UK Self Defence and Weapon laws
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Sternumator
Non lethal weapons ideally. I am all for shooting intruders dead but there are very few occasions when people need to use lethal force to defend themselves so it is not worth the extra deaths (of law abiding citizens) that would come from easily accessible firearms.
I can understand why you would want less restirctions on shotguns but if people could defend there home with those why would they need handguns as well?
I can understand why you would want less restirctions on shotguns but if people could defend there home with those why would they need handguns as well?
Depending on the type of electroshock weapon it might require you to get close to the intruder as would pepper spray or CS gas. This could end up being dangerous. I would want to be as far away from him as possible. A gun would probably be the best weapon for self defence.
Yes there are very few occasions where deadly force is necessary. A lot of people will go through life and never be in a situation where they need to use deadly force. For others it will probably only be once in a lifetime. That one potential situation that I might find myself in I would love to be backed by the law to protect myself effectively.
Some people use handguns to hunt, people want them to go target shooting, some people might find them more practical for self defense as you can manoeuvre them easier in a house. There might be more reasons I cant think of right now.
Because the alternative is America.
Original post by Moleman1996
Because the alternative is America.
not really. You could just as easily say the alternative is Switzerland.
Original post by muddywaters51
Does anyone agree with any or all of these?
1. *Legalise purchase and carry of non-lethal weapons such as pepper spray*
3. Absolute right to self-defence within one's home
"The law regarding self-defence should be altered to make explicit that a householder is entitled to use any and all measures against an unlawful intruder within their home without fear of prosecution or any requirement to demonstrate proportionality or 'reasonableness' of response."
4) This isnt a petition, this is a thought of mine. One other problem I have is that self defence/security is not a legitimate reason to own a weapon in the UK. The police are not always reliable. It may take them 5,10,15,20 minutes to arrive depending on where you are. Its not always possible to contact them quickly. Non lethal weapons are illegal, there are heavy restrictions on knives. What exactly are you meant to use to defend yourself? Even if you can use knives they arent always effective, neither is swining objects and for most people neither is a physical battle. What are you meant to do to defend yourself? The criminals do not follow the law. They are armed with all sorts.
1. *Legalise purchase and carry of non-lethal weapons such as pepper spray*
3. Absolute right to self-defence within one's home
"The law regarding self-defence should be altered to make explicit that a householder is entitled to use any and all measures against an unlawful intruder within their home without fear of prosecution or any requirement to demonstrate proportionality or 'reasonableness' of response."
4) This isnt a petition, this is a thought of mine. One other problem I have is that self defence/security is not a legitimate reason to own a weapon in the UK. The police are not always reliable. It may take them 5,10,15,20 minutes to arrive depending on where you are. Its not always possible to contact them quickly. Non lethal weapons are illegal, there are heavy restrictions on knives. What exactly are you meant to use to defend yourself? Even if you can use knives they arent always effective, neither is swining objects and for most people neither is a physical battle. What are you meant to do to defend yourself? The criminals do not follow the law. They are armed with all sorts.
I agree with those ^^^. The only reason I took out number 2 is that I don't know enough about it to comment or have any opinion.
Thoughts on number 1- I can see the good and bad sides...I imagine you'd get a huge overuse of pepper spray. Basically, it's highly likely to be abused in my opinion. I still think the pros outweigh the cons though, especially as it's unlikely to do any long term damage and can offer someone significant protection from an attacker.
Thoughts on number 3- Completely agree. I think you leave your human rights at the front door when you invade someones property- you're not respecting their rights, so why should they respect yours by allowing you to ransack their home? If the intruder has a weapon, the owner of the house should be able to use any force necessary to ensure they are not at risk. If the intruder doesn't have a weapon...well, I don't think you can justify seriously harming someone if they're stealing with no intent to physically harm you.
Thoughts on number 4- I was attacked recently and the police arrived 10 minutes later... 10 minutes doesn't seem like much but when you're on the receiving end, it's a very, very long time. As you said, the criminals are equipped with weapons. We're left pretty much defenseless. The use of knives requires close contact, as does trying to fight them physically. This puts someone in a very risky position. Pepper spray, guns etc can be used without having to get so close to an attacker that you're comprising your own safety.
Those are just my thoughts. I'd like it all to be legal but then again it is likely to be incredibly abused.
Original post by muddywaters51
Depending on the type of electroshock weapon it might require you to get close to the intruder as would pepper spray or CS gas. This could end up being dangerous. I would want to be as far away from him as possible. A gun would probably be the best weapon for self defence.
Yes there are very few occasions where deadly force is necessary. A lot of people will go through life and never be in a situation where they need to use deadly force. For others it will probably only be once in a lifetime. That one potential situation that I might find myself in I would love to be backed by the law to protect myself effectively.
Some people use handguns to hunt, people want them to go target shooting, some people might find them more practical for self defense as you can manoeuvre them easier in a house. There might be more reasons I cant think of right now.
Yes there are very few occasions where deadly force is necessary. A lot of people will go through life and never be in a situation where they need to use deadly force. For others it will probably only be once in a lifetime. That one potential situation that I might find myself in I would love to be backed by the law to protect myself effectively.
Some people use handguns to hunt, people want them to go target shooting, some people might find them more practical for self defense as you can manoeuvre them easier in a house. There might be more reasons I cant think of right now.
I agree guns are the most effective for self defence but it is not worth sacificing the innocent people who would die from more liberal gun laws. How many people get killed a year from people breaking in to there house and killing them? It has got to be a small number. I agree on the small number of occasions it would be great if that person was armed but his has to be weighed up against the costs of giving guns to the wrong people. In my opinion it is not worth it.
Handguns are worse for hunting and worse for target shooting, they are also worse for defense because you can miss and if you don't hit a good spot the attack could fire at you. With a shotgun if the guy walks around the corner and you blast him he is dead. The only reason handguns exist is because they are conceilable and trasportable, you dont need to conceal it for legitamate reasons.
Hi folks, I've come into this discussion rather late. But it's a good one so here's my threepence worth. In my view, firearms law in the UK currently is draconian and illogical. Cullen described a total ban on handguns as such when completing his report into the Dunblane tragedy (instead he advocated other controls, most of which have since been included in legislation and/or Home Office procedure anyway). I say this from the perspective of being a firearms (3 rifles) and shotgun owner (and, until they were banned, the owner of handguns as well - someone asked why anyone would want to possess handguns - to particpate in a recognised Olympic sport). I agree with much of what has already been said about the stupidity of UK firearms law. We have taken the 1968 Act (in itself not a bad piece of legislation) and well-and-truely fouled it up!
I do not agree, however, with the principle of allowing people generally to possess a firearm (inlcuding shotguns) purely for self-defence. The one country (to my knowledge) that allows general possession of firearms for such purposes (the US) has a gun crime rate vastly in excess of that in the UK (something like 3 shooting homicides per 100,000 population in the US as against .08 in the UK). So, while possession of a firearm for self-defence may be arguable in the US (given that you have a 1 in 33,000 change of being shot dead!), it does not appear to be so in the UK. And what we have also not heard so far is that domestic accidents involving guns in the US are exceptionally high due to negligent use, children finding loaded and unsecured guns and so forth.
So my view is - repeal the 1997 legislation banning handguns and the 1988 legislation banning self-loading rifles (automatic weapons were not banned in 1988 as someone suggested - they have always been a prohibited weapon under the 1968 Act). Leave the core of the 1968 Act as it stands with the requirement to prove 'good reason' for each firearm and 'fit person'.
One more word on self-defence - just to cover a few of the points made by others. In UK law self-defence and reasonable force is a matter for a jury (if, indeed, a case reaches the courts). The test has always been that of 'reasonableness.' A person is not excpected to 'weight to a nicety' the amount of force required. But neither are they permitted to use such force as is clearly excessive and disproportionate to the threat faced.
