Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

From: "Gord Beaman" )

I forgot to mention that I served in Canada's Armed Forces for 26
years.
--

-Gord.

Gord, you should have joined our Air Force. I spent my last 14 years in
Florida. Nothing like a warm flightline most of the year. Ok, so we get down to
the 20s a few days a year, but we can't have it TOO easy. Y'see, it's a tad
chilly way up there where you are.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article , Keith Willshaw
writes

"Simon Robbins" wrote in message
...

"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, 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.


It still is legal to own long arms, shotgun certificates arent that
hard to get and even rifles can be had as long as they
arent military assault weapons. As a child of the 50's weapons
brought back as trophies from WW2 were not uncommon.
The father of one school friend had at least 2 german machine
pistols as well as a Luger.

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.
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".


In rural areas shotguns are commonplace and the stringent regulations
regarding their storage are the result of 2 factors

1) Accidental discharges of 'unloaded' weapons

2) Theft

There was a period in the 70's when rural farms were the source of
firearms for city based villains, far from protecting their owners
from burglary they attracted unwelcome attention.

My brother-in-law and nephew keep rifles and shotguns at their farm
(here in the UK), and AFAIK part of the certificate/licence renewal
process is a police inspection of the storage facilities.


--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

(B2431) wrote:

From: "Gord Beaman" )

I forgot to mention that I served in Canada's Armed Forces for 26
years.
--

-Gord.

Gord, you should have joined our Air Force. I spent my last 14 years in
Florida. Nothing like a warm flightline most of the year. Ok, so we get down to
the 20s a few days a year, but we can't have it TOO easy. Y'see, it's a tad
chilly way up there where you are.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Chilly?..nah, quite comfortable Dan...you can always add clothes,
or get inside when it really gets cold...tough to get comfortable
down there sweltering in the heat.
--

-Gord.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 21:32:30 +0100, "Keith Willshaw" wrote:


"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:42:04 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


The WTC was not the result of internal terrorism. OK City was
an aberration. You do know what has happened to the
perpetrators, don't you?


Is external terrorism less dangerous to life and limb ?

We have an open society, and do not relish the "big brother"
school of security. The thousands of cameras all over outdoor,
public areas in the UK would never be tolerated in the US.


Nonsense, there are over 2 thousand in NYC alone

http://www.mediaeater.com/cameras/overview.html

Keith

Did you miss the part where it explained that only less than
300 of the cameras were government owned, and that
these were security cameras on government buildings?

If I want to video the street in front of my house that is hardly
"big brother". In the UK the government maintains surveillance
on the public, the US government does not.

Al Minyard

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 21:32:30 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:42:04 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


The WTC was not the result of internal terrorism. OK City was
an aberration. You do know what has happened to the
perpetrators, don't you?


Is external terrorism less dangerous to life and limb ?

We have an open society, and do not relish the "big brother"
school of security. The thousands of cameras all over outdoor,
public areas in the UK would never be tolerated in the US.


Nonsense, there are over 2 thousand in NYC alone

http://www.mediaeater.com/cameras/overview.html

Keith

Did you miss the part where it explained that only less than
300 of the cameras were government owned, and that
these were security cameras on government buildings?

If I want to video the street in front of my house that is hardly
"big brother". In the UK the government maintains surveillance
on the public, the US government does not.

I guess it's how you interpret the government's intentions.

Personally, I'm OK with them knowing the ins-and-outs of my weekly shopping
trips; especially if they're bothered to go to all that trouble of setting
up the infrastructure and paying the x 1000s of guys to follow every move
each of us makes 24/7 - fairplay to them. It strikes me you've the
impression they're there to oppress us - simply not the case. They help
catch criminals.

That, at least, is what the telescreen in the corner tells me.
Doubleplusgood!

Jim Doyle

Al Minyard

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
:

(B2431) wrote:

From: "Gord Beaman" )

I forgot to mention that I served in Canada's Armed Forces for 26
years.
--

-Gord.

