but CC is it as I said earlier , purely a ' catch 22 ' situation'? Criminals are armed so you arm yourselves ..... your armed so the criminals arm themselves? It is not a simple problem to solve, even having the police armed is encouraging the criminal to be armed. In an ideal world one side needs to 'lay its weapons down ' but i can see that that is not an easy solution to get off the ground

There's the rub. I wish I had an easy answer for you, but I don't.

I am also conscious that it's not my country and I don't want to appear as though I'm lecturing you on how you should, collectively, run your Nation.

A few observations, nevertheless:

1)The link between economic inequality and both property crime and violent crime is well established.

2) Rates of violence are higher in more unequal societies.

3) Economic inequality affects violence by influencing the way we think, act and relate to others. It may stimulate social competition and so encourage violence or may curtail opportunities for some, giving rise to a sense of hopelessness which incites fear, violence and murder. Low levels of trust in (highly) unequal countries may provide the link which leads from higher inequality to high murder rates. Such societies may lack the social capacity to prevent violence and create safe communities. Experiences of inferiority may make someone less inclined to behave in a socially desirable way. This materialises as increased aggressive behaviour and high crime rates.

4) The average US Police Department requires fewer hours of training than it takes to become a barber or plumber.

5) You don't have a comprehensive National system to screen out "problem" police officers. I think they're known as "gypsy cops". Get busted for doing something wrong, and simply go and find a job with a different Police department in the next town/state.

6) Banning assault weapons could reduce gun deaths, but only when it is a mass shooting. Put simply: gunmen are less deadly when they have to reload.

7) Consider raising the age for having a gun to 21. One survey of inmates found that setting a minimum age requirement of 21 could have prohibited gun possession in 17 percent of cases in which people legally owned a gun and used it to commit a crime.

Safe storage laws. In Massachusetts, which has the strictest safe-storage laws in the country, guns are used in just 9 percent of youth suicides, compared with 42 percent nationally. The suicide death rate among youth in the state is 38 percent below the national average.

9) Try a "buy back" scheme for guns. Australia did it in the 90s, and had some success.

10) Hold gun dealers more accountable. Get them to change their sales practices, to comply with the law, or come down on them like a ton of bricks.

11) Strengthen background checks. Under federal law, only licensed gun dealers have to perform these background checks. Private individuals and many online retailers don’t. That leaves a lot of gun owners — about 42 percent, according to one survey published in 2017 — who didn’t undergo a background check for a gun purchase. So what happens when states go beyond federal laws and require all handgun sales to undergo a background check? Fewer gun deaths.

12) Close the "Charleston loophole".

13) Improve reporting on mental health.

14) Treat guns like we treat cars. In Connecticut, state lawmakers required people to get a license and safety training for a gun, just as we do for cars. In the decade after, it saw a drop in both gun homicides and suicides — at faster rates than other states without similar laws. And at the same time, Connecticut saw no significant drop in homicides not related to guns.

In short, I would prescribe progressive taxation. That would result in a less unequal society AND give you the necessary funds to develop a better-trained (and more numerous) Police Force, better mental health services, and all the other interventions I have suggested.

OR .. stay exactly as you are. If you do, however, you will have more stories like little Cannon Hinnant and more mass shootings etc etc.

You need politicians with the vision to have a long-term plan, because there is no "quick fix" - that's for sure. As you, rightly, point out the "bad people" will not just hand over their weapons. So, you need to take them from them and make it more difficult to get hold of them in the first place.

Sadly, I can "get" where you're coming from. The temptation to see yourself, and your family, as being in danger from gun crime and that the State is inept at protecting you must be terrible. In your shoes who's to say I wouldn't arm myself too?

It looks, however, like an internal arms race to me. "The bad guys have guns so I need a gun to protect myself and my family." All too often that mindset leads to dead bodies (never mind the risk of a child getting hold of your "home protection" gun, thinking it's a toy, and killing himself or another kid).

The current US thinking seems nihilistic, from my viewpoint. Good luck and stay safe.

It's not true. My boy just went through the Academy. It was a 6 month course. He continues to train into his second year with ex military and SWAT on the weekends. Training never stops.

Well?

Maybe you should insist on a Police Service that responds more quickly when you need them. Maybe your country should invest in more drug treatment programmes so there are less miscreants fucked up on meth. Maybe you should get the rich to pay more taxes so that can happen. Maybe you should vote for someone who doesn't give tax breaks to millionaires, resulting in a more unequal society.

Is your TV insured then, phart? THAT'S what I was, primarily, mocking you for. Plus your implied assertion that your idea is "shoot first, ask questions later". Answer my questions for a change? What insurance policies do you have?

If you can show me a post where I have praised the UK as being, somehow, "better" than the US I'll be very surprised. My country has a ton of problems too. "All the queens (sic) men"? I would do away with our Monarchy in a heartbeat.