Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve
An excellent question. Part of it goes back to the American founders' distrust of a standing army. They believed that a government would always be tempted to use the army against its own people, and so the "Militia" concept was very dear to their hearts. The were sure that the only protection was to have every able-bodied male armed and trained to to battle, presumably against domestic abuse as well as foreign invasion.
|
I've noticed a lot of gun lobbyists defending their right to protect the country from excesses of government. It sounds dated, most of the excesses of government can't be shot at. Personally, I think that if a militia is the goal, then have a militia. Well-armed & well-trained rather than just well-armed. Having one without the other is risky and dangerous (arms without training, that is).
Quote:
|
One of the things about statistics that I don't trust is this: Since they don't seem to distinguish between good and bad shootings (there's such a thing as a good shooting?) they don't tell the whole story. Burglars shot by homeowners and even (I believe) police shootings are all lumped together under the heading "Handgun Murders". They also don't speak to burglars and other criminals who were chased away but not shot; and event that to my understanding happens several thousand times every year. I'm aware of at least three here in Salt Lake City recently; aware because they all happened to people I know personally.
|
I posted Murders and Gun Murders, rather than manslaughter and police deaths. I believe shooting a burglar qualifies as manslaughter, open to correction though.
As regards the deterrence/intimidation factor, it's an excellent case for widespread gun ownership, but don't believe it's worth the cost.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ASW
I meant: The total population of the UK compared to the US.
|
So the proportion of murderers increases with population? A country with population 50 million, and .02% of the population are murderers, yet should the population rise to 300 milion, that proportion would rise to .08%? I don't see how that could happen..I'm not a sociologist, but there seems to be the same wacko-to-normal ratio in most places