Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

"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:

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:

SNIP
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.
SNIP

Jim, the not shooting them in the back is just another way of saying,
not shooting them once they are no longer a threat (as in they are
legging it out of there).

Coming up behind someone committing a violent crime (assault).. you'll
probably be able to use "reasonable force in the defence of another".
(As in the case of the father who whacked the intruder standing in the
dark over his daughter's bed... shooting the intruder in the back might
present some problems, trying to smash his head in with a cricket bat
contains the risks of collateral damage.)

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:
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,

Elsewhere you're claiming that uncertainty of outcome is a good thing - why
the change of mind?

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?

Even the imitations don't turn up in burglaries.

Fact is;guns ARE available to criminals in the UK.

Of course, and always have been, but they don't get used for burglary.

When you start talking
about "odds" of one having a gun,it really doesn't matter.

Are you carrying elephant repellant, Jim? You *could* be trampled to death
by a herd of rogue elephants at any time, you know. I can sell you, for just
$5,000 cash, a guaranteed anti-elephant formula that will protect you.

Admittedly, you might consider "the odds" of elephant-related death rather
low, but can you afford to take chances with your safety?

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.

Thanks, but we like having handguns be rare and unusual. You do it your way,
we'll do it ours.

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.

Other times, they'll help themselves to your weapon and use it on you.

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

Not if one or two of the group have guns: outnumbered and outgunned is a bad
place to be.

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.

How many of either have you had in your home lately? For that matter, how
many of the low-lifes who break into houses to steal portable valuables
moonlight as terrorist bomb-carriers?

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.

How did the presence of firearms protect him, and how would being armed have
helped him? And what crime was prevented by his death?

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.

Thus leaving the ODC open to a lifetime of legal nightmares, apparently.

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,

Where are you keeping it while you're asleep?

and
also can be carried on one's person,concealed.Then they get protection
while outside the home.

Protection from what? It seems you guys live in constant dread.

(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)

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.

And how "being armed" is far from the panacea quoted. Note also that this
incident was five years ago - haven't you had any other examples to cite?

--
Paul J. Adam

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:
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,

Elsewhere you're claiming that uncertainty of outcome is a good thing
- why the change of mind?

No change of mind;I'm concerned about the ODCs safety,not the criminals.
Those homemade weapons are a lethal threat.In the criminals hands,they are
intended to give the crook domination of the situation,not for any express
purpose of killing,but they still must be regarded as a lethal threat.Point
one at a police officer,and they will be judged proper in shooting and
killing the holder of the homemade weapon.why should it be any different
for an ODC?

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?

Even the imitations don't turn up in burglaries.

Fact is;guns ARE available to criminals in the UK.

Of course, and always have been, but they don't get used for burglary.

Because they know they are safe,protected by UK's laws against self-
defense,at the expense of the citizenry.Appeasement,that's what it is.

When you start talking
about "odds" of one having a gun,it really doesn't matter.

Are you carrying elephant repellant, Jim? You *could* be trampled to
death by a herd of rogue elephants at any time, you know. I can sell
you, for just $5,000 cash, a guaranteed anti-elephant formula that
will protect you.

Admittedly, you might consider "the odds" of elephant-related death
rather low, but can you afford to take chances with your safety?

well,now you're talking nonsense.But actually,in parts of the US,attacks by
large animals such as bears or cougars is a fair possibility.Deer crash
through people windows.Even people's dogs are a potential threat,especially
the large,dangerous breeds. Some gangbangers use THEM as weapons,too.

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.

Thanks, but we like having handguns be rare and unusual. You do it
your way, we'll do it ours.

yes,keep those criminals safe,while your citizens suffer crimes.
Appease them.

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.

Other times, they'll help themselves to your weapon and use it on you.

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

Not if one or two of the group have guns: outnumbered and outgunned is
a bad place to be.

You're STILL better off than being unarmed.And at least you will get some
of them before they get you,maybe even the ones with the guns.Then the next
group will have second thoughts about trying such attacks against
others.Nobody wants to get shot,if there's any fair possibility of
shooting,the crooks avoid that.It draws too much attention they don't
want.It's a fact that criminals fear armed citizens(much more than the
police,too.),prison surveys have shown this.

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.

How many of either have you had in your home lately? For that matter,
how many of the low-lifes who break into houses to steal portable
valuables moonlight as terrorist bomb-carriers?

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.

How did the presence of firearms protect him, and how would being
armed have helped him? And what crime was prevented by his death?

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.

Thus leaving the ODC open to a lifetime of legal nightmares,
apparently.

Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.


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,

Where are you keeping it while you're asleep?

