Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

"Jay Stranahan" wrote in message
...
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?

Look, here's the deal - I would rather the lady not be burgled in the first
place - as anyone would. However that's trivial. Consider two options,
either neither the lady nor the burglars has a weapon or on the flip side,
they both do. Who is going to come out the better in a shoot out? The
granny? Certainly not, which is why it would be better that there were no
guns involved.

Of course this is purely academic since America has a firmly established gun
culture - don't forget you're talking to a Brit where the prospect of a some
opportunist burglar entering my house with a handgun is frankly zero. In
America, this is not the case, so give the poor granny an uzi and I wish her
every success.

Gun related deaths in the UK weighed in at 23 compared to over 10,000 in the
US for a similar time period. Granted, a large proportion of that 10,000 may
be gang related, or there may be other driving factors which are not so much
of an issue in the UK. I'm just speculating. However you look at it,
10,000's just staggering - that's Vietnam in five years.

This ethos of gun totting scares me rigid, how on earth can it be defended?
In the US the number of states permitting the concealed carriage of weapons
has risen from nine to 31 since 1986. That's just a step in the wrong
direction. Would you kill a man if he tried to steal your car? Do you value
your pick-up over a man's life? Even if he is a ****?


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.

Certainly doesn't, and that's a shame.

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 wholeheartedly agree, but wouldn't you prefer those guys to not have ready
access to guns to facilitate those violent crimes? Or is it their right to
go about their criminal activities safe in the knowledge that they've a
weapon for self protection? Lunacy!

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.

I'm not desperately urging you guys to throw down your guns, shout
hallelujahs and join the British way of life. I'm just fascinated as to why
you so readily defend your right to shoot someone where really no right
should exist.


Make of it what you like, city boy.


Call me what you like.

Jim Doyle

From: "Jim Doyle"


snip

I'm not desperately urging you guys to throw down your guns, shout
hallelujahs and join the British way of life. I'm just fascinated as to why
you so readily defend your right to shoot someone where really no right
should exist.


Jim Doyle

I don't think anyone is advocating shooting anyone. I personally have drawn my
weapon and it ended peacefully. No, I'm not law enforecment.

Having said that there is a real fear of injury or death at the hands of
criminals. I used to own a sporting goods store that sold guns. I lost a few
sales suggesting little old ladies get medium size barking dogs instead of
guns. I specified 'barking' since the bad guy is more likely go away without
entering when the dog lights up. If you have a nonbarking dog that bites the
bad guy you leave yourself open for a lawsuit. Believe it or not in the U.S. a
burglar can sue for injuries incurred in the commission of his crime.

I don't think a person should HAVE to fight with an intruder so I truly believe
a law abiding citizen should be allowed to keep and carry loaded fire arms.
Consideration must be given to the safety of children in the home.

To be fair most of the fears felt by citizens is unfounded and aggrivated by
alarmist news media, but if a firearm in the house makes one feel safe why
should it be anyone else's business? Would you rather we were unarmed and
afraid?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Jim Doyle"


snip

I'm not desperately urging you guys to throw down your guns, shout
hallelujahs and join the British way of life. I'm just fascinated as to
why
you so readily defend your right to shoot someone where really no right
should exist.


Jim Doyle

I don't think anyone is advocating shooting anyone. I personally have
drawn my
weapon and it ended peacefully. No, I'm not law enforecment.

Having said that there is a real fear of injury or death at the hands of
criminals. I used to own a sporting goods store that sold guns. I lost a
few
sales suggesting little old ladies get medium size barking dogs instead of
guns. I specified 'barking' since the bad guy is more likely go away
without
entering when the dog lights up. If you have a nonbarking dog that bites
the
bad guy you leave yourself open for a lawsuit. Believe it or not in the
U.S. a
burglar can sue for injuries incurred in the commission of his crime.

I don't think a person should HAVE to fight with an intruder so I truly
believe
a law abiding citizen should be allowed to keep and carry loaded fire
arms.
Consideration must be given to the safety of children in the home.

Do you not fear that your children could be hurt by the very gun that is in
your hands to protect them?


To be fair most of the fears felt by citizens is unfounded and aggrivated
by
alarmist news media, but if a firearm in the house makes one feel safe why
should it be anyone else's business? Would you rather we were unarmed and
afraid?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

From: "Jim Doyle"


"B2431" wrote in message

snip

I don't think a person should HAVE to fight with an intruder so I truly
believe
a law abiding citizen should be allowed to keep and carry loaded fire
arms.
Consideration must be given to the safety of children in the home.

Do you not fear that your children could be hurt by the very gun that is in
your hands to protect them?


