So obviously the "perfect" scenario of 100% disarmament is totally impossible, but the core value of my rules for disarmament is that you can go halfway, or even just 10%, and it still upholds the rights of the individual. It's tricking anti-gun people into caring about freedom. The people will always have more or equal firepower than the cops.
Basically, it's not a problem that individuals will always have guns while the government will not - it's a crucial feature.
So then the argument is whether cops need guns to deal with illegal guns coming across the border... this was the initial argument I had with Tera about the necessity of the UK's special gun police force. I don't think the police really need equal firepower to deal with criminals, because they have so many other legal enforcement tactics and organizational abilities that they can use. Non-lethal arms and lethal non-arms are valid, and all their operations can be entirely open to the public and have access to massive public support (money, confidants, collaborators, etc) which criminals do not have.
The goal here is to turn the police into a de-escalation force instead of the massive escalating force they are now. The only way to do that is if their firepower is LESS than the people and the criminals.
Sure, it's difficult for disarmed police to deal with a fully loaded assassin shooting at a crowd of 10000 people, but apparently it's equally difficult for police with machine guns and tanks and drones to deal with that. It's more about the everyday situations, where 1 gun is pulled, and then 2, 3, 10 more guns are pulled. That's where all the gun deaths come from, and what this solves.
MariaTaylor posted...
the military would need to process and re-equip all of their arms if needed to engage in a conflict instead of having a stockpile ready
The military can have their stockpile and have everything ready to go, that's fine. They just won't have their PEOPLE ready to go and will have to call in the reserves with an actual declaration. That's how most (peaceful) countries handle their military I think.
All of this sounds like it should be the goal yeah.
Fewer deadly weapons available means fewer dead people and I am all for that. ---
