Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

"B2431" wrote in message
...
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.

Well, you shouldn't be victimised at all, clearly. Once that burglar has
entered your property he should forego any right to sue you for injuries
whether they be from tripping over your dog or directly inflicted by you
wielding a 9-iron. So long as you've used a sufficient amount of force to
repel him without exceeding a justifiable limit, you should not be in fear
of a long, expensive and drawn-out lawsuit.

However, surely by shooting him you're overstepping the reasonable force
criteria in at least some instances - and are therefore making yourself
liable for further upset as he/his relatives squeeze every last penny out of
you.

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.

Were the law to change, restricting the rights of burglars to sue for
non-lethal methods you may use to repel them - would you still consider a
gun? I'm thinking, should this be the reason that a person would resort to
lethal force upon an intruder, then the courts are severely in the wrong to
force the public to this degree of protection. That's surely the fundamental
issue for all but the most trigger-happy homeowners - and I can see the
justification for it, even if I'm not to happy with the possible
consequences.

Jim Doyle



Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

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

But you CAN be killed by a converted blank gun,or a homemade gun,or
zipgun,

Elsewhere you're claiming that uncertainty of outcome is a good thing - why
the change of mind?

and who know's the difference in what the criminal is pointing at
you.Even if it were an unloaded gun,who know's that?

Even the imitations don't turn up in burglaries.

Fact is;guns ARE available to criminals in the UK.

Of course, and always have been, but they don't get used for burglary.

When you start talking
about "odds" of one having a gun,it really doesn't matter.

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?

And of
course,there are OTHER deadly weapons,some present in your homes,like
kitchen knives.Or weapons of opportunity.But that should NOT restrict an
ODC from having the best weapon available,a firearm.

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

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

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

Other times, they'll help themselves to your weapon and use it on you.

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

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

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.

How many of either have you had in your home lately? For that matter, how
many of the low-lifes who break into houses to steal portable valuables
moonlight as terrorist bomb-carriers?

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

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

How did the presence of firearms protect him, and how would being armed have
helped him? And what crime was prevented by his death?

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

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

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

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

Well,a handgun is much easier to wield in close quarters than a shotgun,

Where are you keeping it while you're asleep?

and
also can be carried on one's person,concealed.Then they get protection
while outside the home.

Protection from what? It seems you guys live in constant dread.

(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)

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

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?

--
Paul J. Adam

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:
Aren't the criminals deterred by the armed citizens?

Welll,due to those who are against people using,carrying,or even owning
firearms,most US citizens do not own guns,nor carry them.Thus the chances
of criminals encountering armed citizens is not high enough yet to deter
such crimes.

So you've got the crime anyway, and the armed criminals, and the accidental
deaths and suicides... and the answer is "more guns"?

There are many excellent reasons to own and enjoy firearms of all sorts, but
this notion that more weapons equals increased safety just isn't one of
them - not at an overall level, anyway. If the level of firearm ownership
you have in the US isn't already sufficient to deter criminals, increasing
ownership (unavoidably including that segment of the population known as
"criminals not yet identified or convicted") is unlikely to help.

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

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).

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

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

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.

I seem to remember much talk of hanging horse thieves, suggesting that this
"golden age" was illusory.

My grandparents *did* live with doors unlocked, but that was because (a)
they lived in a close-knit community where everyone knew everyone and theft
would have been seen, (b) they were poor and frankly had very little to
steal. (No guns, in case you were wondering)

--
Paul J. Adam

"Jay Stranahan" wrote in message
...
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.

This I understand and agree with - it's not the fact that you have guns that
bothers me, it's the readiness with which you use them in situations that
can be resolved through non lethal means.


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.

The US population is several times larger than that of the UK. The number 23
is not several times smaller than 10,000.

I vaguely recall that our murder rate is
higher than yours but lower than the Baltic states.

Nothing to be proud of.

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?


The UK does not come off worse in every other sense - so I'm unclear as to
how this ties in with my own prejudices.


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?

Of all the crime statistics for the US I've looked at, I have been unable to
find this information. Maybe you can point me in the right direction?

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.

Beyond TV, my understanding of US gun law stems entirely from the NG. Which
has, frankly, been quite worrying. If you'd kill a man over the loss of a
few of your personal possessions - e.g. the pick up thief - then surely that
is beyond felony brandishment and so why would a person not be prosecuted
ofr that man's death? If you wouldn't kill that man, then we are agreed.


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.

I have not stated that outlawing weapons would solve the gun related murder
rate within the US, in fact I've said it's a ludicrous proposal. My original
question was to ask whether it was worrying that guns are so readily
available to both well meaning ODCs and the average criminal alike.


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.

I think my point was valid, and certainly not half-cocked. That statement
was in reply to the suggestion that, as is the right of any US citizen, a
criminal can legally carry a weapon. Obviously if attempting to break the
law, he's in the wrong, and I am unsure of the legalities of carrying a
weapon in such a situation. Up until that point of breaking the law, a
criminal is defended by the US constitution to carry arms. That is lunacy.
There is nothing, as far as I am aware, in your 2nd amendment that says you
must be a well-meaning chap with 2.4 kids.

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 am not intentionally obtuse, and I sincerely hope that I have not given a
bigoted impression. Over the last 24 hours I have read and appreciated a
large number of well composed and logical arguments, many of which counter
my opinions of gun crime and ownership. As a result, I can now see why you
would keep a gun for home and personal protection - resulting from the US
gun culture which is simply not an issue in the UK. I've respect for Dan,
who clearly has his head screwed on straight - having worked with the NRA to
promote gun awareness and safety, he's said guns aren't the shortcut answer
to everything. Ticks in boxes. Yet other posters have demonstrated a
shocking disregard the life of a fellow human being, albeit a dirty 'badguy'
criminal.

It's the flagrant willingness to kill, coupled with such a low regard for
the gravity of murder, that really gets me.

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.

I'll tell the crusaders to unpack their bags.

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.

Controversial.

Jim Doyle

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


I've not been Mr Doyle in a while.

I have read, and I'm impressed to an extent. I'll admit to having a somewhat
dubious impression of the NRA previously, and yes, 99% of that was US media
led. It would seem the US needs an institution such as the NRA to balance
the situation - of my misgivings concerning guns, the NRA at least teaches
gun awareness and safety. They're not the trigger happy bunch I had been led
to believe.

Yet 4 from 70 is not really as comprehensive as it should be. Considering
that those 4 million members are likely the more conscientious of all US gun
owners.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Kerryn Offord wrote in
:



B2431 wrote:

From: "Jim Doyle"


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
1...

"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..."



We WERE discussing intruders already IN the home.
Someone brought out that bit about shooting someone knocking on their
door,probably in reference to the Hattori shooting,a rare incident.
That's something I would not have done.No threat as they are on the
outside,and not trying to get in.Once they begin breaking in,however,all
bets are off.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


"B2431" wrote in message
...
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.

Well, you shouldn't be victimised at all, clearly. Once that burglar
has entered your property he should forego any right to sue you for
injuries whether they be from tripping over your dog or directly
inflicted by you wielding a 9-iron. So long as you've used a
sufficient amount of force to repel him without exceeding a
justifiable limit, you should not be in fear of a long, expensive and
drawn-out lawsuit.

However, surely by shooting him you're overstepping the reasonable
force criteria in at least some instances - and are therefore making
yourself liable for further upset as he/his relatives squeeze every
last penny out of you.

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.

Were the law to change, restricting the rights of burglars to sue for
non-lethal methods you may use to repel them - would you still
consider a gun?

Yes,I'd use the best possible tool for dealing with intruders,a gun.
There might not be time for a second defense attempt after a non-lethal one
fails.
You seem to think you can count on an intruder to be civil and not do
something averse to you or other occupants of your home.And other non-
lethal methods do not always work,even the police recognize that.

I'm thinking, should this be the reason that a person
would resort to lethal force upon an intruder, then the courts are
severely in the wrong to force the public to this degree of
protection. That's surely the fundamental issue for all but the most
trigger-happy homeowners - and I can see the justification for it,
even if I'm not to happy with the possible consequences.

Well,it's not about you being happy with the way things work out in such
situations.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Jim Doyle" wrote in
:


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


I've not been Mr Doyle in a while.

I have read, and I'm impressed to an extent. I'll admit to having a
somewhat dubious impression of the NRA previously, and yes, 99% of
that was US media led. It would seem the US needs an institution such
as the NRA to balance the situation - of my misgivings concerning
guns, the NRA at least teaches gun awareness and safety. They're not
the trigger happy bunch I had been led to believe.

Yet 4 from 70 is not really as comprehensive as it should be.
Considering that those 4 million members are likely the more
conscientious of all US gun owners.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net




Well,unfortuantely,many hunters and sport shooters feel that NRA membership
is unnecessary,that -their- hunting or sport shooting will be left alone by
the gun banners,or unaffected by gun control,they're blind to reality.
Some members left because the NRA has not done enough to fight gun
control,that they make too many concessions,while the other side makes
none,keeps coming back for more gun control.

One need not get their firearm safety training from the NRA,either.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:
Aren't the criminals deterred by the armed citizens?

Welll,due to those who are against people using,carrying,or even
owning firearms,most US citizens do not own guns,nor carry them.Thus
the chances of criminals encountering armed citizens is not high
enough yet to deter such crimes.

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. Removing the guns will not decrease crime,it has
the opposite effect,and is practically impossible.So,the cheapest method is
to make crimes too costly for criminals to consider.Can't have police
everywhere,24/7/365,too costly.

There are many excellent reasons to own and enjoy firearms of all
sorts, but this notion that more weapons equals increased safety just
isn't one of them - not at an overall level, anyway. If the level of
firearm ownership you have in the US isn't already sufficient to deter
criminals, increasing ownership (unavoidably including that segment of
the population known as "criminals not yet identified or convicted")
is unlikely to help.

It's not the ownership,it's the CARRIAGE of such weapons.Many places
prohibit carriage of guns,some prohibit guns entirely.

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

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


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

Well,to take that watch means he threatens force against you.
If you're wearing it.If he's in your house,then he's a threat to you
anyways.

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

If he does it by force or threat of force,yes.
Or you could use the gun to -safely- detain the thief,until police can
arrive.

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.


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.

I seem to remember much talk of hanging horse thieves, suggesting that
this "golden age" was illusory.

My grandparents *did* live with doors unlocked, but that was because
(a) they lived in a close-knit community where everyone knew everyone
and theft would have been seen, (b) they were poor and frankly had
very little to steal. (No guns, in case you were wondering)

--
Paul J. Adam




You try to equate the value of a possession against a criminal's life,but
the true and higher cost is the lack of security and freedom to own
property. Then there's the insurance costs that get spread out to
everyone.It's simply appeasement,that all.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:

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

But you CAN be killed by a converted blank gun,or a homemade gun,or
zipgun,

Elsewhere you're claiming that uncertainty of outcome is a good thing
- why the change of mind?

No change of mind;I'm concerned about the ODCs safety,not the criminals.
Those homemade weapons are a lethal threat.In the criminals hands,they are
intended to give the crook domination of the situation,not for any express
purpose of killing,but they still must be regarded as a lethal threat.Point
one at a police officer,and they will be judged proper in shooting and
killing the holder of the homemade weapon.why should it be any different
for an ODC?

and who know's the difference in what the criminal is pointing at
you.Even if it were an unloaded gun,who know's that?

Even the imitations don't turn up in burglaries.

Fact is;guns ARE available to criminals in the UK.

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.Appeasement,that's what it is.

When you start talking
about "odds" of one having a gun,it really doesn't matter.

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.But actually,in parts of the US,attacks by
large animals such as bears or cougars is a fair possibility.Deer crash
through people windows.Even people's dogs are a potential threat,especially
the large,dangerous breeds. Some gangbangers use THEM as weapons,too.

And of
course,there are OTHER deadly weapons,some present in your homes,like
kitchen knives.Or weapons of opportunity.But that should NOT restrict
an ODC from having the best weapon available,a firearm.

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.
Appease them.

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

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

Other times, they'll help themselves to your weapon and use it on you.

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

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.And at least you will get some
of them before they get you,maybe even the ones with the guns.Then the next
group will have second thoughts about trying such attacks against
others.Nobody wants to get shot,if there's any fair possibility of
shooting,the crooks avoid that.It draws too much attention they don't
want.It's a fact that criminals fear armed citizens(much more than the
police,too.),prison surveys have shown this.

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.

How many of either have you had in your home lately? For that matter,
how many of the low-lifes who break into houses to steal portable
valuables moonlight as terrorist bomb-carriers?

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

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

How did the presence of firearms protect him, and how would being
armed have helped him? And what crime was prevented by his death?

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

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

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

Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.


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

Well,a handgun is much easier to wield in close quarters than a
shotgun,

Where are you keeping it while you're asleep?

Nunya bidness.


and
also can be carried on one's person,concealed.Then they get
protection while outside the home.

Protection from what? It seems you guys live in constant dread.

(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".

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

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".




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net