This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
What's you view on self defence laws?
In most countries the laws are not nywhere near as draconion regarding self defence as they are here e.g. most countries you can own fire arms or such the purpose of defense [if you put that on a registration here you'll be black listed from owning] but also here mace/pepper spray is considered a section 5 firearm despite;
a] In no defenition is it a firearm
b] It is not deadly
c] It can be made at home [as it is quite literally just the active ingrediant in chillies
Hell the most you can carry here without having the book thrown at you is an alarm or something akin to a spray bottle.
So what is every ones views on this? Do you think our laws are just and the good outweighs any cons, do you think we should be more like countries like the US and have open/concealed carry permits or what?
Please post your view/idea and justification )
a] In no defenition is it a firearm
b] It is not deadly
c] It can be made at home [as it is quite literally just the active ingrediant in chillies
Hell the most you can carry here without having the book thrown at you is an alarm or something akin to a spray bottle.
So what is every ones views on this? Do you think our laws are just and the good outweighs any cons, do you think we should be more like countries like the US and have open/concealed carry permits or what?
Please post your view/idea and justification )
Pepper spray can cause severe reactions under certain circumstances, especially if overused or used at close range (or on people with breathing difficulties) and so it is classed as a noxious or toxic substance. That law is focused on guns, but also covers stuff like acid attacks or toxic gas.
I don't think that we should have any sort of freer firearms laws. The US has ridiculously high rates of accidental shootings, and disproportionately high levels of gun crime compared to the UK, which suggests to me that the UK's system is closer to a good solution.
Our laws are definitely not draconian, they're very good. People can use force necessary to prevent injury to themselves or others, or damage to property, when that force is proportionate. That's practically the definition of self defence.
I think that the biggest problem for personal safety from violent crime at the moment is the lack of Response Team and firearms trained police officers, especially in the countryside (where gun ownership is higher). Police numbers in the UK are currently critically low, and increasing their workload by increasing the number of weapons on the streets would be very dangerous.
More guns would mean more gun deaths and easier escalations of violent crime.
More police officers would achieve the same goal, save on bodybags and reduce other crimes at the same time
I don't think that we should have any sort of freer firearms laws. The US has ridiculously high rates of accidental shootings, and disproportionately high levels of gun crime compared to the UK, which suggests to me that the UK's system is closer to a good solution.
Our laws are definitely not draconian, they're very good. People can use force necessary to prevent injury to themselves or others, or damage to property, when that force is proportionate. That's practically the definition of self defence.
I think that the biggest problem for personal safety from violent crime at the moment is the lack of Response Team and firearms trained police officers, especially in the countryside (where gun ownership is higher). Police numbers in the UK are currently critically low, and increasing their workload by increasing the number of weapons on the streets would be very dangerous.
More guns would mean more gun deaths and easier escalations of violent crime.
More police officers would achieve the same goal, save on bodybags and reduce other crimes at the same time
Justifying carrying weapons is stupid. At least with fist fights the chances of survival or intervention are higher, people will more likely pull apart two people having an punch up than they will try to stop a gunfight.
Chances are those who carry the weapons for 'self defence' are most likely to use them, its a nice catch all defence to having an offensive weapon on your person. If a person ready and willing to use a knife possesses one, and a person has it for self defence but has never really used it and is basically placebo effecting a sense of safety then if it comes to a confrontation they'll still lose except their false confidence means they now have a gaping stab wound rather than a black eye.
Homicide rates in America per thousand are ten times as high as in the UK. That is pretty much all that needs to be said
Chances are those who carry the weapons for 'self defence' are most likely to use them, its a nice catch all defence to having an offensive weapon on your person. If a person ready and willing to use a knife possesses one, and a person has it for self defence but has never really used it and is basically placebo effecting a sense of safety then if it comes to a confrontation they'll still lose except their false confidence means they now have a gaping stab wound rather than a black eye.
Homicide rates in America per thousand are ten times as high as in the UK. That is pretty much all that needs to be said
Original post by sek510i
Pepper spray can cause severe reactions under certain circumstances, especially if overused or used at close range (or on people with breathing difficulties) and so it is classed as a noxious or toxic substance. That law is focused on guns, but also covers stuff like acid attacks or toxic gas.
It sohuld be noted that such reactions are very rare and deaths from pepper spray are incredibly low.
I don't think that we should have any sort of freer firearms laws. The US has ridiculously high rates of accidental shootings, and disproportionately high levels of gun crime compared to the UK, which suggests to me that the UK's system is closer to a good solution.
