Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

"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. 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.

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.cobras.org/usastats.htm
http://society.guardian.co.uk/social...761948,00.html



I see the reasoning behind a free choice to carry a gun in America,
and being a realist I would most likely keep a gun were I to live
there. I just think it a shame that so many are empowered with deadly
force that are so willing to use it.


Hey,sometimes it's a good thing to shoot a criminal.

Now tell me you're joking; that's just a ridiculous statement. It's never a
good thing to shoot anyone.

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.

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.

Jim Doyle

I see your point, and sincerely, it is convincing. I just think of the two
alternatives - granted a defenceless lady has no capacity to fend off a
burglar and there is no way the police can prevent him from breaking and
entering - which is a sorry state of affairs. However, were that lady armed
with a 9mm, any sensible burglar would still go to her home taking a pistol
with him. Which is the safer situation for the lady, neither are pleasant,
but I would argue the former.

Okay, look.. I don't want to come off sounding like some chest-beating
right-wing arsehole, but.... look at what you just wrote. Given the choice
between self defense in her own home and placing herself at the mercy of a young
male intruder, the woman in question should throw herself on the mercy of the
intruder for *fear* that *he* might be armed.

I'm sorry, but that's loathesome. Is this what you would choose for your own
wife or mother?

And since I'm in a state of high dudgeon at the moment, here's a link on violent
crime for the year in question from -- no, not some NRA think tank, but The
Economist:

http://www.economist.com/displayStor...tory_ID=513031

Britain doesn't come off too well.

Here's another link from the Bureau of Justice. More Americans kill themselves
with firearms than use them to commit any sort of crime. (Nothing to be proud
of, for Christ's sake, but revealing).

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm

And at any rate, this is all so much ****ing in the wind. The primary causes of
crime are demographic and economic: The more jobless young men you have running
around, the bigger the spike in crime. Demographers have been pointing this out
for a long time, but they don't seem to make much of a dent in the whole
crime/punishment/gun debate. I'm convinced culture also plays a part, as fuzzy
and un-quantifiable as that may sound. I live in rural northern California,
where we have no shortage of mean/stupid druggies/alcoholics/just plain crazies,
and where the percentage of people on some kind of state support is in the
double digits, and where pot and meth are to be easily manufactured and
purchased, and where absolutely every house has *several* longarms in it...

.....and yet out of 150,000-odd people, we had something like 380 violent crimes
in 2001, including two murders (neither of which were gun-related). Which was
damned alarming, because most years it's zero. I know that doesn't fit your
prejudices -- about firearms in general, or about my people, or about the
society we live in -- but there it is.

Make of it what you like, city boy.

"Jim Doyle" wrote:

Not too long ago I
visited the US and for a couple of nights stayed with a family - the father
kept a loaded AR15 (I think that was the designation, it was a semi
automatic version of the M16) and Browning 9mm for home protection. I saw no
need in that, apparently there'd not been a burglary in the neighbourhood
for over ten years - yet he slept beside these guns and freely admitted that
he'd shoot any burglar he found in his house, regardless of whether he was
carrying a gun or not.


Wow! ten years you say?...sure can't argue with success can you?
--

-Gord.

Speaking as an ignorant grunt, does it not scare you ****less that
a 'citizen' is armed in the first place?

Hardly...but then, I'm not a burglar...
--

-Gord.

Mary Shafer wrote:

Might you be thinking of the old prohibition of ejection seats in
private aircraft? That was about the pyros, I believe. However, it's
long gone and ejections seats are legal if maintained properly.

Mary

.....aaaand if you can afford to, I understand that the
certification process is sinful expensive...
--

-Gord.

From: "Gord Beaman"

"Jim Doyle" wrote:

Not too long ago I
visited the US and for a couple of nights stayed with a family - the father
kept a loaded AR15 (I think that was the designation, it was a semi
automatic version of the M16) and Browning 9mm for home protection. I saw no
need in that, apparently there'd not been a burglary in the neighbourhood
for over ten years - yet he slept beside these guns and freely admitted that
he'd shoot any burglar he found in his house, regardless of whether he was
carrying a gun or not.


Wow! ten years you say?...sure can't argue with success can you?
--

-Gord.

Gord, you missed the point. It seems he was saying you should only arm yourself
AFTER a crime has been committed. Tsk Tsk.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired and life member of NRA

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

--
James...
www.jameshart.co.uk

"Jay Stranahan" wrote in message
...
I see your point, and sincerely, it is convincing. I just think of the
two
alternatives - granted a defenceless lady has no capacity to fend off a
burglar and there is no way the police can prevent him from breaking and
entering - which is a sorry state of affairs. However, were that lady
armed
with a 9mm, any sensible burglar would still go to her home taking a
pistol
with him. Which is the safer situation for the lady, neither are
pleasant,
but I would argue the former.

