now, tabloid hysteria notwithstanding.

But, (and this is where I give the US population credit they deserve but
very often don't get), is that I don't believe the UK population has the
respect for those weapons tha they deserve. They've just not been part of
our social landscape. If they were to legalise the ownership of hand guns
tomorrow in a similar manner to US laws, gun crime and accidental shootings
would (I believe) go through the roof as the current generation overcame the
novelty value of owning a "piece".

No worse than in the US. The electable viewpoint there is that the costs
are worth paying, but there the genie's out of the bottle and it's a
fair assumption that any casual burglar or opportunistic mugger might be
carrying a firearm. Unfortunately, the reaction to to that gets them a
lot of stolen weapons, domestic accidents and other grief, but the
current consensus is that the gain outweighs the cost.

For the moment, in the UK the overall view is different. Personally, I'd
be happy with much more widespread ownership provided that ownership
equalled responsibility: your weapon, your job to keep it secure. You
want a weapon, it lives on your person or else properly secured. You
fire that weapon, you're responsible for every round leaving the barrel.
Not popular here, and oddly enough it seems to be very unpopular in the
US for very different reasons

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


"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.

Except that UK gun laws do NOT prevent criminals from having guns.It only
prevents ODCs from having guns(for self-defense).You still could get
shot,or knifed,or clubbed,or simply beaten to death by a group or by
someone mcuh larger/stronger than you.


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.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html


http://www.cobras.org/usastats.htm
http://society.guardian.co.uk/social...1,761948,00.ht
ml



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.

No,I am NOT joking.
Are you saying it's better to let a serial murderer or rapist escape than
shoot them? How about a terrorist bomber?
Why do you wish to protect criminals?


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.

Hey,the criminal is the one who should bear the risks;if they get shot in
the commission of a crime,it's their own fault.And not every shot kills,so
shooting someone is NOT being "judge,jury and executioner".
Nice try at emotionalizing the issue,though.


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.

If you believe your life to be in danger,or to stop a "forcible felony",yes
it is legal to use lethal force. And inside one's home,the "castle
doctrine" holds(in most locales);that they are not there for any good
purpose,that it's threat to your life.(Although you cannot shoot them in
the back,if they are fleeing,then they are not a threat anymore.)

These laws place the onus on the criminal,not the ODC,the way it SHOULD be.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:
Firstly, I'd rather be punched than shot, so I'll happily endure the
other non gun crimes in the UK.

Except that UK gun laws do NOT prevent criminals from having guns.

Prevent, no. Seriously reduce the odds, yes. (And many of those 'guns' are
replicas, blank firers, air pistols or dodgy conversions - they all count as
"firearms" in the crime statistics. One guy tried to rob a post office using
two pieces of gas pipe taped together: that was a 'firearm crime')

It only
prevents ODCs from having guns(for self-defense).You still could get
shot,or knifed,or clubbed,or simply beaten to death by a group or by
someone mcuh larger/stronger than you.

And being armed would change what, precisely, if you're outnumbered and
surprised?

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

No,I am NOT joking.
Are you saying it's better to let a serial murderer or rapist escape than
shoot them? How about a terrorist bomber?

I think you'll find that you're legally allowed to defend yourself and to
prevent crimes, but shooting people in the back as they flee is not
generally allowed for either private citizens or police officers.

Why do you wish to protect criminals?

A few years ago, a Scotsman was working in Texas. He made the mistake of
knocking on someone's door to ask for directions: the homeowner shot the guy
several times through the door and killed him. Was he a "criminal"?

Hey,the criminal is the one who should bear the risks;if they get shot in
the commission of a crime,it's their own fault.And not every shot kills,so
shooting someone is NOT being "judge,jury and executioner".
Nice try at emotionalizing the issue,though.

You fire a weapon in my direction, you are making a deliberate attempt to
kill me, and I *will* take it extremely personally. Firing at someone is
"deadly force" and there's no way to weasel around it.

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.

If you believe your life to be in danger,or to stop a "forcible
felony",yes
it is legal to use lethal force.

I've been told with a straight face that it's fair and reasonable to shoot
and kill trespassers. Someone sets a foot on your lawn and you're allowed to
kill them. Same poster claimed that this was entirely right and reasonable.

And inside one's home,the "castle
doctrine" holds(in most locales);that they are not there for any good
purpose,that it's threat to your life.(Although you cannot shoot them in
the back,if they are fleeing,then they are not a threat anymore.)

See above for the inconsistency.

These laws place the onus on the criminal,not the ODC,the way it SHOULD
be.

