Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:
So you've got the crime anyway, and the armed criminals, and the
accidental deaths and suicides... and the answer is "more guns"?

In the hands of ODCs.yes.

How do you tell ODCs from criminals who haven't been convicted yet?

Removing the guns will not decrease crime,it has
the opposite effect,and is practically impossible.

Absolutely true: but it's a poor advertisment for the idea that a few
thousand weapons would transform the UK and turn it into a crime-free
paradise.

I'm arguing against transplanting US solutions to the UK, is all.

What's the property value that justifies homicide, out of interest?

Can I kill a man for stealing my car? (About $7,000 at last check).

you can use a gun to defend against a carjacking.

You don't get carjacked in the UK, Jim, it's on a par with elephant-rated
fatalities: you can find a couple but they're celebrated for their rarity.

Or you could use the gun to -safely- detain the thief,until police can
arrive.

I challenge him and he starts to run. Can I shoot him? If not, how do I
detain him?

Can I kill a man for stealing my watch? (About $100)

Well,to take that watch means he threatens force against you.

No, let's suppose I took it off to wash my hands in a public restroom, and
he snatches it up and runs. Can I shoot him in the back in order to reclaim
my watch?

Can I kill a man for stealing a loaf of bread?

If he does it by force or threat of force,yes.

He grabs it off a shelf in a supermarket and runs for the exit. Can I shoot
him?

Or you could use the gun to -safely- detain the thief,until police can
arrive.

How does one "safely" detain another with a firearm? If you're not willing
and ready to shoot, it's not effective: to be effective, it certainly can't
be safe (at least not for the detainee!) I'm not opposed to the concept, but
I'm trying to pare away the hyperbole and get to the facts of when you
*actually* are and are not allowed to use deadly force, rather than the
exaggerations spouted by both extremes.

Now,that UK man who shot the burglars in the back was justified,as the
police were of NO use,and he had suffered repeated burglaries.

No, he committed premeditated murder, and a jury agreed. (He'd have been
acquitted if he'd ceased fire when they fled: he might even have been
acquitted or had the charges downgraded if he'd told the truth. But to (a)
pursue the intruders and continue firing when they were in headlong flight,
and (b) to lie about events both to the police and to the court, convinced
the jury that he wasn't acting to defend himself but had planned and
prepared to kill.)

The police
failed in providing him security,so it fell upon himself to do so.

And he was entitled to do so: but not to cold-bloodedly plan the killing of
the next person to intrude.

Criminals should have no right to safety while commiting their crimes.

I'm a little uncertain about this one. I'd rather say that the burden of
proof is on the criminal to show that they were seriously mistreated. For
instance, a criminal has no right to protest about a householder using
reasonable force to drive them off, detain them or disable them. Even a
burglar is entitled to complain if the householder then starts applying
electroshock therapy or just a damn good kicking to "teach him a lesson", or
just for amusement.

You try to equate the value of a possession against a criminal's life,

I'm just curious where the threshold falls for the use of deadly force and
its attendant risks.

but
the true and higher cost is the lack of security and freedom to own
property.

Again, I can only presume life is much more difficult and dangerous where
you live, that so much theft happens in plain sight and unprevented.
Property theft here is done where nobody's looking, so issuing firearms
wouldn't help.

--
Paul J. Adam

"Kerryn Offord" wrote in message
...


Jim Yanik wrote:

SNIP
Now,that UK man who shot the burglars in the back was justified,as the
police were of NO use,and he had suffered repeated burglaries.The police
failed in providing him security,so it fell upon himself to do so.
Criminals should have no right to safety while commiting their crimes.
SNIP

This is simply attempted murder. The target was no threat and was
departing, but the householder shot him anyway (that makes it vindictive).

If the householder had just shot the guy in the chest when he first
confronted him....

It seems to come down to a difference in attitudes.

This reminds me of an incident in Northern Ireland:

A squaddie was manning a vehicle checkpoint as a car approached at speed -
with obvious hostile intent. The passenger in the car opened fire on the
checkpoint, and so - understandably - the soldier returned fire. The car
passed and nobody had scored a hit, unfortunately though, as the car
accelerated away the soldier killed one of the occupants (ISTR the driver).
Since the lethal shot was fired with the car having passed - that soldier
was successfully charged with manslaughter and went to prison.

