... I would argue with it because it doesn't work. As far as the new restrictions on 'assault weapons', that law was passed at one point and expired a number of years later. It didn't accomplish anything when it passed and nothing different happened after it expired. It's just Congress trying to look like they are 'doing something'...
... Nothing happened? No-one was murdered with one? Not one person? I wonder how 9000+ people were unlawfully killed in 2010 (more in 2011) with guns? Try telling the family of a murder victim 'nothing happened'....
I may not have communicated that clearly, although you left a word out of what I said - I wrote nothing different
happened. Sort of a difference.
When the US govt banned assault weapons, there was no change in gun violence attributable to the ban. When the ban expired years later, gun violence did not increase due to the availability of the weapons. I will say that if automatic
weapons were to be allowed, that would increase violence. We don't need those to be readily available. But the so-called 'assault weapons' are really just regular semi-automatic weapons made to look scary - they aren't more dangerous than regular semi-autos'.
... Which bit of 'Our police have repeatedly voted against being routiely armed' didn't you understand? It isn't what I think, it's what the police know..They know that if they go to an incident any use of firearms will only escalate the situation. But don't take my word for it.. It's from 2006, but still a common sentiment; and since 2006, gun deaths are massively reduced in the UK..there were 51 last year, down on the previous year...
I really can't speak to what your police want or don't want, or why they hold certain opinions or ideas, or the environment they are operating in, never having been to the UK and all. Reading that article, they do seem to be concerned about lack of training, lack of reliable equipment, possible lack of backup. Maybe they don't feel comfortable with the idea of being issued and carrying weapons after never having done so before. Maybe PC-ness has been drilled into their heads. Heck, maybe they really are safer not carrying, although half said they felt their lives had been in jeopardy since the previous survey.
Here's what goes on in the US though. The police chiefs and upper officers in the larger cities, are more politician than policeman - political hires and appointees from within the ranks made by the (usually liberal) mayors. They typically don't rise through the ranks starting out as street cops - they come from 'records', or HR, or dispatch, or recruitment, or training, or 'community liasons', and climb the career ladder like the best of the corporate slugs. Here, when they say 'police want' this or support that, it's really what the chiefs and senior officers want or support, not what beat cops out actually dealing with criminals want.
So although in this linked article they say this is a survey, consider how many of the respondents are what we would think of as actual police, and not just pencil pushers working inside the station. And note the rest of them DO want to carry a gun.