Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:30:09 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik
wrote:

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.

Then why so many tales about hanging horse thieves?

Which is it? Either horses could be left unattended safely or horse
thieves stole them all the time and there were necktie parties
regularly.

Here in the "Not-so-wild West", it's possible to leave doors unlocked
and horses unattended, without much fear of theft.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 21:56:08 +0100, "James Hart"
wrote:

Mary Shafer wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 11:38:09 -0700, (Marc Reeve)
wrote:

Cartoon of a stretch of desert highway with the standard "Speed
checked by aircraft" sign, with an F-4 with CHP markings and a full
bomb load flying above.

I had that on a placard over my desk for years, except that the road
sign had an F-4 silhouette on it as well.

I found this one on the web a while back
http://jameshart.mine.nu/ngs/speedenforcementbyair.jpg

Netscape says it can't find this host. Maybe it's just my system or
ISP or something.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"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
:


"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%.

Figure of speech, used to emphasise the my point. Take your average American
(successful) burglar - I'd stake my mortgage on him being inside your house
with a gun. He wouldn't be successful for long were he not to carry a
weapon - let's face it, he probably wouldn't be alive for long either.

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

This was the point - a comparison between criminals who carry guns in the
US -vs.- those in the UK.


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.

Even accounting for the criminal-on-criminal murders in the US, you're still
several orders of magnitude out between the amount of murders in the US
relative to those within the UK per head of population. Of the former, 60%
are gun related. Obviously to decommission every gun in America is a
ludicrous proposal - you are now forced to live within this gun culture that
your country has grown up with.

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.

Certainly, nobody would wish for a shoot out. However, were I in America on
a burglary spree the likelihood of me coming across the police is a
possibility worth considering. Should those police be even a tiny bit as
trigger happy as yourself, they're likely to shoot me - certainly if I'm
doing a runner (as any criminal would). Therefore, a gun is my only option.
In a similar manner, the likelihood of coming across a well meaning ODC
makes a weapon a worthwhile investment.

WHERE do you get these wild ideas?

Reverse logic from your argument:
'He's got a gun and is happy to kill me' = 'I now carry a gun for
protection.'

Simple.




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.

I am no less willing for a **** to break into my house and swipe my Hi-Fi
than the next guy. I'll use reasonable force to apprehend him or at the very
least fend him off. However, I am not prepared to have the life of even the
most prolific burglar in my conscience for the sake of £600. Killing is
blatantly the ultimate sin, don't let a hot head tell you otherwise.

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.

I read the article. The reason I disagree with its conclusion is thus: the
UK and US are very different countries when it comes to the attitude toward
firearms. Prior to Dunblane and the severe restrictions imposed on gun
ownership, the situation was pretty much the same as it is now - on the
whole people were not readily prepared to kill. There was no significant
change in the amount of gun deaths in the UK after '96 since they had a low
occurrence rate previously, and they have thankfully remained low.

The presence of guns doesn't yield the murder rate; it is the attitude of
ready willingness to use them on another person.

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?

I don't suggest welcoming them with a guided tour and free evaluation of the
family heirlooms - let's not twist this. There are non-lethal ways to secure
and protect your home before you resort to sleeping with your Remington. If
you choose to shot to kill or maim in the defence of your possessions - face
the consequences of your actions. If you are correct to kill - let a jury
tell you so.

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.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that criminals forego a number of rights
when they enter your home, and I think it laughable that in the US a
criminal can sue for damages incurred whilst on your premises. However, the
most fundamental human right - life - is something neither you nor I can
deprive another of if he's simply stuffing your wris****ch into his pocket.

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.

Of course there should be a trial. If a man is murdered, whatever the
circumstances, society has a commitment to pursue justice. If your actions
are good and true - using an acceptable amount of force to repel an
attacker, yet killing him - then you should walk out of that trial a free
man. On the other hand, should you have used excessive force - that man's
life is on your hands and you are to be accountable for it.

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

"B2431" wrote in message
...
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.

The application of lethal force seems to be little else - this is the issue
I have with the use of firearms by untrained individuals for home
protection.

