Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

"Jay Stranahan" wrote in message
...
Beyond TV, my understanding of US gun law stems entirely from the NG.

No wonder you're all worked up. Go to Google and type in 'Centers For
Disease
Control' and 'FBI' and go look at the data, instead of fencing with
anonymous
strangers on Usenet and watching reruns of Miami Vice.

I have done exactly that and now have a much better appreciation of the
situation - yet this has not changed my views one bit... wonder why?


I think my point was valid, and certainly not half-cocked. That
statement
was in reply to the suggestion that, as is the right of any US citizen,
a
criminal can legally carry a weapon.

Oh for Christ's sake.... (rolls eyes). That's not true. Felons cannot
legally
own firearms (not that that prevents them. They're *felons*. Duh). At
least not
in the great state of California, and I seriously doubt they can
*anywhere.*

You can be as patronising as you wish. In response to your reply above - we
are not born with 'criminal'/'law abiding citizen' emblazoned on our
foreheads, no. So beyond having a criminal record, what is there to stop the
'soon-to-be' crims? With all the will in the world, this background security
checking system cannot be water tight.

You
are speaking from prejudice and your prejudice is based on ignorance, and
if it
annoys you for me to point it out and call it by its proper name, I'm not
completely sorry. Because you've said a couple of things below that I find
seriously offensive.

No offence intended. As far as my prejudices extend, no - I'm not prepared
to accept that I've watched too many US cop dramas and have this picture
painted in my head that is so far from the truth. Prejudiced I may be, but
these are borne of a number of posts made within the last 48 hours and the
genuine (I believe them to be) feelings that the authors have expressed.


It's the flagrant willingness to kill,

No, it's a total willingness to defend onesself in one's home. You used to
have
the same ethos in your own society. You have successfully argued yourself
out of
it, and only time will tell whether this was any sort of an improvement.

coupled with such a low regard for
the gravity of murder, that really gets me.

Were these the two statements to which you took offence? I was not intending
to label you personally as the type of chap who would readily murder a man
for the possession of material goods - so calm down dear. A number of posts
to this ng alone, within the last 48 hours, have demonstrated - on both
counts - that this is the case. -

'I am prepared to murder someone if the situation is right (or wrong) - and
I'm not too fussed of the outcome.'

That's paraphrasing, granted, but I'd argue is the crux of many a statement
made within this thread. I could list them should you like.


Prejudice again, and this one angers me.

Rubbish.

If I defend myself with lethal force,
it's only because I wish to avoid dying in my own living room. I have no
desire
to harm any human being. No normal man does. I am not dehumanizing the
violent
intrusive asshole who might hypothetically barge his way into my house at
night.
I simply want to not be at his mercy. He's certainly not there to do me
any
favors. The reason he might be armed is not because of any Yankee gun
kul-chore,
but because criminals, by de facto goddam definition, DO NOT OBSERVE THE
LAW.
This is true in London as well as Redding (CA, population 78,000). Why
would any
reasonable individual place himself at the mercy of lawless, violent men?

Understand this - I can see why you and the other posters here own a weapon.
Really, I do. We have, however, established that a criminal within the UK
presents a very different - but real nonetheless - danger. ****ty people do
exist within the UK - that I'll admit to. The issues with which I am having
trouble trying to comprehend is this:

Firstly (and most importantly): Some - not all, but some - of you are
prepared to kill a man over some petty crimes - things that can be such an
insignificant event in the grand scheme of life. Furthermore - they believe
it's doing the public a great service, and do not wish to be accountable for
murder, in fact they can't even see a reason for being accountable.

Secondly: Of those of you not falling into the above category, you are
prepared to sit back and just accept that your neighbour (above) has a gun
and is willing to use it with little regard for the consequences. You are
defending that person's right to own a weapon and ultimately empowering him
with deadly force. Can you not see the conundrum?

What's the rate of hot burglaries in Britain?

Higher than the US. What about the US domestic/non-domestic burglaries
compared to the UK? 3-year averaged violent crime rates? Property crime (as
it is known in the US)? It's not such a clear distinction between the two
countries as you would seemingly like.

What's happened to your rates of
violent crime, gun crime, since you chopped every legally-owned handgun on
your
island into scrap? They've gone up severalfold.

Granted, the rates have increased whereas the US has remained at a fairly
steady state, if not decline. A large factor in the increase of violent/gun
related crime within the UK has been due to the steady leak of arms from the
Baltic states into the UK in the late 90's.