Aye getting pink guns for girls, rifles with new bank accounts and designer accessories is just wow. I would say the laws here are somewhat too stringest though in that getting a hunting rifle, for hunting is near as damnit impossible and if you live in a city any form of firearm is nearly impossible for approval.
Our laws are definitely not draconian, they're very good. People can use force necessary to prevent injury to themselves or others, or damage to property, when that force is proportionate. That's practically the definition of self defence.
Thats the issue though what constitutes 'proportionate responce' is far to open to debate and has come under fire numerous times when people such as farmers have been sent down for murder for defending them selves..
I think that the biggest problem for personal safety from violent crime at the moment is the lack of Response Team and firearms trained police officers, especially in the countryside (where gun ownership is higher). Police numbers in the UK are currently critically low, and increasing their workload by increasing the number of weapons on the streets would be very dangerous.
Wouldnt argue with that as such but I feel its worth noting that armed police officers arent neceserily good either given their propencity to shoot first ask later
More guns would mean more gun deaths and easier escalations of violent crime.
More police officers would achieve the same goal, save on bodybags and reduce other crimes at the same time
More police officers would achieve the same goal, save on bodybags and reduce other crimes at the same time
aye at the same time though if someones intent on causing injury or killing someone theyre going to do it with something else or simply get an illegal gun [ i know this arguement is somewhat cliche but it is true] that making guns illegal simply pushes them into the hands of criminals..
Indeed, i forget the towns name but it hit the news recently as their police force has been disbanded and i believe theyre paying for private 'police' now thanks to the cuts.
Personlly though i have a somewhat deep distrust of police to start with in this mtter as the only help they could at best render is usually after the fact which is too late in far to many instances, by no means would i say carrying assault rifles and pistols should be an answer but proven and mostly safe deterrants such as mace and the like shouldnt really be banned as, as i said, they in general are safe unlike guns/ASPs/Tazers and so on.
Original post by GonvilleBromhead
Justifying carrying weapons is stupid. At least with fist fights the chances of survival or intervention are higher, people will more likely pull apart two people having an punch up than they will try to stop a gunfight.
Chances are those who carry the weapons for 'self defence' are most likely to use them, its a nice catch all defence to having an offensive weapon on your person. If a person ready and willing to use a knife possesses one, and a person has it for self defence but has never really used it and is basically placebo effecting a sense of safety then if it comes to a confrontation they'll still lose except their false confidence means they now have a gaping stab wound rather than a black eye.
Homicide rates in America per thousand are ten times as high as in the UK. That is pretty much all that needs to be said
Chances are those who carry the weapons for 'self defence' are most likely to use them, its a nice catch all defence to having an offensive weapon on your person. If a person ready and willing to use a knife possesses one, and a person has it for self defence but has never really used it and is basically placebo effecting a sense of safety then if it comes to a confrontation they'll still lose except their false confidence means they now have a gaping stab wound rather than a black eye.
Homicide rates in America per thousand are ten times as high as in the UK. That is pretty much all that needs to be said
With all due respect but that statement in itself is stupid as the term weapon is an incredibly broad catch all term. Not to mention fist fights aside from being thuggish can VERY EASILY kill someone or leave them permanently disfigured/injured whilst [as was my min point] mace or similar is not a deadly weapon except in exceptional and very rare circumstances.
Compring homicide rtes between these countries is somewhat facetious isnt it considering that isnt what this thread is about in the slightest, defence doesnt ipso facto mean homicide.
lastly and i cant believe i have to point this out but comparing punching someone and stabbing them is ridiculous a] the way you imply it such a stabbing is attempted murder and not defense and punching someone would happily come under assault/ABH/GBH/murder.
Original post by GonvilleBromhead
Justifying carrying weapons is stupid. At least with fist fights the chances of survival or intervention are higher, people will more likely pull apart two people having an punch up than they will try to stop a gunfight.
Nobody is going to intervene, because people are apathetic. If you watch any fights on youtube, most people are just watching and standing around and a good amount of them are filming the fight with their cameras. You grossly overestimate the willingness of an average guy to intervene in a violent situation, where he might get hurt himself.
You also assume that fights happen in plain public view, and not in backalleys and private closed rooms.
Original post by GonvilleBromhead
Chances are those who carry the weapons for 'self defence' are most likely to use them, its a nice catch all defence to having an offensive weapon on your person. If a person ready and willing to use a knife possesses one, and a person has it for self defence but has never really used it and is basically placebo effecting a sense of safety then if it comes to a confrontation they'll still lose except their false confidence means they now have a gaping stab wound rather than a black eye.