True here too: just no need for lots of handguns. Someone breaks into your
house, you're allowed to hurt them until they leave, and if they try to come
back you can hurt them some more. Just make sure that most of the wounds are
in their front, not their back.

(And for the endless whines about Jill Dando - she was shot in the back of
the head on her doorstep, caught completely unawares. She could have had a
MAC-10 in each hand and it wouldn't have made the slightest difference)

--
Paul J. Adam

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:
Firstly, I'd rather be punched than shot, so I'll happily endure
the other non gun crimes in the UK.

Except that UK gun laws do NOT prevent criminals from having guns.

Prevent, no. Seriously reduce the odds, yes. (And many of those 'guns'
are replicas, blank firers, air pistols or dodgy conversions - they
all count as "firearms" in the crime statistics. One guy tried to rob
a post office using two pieces of gas pipe taped together: that was a
'firearm crime')

But you CAN be killed by a converted blank gun,or a homemade gun,or
zipgun,and who know's the difference in what the criminal is pointing at
you.Even if it were an unloaded gun,who know's that?

Fact is;guns ARE available to criminals in the UK.When you start talking
about "odds" of one having a gun,it really doesn't matter.And of
course,there are OTHER deadly weapons,some present in your homes,like
kitchen knives.Or weapons of opportunity.But that should NOT restrict an
ODC from having the best weapon available,a firearm.


It only
prevents ODCs from having guns(for self-defense).You still could get
shot,or knifed,or clubbed,or simply beaten to death by a group or by
someone mcuh larger/stronger than you.

And being armed would change what, precisely, if you're outnumbered
and surprised?

Quite often,a group will choose to flee rather than risk getting
shot,something life threatening and hard to explain to officials.

And being armed still betters YOUR chances against a group,better than any
other item or method.

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

No,I am NOT joking.
Are you saying it's better to let a serial murderer or rapist escape
than shoot them? How about a terrorist bomber?

I think you'll find that you're legally allowed to defend yourself and
to prevent crimes, but shooting people in the back as they flee is not
generally allowed for either private citizens or police officers.

I think you'd find exceptions made for terrorist bombers or serial
killers/rapists.

Why do you wish to protect criminals?

A few years ago, a Scotsman was working in Texas. He made the mistake
of knocking on someone's door to ask for directions: the homeowner
shot the guy several times through the door and killed him. Was he a
"criminal"?

I don't know all the circumstances of that incident,so I can't say.

Hey,the criminal is the one who should bear the risks;if they get
shot in the commission of a crime,it's their own fault.And not every
shot kills,so shooting someone is NOT being "judge,jury and
executioner". Nice try at emotionalizing the issue,though.

You fire a weapon in my direction, you are making a deliberate attempt
to kill me, and I *will* take it extremely personally. Firing at
someone is "deadly force" and there's no way to weasel around it.

Sure it's deadly force.So what? It's still not being "judge,jury and
executioner".There's more than a good chance that you will not die.
The risk should be the criminals,not the ODCs.

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.

If you believe your life to be in danger,or to stop a "forcible
felony",yes
it is legal to use lethal force.

I've been told with a straight face that it's fair and reasonable to
shoot and kill trespassers. Someone sets a foot on your lawn and
you're allowed to kill them. Same poster claimed that this was
entirely right and reasonable.

Some states allow "defense of property".Although for just setting foot on
it seems unreasonable,without futher knowledge of the situation.

And inside one's home,the "castle
doctrine" holds(in most locales);that they are not there for any good
purpose,that it's threat to your life.(Although you cannot shoot them
in the back,if they are fleeing,then they are not a threat anymore.)

See above for the inconsistency.

Well,if the guy turns his back to you and reaches for a weapon,then it
would be allowable.It depends on the circumstances.

These laws place the onus on the criminal,not the ODC,the way it
SHOULD
be.

True here too: just no need for lots of handguns. Someone breaks into
your house, you're allowed to hurt them until they leave, and if they
try to come back you can hurt them some more. Just make sure that most
of the wounds are in their front, not their back.

Well,a handgun is much easier to wield in close quarters than a shotgun,and
also can be carried on one's person,concealed.Then they get protection
while outside the home.

(And for the endless whines about Jill Dando - she was shot in the
back of the head on her doorstep, caught completely unawares. She
could have had a MAC-10 in each hand and it wouldn't have made the
slightest difference)

--
Paul J. Adam



That just shows how one CAN get shot in LONDON,in -nice- places,and that
guns(handguns) ARE available in the UK,regardless of the UK gun laws.Too
many Britishers are unwilling to recognize that.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

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


"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.

