Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:
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.

How do you tell ODCs from criminals who haven't been convicted yet?

If you see them commiting a crime,then they are criminals.If they have
committed no crimes,then they are ODCs.

Removing the guns will not decrease crime,it has
the opposite effect,and is practically impossible.

Absolutely true: but it's a poor advertisment for the idea that a few
thousand weapons would transform the UK and turn it into a crime-free
paradise.

Never claimed it would.It would allow ODCs to defend themselves with less
risk to themselves,though.Especially the elderly,infirm.

I'm arguing against transplanting US solutions to the UK, is all.

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.

You don't get carjacked in the UK, Jim, it's on a par with
elephant-rated fatalities: you can find a couple but they're
celebrated for their rarity.

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

I challenge him and he starts to run. Can I shoot him? If not, how do
I detain him?

If he runs towards you,then you shoot him.If he runs away,then he gets
away.

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

Well,to take that watch means he threatens force against you.

No, let's suppose I took it off to wash my hands in a public restroom,
and he snatches it up and runs. Can I shoot him in the back in order
to reclaim my watch?

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

If he does it by force or threat of force,yes.

He grabs it off a shelf in a supermarket and runs for the exit. Can I
shoot him?

I see where you are going here,and I'm not playing that game.

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

How does one "safely" detain another with a firearm? If you're not
willing and ready to shoot, it's not effective: to be effective, it
certainly can't be safe (at least not for the detainee!) I'm not
opposed to the concept, but I'm trying to pare away the hyperbole and
get to the facts of when you *actually* are and are not allowed to use
deadly force, rather than the exaggerations spouted by both extremes.

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.

No, he committed premeditated murder, and a jury agreed.

Well,one of your appeasing jurys ruled that way.In the US,many jurys would
rule justifiable homicide.Some places would not even bring charges.

(He'd have
been acquitted if he'd ceased fire when they fled: he might even have
been acquitted or had the charges downgraded if he'd told the truth.
But to (a) pursue the intruders and continue firing when they were in
headlong flight, and (b) to lie about events both to the police and to
the court, convinced the jury that he wasn't acting to defend himself
but had planned and prepared to kill.)

And that's about the only way his burglaries would have been stopped.The
police failed him.

The police
failed in providing him security,so it fell upon himself to do so.

And he was entitled to do so: but not to cold-bloodedly plan the
killing of the next person to intrude.

Criminals should have no right to safety while commiting their
crimes.

I'm a little uncertain about this one. I'd rather say that the burden
of proof is on the criminal to show that they were seriously
mistreated. For instance, a criminal has no right to protest about a
householder using reasonable force to drive them off, detain them or
disable them. Even a burglar is entitled to complain if the
householder then starts applying electroshock therapy or just a damn
good kicking to "teach him a lesson", or just for amusement.

You try to equate the value of a possession against a criminal's
life,

I'm just curious where the threshold falls for the use of deadly force
and its attendant risks.

but
the true and higher cost is the lack of security and freedom to own
property.

Again, I can only presume life is much more difficult and dangerous
where you live, that so much theft happens in plain sight and
unprevented. Property theft here is done where nobody's looking, so
issuing firearms wouldn't help.

--
Paul J. Adam



So,you are saying there's no at-home burglaries in the UK? Iknow George
Harrison would have benefitted from having a handgun when that intruder
entered his home.Maybe he (and his wife)wouldn't have been stabbed so many
times.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:
Absolutely true: but it's a poor advertisment for the idea that a few
thousand weapons would transform the UK and turn it into a crime-free
paradise.

Never claimed it would.It would allow ODCs to defend themselves with less
risk to themselves,though.Especially the elderly,infirm.

Not if the criminals are aggressive, armed and practiced, and the ODCs are
not. It takes hard work, practice and a lot of rounds to become proficient
with a handgun.

I challenge him and he starts to run. Can I shoot him? If not, how do
I detain him?

If he runs towards you,then you shoot him.If he runs away,then he gets
away.

So in other words, exactly the same as in the UK: if I see him he runs away.

Why does adding firearms to the mix help matters?

He grabs it off a shelf in a supermarket and runs for the exit. Can I
shoot him?

I see where you are going here,and I'm not playing that game.

Dodging the question, Jim?

Someone snatches a loaf of bread and runs away. How many rounds are you
allowed to fire at his fleeing back, to prevent the theft? How much risk are
you allowed to take? If they're running through a crowd, how many bystanders
are you permitted to hit before your use of force becomes "unreasonable"?