When people buy guns, they generally also train with them and brandishing a weapon if often enough to intimidate the thug.
And do not assume that the mugger always attacks an able bodied man. Generally they attack women, the elderly or anyone who is a weak target. If I were a robbing thug, I would not choose the well-built heavy skinhead for my victim, I would choose a petite young lady who has virtually no chance of overpowering me. Here, the petite woman basically has to hope that the robber is also not some rapist, who wants to thoroughly rape her. If she had a gun or at least a pepperspray, she might be able to dispatch the attacker or get away. Without these, her fate is already sealed. There is absolutely nothing a 50 kg woman can do against a heavy, determined and aggressive male attacker. A situation where both the woman and the attacker have guns is a far more equal situation than both of them not having guns.
Original post by GonvilleBromhead
Homicide rates in America per thousand are ten times as high as in the UK. That is pretty much all that needs to be said
If homicide rates are high in a given country, then I certainly want a gun because I may have to protect myself from an attacker.
Like it or not, guns are great levelers when it comes to uneven matches like a well built thug climbing through your window if you are a woman or an older person.
One things they don't like is a gun pointing at them.
Of course in an ideal world there would be no guns in private hands and people would just have to take the beating or rape that's coming their way.
One things they don't like is a gun pointing at them.
Of course in an ideal world there would be no guns in private hands and people would just have to take the beating or rape that's coming their way.
Original post by Napp
In most countries the laws are not nywhere near as draconion regarding self defence as they are here e.g. most countries you can own fire arms or such the purpose of defense [if you put that on a registration here you'll be black listed from owning] but also here mace/pepper spray is considered a section 5 firearm despite;
a] In no defenition is it a firearm
b] It is not deadly
c] It can be made at home [as it is quite literally just the active ingrediant in chillies
Hell the most you can carry here without having the book thrown at you is an alarm or something akin to a spray bottle.
So what is every ones views on this? Do you think our laws are just and the good outweighs any cons, do you think we should be more like countries like the US and have open/concealed carry permits or what?
Please post your view/idea and justification )
a] In no defenition is it a firearm
b] It is not deadly
c] It can be made at home [as it is quite literally just the active ingrediant in chillies
Hell the most you can carry here without having the book thrown at you is an alarm or something akin to a spray bottle.
So what is every ones views on this? Do you think our laws are just and the good outweighs any cons, do you think we should be more like countries like the US and have open/concealed carry permits or what?
Please post your view/idea and justification )
I think our firearms laws should be like the Switzerland laws personally, everyone is allowed carry firearms but training and shooting is government mandatory which makes firearms a lot safer.
I don't want people who can't spell ingredient or anywhere and can't use basic grammar to be allowed to wander around in public carrying weapons.
Also, any of these weapons can be more readily used for nefarious purposes. For example if you want to mug someone you just need to have pepper spray with you at the time but if you want to use it to avoid getting mugged you have to carry it on you every single day and be constantly alert so you can guarantee drawing yours first.
Also, any of these weapons can be more readily used for nefarious purposes. For example if you want to mug someone you just need to have pepper spray with you at the time but if you want to use it to avoid getting mugged you have to carry it on you every single day and be constantly alert so you can guarantee drawing yours first.
People shouldn't assume that using weapons is currently something that everybody can do. Even if somebody is hell bent on causing injury to somebody else, and has time to plan their actions, it's still often easier to use a knife or other weapon than a gun. And, again, other weapons are easier to survive, easier to escape from (you can run away from a knife, but running away from a gun isn't much use) and, in many cases, easier to defend against.
Guns are only great levelers if both sides have one. I can't see everybody in the UK buying guns if they were legalised, and the people most likely to want them first are the people who expect to need them (ie, criminals).
Regarding pepper spray, I think the people who are currently most likely to use it are unfortunately criminals. Also, people who don't know how to use pepper spray can quite easily incapacitate themselves with it (gust of wind at the wrong moment, spray ''splashback'' etc) making it a risky last resort even if somebody did use it for self defence. Also, I don't think that enough people know what self defence actually is.
I don't think that a farmer shooting a burglar is necessarily self defence. The burglar would have had to have shown a genuine threat to the safety of the farmer or others that justified killing them. To stick up for a farmer shooting somebody (who, in the cases I've heard about, gave their killers no reason to believe that they were armed or about to become violent) and then criticise armed police for shooting a very small minority of the known dangerous criminals who they come into contact with seems unfair, to me at least.