Tricky to decide whether that soldier was right to fire, and I would argue
that he was. NI SOPs decided he wasn't (and I think there was a political
move to show him little leniency), but this is a good example of the mindset
within the UK that a number of you US guys cannot fathom. Reasonable force
has its limits and the particular point of the scenario/situation when force
is applied successfully goes a long way to determine the legality of your
actions.


Americans hold everybody else's life cheap (cheaper than the cheapest
bit of property).

Uk/NZ and others consider both lives of value, but allow reasonable
force in defence of self or others (defence of property is different).

"Jim Doyle" wrote in message
...



This reminds me of an incident in Northern Ireland:

A squaddie was manning a vehicle checkpoint as a car approached at speed -
with obvious hostile intent. The passenger in the car opened fire on the
checkpoint, and so - understandably - the soldier returned fire. The car
passed and nobody had scored a hit, unfortunately though, as the car
accelerated away the soldier killed one of the occupants (ISTR the
driver).
Since the lethal shot was fired with the car having passed - that soldier
was successfully charged with manslaughter and went to prison.

Tricky to decide whether that soldier was right to fire, and I would argue
that he was. NI SOPs decided he wasn't (and I think there was a political
move to show him little leniency),

In fact he was cleared of manslaughter on appeal.

Keith

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:
Of course, and always have been, but they don't get used for burglary.

Because they know they are safe,protected by UK's laws against self-
defense,at the expense of the citizenry.

Or because they can't afford guns, because if they had that sort of cash
they wouldn't be out burgling or nicking car stereos. And because if they
*had* a gun they'd use it for something more lucrative.

Appeasement,that's what it is.

If you think any intruder in my house is safe, then come and try to break
in. Stop trying to tell us what life's like here.

Are you carrying elephant repellant, Jim? You *could* be trampled to
death by a herd of rogue elephants at any time, you know. I can sell
you, for just $5,000 cash, a guaranteed anti-elephant formula that
will protect you.

Admittedly, you might consider "the odds" of elephant-related death
rather low, but can you afford to take chances with your safety?

well,now you're talking nonsense.

No, not at all! Why, it's terrifying - *terrifying* - how lethal those
elephants are.

"AN ELEPHANT CRUSHED MY SISTER TO DEATH", Daily Mirror, 23 April 2004

"Andrea Taylor, 20, suffered fatal internal injuries after she was attacked
by the rampaging elephant in April last year."
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1325367.stm)

" Jerry Finley, an American, was visiting the zoo with his 14-year-old
daughter and seven-year-old son on October 20 last year. He said that Mr
Robson appeared to know that the elephant was out to kill him from the
moment she knocked him to the ground. "I believe that the elephant attacked
with intent to kill the man, the attack was continuous and never stopped
once it had started," Mr Finley told the court. "The guy never had a
chance."

"The four-tonne Asian elephant named Kumara struck Richard Hughes, 34, with
her trunk and then butted him as he was forced against a wall. Mr
Hughes...died in hospital nine days later."

"The owner of Seven Star Circus and two trainers were arrested and charged
with negligence after a chained elephant grabbed a 10-year-old boy with her
trunk, threw him to the ground, and trampled him to death."

"An elephant at a circus killed a 10-year-old boy after knocking him down
during a circus performance."

"One of the elephants, Frieda, had killed Joan Scovell, 47, of New London,
Conn., in 1985 by grabbing the woman with her trunk and throwing her down to
the ground in a parking lot of the New London Mall."

"An elephant... trampled two men to death before being shot and killed by
police."

"Tyke, an elephant with Circus International, killed her trainer and stomped
and injured a circus groom and a dozen spectators. Tyke had run amok just
before her performance, breaking out of the arena and leading police on a
chase down several city blocks until they shot her to death with almost 100
bullets. This was the second elephant incident at the circus in as many
weeks."

"An elephant crushed a man to death by pinning him against a trailer"


So, Jim, what measures are you taking against elephant-related death? Your
chance of being killed by an elephant are on a par with my being shot to
death by a criminal (both well under one in a million): I'll change my
lifestyle
if you change yours

But actually,in parts of the US,attacks by
large animals such as bears or cougars is a fair possibility.

Yep, there's a thread on the subject elsewhere. If I were living in the US
I'd eagerly investigate the options for acquiring a firearm or two: mostly
for entertainment but with security in mind. Different place, different
needs.

Thanks, but we like having handguns be rare and unusual. You do it
your way, we'll do it ours.

yes,keep those criminals safe,while your citizens suffer crimes.