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.

I understand what you are explaining. I think it a little odd that, it at
least seems, people can be prepared to kill to avoid court action.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

From: "Jim Doyle"


"B2431" wrote in message

snip

I don't think a person should HAVE to fight with an intruder so I truly
believe
a law abiding citizen should be allowed to keep and carry loaded fire
arms.
Consideration must be given to the safety of children in the home.

Do you not fear that your children could be hurt by the very gun that is in
your hands to protect them?


If you can teach a child to not touch a stove burner you can teach him to leave
a fire arm alone. The firearm has to be available, not in plain sight. When
asked what the best type of home defense gun is I say double barrel shotgun
with the barrels sawn off at 18 inches. 18 inches is legal, 17.9 is not. You
don't need a 24 inch barrel in the house since the extra 6 inches will only
make things more difficult. The load should be 6 or 7 bird shot. This is going
to be stopped by drywall and glass. Yes, the window and wall will be ruined,
but all the energy of the shot will be expended in doing so. If the shot misses
the bad guy and goes out an open door or window it will have very little effect
across the street. At ranges you can expect inside a typical home the badguy
will get most of the shot between thigh and head if you point at center of
mass. Note I said "point" rather than aim. It's quicker. The second shot is
incase the badguy doesn't get the hint. No third shot is required since you can
tap the badguy with the barrels.

If you must use handgun ammunition you should use "prefragmented" ammunition
such as Mag-Safe or Glaser Safety Slugs since neither will ricochet and tend to
not penetrate walls.

The shotgun is best for someone with little or no training. If you aren't going
to the range avery few months the pistol isn't good because you need to be able
to handle it reflexively.

Above all treat all fireams as loaded. This tends to reduce accidents.

Bear in mind when the gun makers make an idiot proof gun someone will come up
with an improved idiot.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

"B2431" wrote:

Why should one be forced into "getting out of" his residence?

You're not, in the UK. There's a general "duty of retreat" - if someone gets
in your face and shouts insults, you're expected to back off rather than hit
him, and if he pursues then his intentions are obviously hostile - but it's
accepted that once in your own home you've run out of places to retreat to,
and should not be forced to flee.

I gather that doesn't apply in some US states, which is interesting.

Some? Try ALL!!

It's no wonder that so many European countries are
exercising their "duty of retreat". If such a thing
is indeed a legal principle, I imagine it stems from
centuries of nobility/serf contacts, where the poor
sod must never respond in kind to abuse from a nobleman.

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.

What makes you think if Reagan's ongoing War On Drugs can't shut down the meth
labs in the national forest behind my house that a War On Firearms is going to
be any more successful? We have the longest undefended borders in the world
here. You're an island. Maybe you can make it work. We can't.

Gun related deaths in the UK weighed in at 23 compared to over 10,000 in the
US for a similar time period. Granted, a large proportion of that 10,000 may
be gang related, or there may be other driving factors which are not so much
of an issue in the UK. I'm just speculating. However you look at it,
10,000's just staggering - that's Vietnam in five years.

Our population is several times yours, and it is spread over an area roughly
the size of Europe. The statistics you want, if you're to be honest with
yourself, are the numbers per. 100,000. I vaguely recall that our murder rate is
higher than yours but lower than the Baltic states. In every other sense, your
own society comes off far worse (which simply means you're passing through a
rough economic and demographic patch). Now. What does that tell you about your
prejudices -- and that's what they are -- regarding my people and *my* society?

This ethos of gun totting scares me rigid, how on earth can it be defended?
In the US the number of states permitting the concealed carriage of weapons
has risen from nine to 31 since 1986. That's just a step in the wrong
direction.

Before you get all worked up in this tearful frenzy over what the poor Americans
are inflicting upon themselves, why don't you -- if you really care -- do a bit
of research as to how many legally carried firearms were employed unlawfully
over the past few years?

