Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

Charles Gray wrote in
:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:45:52 +0200, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

"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.

There is a body of evidence that suggests that open ownership of
guns and their general possession reduces some sorts of crimes-- but
it also increases others, mainly crimes of passion.


And those folks have enough previous police records on domestic violence
that their firearms would have been confiscated(under court order).


I think the problem is that many progun enthusiasts are taking the
experience of rural areas, and uncritically assuming you can transfer
that to urban areas. My family lived in a rural community where guns
were omnipresent, and it was a polite community...and not one with a
lot of gunplay.
I live twenty miles outside of LA, and if everyone in LA had a gun,
every rush hour would be a mass slaughter. The two situations are
simply not comparable.

First of all,in all the 34+ states that allow concealed carry,that stuff
simply has not happened,no "blood running in the streets" from LEGAL gun
owners.LA isn't the only urban area to have big traffic jams.

But anyone who wanted to in LA -could- own a gun legally if they chose
to,provided they met the standard restrictions.And those who live in other
parts of California can and do carry concealed in the LA area legally.



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?


In california, none of the above. In the 1970's, using a weapon
even against an armed intruder could see you being taken off to jail.
Now, the general standard is that you are presumed to be "at fear for
your life" if you are confronted. It is not a blanket protection--
if the fellow you said you were afraid of dies after being chased down
the street, cornered and shot five times, the DA.... will have some
questions.
Other states tend to give different levels of this-- some pretty
much give a homeowner ON HIS OWN PROPERTY a blanket right of self
defense. I believe texas is the most forgiving in this case, but
there's so much variation it's hard to say-- ditto for gun carrying
laws.



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.

Lower population densities-- and again not comparable, either for
or against the idea of general gun possession in a modern society.
But I will say that the experience of other nations where everyone has
an AK-47 do not make me confident.



And those places never had the rule of law,either. ISTR that millions(the
unarmed ones) lost their lives in Rwanda due to machetes.
OTOH,Israel and Switzerland allow their citizens to own firearms,and they
don't have much of a problem.In fact,once the Israeli teachers began
carrying guns in their schools,the terrorists stopped trying to shoot up
the school children.
And the Swiss have real automatic rifles.

Violence is more of a cultural thing than due solely to the presence of
guns.



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)





--
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

In message , Jake
McGuire writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote
in message ...
Where I live, we have the highest automobile theft rate in the US.

Aren't the criminals deterred by the armed citizens?

An armed citizen asleep in his bed does not deter someone from
stealing his car from across the street. This much is obvious. It
*does*, on the other hand, deter a criminal from trying to carjack
him, which carries with it a much higher risk of a non-criminal
getting hurt or killed.

But then carjacking's not a popular trend in the UK either. (Too much
traffic for the getaway, probably)

It's entirely analagous to dissuading home-invasion robberies (hot
robberies) in favor of breaking in while the occupants are at work,
which I'd think that most people are in favor of.

But again, UK burglars tend to avoid occupied homes as well.

--
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

Charles Gray wrote:

I think the problem is that many progun enthusiasts are taking the
experience of rural areas, and uncritically assuming you can transfer
that to urban areas. My family lived in a rural community where guns
were omnipresent, and it was a polite community...and not one with a
lot of gunplay.
I live twenty miles outside of LA, and if everyone in LA had a gun,
every rush hour would be a mass slaughter. The two situations are
simply not comparable.

I think there would be an initial round of "slaughter". Some
innocent types consumed certainly, but a greater proportion
of violent types colliding with other violent types.

After the bloodbath, the survivors would be more civil, patient
and controlled in their conduct toward others. Crime rates
would plunge, and we'd have a more cvilized society again, if
for no other reason than fear that the other guy is faster on
the draw than you, thanks to ubiquitous public gun carrying.

A tough methodology for gaining civilized social behavior!


SMH

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...
It's entirely analagous to dissuading home-invasion robberies (hot
robberies) in favor of breaking in while the occupants are at work,
which I'd think that most people are in favor of.

But again, UK burglars tend to avoid occupied homes as well.

According to first-hand crime statistics (from the US and the UK
governments), burglary is more than twice as common in the UK than in
the US. It's a bit harder to compare actual times of burglaries due
to slightly different definitions, but in the US residential
burglaries are distributed 60% day / 40% night, while in the UK is 44%
light / 56 % dark. The UK government also says that 46% of burglaries
happen when the home in question is occupied. I can't find actual
numbers for the US, but the qualitiative statements all seem to imply
that the occupied/unoccupied split is more skewed than the day/night
split.

