Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

"N329DF" wrote in message
...
When I read this, my jaw just hit the desk. You are advocating the
concept
that a life is worth less that a few material goods. Don't you have third
party insurance in the US?

Where I live, we have the highest automobile theft rate in the US.

Aren't the criminals deterred by the armed citizens?

--
Paul J. Adam

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
. ..
While I can't say about NZ, the UK differs substantially from USian
practice
in that people who defend themselves (in their own homes or elsewhere) are
subject to routine second guessing as to the use of "excessive force" by
prosecutors. It seems (from this side of the pond) that there's strong
feeling among the "governing classes" that self-defense is illegimate
until
proven otherwise. This isn't a "guns" issue but a self-defense issue.

And this is largely thanks to a lot of misrepresentation and propaganda.

Fundamentally, if someone attacks you, or breaks into your house, then
you're allowed to use "reasonable force" to defend yourself, and anyone who
says the force used was "unreasonable" has to convice prosecutors and a jury
of that fact. Home invasion is unheard of where I live, and I certainly
don't take any special precautions beyond proper security: but if some
misguided individual *did* break in, then I would drive them away first and
worry about the consequences second, and not worry overmuch about doing so -
regardless of any injuries they might suffer in the meantime.

One key test is that they not have too many injuries in their back: once
they start running, you stop hurting them unless they show signs of turning
around. (Hence, Tony Martin, who was convicted only for the last shot which
he lied comprehensively about - unless you know of shotgun ammunition that
can make a formation turn around corners.)

Another is that you stay reasonably proportionate to the threat: burglars in
the UK don't have guns (if they had guns they wouldn't be piddling about
with burglary, unless you're being targeted for specific high-value goods)
so shooting them is likely to raise eyebrows and maybe charges. On the other
hand, the elderly may have more leeway: I used to shoot with a gentleman in
his seventies (who owned and shot well two .44 Magnums and a .45 Long Colt)
who kept a deactivated Lee-Enfield with fixed bayonet as a wall ornament in
his bedroom, and was quite prepared to demonstrate the CQB drills he'd
learned as a boy soldier on any intruders.

At his age, of course, he would be old and frail and frightened (well, he
did wear a copper bracelet because he had joint trouble, but refused to stop
shooting). I'd be able to get away with the rifle (even my deact Type 56-1
makes a good club) but probably not the finely-honed and pre-fixed bayonet.
For a young fit man that smacks of premeditation: for a 72-year-old war
veteran and pensioner it's a petty foible recalling old memories (patriotic
music swells, describing my friend's years of Navy service) or a misguided
precaution (cue violin-led pathos as the defence explains the fear this man
lived in)

In most places in the US, once an assailant crosses the line and begins an
assault, a homeowner can escalate to any level of violence he feels is
necessary to stop the assault. Note "assault" and _not_"battery".

The only difference in the UK is that the level of response has to be
"reasonable". Which means that being "assaulted" by a musclebound thug in
the middle of the night merits a much more vehement response, to being sworn
at and threatened by a seven-year-old child on your lawn on a Sunday
afternoon. Both are, after all, assault, although the likely consequences
are very different.

I presume multiple rounds of heavy-calibre gunfire are not *really*
considered legal, sensible and rational responses to the second case, even
in the US? If so, then the situation is less different than the
propagandists would have you believe.

--
Paul J. Adam

"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:





No, the life of a criminal of the type you describe is worthless.
Genuinely. Yet there is a distinction between him and some random
hard-up opportunist burglar with a family to feed. Granted, he's in
the wrong - but not deserving of a death sentence.

But it's the CRIMINAL'S risk.
OTOH,you would rather have the ODC bear the risks.