Gord, you should have joined our Air Force. I spent my last 14 years
in Florida. Nothing like a warm flightline most of the year. Ok, so we
get down to the 20s a few days a year, but we can't have it TOO easy.
Y'see, it's a tad chilly way up there where you are.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Chilly?..nah, quite comfortable Dan...you can always add clothes,
or get inside when it really gets cold...tough to get comfortable
down there sweltering in the heat.
--

-Gord.


It took me awhile to become acclimatized to Florida,but it was worth it.
I hate snow.(20 yrs in Buffalo,and 9 in Indianapolis.)
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 21:32:30 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:42:04 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


The WTC was not the result of internal terrorism. OK City was
an aberration. You do know what has happened to the
perpetrators, don't you?


Is external terrorism less dangerous to life and limb ?

We have an open society, and do not relish the "big brother"
school of security. The thousands of cameras all over outdoor,
public areas in the UK would never be tolerated in the US.


Nonsense, there are over 2 thousand in NYC alone

http://www.mediaeater.com/cameras/overview.html

Keith

Did you miss the part where it explained that only less than
300 of the cameras were government owned, and that
these were security cameras on government buildings?


Ah so you believe that private surveillance cameras
by definition are non intrusive and that only 300
government cameras dont count

If I want to video the street in front of my house that is hardly
"big brother". In the UK the government maintains surveillance
on the public, the US government does not.


In the UK the police maintain surveillance of public
spaces, there are actually tighter controls on cameras
in workplaces and private locations than the US

We dont have a UK TV show called 'Busted On The Job'
showing surveillance footage of employees.

Lets get real here.

Keith

"B2431" wrote in message
...
Where did you get that idea? There are entire categories of competion
using
handguns (ever heard of the Olympics?) and many hunter use them as a
greater
challenge than long guns.

Yeah, but that's like suggesting martial arts, though used for competition
are designed for anything other than giving someone else a severely bad day.
Tell me, did Colt have competition in mind when he developed the revolver?
We've turned many dangerous activities into sport, but that doesn't disguise
their original intention.

Si

From: "Simon Robbins"
Date: 4/29/2004 3:44 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

"B2431" wrote in message
...
Where did you get that idea? There are entire categories of competion
using
handguns (ever heard of the Olympics?) and many hunter use them as a
greater
challenge than long guns.

Yeah, but that's like suggesting martial arts, though used for competition
are designed for anything other than giving someone else a severely bad day.
Tell me, did Colt have competition in mind when he developed the revolver?
We've turned many dangerous activities into sport, but that doesn't disguise
their original intention.

Si

He didn't say "original intention," he said "only purpose" and Colt did make
target pistols.

Let's make an analogy to what you suggest. For thousands of years bows and
arrows have been weapons of war. Today they are primarily used for competition
or entertainment with some people using them for hunting. If a weapon's
orininal intent is to kill people then we should also ban archery and the
javelin from the Olympics.

Around the world thousands of people are killed with knives. Shall we ban them
from the kitchen because of them?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

(B2431) wrote in
:

From: "Simon Robbins"
Date: 4/29/2004 3:44 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

"B2431" wrote in message
...
Where did you get that idea? There are entire categories of
competion
using
handguns (ever heard of the Olympics?) and many hunter use them as a
greater
challenge than long guns.

Yeah, but that's like suggesting martial arts, though used for
competition are designed for anything other than giving someone else a
severely bad day. Tell me, did Colt have competition in mind when he
developed the revolver? We've turned many dangerous activities into
sport, but that doesn't disguise their original intention.

Si

He didn't say "original intention," he said "only purpose" and Colt
did make target pistols.

Let's make an analogy to what you suggest. For thousands of years bows
and arrows have been weapons of war. Today they are primarily used for
competition or entertainment with some people using them for hunting.
If a weapon's orininal intent is to kill people then we should also
ban archery and the javelin from the Olympics.

Around the world thousands of people are killed with knives. Shall we
ban them from the kitchen because of them?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


A baseball bat is a club,which originally was designed to kill.
There goes that sport.The entire "designed to kill" argument is just a
meaningless dodge,anyways,to demonize guns.

What matters is the intent of the person using that item.

And killing is not always a bad thing.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net