Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

"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

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


"Evan Brennan" wrote in message
om...
"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

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

"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

"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

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

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

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

(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

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?