Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

Kerryn Offord wrote in
:



B2431 wrote:

From: "Jim Doyle"


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
1...

"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:
SNIP
And once again,getting shot is NOT always a "death sentence".
Nice try at emotionalizing the issue,though.

The act of shooting at a person may result in their death. Luck of
the draw if it's not fatal, but the intention is to kill, is it not?
Otherwise you'd pursue a non-lethal method of self-protection.

So yes, you are engaging a person who could die as a result of your
actions, and according to you they deserve to die for the situation
in which you both find yourselves - that's as good as sentencing them
to death. In fact - it is.

It is simply NOT a matter of being judge, jury and executioner.
Shooting is not the first choice. If the badguy doesn't retreat and
you feel threatened then it's the badguy's fault, no one else's.

The trouble is, this isn't what other people have been saying. Some
have been saying... more or less, that shooting is the first response
to an intruder.. even before you know anything about the intent (like,
the person knocking on the door asking "Excuse me, can you tell me
where I can find..."



We WERE discussing intruders already IN the home.
Someone brought out that bit about shooting someone knocking on their
door,probably in reference to the Hattori shooting,a rare incident.
That's something I would not have done.No threat as they are on the
outside,and not trying to get in.Once they begin breaking in,however,all
bets are off.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

From: Kerryn Offord



B2431 wrote:

From: "Jim Doyle"


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
1...

"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:
SNIP
And once again,getting shot is NOT always a "death sentence".
Nice try at emotionalizing the issue,though.

The act of shooting at a person may result in their death. Luck of the draw
if it's not fatal, but the intention is to kill, is it not? Otherwise you'd
pursue a non-lethal method of self-protection.

So yes, you are engaging a person who could die as a result of your
actions,
and according to you they deserve to die for the situation in which you
both
find yourselves - that's as good as sentencing them to death. In fact - it
is.

It is simply NOT a matter of being judge, jury and executioner. Shooting is
not
the first choice. If the badguy doesn't retreat and you feel threatened
then
it's the badguy's fault, no one else's.

The trouble is, this isn't what other people have been saying. Some have
been saying... more or less, that shooting is the first response to an
intruder.. even before you know anything about the intent (like, the
person knocking on the door asking "Excuse me, can you tell me where I
can find..."


Agreed.


Let's try a nonlethal analogy. Badguy enters your house and threatens your
children. You break his knee cap with a 9 iron. Badguy will never walk
normal
again. Whose fault is it? The badguy set up the scenario, the badguy
committed
a felony just entering an occupied dwelling (ever notice the penalties are
higher for occupied dwellings than for unoccupied? There's a reason) The
bad
guy made threats. You have to act.


Someone breaks into your house and threatens the family... you can use
reasonable force to defend yourself or others... If the guy is still
alive afterwards... well, they was lucky... But you shouldn't have a
hand gun, and that shotgun had better have been secured when you grabbed
it (and got the ammo out of another locked cabinet).

I don't know if you have any experience with guns, but I know how long it takes
to unlock my ammo locker and my gun safe. I also know how long it takes to load
any of my guns. By the time I have done it the bad guy is going to have had
plenty of time to do what he wants. Do you seriously expect the bad guy to
stand there and wait until you have armed yourself?

Technically you
shouldn't have the golf club lying handy (it implies premeditation,
however, I don't see a jury convicting and neither will the police), but
pulling one out of the golf bag is ok....

It shouldn't matter at all where a weapon is stored. Premeditation implies I
intended to harm or kill that specific bad guy. It also implies I went out of
my way to do it. Self defense by whatever means is NOT premeditated murder.

As an aside, I used to teach NRA courses including home protection. The
word
kill is never used and part of the course is taught by a lawyer and/or a
law
enforcement officer. We teach to "stop" the aggressor. If that means you
have
to kill then do it.

In the United States laws suits are too common. The 9 iron scenario above
would
most likely result in the home owner being sued with the bad guy winning.


I don't think any intruder who gets whacked while engaged in 'home
invasion' has a chance of even getting the case to court, let alone
winning. OTOH we tend not to sue at the drop of a hat in NZ...

As long as the householder used reasonable force there is no chance of
them being sued.

You may not be law suit crazy in NZ, but it's unbeliebably rampant here in the
U.S.
Have you heard about the grandmother who won a law suit for burning herself
with coffee she had just bought from MacDonald's? She was the passenger in
that car which was stopped at the time of the incident. There are criminals
who sue and win for injuries incurred during the commision of their crimes.
Doctors get sued because a baby is not born perfect.

Feel free to research this. You may get quite a few laughs.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

B2431 wrote:

From: Kerryn Offord

B2431 wrote:
SNIP
Someone breaks into your house and threatens the family... you can use
reasonable force to defend yourself or others... If the guy is still
alive afterwards... well, they was lucky... But you shouldn't have a
hand gun, and that shotgun had better have been secured when you grabbed
it (and got the ammo out of another locked cabinet).


I don't know if you have any experience with guns, but I know how long it takes
to unlock my ammo locker and my gun safe. I also know how long it takes to load
any of my guns. By the time I have done it the bad guy is going to have had
plenty of time to do what he wants. Do you seriously expect the bad guy to
stand there and wait until you have armed yourself?

I was talking about the NZ situation re getting the weapon from a
secured gun safe (although I think you can have weapons on the wall as
long as they have a trigger lock...)


As for getting a gun from a cabinet..., the one case I can think of
where a householder used a legally owned handgun to kill an intruder,
did just that.. And the rules for securing handguns in NZ are pretty strict.

As for the bag guy... As soon as he (most of them are he) to have done a
runner as soon as they think they have woken someone... They really
don't like any noise and are liable to run at the first sound....



Technically you

shouldn't have the golf club lying handy (it implies premeditation,
however, I don't see a jury convicting and neither will the police), but
pulling one out of the golf bag is ok....


It shouldn't matter at all where a weapon is stored. Premeditation implies I
intended to harm or kill that specific bad guy. It also implies I went out of
my way to do it. Self defense by whatever means is NOT premeditated murder.

Nope the premeditation implies you intended to use maybe excessive
force, if you grab a golf club from a bag (and you play golf)... then
its an spur of the moment action.

Premeditated doesn't need a specific victim/ target, otherwise those
guys convicted in that sniper case couldn't be convicted of murder (the
targets were random)
SNIP

I don't think any intruder who gets whacked while engaged in 'home
invasion' has a chance of even getting the case to court, let alone
winning. OTOH we tend not to sue at the drop of a hat in NZ...


As long as the householder used reasonable force there is no chance of
them being sued.


You may not be law suit crazy in NZ, but it's unbeliebably rampant here in the
U.S.
Have you heard about the grandmother who won a law suit for burning herself
with coffee she had just bought from MacDonald's? She was the passenger in
that car which was stopped at the time of the incident. There are criminals
who sue and win for injuries incurred during the commision of their crimes.
Doctors get sued because a baby is not born perfect.

Feel free to research this. You may get quite a few laughs.

Re the McDs coffee... it does sound extreme, until you find that McDs
coffee was being served much hotter than anybody else was, and that they
had been warned about serving it so hot (especially at a drive in window).

"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


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





No, the life of a criminal of the type you describe is worthless.
Genuinely. Yet there is a distinction between him and some random
hard-up opportunist burglar with a family to feed. Granted, he's in
the wrong - but not deserving of a death sentence.

But it's the CRIMINAL'S risk.
OTOH,you would rather have the ODC bear the risks.

'ODC' - surely that would indicate a responsibility to preserve life?

You seem to have this thing that life is SO precious that one should suffer
to have violent criminals loose in one's society.

And once again,getting shot is NOT always a "death sentence".
Nice try at emotionalizing the issue,though.

The act of shooting at a person may result in their death. Luck of the
draw if it's not fatal, but the intention is to kill, is it not?

No,it's to stop the assault.If one were intent on killing,one would walk up
to the wounded person and give them a head shot at close range.THAT would
be acting as judge,jury,and executioner,and would be criminal.

But if it is fatal,well,no great loss.One less criminal to worry about.

Otherwise you'd pursue a non-lethal method of self-protection.

Which has a much higher chance of NOT WORKING,thus increasing the risk to
the ordinary decent citizen.Even the police have not managed to reliably
achieve this "non-lethal" stuff yet. You'd have people relying on less-than
reliable methods of self-defense,just to make YOU feel good.
Sorry,no thanks.


So yes, you are engaging a person who could die as a result of your
actions, and according to you they deserve to die for the situation in
which you both find yourselves - that's as good as sentencing them to
death. In fact - it is.

Hey,it's THEY who would be sticking their neck into the guillotine,and thus
their choice to risk themselves.

OTOH,you would rather the ODCs bear the risks of being harmed,in the search
for some imaginary sense of security.You would rather that everyone suffer
the costs of crime,just because you believe criminal's lives are somehow
precious.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:
"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:
SNIP

No, the life of a criminal of the type you describe is worthless.
Genuinely. Yet there is a distinction between him and some random
hard-up opportunist burglar with a family to feed. Granted, he's in
the wrong - but not deserving of a death sentence.


But it's the CRIMINAL'S risk.
OTOH,you would rather have the ODC bear the risks.

And once again,getting shot is NOT always a "death sentence".
Nice try at emotionalizing the issue,though.


Use of a firearm is considered 'deadly force' (in NZ). By legal
definition, use of a firearm means intent to kill (unless no attempt is
made to fire at the person (shooting into the air etc.)

