Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

"Kerryn Offord" wrote in message
...


Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:

Jim Doyle wrote:

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

SNIP

This should be qualified.

The culture clash is only over hand guns and using firearms for self
defence (as a first line over and above getting out of there).

In the UK (also NZ) there is a long history of owning long arms (rifle,
shotgun), and basically they are 'easy' to buy.

In NZ you can use a firearm for self defence... but you must be 'in fear
of ....' for yourself or others. Using deadly force to protect property
is frowned upon. If you do shoot someone... if you shoot them in the
back, expect the police to take you to court. If the person is shot in
the front, depending on circumstances (anything short of fatal), the
police will not proceed. If the shooting is fatal a court (coroners)
must determine whether there is a case to answer. Historically, for a
shot in the front, while in fear of injury case, the court finds
self-defence.

The UK operates in a basically similar way.

While I can't say about NZ, the UK differs substantially from USian practice
in that people who defend themselves (in their own homes or elsewhere) are
subject to routine second guessing as to the use of "excessive force" by
prosecutors. It seems (from this side of the pond) that there's strong
feeling among the "governing classes" that self-defense is illegimate until
proven otherwise. This isn't a "guns" issue but a self-defense issue.

In most places in the US, once an assailant crosses the line and begins an
assault, a homeowner can escalate to any level of violence he feels is
necessary to stop the assault. Note "assault" and _not_"battery".

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
. ..
While I can't say about NZ, the UK differs substantially from USian
practice
in that people who defend themselves (in their own homes or elsewhere) are
subject to routine second guessing as to the use of "excessive force" by
prosecutors. It seems (from this side of the pond) that there's strong
feeling among the "governing classes" that self-defense is illegimate
until
proven otherwise. This isn't a "guns" issue but a self-defense issue.

And this is largely thanks to a lot of misrepresentation and propaganda.

Fundamentally, if someone attacks you, or breaks into your house, then
you're allowed to use "reasonable force" to defend yourself, and anyone who
says the force used was "unreasonable" has to convice prosecutors and a jury
of that fact. Home invasion is unheard of where I live, and I certainly
don't take any special precautions beyond proper security: but if some
misguided individual *did* break in, then I would drive them away first and
worry about the consequences second, and not worry overmuch about doing so -
regardless of any injuries they might suffer in the meantime.

One key test is that they not have too many injuries in their back: once
they start running, you stop hurting them unless they show signs of turning
around. (Hence, Tony Martin, who was convicted only for the last shot which
he lied comprehensively about - unless you know of shotgun ammunition that
can make a formation turn around corners.)

Another is that you stay reasonably proportionate to the threat: burglars in
the UK don't have guns (if they had guns they wouldn't be piddling about
with burglary, unless you're being targeted for specific high-value goods)
so shooting them is likely to raise eyebrows and maybe charges. On the other
hand, the elderly may have more leeway: I used to shoot with a gentleman in
his seventies (who owned and shot well two .44 Magnums and a .45 Long Colt)
who kept a deactivated Lee-Enfield with fixed bayonet as a wall ornament in
his bedroom, and was quite prepared to demonstrate the CQB drills he'd
learned as a boy soldier on any intruders.

At his age, of course, he would be old and frail and frightened (well, he
did wear a copper bracelet because he had joint trouble, but refused to stop
shooting). I'd be able to get away with the rifle (even my deact Type 56-1
makes a good club) but probably not the finely-honed and pre-fixed bayonet.
For a young fit man that smacks of premeditation: for a 72-year-old war
veteran and pensioner it's a petty foible recalling old memories (patriotic
music swells, describing my friend's years of Navy service) or a misguided
precaution (cue violin-led pathos as the defence explains the fear this man
lived in)

In most places in the US, once an assailant crosses the line and begins an
assault, a homeowner can escalate to any level of violence he feels is
necessary to stop the assault. Note "assault" and _not_"battery".

The only difference in the UK is that the level of response has to be
"reasonable". Which means that being "assaulted" by a musclebound thug in
the middle of the night merits a much more vehement response, to being sworn
at and threatened by a seven-year-old child on your lawn on a Sunday
afternoon. Both are, after all, assault, although the likely consequences
are very different.

I presume multiple rounds of heavy-calibre gunfire are not *really*
considered legal, sensible and rational responses to the second case, even
in the US? If so, then the situation is less different than the
propagandists would have you believe.

--
Paul J. Adam