No, he committed premeditated murder, and a jury agreed.

Well,one of your appeasing jurys ruled that way.

They saw the evidence, noted that the defended lied repeatedly, and drew
their own conclusions. That's the point of juries, Jim, they're selected
from your peers. If Martin had called the police and presented them with a
corpse whose wound was in the chest, he'd maybe have been hit for the
illegal firearm.

In the US,many jurys would
rule justifiable homicide.Some places would not even bring charges.

So, shooting fleeing and unarmed boys in the back and lying to the police is
acceptable behaviour in the US?

(He'd have
been acquitted if he'd ceased fire when they fled: he might even have
been acquitted or had the charges downgraded if he'd told the truth.
But to (a) pursue the intruders and continue firing when they were in
headlong flight, and (b) to lie about events both to the police and to
the court, convinced the jury that he wasn't acting to defend himself
but had planned and prepared to kill.)

And that's about the only way his burglaries would have been stopped.The
police failed him.

Sure, and nobody's denied it. On the other hand he was notably eccentric,
refused to fit the most basic security, and contributed a lot to his own
misfortune. You're entitled not to have your car stolen, but part of the
deal is not leaving it parked with the window open, door unlocked and keys
in the ignition.

Sitting up in the night with an illegal weapon waiting for intruders so you
can go downstairs and kill them (and then claim never to have left your
room)... that's not self-defence, that's premeditated murder.

Again, I can only presume life is much more difficult and dangerous
where you live, that so much theft happens in plain sight and
unprevented. Property theft here is done where nobody's looking, so
issuing firearms wouldn't help.

So,you are saying there's no at-home burglaries in the UK?

No, just that they're generally rare enough to make newspaper headlines.

Iknow George
Harrison would have benefitted from having a handgun when that intruder
entered his home.

Sure - how many years ago was that? He's been dead and buried for a while,
Jim. Don't you have any new examples? Or is life in the UK actually a lot
quieter and safer than your NRA tracts would like you to believe?

Maybe he (and his wife)wouldn't have been stabbed so many
times.

Or maybe a peacenik ex-Beatle wouldn't have owned a firearm even had the
option been open to him - ever pause to consider that?

--
Paul J. Adam

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...


Or maybe a peacenik ex-Beatle wouldn't have owned a firearm even had the
option been open to him - ever pause to consider that?


Its also worth recalling that the attacker was a paranoid schizophrenic
with an obsession about harrison and not a common burglar
and had no previous criminal record. In the US he like the
the man who shot John Lennon would have had access to a more lethal
weapon than a knife.

He was released in 2002 having responded to treatment
and had been symptom free for 2 years.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in
:


"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...


Or maybe a peacenik ex-Beatle wouldn't have owned a firearm even had the
option been open to him - ever pause to consider that?


Its also worth recalling that the attacker was a paranoid schizophrenic
with an obsession about harrison and not a common burglar
and had no previous criminal record. In the US he like the
the man who shot John Lennon would have had access to a more lethal
weapon than a knife.


Even in UK,people CAN get or MAKE guns if they choose to,if they know where
to go.


He was released in 2002 having responded to treatment
and had been symptom free for 2 years.

Keith


How reassuring.(not)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:
Absolutely true: but it's a poor advertisment for the idea that a
few thousand weapons would transform the UK and turn it into a
crime-free paradise.

Never claimed it would.It would allow ODCs to defend themselves with
less risk to themselves,though.Especially the elderly,infirm.

Not if the criminals are aggressive, armed and practiced, and the ODCs
are not. It takes hard work, practice and a lot of rounds to become
proficient with a handgun.


Well,that's NOT the way it's been here in the US,and I doubt that UK
criminals are any different.I've read of plenty of examples of elderly
people using handguns well enough without any extensive training.
It's simply not that hard to use a handgun.

I challenge him and he starts to run. Can I shoot him? If not, how
do I detain him?

If he runs towards you,then you shoot him.If he runs away,then he
gets away.

So in other words, exactly the same as in the UK: if I see him he runs
away.

Depends on how close he is to you,too.

Why does adding firearms to the mix help matters?

He grabs it off a shelf in a supermarket and runs for the exit. Can
I shoot him?

I see where you are going here,and I'm not playing that game.

Dodging the question, Jim?