Armed police in the UK have a very good record, overall. C019 in London shoot people twice a year, on average, and I only know of two police shootings since 2008 where the justification was in any doubt (Rodney and Duggan). Armed police have to requalify every six months in most forces, and (because there are so few armed criminals or civilians) aren't usually required to have more than a sidearm with them on duty unless there's a specific threat. I know the police get a lot of criticism (and rightly so) over those two shootings, but overall I would be happier to know that there was a police officer with a gun nearby than an unknown number of civilians or criminals with guns nearby.
I know some people would like to have hunting rifles, and I know several people who do. It is possible (one of them even lives in London, although he has to store the rifle out of town) and I don't think that there is a problem with current firearms laws in the UK in that respect.
The current definition of self defence in UK law is a bit vague, but I don't think that it's a huge problem. Generally it seems to be applied sensibly, and all laws are open to different levels of abuse. In a way, having such vague wording makes it harder to take advantage of technicalities.
Guns are only great levelers if both sides have one. I can't see everybody in the UK buying guns if they were legalised, and the people most likely to want them first are the people who expect to need them (ie, criminals).
Regarding pepper spray, I think the people who are currently most likely to use it are unfortunately criminals. Also, people who don't know how to use pepper spray can quite easily incapacitate themselves with it (gust of wind at the wrong moment, spray ''splashback'' etc) making it a risky last resort even if somebody did use it for self defence. Also, I don't think that enough people know what self defence actually is.
I don't think that a farmer shooting a burglar is necessarily self defence. The burglar would have had to have shown a genuine threat to the safety of the farmer or others that justified killing them. To stick up for a farmer shooting somebody (who, in the cases I've heard about, gave their killers no reason to believe that they were armed or about to become violent) and then criticise armed police for shooting a very small minority of the known dangerous criminals who they come into contact with seems unfair, to me at least.
Armed police in the UK have a very good record, overall. C019 in London shoot people twice a year, on average, and I only know of two police shootings since 2008 where the justification was in any doubt (Rodney and Duggan). Armed police have to requalify every six months in most forces, and (because there are so few armed criminals or civilians) aren't usually required to have more than a sidearm with them on duty unless there's a specific threat. I know the police get a lot of criticism (and rightly so) over those two shootings, but overall I would be happier to know that there was a police officer with a gun nearby than an unknown number of civilians or criminals with guns nearby.
I know some people would like to have hunting rifles, and I know several people who do. It is possible (one of them even lives in London, although he has to store the rifle out of town) and I don't think that there is a problem with current firearms laws in the UK in that respect.
The current definition of self defence in UK law is a bit vague, but I don't think that it's a huge problem. Generally it seems to be applied sensibly, and all laws are open to different levels of abuse. In a way, having such vague wording makes it harder to take advantage of technicalities.
Original post by Napp
With all due respect but that statement in itself is stupid as the term weapon is an incredibly broad catch all term. Not to mention fist fights aside from being thuggish can VERY EASILY kill someone or leave them permanently disfigured/injured whilst [as was my min point] mace or similar is not a deadly weapon except in exceptional and very rare circumstances.
Compring homicide rtes between these countries is somewhat facetious isnt it considering that isnt what this thread is about in the slightest, defence doesnt ipso facto mean homicide.
lastly and i cant believe i have to point this out but comparing punching someone and stabbing them is ridiculous a] the way you imply it such a stabbing is attempted murder and not defense and punching someone would happily come under assault/ABH/GBH/murder.
Compring homicide rtes between these countries is somewhat facetious isnt it considering that isnt what this thread is about in the slightest, defence doesnt ipso facto mean homicide.
lastly and i cant believe i have to point this out but comparing punching someone and stabbing them is ridiculous a] the way you imply it such a stabbing is attempted murder and not defense and punching someone would happily come under assault/ABH/GBH/murder.
Yes a fist fight can but the aggregate damage inflicted is objectively less than the aggregate damage when people use weapons. For all the damage a fist can do, pepper spray and other weapons can do far more. Add to this the willingness to use, it isnt easy to pull a trigger or to pepper spray or stab someone, soldiers have to drill constantly against human enemies so they dont freeze up before killing another person - very few can commit severe violence easily unless they already have. Arming people hands a home field advantage to those predispositioned to use weapons. If fists are as dangerous as weapons (my point being levels of damage and ability to inflict) - then why is MMA a thing? A legal competition to punch and assault, it self evidently proves that weapons are more dangerous as there is no 'try and stab each other' televised sports.