What is reasonable self-defence for a lone woman confronted by three armed men intent on doing her serious harm might be considerably different to what is reasonable for me (a 6ft 4ins 18 stone rugby player) confronting a small teenager in my home who either surrenders or attempts to flee. In those circumstances, and all other things being equal, would it be reasonable for the woman to use any means at her disposal (including a gun if one was to hand) to defend herself? Absolutely! Would it be reasonable for me to have with me my .308 rifle (loaded and ready to fire - just in case) and let our teenage friend have a couple of rounds? Absolutely not!
I do not agree, however, with the principle of allowing people generally to possess a firearm (inlcuding shotguns) purely for self-defence. The one country (to my knowledge) that allows general possession of firearms for such purposes (the US) has a gun crime rate vastly in excess of that in the UK (something like 3 shooting homicides per 100,000 population in the US as against .08 in the UK). So, while possession of a firearm for self-defence may be arguable in the US (given that you have a 1 in 33,000 change of being shot dead!), it does not appear to be so in the UK. And what we have also not heard so far is that domestic accidents involving guns in the US are exceptionally high due to negligent use, children finding loaded and unsecured guns and so forth.
So my view is - repeal the 1997 legislation banning handguns and the 1988 legislation banning self-loading rifles (automatic weapons were not banned in 1988 as someone suggested - they have always been a prohibited weapon under the 1968 Act). Leave the core of the 1968 Act as it stands with the requirement to prove 'good reason' for each firearm and 'fit person'.
One more word on self-defence - just to cover a few of the points made by others. In UK law self-defence and reasonable force is a matter for a jury (if, indeed, a case reaches the courts). The test has always been that of 'reasonableness.' A person is not excpected to 'weight to a nicety' the amount of force required. But neither are they permitted to use such force as is clearly excessive and disproportionate to the threat faced.
What is reasonable self-defence for a lone woman confronted by three armed men intent on doing her serious harm might be considerably different to what is reasonable for me (a 6ft 4ins 18 stone rugby player) confronting a small teenager in my home who either surrenders or attempts to flee. In those circumstances, and all other things being equal, would it be reasonable for the woman to use any means at her disposal (including a gun if one was to hand) to defend herself? Absolutely! Would it be reasonable for me to have with me my .308 rifle (loaded and ready to fire - just in case) and let our teenage friend have a couple of rounds? Absolutely not!
Original post by ckingalt
I'm split on the gun laws. I own guns in the U.S. but I can see that not making guns easily available does have a valid argument. I can't comprehend why you would not permit people to have non-lethal selfdefense items such as pepper spray or stun-guns.
probably becuase legally available pepper spray and stun guns would make teenage street robbery 1000 times easier and far more prevalent, i would have thought that was fairly obvious
Re the OP, i sympathise with the case of the the guy defending himself with pepperspray - it is an illegal weapon, even if it is non lethal, i would have thought extenuating circumstances would have been applied by the judge in the same way as using force to defend yourself against a robbery - interestingly if he had smashed his attackers face in using martial arts for example, he probably would have got off scott free.
Original post by muddywaters51
- A nightclub owner who confiscated 2 stun guns from customers locks them up in the backroom. He forgets to hand them in to the police immediately. The police find them. He gets 53 weeks in prison for possession of 2 section 5 weapons.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Gazzer
Hi folks, I've come into this discussion rather late. But it's a good one so here's my threepence worth. In my view, firearms law in the UK currently is draconian and illogical. Cullen described a total ban on handguns as such when completing his report into the Dunblane tragedy (instead he advocated other controls, most of which have since been included in legislation and/or Home Office procedure anyway). I say this from the perspective of being a firearms (3 rifles) and shotgun owner (and, until they were banned, the owner of handguns as well - someone asked why anyone would want to possess handguns - to particpate in a recognised Olympic sport). I agree with much of what has already been said about the stupidity of UK firearms law. We have taken the 1968 Act (in itself not a bad piece of legislation) and well-and-truely fouled it up!
You are wrong to say that hardly anyone shoots in the UK. There are currently about 1 million FAC/ SGCs in issue in the UK, with many others choosing to shoot with non FAC air guns. Figures suggest that shooting is becoming a more popular pass time too. In any case, the fact that a sport may not be as popular as others is no reason to ban it!