Okay, look.. I don't want to come off sounding like some chest-beating
right-wing arsehole, but.... look at what you just wrote. Given the choice
between self defense in her own home and placing herself at the mercy of a
young
male intruder, the woman in question should throw herself on the mercy of
the
intruder for *fear* that *he* might be armed.

I'm sorry, but that's loathesome. Is this what you would choose for your
own
wife or mother?

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.

Of course this is purely academic since America has a firmly established gun
culture - don't forget you're talking to a Brit where the prospect of a some
opportunist burglar entering my house with a handgun is frankly zero. In
America, this is not the case, so give the poor granny an uzi and I wish her
every success.

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.

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. 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 ****?


And since I'm in a state of high dudgeon at the moment, here's a link on
violent
crime for the year in question from -- no, not some NRA think tank, but
The
Economist:

http://www.economist.com/displayStor...tory_ID=513031

Britain doesn't come off too well.

Certainly doesn't, and that's a shame.

Here's another link from the Bureau of Justice. More Americans kill
themselves
with firearms than use them to commit any sort of crime. (Nothing to be
proud
of, for Christ's sake, but revealing).

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm

And at any rate, this is all so much ****ing in the wind. The primary
causes of
crime are demographic and economic: The more jobless young men you have
running
around, the bigger the spike in crime. Demographers have been pointing
this out
for a long time, but they don't seem to make much of a dent in the whole
crime/punishment/gun debate.

I wholeheartedly agree, but wouldn't you prefer those guys to not have ready
access to guns to facilitate those violent crimes? Or is it their right to
go about their criminal activities safe in the knowledge that they've a
weapon for self protection? Lunacy!

I'm convinced culture also plays a part, as fuzzy
and un-quantifiable as that may sound. I live in rural northern
California,
where we have no shortage of mean/stupid druggies/alcoholics/just plain
crazies,
and where the percentage of people on some kind of state support is in the
double digits, and where pot and meth are to be easily manufactured and
purchased, and where absolutely every house has *several* longarms in
it...

....and yet out of 150,000-odd people, we had something like 380 violent
crimes
in 2001, including two murders (neither of which were gun-related). Which
was
damned alarming, because most years it's zero. I know that doesn't fit
your
prejudices -- about firearms in general, or about my people, or about the
society we live in -- but there it is.

I'm not desperately urging you guys to throw down your guns, shout
hallelujahs and join the British way of life. I'm just fascinated as to why
you so readily defend your right to shoot someone where really no right
should exist.


Make of it what you like, city boy.


Call me what you like.

Jim Doyle

Jim Doyle wrote:

"Jim Yanik" wrote:

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.

Well, there is a definite historical culture clash between Brits
and Americans concerning personal ownership of firearms (and that
alone is hard to overcome) - but it actually goes much deeper than
the legal mechanics of private gun ownership.

I assure you he is not joking, nor is firearm defense an
innappropriate response to a home invasion. The only one
of your points upon which there will be wide agreement is
that it is never (or rather, rarely) a good thing to shoot
someone - just as it is rarely a good idea to bash in a
person's skull with a bat, or to carve their heart in half
with a kitchen knife.

However, when that person invades your home, clearly with
the intent to do you harm (as in a burglary; murderous
intent need not be present) - the only safe way to ensure
he does not do you physical harm, is with overwhelming
force... and the more efficient/effective your choice of
tools, the better.

It's not as if each citizen receives a thorough briefing on the law when
they purchase their pistol,

You'd be surprised; many states do. (Particularly where
"concealed carry" is available to non-convict and sane
citizens.)

nor have they been deputised to shoot perps by the local sheriff.

No one - including those living where effective means of self-
defense are denied to them - requires deputization in order to
defend themselves from harm.

Is it correct then that in a free society one person has the
right to take the life of another?

If that killing is the only way to defend yourself from harm,
yes - and the tool used to do the deed isn't germane to the
question: a brick can kill you just as dead as a bullet.

From: "Jim Doyle"


snip

I'm not desperately urging you guys to throw down your guns, shout
hallelujahs and join the British way of life. I'm just fascinated as to why
you so readily defend your right to shoot someone where really no right
should exist.


Jim Doyle

I don't think anyone is advocating shooting anyone. I personally have drawn my
weapon and it ended peacefully. No, I'm not law enforecment.

Having said that there is a real fear of injury or death at the hands of
criminals. I used to own a sporting goods store that sold guns. I lost a few
sales suggesting little old ladies get medium size barking dogs instead of
guns. I specified 'barking' since the bad guy is more likely go away without
entering when the dog lights up. If you have a nonbarking dog that bites the
bad guy you leave yourself open for a lawsuit. Believe it or not in the U.S. a
burglar can sue for injuries incurred in the commission of his crime.

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.

To be fair most of the fears felt by citizens is unfounded and aggrivated by
alarmist news media, but if a firearm in the house makes one feel safe why
should it be anyone else's business? Would you rather we were unarmed and
afraid?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired