Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

[Mutts]

Wouldnt a cannon on a police helicopter solve a lot of
problems for law enforcement?

Is it possible to put a round right through the engine block
of a suspect fleeing and stop them from killing innocents?
Seems like that kind of accuracy is possible now isnt it?

When those guys were robbing the bank in LA, seems like
it would have been an easy shot to make from a helicopter
even without a cannon.

Whats up? public outcry or something?

[Denyav]

>Wouldnt a cannon on a police helicopter solve a lot of
>problems for law enforcement?
>

I dont know if a cannon on a police chopper could solve any problems but in the
past some tried to solve problems by using police choppers as bombers but ended
up paying big settlements to the victims.
(MOVE bombing in Philly)

[N329DF]

>>Wouldnt a cannon on a police helicopter solve a lot of
>>problems for law enforcement?
>>

Let's see, the average cop on the street can't hit a thing with a side arm
unless he fires 10+ shots, and you want to give them a cannon ?
Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Riding member of the
2003 world champion drill team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
GWRRA,NRA,GOA

[tim gueguen]

"Mutts" > wrote in message
...
>
> Wouldnt a cannon on a police helicopter solve a lot of
> problems for law enforcement?
>
> Is it possible to put a round right through the engine block
> of a suspect fleeing and stop them from killing innocents?
> Seems like that kind of accuracy is possible now isnt it?
>
Not consistently in the real world. And 20mm rounds that miss have a nasty
tendency to go hit things and cause damage in places you don't want. Police
forces have enough problems as it is ensuring rounds fired from their
current array of small arms don't hit innocent people when a target is
missed.

tim gueguen 101867

[Ragnar]

"Mutts" > wrote in message
...
>
> Wouldnt a cannon on a police helicopter solve a lot of
> problems for law enforcement?

Excellent question! I've always thought they should put at least an M-60 on
the police choppers. Would put a stop to the car chases real quick.

[Don Harstad]

"Mutts" > wrote in message
...
>
> Wouldnt a cannon on a police helicopter solve a lot of
> problems for law enforcement?
>
> Is it possible to put a round right through the engine block
> of a suspect fleeing and stop them from killing innocents?
> Seems like that kind of accuracy is possible now isnt it?
>
> When those guys were robbing the bank in LA, seems like
> it would have been an easy shot to make from a helicopter
> even without a cannon.
>
> Whats up? public outcry or something?

Discharging a firearm toward another is considered deadly force. The use of
deadly force is very restricted, and understandably so. Simple traffic
violations have never been considered to justify the use of deadly force.

Regarding the bank robbery, the use of deadly force from a helicopter might
have been justified, but the circumstances might not have been conducive to
its use. Too great a chance of injuring a bystander, for example. I
certainly don't have enough knowledge of that particular event, but I have a
feeling that just about every alternative was being considered.

The use of a cannon by police would be entirely too risky.

On the other hand, there were times when I would have welcomed a chance to
call in an air strike. <grin>

Don H.

[Paul F Austin]

"Ragnar" wrote
>
> "Mutts" wrote ...
> >
> > Wouldnt a cannon on a police helicopter solve a lot of
> > problems for law enforcement?
>
> Excellent question! I've always thought they should put at least an M-60
on
> the police choppers. Would put a stop to the car chases real quick.

That sounds about right. If the police are going to use armed helos, they
need sufficient firepower. I would want at_least_an M60 turret welded on the
bottom of each one. Maybe an M1 turret would be better. Or two. Can't have
enough firepower.

[Jim Yanik]

"Ragnar" > wrote in
:

>
> "Mutts" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Wouldnt a cannon on a police helicopter solve a lot of
>> problems for law enforcement?
>
> Excellent question! I've always thought they should put at least an
> M-60 on the police choppers. Would put a stop to the car chases real
> quick.
>
>
>

Or they could use a Barrett light 50 M82A1 .50BMG rifle.
If they can't get a car with 10 rounds....

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

"Paul F Austin" > wrote in
:

>
> "Ragnar" wrote
>>
>> "Mutts" wrote ...
>> >
>> > Wouldnt a cannon on a police helicopter solve a lot of
>> > problems for law enforcement?
>>
>> Excellent question! I've always thought they should put at least an
>> M-60
> on
>> the police choppers. Would put a stop to the car chases real quick.
>
> That sounds about right. If the police are going to use armed helos,
> they need sufficient firepower. I would want at_least_an M60 turret
> welded on the bottom of each one. Maybe an M1 turret would be better.
> Or two. Can't have enough firepower.
>
>

Are you suggesting an AC-130 gunship??? 8-)

Maybe they could make a V-22 into a civilian AC-130.(Airwolf???)
Hover and shoot the crap out of fleeing autos,no more hi-speed chases.
They would only have to do it once or twice and televise the gun camera
video,the crooks would get the idea.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 14:55:05 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik >
wrote:

>"Paul F Austin" > wrote in
:
>
>>
>> "Ragnar" wrote
>>>
>>> "Mutts" wrote ...
>>> >
>>> > Wouldnt a cannon on a police helicopter solve a lot of
>>> > problems for law enforcement?
>>>
>>> Excellent question! I've always thought they should put at least an
>>> M-60
>> on
>>> the police choppers. Would put a stop to the car chases real quick.
>>
>> That sounds about right. If the police are going to use armed helos,
>> they need sufficient firepower. I would want at_least_an M60 turret
>> welded on the bottom of each one. Maybe an M1 turret would be better.
>> Or two. Can't have enough firepower.
>>
>>
>
>Are you suggesting an AC-130 gunship??? 8-)
>
>Maybe they could make a V-22 into a civilian AC-130.(Airwolf???)
>Hover and shoot the crap out of fleeing autos,no more hi-speed chases.
>They would only have to do it once or twice and televise the gun camera
>video,the crooks would get the idea.


Now yer talkin' Blue Thunder

[robert arndt]

"Don Harstad" > wrote in message >...
> "Mutts" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Wouldnt a cannon on a police helicopter solve a lot of
> > problems for law enforcement?
> >
> > Is it possible to put a round right through the engine block
> > of a suspect fleeing and stop them from killing innocents?
> > Seems like that kind of accuracy is possible now isnt it?
> >
> > When those guys were robbing the bank in LA, seems like
> > it would have been an easy shot to make from a helicopter
> > even without a cannon.
> >
> > Whats up? public outcry or something?

What's up? Common sense. You can't have a helo gunship blasting the
Interstate or side streets, downtown, etc... with innocent people
standing around or driving. Even the smallest fragments from cannon
fire could kill somebody nearby in a car, sidewalk, looking out a
store window, etc...
Seems like you've been watching "Blue Thunder" too much!

Rob

p.s. However, hypothetically, it WOULD be interesting to see a Police
version of an AC-130 tackle a Los Angeles riot!

[miso]

It never fails. Those who spit on the cops are members of the NRA or GOA.

(N329DF) wrote in message >...
> >>Wouldnt a cannon on a police helicopter solve a lot of
> >>problems for law enforcement?
> >>
>
> Let's see, the average cop on the street can't hit a thing with a side arm
> unless he fires 10+ shots, and you want to give them a cannon ?
> Matt Gunsch,
> A&P,IA,Private Pilot
> Riding member of the
> 2003 world champion drill team
> Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
> GWRRA,NRA,GOA

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Sun, 18 Apr 2004 08:12:51 -0400,
Paul F Austin attempted to say .....

>
> "Ragnar" wrote
> >
> > "Mutts" wrote ...
> > >
> > > Wouldnt a cannon on a police helicopter solve a lot of
> > > problems for law enforcement?
> >
> > Excellent question! I've always thought they should put at least an M-60
> on
> > the police choppers. Would put a stop to the car chases real quick.
>
> That sounds about right. If the police are going to use armed helos, they
> need sufficient firepower. I would want at_least_an M60 turret welded on the
> bottom of each one. Maybe an M1 turret would be better. Or two. Can't have
> enough firepower.
>

This concept will require much study and then a good number of prototypes.

I estimate we could field helicopters suitably modified in 8 to 12 years if
I had a budget of 32M a year.....
That's purely for R&D, production costs not included...

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Marc Reeve]

Don Harstad > wrote:
> "Mutts" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Wouldnt a cannon on a police helicopter solve a lot of
> > problems for law enforcement?
> >
> > Is it possible to put a round right through the engine block
> > of a suspect fleeing and stop them from killing innocents?
> > Seems like that kind of accuracy is possible now isnt it?
> >
> > When those guys were robbing the bank in LA, seems like
> > it would have been an easy shot to make from a helicopter
> > even without a cannon.
> >
> > Whats up? public outcry or something?
>
> Discharging a firearm toward another is considered deadly force. The use
> of deadly force is very restricted, and understandably so. Simple traffic
> violations have never been considered to justify the use of deadly force.
>
Reminds me of a T-Shirt that used to be popular at airshows, though I
haven't seen it in several years (darn it, mine is wearing out.)

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.

Then there was the T-38 with LAPD markings that appeared in the film
"Dragnet" (the Dan Aykroyd/Tom Hanks version)...

[snip]

-Marc
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

[Nemo l'Ancien]

>
Let's thezm use Apache, and everything will be clear...

[Paul F Austin]

"Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Paul F Austin" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Ragnar" wrote
> >>
> >> "Mutts" wrote ...
> >> >
> >> > Wouldnt a cannon on a police helicopter solve a lot of
> >> > problems for law enforcement?
> >>
> >> Excellent question! I've always thought they should put at least an
> >> M-60
> > on
> >> the police choppers. Would put a stop to the car chases real quick.
> >
> > That sounds about right. If the police are going to use armed helos,
> > they need sufficient firepower. I would want at_least_an M60 turret
> > welded on the bottom of each one. Maybe an M1 turret would be better.
> > Or two. Can't have enough firepower.
> >
> >
>
> Are you suggesting an AC-130 gunship??? 8-)

No, I'm suggesting that armed police helos should be "armed" to the point
that they can't get wheels up. I don't trust police with automatic weapons
much less anything heavier.

[Don Harstad]

"Marc Reeve" > wrote in message
. ..
> Don Harstad > wrote:
>
> Then there was the T-38 with LAPD markings that appeared in the film
> "Dragnet" (the Dan Aykroyd/Tom Hanks version)...
>
> [snip]
>
> -Marc
Yeah! I saw that... great bit. We received a model M-60 tank that was
painted in our Sheriff's markings... Looked good.

Don H.

[Thomas Schoene]

Jim Yanik wrote:
> "Ragnar" > wrote in
> :

>> Excellent question! I've always thought they should put at least an
>> M-60 on the police choppers. Would put a stop to the car chases real
>> quick.
>>
> Or they could use a Barrett light 50 M82A1 .50BMG rifle.
> If they can't get a car with 10 rounds....

The US Coast Guard--which occupies a grey zone between law enforcement and
military--has begun arming some helicopters to stop fleeing high-speed
boats. Their approach has been to use a machinegun for warning shots,
followed by a hand-held .50-cal rifle to shoot to disable the engines.

However, this does not translate well to regular police use. The USCG is
dealing with isolated targets on the high seas, with no chance of stray
shots hitting civilians. The rules for stopping smugglers at sea are also
less restrictive than the use of force rules for domestic police forces.
This is one area where the Coasties benefit from their semi-military status.

For comparison, civilian law enforcement offficers are usually *forbidden*
to fire warning shots because of the risk to bystanders. They are also
forbidden to use lethal force unless necessary to protect themselves or a
bystander. "He was getting away" is generally not sufficient justification
for shooting at someone, unless you have reason to believe he's going to
threaten another person once he's out of sight.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[Simon Robbins]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> What's up? Common sense. You can't have a helo gunship blasting the
> Interstate or side streets, downtown, etc... with innocent people
> standing around or driving. Even the smallest fragments from cannon
> fire could kill somebody nearby in a car, sidewalk, looking out a
> store window, etc...

Yeah, unless your a civilian in Iraq!

Si

[Charles Gray]

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 03:35:55 -0500, "Don Harstad"
> wrote:

>
>"Mutts" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Wouldnt a cannon on a police helicopter solve a lot of
>> problems for law enforcement?
>>
>> Is it possible to put a round right through the engine block
>> of a suspect fleeing and stop them from killing innocents?
>> Seems like that kind of accuracy is possible now isnt it?
>>
>> When those guys were robbing the bank in LA, seems like
>> it would have been an easy shot to make from a helicopter
>> even without a cannon.
>>
>> Whats up? public outcry or something?
>
>Discharging a firearm toward another is considered deadly force. The use of
>deadly force is very restricted, and understandably so. Simple traffic
>violations have never been considered to justify the use of deadly force.
>
>Regarding the bank robbery, the use of deadly force from a helicopter might
>have been justified, but the circumstances might not have been conducive to
>its use. Too great a chance of injuring a bystander, for example. I
>certainly don't have enough knowledge of that particular event, but I have a
>feeling that just about every alternative was being considered.
>
>The use of a cannon by police would be entirely too risky.
>
>On the other hand, there were times when I would have welcomed a chance to
>call in an air strike. <grin>
>
>Don H.
>
Also imagine how much this would *cost*-- not just the helicopter,
but the training, which I imagine would be rather intense :). All
this for a system that would almost never be used, and would provide a
continual drain on the police force.
At least in California, there is already some law being pushed to
drastically limit the rights of officers to initiate high speed
chases, so you can see the likelyhood of them getting permission to
blow up a fleeing car.

If you wanted a more realistic and doable idea, I would suggest
passing some form of law that would expidite the ability of the police
to request military help in a situation where they're outgunned. If
it's bad enough that you need a helicopter gunship, you'd be better
off calling for people who practice all the time in using htem.

[JohnF73157]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that there is a law that prohibits
civilian aircraft, and that includes police aircraft, from having any type of
armaments attached.

[[email protected]]

Mutts > wrote:

>
>Wouldnt a cannon on a police helicopter solve a lot of
>problems for law enforcement?
>
>Is it possible to put a round right through the engine block
>of a suspect fleeing and stop them from killing innocents?
>Seems like that kind of accuracy is possible now isnt it?
>
>When those guys were robbing the bank in LA, seems like
>it would have been an easy shot to make from a helicopter
>even without a cannon.
>
ISTM that a much better target for the cannon might be the
centre of the vehicle's roof...why waste a perfectly good engine
block?...
--

-Gord.

[Christopher Morton]

On 18 Apr 2004 10:06:25 -0700, (miso) wrote:

>It never fails. Those who spit on the cops are members of the NRA or GOA.

It never fails. Those who support police murders aren't.

--
More blood for oil... in my name!

[Dave Kearton]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
| Mutts > wrote:
|
| >
| >Wouldnt a cannon on a police helicopter solve a lot of
| >problems for law enforcement?
| >
| >Is it possible to put a round right through the engine block
| >of a suspect fleeing and stop them from killing innocents?
| >Seems like that kind of accuracy is possible now isnt it?
| >
| >When those guys were robbing the bank in LA, seems like
| >it would have been an easy shot to make from a helicopter
| >even without a cannon.
| >
| ISTM that a much better target for the cannon might be the
| centre of the vehicle's roof...why waste a perfectly good engine
| block?...
| --
|
| -Gord.



Certainly would have saved a lot of time and expense on the OJ trial.



"If you can't find the hands, you must acquit"




Cheers


Dave Kearton

[Jim Yanik]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in
hlink.net:

> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> "Ragnar" > wrote in
>> :
>
>>> Excellent question! I've always thought they should put at least an
>>> M-60 on the police choppers. Would put a stop to the car chases
>>> real quick.
>>>
>> Or they could use a Barrett light 50 M82A1 .50BMG rifle.
>> If they can't get a car with 10 rounds....
>
> The US Coast Guard--which occupies a grey zone between law enforcement
> and military--has begun arming some helicopters to stop fleeing
> high-speed boats. Their approach has been to use a machinegun for
> warning shots, followed by a hand-held .50-cal rifle to shoot to
> disable the engines.
>
> However, this does not translate well to regular police use. The USCG
> is dealing with isolated targets on the high seas, with no chance of
> stray shots hitting civilians. The rules for stopping smugglers at
> sea are also less restrictive than the use of force rules for domestic
> police forces. This is one area where the Coasties benefit from their
> semi-military status.
>
> For comparison, civilian law enforcement offficers are usually
> *forbidden* to fire warning shots because of the risk to bystanders.
> They are also forbidden to use lethal force unless necessary to
> protect themselves or a bystander. "He was getting away" is generally
> not sufficient justification for shooting at someone, unless you have
> reason to believe he's going to threaten another person once he's out
> of sight.
>
> --
> Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
> "Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
> wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872
>


Shooting into an auto's engine would not be use of deadly force against the
occupants. I read an article about the CG,that they use a BOLT-action
..50cal against the hi-speed boats,so,they only get ONE shot at the
boat,unless they reload,which takes a relatively large amount of time.
I suspect they are accurate with that first single shot.

Besides,a hi-speed vehicle chase certainly IS a threat to other citizens
lives;frequently people die or get severely injured because of collisions
with fleeing vehicles.And that doens't consider property damage,either.

Also,the shot fired from a helicopter would be headed sharply DOWNwards,and
would most likely penetrate pavement if it missed the vehicle.I doubt it
would ricochet.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

"Paul F Austin" > wrote in
:

>
> "Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Paul F Austin" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >
>> > "Ragnar" wrote
>> >>
>> >> "Mutts" wrote ...
>> >> >
>> >> > Wouldnt a cannon on a police helicopter solve a lot of
>> >> > problems for law enforcement?
>> >>
>> >> Excellent question! I've always thought they should put at least
>> >> an M-60
>> > on
>> >> the police choppers. Would put a stop to the car chases real
>> >> quick.
>> >
>> > That sounds about right. If the police are going to use armed
>> > helos, they need sufficient firepower. I would want at_least_an M60
>> > turret welded on the bottom of each one. Maybe an M1 turret would
>> > be better. Or two. Can't have enough firepower.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Are you suggesting an AC-130 gunship??? 8-)
>
> No, I'm suggesting that armed police helos should be "armed" to the
> point that they can't get wheels up. I don't trust police with
> automatic weapons much less anything heavier.
>
>
>

Why,has there been any significant number of wrongful shootings involving
automatic weapons fire from police?
(and Waco was not police,it was ATF-troop)
ISTR that many non-US countries police are armed with automatic
weapons,too.Maybe they have more problems in that area?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

(miso) wrote in
om:

> It never fails. Those who spit on the cops are members of the NRA or
> GOA.

That's hilarious,considering the NRA -runs- many police training
programs,and many police are NRA members.
IOW,you don't know what you're talking about.

>
> (N329DF) wrote in message
> >...
>> >>Wouldnt a cannon on a police helicopter solve a lot of
>> >>problems for law enforcement?
>> >>
>>
>> Let's see, the average cop on the street can't hit a thing with a
>> side arm unless he fires 10+ shots, and you want to give them a
>> cannon ?
>> Matt Gunsch,
>> A&P,IA,Private Pilot
>> Riding member of the
>> 2003 world champion drill team
>> Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
>> GWRRA,NRA,GOA
>



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Paul F Austin]

"Jim Yanik" wrote .
> "Paul F Austin" wrote
>
> >
> > "Jim Yanik" wrote in message

> >> Are you suggesting an AC-130 gunship??? 8-)
> >
> > No, I'm suggesting that armed police helos should be "armed" to the
> > point that they can't get wheels up. I don't trust police with
> > automatic weapons much less anything heavier.

>
> Why,has there been any significant number of wrongful shootings involving
> automatic weapons fire from police?
> (and Waco was not police,it was ATF-troop)
> ISTR that many non-US countries police are armed with automatic
> weapons,too.Maybe they have more problems in that area?

Because here's what automatic weapons fire is used for in ground combat;
automatic weapons are used to suppress enemy fire while other troops slink
around back and grease the bad guys. That tactic is singularly inappropriate
in policing because of the inevitable presence of bystanders.

In the hands of police, automatic weapons become 18-shooter Glocks on
steroids: indiscriminant fire. I have little respect for the marksmanship of
most police and from close contact, no better opinion of the tactical
squads.

As it happens, my club has a large IPSC contingent and also a large Class
III group. Twice a year, they hold a joint shoot. Each time, the pistoleros
outshoot the subgunners. There is a proper role for riflemen but automatic
weapons fire is indiscriminant and inappropriate in policing.

[The Raven]

"Mutts" > wrote in message
...
>
> Wouldnt a cannon on a police helicopter solve a lot of
> problems for law enforcement?

Until it missed and hit something innocent.

> Is it possible to put a round right through the engine block
> of a suspect fleeing and stop them from killing innocents?

Ask the Israelis, they have lots of experience taking out cars in an urban
environment. Then again, they aren't worried about collateral
damage..........

> Seems like that kind of accuracy is possible now isnt it?

Perhaps a simplified low cost homing weapon. One round, one hit. Make it low
yield, just enough to do the job but not enough to take out too much if it
misses.

> When those guys were robbing the bank in LA, seems like
> it would have been an easy shot to make from a helicopter
> even without a cannon.

Helo Sniper would be sufficient. Unfortunately it's not cost effective to
have every police helo carrying a trained sniper.

> Whats up? public outcry or something?

Most likely public outcry would stop it, then the cost.

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[miso]

I know exactly what I am talking about. The NRA types need to diss the
police to justify their need for weapons. They do it all the time. It
makes the sane gun owners look bad. GOA types are worse. [GOA = Gone
On Arrival]

Jim Yanik > wrote in message >...
> (miso) wrote in
> om:
>
> > It never fails. Those who spit on the cops are members of the NRA or
> > GOA.
>
> That's hilarious,considering the NRA -runs- many police training
> programs,and many police are NRA members.
> IOW,you don't know what you're talking about.
>
> >
> > (N329DF) wrote in message
> > >...
> >> >>Wouldnt a cannon on a police helicopter solve a lot of
> >> >>problems for law enforcement?
> >> >>
> >>
> >> Let's see, the average cop on the street can't hit a thing with a
> >> side arm unless he fires 10+ shots, and you want to give them a
> >> cannon ?
> >> Matt Gunsch,
> >> A&P,IA,Private Pilot
> >> Riding member of the
> >> 2003 world champion drill team
> >> Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
> >> GWRRA,NRA,GOA
> >

[N329DF]

>I know exactly what I am talking about. The NRA types need to diss the
>police to justify their need for weapons. They do it all the time. It
>makes the sane gun owners look bad. GOA types are worse. [GOA = Gone
>On Arrival]

Hey Miso,
You better check your facts, I did not dis the cops, just stating facts, the
average cops knows nothing bout the arms they carry, have barely enough
training in how to use them, and have the worse hit to rounds fired in a stress
fire situation. There is a reason cops carry hi-cap magazines, they need them
to hit anything. The average citizen that carries for protection, in a stress
fire situation, hits thier target more often, using fewer shots fired. The
average citizen knows more about firearms than the cop on street. I had to
explain to a cop once on how to clear and safe a model 1911 .45 automatic, a
gun that has only been in continous production since lets see, 1911.

Now about me and the cops, I ride with the current World Champion Motorcycle
Drill Team, one of our leaders is a Phx police detective, I have ridden with
the Mesa PD motors, The California Highway Patrol motors, Tucson Police Motors
I also have person friends in the Arizona Dept of Public Safety, and the
Glendale PD.
So I have spent more time supporting the cops than you have spent on tapping
on your keyboard.

I am awaiting your appology


Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Riding member of the
2003 world champion drill team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
GWRRA,NRA,GOA

[Don Harstad]

"N329DF" > wrote in message
...
> Hey Miso,
> You better check your facts, I did not dis the cops, just stating facts,
the
> average cops knows nothing bout the arms they carry, have barely enough
> training in how to use them, and have the worse hit to rounds fired in a
stress
> fire situation. There is a reason cops carry hi-cap magazines, they need
them
> to hit anything. The average citizen that carries for protection, in a
stress
> fire situation, hits thier target more often, using fewer shots fired. The
> average citizen knows more about firearms than the cop on street. I had to
> explain to a cop once on how to clear and safe a model 1911 .45 automatic,
a
> gun that has only been in continous production since lets see, 1911.
>
Speaking solely from personal experience (cop for 25 years), I never shot
below a 95 with any handgun I carried (S&W Model 28 357, S&W Model 29 .44
Magnum, S&W Model 4006 .40 cal) and usually shot a 98. I shot a 100% course
with the AR-15, open sights, over ranges of 50-200 yards, firing at
silhouette targets, every year for five years. These courses were Law
Enforcement Academy designed and approved, timed, and monitored.