And once again,getting shot is NOT always a "death sentence".
Nice try at emotionalizing the issue,though.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:

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

Prevent, no. Seriously reduce the odds, yes. (And many of those 'guns'
are replicas, blank firers, air pistols or dodgy conversions - they
all count as "firearms" in the crime statistics. One guy tried to rob
a post office using two pieces of gas pipe taped together: that was a
'firearm crime')

But you CAN be killed by a converted blank gun,or a homemade gun,or
zipgun,and who know's the difference in what the criminal is pointing at
you.Even if it were an unloaded gun,who know's that?

Fact is;guns ARE available to criminals in the UK.When you start talking
about "odds" of one having a gun,it really doesn't matter.And of
course,there are OTHER deadly weapons,some present in your homes,like
kitchen knives.Or weapons of opportunity.But that should NOT restrict an
ODC from having the best weapon available,a firearm.


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.

And being armed would change what, precisely, if you're outnumbered
and surprised?

Quite often,a group will choose to flee rather than risk getting
shot,something life threatening and hard to explain to officials.

And being armed still betters YOUR chances against a group,better than any
other item or method.

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?

I think you'll find that you're legally allowed to defend yourself and
to prevent crimes, but shooting people in the back as they flee is not
generally allowed for either private citizens or police officers.

I think you'd find exceptions made for terrorist bombers or serial
killers/rapists.

Why do you wish to protect criminals?

A few years ago, a Scotsman was working in Texas. He made the mistake
of knocking on someone's door to ask for directions: the homeowner
shot the guy several times through the door and killed him. Was he a
"criminal"?

I don't know all the circumstances of that incident,so I can't say.

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.

You fire a weapon in my direction, you are making a deliberate attempt
to kill me, and I *will* take it extremely personally. Firing at
someone is "deadly force" and there's no way to weasel around it.

Sure it's deadly force.So what? It's still not being "judge,jury and
executioner".There's more than a good chance that you will not die.
The risk should be the criminals,not the ODCs.

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.

I've been told with a straight face that it's fair and reasonable to
shoot and kill trespassers. Someone sets a foot on your lawn and
you're allowed to kill them. Same poster claimed that this was
entirely right and reasonable.

Some states allow "defense of property".Although for just setting foot on
it seems unreasonable,without futher knowledge of the situation.

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.)

See above for the inconsistency.

Well,if the guy turns his back to you and reaches for a weapon,then it
would be allowable.It depends on the circumstances.

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

True here too: just no need for lots of handguns. Someone breaks into
your house, you're allowed to hurt them until they leave, and if they
try to come back you can hurt them some more. Just make sure that most
of the wounds are in their front, not their back.

Well,a handgun is much easier to wield in close quarters than a shotgun,and
also can be carried on one's person,concealed.Then they get protection
while outside the home.

(And for the endless whines about Jill Dando - she was shot in the
back of the head on her doorstep, caught completely unawares. She
could have had a MAC-10 in each hand and it wouldn't have made the
slightest difference)

--
Paul J. Adam



That just shows how one CAN get shot in LONDON,in -nice- places,and that
guns(handguns) ARE available in the UK,regardless of the UK gun laws.Too
many Britishers are unwilling to recognize that.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

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





No, the life of a criminal of the type you describe is worthless.
Genuinely. Yet there is a distinction between him and some random
hard-up opportunist burglar with a family to feed. Granted, he's in
the wrong - but not deserving of a death sentence.

But it's the CRIMINAL'S risk.
OTOH,you would rather have the ODC bear the risks.

'ODC' - surely that would indicate a responsibility to preserve life?

And once again,getting shot is NOT always a "death sentence".
Nice try at emotionalizing the issue,though.

The act of shooting at a person may result in their death. Luck of the draw
if it's not fatal, but the intention is to kill, is it not? Otherwise you'd
pursue a non-lethal method of self-protection.

So yes, you are engaging a person who could die as a result of your actions,
and according to you they deserve to die for the situation in which you both
find yourselves - that's as good as sentencing them to death. In fact - it
is.




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"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.


True, the law can never prevent the criminals from owning firearms,
and in recent years there's been a steady stream of weapons into the
UK from the Baltic States. However, a criminal in America is 99.9%
likely to own a gun and have it with him inside your house, in the UK
this is just not the case.

I'd like to know where you got this figure of 99%.

The type of criminal who carries a gun in
the UK is not petty enough to rob your home, they'll be bigfish.

The driving factor for an American criminal to carry a gun is to
protect himself from your 9mm.

No,you're wrong here.The purpose of a criminal carrying ANY weapon is to
put fear into their chosen victim,to allow him to dominate the situation,to
insure that the victim will not try to resist.Considering the fact that
most US citizens do not carry firearms,it would be illogical to think that
criminals carry guns to "protect" themselves against their victims.
Now,they do carry to protect themselves against -other- criminals. That's
where the larger number of US "gun murders" come from,criminal-criminal
shootings.Mostly drug related,too.

Also those of the police.

Wrong again.Criminals do not carry guns to "protect" themselves from
police.The last thing they want is to get in a shootout with police.
WHERE do you get these wild ideas?



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.

Yes,they don't need them in the UK because you folks are so willing to
stand by and allow them to make off with your possessions.


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


That, if anything, proves my point over yours. From the very first
line of your reference:
'The U.S. has a high gun murder rate, whereas a country like England
with strict gun controls has almost no gun murders and a very low
murder rate.'

Except that it was low BEFORE the UK gun control,showing that the presence
of guns is NOT the factor.That's the part you miss.

Although I appreciate that the website goes on to argue that gun
control is not the limiting factor - I disagree with those opinions
presented - yet the hard facts remain. Just look at that table.



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?

I have no desire to harbour/protect criminals, especially of the
variety you describe. They, frankly, are ****s and deserve everything
that is due them. There are of course various tiers of criminal and I
would argue that an opportunist burglar in to swipe your VCR is not
deserving of two in the chest and one in the head. They aren't all
baby-eating, gang rapists off on a busman's holiday to your front
room. You, as neither policeman nor judge, are not in the position to
legally deliver deadly force.


Well,you never KNOW until they've left and you still are unharmed.But why
should anyone stand aside and allow criminals to enter one's home and make
off with their possessions? Why minimize the risks for the criminal,and
force the ODCs to bear the risks?

So, yes, kill the ******* but face the repercussions.



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.

I am not the drama queen you seem to think I am. That phrase, cliché
that it is, is poignant nonetheless. I agree, criminals should bear
the responsibility of their actions over their victims. Yet regardless
of M-kills, K-kills, whichever, the concept of a citizen delivering
deadly force - successful or not - what would you call that person?


Someone who will not accept criminals rights over decent citizens rights.
The right to own property is part of being free.If others can enter your
home and steal with impunity,you have no freedom.


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.)

If I believed my life, or more importantly that of my wife or child,
to be in danger and lethal force were the only option, then yes I
would be fully prepared for trial over the legality of the death.

There's shouldn't even BE a trial in such circumstances as a criminal
inside one's home.If evidence shows a wrongful entry,then it's justifiable
homicide,or self-defense.
Either way,the criminal will NOT be doing it again,a BENEFIT to society.
Who knows how many others he would harm?

That's reasonable. What isn't reasonable is to fire upon a man you
find in your home who presently doesn't represent a life or death
situation. Hard to understand, I know, but you as a citizen has a duty
to all - fellow citizen and criminal alike - to preserve life.


His BEING THERE is a threat to my safety.
He's not there for any benign purpose,and I can't read minds or see the
future.I don't know what he may decide to do.
And he has NO right to my property.


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


Yes, I agree. As the onus should be on you to defend yourself at trial
for the death of whoever you shoot, let a jury decide your fate and
the legitimacy of your actions. There should be no 'Get out of jail
free' card - bedlam soon follows.

Jim Doyle



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net






--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


"N329DF" wrote in message
...
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.

When I read this, my jaw just hit the desk. You are advocating the
concept that a life is worth less that a few material goods.

Well,HIS life is not worth MY goods,to *me*. That's what matters.

He probably would not knowingly trade his life for my goods either.
He only commits such crimes thinking that he can avoid such risks.
Eliminate any possibility of such risks,and your crimes increase.
Increase the chances of life-threatening risks,and crime goes down.
Some of the worst places for crimes in the US are where guns are
restricted.

Don't you
have third party insurance in the US? I don't mean to be rude, but
drawing a comparison to 18th century policy just makes you look even
more out of the dark ages. Someone tell me - this isn't the genuine
feeling amongst all Americans?!

So,you would simply spread the costs of crime out over everyone else,rather
then stand up and defend what's yours? How brave of you.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:

"N329DF" wrote in message
...
When I read this, my jaw just hit the desk. You are advocating the
concept
that a life is worth less that a few material goods. Don't you have
third party insurance in the US?

Where I live, we have the highest automobile theft rate in the US.

Aren't the criminals deterred by the armed citizens?

--
Paul J. Adam




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.And in many states,defending property with lethal force IS
illegal,protecting the criminals,making it safer for them to commit such
crimes.

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.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

From: "Jim Doyle"



"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: Kerryn Offord

Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:

Jim Doyle wrote:

"Jim Yanik" wrote:
SNIP


Again, I think this boils down largely to a difference between our two
countries. Although the UK has crime, just as any other country, I have
never heard in all my years of such an incident as you describe above.
Although sadly, there's always a possibility that this may happen, we do not
live in fear of such horrors. If you do in America, then I completely
understand your motives for owning a weapon for home defence. But do you
really live in fear of this?

In some parts of the country home invasions are very real threats.

Can I ask of the circumstances you found yourself in when you drew your
weapon?

An individual pulled a knife on me. I drew my weapon, he backed down. Argument
was over.



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.

That's interesting and refreshing to see, genuinely. I have taken the
impression from the majority of post over the past couple of days that there
is a general blasé attitude toward firearms and killing in the US. I have
very limited knowledge of the NRA, but from what I can see they seem to
promote firearm awareness and safety - which can't be bad in anyone's book.
Are all firearms owners in the US members of the NRA?

Jim Doyle

It would be nice if all gun owners where NRA members, but it's not the case.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

From: "Jim Doyle"


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


No, the life of a criminal of the type you describe is worthless.
Genuinely. Yet there is a distinction between him and some random
hard-up opportunist burglar with a family to feed. Granted, he's in
the wrong - but not deserving of a death sentence.

But it's the CRIMINAL'S risk.
OTOH,you would rather have the ODC bear the risks.

'ODC' - surely that would indicate a responsibility to preserve life?

And once again,getting shot is NOT always a "death sentence".
Nice try at emotionalizing the issue,though.

The act of shooting at a person may result in their death. Luck of the draw
if it's not fatal, but the intention is to kill, is it not? Otherwise you'd
pursue a non-lethal method of self-protection.

So yes, you are engaging a person who could die as a result of your actions,
and according to you they deserve to die for the situation in which you both
find yourselves - that's as good as sentencing them to death. In fact - it
is.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

It is simply NOT a matter of being judge, jury and executioner. Shooting is not
the first choice. If the badguy doesn't retreat and you feel threatened then
it's the badguy's fault, no one else's.

Let's try a nonlethal analogy. Badguy enters your house and threatens your
children. You break his knee cap with a 9 iron. Badguy will never walk normal
again. Whose fault is it? The badguy set up the scenario, the badguy committed
a felony just entering an occupied dwelling (ever notice the penalties are
higher for occupied dwellings than for unoccupied? There's a reason) The bad
guy made threats. You have to act.

As an aside, I used to teach NRA courses including home protection. The word
kill is never used and part of the course is taught by a lawyer and/or a law
enforcement officer. We teach to "stop" the aggressor. If that means you have
to kill then do it.

In the United States laws suits are too common. The 9 iron scenario above would
most likely result in the home owner being sued with the bad guy winning.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired