Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

Mary Shafer wrote in
:

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?

Well,there was a lot sensationalization about the "Wild West".It's no
different than the "if it bleeds,it leads" type of reporting in our media
today.

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

But did it happen OFTEN? I don't believe so. Regularly,I don't believe
so,either.

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

Mary




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

(B2431) wrote in
:

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


About 4 million NRA members,about 70 million gun owners.
If Mr.Doyle is curious about the NRA,I suggest visit the NRA website and do
some reading.I hope he hassn't formed his opinion strictly from the media
output!

www.nra.org,and www.nra-ila.org.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

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


Gun Control's Twisted Outcome: Restricting firearms has helped make
England more crime-ridden than the U.S. By Joyce Lee Malcolm.

http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml



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


You will not get all the answers by comparing numbers of deaths.

There is a legacy of social differences in the US and UK regarding
immigration patterns of foreigners and treatment of minorities, and
crime rates can be traced back to this. The British avoided some of
these problems when they abandoned their colonies and the people in
them -- which meant they obviously abandoned attendant social problems
along with it. The rainy island of Britain is not exactly ideal for
large plantations, with the sun not shining very often. Unlike the
deep south of the United States, large British-owned plantations were
more common in their colonies, where slaves and indentured servants
could be carefully hidden from polite society in London.

Britain is not quite the melting pot of cultures that is America, but
it might be in the future. And the associated troubles are sure to
follow.

Steve Hix wrote:

In article ,
"Jim Doyle" wrote:

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

Just wondering...

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

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

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

Or, horror of horrors, get a job maybe... shudder
--

-Gord.

From: "Jim Doyle"


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Jim Doyle"


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


snip

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.

OK, let's try this on for size. The badguy victimizes me by entering my house
and threatens me. I settle the problem by adjusting his kneecap with a 9 iron.
The badguy will never walk normally nor will he be pain free again. So he sues
for violating his "civil rights," medical bills for care not received in prison
and "pain and suffering." Let's say he wins. In this country juries love
megamillion dollar awards. If it exceeds my insurance I may be forced to sell
my house and/or pay him from my earnings for many years, maybe life.

Why should I be victimized more than once? First he commits at least one felony
against me, second I have to defend myself against a second assault in court
and third he takes away my wealth, possessions and a portion of my life.

I don't advocate lethal force as first resort, but to prevent being judicially
and financially raped by the criminal again I would seriously keep that in
mind.

Keep in mind if the bad guy dies his next of kin can also sue me and possibly
win even if the killing was morally and legally justifiable.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

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

And here's a somewhat more old-fashioned one:
http://www.kjon.com/cartoons/gm-002.html

Sadly, no one seems to have the Phantom version online.
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

(B2431) wrote in
:

From: "Jim Doyle"


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Jim Doyle"


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


snip

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.

OK, let's try this on for size. The badguy victimizes me by entering
my house and threatens me. I settle the problem by adjusting his
kneecap with a 9 iron. The badguy will never walk normally nor will he
be pain free again. So he sues for violating his "civil rights,"
medical bills for care not received in prison and "pain and
suffering." Let's say he wins. In this country juries love megamillion
dollar awards. If it exceeds my insurance I may be forced to sell my
house and/or pay him from my earnings for many years, maybe life.

Why should I be victimized more than once? First he commits at least
one felony against me, second I have to defend myself against a second
assault in court and third he takes away my wealth, possessions and a
portion of my life.

I don't advocate lethal force as first resort, but to prevent being
judicially and financially raped by the criminal again I would
seriously keep that in mind.

Keep in mind if the bad guy dies his next of kin can also sue me and
possibly win even if the killing was morally and legally justifiable.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



Also the threat of retaliation or witness intimidation is drastically
reduced if the criminal was killed,intentionally or not.

Besides,you might not be in a position to apply a 9 iron,there might not be
room to swing a club,it could be blocked by something,or he might close
with you too quickly to strike effectively.Then the club may be used to
strangle you.(That's if you are physically capable of wielding such
weapons.Many people are not.)

A handgun,however CAN be used in close quarters,very effectively,by most
anyone.A much more effective equalizer.
Not much will block the bullet,either.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:
"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:
SNIP

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.


Use of a firearm is considered 'deadly force' (in NZ). By legal
definition, use of a firearm means intent to kill (unless no attempt is
made to fire at the person (shooting into the air etc.)

So, although not every shooting will result in death, legally you are
attempting to kill someone when you shoot at them (hence, 'death
sentence' and 'judge, jury, and executioner')

B2431 wrote:

From: "Jim Doyle"


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...

"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:
SNIP
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.

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 trouble is, this isn't what other people have been saying. Some have
been saying... more or less, that shooting is the first response to an
intruder.. even before you know anything about the intent (like, the
person knocking on the door asking "Excuse me, can you tell me where I
can find..."




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.


Someone breaks into your house and threatens the family... you can use
reasonable force to defend yourself or others... If the guy is still
alive afterwards... well, they was lucky... But you shouldn't have a
hand gun, and that shotgun had better have been secured when you grabbed
it (and got the ammo out of another locked cabinet). Technically you
shouldn't have the golf club lying handy (it implies premeditation,
however, I don't see a jury convicting and neither will the police), but
pulling one out of the golf bag is ok....



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 don't think any intruder who gets whacked while engaged in 'home
invasion' has a chance of even getting the case to court, let alone
winning. OTOH we tend not to sue at the drop of a hat in NZ...

As long as the householder used reasonable force there is no chance of
them being sued.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Jim Yanik wrote:

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:

SNIP
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.
SNIP

Jim, the not shooting them in the back is just another way of saying,
not shooting them once they are no longer a threat (as in they are
legging it out of there).

Coming up behind someone committing a violent crime (assault).. you'll
probably be able to use "reasonable force in the defence of another".
(As in the case of the father who whacked the intruder standing in the
dark over his daughter's bed... shooting the intruder in the back might
present some problems, trying to smash his head in with a cricket bat
contains the risks of collateral damage.)