Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

"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...

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message
...
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...

Sure, that's probably exactly why there were no burglaries in the area,
doesn't solve the problem though does it? He didn't have a sign in the
window advertising this vast arsenal and the desire to kill any sod who
breaks into his house - deterrents only work if they are known to be in
place.

People will still burgle, if they're expecting armed resistance then it'll
just make them more desperate and quick to fire upon being approached.
10,000+ firearm deaths kinda speaks for itself.

Jim Doyle

ure, that's probably exactly why there were no burglaries in the area,
doesn't solve the problem though does it? He didn't have a sign in the
window advertising this vast arsenal and the desire to kill any sod who
breaks into his house - deterrents only work if they are known to be in
place.

would you want to break into a house not knowing if the homeowner is armed ?
Kind of make breaking and entering a iffy proprosal. The numbers are not always
correct, if you look at the number of youths that were killed, a large number
were gang/drug related, and to keep the numbers high, 20+ year olds were listed
as being youths. There is no record for the number of crimes that were stopped
by the mere presence of a firearm. I know for myself, that was 3 times, with
shots being fired once in the protection of my nieghbor and his son from a pair
of attacking Pitt Bulls.

Armed men are citizens, unarmed men are subjects


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
...
ure, that's probably exactly why there were no burglaries in the area,
doesn't solve the problem though does it? He didn't have a sign in the
window advertising this vast arsenal and the desire to kill any sod who
breaks into his house - deterrents only work if they are known to be in
place.

would you want to break into a house not knowing if the homeowner is armed
?
Kind of make breaking and entering a iffy proprosal.


Well maybe but according to FBI statistics, a house, apartment or
condominium
is burglarized once every 15 seconds so its not exactly foolproof. A good
home
alarm system is generally considered to be a more effective deterrent.

Indeed the insurance companies will give hefty discount if an approved
system is fitted. Most burglars arent exactly the brightest fish in the
gene pool and a majority are opportunists who look for an
easy route in and out of a property. I rather doubt many are
aware of the guns owned by the home owner.

Keith

"Jim Doyle" wrote in
news

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message
...
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...

Sure, that's probably exactly why there were no burglaries in the
area, doesn't solve the problem though does it? He didn't have a sign
in the window advertising this vast arsenal and the desire to kill
any sod who breaks into his house - deterrents only work if they are
known to be in place.

Not true.If a significant number of homes are suspected of being armed,the
odds of being shot while making a burglary attempt are much greater.And
even the unarmed homes are safer,as the criminals have no way of knowing
WHOSE homes are armed. It's like those businesses that post "NO guns
allowed" signs are prime targets for crime,because the crims can count on
no one inside being armed,thus vulnerable,AND safer for the criminal.

People will still burgle, if they're expecting armed resistance then
it'll just make them more desperate and quick to fire upon being
approached. 10,000+ firearm deaths kinda speaks for itself.

Jim Doyle



But you wrongly assume that the crims will *know* that armed resistance is
possible.Also,criminals do not want to risk any shootouts,as the chances of
THEM getting shot is high,and the noise draws attention.

They prefer unarmed victims,and surveys of incarcerated felons have shown
this to be true.
And much of those firaearm deaths are criminal-criminal shootings,like
druggies fighting it out.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

In article ,
"Jim Doyle" wrote:

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...

Sure, that's probably exactly why there were no burglaries in the area,
doesn't solve the problem though does it? He didn't have a sign in the
window advertising this vast arsenal and the desire to kill any sod who
breaks into his house - deterrents only work if they are known to be in
place

No, they actually work better if the would-be criminal is *uncertain*.

If the risk is analyzed and determined to be too high for comfort, he'll
go elsewhere or go into a different line of work (such as moving from
confrontational to non-confrontational types of crime).

Steve Hix wrote:

In article ,
"Jim Doyle" wrote:

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...

Sure, that's probably exactly why there were no burglaries in the area,
doesn't solve the problem though does it? He didn't have a sign in the
window advertising this vast arsenal and the desire to kill any sod who
breaks into his house - deterrents only work if they are known to be in
place

No, they actually work better if the would-be criminal is *uncertain*.

If the risk is analyzed and determined to be too high for comfort, he'll
go elsewhere or go into a different line of work (such as moving from
confrontational to non-confrontational types of crime).

Or, horror of horrors, get a job maybe... shudder
--

-Gord.

In article ,
"Jim Doyle" wrote:

People will still burgle, if they're expecting armed resistance then it'll
just make them more desperate and quick to fire upon being approached.

Oddly enough, that doesn't seem to be the case. (The rate of burglary of
occupied homes in the U.S. is much lower than the equivalent rate in the
U.K., for example.)

10,000+ firearm deaths kinda speaks for itself.

No, mostly it speaks to a failed policy of Prohibition; most of the 10K
you cite are people engaged in one aspect or other of the illicit drug
trade.

"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.