The annual death rate remains at a little above a score - an increase as you
suggest, but twenty is nothing compared to ten thousand within the US. I'll
take 23 in 60,000,000 over 10,000 in 250,000,000 any day.

Why? Because the lawless took
heart at the way their prospective victims were disarming themselves?
No... no,
that's the standard macho NRA line, and I don't buy it. I think it's
because
you've hit a rough demographic and economic patch, and banning legally
owned
weapons -- predictably -- didn't make any dent in it. You treated a
symptom. The
disease rages merrily onwards.

The banning of handguns within the UK was not brought about by how you
suggest - to get the UK out of a rough demographic and economic patch. It
was carried though on a wave of public pressure after the murder of a
primary school class and their teacher in Dunblane. The UK public questioned
the need for its citizens to have ready access to firearms - and the country
decided, er... nope.

Are you familiar with the events at Dunblane?


despit
our guns and drugs and widespread poverty and petty sleazy white-trash
meannesses that Shasta County is *still* safer than Merrie Olde
England.

Controversial.

What's controversial about the facts? Unless you find them so
counterintuitive
to your prejudices that you discard them out of hand.

Throw away comment that you were not intended to kick-off over. Besides, the
facts aren't stacked in your favour as much as you would like to suggest.

You can say what you please in reply, but I see I'm not doing any good by
bouncing the marbles of statistical fact off the sidewalk of your
prejudice. So
I'll stop.

Pettiness prevails. Again with this prejudice - pots and kettles. I'm ready
to accept - and challenge - my prejudices.

BTW, not having been a Usenet poster since the dawn of time - I still think
it inappropriate to edit a post to which you are replying - or at least not
include the full text as it was intended - it would seem to indicate an
unwillingness to address the points of the original post.

Jim Doyle

"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


"Jay Stranahan" wrote in message
...
Beyond TV, my understanding of US gun law stems entirely from the
NG.

No wonder you're all worked up. Go to Google and type in 'Centers For
Disease
Control' and 'FBI' and go look at the data, instead of fencing with
anonymous
strangers on Usenet and watching reruns of Miami Vice.

I have done exactly that and now have a much better appreciation of
the situation - yet this has not changed my views one bit... wonder
why?


I think my point was valid, and certainly not half-cocked. That
statement
was in reply to the suggestion that, as is the right of any US
citizen,
a
criminal can legally carry a weapon.

Oh for Christ's sake.... (rolls eyes). That's not true. Felons cannot
legally
own firearms (not that that prevents them. They're *felons*. Duh). At
least not
in the great state of California, and I seriously doubt they can
*anywhere.*

You can be as patronising as you wish. In response to your reply above
- we are not born with 'criminal'/'law abiding citizen' emblazoned on
our foreheads, no. So beyond having a criminal record, what is there
to stop the 'soon-to-be' crims? With all the will in the world, this
background security checking system cannot be water tight.

Even with a gun ban,there's nothing to stop him from obtaining an illegal
gun,either homemade,or smuggled,or stolen from legal sources. What you are
seeking is "prior restraint",and laws don't work that way.they provide for
punishment AFTER a crime's been committed.And people intending to commit
crimes do not obey laws;the very definition of "criminal".Even in the
UK,those who -want- guns can get them.Your crooks just don't see the need
as they are well protected by your restrictive self-defense laws,that only
restrict law abiding citizens,or ODCs.They can burgle with near
impunity,especially if they choose their victims to be weak.As long as they
are not identified,they can escape and not get caught.

You
are speaking from prejudice and your prejudice is based on ignorance,
and
if it
annoys you for me to point it out and call it by its proper name, I'm
not completely sorry. Because you've said a couple of things below
that I find seriously offensive.

No offence intended. As far as my prejudices extend, no - I'm not
prepared to accept that I've watched too many US cop dramas and have
this picture painted in my head that is so far from the truth.
Prejudiced I may be, but these are borne of a number of posts made
within the last 48 hours and the genuine (I believe them to be)
feelings that the authors have expressed.


It's the flagrant willingness to kill,

No, it's a total willingness to defend onesself in one's home.

Using the best tool for the job,a gun.A tool that nearly everyone can use
equally,and with the least risk to themselves.And one that greatly
increases the risk for the criminal.

You
used to
have
the same ethos in your own society. You have successfully argued
yourself
out of
it, and only time will tell whether this was any sort of an
improvement.

coupled with such a low regard for
the gravity of murder, that really gets me.