No,you're trying to pin me down with a dumb question.I'm not playing that
game.

Someone snatches a loaf of bread and runs away. How many rounds are
you allowed to fire at his fleeing back, to prevent the theft? How
much risk are you allowed to take? If they're running through a crowd,
how many bystanders are you permitted to hit before your use of force
becomes "unreasonable"?

No, he committed premeditated murder, and a jury agreed.

Well,one of your appeasing jurys ruled that way.

They saw the evidence, noted that the defended lied repeatedly, and
drew their own conclusions. That's the point of juries, Jim, they're
selected from your peers. If Martin had called the police and
presented them with a corpse whose wound was in the chest, he'd maybe
have been hit for the illegal firearm.

In the US,many jurys would
rule justifiable homicide.Some places would not even bring charges.

So, shooting fleeing and unarmed boys in the back and lying to the
police is acceptable behaviour in the US?

Lying,no.Shooting those two after repeated burglaries with police being
useless would be "justifiable homicide" in many parts of the US.

(He'd have
been acquitted if he'd ceased fire when they fled: he might even
have been acquitted or had the charges downgraded if he'd told the
truth. But to (a) pursue the intruders and continue firing when
they were in headlong flight, and (b) to lie about events both to
the police and to the court, convinced the jury that he wasn't
acting to defend himself but had planned and prepared to kill.)

And that's about the only way his burglaries would have been
stopped.The police failed him.

Sure, and nobody's denied it. On the other hand he was notably
eccentric, refused to fit the most basic security, and contributed a
lot to his own misfortune. You're entitled not to have your car
stolen, but part of the deal is not leaving it parked with the window
open, door unlocked and keys in the ignition.

And I doubt he left the keys in his door locks,or windows open after
repeated burglaries.

Sitting up in the night with an illegal weapon waiting for intruders
so you can go downstairs and kill them (and then claim never to have
left your room)... that's not self-defence, that's premeditated
murder.

Justifiable homicide.Police could do noting for him,he had no other
recourse.Why should he have to turn his home into a prison?

Again, I can only presume life is much more difficult and dangerous
where you live, that so much theft happens in plain sight and
unprevented. Property theft here is done where nobody's looking, so
issuing firearms wouldn't help.

So,you are saying there's no at-home burglaries in the UK?

No, just that they're generally rare enough to make newspaper
headlines.

Well,I believe that they would not make newspaper headlines,but that does
not mean they don't happen.Heck,many people,especially the elderly are
embarassed that they were victimized,and don't report such crimes.

Iknow George
Harrison would have benefitted from having a handgun when that
intruder entered his home.

Sure - how many years ago was that? He's been dead and buried for a
while, Jim. Don't you have any new examples? Or is life in the UK
actually a lot quieter and safer than your NRA tracts would like you
to believe?

Why should the passage of time make that example any less valid? I don't
keep up on what happens in the UK,that's just the most visible and
remembered incident I know of.You still haven't refuted it after all this
time,either.

Maybe he (and his wife)wouldn't have been stabbed so many
times.

Or maybe a peacenik ex-Beatle wouldn't have owned a firearm even had
the option been open to him - ever pause to consider that?

well,sure,it's his choice(or it would be,if UK alowed it) to be armed(and
prepared for such things,especially after the Queen having an intruder in
her bedroom,and Lennon getting killed.)

But peaceniks have a habit of changing their position after they've been
attacked or threatened,and they find out what the police CAN'T do for their
security.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

In message , Jim Yanik
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:
Not if the criminals are aggressive, armed and practiced, and the ODCs
are not. It takes hard work, practice and a lot of rounds to become
proficient with a handgun.

Well,that's NOT the way it's been here in the US,

Handguns are easier to shoot in the US than the UK? News to me.

I used to be able to ace a pistol APWT in the Army, but then I shot one
or two hundred rounds of .45ACP a week. Other soldiers who were
proficient rifle shots and fully comfortable with firearms struggled to
get a pass mark (and it was an easy test: 32 rounds at 10 and 15 metres,
from memory).

and I doubt that UK
criminals are any different.I've read of plenty of examples of elderly
people using handguns well enough without any extensive training.
It's simply not that hard to use a handgun.

