In England they have a higher crime rate ratio than we do. Also we're not just handing guns to just anyone we're allowing people to make a choice.
I really shouldn't occasionally skim this site when I'm bored, because sometimes there's just something so terrifically false.
Let's tackle your points in reverse order. First, what choice are you allowing people to make? Whether or not to own a gun? Choices are not automatically a good thing. You'd be understandably miffed if I had the choice of whether or not to access your bank account.
Plus, ultimately, you are handing guns to everyone, because once something's available, it becomes a necessity. That's both fad-wise, and realistically. Once guns are available, anyone who breaks into your house will have a gun: of course you'd want one, for self defense. Repeat the cliche "But criminals will have guns anyway!" all you want, but that's simply not true: I'm in the UK, I wouldn't have a clue where to start looking for a gun. Same for them, it's far less easy. Sure, a slim handful might, but we'll get to that in a moment. Most won't have guns, you don't need one to deal with them: throw a chair at them.
I'd much rather face a 0.001% chance an intruder will have a gun, than a 100% chance. Plus, there's no chance a domestic argument could get out of hand and lead to waving a gun around. Those who have a brief impulse to start shooting won't get the chance in the UK: they will in the US. Most who have the long-term urge to get a gun won't succeed, in the UK: in the US they just need to wander down the street.
And anyway, a gun really isn't the best thing for self defence. Few amateurs are going to be able to use one, especially in stressful situations (need to access it, aim: with sweaty and shaky hands, and have the will to fire, and if your populace has the universal ability to risk taking another's life with no hesitation, even if they're a burglar, you have even more troubles). And if a burglar breaks in with a gun, you need the element of surprise. if you don't have that, you'll be shot either way.
As for 'keeping the government in check,' that barely needs a response. It's laughable. The government has the military: it has well-trained, better-armed forces. It can cut off your supplies, it can send a plane to drop bombs, or send a tank without leaving the hatch wide open. If it gets to the stage you need protecting from the government, a few hundred poorly trained civilians aren't going to amount to anything. Wait for external aid.
The only real relevance of guns to politics is presidential assassination, and if you're arguing that's a valid tool, I really don't know where to begin. I sincerely hope you're not. (I reserve the right to change my mind if Trump gets elected).
So, guns don't function as any kind of anti-governmental weapon, and self defense is questionable at best. But you claimed England has a higher crime ratio than the US. Very true. let's look at the stats:
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/CrimeThree times as much crime per 1000 than the US. Whew, quite a lot. Except, what is that crime?
The US has eighteen times the murder rate (notably 'only' four times more the
intentional homicide rate). The UK has generally at most double the US' rate on crimes like robbery and assault: which, sure, not great, but hardly compares to that staggering eighteen times the murder rate. And why is that? because crimes in the US escalate: as soon as one party pulls a gun, it'll end in murder. Home intrusion is burglary here, it's a murder waiting to happen over there where everyone has a firearm.
So the claim about the crime rate is both strictly true, and completely misleading. Generally, yes, we have more crime; more theft, more muggings, more people getting punched in the face, more cases of spilt tea.
You have eighteen times as many people being shot and killed. Which would you rather happen to you?
Then there's the matter of reported crime, but this post is getting long enough.
Suffice to say, guns don't help keep the government in check, you don't scare the military, and even if it prevents a handful of crime, it escalates the rest.