Were these the two statements to which you took offence? I was not
intending to label you personally as the type of chap who would
readily murder a man for the possession of material goods - so calm
down dear. A number of posts to this ng alone, within the last 48
hours, have demonstrated - on both counts - that this is the case. -

'I am prepared to murder someone if the situation is right (or wrong)
- and I'm not too fussed of the outcome.'

Well,you again try to emotionalize with the term "murder",which does not
apply in self-defense.If one is trying to "citizen's arrest" the
criminal,and he resists,then it's not murder,either.


That's paraphrasing, granted, but I'd argue is the crux of many a
statement made within this thread. I could list them should you like.


Prejudice again, and this one angers me.

Rubbish.

If I defend myself with lethal force,
it's only because I wish to avoid dying in my own living room. I have
no
desire
to harm any human being. No normal man does. I am not dehumanizing
the
violent
intrusive asshole who might hypothetically barge his way into my
house at
night.
I simply want to not be at his mercy. He's certainly not there to do
me
any
favors. The reason he might be armed is not because of any Yankee gun
kul-chore,
but because criminals, by de facto goddam definition, DO NOT OBSERVE
THE
LAW.
This is true in London as well as Redding (CA, population 78,000).
Why
would any
reasonable individual place himself at the mercy of lawless, violent
men?

Understand this - I can see why you and the other posters here own a
weapon. Really, I do. We have, however, established that a criminal
within the UK presents a very different - but real nonetheless -
danger. ****ty people do exist within the UK - that I'll admit to. The
issues with which I am having trouble trying to comprehend is this:

Firstly (and most importantly): Some - not all, but some - of you are
prepared to kill a man over some petty crimes - things that can be
such an insignificant event in the grand scheme of life. Furthermore -
they believe it's doing the public a great service, and do not wish to
be accountable for murder, in fact they can't even see a reason for
being accountable.

well,some of us do not consider some thefts to be "petty crime".We work
hard to own some items,and the crooks have no right to them,or to be safe
while trying to take them illegally.

Secondly: Of those of you not falling into the above category, you are
prepared to sit back and just accept that your neighbour (above) has a
gun and is willing to use it with little regard for the consequences.
You are defending that person's right to own a weapon and ultimately
empowering him with deadly force. Can you not see the conundrum?

Your neighbor could have a gallon of petrol and want to burn your house
down with you in it,too. Or they might want to run you down with their
auto,or maybe stab you with their knives,or club you with a cricket bat.
Are you so afraid of your neighbors?

What's the rate of hot burglaries in Britain?

Higher than the US. What about the US domestic/non-domestic burglaries
compared to the UK? 3-year averaged violent crime rates? Property
crime (as it is known in the US)? It's not such a clear distinction
between the two countries as you would seemingly like.

What's happened to your rates of
violent crime, gun crime, since you chopped every legally-owned
handgun on
your
island into scrap? They've gone up severalfold.

Granted, the rates have increased whereas the US has remained at a
fairly steady state, if not decline. A large factor in the increase of
violent/gun related crime within the UK has been due to the steady
leak of arms from the Baltic states into the UK in the late 90's.

The annual death rate remains at a little above a score - an increase
as you suggest, but twenty is nothing compared to ten thousand within
the US. I'll take 23 in 60,000,000 over 10,000 in 250,000,000 any day.

But much of that is from criminal-criminal shootings,generally drug-
related.And there's no evidence that returning gun ownership in the UK
would result in a dramatic increase in gun violence,just as there was no
decrease in such violence when your gun control laws were enacted.Your
society is just more peaceable than ours,and it's not because of the guns.

Why? Because the lawless took
heart at the way their prospective victims were disarming themselves?
No... no,
that's the standard macho NRA line, and I don't buy it. I think it's
because
you've hit a rough demographic and economic patch, and banning
legally
owned
weapons -- predictably -- didn't make any dent in it. You treated a
symptom. The
disease rages merrily onwards.

The banning of handguns within the UK was not brought about by how you
suggest - to get the UK out of a rough demographic and economic patch.
It was carried though on a wave of public pressure after the murder of
a primary school class and their teacher in Dunblane. The UK public
questioned the need for its citizens to have ready access to firearms
- and the country decided, er... nope.

Are you familiar with the events at Dunblane?


Yes,and such events STILL can happen in the UK. I note that the Yardies
have machine guns,and people still make homemade guns;that's why UK is
banning replica guns,and people can and do drive back from Eastern Europe
with guns bought there,where they are plentiful.I suspect that one can find
guns for sale in most UK cities,if you know where or who to go to.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net