********. To quote Don Harstad from upthread,

"The civilians I know who shot in high stress situations managed to hit
a relative about half the time, and that was because they were too
sleepy to duck. Two officers I know personally were engaged by a
civilian who stood at the top of an enclosed staircase in an apartment,
and fired six rounds at them as they climbed the stairs. He missed both
officers. He was aiming. (They were really p....ed when they got to the
top of those stairs... deaf, but pi...ed.)

Very rarely does the armed citizen who fires and misses ever tell
anybody about it. Their reporting standards are nothing like the
reporting standards used when an officer discharges a weapon. I would
advise a bit of caution when trying to compare data under those
circumstances."

Dodging the question, Jim?

No,you're trying to pin me down with a dumb question.I'm not playing that
game.

It's not a dumb question: you're claiming that having more firearms
around would deter that theft. How, if you can't use them? And if you
*can* use them, how much collateral damage is permitted?

Remember, you're advocating untrained users with weapons they have
little experience with: because it's apparently easy to shoot well with
a handgun.

So, shooting fleeing and unarmed boys in the back and lying to the
police is acceptable behaviour in the US?

Lying,no.Shooting those two after repeated burglaries with police being
useless would be "justifiable homicide" in many parts of the US.

Not all, I note. Note that the "repeated burglaries" was actually *one*
burglary (still too many, but beware of hype).

Sure, and nobody's denied it. On the other hand he was notably
eccentric, refused to fit the most basic security, and contributed a
lot to his own misfortune. You're entitled not to have your car
stolen, but part of the deal is not leaving it parked with the window
open, door unlocked and keys in the ignition.

And I doubt he left the keys in his door locks,or windows open after
repeated burglaries.

Actually he did: the intruders needed only a screwdriver to effect
entrance.

Sitting up in the night with an illegal weapon waiting for intruders
so you can go downstairs and kill them (and then claim never to have
left your room)... that's not self-defence, that's premeditated
murder.

Justifiable homicide.Police could do noting for him,he had no other
recourse.Why should he have to turn his home into a prison?

He turned his whole estate into an armed camp, Jim: "lookout posts" in
trees, stairs removed, booby-traps in the house. But no window locks and
he kept his dogs well away from the house.

No, just that they're generally rare enough to make newspaper
headlines.

Well,I believe that they would not make newspaper headlines,but that does
not mean they don't happen.Heck,many people,especially the elderly are
embarassed that they were victimized,and don't report such crimes.

Interesting how "selective reporting" is cited in some cases and ignored
in others.

Sure - how many years ago was that? He's been dead and buried for a
while, Jim. Don't you have any new examples? Or is life in the UK
actually a lot quieter and safer than your NRA tracts would like you
to believe?

Why should the passage of time make that example any less valid?

Proves the scarcity, wouldn't you say?

I don't
keep up on what happens in the UK,that's just the most visible and
remembered incident I know of.

You mean there *aren't* hordes of other celebrity murders taking place?

You still haven't refuted it after all this
time,either.

What weapon would have saved her? The first warning she had was the
bullet hitting her.

Or maybe a peacenik ex-Beatle wouldn't have owned a firearm even had
the option been open to him - ever pause to consider that?

well,sure,it's his choice(or it would be,if UK alowed it) to be armed(and
prepared for such things,especially after the Queen having an intruder in
her bedroom,and Lennon getting killed.)

I seem to recall Lennon was killed in the US: wasn't he protected by the
armed citizens around him?


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:

In message , Jim Yanik
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:
Not if the criminals are aggressive, armed and practiced, and the ODCs
are not. It takes hard work, practice and a lot of rounds to become
proficient with a handgun.

Well,that's NOT the way it's been here in the US,

Handguns are easier to shoot in the US than the UK? News to me.

I used to be able to ace a pistol APWT in the Army, but then I shot one
or two hundred rounds of .45ACP a week. Other soldiers who were
proficient rifle shots and fully comfortable with firearms struggled to
get a pass mark (and it was an easy test: 32 rounds at 10 and 15 metres,
from memory).

Strange,because lots of elderly folks in the US seem to be able to hit
their targets during their self-defense actions.But generally,anti's call
for unpractical levels of training in an attempot to make it unfeasable for
people to defend themselves with a gun.

and I doubt that UK
criminals are any different.I've read of plenty of examples of elderly
people using handguns well enough without any extensive training.
It's simply not that hard to use a handgun.

********. To quote Don Harstad from upthread,

"The civilians I know who shot in high stress situations managed to hit
a relative about half the time, and that was because they were too
sleepy to duck. Two officers I know personally were engaged by a
civilian who stood at the top of an enclosed staircase in an apartment,
and fired six rounds at them as they climbed the stairs. He missed both
officers. He was aiming. (They were really p....ed when they got to the
top of those stairs... deaf, but pi...ed.)

Very rarely does the armed citizen who fires and misses ever tell
anybody about it. Their reporting standards are nothing like the
reporting standards used when an officer discharges a weapon. I would
advise a bit of caution when trying to compare data under those
circumstances."

Who's Don Harstad? This is just one man's opinion.

Dodging the question, Jim?

No,you're trying to pin me down with a dumb question.I'm not playing that
game.

It's not a dumb question: you're claiming that having more firearms
around would deter that theft. How, if you can't use them? And if you
*can* use them, how much collateral damage is permitted?

Remember, you're advocating untrained users with weapons they have
little experience with: because it's apparently easy to shoot well with
a handgun.

Shoot Adequately,not well.
(There's that unreasonable level of training again.)


So, shooting fleeing and unarmed boys in the back and lying to the
police is acceptable behaviour in the US?

Lying,no.Shooting those two after repeated burglaries with police being
useless would be "justifiable homicide" in many parts of the US.

Not all, I note. Note that the "repeated burglaries" was actually *one*
burglary (still too many, but beware of hype).

Sure, and nobody's denied it. On the other hand he was notably
eccentric, refused to fit the most basic security, and contributed a
lot to his own misfortune. You're entitled not to have your car
stolen, but part of the deal is not leaving it parked with the window
open, door unlocked and keys in the ignition.

And I doubt he left the keys in his door locks,or windows open after
repeated burglaries.

Actually he did: the intruders needed only a screwdriver to effect
entrance.

Uh,if they had to use a tool to pry them open,then they WERE secured.Of
couurse,it's the property owners fault if he doesn't barricade himself in
and create a prison for himself.Blame the victim again.


Sitting up in the night with an illegal weapon waiting for intruders
so you can go downstairs and kill them (and then claim never to have
left your room)... that's not self-defence, that's premeditated
murder.

Justifiable homicide.Police could do noting for him,he had no other
recourse.Why should he have to turn his home into a prison?

He turned his whole estate into an armed camp, Jim: "lookout posts" in
trees, stairs removed, booby-traps in the house. But no window locks and
he kept his dogs well away from the house.

No window locks,then WHY did they have to PRY open the window?

and how does "stairs removed" make it an "armed camp"? Booby traps -inside-
his house,another attempt to keep out the burglars.Foolish,IMO,he could
have gotten snagged by his own trap.It appears everyone demonized the guy
to justify sentencing him for defending his property.

No, just that they're generally rare enough to make newspaper
headlines.

Well,I believe that they would not make newspaper headlines,but that does
not mean they don't happen.Heck,many people,especially the elderly are
embarassed that they were victimized,and don't report such crimes.

Interesting how "selective reporting" is cited in some cases and ignored
in others.

Sure - how many years ago was that? He's been dead and buried for a
while, Jim. Don't you have any new examples? Or is life in the UK
actually a lot quieter and safer than your NRA tracts would like you
to believe?

Why should the passage of time make that example any less valid?

Proves the scarcity, wouldn't you say?

I don't
keep up on what happens in the UK,that's just the most visible and
remembered incident I know of.

You mean there *aren't* hordes of other celebrity murders taking place?

Well,I suspect celebs are much more careful now,and employ
bodyguards,too.They can afford it,most people cannot.

You still haven't refuted it after all this
time,either.

What weapon would have saved her? The first warning she had was the
bullet hitting her.

Or maybe a peacenik ex-Beatle wouldn't have owned a firearm even had
the option been open to him - ever pause to consider that?

well,sure,it's his choice(or it would be,if UK alowed it) to be armed(and
prepared for such things,especially after the Queen having an intruder in
her bedroom,and Lennon getting killed.)

I seem to recall Lennon was killed in the US: wasn't he protected by the
armed citizens around him?



In a city that BANS firearms.(yet still has a high gun violence rate.)
I wonder why Virginia has a lower rate than DC right next door,DC banning
guns while Virginia permits them? According to you,Virginia should be the
more dangerous place.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 17:03:59 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik
wrote:


Who's Don Harstad? This is just one man's opinion.

A retired deputy sheriff with over 30 years experience.


Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer