Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:

"N329DF" wrote in message
...
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.

Aren't the criminals deterred by the armed citizens?

--
Paul J. Adam




Welll,due to those who are against people using,carrying,or even owning
firearms,most US citizens do not own guns,nor carry them.Thus the chances
of criminals encountering armed citizens is not high enough yet to deter
such crimes.And in many states,defending property with lethal force IS
illegal,protecting the criminals,making it safer for them to commit such
crimes.

ISTR that in the so-called "Wild West",where many people were armed,people
could leave doors unlocked,horses unattended,without much fear of theft.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:30:09 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik
wrote:

ISTR that in the so-called "Wild West",where many people were armed,people
could leave doors unlocked,horses unattended,without much fear of theft.

Then why so many tales about hanging horse thieves?

Which is it? Either horses could be left unattended safely or horse
thieves stole them all the time and there were necktie parties
regularly.

Here in the "Not-so-wild West", it's possible to leave doors unlocked
and horses unattended, without much fear of theft.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Mary Shafer wrote in
:

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:30:09 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik
wrote:

ISTR that in the so-called "Wild West",where many people were
armed,people could leave doors unlocked,horses unattended,without
much fear of theft.

Then why so many tales about hanging horse thieves?

Well,there was a lot sensationalization about the "Wild West".It's no
different than the "if it bleeds,it leads" type of reporting in our media
today.

Which is it? Either horses could be left unattended safely or horse
thieves stole them all the time and there were necktie parties
regularly.

But did it happen OFTEN? I don't believe so. Regularly,I don't believe
so,either.

Here in the "Not-so-wild West", it's possible to leave doors unlocked
and horses unattended, without much fear of theft.

Mary




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:
Aren't the criminals deterred by the armed citizens?

Welll,due to those who are against people using,carrying,or even owning
firearms,most US citizens do not own guns,nor carry them.Thus the chances
of criminals encountering armed citizens is not high enough yet to deter
such crimes.

So you've got the crime anyway, and the armed criminals, and the accidental
deaths and suicides... and the answer is "more guns"?

There are many excellent reasons to own and enjoy firearms of all sorts, but
this notion that more weapons equals increased safety just isn't one of
them - not at an overall level, anyway. If the level of firearm ownership
you have in the US isn't already sufficient to deter criminals, increasing
ownership (unavoidably including that segment of the population known as
"criminals not yet identified or convicted") is unlikely to help.

And in many states,defending property with lethal force IS
illegal,protecting the criminals,making it safer for them to commit such
crimes.

What's the property value that justifies homicide, out of interest?

Can I kill a man for stealing my car? (About $7,000 at last check).

Can I kill a man for stealing my watch? (About $100)

Can I kill a man for stealing a loaf of bread?

ISTR that in the so-called "Wild West",where many people were armed,people
could leave doors unlocked,horses unattended,without much fear of theft.

I seem to remember much talk of hanging horse thieves, suggesting that this
"golden age" was illusory.

My grandparents *did* live with doors unlocked, but that was because (a)
they lived in a close-knit community where everyone knew everyone and theft
would have been seen, (b) they were poor and frankly had very little to
steal. (No guns, in case you were wondering)

--
Paul J. Adam

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:
Aren't the criminals deterred by the armed citizens?

Welll,due to those who are against people using,carrying,or even
owning firearms,most US citizens do not own guns,nor carry them.Thus
the chances of criminals encountering armed citizens is not high
enough yet to deter such crimes.

So you've got the crime anyway, and the armed criminals, and the
accidental deaths and suicides... and the answer is "more guns"?

In the hands of ODCs.yes. Removing the guns will not decrease crime,it has
the opposite effect,and is practically impossible.So,the cheapest method is
to make crimes too costly for criminals to consider.Can't have police
everywhere,24/7/365,too costly.

There are many excellent reasons to own and enjoy firearms of all
sorts, but this notion that more weapons equals increased safety just
isn't one of them - not at an overall level, anyway. If the level of
firearm ownership you have in the US isn't already sufficient to deter
criminals, increasing ownership (unavoidably including that segment of
the population known as "criminals not yet identified or convicted")
is unlikely to help.

It's not the ownership,it's the CARRIAGE of such weapons.Many places
prohibit carriage of guns,some prohibit guns entirely.

And in many states,defending property with lethal force IS
illegal,protecting the criminals,making it safer for them to commit
such crimes.

What's the property value that justifies homicide, out of interest?

Can I kill a man for stealing my car? (About $7,000 at last check).

you can use a gun to defend against a carjacking.
Or you could use the gun to -safely- detain the thief,until police can
arrive.


Can I kill a man for stealing my watch? (About $100)

Well,to take that watch means he threatens force against you.
If you're wearing it.If he's in your house,then he's a threat to you
anyways.