If you can teach a child to not touch a stove burner you can teach him to leave
a fire arm alone. The firearm has to be available, not in plain sight. When
asked what the best type of home defense gun is I say double barrel shotgun
with the barrels sawn off at 18 inches. 18 inches is legal, 17.9 is not. You
don't need a 24 inch barrel in the house since the extra 6 inches will only
make things more difficult. The load should be 6 or 7 bird shot. This is going
to be stopped by drywall and glass. Yes, the window and wall will be ruined,
but all the energy of the shot will be expended in doing so. If the shot misses
the bad guy and goes out an open door or window it will have very little effect
across the street. At ranges you can expect inside a typical home the badguy
will get most of the shot between thigh and head if you point at center of
mass. Note I said "point" rather than aim. It's quicker. The second shot is
incase the badguy doesn't get the hint. No third shot is required since you can
tap the badguy with the barrels.

If you must use handgun ammunition you should use "prefragmented" ammunition
such as Mag-Safe or Glaser Safety Slugs since neither will ricochet and tend to
not penetrate walls.

The shotgun is best for someone with little or no training. If you aren't going
to the range avery few months the pistol isn't good because you need to be able
to handle it reflexively.

Above all treat all fireams as loaded. This tends to reduce accidents.

Bear in mind when the gun makers make an idiot proof gun someone will come up
with an improved idiot.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


"Jay Stranahan" wrote in message
...
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?

Look, here's the deal - I would rather the lady not be burgled in the
first place - as anyone would. However that's trivial. Consider two
options, either neither the lady nor the burglars has a weapon or on
the flip side, they both do. Who is going to come out the better in a
shoot out? The granny? Certainly not, which is why it would be better
that there were no guns involved.

Well,you seem to be wrong here,as there was such an incident here in the
Central Florida area,and the 50 yr old lady came out alive,after receiving
two shots,but killed the stalker that smashed through her patio door,armed
with a gun and a piece of rope.And i've read of many others in the "Armed
Citizen" column of the NRA,which reprints articles -from US newspapers-
where ODCs have used firearms to defend themselves against criminals.
Legal,legitimate self-defenses.
At least allowing the granny to be armed -if she chooses-,gives her a fair
chance of defense,something you seem to wish to deny to citizens.
It certainly is NOT better that she not be armed and face an intruder.
No way,no matter how you spin it.





--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Would you kill a man if he tried to steal your car? Do you value
your pick-up over a man's life? Even if he is a ****?


in a minute. If he is stealing my truck, that I use to make my living with,
that might have the tools I use to make a living with, and is my only means to
get to work, then he is no more to me than a vermin to be delt with. If the the
criminals knew that the sentence for stealing a car was death or life in
prison, they might think otherwise. There is a reason they used to hang horse
thieves. A horse was a familys mean of survival, to plow the fields, to go into
town to get supplies, to hunt with. Today the car has replaced the horse.
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
...
Would you kill a man if he tried to steal your car? Do you value
your pick-up over a man's life? Even if he is a ****?


in a minute. If he is stealing my truck, that I use to make my living
with,
that might have the tools I use to make a living with, and is my only
means to
get to work, then he is no more to me than a vermin to be delt with. If
the the
criminals knew that the sentence for stealing a car was death or life in
prison, they might think otherwise. There is a reason they used to hang
horse
thieves. A horse was a familys mean of survival, to plow the fields, to go
into
town to get supplies, to hunt with. Today the car has replaced the horse.

When I read this, my jaw just hit the desk. You are advocating the concept
that a life is worth less that a few material goods. Don't you have third
party insurance in the US? I don't mean to be rude, but drawing a comparison
to 18th century policy just makes you look even more out of the dark ages.
Someone tell me - this isn't the genuine feeling amongst all Americans?!

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

When I read this, my jaw just hit the desk. You are advocating the concept
that a life is worth less that a few material goods. Don't you have third
party insurance in the US?

Where I live, we have the highest automobile theft rate in the US. Getting
insurance to cover that is getting to the point it is not affordable. Alot of
people don't have insurance to cover the loss of a car or truck, and if they
lose it, it could be the difference between keeping a roof over thier head and
food on the table.
In my own family, my dad had a 74 F-100, he was getting ready to retire, and
knew that truck would be the last one he most likly ever to be able to get. He
put in a factory new motor, tranmission, every system gone thru to make it like
new. IT was stolen from his driveway less than a yr into his retirment. The
insurance would only pay for a truck that was a rust bucket and was not
reliable enough to go anywhere in. So not only did my dad loose his truck, he
lost his retirment plans, and insurance could not replace the truck with a as
good one.
I may sound callous bout taking a life in the defence of a car or truck, but
the vermin that stole my dads truck did alot more than just steal a truck, they
stole his future.
I don't hunt, because I don't like to kill a creature, be it a deer, rabit,
bird, snake, for sport, but I have no problem taking out a rat or other forms
of vermin, and thieves, either car or house, are a form of vermin.
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 in
:


"N329DF" wrote in message
...
Would you kill a man if he tried to steal your car? Do you value
your pick-up over a man's life? Even if he is a ****?


in a minute. If he is stealing my truck, that I use to make my living
with,
that might have the tools I use to make a living with, and is my only
means to
get to work, then he is no more to me than a vermin to be delt with.
If
the the
criminals knew that the sentence for stealing a car was death or life
in prison, they might think otherwise. There is a reason they used to
hang
horse
thieves. A horse was a familys mean of survival, to plow the fields,
to go
into
town to get supplies, to hunt with. Today the car has replaced the
horse.

