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