Nunya bidness.


and
also can be carried on one's person,concealed.Then they get
protection while outside the home.

Protection from what? It seems you guys live in constant dread.

(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)

Well,so she was caught unawares;that's the result of a false sense of
security that the UK residents have,from their "gun control".

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.

And how "being armed" is far from the panacea quoted. Note also that
this incident was five years ago - haven't you had any other examples
to cite?


Why,what's changed in the last 5 years? Nothing.But UK gun crimes have
risen every year,I believe,despite gun "control".




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:
Of course, and always have been, but they don't get used for burglary.

Because they know they are safe,protected by UK's laws against self-
defense,at the expense of the citizenry.

Or because they can't afford guns, because if they had that sort of cash
they wouldn't be out burgling or nicking car stereos. And because if they
*had* a gun they'd use it for something more lucrative.

Appeasement,that's what it is.

If you think any intruder in my house is safe, then come and try to break
in. Stop trying to tell us what life's like here.

Are you carrying elephant repellant, Jim? You *could* be trampled to
death by a herd of rogue elephants at any time, you know. I can sell
you, for just $5,000 cash, a guaranteed anti-elephant formula that
will protect you.

Admittedly, you might consider "the odds" of elephant-related death
rather low, but can you afford to take chances with your safety?

well,now you're talking nonsense.

No, not at all! Why, it's terrifying - *terrifying* - how lethal those
elephants are.

"AN ELEPHANT CRUSHED MY SISTER TO DEATH", Daily Mirror, 23 April 2004

"Andrea Taylor, 20, suffered fatal internal injuries after she was attacked
by the rampaging elephant in April last year."
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1325367.stm)

" Jerry Finley, an American, was visiting the zoo with his 14-year-old
daughter and seven-year-old son on October 20 last year. He said that Mr
Robson appeared to know that the elephant was out to kill him from the
moment she knocked him to the ground. "I believe that the elephant attacked
with intent to kill the man, the attack was continuous and never stopped
once it had started," Mr Finley told the court. "The guy never had a
chance."

"The four-tonne Asian elephant named Kumara struck Richard Hughes, 34, with
her trunk and then butted him as he was forced against a wall. Mr
Hughes...died in hospital nine days later."

"The owner of Seven Star Circus and two trainers were arrested and charged
with negligence after a chained elephant grabbed a 10-year-old boy with her
trunk, threw him to the ground, and trampled him to death."

"An elephant at a circus killed a 10-year-old boy after knocking him down
during a circus performance."

"One of the elephants, Frieda, had killed Joan Scovell, 47, of New London,
Conn., in 1985 by grabbing the woman with her trunk and throwing her down to
the ground in a parking lot of the New London Mall."

"An elephant... trampled two men to death before being shot and killed by
police."

"Tyke, an elephant with Circus International, killed her trainer and stomped
and injured a circus groom and a dozen spectators. Tyke had run amok just
before her performance, breaking out of the arena and leading police on a
chase down several city blocks until they shot her to death with almost 100
bullets. This was the second elephant incident at the circus in as many
weeks."

"An elephant crushed a man to death by pinning him against a trailer"


So, Jim, what measures are you taking against elephant-related death? Your
chance of being killed by an elephant are on a par with my being shot to
death by a criminal (both well under one in a million): I'll change my
lifestyle
if you change yours

But actually,in parts of the US,attacks by
large animals such as bears or cougars is a fair possibility.

Yep, there's a thread on the subject elsewhere. If I were living in the US
I'd eagerly investigate the options for acquiring a firearm or two: mostly
for entertainment but with security in mind. Different place, different
needs.

Thanks, but we like having handguns be rare and unusual. You do it
your way, we'll do it ours.

yes,keep those criminals safe,while your citizens suffer crimes.

I'm not quite sure how proliferating firearms is going to help the
situation. Most British citizens aren't familiar with firearms, don't
particularly want them around and don't see why they should spend
significant sums on buying, properly securing, and becoming proficient with
a weapon when they have no particular need. One reason the 1997 handgun ban
passed easily was that very few people owned and shot them, and the
political pressure was all to ban those horrid nasty implements of Death.

On the other hand, I can see the many criminals who haven't suffered
conviction yet considering this would be Christmas come early, buying
weapons for resale to those less able to legally purchase. (One presumes
that background checks, limits on purchases, and any attempt to track
weapons once sold would be considered as unfair and unreasonable in the UK
as they would in the US)

End result? Unarmed citizens, but the Bad Guys have even freer access to
weapons. Not sure why this is supposed to help. Presumably some ODCs will
then buy weapons, but isn't that a little late?


Folks like me who *did* happily pay up to turn a few hundred rounds a week
into .45-calibre holes in paper were a rarity.

Appease them.

No, keep them disarmed as a rule.

Not if one or two of the group have guns: outnumbered and outgunned is
a bad place to be.

You're STILL better off than being unarmed.

Why? Dead is still dead.

And at least you will get some
of them before they get you,maybe even the ones with the guns.

And this makes you "less dead" how, precisely?

Then the
next
group will have second thoughts about trying such attacks against
others.

And this helps *you* how, precisely? Meanwhile that gang now have more
weapons to play with.

If these armed gangs aren't deterred by one in four USAians owning firearms,
what level of ownership is needed before they stop their rampages?

Meanwhile we're largely bereft of such gangs and like things that way.

Thus leaving the ODC open to a lifetime of legal nightmares,
apparently.

Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

My attitude precisely, but then others claim the advantage of "shoot early,
shoot often" is that dead men can't sue. (Which appears to suppose that
killing strangers on suspicion is viewed with enthusiasm...)

Where are you keeping it while you're asleep?

Nunya bidness.

I just remember the rules I learned in the Army: I don't think my wife would
appreciate sharing our bed with a firearm of any type.

(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)

Well,so she was caught unawares;that's the result of a false sense of
security that the UK residents have,from their "gun control".

So having more weapons means we get to be perpetually paranoid?

Give her a gun. Give her two guns. Give her a hundred guns. What's the
difference? No matter how heavily armed she was or was not, she was killed
on her doorstep by an assailant she never saw.

You seem to be advocating that more weapons will make us safer, which means
we'll all be much more paranoid... doesn't compute, Jim. Either being armed
makes us safer, or it makes us more alert and aware, but you don't go to
higher alert states because the risk level dropped.

And how "being armed" is far from the panacea quoted. Note also that
this incident was five years ago - haven't you had any other examples
to cite?

Why,what's changed in the last 5 years? Nothing.But UK gun crimes have
risen every year,I believe,despite gun "control".

Yeah, I think we had 23 killed last year as opposed to 17 in 1999. That's
*how* much more dangerous than the US?

(Remember, Jim, someone using a banana in his pocket as a 'gun' is a firearm
crime in the UK. Be careful what you're claiming.)

--
Paul J. Adam

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...


Why,what's changed in the last 5 years? Nothing.But UK gun crimes have
risen every year,I believe,despite gun "control".

Yeah, I think we had 23 killed last year as opposed to 17 in 1999. That's
*how* much more dangerous than the US?


Last year in fact there was a drop of 16% of robberies involving
guns and a drop of 13% in homicides involving firearms.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime/guncrime/index.html

The same source also points out than only 0.5% of crimes
reported to the police involve the use,possession or
threat of use of firearms

A more telling statistic is that of the number of police
officers killed and injured by firearms during the
course of their duty. In the 10 years between 1992 and
2002 there were exactly 3 police officers killed and
40 seriously injured.

The equivalent figures for the USA are 1,533 killed and
23,000 seriously injured.

Perhaps this explains why all the coppers I know
prefer tight gun control, none of them are armed
themselves of course.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in
:


"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...


Why,what's changed in the last 5 years? Nothing.But UK gun crimes
have risen every year,I believe,despite gun "control".

Yeah, I think we had 23 killed last year as opposed to 17 in 1999.
That's *how* much more dangerous than the US?


Last year in fact there was a drop of 16% of robberies involving
guns and a drop of 13% in homicides involving firearms.

How about robberies in general? Or homicides in general? Increase or
decrease?

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime/guncrime/index.html

The same source also points out than only 0.5% of crimes
reported to the police involve the use,possession or
threat of use of firearms

A more telling statistic is that of the number of police
officers killed and injured by firearms during the
course of their duty. In the 10 years between 1992 and
2002 there were exactly 3 police officers killed and
40 seriously injured.

Most criminals know that shooting cops is a really BAD idea.

The equivalent figures for the USA are 1,533 killed and
23,000 seriously injured.

Perhaps this explains why all the coppers I know
prefer tight gun control, none of them are armed
themselves of course.

Keith






--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:
Of course, and always have been, but they don't get used for
burglary.

Because they know they are safe,protected by UK's laws against self-
defense,at the expense of the citizenry.

Or because they can't afford guns, because if they had that sort of
cash they wouldn't be out burgling or nicking car stereos. And because
if they *had* a gun they'd use it for something more lucrative.

Appeasement,that's what it is.

If you think any intruder in my house is safe, then come and try to
break in. Stop trying to tell us what life's like here.

