I suppose this is the inevitable outcome of everyone owning firearms.
I think it would absolutely play a role in deterring confrontations like this. I don't want government and civilians to fight. I want government to fear fighting civilians.
On the other hand, it must be a lot easier to justify the use of snipers and military vehicles by the police when many civilians carry (possibly concealed) weaponry.
> Arming the force would, say opponents, undermine the principle of policing by consent - the notion that the force owes its primary duty to the public, rather than to the state, as in other countries.
> This owes much to the historical foundations of British criminal justice, says Peter Waddington, professor of social policy at the University of Wolverhampton.
> "A great deal of what we take as normal about policing was set out in the early 19th Century," he says.
> "When Robert Peel formed the Metropolitan Police there was a very strong fear of the military - the masses feared the new force would be oppressive."
> A force that did not routinely carry firearms - and wore blue rather than red, which was associated with the infantry - was part of this effort to distinguish the early "Peelers" from the Army, Waddington says.
That's widely different from the Robocop mentality at play in the States (from what I can tell from the article).
Even if a police officer is authorised to carry a firearm, they must be authorised to used it. The same document states that firearms were authorised in 12,550 times in that year, and only used 5 times.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-workforce-... [2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statistics-on-pol...
At worst they are civilians with an ego problem and an itchy trigger finger.
The problem is that encouraging an us and them approach empowers civil wars like this could turn into.
The elite have nothing to do with this. They're easy targets in the scale of things (Kennedy for example). Only sheer numbers are an issue.
I don't think it would help the situation at all if both sides would be armed.
(Which, obviously doesn't mean that I think what the police doing there is correct).
Maybe it's actually the other way around: Police knows people are probably armored, that's why they might need to have heavy armory as well.. Think about it.
Duggan was a Tottenham gang leader who was under investigation for various things from drug dealing to stabbing someone.
The riots were just teenagers looting, not politically motivated.
In reality that's what most of the US constitution is based on and why the Bill of Rights puts so much power back into the hands of the people because the power of government was not something to be taken lightly.
I'm not advocating that people go out with guns and start shooting at police.
"Our objective is complete freedom, justice and equality by any means necessary."
"The day that the black man takes an uncompromising step and realizes that he's within his rights, when his own freedom is being jeopardized, to use any means necessary to bring about his freedom or put a halt to that injustice, I don't think he'll be by himself."
-- Malcom X