So, if military style firearms are effective for our security forces, there is no rationale for denying them to civilians for similar purposes? Following that logic there is likewise no reason to prevent members of the public having C4, directional fragmentation weapons, grenade launchers, ATGWs, MANPADS, Trident II D5 etc.
British civilian security use "C4, directional fragmentation weapons, grenade launchers, ATGWs, MANPADS, Trident II D5 etc."
Why are you conflating national military with police?
We work on the basis that anyone can have anything if the benefit of their having it outweighs the potential risks. Therefore there are private individuals with C4 or fully automatic weapons here that members of police tactical units are not allowed.
I'm pretty sure there are FAR more useful examples of explosives used in civilian civil engineering than there are for police work. Why do the plod need explosives? Are they gonna use it for traffic enforcement? I guess you've got to make sure they can do dynamic entries on people who make untoward tweets that the Metropolitan Police and the Home office don't approve of. Mr Buttle isn't going to kill himself right?
It comes down to benefits vs risks and each case is risk assessed. A highly trained policeman having a semiauto G36K vs anyone being allowed to have one obviously risk assess very differently.
Yes, I agree with you that there should be a focus on discouraging armed crime. We already have a mandatory 5 year sentence in place for simply being found in possession of a pistol for example. Possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life carries a life sentence. Regardless of legality of possession, I'm for throwing the book at anyone who misuses guns and I'm sure you are too.
Allowing firearms, and particularly centrefire semiauto firearms in a concealable/portable format to become all pervasive in society will mean those that want to misuse them will get them.
Simple possession with no harmful intent is VERY different than criminal misuse. You seem to gloss over the fact that the standard that involves dealing with all violent, predatory crime is not very well followed.
I think it's quite arguable that even if you don't allow them, that felons will obtain them. Are various illicit drugs allowed or are then proscribed? How hard is it to get pot and other things?
Unfortunately, even in a society where guns are pervasive, there is seldom anyone in the right place to use one to stop a miscreant and even if there is, as we have seen, they have a pretty strong incentive to depart the scene, taking any loved ones in their vicinity with them. This is not cowardice on their part, it is simply because security forces showing up at the scene, and anyone else wanting to have a go, won't be able to discriminate between them and the miscreant.
There is also the problem that someone with a Glock or AR-15 can drop an awful lot of people before anyone shoots back - if indeed they ever do. Look at the Las Vegas shooting or the "Beltway Sniper", for example.
I have stopped two incidents personally that involved assault one was likely to turn into a homicide, it was certainly aggravated assault. US data on defensive gun use direct contradicts your assertion.
It's more likely that a civilian who's armed is going to come into contact with a felon than is a cop with a G36 who happens to be victimized by them or even just be there when the act occurs.
Look at the Tyler Texas shooting. The civilian saved a bunch of other people. Cops included. He paid for it with his life but he did turn the tide.
Equally obviously, introducing guns into homes where they can be kept loaded and readily accessible is going to make "domestics" a lot more lethal, both for those directly involved and for responders. We also, like it or not, have thousands of people following fundamentalist Islam. Some of those will have recently returned from points East where they were trying to implement their instruction manual. Do we really want to arm them too?
If you have a population that you know is dangerous, why are you importing them? Why not just
Armed burglaries/violent home invasions seldom result in the death of anyone in the UK.
When someone is breaking into your home, how do you determine if they're JUST there to burglarize or if they're there to do worse?
After the fact determination of the crime is post game analysis. What's the victim to do? Call a time out and conduct a spot poll?
Introduce lethal force on the defensive side and again you incentivise the intruder not only to carry but to employ firearms, which is practically unheard of now.
Then take the armed police and others away from ALL government facilities so everyone is equal. There is an old english concept that a man's home is his castle. There's a reason for that.
Explicitly denying that for most citizens is a travesty.
In your argument that we are somehow falling into a hole, you also again and again ignore the fact that gun attacks are now practically non-existent, acid attacks incredibly rare and knife attacks are still uncommon and rarely result in deaths, as it is.
It's not the rarity of guns that's the problem for crime in the UK. It's the question of how rare is violent crime?
Someone once pointed out that the UK has a higher level of low level violence than the US. This is true. For instance, despite having only 31 gun murders, we had [font=sans-serif]1.3 million violent crimes in England and Wales in 2017. Now just sit down and imagine what would happen if you injected small arms into those incidents.
Well, if you made SURE that civilians could use them for defense, you'd have fewer violent crimes because you'd be making it far more likely for those violent criminals to be killed by their victims.
IS it better to allow the criminals to keep preying on their victims? Keep robbing, raping, murdering as they choose? I think not.