I'm not quite sure how proliferating firearms is going to help the
situation. Most British citizens aren't familiar with firearms, don't
particularly want them around and don't see why they should spend
significant sums on buying, properly securing, and becoming proficient with
a weapon when they have no particular need. One reason the 1997 handgun ban
passed easily was that very few people owned and shot them, and the
political pressure was all to ban those horrid nasty implements of Death.

On the other hand, I can see the many criminals who haven't suffered
conviction yet considering this would be Christmas come early, buying
weapons for resale to those less able to legally purchase. (One presumes
that background checks, limits on purchases, and any attempt to track
weapons once sold would be considered as unfair and unreasonable in the UK
as they would in the US)

End result? Unarmed citizens, but the Bad Guys have even freer access to
weapons. Not sure why this is supposed to help. Presumably some ODCs will
then buy weapons, but isn't that a little late?


Folks like me who *did* happily pay up to turn a few hundred rounds a week
into .45-calibre holes in paper were a rarity.

Appease them.

No, keep them disarmed as a rule.

Not if one or two of the group have guns: outnumbered and outgunned is
a bad place to be.

You're STILL better off than being unarmed.

Why? Dead is still dead.

And at least you will get some
of them before they get you,maybe even the ones with the guns.

And this makes you "less dead" how, precisely?

Then the
next
group will have second thoughts about trying such attacks against
others.

And this helps *you* how, precisely? Meanwhile that gang now have more
weapons to play with.

If these armed gangs aren't deterred by one in four USAians owning firearms,
what level of ownership is needed before they stop their rampages?

Meanwhile we're largely bereft of such gangs and like things that way.

Thus leaving the ODC open to a lifetime of legal nightmares,
apparently.

Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

My attitude precisely, but then others claim the advantage of "shoot early,
shoot often" is that dead men can't sue. (Which appears to suppose that
killing strangers on suspicion is viewed with enthusiasm...)

Where are you keeping it while you're asleep?

Nunya bidness.

I just remember the rules I learned in the Army: I don't think my wife would
appreciate sharing our bed with a firearm of any type.

(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)

Well,so she was caught unawares;that's the result of a false sense of
security that the UK residents have,from their "gun control".

So having more weapons means we get to be perpetually paranoid?

Give her a gun. Give her two guns. Give her a hundred guns. What's the
difference? No matter how heavily armed she was or was not, she was killed
on her doorstep by an assailant she never saw.

You seem to be advocating that more weapons will make us safer, which means
we'll all be much more paranoid... doesn't compute, Jim. Either being armed
makes us safer, or it makes us more alert and aware, but you don't go to
higher alert states because the risk level dropped.

And how "being armed" is far from the panacea quoted. Note also that
this incident was five years ago - haven't you had any other examples
to cite?

Why,what's changed in the last 5 years? Nothing.But UK gun crimes have
risen every year,I believe,despite gun "control".

Yeah, I think we had 23 killed last year as opposed to 17 in 1999. That's
*how* much more dangerous than the US?

(Remember, Jim, someone using a banana in his pocket as a 'gun' is a firearm
crime in the UK. Be careful what you're claiming.)

--
Paul J. Adam

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...


Why,what's changed in the last 5 years? Nothing.But UK gun crimes have
risen every year,I believe,despite gun "control".

Yeah, I think we had 23 killed last year as opposed to 17 in 1999. That's
*how* much more dangerous than the US?


Last year in fact there was a drop of 16% of robberies involving
guns and a drop of 13% in homicides involving firearms.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime/guncrime/index.html

The same source also points out than only 0.5% of crimes
reported to the police involve the use,possession or
threat of use of firearms

A more telling statistic is that of the number of police
officers killed and injured by firearms during the
course of their duty. In the 10 years between 1992 and
2002 there were exactly 3 police officers killed and
40 seriously injured.

The equivalent figures for the USA are 1,533 killed and
23,000 seriously injured.

Perhaps this explains why all the coppers I know
prefer tight gun control, none of them are armed
themselves of course.

Keith

(B2431) wrote in news:20040422230342.01093.00000270@mb-
m17.aol.com:

From: Kerryn Offord


Americans hold everybody else's life cheap (cheaper than the cheapest
bit of property).

Uk/NZ and others consider both lives of value, but allow reasonable
force in defence of self or others (defence of property is different).