So, although not every shooting will result in death, legally you are
attempting to kill someone when you shoot at them (hence, 'death
sentence' and 'judge, jury, and executioner')

From: "Jim Doyle"



"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: Kerryn Offord

Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:

Jim Doyle wrote:

"Jim Yanik" wrote:
SNIP


Again, I think this boils down largely to a difference between our two
countries. Although the UK has crime, just as any other country, I have
never heard in all my years of such an incident as you describe above.
Although sadly, there's always a possibility that this may happen, we do not
live in fear of such horrors. If you do in America, then I completely
understand your motives for owning a weapon for home defence. But do you
really live in fear of this?

In some parts of the country home invasions are very real threats.

Can I ask of the circumstances you found yourself in when you drew your
weapon?

An individual pulled a knife on me. I drew my weapon, he backed down. Argument
was over.



You can't shoot to maim or wound because he can sue and probably win. You
really can't wait until his intentions are clear. If you can get him to
stop
his attack without shooting do so, if not shoot.

In Florida the magic number is 21 feet. If the badguy has started his
attack
and you shoot him dead he is likely to complete his actions up to 21 feet.
You
may have a house with 21 foot rooms, most of us don't. The decision to
shoot
has to be made in an instant.

In case you are wondering it breaks my heart when accidents happen such as
shooting one's own family member. Personally I want every citizen taught
basic
firearms safety even if they are opposed to owning guns. They can use fake
guns. At the very least every child should be taught what to do if they
find a
firearm. The NRA's Eddie Eagle program does just that.

That's interesting and refreshing to see, genuinely. I have taken the
impression from the majority of post over the past couple of days that there
is a general blasé attitude toward firearms and killing in the US. I have
very limited knowledge of the NRA, but from what I can see they seem to
promote firearm awareness and safety - which can't be bad in anyone's book.
Are all firearms owners in the US members of the NRA?

Jim Doyle

It would be nice if all gun owners where NRA members, but it's not the case.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

(B2431) wrote in
:

From: "Jim Doyle"



"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: Kerryn Offord

Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:

Jim Doyle wrote:

"Jim Yanik" wrote:
SNIP


Again, I think this boils down largely to a difference between our two
countries. Although the UK has crime, just as any other country, I
have never heard in all my years of such an incident as you describe
above. Although sadly, there's always a possibility that this may
happen, we do not live in fear of such horrors. If you do in America,
then I completely understand your motives for owning a weapon for home
defence. But do you really live in fear of this?

In some parts of the country home invasions are very real threats.

Can I ask of the circumstances you found yourself in when you drew
your weapon?

An individual pulled a knife on me. I drew my weapon, he backed down.
Argument was over.



You can't shoot to maim or wound because he can sue and probably
win. You really can't wait until his intentions are clear. If you
can get him to
stop
his attack without shooting do so, if not shoot.

In Florida the magic number is 21 feet. If the badguy has started
his
attack
and you shoot him dead he is likely to complete his actions up to 21
feet.
You
may have a house with 21 foot rooms, most of us don't. The decision
to
shoot
has to be made in an instant.

In case you are wondering it breaks my heart when accidents happen
such as shooting one's own family member. Personally I want every
citizen taught
basic
firearms safety even if they are opposed to owning guns. They can
use fake guns. At the very least every child should be taught what
to do if they
find a
firearm. The NRA's Eddie Eagle program does just that.

That's interesting and refreshing to see, genuinely. I have taken the
impression from the majority of post over the past couple of days that
there is a general blasé attitude toward firearms and killing in the
US. I have very limited knowledge of the NRA, but from what I can see
they seem to promote firearm awareness and safety - which can't be bad
in anyone's book. Are all firearms owners in the US members of the
NRA?

Jim Doyle

It would be nice if all gun owners where NRA members, but it's not the
case.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


About 4 million NRA members,about 70 million gun owners.
If Mr.Doyle is curious about the NRA,I suggest visit the NRA website and do
some reading.I hope he hassn't formed his opinion strictly from the media
output!

www.nra.org,and www.nra-ila.org.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
(B2431) wrote in
:

From: "Jim Doyle"



"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: Kerryn Offord

Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:

Jim Doyle wrote:

"Jim Yanik" wrote:
SNIP


Again, I think this boils down largely to a difference between our two
countries. Although the UK has crime, just as any other country, I
have never heard in all my years of such an incident as you describe
above. Although sadly, there's always a possibility that this may
happen, we do not live in fear of such horrors. If you do in America,
then I completely understand your motives for owning a weapon for home
defence. But do you really live in fear of this?

In some parts of the country home invasions are very real threats.

Can I ask of the circumstances you found yourself in when you drew
your weapon?

An individual pulled a knife on me. I drew my weapon, he backed down.
Argument was over.



You can't shoot to maim or wound because he can sue and probably
win. You really can't wait until his intentions are clear. If you
can get him to
stop
his attack without shooting do so, if not shoot.

In Florida the magic number is 21 feet. If the badguy has started
his
attack
and you shoot him dead he is likely to complete his actions up to 21
feet.
You
may have a house with 21 foot rooms, most of us don't. The decision
to
shoot
has to be made in an instant.

In case you are wondering it breaks my heart when accidents happen
such as shooting one's own family member. Personally I want every
citizen taught
basic
firearms safety even if they are opposed to owning guns. They can
use fake guns. At the very least every child should be taught what
to do if they
find a
firearm. The NRA's Eddie Eagle program does just that.

That's interesting and refreshing to see, genuinely. I have taken the
impression from the majority of post over the past couple of days that
there is a general blasé attitude toward firearms and killing in the
US. I have very limited knowledge of the NRA, but from what I can see
they seem to promote firearm awareness and safety - which can't be bad
in anyone's book. Are all firearms owners in the US members of the
NRA?

Jim Doyle

It would be nice if all gun owners where NRA members, but it's not the
case.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


About 4 million NRA members,about 70 million gun owners.
If Mr.Doyle is curious about the NRA,I suggest visit the NRA website and
do
some reading.I hope he hassn't formed his opinion strictly from the media
output!

www.nra.org,and www.nra-ila.org.


I've not been Mr Doyle in a while.

I have read, and I'm impressed to an extent. I'll admit to having a somewhat
dubious impression of the NRA previously, and yes, 99% of that was US media
led. It would seem the US needs an institution such as the NRA to balance
the situation - of my misgivings concerning guns, the NRA at least teaches
gun awareness and safety. They're not the trigger happy bunch I had been led
to believe.

Yet 4 from 70 is not really as comprehensive as it should be. Considering
that those 4 million members are likely the more conscientious of all US gun
owners.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
(B2431) wrote in
:

From: "Jim Doyle"



"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: Kerryn Offord

Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:

Jim Doyle wrote:

"Jim Yanik" wrote:
SNIP


Again, I think this boils down largely to a difference between our
two countries. Although the UK has crime, just as any other
country, I have never heard in all my years of such an incident as
you describe above. Although sadly, there's always a possibility
that this may happen, we do not live in fear of such horrors. If
you do in America, then I completely understand your motives for
owning a weapon for home defence. But do you really live in fear of
this?

In some parts of the country home invasions are very real threats.

Can I ask of the circumstances you found yourself in when you drew
your weapon?

An individual pulled a knife on me. I drew my weapon, he backed
down. Argument was over.



You can't shoot to maim or wound because he can sue and probably
win. You really can't wait until his intentions are clear. If you
can get him to
stop
his attack without shooting do so, if not shoot.

In Florida the magic number is 21 feet. If the badguy has started
his
attack
and you shoot him dead he is likely to complete his actions up to
21 feet.
You
may have a house with 21 foot rooms, most of us don't. The
decision to
shoot
has to be made in an instant.

In case you are wondering it breaks my heart when accidents
happen such as shooting one's own family member. Personally I
want every citizen taught
basic
firearms safety even if they are opposed to owning guns. They can
use fake guns. At the very least every child should be taught
what to do if they
find a
firearm. The NRA's Eddie Eagle program does just that.

That's interesting and refreshing to see, genuinely. I have taken
the impression from the majority of post over the past couple of
days that there is a general blasé attitude toward firearms and
killing in the US. I have very limited knowledge of the NRA, but
from what I can see they seem to promote firearm awareness and
safety - which can't be bad in anyone's book. Are all firearms
owners in the US members of the NRA?

Jim Doyle

It would be nice if all gun owners where NRA members, but it's not
the case.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


About 4 million NRA members,about 70 million gun owners.
If Mr.Doyle is curious about the NRA,I suggest visit the NRA website
and
do
some reading.I hope he hassn't formed his opinion strictly from the
media output!

www.nra.org,and www.nra-ila.org.


I've not been Mr Doyle in a while.

I have read, and I'm impressed to an extent. I'll admit to having a
somewhat dubious impression of the NRA previously, and yes, 99% of
that was US media led. It would seem the US needs an institution such
as the NRA to balance the situation - of my misgivings concerning
guns, the NRA at least teaches gun awareness and safety. They're not
the trigger happy bunch I had been led to believe.

Yet 4 from 70 is not really as comprehensive as it should be.
Considering that those 4 million members are likely the more
conscientious of all US gun owners.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net




Well,unfortuantely,many hunters and sport shooters feel that NRA membership
is unnecessary,that -their- hunting or sport shooting will be left alone by
the gun banners,or unaffected by gun control,they're blind to reality.
Some members left because the NRA has not done enough to fight gun
control,that they make too many concessions,while the other side makes
none,keeps coming back for more gun control.

One need not get their firearm safety training from the NRA,either.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net