Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:

Jim Doyle wrote:

"Jim Yanik" wrote:
SNIP
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.

SNIP

This should be qualified.

The culture clash is only over hand guns and using firearms for self
defence (as a first line over and above getting out of there).

In the UK (also NZ) there is a long history of owning long arms (rifle,
shotgun), and basically they are 'easy' to buy.

In NZ you can use a firearm for self defence... but you must be 'in fear
of ....' for yourself or others. Using deadly force to protect property
is frowned upon. If you do shoot someone... if you shoot them in the
back, expect the police to take you to court. If the person is shot in
the front, depending on circumstances (anything short of fatal), the
police will not proceed. If the shooting is fatal a court (coroners)
must determine whether there is a case to answer. Historically, for a
shot in the front, while in fear of injury case, the court finds
self-defence.

The UK operates in a basically similar way.

"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:




Speaking as an ignorant grunt, does it not scare you ****less
that a 'citizen' is armed in the first place? It's hardly as if
he's fending away Indians from the homestead.

Yeah,like there aren't any criminals running loose preying on
ordinary decent citizens. (ODC's) A person was shot twice with a
small caliber gun in the building next to mine,in my apartment
complex. I heard the gunshots,saw the crooks driving off,gave a
report to the police about it.There's a lot of people who
successfully defend themselves with
firearms
every year(in the US).

Even in the UK,Jill Dando,BBC commentator,was shot and killed on
the
London
street,in front of her home.George Harrsion was nearly knifed to
death in his home,even with high security.His wife was also
wounded by the burglar.

Do you expect a elderly lady to defend herself against
larger,stronger young thugs unarmed?
Do you believe that police can be everywhere,to protect
everyone,24/7/365? It's not so.

I see your point, and sincerely, it is convincing. I just think of
the two alternatives - granted a defenceless lady has no capacity
to fend off a burglar and there is no way the police can prevent
him from breaking and entering - which is a sorry state of affairs.
However, were that lady armed with a 9mm, any sensible burglar
would still go to her home taking a pistol with him.

If he believed that she owned a gun,perhaps he would.However,I have
read
of
many such attempts where the lady or old guy was still able to get to
their
gun and either run off the crook,hold them for police,wound them (and
they get caught seeking medical treatment),or kill the crook,even
after being shot themselves.Allowing citizens firearms to defend
themselves increases the risks for the criminals,often to the point
they pick some other crime to commit.And it's far better than just
hoping the criminal has good intentions towards you.

Which is the safer situation for
the lady, neither are pleasant, but I would argue the former.

Replying to Matt Gunsch, I looked into the details:

In the UK for the year 2001 - 2002, there were 23 firearm deaths.
In 2000 (not the same year, but close enough) 66% of the 15,517
murders in America were caused by firearms - that's about 10,000.
Even accounting for the relative population sizes of the two
countries, you're still several orders of magnitude out - and that
does not include the number of accidental deaths caused by firearms
in the same time period.

Yes,but you still ignore the other *non-gun* crime that people in the
UK must endure.For instance,your at-home burglaries are much higher
than in the US.Also,your gun-crime IS increasing.

Firstly, I'd rather be punched than shot, so I'll happily endure the
other non gun crimes in the UK.

Except that UK gun laws do NOT prevent criminals from having guns.It only
prevents ODCs from having guns(for self-defense).You still could get
shot,or knifed,or clubbed,or simply beaten to death by a group or by
someone mcuh larger/stronger than you.


I have not, in my posts, stated that
the UK is some crime free haven, nor that the US is some 'Escape from
New York' style war-zone. Really, bad people exist in all societies,
just in some quite a few of them have guns.

You are incorrect to state that at-home burglaries are much higher in
the UK. 1,309 domestic burglaries occur per 100,000 population in the
US equating to a 1.3% chance of your VCR ending up in someone's swag
bag each year. Where as in England there is an average of 14.5
domestic burglaries per 1,000 households - being conservative and
assuming just two persons per household (the average is actually a
little over three) - that's 14.5 incidents per 2,000 population, i.e.
a 0.73% chance of being burgled.

Simply put, you are at least twice as likely to be burgled in the US
than UK, (although obviously it depends greatly upon the area in which
you live, since these burglaries will not be spread evenly throughout
either country's populace).

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html


http://www.cobras.org/usastats.htm
http://society.guardian.co.uk/social...1,761948,00.ht
ml



I see the reasoning behind a free choice to carry a gun in America,
and being a realist I would most likely keep a gun were I to live
there. I just think it a shame that so many are empowered with
deadly force that are so willing to use it.


Hey,sometimes it's a good thing to shoot a criminal.

Now tell me you're joking; that's just a ridiculous statement. It's
never a good thing to shoot anyone.

No,I am NOT joking.
Are you saying it's better to let a serial murderer or rapist escape than
shoot them? How about a terrorist bomber?
Why do you wish to protect criminals?


