The police in the United Kingdom DONT HAVE GUNS, because the general populace dont have them and the number of per capita gun deaths is < 1/1000 what it is in the US [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...
The police in the United Kingdom DONT HAVE GUNS, because the general populace dont have them and the number of per capita gun deaths is < 1/1000 what it is in the US [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...
That being said, governments are already restricting "freedoms": you are not allowed to drive 100 mph in towns, police and emergency services theoretically are. Ref traffic lights, obligatory insurance for cars and so on. All of these traffic rules are in place for safety purposes. And all of them commonly accepted. Personally, I can live with some COVID-19 related restrictions for safety purposes until this thing is sorted out.
Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
> Why bother making murder illegal?
I think having consequences for murder is very different from restricting someone's freedom.
My freedom is not infringed on by the fact that murder is illegal. Why? Because I can still go out and murder someone (not that I would, lol - just making a point). Totally up to me. Feel like murdering someone today? I just go out and do it.
The "restricted freedom" version of outlawing murder would be if my hands were cuffed behind my back every time I left my house, just so I wouldn't be able to murder someone if I felt like it.
I hope I'm getting my message across (not a native speaker). My point is that, to me, there's an ocean of difference between forcing me to do something in order to prevent me from possibly doing X (no matter how likely / unlikely it is that I would do it), and having consequences in place for actually doing X. The former is a violation of my freedom; the latter is justice.