Post
by Vik » Sat Aug 29, 2015 8:05 pm
Here's my opinion, from an observer who doesn't live in India, please tell me if I'm wrong on anything.
In the US, say, 100 years ago, anyone outside town would have a firearm with them, and most people in town. There were not many (like 1 or 2) recorded instances of the cougar (also called mountain lion) attacking anyone since the US was settled. Pretty sure some happened but weren't recorded.
In the last 10 years, there have been many attacks, and a disproportionately high amount in California. The cougar is about the same size as the leopard, just not spotted, and I would think, not as aggressive. They will prey on people, but for example, I remember reading about leopards, I think in india, that had killed a couple hundred people before Corbett shot them, so I don't think a cougar really compares. But it is the same size.
So here's my point about all that--California probably has the most restrictive gun control laws in the US, so many fewer people carry firearms there. Many fewer people carry weapons all over the US than 100 years ago, probably only 30% as many as a population. Since we stopped being armed, attacks are up a lot, not just from cats but all other alpha predators, and up more where firearms are more restricted, like California. They aren't afraid of us any more. People used to mean guns, and before that, bows and spears, and death. Not any more.
Am I right that fewer people in India are armed now than in days gone by? I mean, if they were only carrying bows or spears, they were still armed, but am I right about that? Probably no one would carry a spear now, and it appears to me guns are very restricted there. People are tool-users, we don't have claws or big teeth, and most animals are stronger pound-for pound, so if we don't have the tools, we can't outfight them one-on-one. Before people had good weapons, our strategy for dealing with a big predator was to mob them with all the people there at once. Appears that is what happened.
I have to say the lynching could be entirely justified. I have no idea of the circumstances, but if some monster were eating my children, the gov't wouldn't do anything, and I had no recourse, then i might want all my neighbors to help me kill it. Especially if it was illegal to kill it, because arresting one person is easy, but arresting 3,000 a lot harder. And it might look worse than that had it actually killed one of my family. Think about it, kids are the easiest prey there is, so I bet they go missing right with the dogs and goats.
How can anyone expect reasonable people to allow their children and themselves to be killed to protect the monster who is killing them, no matter how endangered the animal is ?