The civilians I know who shot in high stress situations managed to hit a
relative about half the time, and that was because they were too sleepy to
duck. Two officers I know personally were engaged by a civilian who stood
at the top of an enclosed staircase in an apartment, and fired six rounds at
them as they climbed the stairs. He missed both officers. He was aiming.
(They were really p....ed when they got to the top of those stairs... deaf,
but pi...ed.)

Very rarely does the armed citizen who fires and misses ever tell anybody
about it. Their reporting standards are nothing like the reporting
standards used when an officer discharges a weapon. I would advise a bit of
caution when trying to compare data under those circumstances.

<grin> I remember a deer hunter who claimed to have killed a large buck
with a single shot. His cousin in another group mentioned in passing that
they had heard many rounds... "He must mean he only hit him once, I guess."

Don H.

[Jim Yanik]

(miso) wrote in
om:

> I know exactly what I am talking about. The NRA types need to diss the
> police to justify their need for weapons.

No,we realize that the police are not always around to protect us,so it
falls to ourselves to do so,and we want the best tools for the job.
Clue;the 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting or "sporting purposes".

You still don't know what you're talking about.

They do it all the time. It
> makes the sane gun owners look bad. GOA types are worse. [GOA = Gone
> On Arrival]
>
> Jim Yanik > wrote in message
> >...
>> (miso) wrote in
>> om:
>>
>> > It never fails. Those who spit on the cops are members of the NRA
>> > or GOA.
>>
>> That's hilarious,considering the NRA -runs- many police training
>> programs,and many police are NRA members.
>> IOW,you don't know what you're talking about.
>>
>> >
>> > (N329DF) wrote in message
>> > >...
>> >> >>Wouldnt a cannon on a police helicopter solve a lot of
>> >> >>problems for law enforcement?
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >> Let's see, the average cop on the street can't hit a thing with a
>> >> side arm unless he fires 10+ shots, and you want to give them a
>> >> cannon ?
>> >> Matt Gunsch,
>> >> A&P,IA,Private Pilot
>> >> Riding member of the
>> >> 2003 world champion drill team
>> >> Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
>> >> GWRRA,NRA,GOA
>> >
>



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Doyle]

"Don Harstad" > wrote in message
...
>
> "N329DF" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hey Miso,
> > You better check your facts, I did not dis the cops, just stating facts,
> the
> > average cops knows nothing bout the arms they carry, have barely enough
> > training in how to use them, and have the worse hit to rounds fired in a
> stress
> > fire situation. There is a reason cops carry hi-cap magazines, they need
> them
> > to hit anything. The average citizen that carries for protection, in a
> stress
> > fire situation, hits thier target more often, using fewer shots fired.
The
> > average citizen knows more about firearms than the cop on street. I had
to
> > explain to a cop once on how to clear and safe a model 1911 .45
automatic,
> a
> > gun that has only been in continous production since lets see, 1911.
> >
> Speaking solely from personal experience (cop for 25 years), I never shot
> below a 95 with any handgun I carried (S&W Model 28 357, S&W Model 29 .44
> Magnum, S&W Model 4006 .40 cal) and usually shot a 98. I shot a 100%
course
> with the AR-15, open sights, over ranges of 50-200 yards, firing at
> silhouette targets, every year for five years. These courses were Law
> Enforcement Academy designed and approved, timed, and monitored.
>
> The civilians I know who shot in high stress situations managed to hit a
> relative about half the time, and that was because they were too sleepy to
> duck. Two officers I know personally were engaged by a civilian who stood
> at the top of an enclosed staircase in an apartment, and fired six rounds
at
> them as they climbed the stairs. He missed both officers. He was aiming.
> (They were really p....ed when they got to the top of those stairs...
deaf,
> but pi...ed.)

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.

>
> Very rarely does the armed citizen who fires and misses ever tell anybody
> about it. Their reporting standards are nothing like the reporting
> standards used when an officer discharges a weapon. I would advise a bit
of
> caution when trying to compare data under those circumstances.
>
> <grin> I remember a deer hunter who claimed to have killed a large buck
> with a single shot. His cousin in another group mentioned in passing that
> they had heard many rounds... "He must mean he only hit him once, I
guess."
>
> Don H.
>
>

[Yeff]

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 00:07:47 +0100, Jim Doyle wrote:

> 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.

Indians, government, it's all the same.

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

[N329DF]

>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.
>

well you are a ignorant grunt. I would rather have a armed populas vs a unarmed
one, I would rather be standing over a dead criminal that broke into my house
vs have cops standing over my dead body cause they could not get there in time.
A armed person is a citizen, a unarmed person is a subject


Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Riding member of the
2003 world champion drill team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
GWRRA,NRA,GOA

[Mary Shafer]

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.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Mary Shafer]

On 18 Apr 2004 21:57:49 GMT, (JohnF73157) wrote:

> I seem to remember reading somewhere that there is a law that prohibits
> civilian aircraft, and that includes police aircraft, from having any type of
> armaments attached.

Properly speaking, police aircraft aren't "civilian aircraft" in the
sense you mean. They're public aircraft, meaning operated by a public
agency, rather than private aircraft. The FAA doesn't regulate any
public aircraft except those dedicated to flying passengers.

NASA, a civilian agency, has operated armed aircraft fairly recently,
although that was only until we could get the guns out and return them
to the Navy, but we weren't breaking any law to do so. There are
private aircraft that fly with armament, doing testing for the
military, too.

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

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Jim Yanik]

"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.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Generic Network Computer Userid]

According to a programs about police helicopters on Discovery Wings. San
Bernadino County CA Sheriff has a policy of allowing their officers in
county helicopters to fire back. The policy was set after a bank robbery
suspect wounded a pilot causing the observer to land the copter. The
program stated that they were the only non-military agency to have such
a policy. They have to qualify (I forget the time period) with both
hadguns and small machine guns of a uzi type.


robert arndt wrote:
>
> "Don Harstad" > wrote in message >...
> > "Mutts" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Wouldnt a cannon on a police helicopter solve a lot of
> > > problems for law enforcement?
> > >
> > > Is it possible to put a round right through the engine block
> > > of a suspect fleeing and stop them from killing innocents?
> > > Seems like that kind of accuracy is possible now isnt it?
> > >
> > > When those guys were robbing the bank in LA, seems like
> > > it would have been an easy shot to make from a helicopter
> > > even without a cannon.
> > >
> > > Whats up? public outcry or something?
>
> What's up? Common sense. You can't have a helo gunship blasting the
> Interstate or side streets, downtown, etc... with innocent people
> standing around or driving. Even the smallest fragments from cannon
> fire could kill somebody nearby in a car, sidewalk, looking out a
> store window, etc...
> Seems like you've been watching "Blue Thunder" too much!
>
> Rob
>
> p.s. However, hypothetically, it WOULD be interesting to see a Police
> version of an AC-130 tackle a Los Angeles riot!

[miso]

Come on, you know the 2nd amendment refers to a state militia. What
part of "well regulated" don't you understand.

Getting back to the Gone On Arrival dude, he made a blanket statement
that cops can't shoot. Read it and enjoy the odor of the company. He
hates cops, pure and simple, and that attitude is very common in the
NRA and Gone On Arrival crowd.

Jim Yanik > wrote in message >...
> (miso) wrote in
> om:
>
> > I know exactly what I am talking about. The NRA types need to diss the
> > police to justify their need for weapons.
>
> No,we realize that the police are not always around to protect us,so it
> falls to ourselves to do so,and we want the best tools for the job.
> Clue;the 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting or "sporting purposes".
>
> You still don't know what you're talking about.
>
> They do it all the time. It
> > makes the sane gun owners look bad. GOA types are worse. [GOA = Gone
> > On Arrival]
> >
> > Jim Yanik > wrote in message
> > >...
> >> (miso) wrote in
> >> om:
> >>
> >> > It never fails. Those who spit on the cops are members of the NRA
> >> > or GOA.
> >>
> >> That's hilarious,considering the NRA -runs- many police training
> >> programs,and many police are NRA members.
> >> IOW,you don't know what you're talking about.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > (N329DF) wrote in message
> >> > >...
> >> >> >>Wouldnt a cannon on a police helicopter solve a lot of
> >> >> >>problems for law enforcement?
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Let's see, the average cop on the street can't hit a thing with a
> >> >> side arm unless he fires 10+ shots, and you want to give them a
> >> >> cannon ?
> >> >> Matt Gunsch,
> >> >> A&P,IA,Private Pilot
> >> >> Riding member of the
> >> >> 2003 world champion drill team
> >> >> Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
> >> >> GWRRA,NRA,GOA
> >> >
> >

[Jim Doyle]

"N329DF" > wrote in message
...
> >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.
> >
>
> well you are a ignorant grunt. I would rather have a armed populas vs a
unarmed
> one, I would rather be standing over a dead criminal that broke into my
house
> vs have cops standing over my dead body cause they could not get there in
time.
> A armed person is a citizen, a unarmed person is a subject

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

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

There's protection - which I understand - and then there's taking the law
into your own hands, which can only become very dangerous for all involved,
burglar and homeowner alike.

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.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/archive/firearms_and_crime.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3112818.stm

Which is the safer society?

We both live in different situations - given the amount of gun crime in
America I understand your point of view, I just think it sad that people are
so ready to use deadly force. I see no defence for that.

Jim Doyle

>
>
> Matt Gunsch,
> A&P,IA,Private Pilot
> Riding member of the
> 2003 world champion drill team
> Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
> GWRRA,NRA,GOA
>

[Jim Doyle]

"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. 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.

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.

Jim Doyle

> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik-at-kua.net

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

Jim Doyle wrote:
>

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

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...

[Jim Doyle]

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Doyle wrote:
> >
>
> > I am not on the troll here, I'm genuinely interested. 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 [...]
>
> 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.

People will still burgle, if they're expecting armed resistance then it'll
just make them more desperate and quick to fire upon being approached.
10,000+ firearm deaths kinda speaks for itself.

Jim Doyle

[N329DF]

>ure, 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.

would you want to break into a house not knowing if the homeowner is armed ?
Kind of make breaking and entering a iffy proprosal. The numbers are not always
correct, if you look at the number of youths that were killed, a large number
were gang/drug related, and to keep the numbers high, 20+ year olds were listed
as being youths. There is no record for the number of crimes that were stopped
by the mere presence of a firearm. I know for myself, that was 3 times, with
shots being fired once in the protection of my nieghbor and his son from a pair
of attacking Pitt Bulls.

Armed men are citizens, unarmed men are subjects


Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Riding member of the
2003 world champion drill team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
GWRRA,NRA,GOA

[Keith Willshaw]

"N329DF" > wrote in message
...
> >ure, 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.
>
> would you want to break into a house not knowing if the homeowner is armed
?
> Kind of make breaking and entering a iffy proprosal.


Well maybe but according to FBI statistics, a house, apartment or
condominium
is burglarized once every 15 seconds so its not exactly foolproof. A good
home
alarm system is generally considered to be a more effective deterrent.

Indeed the insurance companies will give hefty discount if an approved
system is fitted. Most burglars arent exactly the brightest fish in the
gene pool and a majority are opportunists who look for an
easy route in and out of a property. I rather doubt many are
aware of the guns owned by the home owner.

Keith

[Jim Yanik]

"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.
>
> 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.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.
>
> Jim Doyle
>
>> --
>> Jim Yanik
>> jyanik-at-kua.net
>
>
>



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

(miso) wrote in
om:

> Come on, you know the 2nd amendment refers to a state militia. What
> part of "well regulated" don't you understand.

And just WHAT does it say about that "well-regulated militia"? That it's
necessary to a free state,NOTHING more.It does not require membership in
any militia to keep or bear arms. And it goes on to state that the RIGHT is
"of the PEOPLE",not a militia.Learn to read.
Further,most of the Founders writings indicated that they intended that
every free man be armed.(if they choose)
>
> Getting back to the Gone On Arrival dude, he made a blanket statement
> that cops can't shoot. Read it and enjoy the odor of the company. He
> hates cops, pure and simple, and that attitude is very common in the
> NRA and Gone On Arrival crowd.

How would you know that's the attitude of the "NRA crowd"?
Did you do a survey? Where's your source for this?
You know nothing about the NRA or what they are for.
I suspect the same goes for GOA and it's members.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

"Jim Doyle" > wrote in
:

>
> "Dweezil Dwarftosser" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jim Doyle wrote:
>> >
>>
>> > I am not on the troll here, I'm genuinely interested. 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 [...]
>>
>> 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.

Not true.If a significant number of homes are suspected of being armed,the
odds of being shot while making a burglary attempt are much greater.And
even the unarmed homes are safer,as the criminals have no way of knowing
WHOSE homes are armed. It's like those businesses that post "NO guns
allowed" signs are prime targets for crime,because the crims can count on
no one inside being armed,thus vulnerable,AND safer for the criminal.
>
> People will still burgle, if they're expecting armed resistance then
> it'll just make them more desperate and quick to fire upon being
> approached. 10,000+ firearm deaths kinda speaks for itself.
>
> Jim Doyle
>
>
>
But you wrongly assume that the crims will *know* that armed resistance is
possible.Also,criminals do not want to risk any shootouts,as the chances of
THEM getting shot is high,and the noise draws attention.

They prefer unarmed victims,and surveys of incarcerated felons have shown
this to be true.
And much of those firaearm deaths are criminal-criminal shootings,like
druggies fighting it out.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Doyle]

"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/socialcarestaff/table/0,1141,761948,00.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

[Jay Stranahan]

> 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/displayStory.cfm?Story_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.

[[email protected]]

"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.

[[email protected]]

>> >> >
>> >> > 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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[B2431]

>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

[James Hart]

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

[Jim Doyle]

"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/displayStory.cfm?Story_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

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

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.

[B2431]

>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

[Kerryn Offord]

Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:

> Jim Doyle wrote:
>
>>"Jim Yanik" > wrote:
<SNIP>
> 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.

<SNIP>

This should be qualified.

The culture clash is only over hand guns and using firearms for self
defence (as a first line over and above getting out of there).

In the UK (also NZ) there is a long history of owning long arms (rifle,
shotgun), and basically they are 'easy' to buy.

In NZ you can use a firearm for self defence... but you must be 'in fear
of ....' for yourself or others. Using deadly force to protect property
is frowned upon. If you do shoot someone... if you shoot them in the
back, expect the police to take you to court. If the person is shot in
the front, depending on circumstances (anything short of fatal), the
police will not proceed. If the shooting is fatal a court (coroners)
must determine whether there is a case to answer. Historically, for a
shot in the front, while in fear of injury case, the court finds
self-defence.

The UK operates in a basically similar way.

[Jim Yanik]

"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.


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.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

>
> http://www.cobras.org/usastats.htm
> http://society.guardian.co.uk/socialcarestaff/table/0,1141,761948,00.ht
> ml
>
>
>> >
>> > 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.

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?

>
> 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.

>
> 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.)

These laws place the onus on the criminal,not the ODC,the way it SHOULD be.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

"Jim Doyle" > wrote in
:

>
> "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.

Well,you seem to be wrong here,as there was such an incident here in the
Central Florida area,and the 50 yr old lady came out alive,after receiving
two shots,but killed the stalker that smashed through her patio door,armed
with a gun and a piece of rope.And i've read of many others in the "Armed
Citizen" column of the NRA,which reprints articles -from US newspapers-
where ODCs have used firearms to defend themselves against criminals.
Legal,legitimate self-defenses.
At least allowing the granny to be armed -if she chooses-,gives her a fair
chance of defense,something you seem to wish to deny to citizens.
It certainly is NOT better that she not be armed and face an intruder.
No way,no matter how you spin it.





--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[N329DF]

>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 ****?
>

in a minute. If he is stealing my truck, that I use to make my living with,
that might have the tools I use to make a living with, and is my only means to
get to work, then he is no more to me than a vermin to be delt with. If the the
criminals knew that the sentence for stealing a car was death or life in
prison, they might think otherwise. There is a reason they used to hang horse
thieves. A horse was a familys mean of survival, to plow the fields, to go into
town to get supplies, to hunt with. Today the car has replaced the horse.
Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Riding member of the
2003 world champion drill team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
GWRRA,NRA,GOA

[[email protected]]

(B2431) wrote:

>>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

Gee, I took it that he always kept his guns around and seeing as
how nobody'd been burglarized for ten years then it musta
worked...no?

(I think he meant that he'd shoot a burglar whether the -burglar-
was armed or not, right?)

--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

Dweezil Dwarftosser > wrote:

>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.

I fully concur...If -you're- the burglar who shows up uninvited
and unexpectadly at the foot of my bed at o dark thirty then
brace yourself for about four 9MM FMJ's to the chest.

I'll gladly discuss right and wrong later in daylight when I'm
fully dressed and have all my wits about me.

Thank you for listening.
--

-Gord.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
(miso) wrote:

> Come on, you know the 2nd amendment refers to a state militia.

Nonsense; it refers to "the people", and notes "militia" as one reason
why the people should not be disarmed.

The militia, at the time, was defined as the citizenry in general,
capable of bearing arms for defense of themselves and the state ("state"
being a term of art referrring to a sovereign nation).

> What part of "well regulated" don't you understand.

Define it for us.

As used at the time the 2nd was written.

(A timepiece can be "regulated", a shotgun can be "regulated", a
flintlock mechanism can be "regulated". In all cases, adjusted to peform
to a minimum standard.)

[Steve Hix]

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).

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"Jim Doyle" > wrote:

> People will still burgle, if they're expecting armed resistance then it'll
> just make them more desperate and quick to fire upon being approached.

Oddly enough, that doesn't seem to be the case. (The rate of burglary of
occupied homes in the U.S. is much lower than the equivalent rate in the
U.K., for example.)

> 10,000+ firearm deaths kinda speaks for itself.

No, mostly it speaks to a failed policy of Prohibition; most of the 10K
you cite are people engaged in one aspect or other of the illicit drug
trade.

[B2431]

>From: Kerryn Offord
>
>Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
>
>> Jim Doyle wrote:
>>
>>>"Jim Yanik" > wrote:
><SNIP>
>> 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.
>
><SNIP>
>
>This should be qualified.
>
>The culture clash is only over hand guns and using firearms for self
>defence (as a first line over and above getting out of there).
>

Why should one be forced into "getting out of" his residence? If you do that
you have lost whatever edge you may have over the intruder. If the intruder
intends harm he will follow you outside.

Let's say you have 2 children each in his own room, do you retreat alone, take
the time to grab one or both? In the time it takes to wake one child and
convince him he has to leave his home the badguy is on top of you.

OK, once you get outside then what? If the intruder follows you and is capable
of harming you he will still do so. Fight back once you are outside? With what?
At least you could get to the kitchen and grab a knife inside the home. What
if the resident is unable to defend himself or herself for whatever reason?

Let me ask you a question. Is the life of a criminal more important than yours?
OK, you let the badguy in, what then? You now have NO defense. What if the
badguy decides to rape you, your wife or child? What if he wants to beat a
family member? Don't tell me the family member will get over it, I have seen
life long physical and emotional injuries. Don't think that's bad enough? He's
in a position to kill all of you to eliminate witnesses. Why allow the badguy
to make the dicision to harm you?

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.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Paul J. Adam]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: Kerryn Offord
> >The culture clash is only over hand guns and using firearms for self
> >defence (as a first line over and above getting out of there).
>
> 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.

--
Paul J. Adam

[Paul J. Adam]

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

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')

> 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.

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

> > 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?

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.

> Why do you wish to protect criminals?

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"?

> 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.

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.

> > 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.

I've been told with a straight face that it's fair and reasonable to shoot
and kill trespassers. Someone sets a foot on your lawn and you're allowed to
kill them. Same poster claimed that this was entirely right and reasonable.

> 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.)

See above for the inconsistency.

> These laws place the onus on the criminal,not the ODC,the way it SHOULD
be.

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.

(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)

--
Paul J. Adam

[Jim Doyle]

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

The driving factor for an American criminal to carry a gun is to protect
himself from your 9mm. Also those of the police. That puts you, your family,
and any bystanders in danger each time you take up your gun and fight the
good fight like a true American hero. The police have a right to carry guns,
as by your law, you do too. You are very obviously a conscientious gun user
and very capable with your weapon, yet not all citizens of your fair country
are that meticulous, and that's when they become too much of a danger for
society to accept.

Were a close friend or relative of yours killed whilst at the bank by a
member of the public attempting to foil a heist, are you au fait with that?
If you are, there's something wrong.

As regards to violent beating/stabbings in the UK - I've haven't seen any
information that would indicate that they are anymore likely/unlikely than
in the US. So you can speculate whether that is the case, but it's not the
issue at hand.

> > 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.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.'

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.

> >
> > http://www.cobras.org/usastats.htm
> > http://society.guardian.co.uk/socialcarestaff/table/0,1141,761948,00.ht
> > ml
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> > 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.
>
> 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.

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?

>
> >
> > 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. 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.

>
> 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

[Jim Doyle]

"N329DF" > wrote in message
...
> >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 ****?
> >
>
> in a minute. If he is stealing my truck, that I use to make my living
with,
> that might have the tools I use to make a living with, and is my only
means to
> get to work, then he is no more to me than a vermin to be delt with. If
the the
> criminals knew that the sentence for stealing a car was death or life in
> prison, they might think otherwise. There is a reason they used to hang
horse
> thieves. A horse was a familys mean of survival, to plow the fields, to go
into
> town to get supplies, to hunt with. Today the car has replaced the horse.

When I read this, my jaw just hit the desk. You are advocating the concept
that a life is worth less that a few material goods. Don't you have third
party insurance in the US? I don't mean to be rude, but drawing a comparison
to 18th century policy just makes you look even more out of the dark ages.
Someone tell me - this isn't the genuine feeling amongst all Americans?!

> Matt Gunsch,
> A&P,IA,Private Pilot
> Riding member of the
> 2003 world champion drill team
> Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
> GWRRA,NRA,GOA
>

[Kerryn Offord]

B2431 wrote:
>>From: Kerryn Offord
>>

<SNIP>
>>
>>This should be qualified.
>>
>>The culture clash is only over hand guns and using firearms for self
>>defence (as a first line over and above getting out of there).
>>
>
>
> Why should one be forced into "getting out of" his residence? If you do that
> you have lost whatever edge you may have over the intruder. If the intruder
> intends harm he will follow you outside.

***
I was talking about the attitude that grabbing a gun is the first
thought, over and above the simple idea of 'getting out of there'.

Where 'getting out of there' means getting out of whatever room the
intruder is in (no need to leave the house, but you can.

Avoiding a confrontation is the safest thing for most people. Your
attitude seems to be.. "there is an intruder, let's go and kill the
SOB". Me, I like to think my first thought, assuming there is nobody
I'll be leaving in danger, is to get out of there and call the police.
Personally, even if I had a gun (well I do, but its safely secured),
will I be able to shoot someone? Rather than confront someone only to
find I can't react swiftly enough, I'll try and avoid confrontation.


>
> Let's say you have 2 children each in his own room, do you retreat alone, take
> the time to grab one or both? In the time it takes to wake one child and
> convince him he has to leave his home the badguy is on top of you.

***
Having others in the house means you have already reached the limit of
retreat. You can't avoid a confrontation, so make your best move. Just
don't use a hand gun, and that shotgun had better have been secured
before you grabbed it. Think of how the jury would see it.. "I was
defending my children." is a hard one to beat... just try to do it
legally (no illegal weapons kept ready for self defence)... a cricket
bat is a great weapon (a recent case: A man heard his daughter scream.
He grabbed a cricket bat and slammed it into the person standing in the
dark over his daughter's bed.... He was defending his family.. the
police didn't even think of charging him.)

>
> OK, once you get outside then what? If the intruder follows you and is capable
> of harming you he will still do so. Fight back once you are outside? With what?
> At least you could get to the kitchen and grab a knife inside the home. What
> if the resident is unable to defend himself or herself for whatever reason?

***
First off.. you don't have to get outside, just out of the room the
intruder is in.. If he/she follows... well, you tried to avoid
confrontation....

But anyway... there are neighbours... they are usually willing to
answer the door when someone knocks on it (the won't even shoot you as
you walk up the front path)...

If the resident is unable to defend themselves for some reason, why
would they want to confront the intruder?

And, you want to attack someone using a kitchen knife? No thanks... to
much chance of getting hurt (I have a 'stick').

There is no reason you can't grab a weapon as you withdraw from
confrontation... just that it shouldn't be a hand gun (of course the
only handgun/intruder shooting resulted in the death of the intruder (he
was armed with a VHS cassette) and not much happened to the householder
(in spite of all the laws he broke using a handgun.) If someone
follows.. well, you tried to avoid confrontation...

>
> Let me ask you a question. Is the life of a criminal more important than yours?
> OK, you let the badguy in, what then? You now have NO defense. What if the
> badguy decides to rape you, your wife or child? What if he wants to beat a
> family member? Don't tell me the family member will get over it, I have seen
> life long physical and emotional injuries. Don't think that's bad enough? He's
> in a position to kill all of you to eliminate witnesses. Why allow the badguy
> to make the dicision to harm you?

***
You are assuming that if there is an intruder it is a case of his life
or mine... that might be how it is in the USA, its not what its like in
NZ. There are very few intruder crimes in NZ (most burglaries are when
the house is unoccupied. Most intruders, as soon as they realize someone
is up and about will do a runner.

There is no need to let an intruder into your house. You can defend the
door. You can probably even get away with threatening to shoot someone
to keep them out. I'm assuming the person has gained entry to the
house... in that case, you want to think about getting out of there (if
discovery doesn't cause them to do a runner)...


>
> 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 NZ, if I shoot someone other than when they are running away, (or
even walking away).. i.e., they are potentially a threat, I can shoot
them and they cannot sue me.... as long as a jury considers it
reasonable force.

>
> 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.

***
Biggest "room" (open plan dining/lounge) is about 30' long, Everything
else will be less than 21'.

This assumes you have a firearm to hand. Do you always carry a loaded
firearm around your house? Me? I don't. If someone is in the house I'm
going to make a noise and if that doesn't scare them away, I'll find
something I can swing (stick, rolled up magazine or newspaper)...
meanwhile I'll be calling the Police. Personally I just wouldn't think
of using a gun.

>
> 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.


***
The thing is, care to guess how many incidents there are in NZ where a
house holder accidentally shoots a member of their household? I think
the same number applies to UK, and probably even Australia.

As I said, its a matter of attitude. In NZ and probably UK and Oz.
Firearms are not the first response to an intruder.

> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
>
>

[Jim Doyle]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: Kerryn Offord
> >
> >Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
> >
> >> Jim Doyle wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Jim Yanik" > wrote:
> ><SNIP>
> >> 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.
> >
> ><SNIP>
> >
> >This should be qualified.
> >
> >The culture clash is only over hand guns and using firearms for self
> >defence (as a first line over and above getting out of there).
> >
>
> Why should one be forced into "getting out of" his residence? If you do
that
> you have lost whatever edge you may have over the intruder. If the
intruder
> intends harm he will follow you outside.
>
> Let's say you have 2 children each in his own room, do you retreat alone,
take
> the time to grab one or both? In the time it takes to wake one child and
> convince him he has to leave his home the badguy is on top of you.
>
> OK, once you get outside then what? If the intruder follows you and is
capable
> of harming you he will still do so. Fight back once you are outside? With
what?
> At least you could get to the kitchen and grab a knife inside the home.
What
> if the resident is unable to defend himself or herself for whatever
reason?
>
> Let me ask you a question. Is the life of a criminal more important than
yours?
> OK, you let the badguy in, what then? You now have NO defense. What if the
> badguy decides to rape you, your wife or child? What if he wants to beat a
> family member? Don't tell me the family member will get over it, I have
seen
> life long physical and emotional injuries. Don't think that's bad enough?
He's
> in a position to kill all of you to eliminate witnesses. Why allow the
badguy
> to make the dicision to harm you?


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. The sole problem I have is with the very
blurred distinction between the two, and the trigger happy nature with which
a large number of Americans (taking Usenet posters as my only regular
contact with Americans) seem happy to deal with in these situations.

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?

Can I ask of the circumstances you found yourself in when you drew your
weapon?

>
> 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


>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
>
>

[Jim Doyle]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >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.

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

>
> 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

[Paul F Austin]

"Kerryn Offord" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
>
> > Jim Doyle wrote:
> >
> >>"Jim Yanik" > wrote:
> <SNIP>
> > 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.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> This should be qualified.
>
> The culture clash is only over hand guns and using firearms for self
> defence (as a first line over and above getting out of there).
>
> In the UK (also NZ) there is a long history of owning long arms (rifle,
> shotgun), and basically they are 'easy' to buy.
>
> In NZ you can use a firearm for self defence... but you must be 'in fear
> of ....' for yourself or others. Using deadly force to protect property
> is frowned upon. If you do shoot someone... if you shoot them in the
> back, expect the police to take you to court. If the person is shot in
> the front, depending on circumstances (anything short of fatal), the
> police will not proceed. If the shooting is fatal a court (coroners)
> must determine whether there is a case to answer. Historically, for a
> shot in the front, while in fear of injury case, the court finds
> self-defence.
>
> The UK operates in a basically similar way.

While I can't say about NZ, the UK differs substantially from USian practice
in that people who defend themselves (in their own homes or elsewhere) are
subject to routine second guessing as to the use of "excessive force" by
prosecutors. It seems (from this side of the pond) that there's strong
feeling among the "governing classes" that self-defense is illegimate until
proven otherwise. This isn't a "guns" issue but a self-defense issue.

In most places in the US, once an assailant crosses the line and begins an
assault, a homeowner can escalate to any level of violence he feels is
necessary to stop the assault. Note "assault" and _not_"battery".

[Stephen Harding]

B2431 wrote:

> 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.

In the US, gun deaths have been decreasing since about 1992.
There were a bit under 30,000 gun deaths in the US for 2000.

Of those, about 55% were suicides and 40% homicides. The
remainder were accidents of one form or another.

So accidental shooting (at least to death) isn't really your
most likely way to come to an end via gun violence.

Studies have overwhelmingly confirmed that people who take
gun safety courses *don't* have gun accidents. Furthermore,
children who have taken such courses largely don't end up
playing with guns and having accidents with them.


SMH

[N329DF]

>When I read this, my jaw just hit the desk. You are advocating the concept
>that a life is worth less that a few material goods. Don't you have third
>party insurance in the US?

Where I live, we have the highest automobile theft rate in the US. Getting
insurance to cover that is getting to the point it is not affordable. Alot of
people don't have insurance to cover the loss of a car or truck, and if they
lose it, it could be the difference between keeping a roof over thier head and
food on the table.
In my own family, my dad had a 74 F-100, he was getting ready to retire, and
knew that truck would be the last one he most likly ever to be able to get. He
put in a factory new motor, tranmission, every system gone thru to make it like
new. IT was stolen from his driveway less than a yr into his retirment. The
insurance would only pay for a truck that was a rust bucket and was not
reliable enough to go anywhere in. So not only did my dad loose his truck, he
lost his retirment plans, and insurance could not replace the truck with a as
good one.
I may sound callous bout taking a life in the defence of a car or truck, but
the vermin that stole my dads truck did alot more than just steal a truck, they
stole his future.
I don't hunt, because I don't like to kill a creature, be it a deer, rabit,
bird, snake, for sport, but I have no problem taking out a rat or other forms
of vermin, and thieves, either car or house, are a form of vermin.
Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Riding member of the
2003 world champion drill team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
GWRRA,NRA,GOA

[Paul J. Adam]

"N329DF" > wrote in message
...
> >When I read this, my jaw just hit the desk. You are advocating the
concept
> >that a life is worth less that a few material goods. Don't you have third
> >party insurance in the US?
>
> Where I live, we have the highest automobile theft rate in the US.

Aren't the criminals deterred by the armed citizens?

--
Paul J. Adam

[Paul J. Adam]

"Paul F Austin" > wrote in message
. ..
> While I can't say about NZ, the UK differs substantially from USian
practice
> in that people who defend themselves (in their own homes or elsewhere) are
> subject to routine second guessing as to the use of "excessive force" by
> prosecutors. It seems (from this side of the pond) that there's strong
> feeling among the "governing classes" that self-defense is illegimate
until
> proven otherwise. This isn't a "guns" issue but a self-defense issue.

And this is largely thanks to a lot of misrepresentation and propaganda.

Fundamentally, if someone attacks you, or breaks into your house, then
you're allowed to use "reasonable force" to defend yourself, and anyone who
says the force used was "unreasonable" has to convice prosecutors and a jury
of that fact. Home invasion is unheard of where I live, and I certainly
don't take any special precautions beyond proper security: but if some
misguided individual *did* break in, then I would drive them away first and
worry about the consequences second, and not worry overmuch about doing so -
regardless of any injuries they might suffer in the meantime.

One key test is that they not have too many injuries in their back: once
they start running, you stop hurting them unless they show signs of turning
around. (Hence, Tony Martin, who was convicted only for the last shot which
he lied comprehensively about - unless you know of shotgun ammunition that
can make a formation turn around corners.)

Another is that you stay reasonably proportionate to the threat: burglars in
the UK don't have guns (if they had guns they wouldn't be piddling about
with burglary, unless you're being targeted for specific high-value goods)
so shooting them is likely to raise eyebrows and maybe charges. On the other
hand, the elderly may have more leeway: I used to shoot with a gentleman in
his seventies (who owned and shot well two .44 Magnums and a .45 Long Colt)
who kept a deactivated Lee-Enfield with fixed bayonet as a wall ornament in
his bedroom, and was quite prepared to demonstrate the CQB drills he'd
learned as a boy soldier on any intruders.

At his age, of course, he would be old and frail and frightened (well, he
did wear a copper bracelet because he had joint trouble, but refused to stop
shooting). I'd be able to get away with the rifle (even my deact Type 56-1
makes a good club) but probably not the finely-honed and pre-fixed bayonet.
For a young fit man that smacks of premeditation: for a 72-year-old war
veteran and pensioner it's a petty foible recalling old memories (patriotic
music swells, describing my friend's years of Navy service) or a misguided
precaution (cue violin-led pathos as the defence explains the fear this man
lived in)

> In most places in the US, once an assailant crosses the line and begins an
> assault, a homeowner can escalate to any level of violence he feels is
> necessary to stop the assault. Note "assault" and _not_"battery".

The only difference in the UK is that the level of response has to be
"reasonable". Which means that being "assaulted" by a musclebound thug in
the middle of the night merits a much more vehement response, to being sworn
at and threatened by a seven-year-old child on your lawn on a Sunday
afternoon. Both are, after all, assault, although the likely consequences
are very different.

I presume multiple rounds of heavy-calibre gunfire are not *really*
considered legal, sensible and rational responses to the second case, even
in the US? If so, then the situation is less different than the
propagandists would have you believe.

--
Paul J. Adam

[Jim Yanik]

"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.

And once again,getting shot is NOT always a "death sentence".
Nice try at emotionalizing the issue,though.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
:

> "Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Jim Doyle" > wrote in
>> :
>> > 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.
>
> 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,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?

Fact is;guns ARE available to criminals in the UK.When you start talking
about "odds" of one having a gun,it really doesn't matter.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.

>
>> 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.
>
> 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.

And being armed still betters YOUR chances against a group,better than any
other item or method.
>
>> > 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?
>
> 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.
>
>> Why do you wish to protect criminals?
>
> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
> 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.
The risk should be the criminals,not the ODCs.
>
>> > 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.
>
> I've been told with a straight face that it's fair and reasonable to
> shoot and kill trespassers. Someone sets a foot on your lawn and
> you're allowed to kill them. Same poster claimed that this was
> entirely right and reasonable.

Some states allow "defense of property".Although for just setting foot on
it seems unreasonable,without futher knowledge of the situation.
>
>> 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.)
>
> See above for the inconsistency.

Well,if the guy turns his back to you and reaches for a weapon,then it
would be allowable.It depends on the circumstances.
>
>> These laws place the onus on the criminal,not the ODC,the way it
>> SHOULD
> be.
>
> 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,and
also can be carried on one's person,concealed.Then they get protection
while outside the home.
>
> (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)
>
> --
> Paul J. Adam
>
>
>
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.Too
many Britishers are unwilling to recognize that.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[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

[Jim Yanik]

"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%.

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

> 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.
WHERE do you get these wild ideas?


>
>> > 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.

>> >
>> > 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.
>
> 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?
>
> 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.
>>
>> >
>> > 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.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
>
>
>



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

"Jim Doyle" > wrote in
:

>
> "N329DF" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >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 ****?
>> >
>>
>> in a minute. If he is stealing my truck, that I use to make my living
> with,
>> that might have the tools I use to make a living with, and is my only
> means to
>> get to work, then he is no more to me than a vermin to be delt with.
>> If
> the the
>> criminals knew that the sentence for stealing a car was death or life
>> in prison, they might think otherwise. There is a reason they used to
>> hang
> horse
>> thieves. A horse was a familys mean of survival, to plow the fields,
>> to go
> into
>> town to get supplies, to hunt with. Today the car has replaced the
>> horse.
>
> When I read this, my jaw just hit the desk. You are advocating the
> concept that a life is worth less that a few material goods.

Well,HIS life is not worth MY goods,to *me*. That's what matters.

He probably would not knowingly trade his life for my goods either.
He only commits such crimes thinking that he can avoid such risks.
Eliminate any possibility of such risks,and your crimes increase.
Increase the chances of life-threatening risks,and crime goes down.
Some of the worst places for crimes in the US are where guns are
restricted.

Don't you
> have third party insurance in the US? I don't mean to be rude, but
> drawing a comparison to 18th century policy just makes you look even
> more out of the dark ages. Someone tell me - this isn't the genuine
> feeling amongst all Americans?!

So,you would simply spread the costs of crime out over everyone else,rather
then stand up and defend what's yours? How brave of you.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
:

> "N329DF" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >When I read this, my jaw just hit the desk. You are advocating the
> concept
>> >that a life is worth less that a few material goods. Don't you have
>> >third party insurance in the US?
>>
>> Where I live, we have the highest automobile theft rate in the US.
>
> Aren't the criminals deterred by the armed citizens?
>
> --
> Paul J. Adam
>
>
>

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

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[B2431]

>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

[B2431]

>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.

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.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Mary Shafer]

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

[Mary Shafer]

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 Doyle]

"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

[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

[B2431]

>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

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

"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.

[Jay Stranahan]

> 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 Yanik]

"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 Yanik]

"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 Yanik]

"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

[Jim Yanik]

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

[Jim Yanik]

(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

[Evan Brennan]

"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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[B2431]

>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

[Marc Reeve]

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

[Jim Yanik]

(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

[Kerryn Offord]

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')

[Kerryn Offord]

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

[Kerryn Offord]

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.)

[Jim Doyle]

"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
>

[Paul J. Adam]

"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

[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

[Jim Doyle]

"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 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

[Jim Yanik]

Kerryn Offord > wrote in
:

>
>
> 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..."
>
>

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 Yanik]

"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 Yanik]

"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

[Jim Yanik]

"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

[Jim Yanik]

"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

[Jake McGuire]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
> > Where I live, we have the highest automobile theft rate in the US.
>
> Aren't the criminals deterred by the armed citizens?

An armed citizen asleep in his bed does not deter someone from
stealing his car from across the street. This much is obvious. It
*does*, on the other hand, deter a criminal from trying to carjack
him, which carries with it a much higher risk of a non-criminal
getting hurt or killed.

It's entirely analagous to dissuading home-invasion robberies (hot
robberies) in favor of breaking in while the occupants are at work,
which I'd think that most people are in favor of.

-jake

[B2431]

>From: Kerryn Offord

>
>
>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..."
>

Agreed.

>>
>> 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).

I don't know if you have any experience with guns, but I know how long it takes
to unlock my ammo locker and my gun safe. I also know how long it takes to load
any of my guns. By the time I have done it the bad guy is going to have had
plenty of time to do what he wants. Do you seriously expect the bad guy to
stand there and wait until you have armed yourself?

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....

It shouldn't matter at all where a weapon is stored. Premeditation implies I
intended to harm or kill that specific bad guy. It also implies I went out of
my way to do it. Self defense by whatever means is NOT premeditated murder.
>>
>> 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.

You may not be law suit crazy in NZ, but it's unbeliebably rampant here in the
U.S.
Have you heard about the grandmother who won a law suit for burning herself
with coffee she had just bought from MacDonald's? She was the passenger in
that car which was stopped at the time of the incident. There are criminals
who sue and win for injuries incurred during the commision of their crimes.
Doctors get sued because a baby is not born perfect.

Feel free to research this. You may get quite a few laughs.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: Jim Yanik
>Date: 4/22/2004 12:48 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
(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


I chose the 9 iron as an example, 9 irons being considered by most people as
non lethal weapons.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "Jim Doyle"

>
>"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.

That's a nice theory, but in this country it's not a fact.

>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, if required. Many years ago a 10 year old boy broke into my house and
stole some of my edged weapons. Had I been home at the time I would NOT have
drawn a weapon on him. I would have had one handy in case he had an older
accomplice. I used to have a neighbour with alzheimers. He sometimes would
enter my house in the afternoon. I never reached for a weapon.

>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

Having said all this all citizens have to use common sense all the time. If you
leave money in plain sight in an unlocked car the bad guys have no right to
take it, but you did a stupid thing. Same thing with your home. You shouldn't
HAVE to lock your house, but you are a fool if you don't.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Jay Stranahan]

> Beyond TV, my understanding of US gun law stems entirely from the NG.

No wonder you're all worked up. Go to Google and type in 'Centers For Disease
Control' and 'FBI' and go look at the data, instead of fencing with anonymous
strangers on Usenet and watching reruns of Miami Vice.

> 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.

Oh for Christ's sake.... (rolls eyes). That's not true. Felons cannot legally
own firearms (not that that prevents them. They're *felons*. Duh). At least not
in the great state of California, and I seriously doubt they can *anywhere.* You
are speaking from prejudice and your prejudice is based on ignorance, and if it
annoys you for me to point it out and call it by its proper name, I'm not
completely sorry. Because you've said a couple of things below that I find
seriously offensive.

> It's the flagrant willingness to kill,

No, it's a total willingness to defend onesself in one's home. You used to have
the same ethos in your own society. You have successfully argued yourself out of
it, and only time will tell whether this was any sort of an improvement.

> coupled with such a low regard for
> the gravity of murder, that really gets me.

Prejudice again, and this one angers me. If I defend myself with lethal force,
it's only because I wish to avoid dying in my own living room. I have no desire
to harm any human being. No normal man does. I am not dehumanizing the violent
intrusive asshole who might hypothetically barge his way into my house at night.
I simply want to not be at his mercy. He's certainly not there to do me any
favors. The reason he might be armed is not because of any Yankee gun kul-chore,
but because criminals, by de facto goddam definition, DO NOT OBSERVE THE LAW.
This is true in London as well as Redding (CA, population 78,000). Why would any
reasonable individual place himself at the mercy of lawless, violent men?

What's the rate of hot burglaries in Britain? What's happened to your rates of
violent crime, gun crime, since you chopped every legally-owned handgun on your
island into scrap? They've gone up severalfold. Why? Because the lawless took
heart at the way their prospective victims were disarming themselves? No... no,
that's the standard macho NRA line, and I don't buy it. I think it's because
you've hit a rough demographic and economic patch, and banning legally owned
weapons -- predictably -- didn't make any dent in it. You treated a symptom. The
disease rages merrily onwards.

> 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.

What's controversial about the facts? Unless you find them so counterintuitive
to your prejudices that you discard them out of hand.

You can say what you please in reply, but I see I'm not doing any good by
bouncing the marbles of statistical fact off the sidewalk of your prejudice. So
I'll stop.

[Kerryn Offord]

B2431 wrote:

>>From: Kerryn Offord

>>B2431 wrote:
<SNIP>
>>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).
>
>
> I don't know if you have any experience with guns, but I know how long it takes
> to unlock my ammo locker and my gun safe. I also know how long it takes to load
> any of my guns. By the time I have done it the bad guy is going to have had
> plenty of time to do what he wants. Do you seriously expect the bad guy to
> stand there and wait until you have armed yourself?

I was talking about the NZ situation re getting the weapon from a
secured gun safe (although I think you can have weapons on the wall as
long as they have a trigger lock...)


As for getting a gun from a cabinet..., the one case I can think of
where a householder used a legally owned handgun to kill an intruder,
did just that.. And the rules for securing handguns in NZ are pretty strict.

As for the bag guy... As soon as he (most of them are he) to have done a
runner as soon as they think they have woken someone... They really
don't like any noise and are liable to run at the first sound....


>
> 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....
>
>
> It shouldn't matter at all where a weapon is stored. Premeditation implies I
> intended to harm or kill that specific bad guy. It also implies I went out of
> my way to do it. Self defense by whatever means is NOT premeditated murder.

Nope the premeditation implies you intended to use maybe excessive
force, if you grab a golf club from a bag (and you play golf)... then
its an spur of the moment action.

Premeditated doesn't need a specific victim/ target, otherwise those
guys convicted in that sniper case couldn't be convicted of murder (the
targets were random)
<SNIP>
>>
>>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.
>
>
> You may not be law suit crazy in NZ, but it's unbeliebably rampant here in the
> U.S.
> Have you heard about the grandmother who won a law suit for burning herself
> with coffee she had just bought from MacDonald's? She was the passenger in
> that car which was stopped at the time of the incident. There are criminals
> who sue and win for injuries incurred during the commision of their crimes.
> Doctors get sued because a baby is not born perfect.
>
> Feel free to research this. You may get quite a few laughs.

Re the McDs coffee... it does sound extreme, until you find that McDs
coffee was being served much hotter than anybody else was, and that they
had been warned about serving it so hot (especially at a drive in window).

[Jim Doyle]

"Jay Stranahan" > wrote in message
...
> > Beyond TV, my understanding of US gun law stems entirely from the NG.
>
> No wonder you're all worked up. Go to Google and type in 'Centers For
Disease
> Control' and 'FBI' and go look at the data, instead of fencing with
anonymous
> strangers on Usenet and watching reruns of Miami Vice.

I have done exactly that and now have a much better appreciation of the
situation - yet this has not changed my views one bit... wonder why?


> > 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.
>
> Oh for Christ's sake.... (rolls eyes). That's not true. Felons cannot
legally
> own firearms (not that that prevents them. They're *felons*. Duh). At
least not
> in the great state of California, and I seriously doubt they can
*anywhere.*

You can be as patronising as you wish. In response to your reply above - we
are not born with 'criminal'/'law abiding citizen' emblazoned on our
foreheads, no. So beyond having a criminal record, what is there to stop the
'soon-to-be' crims? With all the will in the world, this background security
checking system cannot be water tight.

You
> are speaking from prejudice and your prejudice is based on ignorance, and
if it
> annoys you for me to point it out and call it by its proper name, I'm not
> completely sorry. Because you've said a couple of things below that I find
> seriously offensive.

No offence intended. As far as my prejudices extend, no - I'm not prepared
to accept that I've watched too many US cop dramas and have this picture
painted in my head that is so far from the truth. Prejudiced I may be, but
these are borne of a number of posts made within the last 48 hours and the
genuine (I believe them to be) feelings that the authors have expressed.

>
> > It's the flagrant willingness to kill,
>
> No, it's a total willingness to defend onesself in one's home. You used to
have
> the same ethos in your own society. You have successfully argued yourself
out of
> it, and only time will tell whether this was any sort of an improvement.
>
> > coupled with such a low regard for
> > the gravity of murder, that really gets me.

Were these the two statements to which you took offence? I was not intending
to label you personally as the type of chap who would readily murder a man
for the possession of material goods - so calm down dear. A number of posts
to this ng alone, within the last 48 hours, have demonstrated - on both
counts - that this is the case. -

'I am prepared to murder someone if the situation is right (or wrong) - and
I'm not too fussed of the outcome.'

That's paraphrasing, granted, but I'd argue is the crux of many a statement
made within this thread. I could list them should you like.

>
> Prejudice again, and this one angers me.

Rubbish.

> If I defend myself with lethal force,
> it's only because I wish to avoid dying in my own living room. I have no
desire
> to harm any human being. No normal man does. I am not dehumanizing the
violent
> intrusive asshole who might hypothetically barge his way into my house at
night.
> I simply want to not be at his mercy. He's certainly not there to do me
any
> favors. The reason he might be armed is not because of any Yankee gun
kul-chore,
> but because criminals, by de facto goddam definition, DO NOT OBSERVE THE
LAW.
> This is true in London as well as Redding (CA, population 78,000). Why
would any
> reasonable individual place himself at the mercy of lawless, violent men?