Well,just because YOU are so capable,doesn't mean that everyone else is,nor
should they be restricted by your self-limitations.

delete elephant nonsense.

But actually,in parts of the US,attacks by
large animals such as bears or cougars is a fair possibility.

Yep, there's a thread on the subject elsewhere. If I were living in
the US I'd eagerly investigate the options for acquiring a firearm or
two: mostly for entertainment but with security in mind. Different
place, different needs.

Exactly;one size does not fit all,different people may need differing
levels of security.

Thanks, but we like having handguns be rare and unusual. You do it
your way, we'll do it ours.

yes,keep those criminals safe,while your citizens suffer crimes.

I'm not quite sure how proliferating firearms is going to help the
situation. Most British citizens aren't familiar with firearms, don't
particularly want them around and don't see why they should spend
significant sums on buying, properly securing, and becoming proficient
with a weapon when they have no particular need. One reason the 1997
handgun ban passed easily was that very few people owned and shot
them, and the political pressure was all to ban those horrid nasty
implements of Death.

And yet the same thing can still happen again.If the Yardies can get
machine guns,and others make,steal or smuggle in guns,the guns ARE
available inthe UK.

On the other hand, I can see the many criminals who haven't suffered
conviction

Are there a lot of those in the UK? In the US,most criminals have long
histories of crimes.

yet considering this would be Christmas come early, buying
weapons for resale to those less able to legally purchase. (One
presumes that background checks, limits on purchases, and any attempt
to track weapons once sold would be considered as unfair and
unreasonable in the UK as they would in the US)

End result? Unarmed citizens, but the Bad Guys have even freer access
to weapons. Not sure why this is supposed to help. Presumably some
ODCs will then buy weapons, but isn't that a little late?


Folks like me who *did* happily pay up to turn a few hundred rounds a
week into .45-calibre holes in paper were a rarity.

Appease them.

No, keep them disarmed as a rule.

except that it really does not keep them disarmed. Note the Yardies and
other gangs having guns in the UK.If they want them,they can get them.

Not if one or two of the group have guns: outnumbered and outgunned
is a bad place to be.

You're STILL better off than being unarmed.

Why? Dead is still dead.

But you may not always die.And that's generally the case as its been in the
US.It shouldn't be any different where you are.

And at least you will get some
of them before they get you,maybe even the ones with the guns.

And this makes you "less dead" how, precisely?

you seem to think that evey shootout results in everyone dead.It doesn't
happen that way.

Then the
next
group will have second thoughts about trying such attacks against
others.

And this helps *you* how, precisely? Meanwhile that gang now have more
weapons to play with.

If these armed gangs aren't deterred by one in four USAians owning
firearms, what level of ownership is needed before they stop their
rampages?

Many of those owning such guns do not have carry permits,and cannot carry
them in public,but their homes are much less attacked.The worst places for
gun violence in the US are largely where gun control is the strictest.


Meanwhile we're largely bereft of such gangs and like things that way.

Thus leaving the ODC open to a lifetime of legal nightmares,
apparently.

Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

My attitude precisely, but then others claim the advantage of "shoot
early, shoot often" is that dead men can't sue. (Which appears to
suppose that killing strangers on suspicion is viewed with
enthusiasm...)

Where are you keeping it while you're asleep?

Nunya bidness.

I just remember the rules I learned in the Army: I don't think my wife
would appreciate sharing our bed with a firearm of any type.

YMMV.


(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)

Well,so she was caught unawares;that's the result of a false sense of
security that the UK residents have,from their "gun control".

So having more weapons means we get to be perpetually paranoid?

It might make you more concerned with what goes on around you.Maybe.

Give her a gun. Give her two guns. Give her a hundred guns. What's the
difference? No matter how heavily armed she was or was not, she was
killed on her doorstep by an assailant she never saw.

You seem to be advocating that more weapons will make us safer, which
means we'll all be much more paranoid... doesn't compute, Jim. Either
being armed makes us safer, or it makes us more alert and aware, but
you don't go to higher alert states because the risk level dropped.

And how "being armed" is far from the panacea quoted. Note also
that this incident was five years ago - haven't you had any other
examples to cite?

Why,what's changed in the last 5 years? Nothing.But UK gun crimes
have risen every year,I believe,despite gun "control".

Yeah, I think we had 23 killed last year as opposed to 17 in 1999.
That's *how* much more dangerous than the US?

(Remember, Jim, someone using a banana in his pocket as a 'gun' is a
firearm crime in the UK. Be careful what you're claiming.)

It would not surprise me to find that the UK gov't has classed some crimes
as other crimes,skewing the data.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net