Unfortunately English law around intruders in the home is quite vague and very different from the Castle Doctrine laws in the USA
'As the law currently stands, a person in possession can use no more force than they reasonably believe necessary to remove a trespasser from the premises'
Otherwise it would also mean the rioters would be armed. It’s bad enough they have makeshift weapons without giving them efficient ones. Once you have armed weapons you can’t make sure only the ‘good guys’ have them. I feel 30K of gun deaths a year illustrates that point fairly well :-(
And the illegal to use a weapon to defend yourself is a legal situation in transition in the UK. So if you take away the ‘armed’ part as you did, James, then the answer is no, not yet.
Otherwise it would also mean the rioters would be armed."
Aren't they? At least some of them? And those that aren't carrying guns, might it be that they're mostly opportunistic looters who generally wouldn't be carrying anyway?
"It’s bad enough they have makeshift weapons without giving them efficient ones. Once you have armed weapons you can’t make sure only the ‘good guys’ have them.
Well, but that's true of any weapon.
"I feel 30K of gun deaths a year illustrates that point fairly well :-("
Well, it shows that different cultures have different problems that are not easily equatable. Not to dismiss the obvious issues with gun violence in the USA, but are you sure that the right set of gun control laws allowing private ownership would lead to the same results in the UK as in the USA? Gun deaths per capita is not a universal ratio.
Once you have armed weapons you can’t make sure only the ‘good guys’ have them.
The trouble is that anyone with basic machine tools can make some pretty fancy weapons, and the career criminals by definition will make them with impunity. Hence the saying that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
It is difficult for me to stay objective when it comes to gun possession, because I'm strongly anti-guns, and I can't seem to even begin to understand Americans' attitudes on the subject, but I'll give it my best shot:
Remember what was the "cause"[1] for these riots? A person got shot. The situation is already out of control, but if half the rioters and half the citizens and all of the police were carrying guns, I honestly think London would be a war zone right now.
One thing that - to me, at least - has always been obvious is a direct proportional relation between guns and violence. Less guns, less violence; more guns more violence. Weapons are a catalyst for violence.
These are people fighting people. Any guns would be evenly distributed among the defenders and the attackers, and thus not serve to end or cool the conflict, but further exacerbate the situation.
Any mob is better than an armed mob. Arming the citizens would be arming the mob, since the mob actually consists of citizens. I do not think guns would help anybody.
I don't even think that guns would help the police. I'm glad the police are not using arms against the mob.
And yes, if I had to choose between somebody breaking into my house and stealing/breaking everything, and having a gunfight with said person, I'd choose the former, without even blinking. Call me meek, but I'd rather lose my livelihood than my life. Where I come from, health is always valued more than possessions.
----
[1] I know "cause" is not the right word. The shot drug dealer wasn't any more a cause for the riots than Helena's rapture by Paris was a cause for the Trojan siege. Doesn't mean that the Trojans would have been wise to counteract the Greeks by abducting more women. The mob is taking it as a primary reason to run amok, and more people getting killed would add more anger.
These are people fighting people. Any guns would be evenly distributed among the defenders and the attackers, and thus not serve to end or cool the conflict, but further exacerbate the situation.
This may be apples to oranges, but during the Los Angles riots that came about after the Rodney King verdict, while some rioters had guns they were way overwhelmed by the fire-power of people defending their property (mostly Koreans protecting their stores).
For whatever reasons some people view gun control they way others view drug control; that is, if something is available then oh-my-god everyone will have/use it. But it just doesn't play out like that.
For example, here in Arizona it is easy to get a gun. Many people have them, but I'd be surprised if they make up the majority, and we don't have routine daily gun fights here.
My anecdotal observations aren't going to explain any complex social dynamics, but some conjectures put forth in this discussion do not seem to be based in data or experience.
One thing that - to me, at least - has always been obvious is a direct proportional relation between guns and violence. Less guns, less violence; more guns more violence. Weapons are a catalyst for violence.
Apparently most of the police do not carry guns as well. I saw that it was questioned earlier if some of the forces being used to maintain order are now carrying guns, but I don't think there was a definitive answer. The Metropolitan police might(?)
Firearms are only carried by limited numbers of specially trained units, and will likely only be deployed if there is reason to suspect that they're going against other armed individuals.
Tasers have recently been more widely issued across most forces.
Considering this whole situation was sparked off by armed police firing on a man who (apparently) hadn't fired on them, things could get real ugly if more armed police are added to the equation.