And: Your understanding of American gun laws seems to be kind off off-kilter. I
can't *lawfully* wave a shotgun at some prick trying to steal my pickup truck.
That's called felony brandishment, and will earn me jail time. On the other
hand, if the sonofabitch comes inside and tries to harm me, it's reassuring to
know I can stop him cold, although I frankly can't fathom that happening in the
first place. Life here is so safe as to be boring.

You also seem to think that mere possession of a firearm makes an otherwise
ordinary human being susceptible to the equivelant of road rage. And if that
were true, Shasta County would be one of the bloodiest places on earth.

I wholeheartedly agree, but wouldn't you prefer those guys to not have ready
access to guns to facilitate those violent crimes?

How do you prevent that by the mere act of outlawing them? It didn't work for
grass or meth.

Or is it their right to
go about their criminal activities safe in the knowledge that they've a
weapon for self protection? Lunacy!

Here you are going off half-cocked again, and excuse me for calling you on it.
Please do go to the FBI's web site -- again, if you actually care -- and do some
research into how many legally-owned firearms were used in the commission of a
crime in the United States last year, or even in the last decade.

Look, I'm not laying out flame-bait for you. I'm not spewing smug rhetoric. I'm
saying, do what I did a few years ago and challenge your own assumptions. After
I got through looking at what the Centers for Disease Control and the Feds said
about gun crime in America, I felt a lot better as a gun owner. I can't recall
the exact figure off the top of my head, but the number is absurdly low. Single
digits of single digits.

I'm not desperately urging you guys to throw down your guns, shout
hallelujahs and join the British way of life.

I know. I know that.

I'm just fascinated as to why
you so readily defend your right to shoot someone where really no right
should exist.

As a mushy-squishy California LibDem who voted for Gore the last time around, I
have to honestly say that is -- to me -- a dismaying, disquieting, illiberal
sentiment, and I cannot fathom your mindset. We are just going to have to agree
to disagree on that one. Viscerally.

And now, having dispensed my Solomon-like wisdom to all and sundry, I will go
out and flop a slab of fresh tuna on the gas grill and make some fish tacos, and
I will sit on the back porch and eat them in the secure knowledge that despit
our guns and drugs and widespread poverty and petty sleazy white-trash
meannesses that Shasta County is *still* safer than Merrie Olde England.

"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


"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?

You seem to have this thing that life is SO precious that one should suffer
to have violent criminals loose in one's society.

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?

No,it's to stop the assault.If one were intent on killing,one would walk up
to the wounded person and give them a head shot at close range.THAT would
be acting as judge,jury,and executioner,and would be criminal.

But if it is fatal,well,no great loss.One less criminal to worry about.

Otherwise you'd pursue a non-lethal method of self-protection.

Which has a much higher chance of NOT WORKING,thus increasing the risk to
the ordinary decent citizen.Even the police have not managed to reliably
achieve this "non-lethal" stuff yet. You'd have people relying on less-than
reliable methods of self-defense,just to make YOU feel good.
Sorry,no thanks.


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.

Hey,it's THEY who would be sticking their neck into the guillotine,and thus
their choice to risk themselves.

OTOH,you would rather the ODCs bear the risks of being harmed,in the search
for some imaginary sense of security.You would rather that everyone suffer
the costs of crime,just because you believe criminal's lives are somehow
precious.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


"B2431" wrote in message
...
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.

The application of lethal force seems to be little else - this is the
issue I have with the use of firearms by untrained individuals for
home protection.

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.

I understand what you are explaining. I think it a little odd that, it
at least seems, people can be prepared to kill to avoid court action.

Yes,that IS a sad state of affairs,that people defending themselves would
be prosecuted for injuries suffered by the criminal while in the act of
committing the crime.


--
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
:


"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%.

Figure of speech, used to emphasise the my point. Take your average
American (successful) burglar - I'd stake my mortgage on him being
inside your house with a gun. He wouldn't be successful for long were
he not to carry a weapon - let's face it, he probably wouldn't be
alive for long either.

Well,that's not necessarily true;most households in the US do not have any
guns in them.Some locales prohibit it entirely.and most burglars do not
enter while armed,because most US burglaries are done to unoccupied
homes.They aren't expecting any confrontation.The areas with the strictest
gun control have the worst crime records.

