I'm not asking you to prove anything, I'm pointing out that what you suggest, historically speaking has been a failure. This has been proven. [\quote]
No, it hasn't. All you did was show that the solution wasn't perfect. What you can't show is what would have happened without those laws. For all you or I know, the crime rate would have been 10X what it was without them. I can't prove it and neither can you.
I don't feel a draconian police state is the answer, I'm sorry, it just isn't. Further, since we want to talk about human nature, it is in our nature to acquire power, and with it abuse it, giving the police, who I'll state again have no constitutional obligation to protect any of us the means in which to further accumulate power will show and has shown that they will abuse such power. I'm not scared of "what ifs" I'm concerned with what is, and what is is a steadily moving government which has turned from a republic, to a democracy, to an authoritarian form of rule. Anything which will hamper this, which is going to happen regardless, but anything that will impede its progress I am 100% in favor of. If this means police will have to make do with Kevlar, semi-auto pistols, shotguns, and semi-automatic rifles which is the same as any crazed band of "highly armed" criminals roaming the country side ready to strike Main St. America at any given time, than so be it.
Why do you think that better equipment = a draconian police state?? I want criminals to be grossly out-gunned by the police, not on equal footing, not just a little worse, but so outgunned that the idea of a shoot-out with the police would be only attempted by the stupidest or most desperate of criminals. I want criminals to understand that when the police show up at your front door with a warrant, the only sane response is complete cooperation, since they have a machine that can drive through your house, backed by weapons that can "shoot through schools" (2 bonus for the movie reference).