chia

SpamSandwich said:

Are you comparing a poorly secured gun in a person's home to the beheading of a woman in the UK? One has nothing to do with the other. You're diverting.

I'll repeat the question: Think the woman in question would've been better off if she had been armed or not?

They're both death by weapon in the hands of another.
It is hypothetical conjecture whether the woman would have been better off if armed: I recall the reporting of that incident and she was attacked by someone found to be mentally unwell, a rare horrifying incident two years ago  that can happen anywhere in the world.
Nicholas Salvador detained over woman's beheading
In contrast it is unheard of to hear of someone being killed by a young child or toddler with a gun or otherwise in the UK; sadly people are regularly killed by children accessing guns, poorly stored or otherwise in the USA.

The wide availability of guns to US citizens fails to achieve an overall homicide rate as low as that in the UK whose citizens have very limited access to guns.  The restriction to access may not be the reason behind the far lower homicide rates but the US figures show widespread gun availability isn't the answer to achieving those lower rates.

The widespread availability of guns allows criminals and the dangerously mentally unwell to own guns.  By your rationale are they not as entitled to being armed for defending themselves from attack as any other citizen?

If you don't find it acceptable for criminals and the dangerously mentally unwell to be armed then you approve of some level of gun control.
If you find it acceptable for those groups to be armed then you accept the risk of those groups using their weapons upon the unsuspecting innocents.

SpamSandwich said:

I recall a recent incident in which a man wielding a machete beheaded a woman in England. Think that woman would've been better off if she had been armed or not?

I've read just today that sadly once again in the USA a toddler has shot dead another innocent with their father's gun carelessly left in the domicile.  Has the health, safety and life expectancy of the innocent been better off for having a gun in the house?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/11/13/man-arrested-after-a-3-year-old-shot-and-killed-a-1-year-old-with-his-gun-police-say/?utm_term=.808eb76641f8

Soli said:

chia said:

Yes, the fully armed police in the US could have stopped attacks more quickly, just like how in the past two months they've stopped one man killing 8 in New York City, stopped one man killing 26 in Sutherland Springs and stopped one man killing 59 in Las Vegas in addition to maiming countless others.

They stopped ONE man after he murdered EIGHT. They stopped ONE man after he murdered TWENTY-SIX.

Soli, I'm not sure you understood the ironic delivery of my post.  I was illustrating that the mass routine arming of US police is no more effective in preventing these mass murderers than the largely routinely unarmed British police.  It's also of note that the French despite having a routinely armed police AND paramilitary service have suffered more attacks with greater casualties in the past two years than the UK with equivalent sized populations.  In any case the situation in the UK is that there are many armed police officers on duty in the UK right now; they each go through specialist firearm training courses in addition to their ordinary police training.  Speaking from observation in London, It has become routine to see them at major government buildings, transport hubs, sporting events etc.  There are also many in special rapid response vehicles on duty 24 hours a day.  It is a similar situation for other major cities across the UK.

Roxy Balboa said:

UK has crime even after banning guns?? What a surprise!!
UK should consider banning automobiles next cause clearly that’s what is causing these crime. If there were no automobiles these crimes would never happen.

Despite all the free access that the US police and citizenry have to guns for "keeping people safe", statistically an individual is far more likely to die of being shot in the USA than in the UK.

Clearly gun ownership and widespread use by law enforcement in itself doesn't appear to be a solution to providing safety and security.

boltsfan17 said:
What people should be shaking their head in disbelief is the fact the majority of the police in the UK are unarmed. From the recent terrorist attacks, police could have stopped them more quickly, but the fact they were unarmed, they couldn't do anything until armed police showed up. Case in point is the attack last June on London Bridge, the Westminster attack where an unarmed officer was killed, etc. With violent crime on the rise in the UK, more police should be carrying firearms. 

Yes, the fully armed police in the US could have stopped attacks more quickly, just like how in the past two months they've stopped one man killing 8 in New York City, stopped one man killing 26 in Sutherland Springs and stopped one man killing 59 in Las Vegas in addition to maiming countless others.