Can I kill a man for stealing a loaf of bread?

If he does it by force or threat of force,yes.
Or you could use the gun to -safely- detain the thief,until police can
arrive.

Now,that UK man who shot the burglars in the back was justified,as the
police were of NO use,and he had suffered repeated burglaries.The police
failed in providing him security,so it fell upon himself to do so.
Criminals should have no right to safety while commiting their crimes.


ISTR that in the so-called "Wild West",where many people were
armed,people could leave doors unlocked,horses unattended,without
much fear of theft.

I seem to remember much talk of hanging horse thieves, suggesting that
this "golden age" was illusory.

My grandparents *did* live with doors unlocked, but that was because
(a) they lived in a close-knit community where everyone knew everyone
and theft would have been seen, (b) they were poor and frankly had
very little to steal. (No guns, in case you were wondering)

--
Paul J. Adam




You try to equate the value of a possession against a criminal's life,but
the true and higher cost is the lack of security and freedom to own
property. Then there's the insurance costs that get spread out to
everyone.It's simply appeasement,that all.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:

SNIP
Now,that UK man who shot the burglars in the back was justified,as the
police were of NO use,and he had suffered repeated burglaries.The police
failed in providing him security,so it fell upon himself to do so.
Criminals should have no right to safety while commiting their crimes.
SNIP

This is simply attempted murder. The target was no threat and was
departing, but the householder shot him anyway (that makes it vindictive).

If the householder had just shot the guy in the chest when he first
confronted him....

It seems to come down to a difference in attitudes.

Americans hold everybody else's life cheap (cheaper than the cheapest
bit of property).

Uk/NZ and others consider both lives of value, but allow reasonable
force in defence of self or others (defence of property is different).

From: Kerryn Offord


Americans hold everybody else's life cheap (cheaper than the cheapest
bit of property).

Uk/NZ and others consider both lives of value, but allow reasonable
force in defence of self or others (defence of property is different).

Well, that ends my discussion with you. Have a nice day.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

(B2431) wrote in news:20040422230342.01093.00000270@mb-
m17.aol.com:

From: Kerryn Offord


Americans hold everybody else's life cheap (cheaper than the cheapest
bit of property).

Uk/NZ and others consider both lives of value, but allow reasonable
force in defence of self or others (defence of property is different).

Well, that ends my discussion with you. Have a nice day.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I guess the value of having criminals is that the gov't can hire more
police,increase taxes,and expand itself more.
Shoot criminals,and the police forces will have to be downsized,and then
taxes reduced or used for other purposes.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Kerryn Offord" wrote in message
...


Jim Yanik wrote:

SNIP
Now,that UK man who shot the burglars in the back was justified,as the
police were of NO use,and he had suffered repeated burglaries.The police
failed in providing him security,so it fell upon himself to do so.
Criminals should have no right to safety while commiting their crimes.
SNIP

This is simply attempted murder. The target was no threat and was
departing, but the householder shot him anyway (that makes it vindictive).

If the householder had just shot the guy in the chest when he first
confronted him....

It seems to come down to a difference in attitudes.

This reminds me of an incident in Northern Ireland:

A squaddie was manning a vehicle checkpoint as a car approached at speed -
with obvious hostile intent. The passenger in the car opened fire on the
checkpoint, and so - understandably - the soldier returned fire. The car
passed and nobody had scored a hit, unfortunately though, as the car
accelerated away the soldier killed one of the occupants (ISTR the driver).
Since the lethal shot was fired with the car having passed - that soldier
was successfully charged with manslaughter and went to prison.

Tricky to decide whether that soldier was right to fire, and I would argue
that he was. NI SOPs decided he wasn't (and I think there was a political
move to show him little leniency), but this is a good example of the mindset
within the UK that a number of you US guys cannot fathom. Reasonable force
has its limits and the particular point of the scenario/situation when force
is applied successfully goes a long way to determine the legality of your
actions.


Americans hold everybody else's life cheap (cheaper than the cheapest
bit of property).

Uk/NZ and others consider both lives of value, but allow reasonable
force in defence of self or others (defence of property is different).

"Jim Doyle" wrote in message
...



This reminds me of an incident in Northern Ireland:

A squaddie was manning a vehicle checkpoint as a car approached at speed -
with obvious hostile intent. The passenger in the car opened fire on the
checkpoint, and so - understandably - the soldier returned fire. The car
passed and nobody had scored a hit, unfortunately though, as the car
accelerated away the soldier killed one of the occupants (ISTR the
driver).
Since the lethal shot was fired with the car having passed - that soldier
was successfully charged with manslaughter and went to prison.

Tricky to decide whether that soldier was right to fire, and I would argue
that he was. NI SOPs decided he wasn't (and I think there was a political
move to show him little leniency),

In fact he was cleared of manslaughter on appeal.

Keith