Weapons cause homicide. The level of homicide, even self defence homicide (no culpability does not mean it isnt a killing) are higher in countries almost directly correlating to weapon laws and wealth rates. America has similar wealth but ten times the homicide rate thus invalidating the poverty assessment and isolating weapons as the factor - its a legitimate comparison. Self defence homicide is still recorded as homicide plus these weapons you advocate the carrying of are used to commit such homicides by and large so legalising them for defence has the secondary effect of them being used offensively.
Stabbing, shooting or attacking with a weapon can be attempted murder or it can be self defence depending on the circumstances. Same as beating someone badly can be self defence or attempted murder depending on context. Your last point doesnt entirely make sense. A knife can be used in self defence and the point I am making is people feel safer. The streets are less dangerous than they were fifty years ago but nobody leaves their doors open or allows their kids to just leave the house whenever any more despite the percentage chance of an incident being smaller due to excessive news coverage of murders and paedophilia as well as the constant warnings to protect from such - how people think is influenced by circumstance and relative understanding. This is the same with weapons, you may feel safe carrying pepper spray but when the adrenaline is flowing and you try to use it for the first time its going to be hard, chances are your attacker will get you before you get him - but you put yourself in a compromising situation under the false belief you were protected. Its the same as safety features in cars have increased road deaths because people drive like morons owing to a false sense of security.
Original post by Zorgotron
Nobody is going to intervene, because people are apathetic. If you watch any fights on youtube, most people are just watching and standing around and a good amount of them are filming the fight with their cameras. You grossly overestimate the willingness of an average guy to intervene in a violent situation, where he might get hurt himself.
You also assume that fights happen in plain public view, and not in backalleys and private closed rooms.
When people buy guns, they generally also train with them and brandishing a weapon if often enough to intimidate the thug.
And do not assume that the mugger always attacks an able bodied man. Generally they attack women, the elderly or anyone who is a weak target. If I were a robbing thug, I would not choose the well-built heavy skinhead for my victim, I would choose a petite young lady who has virtually no chance of overpowering me. Here, the petite woman basically has to hope that the robber is also not some rapist, who wants to thoroughly rape her. If she had a gun or at least a pepperspray, she might be able to dispatch the attacker or get away. Without these, her fate is already sealed. There is absolutely nothing a 50 kg woman can do against a heavy, determined and aggressive male attacker. A situation where both the woman and the attacker have guns is a far more equal situation than both of them not having guns.
If homicide rates are high in a given country, then I certainly want a gun because I may have to protect myself from an attacker.
You also assume that fights happen in plain public view, and not in backalleys and private closed rooms.
When people buy guns, they generally also train with them and brandishing a weapon if often enough to intimidate the thug.
And do not assume that the mugger always attacks an able bodied man. Generally they attack women, the elderly or anyone who is a weak target. If I were a robbing thug, I would not choose the well-built heavy skinhead for my victim, I would choose a petite young lady who has virtually no chance of overpowering me. Here, the petite woman basically has to hope that the robber is also not some rapist, who wants to thoroughly rape her. If she had a gun or at least a pepperspray, she might be able to dispatch the attacker or get away. Without these, her fate is already sealed. There is absolutely nothing a 50 kg woman can do against a heavy, determined and aggressive male attacker. A situation where both the woman and the attacker have guns is a far more equal situation than both of them not having guns.
If homicide rates are high in a given country, then I certainly want a gun because I may have to protect myself from an attacker.
I assume nothing, a fight where self defence is needed is often in public view as proved by the fact you are pointing to hundreds of examples of nonintervention. People are still more likely to get involved and less likely to get badly hurt in the crossfire objectively when comparing fists and weapons. Of course it will often occur out of public view but if they sneak up and stab you rather than punch you or threaten you then they have done more damage, plus weapons cause natural escalation. If a weedy person or an elderly woman tries to hit a thug its such a poor attempt they often limit the violence in their response if they dont outright ignore it - if the same person pulls a gun then the thug will try and kill them to preserve their own life. That same person is dead due to the 'self defence' being escalated by weapons and even if they kill the thug, sure he was a criminal but are we seriously saying ABH is worse than murder because of the context of the person it happens to? Just because the thug gets killed does not make it a superior solution - that is rating the value of peoples lives differently.
As aforementioned you have your gun, you're a good shot. What happens when its not a bullseye in your sights but a persons face? Human beings do not kill easily, combat vets get PTSD from it despite extensive training. Will you come out on top or will the other person who is a similarly good shot but has killed before? This is not representative of all attackers sure but when you pull that gun it becomes a fight for life, the other person will do everything to kill you before you kill him and given he's criminally inclined and his target may be old and/or infirm - there's a high chance his target dies.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
