Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

Come on, you know the 2nd amendment refers to a state militia. What
part of "well regulated" don't you understand.

Getting back to the Gone On Arrival dude, he made a blanket statement
that cops can't shoot. Read it and enjoy the odor of the company. He
hates cops, pure and simple, and that attitude is very common in the
NRA and Gone On Arrival crowd.

Jim Yanik wrote in message ...
(miso) wrote in
om:

I know exactly what I am talking about. The NRA types need to diss the
police to justify their need for weapons.

No,we realize that the police are not always around to protect us,so it
falls to ourselves to do so,and we want the best tools for the job.
Clue;the 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting or "sporting purposes".

You still don't know what you're talking about.

They do it all the time. It
makes the sane gun owners look bad. GOA types are worse. [GOA = Gone
On Arrival]

Jim Yanik wrote in message
...
(miso) wrote in
om:

It never fails. Those who spit on the cops are members of the NRA
or GOA.

That's hilarious,considering the NRA -runs- many police training
programs,and many police are NRA members.
IOW,you don't know what you're talking about.


iespam (N329DF) wrote in message
...
Wouldnt a cannon on a police helicopter solve a lot of
problems for law enforcement?


Let's see, the average cop on the street can't hit a thing with a
side arm unless he fires 10+ shots, and you want to give them a
cannon ?
Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Riding member of the
2003 world champion drill team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
GWRRA,NRA,GOA

"N329DF" wrote in message
...
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.


well you are a ignorant grunt. I would rather have a armed populas vs a
unarmed
one, I would rather be standing over a dead criminal that broke into my
house
vs have cops standing over my dead body cause they could not get there in
time.
A armed person is a citizen, a unarmed person is a subject

I guess that's borne of the amount of firearms used in crime (from
burglaries, robberies to muggings etc.) in the USA.

I am not on the troll here, I'm genuinely interested. 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.

There's protection - which I understand - and then there's taking the law
into your own hands, which can only become very dangerous for all involved,
burglar and homeowner alike.

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.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/a...nd_crime.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3112818.stm

Which is the safer society?

We both live in different situations - given the amount of gun crime in
America I understand your point of view, I just think it sad that people are
so ready to use deadly force. I see no defence for that.

Jim Doyle



Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Riding member of the
2003 world champion drill team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
GWRRA,NRA,GOA

"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. 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.

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.

Jim Doyle

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Jim Doyle wrote:


I am not on the troll here, I'm genuinely interested. 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 [...]

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...

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message
...
Jim Doyle wrote:


I am not on the troll here, I'm genuinely interested. 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 [...]

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.

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.
10,000+ firearm deaths kinda speaks for itself.

Jim Doyle

ure, 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.

would you want to break into a house not knowing if the homeowner is armed ?
Kind of make breaking and entering a iffy proprosal. The numbers are not always
correct, if you look at the number of youths that were killed, a large number
were gang/drug related, and to keep the numbers high, 20+ year olds were listed
as being youths. There is no record for the number of crimes that were stopped
by the mere presence of a firearm. I know for myself, that was 3 times, with
shots being fired once in the protection of my nieghbor and his son from a pair
of attacking Pitt Bulls.

Armed men are citizens, unarmed men are subjects


Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Riding member of the
2003 world champion drill team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
GWRRA,NRA,GOA

"N329DF" wrote in message
...
ure, 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.

would you want to break into a house not knowing if the homeowner is armed
?
Kind of make breaking and entering a iffy proprosal.


Well maybe but according to FBI statistics, a house, apartment or
condominium
is burglarized once every 15 seconds so its not exactly foolproof. A good
home
alarm system is generally considered to be a more effective deterrent.

Indeed the insurance companies will give hefty discount if an approved
system is fitted. Most burglars arent exactly the brightest fish in the
gene pool and a majority are opportunists who look for an
easy route in and out of a property. I rather doubt many are
aware of the guns owned by the home owner.

Keith

"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.

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.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.

Jim Doyle

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net






--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

(miso) wrote in
om:

Come on, you know the 2nd amendment refers to a state militia. What
part of "well regulated" don't you understand.

And just WHAT does it say about that "well-regulated militia"? That it's
necessary to a free state,NOTHING more.It does not require membership in
any militia to keep or bear arms. And it goes on to state that the RIGHT is
"of the PEOPLE",not a militia.Learn to read.
Further,most of the Founders writings indicated that they intended that
every free man be armed.(if they choose)

Getting back to the Gone On Arrival dude, he made a blanket statement
that cops can't shoot. Read it and enjoy the odor of the company. He
hates cops, pure and simple, and that attitude is very common in the
NRA and Gone On Arrival crowd.

How would you know that's the attitude of the "NRA crowd"?
Did you do a survey? Where's your source for this?
You know nothing about the NRA or what they are for.
I suspect the same goes for GOA and it's members.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Jim Doyle" wrote in
news

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message
...
Jim Doyle wrote:


I am not on the troll here, I'm genuinely interested. 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 [...]

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.

Not true.If a significant number of homes are suspected of being armed,the
odds of being shot while making a burglary attempt are much greater.And
even the unarmed homes are safer,as the criminals have no way of knowing
WHOSE homes are armed. It's like those businesses that post "NO guns
allowed" signs are prime targets for crime,because the crims can count on
no one inside being armed,thus vulnerable,AND safer for the criminal.

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. 10,000+ firearm deaths kinda speaks for itself.

Jim Doyle



But you wrongly assume that the crims will *know* that armed resistance is
possible.Also,criminals do not want to risk any shootouts,as the chances of
THEM getting shot is high,and the noise draws attention.

They prefer unarmed victims,and surveys of incarcerated felons have shown
this to be true.
And much of those firaearm deaths are criminal-criminal shootings,like
druggies fighting it out.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net