Well, that ends my discussion with you. Have a nice day.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I guess the value of having criminals is that the gov't can hire more
police,increase taxes,and expand itself more.
Shoot criminals,and the police forces will have to be downsized,and then
taxes reduced or used for other purposes.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Kerryn Offord wrote in
:



Tank Fixer wrote:

In article ,
on Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:54:45 +1200,
Kerryn Offord attempted to say .....


This only applies to convicted felons.. nothing to stop someone who
has never been convicted from legally owning and carrying a firearm
in the course of his 'employment'... there might be problems if he is
caught in the act while armed... but maybe he shoots his way free and
continue as a non felon.



If someone wants to kill you what makes you think they have to have a
gun to do it ?


No reason, but in this thread its been suggested that the guy breaking
into your house is illegally carrying a weapon.....


Or he could pick up some item from your home to use as a weapon.
Even his bare hands can kill.
Or worse,you could be crippled,paralyzed from the neck down.


Probably more people die from application of a blunt instrument than
die from firearms (lets restrict this to individual cases of murder,
not the rampages such as Rwanda... where machetes find a niche)





--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:
So you've got the crime anyway, and the armed criminals, and the
accidental deaths and suicides... and the answer is "more guns"?

In the hands of ODCs.yes.

How do you tell ODCs from criminals who haven't been convicted yet?

If you see them commiting a crime,then they are criminals.If they have
committed no crimes,then they are ODCs.

Removing the guns will not decrease crime,it has
the opposite effect,and is practically impossible.

Absolutely true: but it's a poor advertisment for the idea that a few
thousand weapons would transform the UK and turn it into a crime-free
paradise.

Never claimed it would.It would allow ODCs to defend themselves with less
risk to themselves,though.Especially the elderly,infirm.

I'm arguing against transplanting US solutions to the UK, is all.

What's the property value that justifies homicide, out of interest?

Can I kill a man for stealing my car? (About $7,000 at last check).

you can use a gun to defend against a carjacking.

You don't get carjacked in the UK, Jim, it's on a par with
elephant-rated fatalities: you can find a couple but they're
celebrated for their rarity.

Or you could use the gun to -safely- detain the thief,until police
can arrive.

I challenge him and he starts to run. Can I shoot him? If not, how do
I detain him?

If he runs towards you,then you shoot him.If he runs away,then he gets
away.

Can I kill a man for stealing my watch? (About $100)

Well,to take that watch means he threatens force against you.

No, let's suppose I took it off to wash my hands in a public restroom,
and he snatches it up and runs. Can I shoot him in the back in order
to reclaim my watch?

Can I kill a man for stealing a loaf of bread?

If he does it by force or threat of force,yes.

He grabs it off a shelf in a supermarket and runs for the exit. Can I
shoot him?

I see where you are going here,and I'm not playing that game.

Or you could use the gun to -safely- detain the thief,until police
can arrive.

How does one "safely" detain another with a firearm? If you're not
willing and ready to shoot, it's not effective: to be effective, it
certainly can't be safe (at least not for the detainee!) I'm not
opposed to the concept, but I'm trying to pare away the hyperbole and
get to the facts of when you *actually* are and are not allowed to use
deadly force, rather than the exaggerations spouted by both extremes.

Now,that UK man who shot the burglars in the back was justified,as
the police were of NO use,and he had suffered repeated burglaries.

No, he committed premeditated murder, and a jury agreed.

Well,one of your appeasing jurys ruled that way.In the US,many jurys would
rule justifiable homicide.Some places would not even bring charges.

(He'd have
been acquitted if he'd ceased fire when they fled: he might even have
been acquitted or had the charges downgraded if he'd told the truth.
But to (a) pursue the intruders and continue firing when they were in
headlong flight, and (b) to lie about events both to the police and to
the court, convinced the jury that he wasn't acting to defend himself
but had planned and prepared to kill.)

And that's about the only way his burglaries would have been stopped.The
police failed him.

The police
failed in providing him security,so it fell upon himself to do so.

And he was entitled to do so: but not to cold-bloodedly plan the
killing of the next person to intrude.

Criminals should have no right to safety while commiting their
crimes.

I'm a little uncertain about this one. I'd rather say that the burden
of proof is on the criminal to show that they were seriously
mistreated. For instance, a criminal has no right to protest about a
householder using reasonable force to drive them off, detain them or
disable them. Even a burglar is entitled to complain if the
householder then starts applying electroshock therapy or just a damn
good kicking to "teach him a lesson", or just for amusement.

