Man fires at helicopter (or .... Welcome to "RotorBlast". Do not enter if .... etc) [Archive]

widgeon

20th Jul 2002, 22:40

I guess the pilot was making an illegal pick up of a passenger , claimed it was an emergency landing but witnesses saw someone run out of the trees andboard the helicopter . Didn't think that carried a prison term though

Copter landing surprises neighborhood
Police are investigating incident

By Brian Whitson and Patti Rosenberg
Daily Press

July 18, 2002, 3:02 PM EDT

JAMES CITY -- When John Chwaszczewski bought his house two years ago on Magruder Lane, he wanted a quiet place to relax and vacation during the summer months.

For the most part, that had been the case -- until Saturday morning when the neighborhood quickly became less of the vacation spot and more like something out of "Men In Black."

It was about 8 a.m. when Chwaszczewski, who was doing a little painting in his detached garage, heard a thunderous sound that sounded like it was right on top of him. He looked outside and saw a white helicopter hovering just 20 feet above the garage.

"I didn't know what was going on," said Chwaszczewski, who is a semi-retired construction worker who lives most of the year in Port Monmouth, N.J.

The helicopter then swooped down, just missing the top of his house and car, and landed in a vacant lot across the street, he said.

"It damned near took off the roof of my garage," Chwaszczewski said. "I ran across the street and the first thing I did was get the number of the helicopter."

The second thing Chwaszczewski did was run back inside to get his gun. When he looked out of his house, he saw a man hidden behind a tree, Chwaszczewski said. The man wore a business suit and ran over to the helicopter carrying a large black box, he said.

"My initial reaction was, this had got to be terrorists," he said. "I fired two shots. I tried to knock the windshield out of it. I don't know if I hit anything."

Chwaszczewski would not say what kind of gun he fired. He said the helicopter took off and he thought about firing more rounds but didn't for fear of making it crash in the neighborhood.

"It just happened so quick," he said.

The pilot of the helicopter insists a panel light came on and he landed as a precaution.

Police are investigating the incident to determine whether the helicopter malfunctioned or whether the pilot had planned the landing all along.

The passenger who was picked up lives across the street from where the helicopter landed.

Police say the man may not have been hiding behind the tree, but he may have been waiting for the helicopter.

The pilot said he wasn't aware shots were being fired when he landed.

Brian Whitson can be reached at 221-7220 or by e-mail at [email protected]
Copyright © 2002, Daily Press

helmet fire

21st Jul 2002, 00:44

Now that is effen funny.

Let me get this right - Mr Ch(insert entire alphabet here)zki ran out to "get the number" of a helicopter and then because a man ran toward it and got in he assumed that it was a terrorist? And therefore he should open up on it?
:D :D :D :D :D

This might be how the news story should have read:
A man was arrested yesterday for being a complete effen idiot.

Another news story on the wires today:

Mr CHyerzcetjdghctyrdhjzski, a retired complete nutter, was recovering today from an anti terrorist attack on his vehicle in a case of "regretful mistaken identity" reported police spokesperson, SGT Velarge Norks.

Apparently, concerned citizens opened fire on Mr Ch-how-ever-you-spell-it-ski believing him to be a terrorist about to conduct a frightening chemical attack on the local Seven Eleven. According to eye witnesses, Mr Ch-alphabet-ski was fired upon by at least 12 people, including the owner of the Seven Eleven, Mr Brassem Up.

Mr Up says that the dark van Mr Ch-alphabet-ski was driving was similar to the one used in the Saudi compound bombing (only that one was white), almost identical to the VW Beetle used by Palestinian suicide bombers three years ago (although much bigger), and most disturbingly, was exactly the same as the boat that blew a hole in the side of the USS battleship last year (although it had a sail). SGT Norks said "with such similarities, it is no wonder that so many people reacted this way".

Mr Ch-alphabet-ski left the local painting supply shop about 11 am carrying a suspicious bag with him, and several tins of what could have been deadly chemicals, but later turned out to be paint. "He dissapeared around the back of the store in an effort to hide his suspicious bag" stated one eye witness. SGT Norks said that it was possible that he was going to the carpark to get his van, but that she could see how people had jumped to the conclusion. Shortly after, Mr Ch's van appeared to be trying to exit the tight carpark, narrowly avoiding another car trying to park, almost taking its front end right off. "I didn't want to hit another car" claimed Mr Ch, "why would I purposley try and hit it?". As he pulled out on to the main road, the lights changed and the van stopped at the traffic signal to allow pedestrians to cross. The pedestrians feared for their lives as they made the dangerous crossing directly in front of, and within several feet of the van.

When the lights turned green, the van accelerated and began to turn into the crowded Seven Eleven carpark. It was then that the concerned citizens decided they could not wait any longer and began to open fire. "Several people had handguns, and there were at least three automatic assualt rifles going, my son opened up with his Uzi, and after carefully recording the plates of the van, I ran back into the store to fetch "Old Molly", my beloved RPG Launcher" Said Mr Up.

"When I returned, the van was driving erratically around the car park trying to get away, and this convinced me that we had a terrorist situation on out hands" he said. "One brave sole had run out of ammo and had begun bayoneting the side of the van, so I realised that I could wait no longer and began launching RPG's. I was just trying to knock out the van's tyres" he said.

Mr Up claims he got the van first go, but other witnesses recall at least three grenade launchings before the van was disabled. The paint shop across the road was destroyed in a fire resulting from an RPG through the front window, and Mr Up's son Jonny was quite badly singed when Mr Up swung the launcher around and fired, catching Jonny in the back blast danger area, the Uzi melting into his hands. SGT Norks said "We are not yet sure where the third round went, but there is a news chopper that was around here at the time and is now reported as missing"

Mr Ch-alphabet-ski was quite forgiving of his fellow citizens when he released the following statement from his hospital bed yesterday: "I can well understand the reaction of my fellow Americans (well maybe not the bastarge who was bayoneting the van) in the face of percieved threat. After all, I do have black hair, a foriegn name, and was driving a van that resembled a terrorist vehicle directly toward a Seven Eleven. In the circumstances, I am sure I would have done the same thing" he said.

:D

What-ho Squiffy!

21st Jul 2002, 00:55

Helmet - if the arse ever falls out of the helicopter industry, you should maybe move into short stories! :p

zhishengji751

21st Jul 2002, 02:13

:D
hehe thats a great read Helmet!

Anyone know what sort of helicopter? Maybe an R22 or Jetranger?

If that account is correct about faking a 'cautionary' landing, hardly a responsible act. :(

Weight and Balance

21st Jul 2002, 02:28

I like your version better, Helmetfire.

Those of us who have to live next door to the gun loving Americans have usually run into Mr Ch-alphabet-ski before, or some version of him. They just love to shoot at people. Terrorists are just the latest excuse. American A&P schools actually teach civilian mechanics how to patch bullet holes in the sheet metal.

It's funny when you're far away, reading about it in the paper. It's different when you have to deal with these people face to face, always wondering what they're packing.

SASless

21st Jul 2002, 04:04

Hey Weight and Balance,

The most telling fact about gun ownership and murder is Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than all of my guns. And....ol' Teddy Boy is a leading ban the gun nut!

The Bill of Rights contained within our Constitution which was written to protect the Citizen against the tyranny of government has as the first amendment.....the prohibition against Congress making any law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to assemble peacefully, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance.

Oddly enough, the second amendment stated that a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Thus, despite your personal feelings on the matter....the American people are entitled to own their guns. There are plenty of laws that administer how those guns can be used and no one can reasonably endorse the misuse of a deadly weapon. But the miss use of a a weapon by a citizen does not begin to be an excuse for the Government to remove the guns from the hands of the other law abiding citizens of the United States. That is in the very fabric of the documents that founded this great experiment in democracy and freedom.

Heck, WB, we kill 15,000 people or more in alcohol related traffic accidents.....I don't hear you crying for the abolition of Canadian blended whiskeys! :p

SandBlaster-214

21st Jul 2002, 09:17

Uh-oh..., touchy subjects here!

Very well put SAS and I agree fully.

Unfortunately, alcohol, in today's society, is fashionable and socially acceptable. Firearms ain't. Let a slobering, stinking drunk run his 3,500 lb. car into a van load of eight high school kids killing four of them, it's "a tragic accident" that the driver "will have to live with the rest of his life". Let that same drunk kill someone with a firearm (accidentally or otherwise) and it's a "senseless murder".

Now, I don't know what kind of neighborhood ol' WaB lives in to be "usually" running into this screaming idiot "or some version of him", however I know for a fact all of my neighbors own firearms (as do I) and none of us have ever shot at anybody (nor would we ever want to).

I've lived next to these fellow gun-owners almost my entire adult life and have, quite frequently, flown home when coming from or going to a contract. I have to admit, it was quite a show the first few times I did that, but never did anyone open up on me with an AR, nor did I wonder if they would when several showed up in my driveway.

(Just for the record, I've got about 25 acres, which is a lot of room, and I don't "swoop down" over the neighbors' houses. As a pilot and a firearm owner, I can't say, based on the facts of the story as presented, that I would condone either action. Sounds to me like neither of these goofs have both oars in the water).

Now, I just can't imagine meeting someone face to face and "always wondering what they're packing". I have been a lot of places in my life and I've met a lot of people. Never once did I ever wonder what or if anybody I met was "packin'" - even when I go over to Tucson or up to Phoenix the thought never enters my head. I know that, tomorrow, I'll probably meet at least five more people for the first time and the one thing I won't do is wonder if they're in possession of a firearm.

What the heck, if I were as worried as you WaB, I'd be finding a different place to live. C'mon down here - it's great! I don't have to lock the doors to my house if I leave for the day and wonder if I'll have anything left when I get back. If I know any of my neighbors are gone, I'll keep an eye on their places for them. Four of my neigbors have a key to my place and I have the keys to three of their's in case something comes up. If my neighbors don't know who's in front of my house and I'm not home, they don't attack with an SKS, they simply come over, find out who it is and why they're there (I've done the exact same thing for them). If the strangers don't belong, they're told to leave. It's worked every time. My barn doesn't even have a lock on it because the neighbor's girls and their friends come over and ride the horses whenever they please and, in exchange, do the feeding when I'm away - I've never had anything stolen.

Oh, and the best part of living here? We "Gun Loving Americans" won't treat you any different just because you have a Mapel Leaf stamped on your forehead.

:D

C Ya

Old Man Rotor

21st Jul 2002, 09:58

Perhaps another gun debate is looming!!!

"3,761 children and teens are killed by gunfire in the XYZ each year, nearly 10 lives every day, one every two and one half hours."

Wonder how many Mums and Dads are as well............

[email protected]

21st Jul 2002, 10:18

Why, why, why do you have to own a gun? Is it to be a macho man and try to live the Wild West fantasy where you get to outdraw a badguy at the 7-11 and become the white-hatted hero? And why is one gun never enough? How many burgulars are you expecting?
Firearms are dangerous despite the facile argument that 'guns don't kill people - people kill people'.
How many altercations between people would end up with a corpse if those people didn't have access to guns - not very many!
Perhaps this obsession with shooting people regardless of the situation is why the American military has such a bad reputation in Afghanistan/Iraq etc where even shining a torch at a low flying aircraft is taken to be an aggressive act worthy of military reprisal and armed action.
I know I'm going to get flamed badly for this one and you will say stupid brits just don't understand but most of the world hoped that Sept 11 would make the whole of America take a good look at itself in the mirror and perhaps give a damn how they are viewed by others.
If you wnat to play with guns then join the Army and go to war - I bet there are not many Vietnam Vets who thinks guns are great.

whistlingdixy

21st Jul 2002, 11:24

Only in the good ol' US of A could somethnig like that happen.

Not too mention the press article that all but condones Mr Ch-Alphabet-skis right to shoot at whom ever he wants. Lock the nutter up... now! Before he breeds with the humans.

Well done helmet on a great dit.... heaven forbid someone who goes to a hardware store and buys a box-cutter knife ("obviously a terrorist so I shot him your honour!")

Old Man Rotor

21st Jul 2002, 11:54

[email protected]

You may have more backers than you think..........remember the silent majority.

Nick Lappos

21st Jul 2002, 13:58

Crab,

I am in the ticklish spot of fully agreeing with you about guns and gun control, yet sharply offended that you believe we could draw some critical lesson from the 911 attack on us.

The only lesson I believe we "should have learned" from 911 is to attack earlier, more sharply, and less discriminately. We spent a decade tolerating the buffoonish group who first tried to destroy the World Trade center (you remember, the dolt who tried to get his deposit back on the rented bomb truck!)

That was our mistake. We will not make it again.

Regarding gun control, SASless cites a particularly stubborn myth of right wing Americans, and uses it as his sole argument - that the Second Amendment to our Constitution has something to do with him owning guns. That citation has never, ever been held up in a Federal court. The militia mentioned in the Constitution does not extend to drunk National Rifle Association members with AR-15's, never has and never will. All reasonable gun control measures have withstood court challenges. When Americans get sick enough of the carnage (which is coming very soon) they will squash the NRA's political power, enact proper gun control legislation, and be done with it.

SASless

21st Jul 2002, 14:17

We do remember the silent majority.....all those who sit home in barracks while the war is being fought. The Canadians sent over the whole navy at least....what was it two ships? Except for the SAS who are involved in the shooting part of the war.....and a token number of Marines walking escorted around Kabul....our British friends pretty much sat this one out too. But that is okay there fellers....we have this attitude of getting involved it seems...we did it in the First World War, again in the Second World World, and it seems we will continue to do so.

I wonder if comes from the fact that our society believes in defending our own home against intruders whereas in the UK, the burglar gets a pass unless you can prove deadly actions against the occupants of the house and then you better not hurt the burglar or you find yourself in nick for "grievous bodily harm"!

I am a Vietnam Vet...did two tours there...both voluntarily...got shot there too and evacced home as a result....yes I own several guns....but do not "love" them. Matter of fact, all but two handguns are in a vault two hundred miles from me for safe keeping and I do not even have the combination.

Come to my house at any time of the day or night and ask me why I keep them....just knock politely and wait to be invited in! I catch you digging through the family silver service or attempting to harm my family and you will abruptly discover the dangers involved for burglars in my neighborhood.

These are percussion signalling devices....they make very loud noises and shortly thereafter the police show up to cart some garbage out of my parlor. .

The mention of Vietnam wasn't meant to have anything to do with this issue beyond try to rub an American's nose in a defeat.
You really do not understand the Vietnam thing if you resort to such comments.

We only have to look at the a large black marble wall with over 58,000 names on it to remind us of the folly of fighting a war in a half-assed manner. But then almost every town and village I visited in the UK has a great pillar of some kind with name upon name lost to some war of occupation or battle to retain a colony and all in vain it appears. Seems the occupied are now the occupiers. I understand what that feels like, all I have to do today is look at Atlanta and I see what 250,000 Confederate soldiers died trying to prevent.

You can make your shrill comments till the cows arrive...but the Founding Fathers who formulated the structure of our government and meant that our people would remain free, wrote into the very heart of our framing documents, the guarantee that we would be able to remain armed. That was to guard against an abusive government as well as burglars. For you fellers in the UK...the government the Founding Fathers were referring to....is your government.....specifically and without question. We overthrew the yoke of an oppressive government like how many other colonies of yours. Reckon there is a message here somewhere?

www.guncite.com is a very good website for presentation of arguments about the gun ownership issue in the USA. Read the information and make up your own mind as to which side of the issue is correct. Lord knows there has been plenty of hyperbole on both sides.

Nick Lappos

21st Jul 2002, 14:42

Let me simply use SASless's web site to disprove his belief that the Second Amendment protects him from gun control laws:

The web site he provided http://www.guncite.com/ shows on the left column a section called Gun Laws.

A quick mosey down them will show that some states and cities have passed tight gun laws. NY city for instance requires all guns, including rifles, to be registered, and permits to be issued.

Either the US Constitution does not have effect there, or those laws are constitutional.
QED: The Second Amendment does not prohibit reasonable gun control laws.

SASless

21st Jul 2002, 15:13

Nick,

Ease up Dude! Here is a quote of part of my initial post which you kinda skipped over I think.....

"There are plenty of laws that administer how those guns can be used and no one can reasonably endorse the misuse of a deadly weapon. But the miss use of a a weapon by a citizen does not begin to be an excuse for the Government to remove the guns from the hands of the other law abiding citizens of the United States. "

I am not an NRA member....am slightly more right leaned than left leaned....depends upon the issue but I do feel strongly in the preservation of our individual liberties.

Might I remind you the FBI sniper at Ruby Ridge had a "Shoot on sight order for Randy Weaver." From my years in law enforcment both as a local and a federal agent, I never heard of such a thing....but even so, after the FBI sniper shot and killed Weaver's wife while she was holding an infant in her arms....thinking she was Weaver.....the asshole got a bonus and promotion. You might gather, being right winged and conservative....that I have little angst over shooting dangerous armed and threatening felons who are posing a direct threat to someone's life, but Nick....I swear I do not believe the baby could be considered a dangerous weapon while the Mom was standing behind a screen door. Nor do I think the government is ever entitled to issue a "Shoot on sight" order against any citizen. There is a concept of "Due Process" here. Also, a right to be secure in our person and belongings.

ShyTorque

21st Jul 2002, 15:27

Having seen for myself, I think that there are places both side of the Atlantic with more than a fair share of half-wits with access to too much alcohol and an overdose of macho in their genetic makeup. Ours generally have to make do with pretending to be football supporters.

The one thing that makes a difference on our side of the pond is that the vast majority of us don't have ready access to guns. They took them away from the law-abiding folk, to leave only the criminal element armed.

Next, take away the police in sufficient numbers and make the remainder reluctant or unable to make an arrest because of the ridiculous amount of paperwork involved and you have many of the factors required for a major breakdown in law and order.

They also seem to have attempted to take away our right and will to defend our own families and property; however a very recent criminal case gives me hope that common sense may one day once again prevail.

The definition of the term "reasonable force" is what we are talking about.

Red Wine

21st Jul 2002, 15:48

DesertDude.....

A small expansion is needed in the interest of accuracy.........

Drunks are now no longer socially acceptable......and Drunk Drivers are now condidered criminals...........[In Oz at least]

And if he/she kills anyone downunder....they have a high probability of Manslaughter or Murder charges..

We have upt the anti from the Road Code to the Criminal Code......

Yes he/she can feel guilty as they live with themselves.......in goal........in the next cell from that crim with the gun.........[imported one that is].

Flare Dammit!

21st Jul 2002, 16:17

It is so amusing watching the yank fight over guns from afar. Please permit me one or two observations:

1) Not knowing if anyone was "packing" might make some people unbearably paranoid and afraid. On the other hand, I say it'll make for a very polite society!

2) Those who (like Nick Lappos) quite bizarrely believe that guns should be made illegal overlook one very large fact: Guns will never be completely eliminated from any society, no matter what prohibitions are enacted. Take away the guns from the law-abiding citizens and that leaves only the criminals with them. Nice odds, eh what! Question: Do the anti-gun people actually think that guns can be removed from American society simply by passing a law that says so? How peculiar!

3) I believe that there are more than a few States with permissive "concealed carry" laws, no? I do not read about gunfights in the streets. No, in fact isn't Washington D.C. the murder capital over there? Washington D.C....with some of the strictest gun laws on the books? And...how many shooting deaths occur in NYC every year, Nick? Question: What do gun laws accomplish?

Crab asks:
Why, why, why do you have to own a gun? Is it to be a macho man and try to live the Wild West fantasy where you get to outdraw a badguy at the 7-11 and become the white-hatted hero?

Obviously, somebody doesn't understand the concept of personal protection and responsibility. Perhaps he believes that the police can do it all for him. I just wish that I could protect my family and property in a proper way. One gun would do nicely. It is to my everlasting shame that we brits don't understand the concept of manliness. For instance, just name me one macho British actor. And if you say Hugh Grant I'll slap you silly.

SASless and Desert Dude, you blokes are spot on. I just wish more people in the world felt/thought the way you two do. Good on ya, mates!

[email protected]

21st Jul 2002, 16:23

SASless, first let me clear the air regarding Vietnam - my point in mentioning it was that in my opinion, no reasonable person could endure the horrors of that war, or any other, and still think lightly of taking another's life. The fact that it has to be done in war because it is kill or be killed only highlights the weakness of the argument about defending your property - viz I find a guy burgling my house and I shoot him dead - I could have stopped him by just shouting or throwing something at him (reasonable force) but you want to go straight to the .357 head removal option. I don't think this is the act of a reasonable or rational human being. If however, some nutcase blows holes in my door and then tries to take me out with a firearm then I might have some justification for shooting first and asking questions later.

Nick - attack earlier, more sharply and less discriminately? Why not just nuke the whole world and have done with it. If a guy comes up to me in a pub and punches me, I might at least consider why he did it before I hit him back. If guys follow me around trying to beat me up I might even wonder if I did something really bad to upset them and that I might have been in the wrong.

SASless - as to being invaded - the British Isles have been in almost constant turmoil for over 2000 years and the English/Scots/Irish and Welsh have fought more wars between themselves and others than most other countries have had hot dinners. WWII was just the latest and most spectacular of European conflicts - perhaps if the US ever has a battle on it's own territory with someone other than it's own people you will be less likely to consider invading other countries as a matter of course.

SASless

21st Jul 2002, 16:50

Crab....

The next time you encounter a home invader in the wee hours of the morrning and he is carrying a knife....and all you have is the wife's best friend in yer grubby mitts....tell me about the wisdom of having your trusty gat ready for use. As the violent crime rates increase in the UK, more of the good, ordinary, law abiding people are going to suffer physical loss, injury and death due to being unarmed, unprotected, and legally defenseless due to a system of laws that still consider the state(crown) to be the victim and not the citizen that suffers the loss.

As to us invading Afghanistan....I think that is what your remark intends....in time we will depart and take our troops home without any effort to takeover and occupy that country except for as long enough to root out the infrastructure that trained and supported those that attacked us and continue to intend our citizens great harm.

By the way, which pub you frequent....how many times do you have to get punched on the snot locker before you stand up and swing back? What is there to think about....you have just been assaulted! Is it once, twice, three times....or do I get to fairly well wear you out before you decide to defend yourself? At sometime ....deep down within your being....you will get tired of me thumping you and you will start swinging.....this applies to the home invasions, armed robberies, car snatching, and other violent crimes that are becoming more frequent in the UK. Why, even the Coppers are beginning to carry firearms.....they had to face a few recalcitrant fellows with machetes to learn that lesson. It is a damn shame the Police Officer lost his arms in the attack but at least the others now have some sort of backup. In time, you will see all the Police armed.....sad a commentary as it is. And that is despite the strictest gun laws in the world too .

StevieTerrier

21st Jul 2002, 16:56

Flare Dammit!

Macho British actor? How about Vinnie Jones? Ex-hod carrier, ex-psychopathic footballer. And..er well thats about it actually.

Mindst you, I seem to recall a profound reluctance amongst the Hollywood so-called "tough guys" - Bruce Willis springs to mind - to fly the Atlantic in the wake of 11 September..

And if you think we Brits don't understand the concept of manliness, take a look at Lily Savage, John Inman, Dale Winton, Julian Clarey and Eddie Izzard. If we had played that back line for the British Lions last week, I'm damned sure that we wouldn't have ended up with a record dfefeat.

Dick Mitten

21st Jul 2002, 21:37

Did any of you hear about the Canuck soldiers killed in Afghanistan by the US aviator? During a TRAINING EXERCISE, buddy saw muzzle flashes and thought al Queda were shooting at him. The Canucks were right where they were supposed to be, and buddy bombed 'em anyways. This fella is a highly trained, professional soldier with the might of US military intelligence (oxymoron?) on-line behind him. Opps!

And how about the wedding party that got busted up. Seems the Afghans like to fire off a few (well, many) rounds to make some noise during the party. (Another) buddy thought they were gunning for him and... 31 dead included bride and groom.

Please don't feed me any lines about unfortunate collateral damage, mistakes happen, yadda yadda yadda. We've all seen the movie and know the moral. Sounds like more that a few of us were IN the movie. Fact is when you give big kids guns, people get killed, and not always the "right" people. Owning a gun, like flying a helicopter, should be a priveledge, not a right. And like a commercial pilot's license, a gun license should have to be earned again and again. 'Cuz people change.

Why is it some Yanks go positively ballistic at the slightest whiff of a gun control conversation?

By the by: Our JTF2 lads are out in the Afghan hills with the SAS and Delta fellas. Turns out our (Can-eh-jun) army is too small to properly train really badassed soldiers, so our guys get to work out with the Seals, Deltas, SAS, Germans, French, Israelis, and pretty much anyone else who we let use our northern bombing range or who come and workout in our mountains. Military equivelant to cross-training. Apparently they're darned capable soldiers as a consequence.

About our navy. The sub fleet has expanded to 5 boats. Got 'em used from the Brits. Unfortunately there seem to a few leaks... Hmmmmm. Honey, did we mail in that warranty card?

Vigorously stirring the pot!

ShyTorque

21st Jul 2002, 23:07

Come on you lot! I suggest handbags at dawn. :D

helmet fire

22nd Jul 2002, 00:01

Oh No.

These arguements are why I dont visit justhelicopters.com anymore.

Cant we get back to the funny stuff?

Does anyone really think you can change American culture on this thread?
Doesn't anyone remember trying to convince them that Centrifugal force doesn't exist? :rolleyes:

:D

Heliport

22nd Jul 2002, 00:28

This thread is in danger of making a little piece of Pprune history - as the first thread ever moved from Rotorheads to JetBlast!
Ease up guys - this is a helicopter forum! :)

Heliport

Lu Zuckerman

22nd Jul 2002, 00:30

To: helmet fire

Quote: “Does anyone really think you can change American culture on this thread?
Doesn't anyone remember trying to convince them that Centrifugal force doesn't exist”?

There is at least one other American that believes in centrifugal force. His name is Frank Robinson. The web address for the patent for the tri hinge rotor used on Robinson helicopters can be reached at the below listed web address. Count the number of times he uses centrifugal force as a descriptor and then count the number of times he uses centripetal force as a descriptor.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=3&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=pall&s1=Helicopter&s2=Robinson.ASNM.&OS=Helicopter+AND+AN/Robinson&RS=Helicopter+AND+AN/Robinson

Heliport

22nd Jul 2002, 00:35

Oh Nooooooooooooo.
Now look what you've gone and done!!

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/Cartangry.gif

Lu
I have to admire your ingenuity.
I didn't think even you could make a Robinson point out of this daft thread. :D :D

helmet fire

22nd Jul 2002, 00:42

D'OH

Steve76

22nd Jul 2002, 01:54

Fellow aviators.

I completely agree with Crab and I sympatise with Sasless and those others.

Why the hell has any man, an AR15 tucked away convieniently to attack terriorists in his neighbourhood?

American society is full of these brainwashed wackos watching the skys for more than just aliens now. It is a sad display of the decrepid state of American society, whose moral and ethical standpoints are exported to the rest of the planet through numerous media and corperations - regardless of whether the persons want it.

Many many great things are from the states (mostly the great friend I have there...) but really guys; your society is sick. When you feel the need to "pack" a gun to protect yourself then you personally need to review WHY.

Nobody I know in the southern hemisphere (bar the odd bloke who risks getting nailed by a buffallo in the outback) carries a weapon. Even the police in the UK and NZ don't carry firearms!

Personally, I am saddened at the degredation of my home at the bottom of the planet through the importation and saturation of American culture. It is not healthy when applied to another society. Its like mixing black and white .... the black always taints the white.
Like Crab said. We all considered that perhaps S11 may've woken the "giant" to more than crushing the elusive "evil doer". People are pissed off at the US not because of your giving and inventiveness but because of the negative social impacts. You simply cannot go around bullying everyone into your way of thinking.

Sorry to **** you off. Had to be said.
PS: Thanks for making the Sikorsky and Bell.... :D

Lu Zuckerman

22nd Jul 2002, 02:50

I’ll most likely be pilloried for what I am about to say:

I am not a member of the NRA, I do not advocate anarchy and I do not object to individuals owning firearms however I do object to individuals saying that because their government does not allow the ownership of firearms that it is automatically wrong if the American government does. It boils down to this, why does a dog lick his *ss and why does an American buy a gun. The answer to both questions is the same. Because he can.

Prior to coming to Canada I owned a Ruger 45 caliber semi automatic handgun. Since I couldn’t bring it to Canada I left it with my son. Even though I couldn’t bring my gun into Canada I can however purchase a gun for self-protection providing I get the proper license and take a firearms course. At least it is that way in Quebec.

Chastising America because their culture is being imported into other countries is OK providing you are French. But the last person to be critical of the United States for exporting their culture is anyone from England or their colonies. Look at India and Pakistan as well as the Middle East and other areas of the world.

:D

Dave Jackson

22nd Jul 2002, 03:17

`
http://www.unicopter.com/temporary/punch.gif

Only a total idiot would believe that gun ownership

Author's note: Typewriter ribbon ran out of ink. :)

`

zhishengji751

22nd Jul 2002, 03:45

regardless of the issue of gun control... and irrespective of the guy with the gun..

why did the pilot do what he did (as reported in the article)?
Is it hard to get clearance for landing in the area he wanted? Im not sure what the rules are for the US.
It concerns me that things like that only harm GA, and if some pilots cant responsibly operate in the current rules and regs, then it could lead to making everyones life harder if stricter rules are imposed. It doesnt help with public perception either.

SASless

22nd Jul 2002, 04:32

By comparing criminal victimization surveys from Britain and the Netherlands (countries having low levels of gun ownership) with the U.S., Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck determined that if the U.S. were to have similar rates of "hot" burglaries as these other nations, there would be more than 450,000 additional burglaries per year where the victim was threatened or assaulted. (Britain and the Netherlands have a "hot" burglary rate near 45% versus just under 13% for the U.S., and in the U.S. a victim is threatened or attacked 30% of the time during a "hot" burglary.)

Source: Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.

In studies involving interviews of felons, one of the reasons the majority of burglars try to avoid occupied homes is the chance of getting shot. (Increasing the odds of arrest is another.) A study of Pennsylvania burglary inmates reported that many burglars refrain from late-night burglaries because it's hard to tell if anyone is home, several explaining "That's the way to get shot." (Rengert G. and Wasilchick J., Suburban Burglary: A Time and a Place for Everything, 1985, Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.)

Taken from the British Press

Britain is now the crime capital of the West
By Sophie Goodchild Home Affairs Correspondent
14 July 2002
Internal links

Britain is now the crime capital of the West

England and Wales now top the Western world's crime league, according to United Nations research.

The UN Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute reveals that people in England and Wales experience more crime per head than people in the 17 other developed countries analysed in the survey.

The findings are expected to cause further embarrassment to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who has pledged to have street crime under control by September.

In the UN study, researchers found that nearly 55 crimes are committed per 100 people in England and Wales compared with an average of 35 per 100 in other industrialised countries.

The UN study analysed Home Office crime statistics for England and Wales and also carried out telephone interviews with victims of crime in the 17 countries surveyed, including the US, Japan, France and Spain.

England and Wales also have the worst record for "very serious" offences, recording 18 such crimes for every 100 inhabitants, followed by Australia with 16.

And "contact crime", defined as robbery, sexual assault and assault with force, was second highest in England and Wales – 3.6 per cent of those surveyed. This compares with 1.9 per cent in the US.

News of the survey comes days after the Government published its long-awaited national crime figures, which showed the first increase in burglaries and thefts for 10 years. A record 108,178 street robberies last year prompted the Metropolitan Police Federation to demand an extra 12,000 officers for London alone. The US, by contrast, has managed to reduce its crime rates, despite its reputation for street robberies and shootings.

Shadow Home Secretary Oliver Letwin said: "This just shows why it is ridiculously complacent for the Government to claim a respectable record on crime. The fact is, we have a crime crisis in our inner cities and no coherent programme from the Government to tackle it."

Maybe the Brits might decide to adopt some of our culture after all!

:D

[email protected]

22nd Jul 2002, 05:33

Heliport you are right.

However, one last piece of food for thought for SASless - If I own a gun and shoot a burglar who has a knife, the next burglar will come armed with a gun - this is the escalation that has created the shoot first ask questions later society you love so much.
In UK, violent crime is rising due to lack of police officers and an increase in drug users who must steal to support their habit. Giving everyone a gun won't make it go away.

I'll shut up now.

What-ho Squiffy!

22nd Jul 2002, 07:23

I noted in your post that you left out murder rate statistics. Ever heard of "...lies, damn lies and statistics..."?

Have a look at the state of affairs in the US - metal detectors at schools! Mass murders at schools! And you guys think this is okay? Here in Australia guns are not ubiquitous - and I am bl@@dy glad about it. Kids don't take guns to school, and if I give the bird to a road rage moron, he's not likely to point a Glock at me. I like that about Australia.

You can quote statistics until the cows come home, but it doesn't change the big picture - you have a weapons-permissive society and are in the poo.

Old Man Rotor

22nd Jul 2002, 14:13

Hang On Heliport.......I think we may be nearly finished.......maybe.

Statistics are wonderful when they make your point.....

Guinness Book of Records..........."Which country has 25% of the worlds prison population...........whilst having only 5% of the worlds population.........?"

Let it all hang out.....then we can concentrate on the questionable wisdom as to why we love this industry..!!!

SASless

22nd Jul 2002, 15:35

The changes in the U.S. homicide rate over time are interesting. In 1900 there were few gun laws. New York had no handgun law and California no waiting period. Guns of all types could be ordered by mail or bought anonymously. And the homicide rate was 1.2, about one-sixth of what it is today.

The homicide rate peaked in 1933, during the Depression, and then fell. It was low during and after World War II, but began to rise in the 1960s and 1970s, and reached its high for this century, 10.7, in 1980. It then fell to 8.3 in 1985, a fall of 22 percent.

This welcome news was virtually ignored by the media, which emphasize rises in violence but downplay decreases. Homicide rose again in the late 1980s, but not to its 1980 high.

The homicide rate continued to rise following the Gun Control Act of 1968, while the fall in the early 1980s occurred when anti-crime laws but no new anti-gun laws were passed.

From 1991 to 1997 the U.S. homicide rate fell 30 percent. Liberals credit a strong economy and low unemployment; conservatives point to three-strikes laws and increasing use of the death penalty. We are uncertain which factors to credit. The portion of the population made up by males aged 15 to 24, the most crime-prone group, fell by 5 percent, so this can account for only a fraction of the 30 percent fall in homicide.

In any case, the fall began in 1992, while the Brady Act (waiting period for handgun buyers) and the assault-weapons ban went into effect in 1994. Clearly, these laws cannot be credited for a fall in homicide that had begun two years earlier. Violence is often like an Rorschach test --- what we read into it depends more on us than on it. This subjectivity must be avoided

In short, we all must admit that we have much to learn about the causes of violence. This requires more effort and intellectual honesty than looking to the government to pass yet another law. America is hardly the most violent nation, and our homicide rate has fallen recently, but we are more violent than we used to be --- and than we should be.

Above all consider that while the homicide rate in the United States dropped 20 percent between 1992 and 1996, the number of homicides reported on network news increased by 721 percent.

Reducing Crime: Effective Methods

In Boston, by enforcing the existing laws, (such as a 10 year penalty for felons found to be in possession of a firearm), and employing aggressive intervention strategies, youth gun-homicide was reduced to zero in 1996 and 1997. (Due to the date of the following link, 1997 isn't mentioned.) Total youth homicides dropped some 80% citywide from 1990 to 1995.

This concept in part describes the high prison population in the USA. Placing violent criminals in Prison and keeping them there reduces the crime rate.

[email protected]

22nd Jul 2002, 18:09

Steve 76, thanks mate, I'll buy you a beer one day.

Heliport

22nd Jul 2002, 18:52

zhishengji751
Hope you don't mind me changing the title of your thread to better suit the contents.

Just in case anyone's forgotten ..... it was story about some lunatic shooting at a helicopter which landed on a vacant lot across the street and picked up a passenger.

The pilot says he made a precautionary landing because a panel light came on. [Yes, of course. Ed.:rolleyes: ]
The lunatic says he thought they were terrorists. [Yes, of course. Ed. :rolleyes: ]

Lunatic and pilot are now both "helping police with their inquiries."

Heliport

Lu Zuckerman is very concerned about the scurrilous rumours circulating and has asked me to point out that he doesn't live in the area "and it wasn't a Robinson anyway."

Flare Dammit!

22nd Jul 2002, 20:47

I hate to keep bringing up logic, but since the anti-gun people don't seem to be using any, let me ask again. I'll keep the questions short this time:

1) Does anybody really believe that guns can be completely eliminated from society simply by making them illegal?

2) If not, then what method would you suggest to accomplishing the above?

3) What is the advantage of disarming LAW-ABIDING citizens (aside from possibly reducing accidental gun deaths)?

I'll stop now. Never mind the rhetoric, never mind the statistics. For me, those three questions are the crux of the pro-gun/anti-gun issue.

SandBlaster-214

22nd Jul 2002, 21:35

Damn, I told myself I wouldn't say anymore...,

I'm only one Dude here, so my answers may not mean much, but I feel compelled to add a little more to this discussion.

It’s a great title, Heliport. You have to admit, you knew it was coming. All one has to do is mention the words; “firearm” and “America” somewhere in the same post and all hell breaks loose. And you’re right, it wasn’t a Robinson, it was an AR-15.

Very good points Flare, I agree, and I don’t have the answers either.

Steve76, I don't know why some goof tucks away an AR for use on neighborhood terrorists. For that matter, I don't know what you base your statements on that the entire American society is FUBAR. I just hope they're not based on what CNN and CNBC have to say. Or, maybe it's that you're just out looking for the black. Too bad, 'cause there's so much white to be found in the US. You ever see what kind of a house a bunch of high school kids can build for a needy family over a summer vacation - ever see the pride in their faces when they hand over the keys to the young mother - ever see the joy in a young mother's face watching her two sons play on the carpet in their own bedrooms for the first time? Unfortunately, that kind of thing doesn't sell does it Steve76? The world would rather hear about the one ******** lunatic who takes potshots at an idiot pilot than the sixteen teenagers who gave up a summer to VOLUNTARILY (means – for free) build a new home for three total strangers. (I've seen it almost every summer since 1989)

OK, Crab, here's my answer to your "why, why, why...?" I own my firearms solely for competition. Protection is only a side benefit. I don't sleep with one next to the bed - don't even keep one loaded in the house. When I go out, I don't "pack" unless its to a shoot and then they're in a sealed, locked chest in the back of the pick-up truck. Sure, I enjoy shooting - I enjoy the precision - I enjoy the competition. The LAST thing I would ever want to do is shoot another human being. Hell, I don't even enjoy hunting. Since 1969 when I started competitive shooting, I've met hundreds of people with similar ideals - it's competition, NOT killing. Think I'm the minority? Head out to Camp Perry some year. But that kind of story doesn’t sell either does it, Crab. The world would rather hear about the one ******** lunatic who takes potshots at an idiot pilot than the thousands of responsible gun-owners who, like me, are in it for the sport and would NOT have charged across the street while laying down grazing fire.

Red Wine, it’s a criminal act in the US to cause the death of another human being while operation a vehicle under the influence of alcohol too. It’s not a question of law – it’s the prosecution of the law breakers. Book someone for 2nd degree murder one day and after the ADA and the defense attorney have spent two nights discussing the case over cocktails at McGillicutty’s, it’s plead out the door at aggravated DUI with a suspended sentence and driving privileges back after 90 days. The point I was trying to make was; a drunk kills several kids it gets blown off. An idiot shoots at an idiot and the anti-gun battle cries come out 5 x 5. I hate statistics as much as the next Dude, but I’m going to throw a couple out for conversation’s sake. In 1998 the NHTSA (National Highway Transportation Safety Administration) found that 38.4% of all fatal highway crashes were alcohol related. They also found that the typical DUI violator commits that offense at least 80 times a year, and, depending on what part of the country you live in, for every ONE violator arrested, there are between 500 to 2000 DUI violations committed. The last one; one the average weekend, one out of every ten vehicles on the road is operated by an impaired driver. So, if ETOH isn’t socially acceptable, why do we tolerate it at all? Let’s get rid of all alcohol. Why is the debate so lopsided? Guns kill – Alcohol kills – do away with both! Yeah right, let’s see how far that gets.

Nick, I’m not against responsible control or abiding by the laws that exist. I firmly believe we should aggressively enforce the laws we have before making any new ones. Try this one on for size; instead of making any new laws, make it MANDATORY that the existing laws are enforced as written. If you get caught, you’re going to suffer the consequences – cut and dried! Get caught with an illegal firearm, the violator gets charged per the letter of the law, destroy the weapon and the judge must sentence according to the established guidelines – no pleas, no payoff, no “good ol’ boy” stuff. Get caught DUI, the violator gets charged per the letter of the law, impound the vehicle and the judge must sentence according to the established guidelines – no pleas, no payoff, no “good ol’ boy” stuff.

OK, that’s it for today, gotta go to work now (yes, Flare, earning my pittance – but, by golly I’m having fun). BTW it was another beautiful sunrise this morning over the mountains, sat on the back porch with a hot cup of coffee, listened to some birds, watched ol’ Wiley Coyote stroll across the horse pasture with some kind of breakfast hanging from his mouth. Life is good, and barring any catastrophes tonight, I’ll do the same tomorrow. And since I’m off tomorrow, I’ll get to see the sun go down while sitting on the front porch – what a deal! Regardless of where you are and what you believe – right or wrong, I hope ya’ll get as much enjoyment out of your days as I do mine.

C Ya

Steve76

22nd Jul 2002, 22:55

Onya Desert Dude.
Just wish I could enjoy a morning sunrise in Arizona...

Crab,
I'll hold you to that boet. Sorry to have crushed ya in the rugger the other night...:D

What ho Spiffiy....
Like Russel Crowe said: "God Defend NZ and Thank God for Aussie...."
...bout sums it up Mate.
:D

Buitenzorg

22nd Jul 2002, 22:56

Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen…

I know I shouldn’t get involved in this, but it’s just soooo juicy.

As a born European who now resides in the USA, I too once believed that the vocal and fanatical faction of the NRA spoke for all Americans, and that “guns for every lunatic and criminal” was official government policy. Before my first visit to the USA I fully expected every American to be driving a pick-up truck with at least three rifles in the rack, one fully automatic, the truck bed loaded with ammo. Except for the Miami coke dealers and Sonny Crockett who would wear specially-cut Armani suits so their Glocks wouldn’t cause unsightly bulges and oil stains. Alas, I was to be sorely disappointed.

Nobody has stuck a gun, automatic or other, in my face and yelled “freeze, scumbag” yet, so what should I do? Demand my money back? Even those American friends of mine who have admitted to (not boasted of) owning guns haven’t been able to show them off, since they keep them locked away with the ammo locked in a separate place. Bedside dressers and desk drawers are disappointingly devoid of things that go bang. Americans are just not living up to the hype. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

In the opinion of just about everyone over here the AR15-toting nutter in Virginia is a nutter, and should be locked up. And guess what? The authorities agree! Mr. Alphabetsoup is looking at serious hard time, and so far I haven’t heard even the NRA defending his actions.

So Europeans, lighten up a little! The average American citizen is far more similar to you than newspapers, TV or Hollywood films would have you believe. Ordinary things don’t sell advertising space or commercial time, do they? Come visit, and be pleasantly surprised, like I was.

As for the pilot who landed in a residential area, if he didn’t clear the landing beforehand with the property owners and the authorities, then he deserves the trouble he will now be in. If he did, then his passenger at least deserves a good kick in the crotch for not having the common courtesy of warning his neighbors about the intended landing.

Having settled this argument to everyone’s full satisfaction (hee, hee, some hopes) let’s go back to arguing about helicopters! 18-degree offsets at dawn, anyone?

What-ho Squiffy!

22nd Jul 2002, 23:26

SASless
The changes in the U.S. homicide rate over time are interesting. In 1900 there were few gun laws. New York had no handgun law and California no waiting period. Guns of all types could be ordered by mail or bought anonymously. And the homicide rate was 1.2, about one-sixth of what it is today.

1.2? What is 1.2?? Per 1,000,000?

You have to compare apples to apples. You think society at the turn of last century was much like it is today? You'd be lucky to bump into a person once a week in 1900, yet today with people packing into the cities, it is a much different story. Throw in another variable - drugs - and the cocktail of humanity becomes much more prone to violence.

Flare
1) Does anybody really believe that guns can be completely eliminated from society simply by making them illegal?

No - just as you can't eliminate drugs by trying to do the same. to use this as an excuse is an anti-reason "...Oh well, we can't stop it, so what the hell..." But does not being able to eliminate them give governments a reason to let people pack when they go shopping? (what about trolley rage?)

2) If not, then what method would you suggest to accomplishing the above?

Well, my answer is no; therefore I don't have a method for eliminating guns completely. I am happy with the way we deal with guns in Australia.

3) What is the advantage of disarming LAW-ABIDING citizens (aside from possibly reducing accidental gun deaths)?

This old crock of an argument. When will you people learn the reality? Everybody is "law abiding" right up to the time they commit their first crime. A law abiding citizen can get drunk. A drunk law abiding citizen (in America) can go to the family gun cabinet and pull out the heirloom 12 gauge to reinforce the domestic argument with Mrs Alphabet - boom. Oops. This is why the death penalty doesn't work - murder is generally not pre-meditated. It is committed in the heat of the moment, in rage, possibly with drugs or alcohol. And when a gun is close at hand, it is so much easier to do the killing.

You will never get rid of guns. They were invented for a reason, and are a part of humanity. If you like shooting (as I do), then go to a range, sign out your weapon and do it. They shouldn't be kept in suburban homes.

Weight and Balance

23rd Jul 2002, 00:20

Wow, I go away for a few days and my little post explodes all over the place.

If I may sum up what I'm getting out of the responses -

A lot of Americans (Nick excluded) seem to go to great lengths to defend the state of their society (facts be damned). I"ve always loved Americans for the devotion to a cause, but sometimes it gets in the way of rational thinking.

A lot of non-Americans (self included) can't understand the need for guns in America. A lot of my neighbours and relatives here in the Great White North own legally registered guns. They use them to hunt, they shoot competively, and they collect for the sake of collecting. They don't shoot their neighbours because they act suspiciously, they don't let the kids shoot each other, and they don't commit crimes with their guns. At any rate, not as often as our southern neighbours seem to. Can anybody explain this difference between 2 collateral countries? I can't.

One last thought at the risk of diverging even further from the original topic (sorry Mr. Moderator). I have noticed over the last 10 or 20 years that the "inappropriate" uses of firearms in Canada is sadely increasing. Is this too much US TV being shown here, the same social pressures creeping across the border, or what? I don't know, but it scares the bejesus out of me when I stop and think about it.

Finally, to be fair to the Americans, most of the times I've wondered about the present state of armament of the Yanks I've been talking to are in the 2 fine American cities closest to me: Detroit and Buffalo. Oh, and the 4 years I lived in LA, of course.

Capn Notarious

23rd Jul 2002, 11:17

Well Im just rather glad that one cannot purchase over the counter, an Apache/Tiger, and all those chain gun weapons.

Crabette

23rd Jul 2002, 12:18

Interesting Statistics To Think About!

a. The number of physicians in the US is 700,000.
b. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year is 120,000.
c. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. (US Dept. of Health & Human Services)

(Thank goodness they didn't have old Harold!)

Then think about this:
a. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000.
b. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500.
c. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188.
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets out of hand. As a public health measure I havewithheld the statistics on lawyers for fear that the shock could cause people to seek medical attention.

SASless

23rd Jul 2002, 20:07

Shy Torgue,

I arrived back in Paradise East to discover your private message to me re: this thread. I would suggest strongly that you make it public, ignore the bashing you will get from Crab and a few of the others on the opposite side of the fence, for what you say has lots of meaningful insights. It for sure explains that even sleeping with an unarmed police officer isn't a lot of good to the victim of a burgalry. You might enlist your police friends to further expound upon the shortfalls of the police and court system in the UK in being able to deal with problem of increasing crime rates. Some of the readers here immediately reject any statistics that challenge their position but maybe some firsthand, subjective input from the people that put their life on the line each day defending the good people of the country, might be accepted more readily than the black and white of statistics.

The 1.2 number means 1.2 events per 100,000 persons in the population. All crime stats in the US are so stated as being per 100,000 population. An interesting read is the FBI's Uniform Crime Statistics.

Weight and Balance

23rd Jul 2002, 22:56

Crabette;

It is even more alarming if you look at the number of people who have mothers, and the number who eventually die from something or the other.

How long will this madness go on?

t'aint natural

24th Jul 2002, 12:54

In a previous incarnation in the mid-1970s I was a reporter on the New York Post, whose late shift was at that time enlivened by an average of eight murders a night. For a young hack fresh from the UK, it was an eye-opener. A bar-room argument which in the UK might end with a fat lip had a completely different outcome if one or more drunks was armed. I recall a man who awoke to find someone trying to break into his trailer late at night, and who fired nine shots through the door - even had to reload the gun - before finding out he'd killed his son.
New York is much more bucolic now and the murder rate across the US has fallen dramatically, but Crabette's fatuous and misleading figure of 1,500 accidental gun deaths needs to be put into perspective. You have to add to that some 24,000 non-accidental gun deaths annually - the equivalent of a Vietnam War every two years.
The slogan of the NRA, then as now, was "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." That too is crap. People don't kill people, guns do, and not all the jingoistic self-justification in America is going to change that fact.
The only good reason I was ever given for maintaining the status quo was that 25,000 deaths a year was a small price to pay for keeping the meddlers' hands off the Constitution.
What's this got to do with helicopters?

SASless

25th Jul 2002, 09:13

Typical Press grasp of the truth.....overzealous of the right to free speech so long as it is no one else's and for sure not if the other point of view differs from the preconcieved notions of the hacks. It is a good thing newspapers are so cheap....that way we don't have to expect accuracy and we don't have to hesitate to line our birdcages with them after we clip the coupons and do the crosswords.

Probably the explanations were shortened so as not to be boring to both the teacher and the student....somehow the old saw about leading a horse to water seems to apply here.

When the British solve the problem of gun violence in Northern Irleand, then maybe we can learn how to apply the same principles on our side of the salt water divide. Afterall, the homicide rate in Northern Ireland is 20% greater than the US. How many hundred years this been going on?:confused:

SASless

25th Jul 2002, 09:20

A fatal gun accident, particularly when a child is involved, often makes state or national news. This gives the impression that: fatal gun accidents are more prevalent than other fatal accidents, gun accidents are increasing, and civilian gun ownership must be further restricted or regulated.

The reality does not correspond to the perception created by media coverage. Fatal gun accidents declined by almost sixty percent from 1975 to 1995, even though the number of guns per capita increased by almost forty percent.

Fatal gun accidents involving children (aged 0-14) also fell significantly, from 495 in 1975, to under 250 in 1995. More children die from accidental drownings or burns than from gun accidents.

(Gun supply statistics are from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, gun accident rates from the National Safety Council).

Check 6

25th Jul 2002, 11:06

CRAB, you need to get a life. I do not care that you do not desire to own a weapon.

However, why do you give a rat's arse that most Americans, yes most, do own firearms?

America is not your country. You may notice that few, if any, Americans criticize the U.K. or the British in this forum. Why do you feel the need to criticize America/Americans?

SAS and Desert Dude, well said. At our last home in the S. Cascades of N. California, we also rarely locked our doors, and left my keys in my pickup truck, with a 9mm in the glovebox. Nobody ever bothered us, and we also watched out for our neighbors, as they watched out for us.

Now in Italy, people are getting ripped off like stealing is the national sport. My villa was burglarized three months ago, and my new Opel Vectra stolen from our yard six weeks ago.

Oh, I must mention, it is nearly impossible to own a firearm here.

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!"

Flare Dammit!

25th Jul 2002, 14:56

Check 6 asked of Crab:
America is not your country. You may notice that few, if any, Americans criticize the U.K. or the British in this forum. Why do you feel the need to criticize America/Americans?

We Brits seem to feel that Americans are like petulant, disobedient children whom we must constantly criticize and counsel. Therefore, many feel condescendingly superior to those across the pond, and treat them with a sort of accommodating disdain. This is, of course, silly.

It is reported that 25,000 people die from gunshots in the U.S. every year. By itself, that number looks awful. However, it must be kept in perspective. And that perspective must include: how big the country is, physically; how many people are in it (284 million people); and the prevailing laws concerning guns.

Something like 50,000 people are killed on U.S. roads every year; half of that number involve alcohol, despite ever-tightening drunk-driving penalites. But Americans surely think this is acceptable. How do we know? Easy! In the suburban areas of the U.S., if you are driving and pass a bar you will notice that the parking lot has plenty of cars in it, day or night. Bars are still allowed to have parking lots! Let us admit - come on, we're all adults here - that those people who DROVE to the bar are not in there sipping warm buttermilk or sodapop. And when those patrons leave that establishment, they go out, get in their car and drive. (Oh right, most of them have "only had one," as they'll tell the officer).

If Americans were really, really, really serious about curbing alcohol-related fatalities on their roads, they would simply pass a law that said, "No bar shall have vehicle parking available." But they don't. Restraint of trade? Pish-posh. What's important here, the economic welfare of some businesses or the HEALTH of 25,000 Americans? We see the answer very clearly, thank you.

So what's the deal with guns? Many Americans feel that in this increasingly violent world there is a justified need to own a firearm for personal defense. And, wonder of wonders, the law allows just such ability!

It's easy to point at the number of annual gun deaths (accidental or otherwise). But what can never be known is how many deaths are PREVENTED because someone had a gun that was never fired. It is impossible to count a non-death. Anti-gunners would surely say, "NONE! That never happens!" But that is not facing reality. Perhaps it is not unreasonable to assume that more than 25,000 lives were saved every year because a situation came up which the gun defused or ended without being used. Like I said, anti-gunners would choke before admitting such a thing.

Certain cities have adopted very strict anti-gun laws. We see how successful these laws have been in places like NYC and Washington DC. Makes me wonder, when I hear calls for a nationwide ban on firearms in the U.S., what sort of success such a law would have?

Check 6 also noted: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!" This is a truly scary thought which gets right to the crux of the matter. Why should only the criminals be "allowed" to have guns? And let's be honest, no matter how many laws are passed to prevent it, criminals are going to have guns. And if you have a situation in which ONLY the criminals have guns...well chaps, that is just insane.

SandBlaster-214

25th Jul 2002, 20:02

Flare:

Thank's "Dad".

C Ya

Heliport

26th Jul 2002, 00:01

"You may notice that few, if any, Americans criticize the U.K. or the British in this forum. Why do you feel the need to criticize America/Americans?

Yes, I have noticed.
If it's any comfort, this forum is by no means the worst.
As to why people feel the need to do so - I have no idea. It's always baffled me.

attackattackattack

26th Jul 2002, 14:27

When the British solve the problem of gun violence in Northern Irleand, then maybe we can learn how to apply the same principles on our side of the salt water divide. Afterall, the homicide rate in Northern Ireland is 20% greater than the US. How many hundred years this been going on?

This possibly counts as one of the more outrageous trolls I've seen on this site. I've been biting my tongue determined not to rise to it but - hey, what the hell!

One of the most significant sources for the firearms that cause so much grief in the province has been the United States. That the US is a favoured shopping mall for the lunatics and fanatics on both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland is not because of local sympathies with the aforementioned nutters (although this does play a role), but because they're easy to get hold of and cheap.

How do we solve the pronblem of gun violence in NI - no idea. Better men than me have tried and failed to find a solution. How do we limit it? Well a good start would be restricting the opportunities to walk into a US store and buying a Minimi or a Browning .50 sniper weapon.

Flare Dammit!

26th Jul 2002, 15:04

"attackattackattack" sniped:
How do we solve the problem of gun violence in NI - no idea. Better men than me have tried and failed to find a solution. How do we limit it? Well a good start would be restricting the opportunities to walk into a US store and buying a Minimi or a Browning .50 sniper weapon.

Talk about an outrageous troll of a post!

Somehow, I doubt that people in N.Ireland are being armed on a large scale by individual sympathetic U.S. citizens walking into U.S. gun stores and buying assault rifles and sending them overseas. No, the guns are coming in bulk from...somewhere. The U.S.? Maybe. But if they're being bought in bulk, again, it's not by individuals purchasing them from the local gun store. How naive can you possibly be?

Problem is, guns are made all over the world. Stop the production in the U.S. and South American production will ramp up to meet the demand. Or Italy. Or Germany. Blaming the U.S. for the "gun problem" in N.Ireland is just bloody preposterous.

"attackattackattack" says that to find a solution for the N.I. situation, better men than he have tried? I don't doubt that for one second. Back under the bridge, you troll!

attackattackattack

26th Jul 2002, 16:41

not a troll (http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2002/0311/4068542337HM8IRAARMS.html)

I particularly like the use of 'another' as in another case.

There were always other supplies and suppliers but in my three tours in the province during the late eighties and early ninties we were always made aware of the exitence of highly sophisticated US sourced weaponary in the terrorists's arsenal.

My earlier mention of the Browning sniper weapon was pointed, accurate and drawn from experience.

SASless

26th Jul 2002, 17:13

External Aid

The IRA has in the past received aid from a variety of groups and countries and considerable training and arms from Libya and the PLO. Is suspected of receiving funds, arms, and other terrorist related materiel from sympathizers in the United States. Similarities in operations suggest links to ETA.

Please to note....it said Sympathizers....not the average American citizen nor the US Government.

luoto

26th Jul 2002, 19:16

Is this gun control the same as we have in the UK now? I.e. massive increase in gun crime .... and "honest Joe public" is stifiled in red tape whilst "Mr Villian...."

connavar

27th Jul 2002, 07:43

Back to the original thread -

Sounds to me like the " passenger" got caught short and desparate - hence the erratic landing and being seen hiding behind a tree !

my two penneth worth - Guns Kill - Helicopters Kill.

I don't own a gun and I don't own a helicopter ....

but when I want to fly I go to my local flying school - when I want to shoot................

And if anyone burglarises my house I'll sort them out the old fashioned way - unleash the Wife's tongue on them.

:D

t'aint natural

27th Jul 2002, 08:10

We're not getting at Americans here... just gun freaks.
Despite what you might think, only a minority of Americans are gun freaks.
We have our own gun freaks in the UK - the chap who perpetrated the Dunblane massacre springs to mind.
We have had one such incident, while America has had dozens, because our gun freaks can't get the tools.
I like Americans. I don't like gun freaks, of whatever nationality.
A gun makes a small man feel like a big man. Unfortunately, his brain stays small.
So intoxicating is this feeling that gun freaks will go to any lengths to get their fix.
When reason doesn't come into it, they resort to pomposity and bombast, scorn and vitriol.
And as a final resort, they will say that their inalienable rights to caress their firearms outweigh the rights of their victims to live.
What has this got to do with helicopters?

Flare Dammit!

27th Jul 2002, 13:10

t'aint natural laments about "gun freaks":
We're not getting at Americans here... just gun freaks.
Despite what you might think, only a minority of Americans are gun freaks.
We have our own gun freaks in the UK - the chap who perpetrated the Dunblane massacre springs to mind.
We have had one such incident, while America has had dozens, because our gun freaks can't get the tools.

Let's have a peek at the numbers, eh what? The U.K. has approximately 60,000,000 people who've lived under a monarchy since history began.

The U.S. has approximately 285,000,000 people, many of whom went there to escape that sort of tyrannical government in the first place.

Many people look at and admire the U.S. with its free, open society. Yet they are quick to hop on their soapbox and criticize the entire nation for things that result from having that free society.

The U.S. has always allowed relatively unrestricted access to firearms...primarily and originally out of necessity due to the wild, untamed areas of the country (and no, I'm not talking about NYC) where having a firearm meant the difference between maintaining your place on the food chain...or not. There were other reasons, of course: the "every man a militia man" attitude of the first settlers being one of them.

Yes, Americans do die from gunshots, accidentally and on purpose. They believe this to be the "cost of doing business" in a free, open society. Better than the U.K.? Or just different? If Americans were really as outraged about their "gun problem" as the rest of the world would LIKE them to be about it, the laws would have changed long ago. It is to everyone <i>else's</i> high indignation that they're not.

But blaming the U.S. for the "gun problem" in the rest of the world is like blaming Colombia or Turkey or Afghanistan for the "drug problem" in the rest of the world.

What does this have to do with helicopters? Well, when a chap fires a rifle at a helicopter, the two subjects sort of become related, no? If it was not the first time it happened, it will certainly not be the last in these post-9/11 times.