Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/23/84; site ucbcad.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!faustus From: faustus@ucbcad.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: handgun control Message-ID: <46@ucbcad.UUCP> Date: Fri, 4-Jan-85 16:33:18 EST Article-I.D.: ucbcad.46 Posted: Fri Jan 4 16:33:18 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 5-Jan-85 23:58:52 EST References: <168@ttidcc.UUCP> <631@whuxlm.UUCP> <548@vu44.UUCP> Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group, Berkeley, CA Lines: 20 > What struck me in the gun-death statics was (besides,of course, > the ridiculously high number of victims in the US :-( ) was > the low death-rate in England, even in comparison to the rest > of Europe. > I was wondering wether this has anything to do with the British > police not being armed with guns. > In would be very interested in seeing those statistics split in > 'people killed by the police' and 'people killed by ordinary citizens'. > If these statistics show that in coutries where the police is not > carrying guns around, the number of people killed by ordinary > citizens (also including criminals, in this case) is substantially > lower, this might be a very strong reason to have unarmed > policemen (even for their *own* safety). This isn't very good logic you are using. I would say that the police not needing guns is caused by the low level of violence, not the other way around. Why there is less violence is another matter, but you shouldn't take a symptom of low violence to be the cause. Wayne