Norway, your scenarios are self-serving tripe. Most robberies, even in the US, do not in fact end in murder. In the category of violent crime murder and nonnegligent homicide often accounts for less than 2% (and often much less than that) of all crimes. And that's only including violent crimes. When you count in property crimes and non-violent crimes the number of murders drops to to somethign like 0.1% of all crimes. Even when I just count the number of murders in the number of aggravated assualt cases the percentage only barely jumps up 1 or 2% at most.
The fact is, that most criminals are not fucking vidoe game enemies or wandering monsters. Like most human beings, they don't want to murder you unless they are forced to. Handing over your wallet and not resisting means you don't end up dead. The only thing arming the populace does is escalte the criminals. Your gun won't do shit for you if someone beats you over the head with a fucking rock from behind, or shots you without warning. They aren't going to engage in high noon with you.
And hey, did you know that people are more likely to survive a knife attack than a gun attack. So even if there is a one to one corrleation between less gun attacks and more knife attacks that equals more people surviving. Better judged by 12 than carried by 6? Me, I think "Better seventeen stitches than one dead human being".
But hey, I guess we must have some bizarre alien wonderland up here, were we manage to have one fifth your firearm homicide rate and a much lower rate of violent crime. (Oh, and these rates are per capita so, yes, they take into account our lower population). You want to end crime? You increase social program spending. There is a reason low crime rates are often corresponded to countries with extensive social programs. It's because people who are fed and have a roof over their heads feel less need to engage in violence to fulfill their needs.
-------------------
Epsilon
The fact is, that most criminals are not fucking vidoe game enemies or wandering monsters. Like most human beings, they don't want to murder you unless they are forced to. Handing over your wallet and not resisting means you don't end up dead. The only thing arming the populace does is escalte the criminals. Your gun won't do shit for you if someone beats you over the head with a fucking rock from behind, or shots you without warning. They aren't going to engage in high noon with you.
And hey, did you know that people are more likely to survive a knife attack than a gun attack. So even if there is a one to one corrleation between less gun attacks and more knife attacks that equals more people surviving. Better judged by 12 than carried by 6? Me, I think "Better seventeen stitches than one dead human being".
But hey, I guess we must have some bizarre alien wonderland up here, were we manage to have one fifth your firearm homicide rate and a much lower rate of violent crime. (Oh, and these rates are per capita so, yes, they take into account our lower population). You want to end crime? You increase social program spending. There is a reason low crime rates are often corresponded to countries with extensive social programs. It's because people who are fed and have a roof over their heads feel less need to engage in violence to fulfill their needs.
-------------------
Epsilon