Original post by Coffinman
He stole items off people, of course he should have been locked up or on the other hand he might just have been lying.
If you find someone carrying an illegal weapon in public, you are perfectly entitled to take it off them and to pop down to the police station with it.
Original post by Gazzer
You are wrong to say that hardly anyone shoots in the UK. There are currently about 1 million FAC/ SGCs in issue in the UK, with many others choosing to shoot with non FAC air guns. Figures suggest that shooting is becoming a more popular pass time too. In any case, the fact that a sport may not be as popular as others is no reason to ban it!
It is when it poses a danger to the public, is in line with current policy and due to the slightly elitist nature of the sport it makes it far more practical to ban them.
Original post by L i b
If you find someone carrying an illegal weapon in public, you are perfectly entitled to take it off them and to pop down to the police station with it.
Which law would that be as bouncers often abuse their position?
"- A couple were mugged at knifepoint. The male uses pepper spray on the mugger and gets away. The incident is caught on CCTV. The male gets a 6 month suspended sentence, 60 pound fine and 200 hours of community service. The female gets 20 hours of community service + a fine."
This is absolutely ridiculous. The man shouldn't of carried pepper spray but 200 hours community service...? I'm unsure whether to allow people to carry non-lethal weapons. Pepper spray could be used as an offensive weapon as well as a defensive one... I'd prefer people carry around rape alarms... It depends, if it's easy to get pepper spray now then legalise it, because if someone wants to use it as an offensive weapon then they're probably going to do it anyway. This change in law would simply mean those who wish to use it as a defensive weapon can do so. I don't agree stun guns should be legalised though, they're too dangerous and effective for offensive use.
This is absolutely ridiculous. The man shouldn't of carried pepper spray but 200 hours community service...? I'm unsure whether to allow people to carry non-lethal weapons. Pepper spray could be used as an offensive weapon as well as a defensive one... I'd prefer people carry around rape alarms... It depends, if it's easy to get pepper spray now then legalise it, because if someone wants to use it as an offensive weapon then they're probably going to do it anyway. This change in law would simply mean those who wish to use it as a defensive weapon can do so. I don't agree stun guns should be legalised though, they're too dangerous and effective for offensive use.
Supposedly shooting was one of the fastest growing sports before the 90s bans. At the very least, I don't see much downside to reverting the gun laws to how they were in 1990, when people of good standing with somewhere to shoot them could own most guns. Spree killers are the worst possible reason to ban anything, since they are responsible for only a tiny percentage of crime and are pretty much impossible to stop anyway, since they don't think or act rationally. The problem is they get disproportionate media attention.
For self-defence in general, I am not sure the British public are prepared for concealed carry of handguns in the streets. I'd generally favour it, but the problem for any non-gun culture is that the only people likely to take up these things are weirdos and obsessives. One reason, I think, why it was easy to ban huge swathes of guns in this country but not in the US where a lot of respectable, normal people own them. Better to evolve a self-defence culture slowly over time with progressive legalisation and encouragement of productive uses like sport and army cadet training.
For self-defence in general, I am not sure the British public are prepared for concealed carry of handguns in the streets. I'd generally favour it, but the problem for any non-gun culture is that the only people likely to take up these things are weirdos and obsessives. One reason, I think, why it was easy to ban huge swathes of guns in this country but not in the US where a lot of respectable, normal people own them. Better to evolve a self-defence culture slowly over time with progressive legalisation and encouragement of productive uses like sport and army cadet training.
I believe that Pepper Spray should definitely be legalised, along with the possibility of stun guns. However firearms should not be legalised.
One thing that should be reformed is the self-defence laws, for example a burglar has more rights while he is in your house than you do. It's a farce.
One thing that should be reformed is the self-defence laws, for example a burglar has more rights while he is in your house than you do. It's a farce.
Original post by Coffinman
Which law would that be as bouncers often abuse their position?