Except that UK gun laws do NOT prevent criminals from having guns.It only
prevents ODCs from having guns(for self-defense).You still could get
shot,or knifed,or clubbed,or simply beaten to death by a group or by
someone mcuh larger/stronger than you.


True, the law can never prevent the criminals from owning firearms, and in
recent years there's been a steady stream of weapons into the UK from the
Baltic States. However, a criminal in America is 99.9% likely to own a gun
and have it with him inside your house, in the UK this is just not the case.
The type of criminal who carries a gun in the UK is not petty enough to rob
your home, they'll be bigfish.

The driving factor for an American criminal to carry a gun is to protect
himself from your 9mm. Also those of the police. That puts you, your family,
and any bystanders in danger each time you take up your gun and fight the
good fight like a true American hero. The police have a right to carry guns,
as by your law, you do too. You are very obviously a conscientious gun user
and very capable with your weapon, yet not all citizens of your fair country
are that meticulous, and that's when they become too much of a danger for
society to accept.

Were a close friend or relative of yours killed whilst at the bank by a
member of the public attempting to foil a heist, are you au fait with that?
If you are, there's something wrong.

As regards to violent beating/stabbings in the UK - I've haven't seen any
information that would indicate that they are anymore likely/unlikely than
in the US. So you can speculate whether that is the case, but it's not the
issue at hand.

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.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html


That, if anything, proves my point over yours. From the very first line of
your reference:
'The U.S. has a high gun murder rate, whereas a country like England with
strict gun controls has almost no gun murders and a very low murder rate.'

Although I appreciate that the website goes on to argue that gun control is
not the limiting factor - I disagree with those opinions presented - yet the
hard facts remain. Just look at that table.


http://www.cobras.org/usastats.htm
http://society.guardian.co.uk/social...1,761948,00.ht
ml



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.

No,I am NOT joking.
Are you saying it's better to let a serial murderer or rapist escape than
shoot them? How about a terrorist bomber?
Why do you wish to protect criminals?

I have no desire to harbour/protect criminals, especially of the variety you
describe. They, frankly, are ****s and deserve everything that is due them.
There are of course various tiers of criminal and I would argue that an
opportunist burglar in to swipe your VCR is not deserving of two in the
chest and one in the head. They aren't all baby-eating, gang rapists off on
a busman's holiday to your front room. You, as neither policeman nor judge,
are not in the position to legally deliver deadly force.

So, yes, kill the ******* but face the repercussions.



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.

Hey,the criminal is the one who should bear the risks;if they get shot in
the commission of a crime,it's their own fault.And not every shot kills,so
shooting someone is NOT being "judge,jury and executioner".
Nice try at emotionalizing the issue,though.

I am not the drama queen you seem to think I am. That phrase, cliché that it
is, is poignant nonetheless. I agree, criminals should bear the
responsibility of their actions over their victims. Yet regardless of
M-kills, K-kills, whichever, the concept of a citizen delivering deadly
force - successful or not - what would you call that person?



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.

If you believe your life to be in danger,or to stop a "forcible
felony",yes
it is legal to use lethal force. And inside one's home,the "castle
doctrine" holds(in most locales);that they are not there for any good
purpose,that it's threat to your life.(Although you cannot shoot them in
the back,if they are fleeing,then they are not a threat anymore.)

If I believed my life, or more importantly that of my wife or child, to be
in danger and lethal force were the only option, then yes I would be fully
prepared for trial over the legality of the death. That's reasonable. What
isn't reasonable is to fire upon a man you find in your home who presently
doesn't represent a life or death situation. Hard to understand, I know, but
you as a citizen has a duty to all - fellow citizen and criminal alike - to
preserve life.


These laws place the onus on the criminal,not the ODC,the way it SHOULD
be.


Yes, I agree. As the onus should be on you to defend yourself at trial for
the death of whoever you shoot, let a jury decide your fate and the
legitimacy of your actions. There should be no 'Get out of jail free' card -
bedlam soon follows.

Jim Doyle



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


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


"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.

Except that UK gun laws do NOT prevent criminals from having guns.It
only prevents ODCs from having guns(for self-defense).You still could
get shot,or knifed,or clubbed,or simply beaten to death by a group or
by someone mcuh larger/stronger than you.


True, the law can never prevent the criminals from owning firearms,
and in recent years there's been a steady stream of weapons into the
UK from the Baltic States. However, a criminal in America is 99.9%
likely to own a gun and have it with him inside your house, in the UK
this is just not the case.