It's not as if each citizen receives a thorough briefing on the law
when they purchase their pistol, nor have they been deputised to shoot
perps by the local sheriff . As the judge, jury and literally the
executioner, you're doing as much a disservice to the public as the
chap you've just shot. The most basic appreciation of rudimentary
criminal justice yields at least that.

Hey,the criminal is the one who should bear the risks;if they get shot in
the commission of a crime,it's their own fault.And not every shot kills,so
shooting someone is NOT being "judge,jury and executioner".
Nice try at emotionalizing the issue,though.


They either get caught
on the spot,or while seeking medical care for their wounds,or get
killed.And thus they commit no further crimes.A service to the
public.

But in a free society,it should be the individuals choice to use
firearms to defend themselves.

Is it correct then that in a free society one person has the right to
take the life of another? Even if that guy is caught red handed
rifling through your smalls, it's indefensible.

If you believe your life to be in danger,or to stop a "forcible felony",yes
it is legal to use lethal force. And inside one's home,the "castle
doctrine" holds(in most locales);that they are not there for any good
purpose,that it's threat to your life.(Although you cannot shoot them in
the back,if they are fleeing,then they are not a threat anymore.)

These laws place the onus on the criminal,not the ODC,the way it SHOULD be.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


"Jay Stranahan" wrote in message
...
I see your point, and sincerely, it is convincing. I just think of
the
two
alternatives - granted a defenceless lady has no capacity to fend
off a burglar and there is no way the police can prevent him from
breaking and entering - which is a sorry state of affairs. However,
were that lady
armed
with a 9mm, any sensible burglar would still go to her home taking
a
pistol
with him. Which is the safer situation for the lady, neither are
pleasant,
but I would argue the former.

Okay, look.. I don't want to come off sounding like some
chest-beating right-wing arsehole, but.... look at what you just
wrote. Given the choice between self defense in her own home and
placing herself at the mercy of a
young
male intruder, the woman in question should throw herself on the
mercy of
the
intruder for *fear* that *he* might be armed.

I'm sorry, but that's loathesome. Is this what you would choose for
your
own
wife or mother?

Look, here's the deal - I would rather the lady not be burgled in the
first place - as anyone would. However that's trivial. Consider two
options, either neither the lady nor the burglars has a weapon or on
the flip side, they both do. Who is going to come out the better in a
shoot out? The granny? Certainly not, which is why it would be better
that there were no guns involved.

Well,you seem to be wrong here,as there was such an incident here in the
Central Florida area,and the 50 yr old lady came out alive,after receiving
two shots,but killed the stalker that smashed through her patio door,armed
with a gun and a piece of rope.And i've read of many others in the "Armed
Citizen" column of the NRA,which reprints articles -from US newspapers-
where ODCs have used firearms to defend themselves against criminals.
Legal,legitimate self-defenses.
At least allowing the granny to be armed -if she chooses-,gives her a fair
chance of defense,something you seem to wish to deny to citizens.
It certainly is NOT better that she not be armed and face an intruder.
No way,no matter how you spin it.





--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Would you kill a man if he tried to steal your car? Do you value
your pick-up over a man's life? Even if he is a ****?


in a minute. If he is stealing my truck, that I use to make my living with,
that might have the tools I use to make a living with, and is my only means to
get to work, then he is no more to me than a vermin to be delt with. If the the
criminals knew that the sentence for stealing a car was death or life in
prison, they might think otherwise. There is a reason they used to hang horse
thieves. A horse was a familys mean of survival, to plow the fields, to go into
town to get supplies, to hunt with. Today the car has replaced the horse.
Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Riding member of the
2003 world champion drill team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
GWRRA,NRA,GOA

(B2431) wrote:

From: "Gord Beaman"

"Jim Doyle" wrote:

Not too long ago I
visited the US and for a couple of nights stayed with a family - the father
kept a loaded AR15 (I think that was the designation, it was a semi
automatic version of the M16) and Browning 9mm for home protection. I saw no
need in that, apparently there'd not been a burglary in the neighbourhood
for over ten years - yet he slept beside these guns and freely admitted that
he'd shoot any burglar he found in his house, regardless of whether he was
carrying a gun or not.


Wow! ten years you say?...sure can't argue with success can you?
--

-Gord.

Gord, you missed the point. It seems he was saying you should only arm yourself
AFTER a crime has been committed. Tsk Tsk.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired and life member of NRA

Gee, I took it that he always kept his guns around and seeing as
how nobody'd been burglarized for ten years then it musta
worked...no?

(I think he meant that he'd shoot a burglar whether the -burglar-
was armed or not, right?)

--

-Gord.

Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:

Jim Doyle wrote:

"Jim Yanik" wrote:

Hey,sometimes it's a good thing to shoot a criminal.

Now tell me you're joking; that's just a ridiculous statement. It's never a
good thing to shoot anyone.

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 assure you he is not joking, nor is firearm defense an
innappropriate response to a home invasion. The only one
of your points upon which there will be wide agreement is
that it is never (or rather, rarely) a good thing to shoot
someone - just as it is rarely a good idea to bash in a
person's skull with a bat, or to carve their heart in half
with a kitchen knife.

