Quote:
And why have most of the police in the UK been traditionally disarmed? It's because they feared that being armed would encourage criminals to own firearms. If criminals know they may face an armed policeman they are more likely to go to the trouble of obtaining a firearm.


Oh, so you're admitting that criminals will continue to obtain firearms illegally even if everybody is disarmed. You're admitting that banning guns won't do anything for the law-abiding. You're admitting that the anti-gunners are wrong in their claims that all we need is more gun control, because you said that the criminals will continue to go through the efforts of getting their guns through illegal channels.

Quote:
And the UK has a much lower gun crime and homicide rate than the US.


Even if that's the case, they have a much higher crime rate. You might be less likely to die over there, but you face a much higher chance of being the victim of a violent crime even though nobody has guns.

Quote:
How well would disarming the police work in the US? Well, there are already a lot of criminals with firearms in the US so it's probably too late.


Then stop with the talk of disarmerment and gun banning, it won't do any good.

If you wanna be taken seriously, if you want to be considered intelligent, stop talking gun control and reducing the rates of "gun violence". What makes "gun violence" so much more pressing than any other form of violence on the planet? Are you choosing to only recognize "gun violence" as the only type of violence that exists, or is it that you prefer not to address other types of violence because you'll have to admit that guns aren't the problem but rather the people themselves who are the source of all violence and murder in the world?
"the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." Warren vs. The District of Columbia.