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

This was the point - a comparison between criminals who carry guns in
the US -vs.- those in the UK.


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.

Even accounting for the criminal-on-criminal murders in the US, you're
still several orders of magnitude out between the amount of murders in
the US relative to those within the UK per head of population. Of the
former, 60% are gun related. Obviously to decommission every gun in
America is a ludicrous proposal - you are now forced to live within
this gun culture that your country has grown up with.

Heck,the country was CREATED by that "gun culture".
By armed revolution,which is why we have a 2nd Amendment.

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.

Certainly, nobody would wish for a shoot out. However, were I in
America on a burglary spree the likelihood of me coming across the
police is a possibility worth considering. Should those police be even
a tiny bit as trigger happy as yourself, they're likely to shoot me -
certainly if I'm doing a runner (as any criminal would).

Uh,thye're more likely to shoot you (as a criminal)if you are ARMED.
Police have to operate under stricter rules of conduct than ordinary
citizens,WRT firearm use.That's why criminals in the US fear the armed
citizen more than the police;they know the police have a duty to -arrest-
before shooting,while citiznes have greater leeway to shoot a criminal.(the
way it should be.)

Therefore, a
gun is my only option. In a similar manner, the likelihood of coming
across a well meaning ODC makes a weapon a worthwhile investment.

WHERE do you get these wild ideas?

Reverse logic from your argument:
'He's got a gun and is happy to kill me' = 'I now carry a gun for
protection.'

Simple.

But faulty logic.It just doesn't happen that way.




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.

I am no less willing for a **** to break into my house and swipe my
Hi-Fi than the next guy. I'll use reasonable force to apprehend him or
at the very least fend him off. However, I am not prepared to have the
life of even the most prolific burglar in my conscience for the sake
of £600. Killing is blatantly the ultimate sin, don't let a hot head
tell you otherwise.

Wrong.Even in the Bible and other religions,they recognize the right of
self-defense,and I'm not even a believer.


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.

I read the article. The reason I disagree with its conclusion is thus:
the UK and US are very different countries when it comes to the
attitude toward firearms. Prior to Dunblane and the severe
restrictions imposed on gun ownership, the situation was pretty much
the same as it is now - on the whole people were not readily prepared
to kill. There was no significant change in the amount of gun deaths
in the UK after '96 since they had a low occurrence rate previously,
and they have thankfully remained low.

The presence of guns doesn't yield the murder rate; it is the attitude
of ready willingness to use them on another person.

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?

I don't suggest welcoming them with a guided tour and free evaluation
of the family heirlooms - let's not twist this. There are non-lethal
ways to secure and protect your home before you resort to sleeping
with your Remington.

Yes,that worked SO well for the Queen,who had an intruder right in her
bedroom,or for George Harrsion,who could afford good security,yet still got
knifed nearly to death.


If you choose to shot to kill or maim in the
defence of your possessions - face the consequences of your actions.
If you are correct to kill - let a jury tell you so.

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.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that criminals forego a number of
rights when they enter your home, and I think it laughable that in the
US a criminal can sue for damages incurred whilst on your premises.
However, the most fundamental human right - life - is something
neither you nor I can deprive another of if he's simply stuffing your
wris****ch into his pocket.

How do I know he's just happy with doing only that? I don;t read minds,I
don't see into the future. If he doesn't comply with my instructions,so I
can call the police,I shoot him.He's a threat just being in my house.

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.

Of course there should be a trial.

An investigation to see if filing charges is necessary,yes.Otherwise,no.
If the shoot was justified,why should the victim suffer a trial? Any jury
would not have been there,would not know the risks or the situation.

If a man is murdered, whatever the
circumstances, society has a commitment to pursue justice. If your
actions are good and true - using an acceptable amount of force to
repel an attacker, yet killing him - then you should walk out of that
trial a free man. On the other hand, should you have used excessive
force - that man's life is on your hands and you are to be accountable
for it.

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