Understand this - I can see why you and the other posters here own a weapon.
Really, I do. We have, however, established that a criminal within the UK
presents a very different - but real nonetheless - danger. ****ty people do
exist within the UK - that I'll admit to. The issues with which I am having
trouble trying to comprehend is this:

Firstly (and most importantly): Some - not all, but some - of you are
prepared to kill a man over some petty crimes - things that can be such an
insignificant event in the grand scheme of life. Furthermore - they believe
it's doing the public a great service, and do not wish to be accountable for
murder, in fact they can't even see a reason for being accountable.

Secondly: Of those of you not falling into the above category, you are
prepared to sit back and just accept that your neighbour (above) has a gun
and is willing to use it with little regard for the consequences. You are
defending that person's right to own a weapon and ultimately empowering him
with deadly force. Can you not see the conundrum?

> What's the rate of hot burglaries in Britain?

Higher than the US. What about the US domestic/non-domestic burglaries
compared to the UK? 3-year averaged violent crime rates? Property crime (as
it is known in the US)? It's not such a clear distinction between the two
countries as you would seemingly like.

What's happened to your rates of
> violent crime, gun crime, since you chopped every legally-owned handgun on
your
> island into scrap? They've gone up severalfold.

Granted, the rates have increased whereas the US has remained at a fairly
steady state, if not decline. A large factor in the increase of violent/gun
related crime within the UK has been due to the steady leak of arms from the
Baltic states into the UK in the late 90's.

The annual death rate remains at a little above a score - an increase as you
suggest, but twenty is nothing compared to ten thousand within the US. I'll
take 23 in 60,000,000 over 10,000 in 250,000,000 any day.

Why? Because the lawless took
> heart at the way their prospective victims were disarming themselves?
No... no,
> that's the standard macho NRA line, and I don't buy it. I think it's
because
> you've hit a rough demographic and economic patch, and banning legally
owned
> weapons -- predictably -- didn't make any dent in it. You treated a
symptom. The
> disease rages merrily onwards.

The banning of handguns within the UK was not brought about by how you
suggest - to get the UK out of a rough demographic and economic patch. It
was carried though on a wave of public pressure after the murder of a
primary school class and their teacher in Dunblane. The UK public questioned
the need for its citizens to have ready access to firearms - and the country
decided, er... nope.

Are you familiar with the events at Dunblane?

>
> > 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.
>
> What's controversial about the facts? Unless you find them so
counterintuitive
> to your prejudices that you discard them out of hand.

Throw away comment that you were not intended to kick-off over. Besides, the
facts aren't stacked in your favour as much as you would like to suggest.

> You can say what you please in reply, but I see I'm not doing any good by
> bouncing the marbles of statistical fact off the sidewalk of your
prejudice. So
> I'll stop.

Pettiness prevails. Again with this prejudice - pots and kettles. I'm ready
to accept - and challenge - my prejudices.

BTW, not having been a Usenet poster since the dawn of time - I still think
it inappropriate to edit a post to which you are replying - or at least not
include the full text as it was intended - it would seem to indicate an
unwillingness to address the points of the original post.

Jim Doyle

[Kerryn Offord]

Jim Yanik wrote:

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

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

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

It seems to come down to a difference in attitudes.

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

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

[Kerryn Offord]

Jay Stranahan wrote:

<SNIP>
>>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.
>
>
> Oh for Christ's sake.... (rolls eyes). That's not true. Felons cannot legally
> own firearms (not that that prevents them. They're *felons*. Duh). At least not
> in the great state of California, and I seriously doubt they can *anywhere.* You
> are speaking from prejudice and your prejudice is based on ignorance, and if it
> annoys you for me to point it out and call it by its proper name, I'm not
> completely sorry. Because you've said a couple of things below that I find
> seriously offensive.
>

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

>
>>It's the flagrant willingness to kill,
>
>
> No, it's a total willingness to defend onesself in one's home. You used to have
> the same ethos in your own society. You have successfully argued yourself out of
> it, and only time will tell whether this was any sort of an improvement.

No, its a willingness to kill. I can defend myself in my house without
having a gun. Using a gun for self defence implies you are prepared to
use it. If you are prepared to use a firearm, then you are prepared to
kill... you can't guarantee that a shot will not kill...

<SNIP>

[Jim Yanik]

(B2431) wrote in
:

>>From: "Jim Doyle"
>
>>
>>"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.
>
> That's a nice theory, but in this country it's not a fact.

Strange how some folks think that one must only respond to a criminal with
force no greater than what the criminal displays("reasonable force").
Hobbling the ODC while the criminal is under no such restraint.
Or that they can discern the INTENT of a criminal,and that it will not
change for the worse in the course of a confrontation.
As if an elderly,weak,or handicapped person could fight off a
healthy,young,strong man without great risk to themselves.Some burglars
might (and have)decide the victim is weak enough to ignore or even
assault.A BAD time to have to go find a better weapon.
>
>>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, if required. Many years ago a 10 year old boy broke into my house
> and stole some of my edged weapons. Had I been home at the time I
> would NOT have drawn a weapon on him. I would have had one handy in
> case he had an older accomplice. I used to have a neighbour with
> alzheimers. He sometimes would enter my house in the afternoon. I
> never reached for a weapon.

Well,one should always identify their target before shooting.
>
>>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
>
> Having said all this all citizens have to use common sense all the
> time. If you leave money in plain sight in an unlocked car the bad
> guys have no right to take it, but you did a stupid thing. Same thing
> with your home. You shouldn't HAVE to lock your house, but you are a
> fool if you don't.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

Jay Stranahan > wrote in
:

>> Beyond TV, my understanding of US gun law stems entirely from the NG.
>
> No wonder you're all worked up. Go to Google and type in 'Centers For
> Disease Control' and 'FBI' and go look at the data, instead of fencing
> with anonymous strangers on Usenet and watching reruns of Miami Vice.
>
>> 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.

Convicted felons cannot even possess a single cartridge;that's good enough
for 5 years under Federal law.
(which has not been used much until recently.)
And states are stiffening their penalties for possession of a
firearm,ammo,or use of a firearm by a felon in the commission of a crime.


>
> Oh for Christ's sake.... (rolls eyes). That's not true. Felons cannot
> legally own firearms (not that that prevents them. They're *felons*.
> Duh). At least not in the great state of California, and I seriously
> doubt they can *anywhere.* You are speaking from prejudice and your
> prejudice is based on ignorance, and if it annoys you for me to point
> it out and call it by its proper name, I'm not completely sorry.
> Because you've said a couple of things below that I find seriously
> offensive.
>
>> It's the flagrant willingness to kill,
>
> No, it's a total willingness to defend onesself in one's home.

Using the best tool for the job,a gun.No other weapon or item can be used
by the wide spectrum of peoples,and gives the -lowest- risks to
oneself.(and makes the risks to the criminal MUCH higher,as it should be.)

> You
> used to have the same ethos in your own society. You have successfully
> argued yourself out of it, and only time will tell whether this was
> any sort of an improvement.
>
>> coupled with such a low regard for
>> the gravity of murder, that really gets me.

Killing a person is NOT always -murder-. There's that attempt at
emotionalizing the issue again.
>
> Prejudice again, and this one angers me. If I defend myself with
> lethal force, it's only because I wish to avoid dying in my own living
> room. I have no desire to harm any human being. No normal man does. I
> am not dehumanizing the violent intrusive asshole who might
> hypothetically barge his way into my house at night. I simply want to
> not be at his mercy. He's certainly not there to do me any favors. The
> reason he might be armed is not because of any Yankee gun kul-chore,
> but because criminals, by de facto goddam definition, DO NOT OBSERVE
> THE LAW. This is true in London as well as Redding (CA, population
> 78,000). Why would any reasonable individual place himself at the
> mercy of lawless, violent men?

Because of a false sense of security;the thought that it cannot happen to
them.
>
> What's the rate of hot burglaries in Britain? What's happened to your
> rates of violent crime, gun crime, since you chopped every
> legally-owned handgun on your island into scrap? They've gone up
> severalfold. Why? Because the lawless took heart at the way their
> prospective victims were disarming themselves? No... no, that's the
> standard macho NRA line, and I don't buy it. I think it's because
> you've hit a rough demographic and economic patch, and banning legally
> owned weapons -- predictably -- didn't make any dent in it. You
> treated a symptom. The disease rages merrily onwards.
>
>> 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.
>
> What's controversial about the facts? Unless you find them so
> counterintuitive to your prejudices that you discard them out of hand.
>
> You can say what you please in reply, but I see I'm not doing any good
> by bouncing the marbles of statistical fact off the sidewalk of your
> prejudice. So I'll stop.
>
>


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

Kerryn Offord > wrote in
:

>
>
> Jay Stranahan wrote:
>
><SNIP>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>> Oh for Christ's sake.... (rolls eyes). That's not true. Felons cannot
>> legally own firearms (not that that prevents them. They're *felons*.
>> Duh). At least not in the great state of California, and I seriously
>> doubt they can *anywhere.* You are speaking from prejudice and your
>> prejudice is based on ignorance, and if it annoys you for me to point
>> it out and call it by its proper name, I'm not completely sorry.
>> Because you've said a couple of things below that I find seriously
>> offensive.
>>
>
> This only applies to convicted felons.. nothing to stop someone who
> has never been convicted from legally owning and carrying a firearm in
> the course of his 'employment'... there might be problems if he is
> caught in the act while armed... but maybe he shoots his way free and
> continue as a non felon.


If they commit a felony crime,they ARE a felon,merely one that has not been
caught,tried and convicted yet.And there ARE laws against the improper use
of firearms.Now if a police officer confronts such an armed criminal,and he
resists arrest,and the officer shoots the crook,it's NOT murder.It's NOT
judge,jury,and executioner,either.Why should it be any different for the
ODC?

>
>>
>>>It's the flagrant willingness to kill,
>>
>>
>> No, it's a total willingness to defend onesself in one's home. You
>> used to have the same ethos in your own society. You have
>> successfully argued yourself out of it, and only time will tell
>> whether this was any sort of an improvement.
>
> No, its a willingness to kill. I can defend myself in my house without
> having a gun. Using a gun for self defence implies you are prepared to
> use it. If you are prepared to use a firearm, then you are prepared to
> kill... you can't guarantee that a shot will not kill...
>
><SNIP>
>
>

Well,so WHAT if a criminal in your home gets killed?
It just makes people that much safer.And it helps insure that your hard-
earned possessions and perhaps even your lives stay in your hands.

Just because YOU think you can defend yourself in your home without
firearms does not mean others are so capable,or that they should bear such
risks because of how YOU feel.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[[email protected]]

Mary Shafer > wrote:
>>
>> 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

Works fine for me way up here in Canada...
--

-Gord.

[Jim Yanik]

"Jim Doyle" > wrote in
:

>
> "Jay Stranahan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > Beyond TV, my understanding of US gun law stems entirely from the
>> > NG.
>>
>> No wonder you're all worked up. Go to Google and type in 'Centers For
> Disease
>> Control' and 'FBI' and go look at the data, instead of fencing with
> anonymous
>> strangers on Usenet and watching reruns of Miami Vice.
>
> I have done exactly that and now have a much better appreciation of
> the situation - yet this has not changed my views one bit... wonder
> why?
>
>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Oh for Christ's sake.... (rolls eyes). That's not true. Felons cannot
> legally
>> own firearms (not that that prevents them. They're *felons*. Duh). At
> least not
>> in the great state of California, and I seriously doubt they can
> *anywhere.*
>
> You can be as patronising as you wish. In response to your reply above
> - we are not born with 'criminal'/'law abiding citizen' emblazoned on
> our foreheads, no. So beyond having a criminal record, what is there
> to stop the 'soon-to-be' crims? With all the will in the world, this
> background security checking system cannot be water tight.

Even with a gun ban,there's nothing to stop him from obtaining an illegal
gun,either homemade,or smuggled,or stolen from legal sources. What you are
seeking is "prior restraint",and laws don't work that way.they provide for
punishment AFTER a crime's been committed.And people intending to commit
crimes do not obey laws;the very definition of "criminal".Even in the
UK,those who -want- guns can get them.Your crooks just don't see the need
as they are well protected by your restrictive self-defense laws,that only
restrict law abiding citizens,or ODCs.They can burgle with near
impunity,especially if they choose their victims to be weak.As long as they
are not identified,they can escape and not get caught.
>
> You
>> are speaking from prejudice and your prejudice is based on ignorance,
>> and
> if it
>> annoys you for me to point it out and call it by its proper name, I'm
>> not completely sorry. Because you've said a couple of things below
>> that I find seriously offensive.
>
> No offence intended. As far as my prejudices extend, no - I'm not
> prepared to accept that I've watched too many US cop dramas and have
> this picture painted in my head that is so far from the truth.
> Prejudiced I may be, but these are borne of a number of posts made
> within the last 48 hours and the genuine (I believe them to be)
> feelings that the authors have expressed.
>
>>
>> > It's the flagrant willingness to kill,
>>
>> No, it's a total willingness to defend onesself in one's home.

Using the best tool for the job,a gun.A tool that nearly everyone can use
equally,and with the least risk to themselves.And one that greatly
increases the risk for the criminal.

> You
>> used to
> have
>> the same ethos in your own society. You have successfully argued
>> yourself
> out of
>> it, and only time will tell whether this was any sort of an
>> improvement.
>>
>> > coupled with such a low regard for
>> > the gravity of murder, that really gets me.
>
> Were these the two statements to which you took offence? I was not
> intending to label you personally as the type of chap who would
> readily murder a man for the possession of material goods - so calm
> down dear. A number of posts to this ng alone, within the last 48
> hours, have demonstrated - on both counts - that this is the case. -
>
> 'I am prepared to murder someone if the situation is right (or wrong)
> - and I'm not too fussed of the outcome.'

Well,you again try to emotionalize with the term "murder",which does not
apply in self-defense.If one is trying to "citizen's arrest" the
criminal,and he resists,then it's not murder,either.

>
> That's paraphrasing, granted, but I'd argue is the crux of many a
> statement made within this thread. I could list them should you like.
>
>>
>> Prejudice again, and this one angers me.
>
> Rubbish.
>
>> If I defend myself with lethal force,
>> it's only because I wish to avoid dying in my own living room. I have
>> no
> desire
>> to harm any human being. No normal man does. I am not dehumanizing
>> the
> violent
>> intrusive asshole who might hypothetically barge his way into my
>> house at
> night.
>> I simply want to not be at his mercy. He's certainly not there to do
>> me
> any
>> favors. The reason he might be armed is not because of any Yankee gun
> kul-chore,
>> but because criminals, by de facto goddam definition, DO NOT OBSERVE
>> THE
> LAW.
>> This is true in London as well as Redding (CA, population 78,000).
>> Why
> would any
>> reasonable individual place himself at the mercy of lawless, violent
>> men?
>
> Understand this - I can see why you and the other posters here own a
> weapon. Really, I do. We have, however, established that a criminal
> within the UK presents a very different - but real nonetheless -
> danger. ****ty people do exist within the UK - that I'll admit to. The
> issues with which I am having trouble trying to comprehend is this:
>
> Firstly (and most importantly): Some - not all, but some - of you are
> prepared to kill a man over some petty crimes - things that can be
> such an insignificant event in the grand scheme of life. Furthermore -
> they believe it's doing the public a great service, and do not wish to
> be accountable for murder, in fact they can't even see a reason for
> being accountable.

well,some of us do not consider some thefts to be "petty crime".We work
hard to own some items,and the crooks have no right to them,or to be safe
while trying to take them illegally.
>
> Secondly: Of those of you not falling into the above category, you are
> prepared to sit back and just accept that your neighbour (above) has a
> gun and is willing to use it with little regard for the consequences.
> You are defending that person's right to own a weapon and ultimately
> empowering him with deadly force. Can you not see the conundrum?

Your neighbor could have a gallon of petrol and want to burn your house
down with you in it,too. Or they might want to run you down with their
auto,or maybe stab you with their knives,or club you with a cricket bat.
Are you so afraid of your neighbors?
>
>> What's the rate of hot burglaries in Britain?
>
> Higher than the US. What about the US domestic/non-domestic burglaries
> compared to the UK? 3-year averaged violent crime rates? Property
> crime (as it is known in the US)? It's not such a clear distinction
> between the two countries as you would seemingly like.
>
> What's happened to your rates of
>> violent crime, gun crime, since you chopped every legally-owned
>> handgun on
> your
>> island into scrap? They've gone up severalfold.
>
> Granted, the rates have increased whereas the US has remained at a
> fairly steady state, if not decline. A large factor in the increase of
> violent/gun related crime within the UK has been due to the steady
> leak of arms from the Baltic states into the UK in the late 90's.
>
> The annual death rate remains at a little above a score - an increase
> as you suggest, but twenty is nothing compared to ten thousand within
> the US. I'll take 23 in 60,000,000 over 10,000 in 250,000,000 any day.

But much of that is from criminal-criminal shootings,generally drug-
related.And there's no evidence that returning gun ownership in the UK
would result in a dramatic increase in gun violence,just as there was no
decrease in such violence when your gun control laws were enacted.Your
society is just more peaceable than ours,and it's not because of the guns.
>
> Why? Because the lawless took
>> heart at the way their prospective victims were disarming themselves?
> No... no,
>> that's the standard macho NRA line, and I don't buy it. I think it's
> because
>> you've hit a rough demographic and economic patch, and banning
>> legally
> owned
>> weapons -- predictably -- didn't make any dent in it. You treated a
> symptom. The
>> disease rages merrily onwards.
>
> The banning of handguns within the UK was not brought about by how you
> suggest - to get the UK out of a rough demographic and economic patch.
> It was carried though on a wave of public pressure after the murder of
> a primary school class and their teacher in Dunblane. The UK public
> questioned the need for its citizens to have ready access to firearms
> - and the country decided, er... nope.
>
> Are you familiar with the events at Dunblane?
>

Yes,and such events STILL can happen in the UK. I note that the Yardies
have machine guns,and people still make homemade guns;that's why UK is
banning replica guns,and people can and do drive back from Eastern Europe
with guns bought there,where they are plentiful.I suspect that one can find
guns for sale in most UK cities,if you know where or who to go to.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[B2431]

>From: Kerryn Offord

>
>Americans hold everybody else's life cheap (cheaper than the cheapest
>bit of property).
>
>Uk/NZ and others consider both lives of value, but allow reasonable
>force in defence of self or others (defence of property is different).

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

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Evan Brennan]

Kerryn Offord > wrote:
>> Now,that UK man who shot the burglars in the back was justified,as
the
>> police were of NO use,and he had suffered repeated burglaries.The
police
>> failed in providing him security,so it fell upon himself to do so.
>> Criminals should have no right to safety while commiting their
crimes.
><SNIP>
>
>This is simply attempted murder. The target was no threat and was
>departing, but the householder shot him anyway (that makes it
vindictive).


You'd rather let a burglar rob or kill someone else who is weaker or
less prepared to defend himself?


>It seems to come down to a difference in attitudes.


The main difference in attitude is that you are more passive.


>Americans hold everybody else's life cheap


I would hold your life cheap if you forcibly entered my home
uninvited. And BTW, very few American burglars and criminals commit
robberies to "feed their families" as someone else suggested. Some
have tried to use that as an excuse because it sounds better than
admitting they wanted to feed their drug habit, or other illegal
habits. : )

In other words, if you were foolish enough to break into a stranger's
home I would not feel any sympathy for your bullet-riddled body. Your
tough luck.

>Uk/NZ and others consider both lives of value, but allow reasonable
>force in defence of self or others


It's a longstanding socioeconomic reality that Americans are generally
more aggressive than Brits and Anzacs. More aggressive in the
marketplace, more aggressive on the battlefield, and unfortunately,
more aggressive when it comes to violent crime.

The British, New Zealanders and Australians have always been more
timid and passive. They have traditionally lacked a sense of urgency
-- except when they want another country to help them. I cannot say
that I admire their penchant for overcautiousness, inaction, and heavy
reliance on foreigners (often without acknowledgement). It's also
difficult to respect the British/Anzac tendency to achieve remarkably
puny results over interminably long periods of time.

That is why America is a global superpower, and Britain, New Zealand,
Australia are not. Furthermore, the UK's increasingly draconian
firearms control laws have backfired, providing further proof that
passiveness and appeasement is not something to be proud of.

[Mary Shafer]

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 22:13:21 -0700, (Marc Reeve)
wrote:

> 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

That reminds me of the time I got a ride in Dryden's Bell 47
helicopter. We went over to Mojave and came back to Dryden by flying
along the freeway. Well, it was amazing how quickly all the
tractor-trailer rigs slowed down. They thought we were the aircraft
of the "patrolled by aircraft" signs.

> Sadly, no one seems to have the Phantom version online.

I'll dig my n-th generation copy out and scan it in. It's with my
Sidewinder "reach out and touch someone" drawing from the Libya
incident and all the other aerospace graffiti I've collected.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Mary Shafer]

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:03:44 -0700, Mary Shafer >
wrote:

> 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.

I tried again and it opened up without a problem.

If you google on "speed enforcement" and select "images" you'll get a
bunch of copies of this photo. Cute, isn't it?

It reminds me of the old McAir calendars, the big ones with photos and
drawings of their aircraft in action. That's probably because they
showed the AV-8 ground loitering and various helicopters hiding behind
trees and ridgelines (with the ball at the top of the mast "peeking"
over it).

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Tank Fixer]

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

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

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

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Kerryn Offord]

Tank Fixer wrote:

> In article >,
> on Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:54:45 +1200,
> Kerryn Offord attempted to say .....
>
>
>>This only applies to convicted felons.. nothing to stop someone who has
>>never been convicted from legally owning and carrying a firearm in the
>>course of his 'employment'... there might be problems if he is caught in
>>the act while armed... but maybe he shoots his way free and continue as
>>a non felon.
>>
>
>
> If someone wants to kill you what makes you think they have to have a gun to
> do it ?
>

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


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

[Paul J. Adam]

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

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

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

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

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

> > What's the property value that justifies homicide, out of interest?
> >
> > Can I kill a man for stealing my car? (About $7,000 at last check).
>
> you can use a gun to defend against a carjacking.

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

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

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

> > Can I kill a man for stealing my watch? (About $100)
>
> Well,to take that watch means he threatens force against you.

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

> > Can I kill a man for stealing a loaf of bread?
>
> If he does it by force or threat of force,yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
Paul J. Adam

[Jim Doyle]

"Kerryn Offord" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
> > Now,that UK man who shot the burglars in the back was justified,as the
> > police were of NO use,and he had suffered repeated burglaries.The police
> > failed in providing him security,so it fell upon himself to do so.
> > Criminals should have no right to safety while commiting their crimes.
> <SNIP>
>
> This is simply attempted murder. The target was no threat and was
> departing, but the householder shot him anyway (that makes it vindictive).
>
> If the householder had just shot the guy in the chest when he first
> confronted him....
>
> It seems to come down to a difference in attitudes.

This reminds me of an incident in Northern Ireland:

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

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


> Americans hold everybody else's life cheap (cheaper than the cheapest
> bit of property).
>
> Uk/NZ and others consider both lives of value, but allow reasonable
> force in defence of self or others (defence of property is different).
>

[Keith Willshaw]

"Jim Doyle" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> This reminds me of an incident in Northern Ireland:
>
> A squaddie was manning a vehicle checkpoint as a car approached at speed -
> with obvious hostile intent. The passenger in the car opened fire on the
> checkpoint, and so - understandably - the soldier returned fire. The car
> passed and nobody had scored a hit, unfortunately though, as the car
> accelerated away the soldier killed one of the occupants (ISTR the
driver).
> Since the lethal shot was fired with the car having passed - that soldier
> was successfully charged with manslaughter and went to prison.
>
> Tricky to decide whether that soldier was right to fire, and I would argue
> that he was. NI SOPs decided he wasn't (and I think there was a political
> move to show him little leniency),

In fact he was cleared of manslaughter on appeal.

Keith

[Paul J. Adam]

"Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
> :
> > Of course, and always have been, but they don't get used for burglary.
>
> Because they know they are safe,protected by UK's laws against self-
> defense,at the expense of the citizenry.

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

> Appeasement,that's what it is.

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

> > Are you carrying elephant repellant, Jim? You *could* be trampled to
> > death by a herd of rogue elephants at any time, you know. I can sell
> > you, for just $5,000 cash, a guaranteed anti-elephant formula that
> > will protect you.
> >
> > Admittedly, you might consider "the odds" of elephant-related death
> > rather low, but can you afford to take chances with your safety?
>
> well,now you're talking nonsense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

> > Thanks, but we like having handguns be rare and unusual. You do it
> > your way, we'll do it ours.
>
> yes,keep those criminals safe,while your citizens suffer crimes.

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

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

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


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

> Appease them.

No, keep them disarmed as a rule.

> > Not if one or two of the group have guns: outnumbered and outgunned is
> > a bad place to be.
>
> You're STILL better off than being unarmed.

Why? Dead is still dead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

> > Thus leaving the ODC open to a lifetime of legal nightmares,
> > apparently.
>
> Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

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

> > Where are you keeping it while you're asleep?
>
> Nunya bidness.

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

> >> > (And for the endless whines about Jill Dando - she was shot in the
> >> > back of the head on her doorstep, caught completely unawares. She
> >> > could have had a MAC-10 in each hand and it wouldn't have made the
> >> > slightest difference)
>
> Well,so she was caught unawares;that's the result of a false sense of
> security that the UK residents have,from their "gun control".

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

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

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

> > And how "being armed" is far from the panacea quoted. Note also that
> > this incident was five years ago - haven't you had any other examples
> > to cite?
>
> Why,what's changed in the last 5 years? Nothing.But UK gun crimes have
> risen every year,I believe,despite gun "control".

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

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

--
Paul J. Adam

[Keith Willshaw]

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

> >
> > Why,what's changed in the last 5 years? Nothing.But UK gun crimes have
> > risen every year,I believe,despite gun "control".
>
> Yeah, I think we had 23 killed last year as opposed to 17 in 1999. That's
> *how* much more dangerous than the US?
>

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keith

[Jim Yanik]

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

>>From: Kerryn Offord
>
>>
>>Americans hold everybody else's life cheap (cheaper than the cheapest
>>bit of property).
>>
>>Uk/NZ and others consider both lives of value, but allow reasonable
>>force in defence of self or others (defence of property is different).
>
> Well, that ends my discussion with you. Have a nice day.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

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

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

Kerryn Offord > wrote in
:

>
>
> Tank Fixer wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> on Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:54:45 +1200,
>> Kerryn Offord attempted to say .....
>>
>>
>>>This only applies to convicted felons.. nothing to stop someone who
>>>has never been convicted from legally owning and carrying a firearm
>>>in the course of his 'employment'... there might be problems if he is
>>>caught in the act while armed... but maybe he shoots his way free and
>>>continue as a non felon.
>>>
>>
>>
>> If someone wants to kill you what makes you think they have to have a
>> gun to do it ?
>>
>
> No reason, but in this thread its been suggested that the guy breaking
> into your house is illegally carrying a weapon.....
>

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

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



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
:

> "Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
>> :
>> > So you've got the crime anyway, and the armed criminals, and the
>> > accidental deaths and suicides... and the answer is "more guns"?
>>
>> In the hands of ODCs.yes.
>
> How do you tell ODCs from criminals who haven't been convicted yet?

If you see them commiting a crime,then they are criminals.If they have
committed no crimes,then they are ODCs.
>
>> Removing the guns will not decrease crime,it has
>> the opposite effect,and is practically impossible.
>
> Absolutely true: but it's a poor advertisment for the idea that a few
> thousand weapons would transform the UK and turn it into a crime-free
> paradise.

Never claimed it would.It would allow ODCs to defend themselves with less
risk to themselves,though.Especially the elderly,infirm.
>
> I'm arguing against transplanting US solutions to the UK, is all.
>
>> > What's the property value that justifies homicide, out of interest?
>> >
>> > Can I kill a man for stealing my car? (About $7,000 at last check).
>>
>> you can use a gun to defend against a carjacking.
>
> You don't get carjacked in the UK, Jim, it's on a par with
> elephant-rated fatalities: you can find a couple but they're
> celebrated for their rarity.
>
>> Or you could use the gun to -safely- detain the thief,until police
>> can arrive.
>
> I challenge him and he starts to run. Can I shoot him? If not, how do
> I detain him?

If he runs towards you,then you shoot him.If he runs away,then he gets
away.
>
>> > Can I kill a man for stealing my watch? (About $100)
>>
>> Well,to take that watch means he threatens force against you.
>
> No, let's suppose I took it off to wash my hands in a public restroom,
> and he snatches it up and runs. Can I shoot him in the back in order
> to reclaim my watch?
>
>> > Can I kill a man for stealing a loaf of bread?
>>
>> If he does it by force or threat of force,yes.
>
> He grabs it off a shelf in a supermarket and runs for the exit. Can I
> shoot him?

I see where you are going here,and I'm not playing that game.
>
>> Or you could use the gun to -safely- detain the thief,until police
>> can arrive.
>
> How does one "safely" detain another with a firearm? If you're not
> willing and ready to shoot, it's not effective: to be effective, it
> certainly can't be safe (at least not for the detainee!) I'm not
> opposed to the concept, but I'm trying to pare away the hyperbole and
> get to the facts of when you *actually* are and are not allowed to use
> deadly force, rather than the exaggerations spouted by both extremes.
>
>> Now,that UK man who shot the burglars in the back was justified,as
>> the police were of NO use,and he had suffered repeated burglaries.
>
> No, he committed premeditated murder, and a jury agreed.

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

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

And that's about the only way his burglaries would have been stopped.The
police failed him.
>
>> The police
>> failed in providing him security,so it fell upon himself to do so.
>
> And he was entitled to do so: but not to cold-bloodedly plan the
> killing of the next person to intrude.
>
>> Criminals should have no right to safety while commiting their
>> crimes.
>
> I'm a little uncertain about this one. I'd rather say that the burden
> of proof is on the criminal to show that they were seriously
> mistreated. For instance, a criminal has no right to protest about a
> householder using reasonable force to drive them off, detain them or
> disable them. Even a burglar is entitled to complain if the
> householder then starts applying electroshock therapy or just a damn
> good kicking to "teach him a lesson", or just for amusement.
>
>> You try to equate the value of a possession against a criminal's
>> life,
>
> I'm just curious where the threshold falls for the use of deadly force
> and its attendant risks.
>
>> but
>> the true and higher cost is the lack of security and freedom to own
>> property.
>
> Again, I can only presume life is much more difficult and dangerous
> where you live, that so much theft happens in plain sight and
> unprevented. Property theft here is done where nobody's looking, so
> issuing firearms wouldn't help.
>
> --
> Paul J. Adam
>
>
>
So,you are saying there's no at-home burglaries in the UK? Iknow George
Harrison would have benefitted from having a handgun when that intruder
entered his home.Maybe he (and his wife)wouldn't have been stabbed so many
times.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Paul J. Adam]

"Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
> :
> > Absolutely true: but it's a poor advertisment for the idea that a few
> > thousand weapons would transform the UK and turn it into a crime-free
> > paradise.
>
> Never claimed it would.It would allow ODCs to defend themselves with less
> risk to themselves,though.Especially the elderly,infirm.

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

> > I challenge him and he starts to run. Can I shoot him? If not, how do
> > I detain him?
>
> If he runs towards you,then you shoot him.If he runs away,then he gets
> away.

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

Why does adding firearms to the mix help matters?

> > He grabs it off a shelf in a supermarket and runs for the exit. Can I
> > shoot him?
>
> I see where you are going here,and I'm not playing that game.

Dodging the question, Jim?

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

> > No, he committed premeditated murder, and a jury agreed.
>
> Well,one of your appeasing jurys ruled that way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
Paul J. Adam

[Keith Willshaw]

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

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

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

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

Keith

[Jim Doyle]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> In fact he was cleared of manslaughter on appeal.
>
> Keith
>

Keith - my apologies, you are quite right.

[Jim Yanik]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
:

> "Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
>> :
>> > Absolutely true: but it's a poor advertisment for the idea that a
>> > few thousand weapons would transform the UK and turn it into a
>> > crime-free paradise.
>>
>> Never claimed it would.It would allow ODCs to defend themselves with
>> less risk to themselves,though.Especially the elderly,infirm.
>
> Not if the criminals are aggressive, armed and practiced, and the ODCs
> are not. It takes hard work, practice and a lot of rounds to become
> proficient with a handgun.
>

Well,that's NOT the way it's been here in the US,and I doubt that UK
criminals are any different.I've read of plenty of examples of elderly
people using handguns well enough without any extensive training.
It's simply not that hard to use a handgun.

>> > I challenge him and he starts to run. Can I shoot him? If not, how
>> > do I detain him?
>>
>> If he runs towards you,then you shoot him.If he runs away,then he
>> gets away.
>
> So in other words, exactly the same as in the UK: if I see him he runs
> away.

Depends on how close he is to you,too.
>
> Why does adding firearms to the mix help matters?
>
>> > He grabs it off a shelf in a supermarket and runs for the exit. Can
>> > I shoot him?
>>
>> I see where you are going here,and I'm not playing that game.
>
> Dodging the question, Jim?

No,you're trying to pin me down with a dumb question.I'm not playing that
game.
>
> Someone snatches a loaf of bread and runs away. How many rounds are
> you allowed to fire at his fleeing back, to prevent the theft? How
> much risk are you allowed to take? If they're running through a crowd,
> how many bystanders are you permitted to hit before your use of force
> becomes "unreasonable"?
>
>> > No, he committed premeditated murder, and a jury agreed.
>>
>> Well,one of your appeasing jurys ruled that way.
>
> They saw the evidence, noted that the defended lied repeatedly, and
> drew their own conclusions. That's the point of juries, Jim, they're
> selected from your peers. If Martin had called the police and
> presented them with a corpse whose wound was in the chest, he'd maybe
> have been hit for the illegal firearm.
>
>> In the US,many jurys would
>> rule justifiable homicide.Some places would not even bring charges.
>
> So, shooting fleeing and unarmed boys in the back and lying to the
> police is acceptable behaviour in the US?

Lying,no.Shooting those two after repeated burglaries with police being
useless would be "justifiable homicide" in many parts of the US.
>
>> > (He'd have
>> > been acquitted if he'd ceased fire when they fled: he might even
>> > have been acquitted or had the charges downgraded if he'd told the
>> > truth. But to (a) pursue the intruders and continue firing when
>> > they were in headlong flight, and (b) to lie about events both to
>> > the police and to the court, convinced the jury that he wasn't
>> > acting to defend himself but had planned and prepared to kill.)
>>
>> And that's about the only way his burglaries would have been
>> stopped.The police failed him.
>
> Sure, and nobody's denied it. On the other hand he was notably
> eccentric, refused to fit the most basic security, and contributed a
> lot to his own misfortune. You're entitled not to have your car
> stolen, but part of the deal is not leaving it parked with the window
> open, door unlocked and keys in the ignition.

And I doubt he left the keys in his door locks,or windows open after
repeated burglaries.
>
> Sitting up in the night with an illegal weapon waiting for intruders
> so you can go downstairs and kill them (and then claim never to have
> left your room)... that's not self-defence, that's premeditated
> murder.

Justifiable homicide.Police could do noting for him,he had no other
recourse.Why should he have to turn his home into a prison?
>
>> > Again, I can only presume life is much more difficult and dangerous
>> > where you live, that so much theft happens in plain sight and
>> > unprevented. Property theft here is done where nobody's looking, so
>> > issuing firearms wouldn't help.
>
>> So,you are saying there's no at-home burglaries in the UK?
>
> No, just that they're generally rare enough to make newspaper
> headlines.

Well,I believe that they would not make newspaper headlines,but that does
not mean they don't happen.Heck,many people,especially the elderly are
embarassed that they were victimized,and don't report such crimes.
>
>> Iknow George
>> Harrison would have benefitted from having a handgun when that
>> intruder entered his home.
>
> Sure - how many years ago was that? He's been dead and buried for a
> while, Jim. Don't you have any new examples? Or is life in the UK
> actually a lot quieter and safer than your NRA tracts would like you
> to believe?

Why should the passage of time make that example any less valid? I don't
keep up on what happens in the UK,that's just the most visible and
remembered incident I know of.You still haven't refuted it after all this
time,either.
>
>> Maybe he (and his wife)wouldn't have been stabbed so many
>> times.
>
> Or maybe a peacenik ex-Beatle wouldn't have owned a firearm even had
> the option been open to him - ever pause to consider that?

well,sure,it's his choice(or it would be,if UK alowed it) to be armed(and
prepared for such things,especially after the Queen having an intruder in
her bedroom,and Lennon getting killed.)

But peaceniks have a habit of changing their position after they've been
attacked or threatened,and they find out what the police CAN'T do for their
security.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in
:

>
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>> Or maybe a peacenik ex-Beatle wouldn't have owned a firearm even had the
>> option been open to him - ever pause to consider that?
>>
>
> Its also worth recalling that the attacker was a paranoid schizophrenic
> with an obsession about harrison and not a common burglar
> and had no previous criminal record. In the US he like the
> the man who shot John Lennon would have had access to a more lethal
> weapon than a knife.
>

Even in UK,people CAN get or MAKE guns if they choose to,if they know where
to go.


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

How reassuring.(not)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
:

> "Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
>> :
>> > Of course, and always have been, but they don't get used for
>> > burglary.
>>
>> Because they know they are safe,protected by UK's laws against self-
>> defense,at the expense of the citizenry.
>
> Or because they can't afford guns, because if they had that sort of
> cash they wouldn't be out burgling or nicking car stereos. And because
> if they *had* a gun they'd use it for something more lucrative.
>
>> Appeasement,that's what it is.
>
> If you think any intruder in my house is safe, then come and try to
> break in. Stop trying to tell us what life's like here.
>
Well,just because YOU are so capable,doesn't mean that everyone else is,nor
should they be restricted by your self-limitations.

delete elephant nonsense.
>
>> But actually,in parts of the US,attacks by
>> large animals such as bears or cougars is a fair possibility.
>
> Yep, there's a thread on the subject elsewhere. If I were living in
> the US I'd eagerly investigate the options for acquiring a firearm or
> two: mostly for entertainment but with security in mind. Different
> place, different needs.

Exactly;one size does not fit all,different people may need differing
levels of security.
>
>> > Thanks, but we like having handguns be rare and unusual. You do it
>> > your way, we'll do it ours.
>>
>> yes,keep those criminals safe,while your citizens suffer crimes.
>
> I'm not quite sure how proliferating firearms is going to help the
> situation. Most British citizens aren't familiar with firearms, don't
> particularly want them around and don't see why they should spend
> significant sums on buying, properly securing, and becoming proficient
> with a weapon when they have no particular need. One reason the 1997
> handgun ban passed easily was that very few people owned and shot
> them, and the political pressure was all to ban those horrid nasty
> implements of Death.

And yet the same thing can still happen again.If the Yardies can get
machine guns,and others make,steal or smuggle in guns,the guns ARE
available inthe UK.
>
> On the other hand, I can see the many criminals who haven't suffered
> conviction

Are there a lot of those in the UK? In the US,most criminals have long
histories of crimes.

yet considering this would be Christmas come early, buying
> weapons for resale to those less able to legally purchase. (One
> presumes that background checks, limits on purchases, and any attempt
> to track weapons once sold would be considered as unfair and
> unreasonable in the UK as they would in the US)
>
> End result? Unarmed citizens, but the Bad Guys have even freer access
> to weapons. Not sure why this is supposed to help. Presumably some
> ODCs will then buy weapons, but isn't that a little late?
>
>
> Folks like me who *did* happily pay up to turn a few hundred rounds a
> week into .45-calibre holes in paper were a rarity.
>
>> Appease them.
>
> No, keep them disarmed as a rule.

except that it really does not keep them disarmed. Note the Yardies and
other gangs having guns in the UK.If they want them,they can get them.
>
>> > Not if one or two of the group have guns: outnumbered and outgunned
>> > is a bad place to be.
>>
>> You're STILL better off than being unarmed.
>
> Why? Dead is still dead.

But you may not always die.And that's generally the case as its been in the
US.It shouldn't be any different where you are.
>
>> And at least you will get some
>> of them before they get you,maybe even the ones with the guns.
>
> And this makes you "less dead" how, precisely?

you seem to think that evey shootout results in everyone dead.It doesn't
happen that way.
>
>> Then the
> next
>> group will have second thoughts about trying such attacks against
>> others.
>
> And this helps *you* how, precisely? Meanwhile that gang now have more
> weapons to play with.
>
> If these armed gangs aren't deterred by one in four USAians owning
> firearms, what level of ownership is needed before they stop their
> rampages?

Many of those owning such guns do not have carry permits,and cannot carry
them in public,but their homes are much less attacked.The worst places for
gun violence in the US are largely where gun control is the strictest.

>
> Meanwhile we're largely bereft of such gangs and like things that way.
>
>> > Thus leaving the ODC open to a lifetime of legal nightmares,
>> > apparently.
>>
>> Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.
>
> My attitude precisely, but then others claim the advantage of "shoot
> early, shoot often" is that dead men can't sue. (Which appears to
> suppose that killing strangers on suspicion is viewed with
> enthusiasm...)
>
>> > Where are you keeping it while you're asleep?
>>
>> Nunya bidness.
>
> I just remember the rules I learned in the Army: I don't think my wife
> would appreciate sharing our bed with a firearm of any type.

YMMV.

>
>> >> > (And for the endless whines about Jill Dando - she was shot in
>> >> > the back of the head on her doorstep, caught completely
>> >> > unawares. She could have had a MAC-10 in each hand and it
>> >> > wouldn't have made the slightest difference)
>>
>> Well,so she was caught unawares;that's the result of a false sense of
>> security that the UK residents have,from their "gun control".
>
> So having more weapons means we get to be perpetually paranoid?

It might make you more concerned with what goes on around you.Maybe.
>
> Give her a gun. Give her two guns. Give her a hundred guns. What's the
> difference? No matter how heavily armed she was or was not, she was
> killed on her doorstep by an assailant she never saw.
>
> You seem to be advocating that more weapons will make us safer, which
> means we'll all be much more paranoid... doesn't compute, Jim. Either
> being armed makes us safer, or it makes us more alert and aware, but
> you don't go to higher alert states because the risk level dropped.
>
>> > And how "being armed" is far from the panacea quoted. Note also
>> > that this incident was five years ago - haven't you had any other
>> > examples to cite?
>>
>> Why,what's changed in the last 5 years? Nothing.But UK gun crimes
>> have risen every year,I believe,despite gun "control".
>
> Yeah, I think we had 23 killed last year as opposed to 17 in 1999.
> That's *how* much more dangerous than the US?
>
> (Remember, Jim, someone using a banana in his pocket as a 'gun' is a
> firearm crime in the UK. Be careful what you're claiming.)

It would not surprise me to find that the UK gov't has classed some crimes
as other crimes,skewing the data.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in
:

>
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> >
>> > Why,what's changed in the last 5 years? Nothing.But UK gun crimes
>> > have risen every year,I believe,despite gun "control".
>>
>> Yeah, I think we had 23 killed last year as opposed to 17 in 1999.
>> That's *how* much more dangerous than the US?
>>
>
> Last year in fact there was a drop of 16% of robberies involving
> guns and a drop of 13% in homicides involving firearms.

How about robberies in general? Or homicides in general? Increase or
decrease?
>
> http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime/guncrime/index.html
>
> The same source also points out than only 0.5% of crimes
> reported to the police involve the use,possession or
> threat of use of firearms
>
> A more telling statistic is that of the number of police
> officers killed and injured by firearms during the
> course of their duty. In the 10 years between 1992 and
> 2002 there were exactly 3 police officers killed and
> 40 seriously injured.

Most criminals know that shooting cops is a really BAD idea.
>
> The equivalent figures for the USA are 1,533 killed and
> 23,000 seriously injured.
>
> Perhaps this explains why all the coppers I know
> prefer tight gun control, none of them are armed
> themselves of course.
>
> Keith
>
>
>



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Keith Willshaw]

"Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in
> :
>

> > A more telling statistic is that of the number of police
> > officers killed and injured by firearms during the
> > course of their duty. In the 10 years between 1992 and
> > 2002 there were exactly 3 police officers killed and
> > 40 seriously injured.
>
> Most criminals know that shooting cops is a really BAD idea.

Yet around 150 are killed and 230 injured in the US
every year and US cops are armed while British police
typically are not.

I prefer things our way.

Keith

[Mary Shafer]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 22:32:12 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>
> "Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in
> > :
> >
>
> > > A more telling statistic is that of the number of police
> > > officers killed and injured by firearms during the
> > > course of their duty. In the 10 years between 1992 and
> > > 2002 there were exactly 3 police officers killed and
> > > 40 seriously injured.
> >
> > Most criminals know that shooting cops is a really BAD idea.
>
> Yet around 150 are killed and 230 injured in the US
> every year and US cops are armed while British police
> typically are not.

In addition, some of the US deaths and injuries are from friendly
fire. Doesn't matter what the bad guys think when it's the good guys
doing the shooting.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Evan Brennan]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> > Most criminals know that shooting cops is a really BAD idea.
>
> Yet around 150 are killed and 230 injured in the US every year and US cops
> are armed while British police typically are not.
>
> I prefer things our way.


Your way didn't work too well in Northern Ireland. Nothing significant
was accomplished there until there was significant international
assistance with the interdiction effort.

You can't expect the rest of the world to act like sheep, and that is
precisely why the British foisted their biggest police problems on
others -- in their colonies that is, rather than at home.

Americans have nowhere to run. Our problems are here, and we have to
stay here to deal with them, instead of running away from the problems
like the Brits.

[tim gueguen]

"Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > > Most criminals know that shooting cops is a really BAD idea.
> >
> > Yet around 150 are killed and 230 injured in the US every year and US
cops
> > are armed while British police typically are not.
> >
> > I prefer things our way.
>
>
> Your way didn't work too well in Northern Ireland.

You mean that place they sent the Army into. You know, those folks with
really cool guns. The Royal Ulster Constabulary made considerable use of
firearms as well.

tim gueguen 101867

[Charles Gray]

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:45:52 +0200, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>"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.
>
There is a body of evidence that suggests that open ownership of
guns and their general possession reduces some sorts of crimes-- but
it also increases others, mainly crimes of passion.
I think the problem is that many progun enthusiasts are taking the
experience of rural areas, and uncritically assuming you can transfer
that to urban areas. My family lived in a rural community where guns
were omnipresent, and it was a polite community...and not one with a
lot of gunplay.
I live twenty miles outside of LA, and if everyone in LA had a gun,
every rush hour would be a mass slaughter. The two situations are
simply not comparable.



>> 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?
>
In california, none of the above. In the 1970's, using a weapon
even against an armed intruder could see you being taken off to jail.
Now, the general standard is that you are presumed to be "at fear for
your life" if you are confronted. It is not a blanket protection--
if the fellow you said you were afraid of dies after being chased down
the street, cornered and shot five times, the DA.... will have some
questions.
Other states tend to give different levels of this-- some pretty
much give a homeowner ON HIS OWN PROPERTY a blanket right of self
defense. I believe texas is the most forgiving in this case, but
there's so much variation it's hard to say-- ditto for gun carrying
laws.



>> 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.

Lower population densities-- and again not comparable, either for
or against the idea of general gun possession in a modern society.
But I will say that the experience of other nations where everyone has
an AK-47 do not make me confident.




>
>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)

[Jim Yanik]

Charles Gray > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:45:52 +0200, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>
>>"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.
>>
> There is a body of evidence that suggests that open ownership of
> guns and their general possession reduces some sorts of crimes-- but
> it also increases others, mainly crimes of passion.


And those folks have enough previous police records on domestic violence
that their firearms would have been confiscated(under court order).


> I think the problem is that many progun enthusiasts are taking the
> experience of rural areas, and uncritically assuming you can transfer
> that to urban areas. My family lived in a rural community where guns
> were omnipresent, and it was a polite community...and not one with a
> lot of gunplay.
> I live twenty miles outside of LA, and if everyone in LA had a gun,
> every rush hour would be a mass slaughter. The two situations are
> simply not comparable.

First of all,in all the 34+ states that allow concealed carry,that stuff
simply has not happened,no "blood running in the streets" from LEGAL gun
owners.LA isn't the only urban area to have big traffic jams.

But anyone who wanted to in LA -could- own a gun legally if they chose
to,provided they met the standard restrictions.And those who live in other
parts of California can and do carry concealed in the LA area legally.
>
>
>
>>> 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?

>>
> In california, none of the above. In the 1970's, using a weapon
> even against an armed intruder could see you being taken off to jail.
> Now, the general standard is that you are presumed to be "at fear for
> your life" if you are confronted. It is not a blanket protection--
> if the fellow you said you were afraid of dies after being chased down
> the street, cornered and shot five times, the DA.... will have some
> questions.
> Other states tend to give different levels of this-- some pretty
> much give a homeowner ON HIS OWN PROPERTY a blanket right of self
> defense. I believe texas is the most forgiving in this case, but
> there's so much variation it's hard to say-- ditto for gun carrying
> laws.
>
>
>
>>> 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.
>
> Lower population densities-- and again not comparable, either for
> or against the idea of general gun possession in a modern society.
> But I will say that the experience of other nations where everyone has
> an AK-47 do not make me confident.
>
>

And those places never had the rule of law,either. ISTR that millions(the
unarmed ones) lost their lives in Rwanda due to machetes.
OTOH,Israel and Switzerland allow their citizens to own firearms,and they
don't have much of a problem.In fact,once the Israeli teachers began
carrying guns in their schools,the terrorists stopped trying to shoot up
the school children.
And the Swiss have real automatic rifles.

Violence is more of a cultural thing than due solely to the presence of
guns.
>
>
>>
>>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)
>
>



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Jim Yanik
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
:
>> Not if the criminals are aggressive, armed and practiced, and the ODCs
>> are not. It takes hard work, practice and a lot of rounds to become
>> proficient with a handgun.
>
>Well,that's NOT the way it's been here in the US,

Handguns are easier to shoot in the US than the UK? News to me.

I used to be able to ace a pistol APWT in the Army, but then I shot one
or two hundred rounds of .45ACP a week. Other soldiers who were
proficient rifle shots and fully comfortable with firearms struggled to
get a pass mark (and it was an easy test: 32 rounds at 10 and 15 metres,
from memory).

>and I doubt that UK
>criminals are any different.I've read of plenty of examples of elderly
>people using handguns well enough without any extensive training.
>It's simply not that hard to use a handgun.

********. To quote Don Harstad from upthread,

"The civilians I know who shot in high stress situations managed to hit
a relative about half the time, and that was because they were too
sleepy to duck. Two officers I know personally were engaged by a
civilian who stood at the top of an enclosed staircase in an apartment,
and fired six rounds at them as they climbed the stairs. He missed both
officers. He was aiming. (They were really p....ed when they got to the
top of those stairs... deaf, but pi...ed.)

Very rarely does the armed citizen who fires and misses ever tell
anybody about it. Their reporting standards are nothing like the
reporting standards used when an officer discharges a weapon. I would
advise a bit of caution when trying to compare data under those
circumstances."

>> Dodging the question, Jim?
>
>No,you're trying to pin me down with a dumb question.I'm not playing that
>game.

It's not a dumb question: you're claiming that having more firearms
around would deter that theft. How, if you can't use them? And if you
*can* use them, how much collateral damage is permitted?

Remember, you're advocating untrained users with weapons they have
little experience with: because it's apparently easy to shoot well with
a handgun.

>> So, shooting fleeing and unarmed boys in the back and lying to the
>> police is acceptable behaviour in the US?
>
>Lying,no.Shooting those two after repeated burglaries with police being
>useless would be "justifiable homicide" in many parts of the US.

Not all, I note. Note that the "repeated burglaries" was actually *one*
burglary (still too many, but beware of hype).

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

Actually he did: the intruders needed only a screwdriver to effect
entrance.

>> Sitting up in the night with an illegal weapon waiting for intruders
>> so you can go downstairs and kill them (and then claim never to have
>> left your room)... that's not self-defence, that's premeditated
>> murder.
>
>Justifiable homicide.Police could do noting for him,he had no other
>recourse.Why should he have to turn his home into a prison?

He turned his whole estate into an armed camp, Jim: "lookout posts" in
trees, stairs removed, booby-traps in the house. But no window locks and
he kept his dogs well away from the house.

>> No, just that they're generally rare enough to make newspaper
>> headlines.
>
>Well,I believe that they would not make newspaper headlines,but that does
>not mean they don't happen.Heck,many people,especially the elderly are
>embarassed that they were victimized,and don't report such crimes.

Interesting how "selective reporting" is cited in some cases and ignored
in others.

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

Proves the scarcity, wouldn't you say?

>I don't
>keep up on what happens in the UK,that's just the most visible and
>remembered incident I know of.

You mean there *aren't* hordes of other celebrity murders taking place?

>You still haven't refuted it after all this
>time,either.

What weapon would have saved her? The first warning she had was the
bullet hitting her.

>> Or maybe a peacenik ex-Beatle wouldn't have owned a firearm even had
>> the option been open to him - ever pause to consider that?
>
>well,sure,it's his choice(or it would be,if UK alowed it) to be armed(and
>prepared for such things,especially after the Queen having an intruder in
>her bedroom,and Lennon getting killed.)

I seem to recall Lennon was killed in the US: wasn't he protected by the
armed citizens around him?


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Jake
McGuire > writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote
>in message >...
>> > Where I live, we have the highest automobile theft rate in the US.
>>
>> Aren't the criminals deterred by the armed citizens?
>
>An armed citizen asleep in his bed does not deter someone from
>stealing his car from across the street. This much is obvious. It
>*does*, on the other hand, deter a criminal from trying to carjack
>him, which carries with it a much higher risk of a non-criminal
>getting hurt or killed.

But then carjacking's not a popular trend in the UK either. (Too much
traffic for the getaway, probably)

>It's entirely analagous to dissuading home-invasion robberies (hot
>robberies) in favor of breaking in while the occupants are at work,
>which I'd think that most people are in favor of.

But again, UK burglars tend to avoid occupied homes as well.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Stephen Harding]

Charles Gray wrote:

> I think the problem is that many progun enthusiasts are taking the
> experience of rural areas, and uncritically assuming you can transfer
> that to urban areas. My family lived in a rural community where guns
> were omnipresent, and it was a polite community...and not one with a
> lot of gunplay.
> I live twenty miles outside of LA, and if everyone in LA had a gun,
> every rush hour would be a mass slaughter. The two situations are
> simply not comparable.

I think there would be an initial round of "slaughter". Some
innocent types consumed certainly, but a greater proportion
of violent types colliding with other violent types.

After the bloodbath, the survivors would be more civil, patient
and controlled in their conduct toward others. Crime rates
would plunge, and we'd have a more cvilized society again, if
for no other reason than fear that the other guy is faster on
the draw than you, thanks to ubiquitous public gun carrying.

A tough methodology for gaining civilized social behavior!


SMH

[Jake McGuire]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
> >It's entirely analagous to dissuading home-invasion robberies (hot
> >robberies) in favor of breaking in while the occupants are at work,
> >which I'd think that most people are in favor of.
>
> But again, UK burglars tend to avoid occupied homes as well.

According to first-hand crime statistics (from the US and the UK
governments), burglary is more than twice as common in the UK than in
the US. It's a bit harder to compare actual times of burglaries due
to slightly different definitions, but in the US residential
burglaries are distributed 60% day / 40% night, while in the UK is 44%
light / 56 % dark. The UK government also says that 46% of burglaries
happen when the home in question is occupied. I can't find actual
numbers for the US, but the qualitiative statements all seem to imply
that the occupied/unoccupied split is more skewed than the day/night
split.

-jake

[Mike Williamson]

Paul J. Adam wrote:
> In message >, Jake
> McGuire > writes

>>It's entirely analagous to dissuading home-invasion robberies (hot
>>robberies) in favor of breaking in while the occupants are at work,
>>which I'd think that most people are in favor of.
>
>
> But again, UK burglars tend to avoid occupied homes as well.
>


Acording to a January '03 article on the BBC news site, 53% of
burglaries in England take place WHILE THE OWNERS/OCCUPANTS WERE
PRESENT. It doesn't sound like they are going out of their way
to avoid occupied homes. The corresponding number for the US,
cited in the same article, was 13%- approximately one fourth
of the English rate. Given that the overall burglary rate is
about twice that of the US, an English homeowner is about 8
times more likely to confront a burglar than an American. I must
note that 53% seems to be about the highest number listed for English
occupied burglaries- the other articles generally listed a not
very reassuring number of just over 50%...

A google search on burglary rates, US and UK brought up several
articles on comparative crime rates- the US has lower rates of
car theft, burglaries, assaults (muggings, etc.) than the UK- in
fact, with the (significant) exceptions of murder and rape, England
has much higher rates of all forms of violent crime than the United
States.

Mike

[Marc Reeve]

Mary Shafer > wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 22:13:21 -0700, (Marc Reeve)
> wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> That reminds me of the time I got a ride in Dryden's Bell 47
> helicopter. We went over to Mojave and came back to Dryden by flying
> along the freeway. Well, it was amazing how quickly all the
> tractor-trailer rigs slowed down. They thought we were the aircraft
> of the "patrolled by aircraft" signs.
>
> > Sadly, no one seems to have the Phantom version online.
>
> I'll dig my n-th generation copy out and scan it in. It's with my
> Sidewinder "reach out and touch someone" drawing from the Libya
> incident and all the other aerospace graffiti I've collected.
>
Ah, bless you, Mary. Hope it's not packed too far away after the move.

(I just recently had need for something that I knew we had, but hadn't
used since before we moved. Five years ago. It turned up at the back of
the garage...)

-Marc
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Mike Williamson
> writes
>Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> But again, UK burglars tend to avoid occupied homes as well.
> Acording to a January '03 article on the BBC news site, 53% of
>burglaries in England take place WHILE THE OWNERS/OCCUPANTS WERE
>PRESENT.

A quick check indicates that this relates to night-time successful
burglaries

To quote the British Crime Survey for 1999,

"In a quarter (25%) of burglaries someone was at home and aware of what
was happening."
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb499.pdf

Note that the UK definition counts "burglary" as attempts to make entry
which are foiled, which may well skew the figures for "occupied
burglary" upwards (nearly half the 'burglaries' in the UK are
unsuccessful attempts)


According to the BCS:

"Domestic burglary peaked in 1993 and fell by around 45% between 1993
and 2001.

In 2002/03, just over 3 in 100 households were burgled (this includes
attempted burglaries and burglaries where nothing was taken). "
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page55.asp

This corresponds interestingly with the 2002 US DoJ figures citing 27.7
burglaries per 1,000 households: just under 3 per 100.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus02.pdf


On a quick scan it seems interesting that while more incidents are
apparently reported in the UK, just under half of those reports are
unsuccessful attempts, while in the US 23.5 per 1000 households
experience *successful* burglaries.

> A google search on burglary rates, US and UK brought up several
>articles on comparative crime rates- the US has lower rates of
>car theft, burglaries, assaults (muggings, etc.) than the UK- in
>fact, with the (significant) exceptions of murder and rape, England
>has much higher rates of all forms of violent crime than the United
>States.

Are you comparing like with like? The US is in general a much less
densely populated place, and violent crime tends to be concentrated in
more urban areas: before you even get into what "burglary" means to
different compilers of statistics.





--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Jim Yanik]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
:

> In message >, Jim Yanik
> writes
>>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
:
>>> Not if the criminals are aggressive, armed and practiced, and the ODCs
>>> are not. It takes hard work, practice and a lot of rounds to become
>>> proficient with a handgun.
>>
>>Well,that's NOT the way it's been here in the US,
>
> Handguns are easier to shoot in the US than the UK? News to me.
>
> I used to be able to ace a pistol APWT in the Army, but then I shot one
> or two hundred rounds of .45ACP a week. Other soldiers who were
> proficient rifle shots and fully comfortable with firearms struggled to
> get a pass mark (and it was an easy test: 32 rounds at 10 and 15 metres,
> from memory).

Strange,because lots of elderly folks in the US seem to be able to hit
their targets during their self-defense actions.But generally,anti's call
for unpractical levels of training in an attempot to make it unfeasable for
people to defend themselves with a gun.
>
>>and I doubt that UK
>>criminals are any different.I've read of plenty of examples of elderly
>>people using handguns well enough without any extensive training.
>>It's simply not that hard to use a handgun.
>
> ********. To quote Don Harstad from upthread,
>
> "The civilians I know who shot in high stress situations managed to hit
> a relative about half the time, and that was because they were too
> sleepy to duck. Two officers I know personally were engaged by a
> civilian who stood at the top of an enclosed staircase in an apartment,
> and fired six rounds at them as they climbed the stairs. He missed both
> officers. He was aiming. (They were really p....ed when they got to the
> top of those stairs... deaf, but pi...ed.)
>
> Very rarely does the armed citizen who fires and misses ever tell
> anybody about it. Their reporting standards are nothing like the
> reporting standards used when an officer discharges a weapon. I would
> advise a bit of caution when trying to compare data under those
> circumstances."

Who's Don Harstad? This is just one man's opinion.
>
>>> Dodging the question, Jim?
>>
>>No,you're trying to pin me down with a dumb question.I'm not playing that
>>game.
>
> It's not a dumb question: you're claiming that having more firearms
> around would deter that theft. How, if you can't use them? And if you
> *can* use them, how much collateral damage is permitted?
>
> Remember, you're advocating untrained users with weapons they have
> little experience with: because it's apparently easy to shoot well with
> a handgun.

Shoot Adequately,not well.
(There's that unreasonable level of training again.)

>
>>> So, shooting fleeing and unarmed boys in the back and lying to the
>>> police is acceptable behaviour in the US?
>>
>>Lying,no.Shooting those two after repeated burglaries with police being
>>useless would be "justifiable homicide" in many parts of the US.
>
> Not all, I note. Note that the "repeated burglaries" was actually *one*
> burglary (still too many, but beware of hype).
>
>>> Sure, and nobody's denied it. On the other hand he was notably
>>> eccentric, refused to fit the most basic security, and contributed a
>>> lot to his own misfortune. You're entitled not to have your car
>>> stolen, but part of the deal is not leaving it parked with the window
>>> open, door unlocked and keys in the ignition.
>>
>>And I doubt he left the keys in his door locks,or windows open after
>>repeated burglaries.
>
> Actually he did: the intruders needed only a screwdriver to effect
> entrance.

Uh,if they had to use a tool to pry them open,then they WERE secured.Of
couurse,it's the property owners fault if he doesn't barricade himself in
and create a prison for himself.Blame the victim again.

>
>>> Sitting up in the night with an illegal weapon waiting for intruders
>>> so you can go downstairs and kill them (and then claim never to have
>>> left your room)... that's not self-defence, that's premeditated
>>> murder.
>>
>>Justifiable homicide.Police could do noting for him,he had no other
>>recourse.Why should he have to turn his home into a prison?
>
> He turned his whole estate into an armed camp, Jim: "lookout posts" in
> trees, stairs removed, booby-traps in the house. But no window locks and
> he kept his dogs well away from the house.

No window locks,then WHY did they have to PRY open the window?

and how does "stairs removed" make it an "armed camp"? Booby traps -inside-
his house,another attempt to keep out the burglars.Foolish,IMO,he could
have gotten snagged by his own trap.It appears everyone demonized the guy
to justify sentencing him for defending his property.
>
>>> No, just that they're generally rare enough to make newspaper
>>> headlines.
>>
>>Well,I believe that they would not make newspaper headlines,but that does
>>not mean they don't happen.Heck,many people,especially the elderly are
>>embarassed that they were victimized,and don't report such crimes.
>
> Interesting how "selective reporting" is cited in some cases and ignored
> in others.
>
>>> Sure - how many years ago was that? He's been dead and buried for a
>>> while, Jim. Don't you have any new examples? Or is life in the UK
>>> actually a lot quieter and safer than your NRA tracts would like you
>>> to believe?
>>
>>Why should the passage of time make that example any less valid?
>
> Proves the scarcity, wouldn't you say?
>
>>I don't
>>keep up on what happens in the UK,that's just the most visible and
>>remembered incident I know of.
>
> You mean there *aren't* hordes of other celebrity murders taking place?

Well,I suspect celebs are much more careful now,and employ
bodyguards,too.They can afford it,most people cannot.
>
>>You still haven't refuted it after all this
>>time,either.
>
> What weapon would have saved her? The first warning she had was the
> bullet hitting her.
>
>>> Or maybe a peacenik ex-Beatle wouldn't have owned a firearm even had
>>> the option been open to him - ever pause to consider that?
>>
>>well,sure,it's his choice(or it would be,if UK alowed it) to be armed(and
>>prepared for such things,especially after the Queen having an intruder in
>>her bedroom,and Lennon getting killed.)
>
> I seem to recall Lennon was killed in the US: wasn't he protected by the
> armed citizens around him?
>
>

In a city that BANS firearms.(yet still has a high gun violence rate.)
I wonder why Virginia has a lower rate than DC right next door,DC banning
guns while Virginia permits them? According to you,Virginia should be the
more dangerous place.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

Mike Williamson > wrote in
:

> Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> In message >, Jake
>> McGuire > writes
>
>>>It's entirely analagous to dissuading home-invasion robberies (hot
>>>robberies) in favor of breaking in while the occupants are at work,
>>>which I'd think that most people are in favor of.
>>
>>
>> But again, UK burglars tend to avoid occupied homes as well.
>>
>
>
> Acording to a January '03 article on the BBC news site, 53% of
> burglaries in England take place WHILE THE OWNERS/OCCUPANTS WERE
> PRESENT. It doesn't sound like they are going out of their way
> to avoid occupied homes. The corresponding number for the US,
> cited in the same article, was 13%- approximately one fourth
> of the English rate. Given that the overall burglary rate is
> about twice that of the US, an English homeowner is about 8
> times more likely to confront a burglar than an American. I must
> note that 53% seems to be about the highest number listed for English
> occupied burglaries- the other articles generally listed a not
> very reassuring number of just over 50%...
>
> A google search on burglary rates, US and UK brought up several
> articles on comparative crime rates- the US has lower rates of
> car theft, burglaries, assaults (muggings, etc.) than the UK- in
> fact, with the (significant) exceptions of murder and rape, England
> has much higher rates of all forms of violent crime than the United
> States.
>
> Mike
>
>

Why should UK thieves avoid occupied homes?
It's safe for them to enter them.The resident has more of a risk being
prosecuted than the criminal does.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Evan Brennan]

"tim gueguen" > wrote in message news:<PCAic.247951$oR5.203713@pd7tw3no>...
> "Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > Most criminals know that shooting cops is a really BAD idea.
> > >
> > > Yet around 150 are killed and 230 injured in the US every year and US
> cops
> > > are armed while British police typically are not.
> > >
> > > I prefer things our way.
> >
> >
> > Your way didn't work too well in Northern Ireland.
>
> You mean that place they sent the Army into.


Good point. The US Army certainly does not patrol my neighborhood,
city or state. No need to.

On some days (when they please the English) Northern Irelanders are
referred to as "British". On other days, it is generally considered a
crime to be Irish.


> You know, those folks with really cool guns. The Royal Ulster Constabulary
> made considerable use of firearms as well.


As did the Loyalist guerrillas, who greatly outnumbered their
adversaries from IRA.

[Mary Shafer]

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 17:03:59 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik >
wrote:


> Who's Don Harstad? This is just one man's opinion.

A retired deputy sheriff with over 30 years experience.


Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:47:53 +1200, Kerryn Offord > wrote:

>
>
>Jim Yanik wrote:
>
><SNIP>
>> Now,that UK man who shot the burglars in the back was justified,as the
>> police were of NO use,and he had suffered repeated burglaries.The police
>> failed in providing him security,so it fell upon himself to do so.
>> Criminals should have no right to safety while commiting their crimes.
><SNIP>
>
>This is simply attempted murder. The target was no threat and was
>departing, but the householder shot him anyway (that makes it vindictive).
>
>If the householder had just shot the guy in the chest when he first
>confronted him....
>
>It seems to come down to a difference in attitudes.
>
>Americans hold everybody else's life cheap (cheaper than the cheapest
>bit of property).
>
>Uk/NZ and others consider both lives of value, but allow reasonable
>force in defence of self or others (defence of property is different).

Of course, now that NZ has given up defending itself you will be awfully
grateful when rough men with guns show up to carry the burden. Confusing
humanity for an unwillingness to defend oneself in a game for fools.

Al Minyard

[Jim Doyle]

"Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
m...
> "tim gueguen" > wrote in message
news:<PCAic.247951$oR5.203713@pd7tw3no>...
> > "Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > > Most criminals know that shooting cops is a really BAD idea.
> > > >
> > > > Yet around 150 are killed and 230 injured in the US every year and
US
> > cops
> > > > are armed while British police typically are not.
> > > >
> > > > I prefer things our way.
> > >
> > >
> > > Your way didn't work too well in Northern Ireland.
> >
> > You mean that place they sent the Army into.
>
>
> Good point. The US Army certainly does not patrol my neighborhood,
> city or state. No need to.
>
> On some days (when they please the English) Northern Irelanders are
> referred to as "British". On other days, it is generally considered a
> crime to be Irish.
>

Brennan - as always, you're are talking rubbish.

>
> > You know, those folks with really cool guns. The Royal Ulster
Constabulary
> > made considerable use of firearms as well.
>
>
> As did the Loyalist guerrillas, who greatly outnumbered their
> adversaries from IRA.

I guess you're a former fully paid-up member of Noraid? Good job, striking
one home against those pesky Brits for the underdog colonists. Go team!

Doyle

[Mary Shafer]

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 09:16:45 -0700, (Marc Reeve)
wrote:

> Mary Shafer > wrote:

> > I'll dig my n-th generation copy out and scan it in. It's with my
> > Sidewinder "reach out and touch someone" drawing from the Libya
> > incident and all the other aerospace graffiti I've collected.
> >
> Ah, bless you, Mary. Hope it's not packed too far away after the move.

Um, that's "moves". I packed it up at Dryden, moved it to Lancaster,
moved it to the first house in Palm Desert, and just now moved it to
the second house in Palm Desert. At least, I think I did. There's a
small chance it's still in Lancaster, but we'll be back up there for
the summer in a couple of weeks.

Anyway, I'll look for the file. It's a thick one, because I collected
a lot of office graffiti and xerox lore.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[tim gueguen]

"Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
m...
> "tim gueguen" > wrote in message
news:<PCAic.247951$oR5.203713@pd7tw3no>...
> > "Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > > Most criminals know that shooting cops is a really BAD idea.
> > > >
> > > > Yet around 150 are killed and 230 injured in the US every year and
US
> > cops
> > > > are armed while British police typically are not.
> > > >
> > > > I prefer things our way.
> > >
> > >
> > > Your way didn't work too well in Northern Ireland.
> >
> > You mean that place they sent the Army into.
>
>
> Good point. The US Army certainly does not patrol my neighborhood,
> city or state. No need to.
>
Because no part of the US has had a bunch of terrorist bombers running
around blowing things up for years. If say one of the militia groups had
engaged in a sustained and effect campaign of terror in Michigan you'd see
soldiers patrolling the street there as well. The US has been fortunate
that its terrorists have either been relatively limited in their actual
activities, or have proven ineffectual at anything beyond simple crime, like
the Order in the mid '80s. The US has never had a terrorist group as
operationally effective as the IRA or the Red Brigades.

tim gueguen 101867

[Jake McGuire]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
> In 2002/03, just over 3 in 100 households were burgled (this includes
> attempted burglaries and burglaries where nothing was taken). "
> http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page55.asp
>
> This corresponds interestingly with the 2002 US DoJ figures citing 27.7
> burglaries per 1,000 households: just under 3 per 100.
> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus02.pdf

Something is weird here.

The US, population 300 million, has 110 million households and
reported 3 million burglaries.

The UK, population 60 million, reported 1 million burglaries.

Both are reporting the same per-household burglary rate, but the UK is
reporting a per-capita burglary rate nearly twice as high. Is the
average household size in the UK really that much smaller (less than
two)?

-jake

[Kerryn Offord]

Alan Minyard wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:47:53 +1200, Kerryn Offord > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Jim Yanik wrote:
>>
>><SNIP>
>>
>>>Now,that UK man who shot the burglars in the back was justified,as the
>>>police were of NO use,and he had suffered repeated burglaries.The police
>>>failed in providing him security,so it fell upon himself to do so.
>>>Criminals should have no right to safety while commiting their crimes.
>>
>><SNIP>
>>
>>This is simply attempted murder. The target was no threat and was
>>departing, but the householder shot him anyway (that makes it vindictive).
>>
>>If the householder had just shot the guy in the chest when he first
>>confronted him....
>>
>>It seems to come down to a difference in attitudes.
>>
>>Americans hold everybody else's life cheap (cheaper than the cheapest
>>bit of property).
>>
>>Uk/NZ and others consider both lives of value, but allow reasonable
>>force in defence of self or others (defence of property is different).
>
>
> Of course, now that NZ has given up defending itself you will be awfully
> grateful when rough men with guns show up to carry the burden. Confusing
> humanity for an unwillingness to defend oneself in a game for fools.
>
> Al Minyard

What makes you say NZ has given up defending itself?

There is a world of difference between defending yourself, which NZers
have no problem with, and shooting as a first response... and also not
being careful about where you are shooting (today's news story about 4
Iraqi school children being shot by US forces when they rushed out of
school to look at the Humvee that had been blown up.... is this the kind
of defending we are expected to be grateful for?)

NZs defence force is about 12000 from a population of ~4 million (0.3%
of pop)

This equates to a USA (pop ~300 million) or 900,000....

Ok, so relatively speaking, we are under protected (there is one regular
infantry battalion per 2 million..so does the US have 150 infantry
battalions?

OTOH... most enlist for more than a single 4 year tour (average more
experienced soldiers....)

[Jim Yanik]

"tim gueguen" > wrote in
news:bX%ic.260994$Ig.101272@pd7tw2no:

>
> "Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
> m...
>> "tim gueguen" > wrote in message
> news:<PCAic.247951$oR5.203713@pd7tw3no>...
>> > "Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in
>> > > message
>> > >...
>> > > > > Most criminals know that shooting cops is a really BAD idea.
>> > > >
>> > > > Yet around 150 are killed and 230 injured in the US every year
>> > > > and
> US
>> > cops
>> > > > are armed while British police typically are not.
>> > > >
>> > > > I prefer things our way.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Your way didn't work too well in Northern Ireland.
>> >
>> > You mean that place they sent the Army into.
>>
>>
>> Good point. The US Army certainly does not patrol my neighborhood,
>> city or state. No need to.
>>
> Because no part of the US has had a bunch of terrorist bombers running
> around blowing things up for years. If say one of the militia groups
> had engaged in a sustained and effect campaign of terror in Michigan
> you'd see soldiers patrolling the street there as well. The US has
> been fortunate that its terrorists have either been relatively limited
> in their actual activities, or have proven ineffectual at anything
> beyond simple crime, like the Order in the mid '80s. The US has never
> had a terrorist group as operationally effective as the IRA or the Red
> Brigades.
>
> tim gueguen 101867
>
>
>

The US military is prohibited by LAW from operating inside the US.
(Posse Comitatus,IIRC)

Bsides,the police SWAT teams,FBI and BATF-troop are all very close to
military capabilities.Now the National Guard (considered today's militia)
could be deployed.
Although,IMO,they are merely part of the ordinary US military.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Evan Brennan]

"tim gueguen" > wrote in message news:<bX%ic.260994$Ig.101272@pd7tw2no>...
> > > > Your way didn't work too well in Northern Ireland.
> > >
> > > You mean that place they sent the Army into.
> >
> >
> > Good point. The US Army certainly does not patrol my neighborhood,
> > city or state. No need to.
> >
> Because no part of the US has had a bunch of terrorist bombers running
> around blowing things up for years. If say one of the militia groups had
> engaged in a sustained and effect campaign of terror in Michigan you'd see
> soldiers patrolling the street there as well.


For the better part of a century? : )

And Northern Ireland is part of an island, Michigan is not. This
should have made the job much easier for the British government, but
they are simply bad policemen.


> US has never had a terrorist group as operationally effective as the IRA


The British called Washington's Continental Army a terrorist group.

The IRA was successful mainly because the numbskulls of the British
security forces were so ineffective. To this day, their strategy in
Northern Ireland still has no clear objectives.

[Simon Robbins]

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" > wrote in message
...
> 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 believe that to be only a recent (i.e. past century) issue. Until WW2 I
think it was legal for UK residents to own firearms, but as someone else
said they were mainly long-barrelled weapons for sport or hunting. The hand
gun has no other purpose than to shoot other people.

Being a Brit myself, I actually wish we did have the right to bear arms, at
least on our own property, and the legal back up to use them if necessary.
But, (and this is where I give the US population credit they deserve but
very often don't get), is that I don't believe the UK population has the
respect for those weapons tha they deserve. They've just not been part of
our social landscape. If they were to legalise the ownership of hand guns
tomorrow in a similar manner to US laws, gun crime and accidental shootings
would (I believe) go through the roof as the current generation overcame the
novelty value of owning a "piece".

Si

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 04:08:39 GMT, "tim gueguen" > wrote:

>
>"Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
m...
>> "tim gueguen" > wrote in message
>news:<PCAic.247951$oR5.203713@pd7tw3no>...
>> > "Evan Brennan" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>> > >...
>> > > > > Most criminals know that shooting cops is a really BAD idea.
>> > > >
>> > > > Yet around 150 are killed and 230 injured in the US every year and
>US
>> > cops
>> > > > are armed while British police typically are not.
>> > > >
>> > > > I prefer things our way.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Your way didn't work too well in Northern Ireland.
>> >
>> > You mean that place they sent the Army into.
>>
>>
>> Good point. The US Army certainly does not patrol my neighborhood,
>> city or state. No need to.
>>
>Because no part of the US has had a bunch of terrorist bombers running
>around blowing things up for years. If say one of the militia groups had
>engaged in a sustained and effect campaign of terror in Michigan you'd see
>soldiers patrolling the street there as well. The US has been fortunate
>that its terrorists have either been relatively limited in their actual
>activities, or have proven ineffectual at anything beyond simple crime, like
>the Order in the mid '80s. The US has never had a terrorist group as
>operationally effective as the IRA or the Red Brigades.
>
>tim gueguen 101867
>
And we never will. We live under the rule of law, and have an armed
citizenry that will not tolerate such madness.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 18:14:00 +1200, Kerryn Offord > wrote:

>
>
>Alan Minyard wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:47:53 +1200, Kerryn Offord > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Jim Yanik wrote:
>>>
>>><SNIP>
>>>
>>>>Now,that UK man who shot the burglars in the back was justified,as the
>>>>police were of NO use,and he had suffered repeated burglaries.The police
>>>>failed in providing him security,so it fell upon himself to do so.
>>>>Criminals should have no right to safety while commiting their crimes.
>>>
>>><SNIP>
>>>
>>>This is simply attempted murder. The target was no threat and was
>>>departing, but the householder shot him anyway (that makes it vindictive).
>>>
>>>If the householder had just shot the guy in the chest when he first
>>>confronted him....
>>>
>>>It seems to come down to a difference in attitudes.
>>>
>>>Americans hold everybody else's life cheap (cheaper than the cheapest
>>>bit of property).
>>>
>>>Uk/NZ and others consider both lives of value, but allow reasonable
>>>force in defence of self or others (defence of property is different).
>>
>>
>> Of course, now that NZ has given up defending itself you will be awfully
>> grateful when rough men with guns show up to carry the burden. Confusing
>> humanity for an unwillingness to defend oneself in a game for fools.
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>What makes you say NZ has given up defending itself?
>
>There is a world of difference between defending yourself, which NZers
>have no problem with, and shooting as a first response... and also not
>being careful about where you are shooting (today's news story about 4
>Iraqi school children being shot by US forces when they rushed out of
>school to look at the Humvee that had been blown up.... is this the kind
>of defending we are expected to be grateful for?)
>
>NZs defence force is about 12000 from a population of ~4 million (0.3%
>of pop)
>
>This equates to a USA (pop ~300 million) or 900,000....
>
>Ok, so relatively speaking, we are under protected (there is one regular
>infantry battalion per 2 million..so does the US have 150 infantry
>battalions?
>
>OTOH... most enlist for more than a single 4 year tour (average more
>experienced soldiers....)

Well, you have no air force, no real navy, no effective army, I would say that
is pretty much the definition of defenseless. NZ has given up its status as
a respectable nation. Cowards.

Al Minyard

[Keith Willshaw]

"Simon Robbins" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dweezil Dwarftosser" > wrote in message
> ...
> > 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 believe that to be only a recent (i.e. past century) issue. Until WW2 I
> think it was legal for UK residents to own firearms, but as someone else
> said they were mainly long-barrelled weapons for sport or hunting. The
hand
> gun has no other purpose than to shoot other people.
>

It still is legal to own long arms, shotgun certificates arent that
hard to get and even rifles can be had as long as they
arent military assault weapons. As a child of the 50's weapons
brought back as trophies from WW2 were not uncommon.
The father of one school friend had at least 2 german machine
pistols as well as a Luger.

> Being a Brit myself, I actually wish we did have the right to bear arms,
at
> least on our own property, and the legal back up to use them if necessary.
> But, (and this is where I give the US population credit they deserve but
> very often don't get), is that I don't believe the UK population has the
> respect for those weapons tha they deserve. They've just not been part of
> our social landscape. If they were to legalise the ownership of hand guns
> tomorrow in a similar manner to US laws, gun crime and accidental
shootings
> would (I believe) go through the roof as the current generation overcame
the
> novelty value of owning a "piece".
>

In rural areas shotguns are commonplace and the stringent regulations
regarding their storage are the result of 2 factors

1) Accidental discharges of 'unloaded' weapons

2) Theft

There was a period in the 70's when rural farms were the source of
firearms for city based villains, far from protecting their owners
from burglary they attracted unwelcome attention.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 04:08:39 GMT, "tim gueguen" > wrote:
>
> >
> And we never will. We live under the rule of law, and have an armed
> citizenry that will not tolerate such madness.
>

Are the WTC bombing , the Oklahoma City Bombing and the
events of Sept 11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks supposed
to be examples of successful US counter terrorism ?

Fact is the US was protected by little more than geography.
In 1996 I visited Washington DC and was astounded at
how LITTLE security there was with not even the most basic
precautions in place. I was able to wander around the Capitol
with no scannning or check of bags going in. Planting a dozen
IRA style thermite bombs would have been trivial.

Keith

[Stephen Harding]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> Fact is the US was protected by little more than geography.
> In 1996 I visited Washington DC and was astounded at
> how LITTLE security there was with not even the most basic
> precautions in place. I was able to wander around the Capitol
> with no scannning or check of bags going in. Planting a dozen
> IRA style thermite bombs would have been trivial.

I'm not certain that was a bad thing. Perhaps surprising when
coming from a location with terror activity, but not necessarily
from a domestic POV.

Once upon a time, a new President would open up the White House
to the citizenry and you could go shake his hand (and perhaps
try to get a job with the new administration). Security issues
deep sixed that quite a while ago.

Parking in front of the WH, or even driving down PA Ave is now
history as well, and on and on it goes.

One either under-reacts or over-reacts. Can't really say which
response is preferable, but it is certainly understandable that
with limited resources, you spend money where it will hopefully
have the best effect, and filling US airports with soldiers or
aircraft flights with undercover sky marshals, in a non-terror
environment doesn't seem a spectacular waste of money to me.

Of course the WTC cost $billions and after the fact, even a modest
application of better security would have more than paid for
itself.

It's tough keeping a balanced perspective on what needs to be
done. The terrorists have all the advantages.


SMH

[B2431]

>From: "Simon Robbins"


The hand
>gun has no other purpose than to shoot other people.
>

Where did you get that idea? There are entire categories of competion using
handguns (ever heard of the Olympics?) and many hunter use them as a greater
challenge than long guns.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Jim Yanik]

Stephen Harding > wrote in news:408d9b76@news-
1.oit.umass.edu:

>
> Of course the WTC cost $billions and after the fact, even a modest
> application of better security would have more than paid for
> itself.

Just some decent border security would have helped.
IIRC,some of those 9-11 guys had overstayed their visas.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

(B2431) wrote in
:

>>From: "Simon Robbins"
>
>
> The hand
>>gun has no other purpose than to shoot other people.
>>
>
> Where did you get that idea? There are entire categories of competion
> using handguns (ever heard of the Olympics?) and many hunter use them
> as a greater challenge than long guns.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>

Many people compete with military-style rifles,too;AR-15's,bolt-action
rifles,even .50BMG rifles.

IIRC,the Barrett M82A1 (.50BMG) was developed for civilian use,then bought
by the US military.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Kerryn Offord]

Jim Yanik wrote:

<SNIP>
> The US military is prohibited by LAW from operating inside the US.
> (Posse Comitatus,IIRC)
>
> Bsides,the police SWAT teams,FBI and BATF-troop are all very close to
> military capabilities.Now the National Guard (considered today's militia)
> could be deployed.
> Although,IMO,they are merely part of the ordinary US military.

Which makes one wonder a bit about Delta and SEAL 6. They were counter
terrorism units, but where were they supposed to operate? They couldn't
operate in the US, and a lot of other countries wouldn't let them
through, let alone operate in their country.

Were they available for the olympics (LA and Atlanta)? Or was that
solely an FBI (et al) thing?

[Kerryn Offord]

Alan Minyard wrote:
<SNIP>
>>What makes you say NZ has given up defending itself?
>>
>>There is a world of difference between defending yourself, which NZers
>>have no problem with, and shooting as a first response... and also not
>>being careful about where you are shooting (today's news story about 4
>>Iraqi school children being shot by US forces when they rushed out of
>>school to look at the Humvee that had been blown up.... is this the kind
>>of defending we are expected to be grateful for?)
>>
>>NZs defence force is about 12000 from a population of ~4 million (0.3%
>>of pop)
>>
>>This equates to a USA (pop ~300 million) or 900,000....
>>
>>Ok, so relatively speaking, we are under protected (there is one regular
>>infantry battalion per 2 million..so does the US have 150 infantry
>>battalions?
>>
>>OTOH... most enlist for more than a single 4 year tour (average more
>>experienced soldiers....)
>
>
> Well, you have no air force, no real navy, no effective army, I would say that
> is pretty much the definition of defenseless. NZ has given up its status as
> a respectable nation. Cowards.
>
> Al Minyard

Hey Al's calling Kiwis cowards... :)
(And just after ANZAC day too...)

Just how big an airforce, navy and army do you expect a country 1500
miles for the nearest other country to have?

Also... who should we be defending from (that we would have any chance,
even with 10-20% of gdp military spending)?

How many aircraft constitutes a real airforce?
How many warships?
How big an army?

And for that matter... how much is it going to cost?

I mean, NZ has been running budget surpluses for most of the last ten
years... The people really don't like the idea of mortgaging their
children's futures for military spending...

Then of course, we don't have the numbers applying for the military...
they have enough trouble recruiting to maintain the current numbers.

Oh, we don't offer the GI bill, so there is no 'free' university for
ex-soldiers, and being in the territorials doesn't entitle you to no
fees education at state uni.

[[email protected]]

Jim Yanik > wrote:

>Stephen Harding > wrote in news:408d9b76@news-
>1.oit.umass.edu:
>
>>
>> Of course the WTC cost $billions and after the fact, even a modest
>> application of better security would have more than paid for
>> itself.
>
>Just some decent border security would have helped.
>IIRC,some of those 9-11 guys had overstayed their visas.

Overstayed?, I guess so...wasn't it Atta who was sent a renewal
request for some visa related papers several weeks after 911? (or
was someone jerking chains?).

I for one think it's a God damned shame that we need to change
from the innocent life that we led a few years ago to one filled
with suspicion, security checks, wandings, shoe inspections and
similar personal intrusions just to pay for some religious
zealots beliefs.

I certainly have nothing against what some people want to believe
UNTIL IT IMPACTS ME and MINE. You don't like freedom?...then stay
out of free countries. Certainly don't cry when you get your
fingers slapped for forcing your views on others thousands of
miles away.
--

-Gord.

[Jim Yanik]

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
:

> Jim Yanik > wrote:
>
>>Stephen Harding > wrote in news:408d9b76@news-
>>1.oit.umass.edu:
>>
>>>
>>> Of course the WTC cost $billions and after the fact, even a modest
>>> application of better security would have more than paid for
>>> itself.
>>
>>Just some decent border security would have helped.
>>IIRC,some of those 9-11 guys had overstayed their visas.
>
> Overstayed?, I guess so...wasn't it Atta who was sent a renewal
> request for some visa related papers several weeks after 911? (or
> was someone jerking chains?).
>
> I for one think it's a God damned shame that we need to change
> from the innocent life that we led a few years ago to one filled
> with suspicion, security checks, wandings, shoe inspections and
> similar personal intrusions just to pay for some religious
> zealots beliefs.
>
> I certainly have nothing against what some people want to believe
> UNTIL IT IMPACTS ME and MINE. You don't like freedom?...then stay
> out of free countries. Certainly don't cry when you get your
> fingers slapped for forcing your views on others thousands of
> miles away.
> --
>
> -Gord.
>

Well,we now know that 9-11 was not the first attack on the US,there was the
first WTC bombing,two US embassies bombed,the Khobar Towers bombing,and the
USS Cole bombing.

Albert Einstein once wrote that "the world is a dangerous place to live,
not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't
do anything about it."

I guess we know where you stand.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

Kerryn Offord > wrote in
:

>
>
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>
><SNIP>
>> The US military is prohibited by LAW from operating inside the US.
>> (Posse Comitatus,IIRC)
>>
>> Bsides,the police SWAT teams,FBI and BATF-troop are all very close to
>> military capabilities.Now the National Guard (considered today's
>> militia) could be deployed.
>> Although,IMO,they are merely part of the ordinary US military.
>
> Which makes one wonder a bit about Delta and SEAL 6. They were counter
> terrorism units, but where were they supposed to operate? They
> couldn't operate in the US, and a lot of other countries wouldn't let
> them through, let alone operate in their country.

Being soldiers,they would be deployed against countries that committed acts
of war against the US.I probably should have qualified the first statement
with "in peacetime",meaning the military could be deployed inside the US
during times of war.Certainly if US territory was invaded,the military
would deploy inside the US. Counter-terrorism may fall under that category.
Especially with the rise of multinational,non-State terrorism groups like
Al-Queda.

>
> Were they available for the olympics (LA and Atlanta)? Or was that
> solely an FBI (et al) thing?
>
>
I don't know who did security for the Olympics.
Perhaps the National Guard,under those States Governor's authority(as a
militia).


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:42:04 +0100, "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

>
>"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 04:08:39 GMT, "tim gueguen" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> And we never will. We live under the rule of law, and have an armed
>> citizenry that will not tolerate such madness.
>>
>
>Are the WTC bombing , the Oklahoma City Bombing and the
>events of Sept 11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks supposed
>to be examples of successful US counter terrorism ?
>
>Fact is the US was protected by little more than geography.
>In 1996 I visited Washington DC and was astounded at
>how LITTLE security there was with not even the most basic
>precautions in place. I was able to wander around the Capitol
>with no scannning or check of bags going in. Planting a dozen
>IRA style thermite bombs would have been trivial.
>
>Keith
>
The WTC was not the result of internal terrorism. OK City was
an aberration. You do know what has happened to the
perpetrators, don't you?

We have an open society, and do not relish the "big brother"
school of security. The thousands of cameras all over outdoor,
public areas in the UK would never be tolerated in the US.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 17:36:58 +1200, Kerryn Offord > wrote:

>
>
>Alan Minyard wrote:
><SNIP>
>>>What makes you say NZ has given up defending itself?
>>>
>>>There is a world of difference between defending yourself, which NZers
>>>have no problem with, and shooting as a first response... and also not
>>>being careful about where you are shooting (today's news story about 4
>>>Iraqi school children being shot by US forces when they rushed out of
>>>school to look at the Humvee that had been blown up.... is this the kind
>>>of defending we are expected to be grateful for?)
>>>
>>>NZs defence force is about 12000 from a population of ~4 million (0.3%
>>>of pop)
>>>
>>>This equates to a USA (pop ~300 million) or 900,000....
>>>
>>>Ok, so relatively speaking, we are under protected (there is one regular
>>>infantry battalion per 2 million..so does the US have 150 infantry
>>>battalions?
>>>
>>>OTOH... most enlist for more than a single 4 year tour (average more
>>>experienced soldiers....)
>>
>>
>> Well, you have no air force, no real navy, no effective army, I would say that
>> is pretty much the definition of defenseless. NZ has given up its status as
>> a respectable nation. Cowards.
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>Hey Al's calling Kiwis cowards... :)
>(And just after ANZAC day too...)
>
>Just how big an airforce, navy and army do you expect a country 1500
>miles for the nearest other country to have?
>
>Also... who should we be defending from (that we would have any chance,
>even with 10-20% of gdp military spending)?
>
>How many aircraft constitutes a real airforce?
>How many warships?
>How big an army?
>
>And for that matter... how much is it going to cost?
>
>I mean, NZ has been running budget surpluses for most of the last ten
>years... The people really don't like the idea of mortgaging their
>children's futures for military spending...
>
>Then of course, we don't have the numbers applying for the military...
>they have enough trouble recruiting to maintain the current numbers.
>
>Oh, we don't offer the GI bill, so there is no 'free' university for
>ex-soldiers, and being in the territorials doesn't entitle you to no
>fees education at state uni.

Let me clarify what was a poorly worded post. I do not, rpt not,
think that the average NZ individual is a coward. The govt of
NZ is another matter.

By the way, in the US most people qualify for a free university
education if they are willing and able to compete for it.

Al Minyard

[Keith Willshaw]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:42:04 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
>

> The WTC was not the result of internal terrorism. OK City was
> an aberration. You do know what has happened to the
> perpetrators, don't you?
>

Is external terrorism less dangerous to life and limb ?

> We have an open society, and do not relish the "big brother"
> school of security. The thousands of cameras all over outdoor,
> public areas in the UK would never be tolerated in the US.
>

Nonsense, there are over 2 thousand in NYC alone

http://www.mediaeater.com/cameras/overview.html

Keith

[[email protected]]

Jim Yanik > wrote:

>
>Albert Einstein once wrote that "the world is a dangerous place to live,
>not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't
>do anything about it."
>
>I guess we know where you stand.

....aaaand I agree with him, lessee now, if I read you right
you're ****ed that I'm not over there with rifle in hand right
now, right?...well, here's my excuse, I'm 70 years old, half
blind with glaucoma, on oxygen from emphysema, half deaf with
aircraft engine noise...now then...let's turn our attention to
you for a moment...

--

-Gord.

[Jim Yanik]

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
:

> Jim Yanik > wrote:
>
>>
>>Albert Einstein once wrote that "the world is a dangerous place to
>>live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the
>>people who don't do anything about it."
>>
>>I guess we know where you stand.
>
> ...aaaand I agree with him, lessee now, if I read you right
> you're ****ed that I'm not over there with rifle in hand right
> now, right?

As usual,you're off the mark.


I'm 51.5 yrs old. (3.5 yrs in the USAF back in early 1970's.RIF for the
last .5 yr.)
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[[email protected]]

Jim Yanik > wrote:

>"Gord Beaman" wrote:
>
>> Jim Yanik wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Albert Einstein once wrote that "the world is a dangerous place to
>>>live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the
>>>people who don't do anything about it."
>>>
>>>I guess we know where you stand.
>>
>> ...aaaand I agree with him, lessee now, if I read you right
>> you're ****ed that I'm not over there with rifle in hand right
>> now, right?
>
>As usual,you're off the mark.
>
Oh...I see...well your one-liner could certainly be taken as an
accusation, but if it wasn't meant as one then it's likely that a
better response would have been "No, you misunderstood me, sorry"
rather than the accusation that you made.
>
>I'm 51.5 yrs old. (3.5 yrs in the USAF back in early 1970's.RIF for the
>last .5 yr.)

I forgot to mention that I served in Canada's Armed Forces for 26
years.
--

-Gord.

[B2431]

>From: "Gord Beaman" )
>
>I forgot to mention that I served in Canada's Armed Forces for 26
>years.
>--
>
>-Gord.

Gord, you should have joined our Air Force. I spent my last 14 years in
Florida. Nothing like a warm flightline most of the year. Ok, so we get down to
the 20s a few days a year, but we can't have it TOO easy. Y'see, it's a tad
chilly way up there where you are.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, Keith Willshaw
> writes
>
>"Simon Robbins" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Dweezil Dwarftosser" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > 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 believe that to be only a recent (i.e. past century) issue. Until WW2 I
>> think it was legal for UK residents to own firearms, but as someone else
>> said they were mainly long-barrelled weapons for sport or hunting. The
>hand
>> gun has no other purpose than to shoot other people.
>>
>
>It still is legal to own long arms, shotgun certificates arent that
>hard to get and even rifles can be had as long as they
>arent military assault weapons. As a child of the 50's weapons
>brought back as trophies from WW2 were not uncommon.
>The father of one school friend had at least 2 german machine
>pistols as well as a Luger.
>
>> Being a Brit myself, I actually wish we did have the right to bear arms,
>at
>> least on our own property, and the legal back up to use them if necessary.
>> But, (and this is where I give the US population credit they deserve but
>> very often don't get), is that I don't believe the UK population has the
>> respect for those weapons tha they deserve. They've just not been part of
>> our social landscape. If they were to legalise the ownership of hand guns
>> tomorrow in a similar manner to US laws, gun crime and accidental
>shootings
>> would (I believe) go through the roof as the current generation overcame
>the
>> novelty value of owning a "piece".
>>
>
>In rural areas shotguns are commonplace and the stringent regulations
>regarding their storage are the result of 2 factors
>
>1) Accidental discharges of 'unloaded' weapons
>
>2) Theft
>
>There was a period in the 70's when rural farms were the source of
>firearms for city based villains, far from protecting their owners
>from burglary they attracted unwelcome attention.
>
My brother-in-law and nephew keep rifles and shotguns at their farm
(here in the UK), and AFAIK part of the certificate/licence renewal
process is a police inspection of the storage facilities.


--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[[email protected]]

(B2431) wrote:

>>From: "Gord Beaman" )
>>
>>I forgot to mention that I served in Canada's Armed Forces for 26
>>years.
>>--
>>
>>-Gord.
>
>Gord, you should have joined our Air Force. I spent my last 14 years in
>Florida. Nothing like a warm flightline most of the year. Ok, so we get down to
>the 20s a few days a year, but we can't have it TOO easy. Y'see, it's a tad
>chilly way up there where you are.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
Chilly?..nah, quite comfortable Dan...you can always add clothes,
or get inside when it really gets cold...tough to get comfortable
down there sweltering in the heat.
--

-Gord.

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 21:32:30 +0100, "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

>
>"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:42:04 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
>>
>
>> The WTC was not the result of internal terrorism. OK City was
>> an aberration. You do know what has happened to the
>> perpetrators, don't you?
>>
>
>Is external terrorism less dangerous to life and limb ?
>
>> We have an open society, and do not relish the "big brother"
>> school of security. The thousands of cameras all over outdoor,
>> public areas in the UK would never be tolerated in the US.
>>
>
>Nonsense, there are over 2 thousand in NYC alone
>
>http://www.mediaeater.com/cameras/overview.html
>
>Keith
>
Did you miss the part where it explained that only less than
300 of the cameras were government owned, and that
these were security cameras on government buildings?

If I want to video the street in front of my house that is hardly
"big brother". In the UK the government maintains surveillance
on the public, the US government does not.

Al Minyard

[Jim Doyle]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 21:32:30 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:42:04 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> The WTC was not the result of internal terrorism. OK City was
> >> an aberration. You do know what has happened to the
> >> perpetrators, don't you?
> >>
> >
> >Is external terrorism less dangerous to life and limb ?
> >
> >> We have an open society, and do not relish the "big brother"
> >> school of security. The thousands of cameras all over outdoor,
> >> public areas in the UK would never be tolerated in the US.
> >>
> >
> >Nonsense, there are over 2 thousand in NYC alone
> >
> >http://www.mediaeater.com/cameras/overview.html
> >
> >Keith
> >
> Did you miss the part where it explained that only less than
> 300 of the cameras were government owned, and that
> these were security cameras on government buildings?
>
> If I want to video the street in front of my house that is hardly
> "big brother". In the UK the government maintains surveillance
> on the public, the US government does not.

I guess it's how you interpret the government's intentions.

Personally, I'm OK with them knowing the ins-and-outs of my weekly shopping
trips; especially if they're bothered to go to all that trouble of setting
up the infrastructure and paying the x 1000s of guys to follow every move
each of us makes 24/7 - fairplay to them. It strikes me you've the
impression they're there to oppress us - simply not the case. They help
catch criminals.

That, at least, is what the telescreen in the corner tells me.
Doubleplusgood!

Jim Doyle

> Al Minyard

[Jim Yanik]

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
:

> (B2431) wrote:
>
>>>From: "Gord Beaman" )
>>>
>>>I forgot to mention that I served in Canada's Armed Forces for 26
>>>years.
>>>--
>>>
>>>-Gord.
>>
>>Gord, you should have joined our Air Force. I spent my last 14 years
>>in Florida. Nothing like a warm flightline most of the year. Ok, so we
>>get down to the 20s a few days a year, but we can't have it TOO easy.
>>Y'see, it's a tad chilly way up there where you are.
>>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
> Chilly?..nah, quite comfortable Dan...you can always add clothes,
> or get inside when it really gets cold...tough to get comfortable
> down there sweltering in the heat.
> --
>
> -Gord.
>

It took me awhile to become acclimatized to Florida,but it was worth it.
I hate snow.(20 yrs in Buffalo,and 9 in Indianapolis.)
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Keith Willshaw]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 21:32:30 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:42:04 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> The WTC was not the result of internal terrorism. OK City was
> >> an aberration. You do know what has happened to the
> >> perpetrators, don't you?
> >>
> >
> >Is external terrorism less dangerous to life and limb ?
> >
> >> We have an open society, and do not relish the "big brother"
> >> school of security. The thousands of cameras all over outdoor,
> >> public areas in the UK would never be tolerated in the US.
> >>
> >
> >Nonsense, there are over 2 thousand in NYC alone
> >
> >http://www.mediaeater.com/cameras/overview.html
> >
> >Keith
> >
> Did you miss the part where it explained that only less than
> 300 of the cameras were government owned, and that
> these were security cameras on government buildings?
>

Ah so you believe that private surveillance cameras
by definition are non intrusive and that only 300
government cameras dont count

> If I want to video the street in front of my house that is hardly
> "big brother". In the UK the government maintains surveillance
> on the public, the US government does not.
>

In the UK the police maintain surveillance of public
spaces, there are actually tighter controls on cameras
in workplaces and private locations than the US

We dont have a UK TV show called 'Busted On The Job'
showing surveillance footage of employees.

Lets get real here.

Keith

[Simon Robbins]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> Where did you get that idea? There are entire categories of competion
using
> handguns (ever heard of the Olympics?) and many hunter use them as a
greater
> challenge than long guns.

Yeah, but that's like suggesting martial arts, though used for competition
are designed for anything other than giving someone else a severely bad day.
Tell me, did Colt have competition in mind when he developed the revolver?
We've turned many dangerous activities into sport, but that doesn't disguise
their original intention.

Si

[B2431]

>From: "Simon Robbins"
>Date: 4/29/2004 3:44 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> Where did you get that idea? There are entire categories of competion
>using
>> handguns (ever heard of the Olympics?) and many hunter use them as a
>greater
>> challenge than long guns.
>
>Yeah, but that's like suggesting martial arts, though used for competition
>are designed for anything other than giving someone else a severely bad day.
>Tell me, did Colt have competition in mind when he developed the revolver?
>We've turned many dangerous activities into sport, but that doesn't disguise
>their original intention.
>
>Si

He didn't say "original intention," he said "only purpose" and Colt did make
target pistols.

Let's make an analogy to what you suggest. For thousands of years bows and
arrows have been weapons of war. Today they are primarily used for competition
or entertainment with some people using them for hunting. If a weapon's
orininal intent is to kill people then we should also ban archery and the
javelin from the Olympics.

Around the world thousands of people are killed with knives. Shall we ban them
from the kitchen because of them?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Jim Yanik]

(B2431) wrote in
:

>>From: "Simon Robbins"
>>Date: 4/29/2004 3:44 PM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>>> Where did you get that idea? There are entire categories of
>>> competion
>>using
>>> handguns (ever heard of the Olympics?) and many hunter use them as a
>>greater
>>> challenge than long guns.
>>
>>Yeah, but that's like suggesting martial arts, though used for
>>competition are designed for anything other than giving someone else a
>>severely bad day. Tell me, did Colt have competition in mind when he
>>developed the revolver? We've turned many dangerous activities into
>>sport, but that doesn't disguise their original intention.
>>
>>Si
>
> He didn't say "original intention," he said "only purpose" and Colt
> did make target pistols.
>
> Let's make an analogy to what you suggest. For thousands of years bows
> and arrows have been weapons of war. Today they are primarily used for
> competition or entertainment with some people using them for hunting.
> If a weapon's orininal intent is to kill people then we should also
> ban archery and the javelin from the Olympics.
>
> Around the world thousands of people are killed with knives. Shall we
> ban them from the kitchen because of them?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>

A baseball bat is a club,which originally was designed to kill.
There goes that sport.The entire "designed to kill" argument is just a
meaningless dodge,anyways,to demonize guns.

What matters is the intent of the person using that item.

And killing is not always a bad thing.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Simon Robbins]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> He didn't say "original intention," he said "only purpose" and Colt did
make
> target pistols.
>
> Let's make an analogy to what you suggest. For thousands of years bows and
> arrows have been weapons of war. Today they are primarily used for
competition
> or entertainment with some people using them for hunting. If a weapon's
> orininal intent is to kill people then we should also ban archery and the
> javelin from the Olympics.

I wouldn't advocate banning either archery or pistol shooting from
competitive sport. That's not really my point. And as I stated earlier,
even being a Brit, I'm not anti-gun. I actually admire the (vast majority)
of the American public for being mature enough to keep guns with the respect
they deserve. (I don't think the British, not having had a culture of
large-scale gun ownership, could display the same inherent respect were the
law here to be suddenly changed.)

Until a few years ago it was possible for a UK ctizen to legally own a
pistol for competition, but following a single well-publicised incident
where a legitimate owner turned his guns on a playground full of children
the law was changed to ban ownership outright, rather than address the
failings of the licensing system that enabled an unstable individual to
obtain them. Having said that, most competitive target shooters accept that
gas-pistols are an acceptable, though not preferable, alternative.

Si

[miso]

American's treating guns with respect? You can't be serious. About 10%
of the gun owners I know keep them in a safe.

Average number of firearm thefts that occur every year in the US:
341,000
(Source: US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns and
Crime, 4/94)



"Simon Robbins" > wrote in message >...
> "B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> > He didn't say "original intention," he said "only purpose" and Colt did
> make
> > target pistols.
> >
> > Let's make an analogy to what you suggest. For thousands of years bows and
> > arrows have been weapons of war. Today they are primarily used for
> competition
> > or entertainment with some people using them for hunting. If a weapon's
> > orininal intent is to kill people then we should also ban archery and the
> > javelin from the Olympics.
>
> I wouldn't advocate banning either archery or pistol shooting from
> competitive sport. That's not really my point. And as I stated earlier,
> even being a Brit, I'm not anti-gun. I actually admire the (vast majority)
> of the American public for being mature enough to keep guns with the respect
> they deserve. (I don't think the British, not having had a culture of
> large-scale gun ownership, could display the same inherent respect were the
> law here to be suddenly changed.)
>
> Until a few years ago it was possible for a UK ctizen to legally own a
> pistol for competition, but following a single well-publicised incident
> where a legitimate owner turned his guns on a playground full of children
> the law was changed to ban ownership outright, rather than address the
> failings of the licensing system that enabled an unstable individual to
> obtain them. Having said that, most competitive target shooters accept that
> gas-pistols are an acceptable, though not preferable, alternative.
>
> Si

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Jim Yanik
> writes
>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
:
>> I certainly have nothing against what some people want to believe
>> UNTIL IT IMPACTS ME and MINE. You don't like freedom?...then stay
>> out of free countries. Certainly don't cry when you get your
>> fingers slapped for forcing your views on others thousands of
>> miles away.

>Well,we now know that 9-11 was not the first attack on the US,there was the
>first WTC bombing,two US embassies bombed,

You have embassies in your own country? Embassies are established
overseas.

>the Khobar Towers bombing,

The Khobar Towers were in Saudi Arabia.

>and the
>USS Cole bombing.

The USS COLE was attacked in the Yemen.


As a firearms enthusiast, Jim, you might be familiar with the phrase
"going off half-cocked".

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Simon Robbins
> writes
>"Dweezil Dwarftosser" > wrote in message
...
>> 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 believe that to be only a recent (i.e. past century) issue. Until WW2 I
>think it was legal for UK residents to own firearms,

I owned firearms until 1997. Still could now, shotguns, rifles or
repeating handguns, if I had the time and spare cash.

Trouble was, having concentrated on Practical Pistol, it would have been
a fairly awkward shift in both hardware and technique to go over to
shooting black-powder pistol (even if a LeMat makes a fairly awesome
weapon: nine rounds of soft lead .36" ball plus a shotgun, any intruder
still standing after *that* has earned the right to pillage while I
reload: if I wanted one I could get one, legally and fairly easily)

>but as someone else
>said they were mainly long-barrelled weapons for sport or hunting. The hand
>gun has no other purpose than to shoot other people.

That's its design role, just as the role of a sword is to kill people
(hence no more sports fencing) and the bow had no purpose other than
turning living creatures into dead meat (so no more archery either).

For that matter, let's ban the javelin from athletics (throwing spears
were only ever designed for killing!).

Sports grew out of military competition: so we should also ban all
martial arts from boxing onwards (dedicated to learning how to batter an
opponent insensible!)

>Being a Brit myself, I actually wish we did have the right to bear arms, at
>least on our own property, and the legal back up to use them if necessary.

Closer than you might think now, tabloid hysteria notwithstanding.

>But, (and this is where I give the US population credit they deserve but
>very often don't get), is that I don't believe the UK population has the
>respect for those weapons tha they deserve. They've just not been part of
>our social landscape. If they were to legalise the ownership of hand guns
>tomorrow in a similar manner to US laws, gun crime and accidental shootings
>would (I believe) go through the roof as the current generation overcame the
>novelty value of owning a "piece".

No worse than in the US. The electable viewpoint there is that the costs
are worth paying, but there the genie's out of the bottle and it's a
fair assumption that any casual burglar or opportunistic mugger might be
carrying a firearm. Unfortunately, the reaction to to that gets them a
lot of stolen weapons, domestic accidents and other grief, but the
current consensus is that the gain outweighs the cost.

For the moment, in the UK the overall view is different. Personally, I'd
be happy with much more widespread ownership provided that ownership
equalled responsibility: your weapon, your job to keep it secure. You
want a weapon, it lives on your person or else properly secured. You
fire that weapon, you're responsible for every round leaving the barrel.
Not popular here, and oddly enough it seems to be very unpopular in the
US for very different reasons :)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[B2431]

>From: "Paul J. Adam"


>As a firearms enthusiast, Jim, you might be familiar with the phrase
>"going off half-cocked".
>

Paul, that term comes from having an accident while stuffing one's side arm
into the front waist of one's pants.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[David Lesher]

>Then there was the T-38 with LAPD markings that appeared in the film
>"Dragnet" (the Dan Aykroyd/Tom Hanks version)...

"Thank God it's Friday!!!"
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, B2431
> writes
>>From: "Paul J. Adam"
>>As a firearms enthusiast, Jim, you might be familiar with the phrase
>>"going off half-cocked".
>
>Paul, that term comes from having an accident while stuffing one's side arm
>into the front waist of one's pants.

Sorry, Dan, but it dates back to the flintlock days: back when you'd
half-cock your firelock so you could charge the pan, and a
fumble-fingered soldier or one cursed with a badly-made weapon
(remember, this was before mass production and interchangeable parts)
could discharge his weapon at an inopportune moment.

And whether you call the relevant garment pants, shorts or trousers, I
was only sticking a loaded and ready firearm in there if there was a
proper holster ready to receive it :)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[[email protected]]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

>In message >, B2431
> writes
>>>From: "Paul J. Adam"
>>>As a firearms enthusiast, Jim, you might be familiar with the phrase
>>>"going off half-cocked".
>>
>>Paul, that term comes from having an accident while stuffing one's side arm
>>into the front waist of one's pants.
>

Dan may have been joking a little Paul

>Sorry, Dan, but it dates back to the flintlock days: back when you'd
>half-cock your firelock so you could charge the pan, and a
>fumble-fingered soldier or one cursed with a badly-made weapon
>(remember, this was before mass production and interchangeable parts)
>could discharge his weapon at an inopportune moment.
>

That might have been so too , but modern weapons have that 'half
cock' feature, it's done to keep the hammer off the firing pin,
this position locks the hammer from being released by the
trigger, but you likely knew that already...now a question, do
you know how "flash in the pan" originated?





>And whether you call the relevant garment pants, shorts or trousers, I
>was only sticking a loaded and ready firearm in there if there was a
>proper holster ready to receive it :)

--

-Gord.

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

[ boiled down to a single point...]

> [...] it's a fair assumption that any casual burglar or
> opportunistic mugger might be carrying a firearm.

That's true anywhere; criminals obtain their firearms illegally,
after all. The big difference is that in the US, the intended
victim is much more likely to possess a firearm - and thus,
could be lethal to the criminal. Combine that with the usual
escalation of punishment when a crime involves the use or threat
of a lethal weapon (not just guns) - and we have the amazing fact:
Wherever a US state has enacted a liberal policy for issuance of
handgun permits, crime has decreased. Criminals are cowards;
they will invariably choose a weaker target for their crimes
- and avoid locales where their victims may be in a position of
greater strength to ward off an attack.

[B2431]

>From: "Paul J. Adam"

>
>In message >, B2431
> writes
>>>From: "Paul J. Adam"
>>>As a firearms enthusiast, Jim, you might be familiar with the phrase
>>>"going off half-cocked".
>>
>>Paul, that term comes from having an accident while stuffing one's side arm
>>into the front waist of one's pants.
>
>Sorry, Dan, but it dates back to the flintlock days: back when you'd
>half-cock your firelock so you could charge the pan, and a
>fumble-fingered soldier or one cursed with a badly-made weapon
>(remember, this was before mass production and interchangeable parts)
>could discharge his weapon at an inopportune moment.
>
>And whether you call the relevant garment pants, shorts or trousers, I
>was only sticking a loaded and ready firearm in there if there was a
>proper holster ready to receive it :)
>
>--

I keep forgetting some things don't translate into Brit. It's an old joke,
sorry.

I have shot matchlocks, a wheel lock, several flint and percussion weapons as
well as modern. I know what a half cock is.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, B2431
> writes
>>From: "Paul J. Adam"
>>>Paul, that term comes from having an accident while stuffing one's side arm
>>>into the front waist of one's pants.
>>
>>Sorry, Dan, but it dates back to the flintlock days

>I keep forgetting some things don't translate into Brit. It's an old joke,
>sorry.

Right - got it on the second try. Cheers.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, "Gord
writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>Dan may have been joking a little Paul

Yes, he said so too - my mistake for being too literal.

>now a question, do
>you know how "flash in the pan" originated?

Matchlocks and flintlocks again: the priming fires but doesn't ignite
the charge in the barrel (blocked vent, for instance). So you get the
flash in the pan, but no shot.

Me gun nut, me know these things :) Even if my sense of humour
occasionally needs recalibration when reading Americanese :)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Stephen Harding]

Paul J. Adam wrote:

> In message >, B2431
> > writes
>
>>>From: "Paul J. Adam"
>>>As a firearms enthusiast, Jim, you might be familiar with the phrase
>>>"going off half-cocked".
>>
>>Paul, that term comes from having an accident while stuffing one's side arm
>>into the front waist of one's pants.
>
> Sorry, Dan, but it dates back to the flintlock days: back when you'd
> half-cock your firelock so you could charge the pan, and a
> fumble-fingered soldier or one cursed with a badly-made weapon
> (remember, this was before mass production and interchangeable parts)
> could discharge his weapon at an inopportune moment.

Apparently, firing off ramrods, particularly in the excitement
of battle, was another fairly common error.

There doesn't seem to be an idiom derived from it, so I suppose
it must have been a much less common event than "going off
half-cocked".


SMH

[Simon Robbins]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> >I believe that to be only a recent (i.e. past century) issue. Until WW2
I
> >think it was legal for UK residents to own firearms,
>
> I owned firearms until 1997. Still could now, shotguns, rifles or
> repeating handguns, if I had the time and spare cash.

I meant without restriction and licencing.

> That's its design role, just as the role of a sword is to kill people
> (hence no more sports fencing) and the bow had no purpose other than
> turning living creatures into dead meat (so no more archery either).

> For that matter, let's ban the javelin from athletics (throwing spears
> were only ever designed for killing!).

I have no problem with offensive weapons in sport. I'm not against ownership
either, so long as you can guarantee responsibility. But, bear in mind
you're going to get in serious trouble walking down the road with a bow,
sword, or even a javelin in the UK these days. As it happens I think the
government was dead wrong in banning the legal ownership of handguns for
sport. It was complete overkill driven by media hysteria.

> >Being a Brit myself, I actually wish we did have the right to bear arms,
at
> >least on our own property, and the legal back up to use them if
necessary.
>
> Closer than you might think now, tabloid hysteria notwithstanding.

Don't know about that. It would take such a shift in the legal rights of
home owners to enable them to use a potential deadly force in defence of
their property, and I just don't see a change in the law coming that'll stop
favouring criminals. (I think the government's too worried about loosing out
on all that VAT they get from burglary victims having to go out and buy new
appliances.. :-)

> For the moment, in the UK the overall view is different. Personally, I'd
> be happy with much more widespread ownership provided that ownership
> equalled responsibility: your weapon, your job to keep it secure. You
> want a weapon, it lives on your person or else properly secured. You
> fire that weapon, you're responsible for every round leaving the barrel.
> Not popular here, and oddly enough it seems to be very unpopular in the
> US for very different reasons :)

I agree with you, but it comes down to: I'd be happy for everyone to own a
gun if I new that they were as responsible as I know I am! But then there's
no test for respect or responsibility and sooner or later kids will get
access to the guns carefully stored in their parents' safes, and the genie
would be out of the bottle here as well. Trouble is that it's a one-way
massive culture and legal shift, and it's much easier for society and
government to try and cope with the status quo rather than open Pandora's
Box.

Si

[Jim Yanik]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
:

> In message >, Jim Yanik
> writes
>>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
:
>>> I certainly have nothing against what some people want to believe
>>> UNTIL IT IMPACTS ME and MINE. You don't like freedom?...then stay
>>> out of free countries. Certainly don't cry when you get your
>>> fingers slapped for forcing your views on others thousands of
>>> miles away.
>
>>Well,we now know that 9-11 was not the first attack on the US,there
>>was the first WTC bombing,two US embassies bombed,
>
> You have embassies in your own country? Embassies are established
> overseas.

And embassies are considered part of the country who's embassy is sited
there;IOW,those embassies are US soil.
>
>>the Khobar Towers bombing,
>
> The Khobar Towers were in Saudi Arabia.

Full of US troops,who the attack was directed at.
>
>>and the
>>USS Cole bombing.
>
> The USS COLE was attacked in the Yemen.

An attack on a warship is an act of war.
Whether it's in port,or on the open seas.

>
>
> As a firearms enthusiast, Jim, you might be familiar with the phrase
> "going off half-cocked".
>

Surely you cannot be this dense? You are saying that attacks on US
embassies in other countries is NOT an attack on the US,or that the USS
Cole attack was not an attack on the US??

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
:

> In message >, Jim Yanik
> writes
>>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
:
>>> I certainly have nothing against what some people want to believe
>>> UNTIL IT IMPACTS ME and MINE. You don't like freedom?...then stay
>>> out of free countries. Certainly don't cry when you get your
>>> fingers slapped for forcing your views on others thousands of
>>> miles away.
>
>>Well,we now know that 9-11 was not the first attack on the US,there
>>was the first WTC bombing,two US embassies bombed,
>
> You have embassies in your own country? Embassies are established
> overseas.
>
>>the Khobar Towers bombing,
>
> The Khobar Towers were in Saudi Arabia.
>
>>and the
>>USS Cole bombing.
>
> The USS COLE was attacked in the Yemen.
>
>
> As a firearms enthusiast, Jim, you might be familiar with the phrase
> "going off half-cocked".
>

Addendum;I found it interesting that no one else in the NG called Mr.Adam
on his statement that those attacks were not against the US.

Also note that I never said "on US soil",or "US territory".

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net