Thanks chaps. That did indeed answer my question. Sorry if I started us off topic
Guzzi Goose, great cross reference! Thank you for that!!
There is more at play than whether a potential victim might be carrying a weapon. This is an argument that has been rolled out in the UK by shooters, maybe because it is used so often in the US. While there appears to be a correlation between falls in certain types of crime and whether a US area (state, county, city or town) has rules allowing citizens to be armed, or require mandatory gun ownership, like Kennesaw GA, I don't think it should be taken as a universal truth, and certainly not for the UK. The argument presupposes two things; first that the armed citizens won't create more problems for the community than the crime they were trying to prevent, and second, that the people have a temperament and mindset that they will indeed step up to protect family, home and community. I do not think that either of those generally apply in the parts of the UK that I have lived in. Most people here don't want to be armed so that they themselves can fight crime, and they don't want to live in a community where all their neighbours might be armed.....
I think it's realistic to assume most of us would simply prefer not to have any threat that causes us need to defend ourselves. That said, I don't believe there is any realistic possibility that zero threat will ever be achieved. I also believe the best way to lessen such threats is through reducing reasons for assaults (better social education in a child's developing years) rather than focusing on inanimate objects. Your statement the "Most people here don't want to be armed....." (emphasis mine) says a lot about the reason y'all have a lower violent crime rate: you simply aren't an agressive people by nature/culture.