However, when that person invades your home, clearly with
the intent to do you harm (as in a burglary; murderous
intent need not be present) - the only safe way to ensure
he does not do you physical harm, is with overwhelming
force... and the more efficient/effective your choice of
tools, the better.

It's not as if each citizen receives a thorough briefing on the law when
they purchase their pistol,

You'd be surprised; many states do. (Particularly where
"concealed carry" is available to non-convict and sane
citizens.)

nor have they been deputised to shoot perps by the local sheriff.

No one - including those living where effective means of self-
defense are denied to them - requires deputization in order to
defend themselves from harm.

Is it correct then that in a free society one person has the
right to take the life of another?

If that killing is the only way to defend yourself from harm,
yes - and the tool used to do the deed isn't germane to the
question: a brick can kill you just as dead as a bullet.

I fully concur...If -you're- the burglar who shows up uninvited
and unexpectadly at the foot of my bed at o dark thirty then
brace yourself for about four 9MM FMJ's to the chest.

I'll gladly discuss right and wrong later in daylight when I'm
fully dressed and have all my wits about me.

Thank you for listening.
--

-Gord.

In article ,
(miso) wrote:

Come on, you know the 2nd amendment refers to a state militia.

Nonsense; it refers to "the people", and notes "militia" as one reason
why the people should not be disarmed.

The militia, at the time, was defined as the citizenry in general,
capable of bearing arms for defense of themselves and the state ("state"
being a term of art referrring to a sovereign nation).

What part of "well regulated" don't you understand.

Define it for us.

As used at the time the 2nd was written.

(A timepiece can be "regulated", a shotgun can be "regulated", a
flintlock mechanism can be "regulated". In all cases, adjusted to peform
to a minimum standard.)

In article ,
"Jim Doyle" wrote:

Did it ever occur to you that one possible reason there
had been no burglaries there in the preceeding twelve years
is because many of his neighbors were similarly armed? (And
the burglars would naturally seek less-dangerous territory?)

Just wondering...

Sure, that's probably exactly why there were no burglaries in the area,
doesn't solve the problem though does it? He didn't have a sign in the
window advertising this vast arsenal and the desire to kill any sod who
breaks into his house - deterrents only work if they are known to be in
place

No, they actually work better if the would-be criminal is *uncertain*.

If the risk is analyzed and determined to be too high for comfort, he'll
go elsewhere or go into a different line of work (such as moving from
confrontational to non-confrontational types of crime).

In article ,
"Jim Doyle" wrote:

People will still burgle, if they're expecting armed resistance then it'll
just make them more desperate and quick to fire upon being approached.

Oddly enough, that doesn't seem to be the case. (The rate of burglary of
occupied homes in the U.S. is much lower than the equivalent rate in the
U.K., for example.)

10,000+ firearm deaths kinda speaks for itself.

No, mostly it speaks to a failed policy of Prohibition; most of the 10K
you cite are people engaged in one aspect or other of the illicit drug
trade.

From: Kerryn Offord

Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:

Jim Doyle wrote:

"Jim Yanik" wrote:
SNIP
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.

SNIP

This should be qualified.

The culture clash is only over hand guns and using firearms for self
defence (as a first line over and above getting out of there).


Why should one be forced into "getting out of" his residence? If you do that
you have lost whatever edge you may have over the intruder. If the intruder
intends harm he will follow you outside.

Let's say you have 2 children each in his own room, do you retreat alone, take
the time to grab one or both? In the time it takes to wake one child and
convince him he has to leave his home the badguy is on top of you.

OK, once you get outside then what? If the intruder follows you and is capable
of harming you he will still do so. Fight back once you are outside? With what?
At least you could get to the kitchen and grab a knife inside the home. What
if the resident is unable to defend himself or herself for whatever reason?

Let me ask you a question. Is the life of a criminal more important than yours?
OK, you let the badguy in, what then? You now have NO defense. What if the
badguy decides to rape you, your wife or child? What if he wants to beat a
family member? Don't tell me the family member will get over it, I have seen
life long physical and emotional injuries. Don't think that's bad enough? He's
in a position to kill all of you to eliminate witnesses. Why allow the badguy
to make the dicision to harm you?

You can't shoot to maim or wound because he can sue and probably win. You
really can't wait until his intentions are clear. If you can get him to stop
his attack without shooting do so, if not shoot.

In Florida the magic number is 21 feet. If the badguy has started his attack
and you shoot him dead he is likely to complete his actions up to 21 feet. You
may have a house with 21 foot rooms, most of us don't. The decision to shoot
has to be made in an instant.

In case you are wondering it breaks my heart when accidents happen such as
shooting one's own family member. Personally I want every citizen taught basic
firearms safety even if they are opposed to owning guns. They can use fake
guns. At the very least every child should be taught what to do if they find a
firearm. The NRA's Eddie Eagle program does just that.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired