'Bottom line Vect. Your government believes you can't be trusted with a firearm. What does that say?'
Bottom line Aggy - my govt trusts me with three firearms. The govt banned handguns. The country then had a general election and a party that supported the handgun ban was voted in by a huge majority. The vast majority of the British population agree with the handgun ban - if you don't like democracy, that's hard luck.
If we ever decide we want handguns, we the people can vote democratically for it. But don't hold your breath as the British are quite willing to keep handguns banned as long as it means we can have the unique freedom of an unarmed civil police force who police by consent, not by armed force. We aren't willing to swap handguns for a heavily armed paramilitary police force like the US 'enjoys'.
Your "unarmed, civil police force" doesn't seem to be doing a very good job.
According to the US Department of Justice, in the years between 1981-1996, the rates of burglaries, assaults and motor vehicle thefts in the UK, actually reached and surpassed rates in the US.
More burglaries? Surely not! Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that the bad guys know the homeowner is unarmed?
Murder stats are another story, of course. The US is still way ahead.
However, if gangs and quarrelling idiots popping each other is the price I have to pay for being able to defend myself and repel burglars, I'm all for it.
Thankfully, we have a U.S. Constitution and state constitutions, which delineate rights that are not eligible to be 'banned' or 'voted away'. My right to possess and employ deadly force in self-defense is not subject to the whims of hand-wringing ninny's.
The three firearms you retain (for now, because they too may become unpopular one day and become banned) are of little use for defending yourself or other innocents in an everyday urban setting.
If we ever decide we want handguns, we the people can vote democratically for it. But don't hold your breath as the British are quite willing to keep handguns banned as long as it means we can have the unique freedom of an unarmed civil police force who police by consent, not by armed force. We aren't willing to swap handguns for a heavily armed paramilitary police force like the US 'enjoys'.
I take it your quotes around 'enjoys' implies sarcasm. My state's constitution (Pennsylvania) allows me to be as equally well-armed as any police officer. The police are no threat to me, just as I am no threat to them. The vast majority of police shootings are justified and I can't imagine anything more useless than an unarmed cop. Would an unarmed cop engage 6 youths in a fist fight on a subway car, to protect an innocent civilian? Not unless he wanted to have his brains stomped out.
Only a handgun is truly effective at providing countervailing force against thugs, especially against multiple attackers who possess superior physical strength. That is an inarguable fact for civilians and police alike
Your country has chosen to trade away liberties in the interest of 'safety'. That is certainly your perogative. We chose differently. I will gladly risk the chance of being a victim of gun crime, as long as I have the liberty of arming myself for defense. I bid you a cordial 'Good Day' and depart with the words of Benjamin Franklin:
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Our Founders were in a quandary on what kind of a political system and government should be set up in America. But it didn't take them too long to realize whatever it was going to be, it was not going to be similar to a democracy where fifty-one percent of the people could tell the other fourty-nine percent that their rights were determined by the majority.
After the smoke had cleared, they reasoned that government should be instituted to protect and preserve the inalienable rights of even the least Citizen -- a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
The right to speak freely and defend your life was recognized as primary rights which acknowledged the concept that all men were created equal. For that reason, they were chiseled deeply in our Charter as the leading enumerated entries in the Bill of Rights.
But I don't suppose anyone living elsewhere can understand that concept, having always lived under the thumb of majority rule concerning what personal rights were -- and that your right to life was contingent on the current mindset of mob rule.
Who protects our equality and keeps the playing field level? Why, our referee, of course. Mr. Sam Colt.