-jake

Paul J. Adam wrote:
In message , Jake
McGuire writes

It's entirely analagous to dissuading home-invasion robberies (hot
robberies) in favor of breaking in while the occupants are at work,
which I'd think that most people are in favor of.


But again, UK burglars tend to avoid occupied homes as well.



Acording to a January '03 article on the BBC news site, 53% of
burglaries in England take place WHILE THE OWNERS/OCCUPANTS WERE
PRESENT. It doesn't sound like they are going out of their way
to avoid occupied homes. The corresponding number for the US,
cited in the same article, was 13%- approximately one fourth
of the English rate. Given that the overall burglary rate is
about twice that of the US, an English homeowner is about 8
times more likely to confront a burglar than an American. I must
note that 53% seems to be about the highest number listed for English
occupied burglaries- the other articles generally listed a not
very reassuring number of just over 50%...

A google search on burglary rates, US and UK brought up several
articles on comparative crime rates- the US has lower rates of
car theft, burglaries, assaults (muggings, etc.) than the UK- in
fact, with the (significant) exceptions of murder and rape, England
has much higher rates of all forms of violent crime than the United
States.

Mike

Mary Shafer wrote:
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.

Ah, bless you, Mary. Hope it's not packed too far away after the move.

(I just recently had need for something that I knew we had, but hadn't
used since before we moved. Five years ago. It turned up at the back of
the garage...)

-Marc
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

In message , Mike Williamson
writes
Paul J. Adam wrote:
But again, UK burglars tend to avoid occupied homes as well.
Acording to a January '03 article on the BBC news site, 53% of
burglaries in England take place WHILE THE OWNERS/OCCUPANTS WERE
PRESENT.

A quick check indicates that this relates to night-time successful
burglaries

To quote the British Crime Survey for 1999,

"In a quarter (25%) of burglaries someone was at home and aware of what
was happening."
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb499.pdf

Note that the UK definition counts "burglary" as attempts to make entry
which are foiled, which may well skew the figures for "occupied
burglary" upwards (nearly half the 'burglaries' in the UK are
unsuccessful attempts)


According to the BCS:

"Domestic burglary peaked in 1993 and fell by around 45% between 1993
and 2001.

In 2002/03, just over 3 in 100 households were burgled (this includes
attempted burglaries and burglaries where nothing was taken). "
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page55.asp

This corresponds interestingly with the 2002 US DoJ figures citing 27.7
burglaries per 1,000 households: just under 3 per 100.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus02.pdf


On a quick scan it seems interesting that while more incidents are
apparently reported in the UK, just under half of those reports are
unsuccessful attempts, while in the US 23.5 per 1000 households
experience *successful* burglaries.

A google search on burglary rates, US and UK brought up several
articles on comparative crime rates- the US has lower rates of
car theft, burglaries, assaults (muggings, etc.) than the UK- in
fact, with the (significant) exceptions of murder and rape, England
has much higher rates of all forms of violent crime than the United
States.

Are you comparing like with like? The US is in general a much less
densely populated place, and violent crime tends to be concentrated in
more urban areas: before you even get into what "burglary" means to
different compilers of statistics.





--
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

Mike Williamson wrote in
:

Paul J. Adam wrote:
In message , Jake
McGuire writes

It's entirely analagous to dissuading home-invasion robberies (hot
robberies) in favor of breaking in while the occupants are at work,
which I'd think that most people are in favor of.


But again, UK burglars tend to avoid occupied homes as well.



Acording to a January '03 article on the BBC news site, 53% of
burglaries in England take place WHILE THE OWNERS/OCCUPANTS WERE
PRESENT. It doesn't sound like they are going out of their way
to avoid occupied homes. The corresponding number for the US,
cited in the same article, was 13%- approximately one fourth
of the English rate. Given that the overall burglary rate is
about twice that of the US, an English homeowner is about 8
times more likely to confront a burglar than an American. I must
note that 53% seems to be about the highest number listed for English
occupied burglaries- the other articles generally listed a not
very reassuring number of just over 50%...

A google search on burglary rates, US and UK brought up several
articles on comparative crime rates- the US has lower rates of
car theft, burglaries, assaults (muggings, etc.) than the UK- in
fact, with the (significant) exceptions of murder and rape, England
has much higher rates of all forms of violent crime than the United
States.

Mike



Why should UK thieves avoid occupied homes?
It's safe for them to enter them.The resident has more of a risk being
prosecuted than the criminal does.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net