Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

Jay Stranahan wrote in
:

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 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.

Convicted felons cannot even possess a single cartridge;that's good enough
for 5 years under Federal law.
(which has not been used much until recently.)
And states are stiffening their penalties for possession of a
firearm,ammo,or use of a firearm by a felon in the commission of a crime.



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 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.

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.No other weapon or item can be used
by the wide spectrum of peoples,and gives the -lowest- risks to
oneself.(and makes the risks to the criminal MUCH higher,as it should be.)

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.

Killing a person is NOT always -murder-. There's that attempt at
emotionalizing the issue again.

Prejudice again, and this one angers me. 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?

Because of a false sense of security;the thought that it cannot happen to
them.

What's the rate of hot burglaries in Britain? 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. 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.

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.

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.




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Kerryn Offord wrote in
:



Jay Stranahan wrote:

SNIP
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 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.


This only applies to convicted felons.. nothing to stop someone who
has never been convicted from legally owning and carrying a firearm in
the course of his 'employment'... there might be problems if he is
caught in the act while armed... but maybe he shoots his way free and
continue as a non felon.


If they commit a felony crime,they ARE a felon,merely one that has not been
caught,tried and convicted yet.And there ARE laws against the improper use
of firearms.Now if a police officer confronts such an armed criminal,and he
resists arrest,and the officer shoots the crook,it's NOT murder.It's NOT
judge,jury,and executioner,either.Why should it be any different for the
ODC?



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.

No, its a willingness to kill. I can defend myself in my house without
having a gun. Using a gun for self defence implies you are prepared to
use it. If you are prepared to use a firearm, then you are prepared to
kill... you can't guarantee that a shot will not kill...

SNIP



Well,so WHAT if a criminal in your home gets killed?
It just makes people that much safer.And it helps insure that your hard-
earned possessions and perhaps even your lives stay in your hands.

Just because YOU think you can defend yourself in your home without
firearms does not mean others are so capable,or that they should bear such
risks because of how YOU feel.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Mary Shafer wrote:

I found this one on the web a while back
http://jameshart.mine.nu/ngs/speedenforcementbyair.jpg

Netscape says it can't find this host. Maybe it's just my system or
ISP or something.

Mary

Works fine for me way up here in Canada...
--

-Gord.

"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

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

Kerryn Offord wrote:
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).


You'd rather let a burglar rob or kill someone else who is weaker or
less prepared to defend himself?


It seems to come down to a difference in attitudes.


The main difference in attitude is that you are more passive.


Americans hold everybody else's life cheap


I would hold your life cheap if you forcibly entered my home
uninvited. And BTW, very few American burglars and criminals commit
robberies to "feed their families" as someone else suggested. Some
have tried to use that as an excuse because it sounds better than
admitting they wanted to feed their drug habit, or other illegal
habits. : )

In other words, if you were foolish enough to break into a stranger's
home I would not feel any sympathy for your bullet-riddled body. Your
tough luck.

Uk/NZ and others consider both lives of value, but allow reasonable
force in defence of self or others


It's a longstanding socioeconomic reality that Americans are generally
more aggressive than Brits and Anzacs. More aggressive in the
marketplace, more aggressive on the battlefield, and unfortunately,
more aggressive when it comes to violent crime.

The British, New Zealanders and Australians have always been more
timid and passive. They have traditionally lacked a sense of urgency
-- except when they want another country to help them. I cannot say
that I admire their penchant for overcautiousness, inaction, and heavy
reliance on foreigners (often without acknowledgement). It's also
difficult to respect the British/Anzac tendency to achieve remarkably
puny results over interminably long periods of time.

That is why America is a global superpower, and Britain, New Zealand,
Australia are not. Furthermore, the UK's increasingly draconian
firearms control laws have backfired, providing further proof that
passiveness and appeasement is not something to be proud of.

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 22:13:21 -0700, (Marc Reeve)
wrote:

James Hart wrote:
Mary Shafer wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 11:38:09 -0700, (Marc Reeve)
wrote:

Cartoon of a stretch of desert highway with the standard "Speed
checked by aircraft" sign, with an F-4 with CHP markings and a full
bomb load flying above.

I had that on a placard over my desk for years, except that the road
sign had an F-4 silhouette on it as well.

I found this one on the web a while back
http://jameshart.mine.nu/ngs/speedenforcementbyair.jpg

And here's a somewhat more old-fashioned one:
http://www.kjon.com/cartoons/gm-002.html

That reminds me of the time I got a ride in Dryden's Bell 47
helicopter. We went over to Mojave and came back to Dryden by flying
along the freeway. Well, it was amazing how quickly all the
tractor-trailer rigs slowed down. They thought we were the aircraft
of the "patrolled by aircraft" signs.

Sadly, no one seems to have the Phantom version online.

I'll dig my n-th generation copy out and scan it in. It's with my
Sidewinder "reach out and touch someone" drawing from the Libya
incident and all the other aerospace graffiti I've collected.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:03:44 -0700, Mary Shafer
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 21:56:08 +0100, "James Hart"
wrote:

Mary Shafer wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 11:38:09 -0700, (Marc Reeve)
wrote:

Cartoon of a stretch of desert highway with the standard "Speed
checked by aircraft" sign, with an F-4 with CHP markings and a full
bomb load flying above.

I had that on a placard over my desk for years, except that the road
sign had an F-4 silhouette on it as well.

I found this one on the web a while back
http://jameshart.mine.nu/ngs/speedenforcementbyair.jpg

Netscape says it can't find this host. Maybe it's just my system or
ISP or something.

I tried again and it opened up without a problem.

If you google on "speed enforcement" and select "images" you'll get a
bunch of copies of this photo. Cute, isn't it?

It reminds me of the old McAir calendars, the big ones with photos and
drawings of their aircraft in action. That's probably because they
showed the AV-8 ground loitering and various helicopters hiding behind
trees and ridgelines (with the ball at the top of the mast "peeking"
over it).

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

In article ,
on Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:54:45 +1200,
Kerryn Offord attempted to say .....


This only applies to convicted felons.. nothing to stop someone who has
never been convicted from legally owning and carrying a firearm in the
course of his 'employment'... there might be problems if he is caught in
the act while armed... but maybe he shoots his way free and continue as
a non felon.


If someone wants to kill you what makes you think they have to have a gun to
do it ?

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Tank Fixer wrote:

In article ,
on Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:54:45 +1200,
Kerryn Offord attempted to say .....


This only applies to convicted felons.. nothing to stop someone who has
never been convicted from legally owning and carrying a firearm in the
course of his 'employment'... there might be problems if he is caught in
the act while armed... but maybe he shoots his way free and continue as
a non felon.



If someone wants to kill you what makes you think they have to have a gun to
do it ?


No reason, but in this thread its been suggested that the guy breaking
into your house is illegally carrying a weapon.....


Probably more people die from application of a blunt instrument than die
from firearms (lets restrict this to individual cases of murder, not the
rampages such as Rwanda... where machetes find a niche)