I'd like to know where you got this figure of 99%.

The type of criminal who carries a gun in
the UK is not petty enough to rob your home, they'll be bigfish.

The driving factor for an American criminal to carry a gun is to
protect himself from your 9mm.

No,you're wrong here.The purpose of a criminal carrying ANY weapon is to
put fear into their chosen victim,to allow him to dominate the situation,to
insure that the victim will not try to resist.Considering the fact that
most US citizens do not carry firearms,it would be illogical to think that
criminals carry guns to "protect" themselves against their victims.
Now,they do carry to protect themselves against -other- criminals. That's
where the larger number of US "gun murders" come from,criminal-criminal
shootings.Mostly drug related,too.

Also those of the police.

Wrong again.Criminals do not carry guns to "protect" themselves from
police.The last thing they want is to get in a shootout with police.
WHERE do you get these wild ideas?



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.

Yes,they don't need them in the UK because you folks are so willing to
stand by and allow them to make off with your possessions.


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.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html


That, if anything, proves my point over yours. From the very first
line of your reference:
'The U.S. has a high gun murder rate, whereas a country like England
with strict gun controls has almost no gun murders and a very low
murder rate.'

Except that it was low BEFORE the UK gun control,showing that the presence
of guns is NOT the factor.That's the part you miss.

Although I appreciate that the website goes on to argue that gun
control is not the limiting factor - I disagree with those opinions
presented - yet the hard facts remain. Just look at that table.



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.

No,I am NOT joking.
Are you saying it's better to let a serial murderer or rapist escape
than shoot them? How about a terrorist bomber?
Why do you wish to protect criminals?

I have no desire to harbour/protect criminals, especially of the
variety you describe. They, frankly, are ****s and deserve everything
that is due them. There are of course various tiers of criminal and I
would argue that an opportunist burglar in to swipe your VCR is not
deserving of two in the chest and one in the head. They aren't all
baby-eating, gang rapists off on a busman's holiday to your front
room. You, as neither policeman nor judge, are not in the position to
legally deliver deadly force.


Well,you never KNOW until they've left and you still are unharmed.But why
should anyone stand aside and allow criminals to enter one's home and make
off with their possessions? Why minimize the risks for the criminal,and
force the ODCs to bear the risks?

So, yes, kill the ******* but face the repercussions.



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.

Hey,the criminal is the one who should bear the risks;if they get
shot in the commission of a crime,it's their own fault.And not every
shot kills,so shooting someone is NOT being "judge,jury and
executioner". Nice try at emotionalizing the issue,though.

I am not the drama queen you seem to think I am. That phrase, cliché
that it is, is poignant nonetheless. I agree, criminals should bear
the responsibility of their actions over their victims. Yet regardless
of M-kills, K-kills, whichever, the concept of a citizen delivering
deadly force - successful or not - what would you call that person?


Someone who will not accept criminals rights over decent citizens rights.
The right to own property is part of being free.If others can enter your
home and steal with impunity,you have no freedom.


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.

If you believe your life to be in danger,or to stop a "forcible
felony",yes
it is legal to use lethal force. And inside one's home,the "castle
doctrine" holds(in most locales);that they are not there for any good
purpose,that it's threat to your life.(Although you cannot shoot them
in the back,if they are fleeing,then they are not a threat anymore.)

If I believed my life, or more importantly that of my wife or child,
to be in danger and lethal force were the only option, then yes I
would be fully prepared for trial over the legality of the death.

There's shouldn't even BE a trial in such circumstances as a criminal
inside one's home.If evidence shows a wrongful entry,then it's justifiable
homicide,or self-defense.
Either way,the criminal will NOT be doing it again,a BENEFIT to society.
Who knows how many others he would harm?

That's reasonable. What isn't reasonable is to fire upon a man you
find in your home who presently doesn't represent a life or death
situation. Hard to understand, I know, but you as a citizen has a duty
to all - fellow citizen and criminal alike - to preserve life.


His BEING THERE is a threat to my safety.
He's not there for any benign purpose,and I can't read minds or see the
future.I don't know what he may decide to do.
And he has NO right to my property.


These laws place the onus on the criminal,not the ODC,the way it
SHOULD
be.


Yes, I agree. As the onus should be on you to defend yourself at trial
for the death of whoever you shoot, let a jury decide your fate and
the legitimacy of your actions. There should be no 'Get out of jail
free' card - bedlam soon follows.

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.