When I read this, my jaw just hit the desk. You are advocating the
concept that a life is worth less that a few material goods.

Well,HIS life is not worth MY goods,to *me*. That's what matters.

He probably would not knowingly trade his life for my goods either.
He only commits such crimes thinking that he can avoid such risks.
Eliminate any possibility of such risks,and your crimes increase.
Increase the chances of life-threatening risks,and crime goes down.
Some of the worst places for crimes in the US are where guns are
restricted.

Don't you
have third party insurance in the US? I don't mean to be rude, but
drawing a comparison to 18th century policy just makes you look even
more out of the dark ages. Someone tell me - this isn't the genuine
feeling amongst all Americans?!

So,you would simply spread the costs of crime out over everyone else,rather
then stand up and defend what's yours? How brave of you.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Look, here's the deal - I would rather the lady not be burgled in the first
place - as anyone would. However that's trivial. Consider two options,
either neither the lady nor the burglars has a weapon or on the flip side,
they both do. Who is going to come out the better in a shoot out? The
granny? Certainly not, which is why it would be better that there were no
guns involved.

What makes you think if Reagan's ongoing War On Drugs can't shut down the meth
labs in the national forest behind my house that a War On Firearms is going to
be any more successful? We have the longest undefended borders in the world
here. You're an island. Maybe you can make it work. We can't.

Gun related deaths in the UK weighed in at 23 compared to over 10,000 in the
US for a similar time period. Granted, a large proportion of that 10,000 may
be gang related, or there may be other driving factors which are not so much
of an issue in the UK. I'm just speculating. However you look at it,
10,000's just staggering - that's Vietnam in five years.

Our population is several times yours, and it is spread over an area roughly
the size of Europe. The statistics you want, if you're to be honest with
yourself, are the numbers per. 100,000. I vaguely recall that our murder rate is
higher than yours but lower than the Baltic states. In every other sense, your
own society comes off far worse (which simply means you're passing through a
rough economic and demographic patch). Now. What does that tell you about your
prejudices -- and that's what they are -- regarding my people and *my* society?

This ethos of gun totting scares me rigid, how on earth can it be defended?
In the US the number of states permitting the concealed carriage of weapons
has risen from nine to 31 since 1986. That's just a step in the wrong
direction.

Before you get all worked up in this tearful frenzy over what the poor Americans
are inflicting upon themselves, why don't you -- if you really care -- do a bit
of research as to how many legally carried firearms were employed unlawfully
over the past few years?

And: Your understanding of American gun laws seems to be kind off off-kilter. I
can't *lawfully* wave a shotgun at some prick trying to steal my pickup truck.
That's called felony brandishment, and will earn me jail time. On the other
hand, if the sonofabitch comes inside and tries to harm me, it's reassuring to
know I can stop him cold, although I frankly can't fathom that happening in the
first place. Life here is so safe as to be boring.

You also seem to think that mere possession of a firearm makes an otherwise
ordinary human being susceptible to the equivelant of road rage. And if that
were true, Shasta County would be one of the bloodiest places on earth.

I wholeheartedly agree, but wouldn't you prefer those guys to not have ready
access to guns to facilitate those violent crimes?

How do you prevent that by the mere act of outlawing them? It didn't work for
grass or meth.

Or is it their right to
go about their criminal activities safe in the knowledge that they've a
weapon for self protection? Lunacy!

Here you are going off half-cocked again, and excuse me for calling you on it.
Please do go to the FBI's web site -- again, if you actually care -- and do some
research into how many legally-owned firearms were used in the commission of a
crime in the United States last year, or even in the last decade.

Look, I'm not laying out flame-bait for you. I'm not spewing smug rhetoric. I'm
saying, do what I did a few years ago and challenge your own assumptions. After
I got through looking at what the Centers for Disease Control and the Feds said
about gun crime in America, I felt a lot better as a gun owner. I can't recall
the exact figure off the top of my head, but the number is absurdly low. Single
digits of single digits.

I'm not desperately urging you guys to throw down your guns, shout
hallelujahs and join the British way of life.

I know. I know that.

I'm just fascinated as to why
you so readily defend your right to shoot someone where really no right
should exist.

As a mushy-squishy California LibDem who voted for Gore the last time around, I
have to honestly say that is -- to me -- a dismaying, disquieting, illiberal
sentiment, and I cannot fathom your mindset. We are just going to have to agree
to disagree on that one. Viscerally.

And now, having dispensed my Solomon-like wisdom to all and sundry, I will go
out and flop a slab of fresh tuna on the gas grill and make some fish tacos, and
I will sit on the back porch and eat them in the secure knowledge that despit
our guns and drugs and widespread poverty and petty sleazy white-trash
meannesses that Shasta County is *still* safer than Merrie Olde England.