You try to equate the value of a possession against a criminal's
life,

I'm just curious where the threshold falls for the use of deadly force
and its attendant risks.

but
the true and higher cost is the lack of security and freedom to own
property.

Again, I can only presume life is much more difficult and dangerous
where you live, that so much theft happens in plain sight and
unprevented. Property theft here is done where nobody's looking, so
issuing firearms wouldn't help.

--
Paul J. Adam



So,you are saying there's no at-home burglaries in the UK? Iknow George
Harrison would have benefitted from having a handgun when that intruder
entered his home.Maybe he (and his wife)wouldn't have been stabbed so many
times.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:
Absolutely true: but it's a poor advertisment for the idea that a few
thousand weapons would transform the UK and turn it into a crime-free
paradise.

Never claimed it would.It would allow ODCs to defend themselves with less
risk to themselves,though.Especially the elderly,infirm.

Not if the criminals are aggressive, armed and practiced, and the ODCs are
not. It takes hard work, practice and a lot of rounds to become proficient
with a handgun.

I challenge him and he starts to run. Can I shoot him? If not, how do
I detain him?

If he runs towards you,then you shoot him.If he runs away,then he gets
away.

So in other words, exactly the same as in the UK: if I see him he runs away.

Why does adding firearms to the mix help matters?

He grabs it off a shelf in a supermarket and runs for the exit. Can I
shoot him?

I see where you are going here,and I'm not playing that game.

Dodging the question, Jim?

Someone snatches a loaf of bread and runs away. How many rounds are you
allowed to fire at his fleeing back, to prevent the theft? How much risk are
you allowed to take? If they're running through a crowd, how many bystanders
are you permitted to hit before your use of force becomes "unreasonable"?

No, he committed premeditated murder, and a jury agreed.

Well,one of your appeasing jurys ruled that way.

They saw the evidence, noted that the defended lied repeatedly, and drew
their own conclusions. That's the point of juries, Jim, they're selected
from your peers. If Martin had called the police and presented them with a
corpse whose wound was in the chest, he'd maybe have been hit for the
illegal firearm.

In the US,many jurys would
rule justifiable homicide.Some places would not even bring charges.

So, shooting fleeing and unarmed boys in the back and lying to the police is
acceptable behaviour in the US?

(He'd have
been acquitted if he'd ceased fire when they fled: he might even have
been acquitted or had the charges downgraded if he'd told the truth.
But to (a) pursue the intruders and continue firing when they were in
headlong flight, and (b) to lie about events both to the police and to
the court, convinced the jury that he wasn't acting to defend himself
but had planned and prepared to kill.)

And that's about the only way his burglaries would have been stopped.The
police failed him.

Sure, and nobody's denied it. On the other hand he was notably eccentric,
refused to fit the most basic security, and contributed a lot to his own
misfortune. You're entitled not to have your car stolen, but part of the
deal is not leaving it parked with the window open, door unlocked and keys
in the ignition.

Sitting up in the night with an illegal weapon waiting for intruders so you
can go downstairs and kill them (and then claim never to have left your
room)... that's not self-defence, that's premeditated murder.

Again, I can only presume life is much more difficult and dangerous
where you live, that so much theft happens in plain sight and
unprevented. Property theft here is done where nobody's looking, so
issuing firearms wouldn't help.

So,you are saying there's no at-home burglaries in the UK?

No, just that they're generally rare enough to make newspaper headlines.

Iknow George
Harrison would have benefitted from having a handgun when that intruder
entered his home.

Sure - how many years ago was that? He's been dead and buried for a while,
Jim. Don't you have any new examples? Or is life in the UK actually a lot
quieter and safer than your NRA tracts would like you to believe?

Maybe he (and his wife)wouldn't have been stabbed so many
times.

Or maybe a peacenik ex-Beatle wouldn't have owned a firearm even had the
option been open to him - ever pause to consider that?

--
Paul J. Adam

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...


Or maybe a peacenik ex-Beatle wouldn't have owned a firearm even had the
option been open to him - ever pause to consider that?


Its also worth recalling that the attacker was a paranoid schizophrenic
with an obsession about harrison and not a common burglar
and had no previous criminal record. In the US he like the
the man who shot John Lennon would have had access to a more lethal
weapon than a knife.

He was released in 2002 having responded to treatment
and had been symptom free for 2 years.

Keith