Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

In message , Simon Robbins
writes
"Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message
...
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.

I believe that to be only a recent (i.e. past century) issue. Until WW2 I
think it was legal for UK residents to own firearms,

I owned firearms until 1997. Still could now, shotguns, rifles or
repeating handguns, if I had the time and spare cash.

Trouble was, having concentrated on Practical Pistol, it would have been
a fairly awkward shift in both hardware and technique to go over to
shooting black-powder pistol (even if a LeMat makes a fairly awesome
weapon: nine rounds of soft lead .36" ball plus a shotgun, any intruder
still standing after *that* has earned the right to pillage while I
reload: if I wanted one I could get one, legally and fairly easily)

but as someone else
said they were mainly long-barrelled weapons for sport or hunting. The hand
gun has no other purpose than to shoot other people.

That's its design role, just as the role of a sword is to kill people
(hence no more sports fencing) and the bow had no purpose other than
turning living creatures into dead meat (so no more archery either).

For that matter, let's ban the javelin from athletics (throwing spears
were only ever designed for killing!).

Sports grew out of military competition: so we should also ban all
martial arts from boxing onwards (dedicated to learning how to batter an
opponent insensible!)

Being a Brit myself, I actually wish we did have the right to bear arms, at
least on our own property, and the legal back up to use them if necessary.

Closer than you might think now, tabloid hysteria notwithstanding.

But, (and this is where I give the US population credit they deserve but
very often don't get), is that I don't believe the UK population has the
respect for those weapons tha they deserve. They've just not been part of
our social landscape. If they were to legalise the ownership of hand guns
tomorrow in a similar manner to US laws, gun crime and accidental shootings
would (I believe) go through the roof as the current generation overcame the
novelty value of owning a "piece".

No worse than in the US. The electable viewpoint there is that the costs
are worth paying, but there the genie's out of the bottle and it's a
fair assumption that any casual burglar or opportunistic mugger might be
carrying a firearm. Unfortunately, the reaction to to that gets them a
lot of stolen weapons, domestic accidents and other grief, but the
current consensus is that the gain outweighs the cost.

For the moment, in the UK the overall view is different. Personally, I'd
be happy with much more widespread ownership provided that ownership
equalled responsibility: your weapon, your job to keep it secure. You
want a weapon, it lives on your person or else properly secured. You
fire that weapon, you're responsible for every round leaving the barrel.
Not popular here, and oddly enough it seems to be very unpopular in the
US for very different reasons

--
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:

[ boiled down to a single point...]

[...] it's a fair assumption that any casual burglar or
opportunistic mugger might be carrying a firearm.

That's true anywhere; criminals obtain their firearms illegally,
after all. The big difference is that in the US, the intended
victim is much more likely to possess a firearm - and thus,
could be lethal to the criminal. Combine that with the usual
escalation of punishment when a crime involves the use or threat
of a lethal weapon (not just guns) - and we have the amazing fact:
Wherever a US state has enacted a liberal policy for issuance of
handgun permits, crime has decreased. Criminals are cowards;
they will invariably choose a weaker target for their crimes
- and avoid locales where their victims may be in a position of
greater strength to ward off an attack.

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
I believe that to be only a recent (i.e. past century) issue. Until WW2
I
think it was legal for UK residents to own firearms,

I owned firearms until 1997. Still could now, shotguns, rifles or
repeating handguns, if I had the time and spare cash.

I meant without restriction and licencing.

That's its design role, just as the role of a sword is to kill people
(hence no more sports fencing) and the bow had no purpose other than
turning living creatures into dead meat (so no more archery either).

For that matter, let's ban the javelin from athletics (throwing spears
were only ever designed for killing!).

I have no problem with offensive weapons in sport. I'm not against ownership
either, so long as you can guarantee responsibility. But, bear in mind
you're going to get in serious trouble walking down the road with a bow,
sword, or even a javelin in the UK these days. As it happens I think the
government was dead wrong in banning the legal ownership of handguns for
sport. It was complete overkill driven by media hysteria.

Being a Brit myself, I actually wish we did have the right to bear arms,
at
least on our own property, and the legal back up to use them if
necessary.

Closer than you might think now, tabloid hysteria notwithstanding.

Don't know about that. It would take such a shift in the legal rights of
home owners to enable them to use a potential deadly force in defence of
their property, and I just don't see a change in the law coming that'll stop
favouring criminals. (I think the government's too worried about loosing out
on all that VAT they get from burglary victims having to go out and buy new
appliances.. :-)

For the moment, in the UK the overall view is different. Personally, I'd
be happy with much more widespread ownership provided that ownership
equalled responsibility: your weapon, your job to keep it secure. You
want a weapon, it lives on your person or else properly secured. You
fire that weapon, you're responsible for every round leaving the barrel.
Not popular here, and oddly enough it seems to be very unpopular in the
US for very different reasons

I agree with you, but it comes down to: I'd be happy for everyone to own a
gun if I new that they were as responsible as I know I am! But then there's
no test for respect or responsibility and sooner or later kids will get
access to the guns carefully stored in their parents' safes, and the genie
would be out of the bottle here as well. Trouble is that it's a one-way
massive culture and legal shift, and it's much easier for society and
government to try and cope with the status quo rather than open Pandora's
Box.

Si