From: Reese[SMTP:reeza@flex.com] At 05:45 PM 3/16/01 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:

...

In the FBI stats that came out the majority of police officers killed

are

...

killed with their own gun? They'd probably been better served by a stun-vest...

Perhaps we should take guns away from them, then those fine officers would probably have lived longer.

If you can't trust a weapon to a individual, how can you trust it to a group of individuals?

England serves as a fine example here; With an armed populace and a disarmed police force :: low crime rate With a disarmed populace and an armed police force :: high crime rate.

Read'em & weep, Phill.

Reese

A recent article in the Economist points this out: http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=513031 % of people who were victim of a crime, once or more, in 1999: Violent crime: England & Wales: 3.5% US: 1.9% Car theft England & Wales: 2.6% US: 0.5% Burglery (including attempts) England & Wales: 5% US: 3.8% The article opens: BRITAIN may have slipped down many world league tables over the past few decades, but it beats all other rich countries except Australia in one activity: crime. According to a new victimisation survey of industrialised nations, people in England and Wales are at greater risk than anywhere else of having a car stolen. And apart from Australia, people who live in England and Wales are at greater risk of being assaulted, robbed, sexually attacked and having their homes burgled than are people in any other rich country. [end quote] Now, the murder rate in the US *is* substantially higher than Britain's, but your overall chances of getting through the day safely are probably higher in the US. Peter Trei