It is a common law right for people to act to prevent a crime being committed. It is a "reasonable excuse" in terms of the laws against possession of a firearm to be transporting it to a police station or similar in order to be handed in.
Original post by L i b
It is a common law right for people to act to prevent a crime being committed. It is a "reasonable excuse" in terms of the laws against possession of a firearm to be transporting it to a police station or similar in order to be handed in.
There is at least one case of a man being imprisoned for "possessing" a shotgun while transporting it to a police station.
edit: he received a suspended sentence and a criminal record, but wasn't imprisoned - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1236976/Soldier-given-suspended-sentence-handing-shotgun-police-given-award-instead.html
Original post by Cannotbelieveit
One thing that should be reformed is the self-defence laws, for example a burglar has more rights while he is in your house than you do. It's a farce.
*Sigh*.... no, they quite simply do not.
In fact, you can get away with doing a hell of a lot to a burglar, including killing them, if it is within even the most basic realms of reasonableness.
The tabloids may thrive on stories of this type - but a little digging usually shows the homeowners concerned were either shooting people in the back with illegal weapons, chasing them after the act to give them a beating or some other action which in no way constitutes self-defence.
Even beyond the strict letter of the law - which is very reasonable indeed - the police and the prosecuting authorities in this country are far from willing to bring such a case to court if there is any ambiguity as to what has happened. Unless you're a bloodthirsty bastard, you're fine in defending yourself and your family.
Original post by Observatory
There is at least one case of a man being imprisoned for "possessing" a shotgun while transporting it to a police station.
edit: he received a suspended sentence and a criminal record, but wasn't imprisoned - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1236976/Soldier-given-suspended-sentence-handing-shotgun-police-given-award-instead.html
edit: he received a suspended sentence and a criminal record, but wasn't imprisoned - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1236976/Soldier-given-suspended-sentence-handing-shotgun-police-given-award-instead.html
Now let's look at the situation here: a man who has former criminal convictions for violence and weapons offences turns up at a police station with a completely illegal weapon that he claims he stored unsecured in his home for four days - because of some cock and bull story about the police. Indeed, although I can't prove it, I'd be inclined to think his entire story is crap from start to finish.
Either way, even by the story he gave - which the court did not challenge - he was acting unreasonably and delayed unreasonably in conveying a serious weapon to the police.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Defence Engineering grad scheme
- Ocr a level law predictions 2023
- What a levels for law?
- Regarding a level law
- Law uni's
- Is the UK prepared for WW3?
- What
- BTEC Law unit 3 exam January 2024
- Best university courses and actual university's for law
- How safe do you feel in Sheffield?
- OCR A-level Law Paper 1 (H418/01) - 26th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Top Army Chief Warns of Britons Facing Draft in Potential UK-Russia Conflict
- Passion projects for law
- Does anyone have Law a level essay writing techniques??
- Five SAS soldiers arrested for alleged war crimes in Syria
- [Official Thread] Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Can I get an offer from SOAS after one day ?
- Urgent! Career Help!
- Why do people see 18 year olds as kids
- fisher v bell
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 1 minute ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2807
Last reply 2 minutes ago
Does saying something “Tastes professional” make sense?Last reply 6 minutes ago
Official: King's College London A101 EMDP 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1028
Posted 6 minutes ago
AQA A-Level Chemistry Paper 2 (7405/2) - 18th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 7 minutes ago
Software Engineering Degree Apprenticeship | Digital & Technology Solutions Level 6Posted 8 minutes ago
AQA A-Level Chemistry Paper 1 (7405/1) - 10th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 9 minutes ago
Bank of America Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 10 minutes ago
Please could someone mark this Macbeth essay, AQA mark schemeLast reply 10 minutes ago
TSR Goes Green: Do you prefer a print book or an e-reader?Last reply 10 minutes ago
Official: University of Nottingham A100 2024 Entry Applicant threadLast reply 11 minutes ago
Official: University of Manchester A106 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1243
Last reply 12 minutes ago
Official: King's College London A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1001
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 6 days ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 1 week ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 6 days ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 1 week ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?
