Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

"B2431" wrote in message
...
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.

I wouldn't advocate banning either archery or pistol shooting from
competitive sport. That's not really my point. And as I stated earlier,
even being a Brit, I'm not anti-gun. I actually admire the (vast majority)
of the American public for being mature enough to keep guns with the respect
they deserve. (I don't think the British, not having had a culture of
large-scale gun ownership, could display the same inherent respect were the
law here to be suddenly changed.)

Until a few years ago it was possible for a UK ctizen to legally own a
pistol for competition, but following a single well-publicised incident
where a legitimate owner turned his guns on a playground full of children
the law was changed to ban ownership outright, rather than address the
failings of the licensing system that enabled an unstable individual to
obtain them. Having said that, most competitive target shooters accept that
gas-pistols are an acceptable, though not preferable, alternative.

Si

American's treating guns with respect? You can't be serious. About 10%
of the gun owners I know keep them in a safe.

Average number of firearm thefts that occur every year in the US:
341,000
(Source: US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns and
Crime, 4/94)



"Simon Robbins" wrote in message ...
"B2431" wrote in message
...
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.

I wouldn't advocate banning either archery or pistol shooting from
competitive sport. That's not really my point. And as I stated earlier,
even being a Brit, I'm not anti-gun. I actually admire the (vast majority)
of the American public for being mature enough to keep guns with the respect
they deserve. (I don't think the British, not having had a culture of
large-scale gun ownership, could display the same inherent respect were the
law here to be suddenly changed.)

Until a few years ago it was possible for a UK ctizen to legally own a
pistol for competition, but following a single well-publicised incident
where a legitimate owner turned his guns on a playground full of children
the law was changed to ban ownership outright, rather than address the
failings of the licensing system that enabled an unstable individual to
obtain them. Having said that, most competitive target shooters accept that
gas-pistols are an acceptable, though not preferable, alternative.

Si

In message , Jim Yanik
writes
"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
:
I certainly have nothing against what some people want to believe
UNTIL IT IMPACTS ME and MINE. You don't like freedom?...then stay
out of free countries. Certainly don't cry when you get your
fingers slapped for forcing your views on others thousands of
miles away.

Well,we now know that 9-11 was not the first attack on the US,there was the
first WTC bombing,two US embassies bombed,

You have embassies in your own country? Embassies are established
overseas.

the Khobar Towers bombing,

The Khobar Towers were in Saudi Arabia.

and the
USS Cole bombing.

The USS COLE was attacked in the Yemen.


As a firearms enthusiast, Jim, you might be familiar with the phrase
"going off half-cocked".

--
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 , 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

From: "Paul J. Adam"


As a firearms enthusiast, Jim, you might be familiar with the phrase
"going off half-cocked".


Paul, that term comes from having an accident while stuffing one's side arm
into the front waist of one's pants.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Then there was the T-38 with LAPD markings that appeared in the film
"Dragnet" (the Dan Aykroyd/Tom Hanks version)...

"Thank God it's Friday!!!"
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

In message , B2431
writes
From: "Paul J. Adam"
As a firearms enthusiast, Jim, you might be familiar with the phrase
"going off half-cocked".

Paul, that term comes from having an accident while stuffing one's side arm
into the front waist of one's pants.

Sorry, Dan, but it dates back to the flintlock days: back when you'd
half-cock your firelock so you could charge the pan, and a
fumble-fingered soldier or one cursed with a badly-made weapon
(remember, this was before mass production and interchangeable parts)
could discharge his weapon at an inopportune moment.

And whether you call the relevant garment pants, shorts or trousers, I
was only sticking a loaded and ready firearm in there if there was a
proper holster ready to receive it

--
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 message , B2431
writes
From: "Paul J. Adam"
As a firearms enthusiast, Jim, you might be familiar with the phrase
"going off half-cocked".

Paul, that term comes from having an accident while stuffing one's side arm
into the front waist of one's pants.


Dan may have been joking a little Paul

Sorry, Dan, but it dates back to the flintlock days: back when you'd
half-cock your firelock so you could charge the pan, and a
fumble-fingered soldier or one cursed with a badly-made weapon
(remember, this was before mass production and interchangeable parts)
could discharge his weapon at an inopportune moment.


That might have been so too , but modern weapons have that 'half
cock' feature, it's done to keep the hammer off the firing pin,
this position locks the hammer from being released by the
trigger, but you likely knew that already...now a question, do
you know how "flash in the pan" originated?





And whether you call the relevant garment pants, shorts or trousers, I
was only sticking a loaded and ready firearm in there if there was a
proper holster ready to receive it

--

-Gord.

"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.

From: "Paul J. Adam"


In message , B2431
writes
From: "Paul J. Adam"
As a firearms enthusiast, Jim, you might be familiar with the phrase
"going off half-cocked".

Paul, that term comes from having an accident while stuffing one's side arm
into the front waist of one's pants.

Sorry, Dan, but it dates back to the flintlock days: back when you'd
half-cock your firelock so you could charge the pan, and a
fumble-fingered soldier or one cursed with a badly-made weapon
(remember, this was before mass production and interchangeable parts)
could discharge his weapon at an inopportune moment.

And whether you call the relevant garment pants, shorts or trousers, I
was only sticking a loaded and ready firearm in there if there was a
proper holster ready to receive it

--

I keep forgetting some things don't translate into Brit. It's an old joke,
sorry.

I have shot matchlocks, a wheel lock, several flint and percussion weapons as
well as modern. I know what a half cock is.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired