Self-Defense Now Illegal in the UK

[MachineGhost]

[quote=https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q589.htm]The only fully legal self defence product at the moment is a rape alarm. These are not expensive and can be bought from most local police stations or supermarkets.

There are other self defence products which claim to be legal (e.g. non toxic sprays), however, until a test case is brought before the court, we cannot confirm their legality or endorse them. If you purchase one you must be aware that if you are stopped by the police and have it in your possession there is always a possibility that you will be arrested and detained until the product, it's contents and legality can be verified. [/quote]

[Pointedstick]

Now? It's been illegal for some time now.

[MachineGhost]

Now? It's been illegal for some time now.

Really?  Since when?  I thought just that guns were banned and they were trying for the knives.

[Libertarian666]

Now? It's been illegal for some time now.

Really?  Since when?  I thought just that guns were banned and they were trying for the knives.

Only for non-criminals. Criminals can do whatever they want.

[Pointedstick]

The UK justice system has frowned on self-defense for a while now irrespective of their weapon laws (which are also very illiberal). Their standard is "proportional force" which means if a bodybuilder attacks you with his bare hands, you can't lawfully fight back with a knife because knives are more deadly than fists. Go figure.

[MediumTex]

Someone should open a clothing store in the UK selling "Turtle Suits" that would basically be Kevlar shells for your torso with enough extra room to pull your limbs and head into if attacked.

It sounds like that would pass muster under this new legal standard, so long as the exterior of the suit didn't have any sharp edges that might injure an attacker.

[gizmo_rat]

Jeez lazy analysis.

The context is self defence products not self defence. In the context of products, by definition something which doesn't have any legal precedent is neither legal or Illegal. Really what else would you expect the police to say ?

In the context of self defence, from the same website.

In the heat of the moment it is not expected that you should make fine judgements as to how far you can go. What you honestly and instinctively believe is lawful and necessary self defence of either yourself, your family or your property, even if you use a weapon could constitute reasonable force.

Not sure that there's a difference between UK and US, it's all about the "reasonable" which can clearly cut both ways.

[Ad Orientem]

Jeez lazy analysis.

The context is self defence products not self defence. In the context of products, by definition something which doesn't have any legal precedent is neither legal or Illegal. Really what else would you expect the police to say ?

The British government has been aggressively restricting or simply outlawing most weapons or implements that could be used for self defense. When you strip people of the means to defend themselves, you have effectively nullified the right to self defense.

[gizmo_rat]

The British government has been aggressively restricting or simply outlawing most weapons or implements that could be used for self defense.

Perhaps... but not recently. The law dates from the 50s and prohibits the carrying of an offensive weapon in a public place without a lawful reason or reasonable excuse. 

[MachineGhost]

Perhaps... but not recently. The law dates from the 50s and prohibits the carrying of an offensive weapon in a public place without a lawful reason or reasonable excuse.

Does the UK have the equivalent of concealed weapons permits?

[MediumTex]

Perhaps... but not recently. The law dates from the 50s and prohibits the carrying of an offensive weapon in a public place without a lawful reason or reasonable excuse.

Does the UK have the equivalent of concealed weapons permits?

I thought that firearm ownership of any kind was restricted in the UK.  If you can't even own a weapon, I'm sure you can't get a concealed carry license to carry one.

But I'm just guessing.  Maybe someone knows.

[gizmo_rat]

Perhaps... but not recently. The law dates from the 50s and prohibits the carrying of an offensive weapon in a public place without a lawful reason or reasonable excuse.

Does the UK have the equivalent of concealed weapons permits?

Mostly no, it's all in the definitions of what "reasonable excuse" and "offensive weapon" are. Which of course means in practise that it's arbitrary.

In the precise sense of US concealed carry then definitely not, the things you might carry under this permit in the US can't be legally obtained in the UK e.g. hand guns, pepper sprays, tasers and so on.






   

[MachineGhost]

In the precise sense of US concealed carry then definitely not, the things you might carry under this permit in the US can't be legally obtained in the UK e.g. hand guns, pepper sprays, tasers and so on.

So how is the crime rate?  I know crime shot up after they banned guns in Australia about a decade or so ago.  At what point does everyone realize they've made a huge mistake???

[gizmo_rat]

So how is the crime rate?  I know crime shot up after they banned guns in Australia about a decade or so ago.  At what point does everyone realize they've made a huge mistake???

Crime at a 33 year low, same general decline as you see across the developed world. I doubt there's any correlation between gun ownership and crime rate.

IIRC UK deaths from handguns increased for a couple of years after they were banned. 

[MediumTex]

The basic problem with gun control, to me, is that the criminals don't follow the laws in the first place, so only law abiding citizens will be affected by firearm restrictions, though it is certainly true that criminals get a lot of guns by either stealing them from law abiding citizens, or using a law abiding citizen as a conduit for firearm purchases.

There are so many guns in the U.S. that even if every gun was banned tomorrow, it would be decades (if ever) before any benefit would start showing up in crime statistics.

[gizmo_rat]

The biggest problem with gun control to me is that it makes no difference either way.

You can substitute drugs, butter knives, meta data collection and so on into the same arguments for the same net effect on crime.

The only effect you actually notice in the UK is that you don't have to deal with police who are armed, which is one thing that continues to freak me every time I go abroad.   

[MediumTex]

The biggest problem with gun control to me is that it makes no difference either way.

You can substitute drugs, butter knives, meta data collection and so on into the same arguments for the same net effect on crime.

The only effect you actually notice in the UK is that you don't have to deal with police who are armed, which is one thing that continues to freak me every time I go abroad. 

There is no question that the U.S. is a society that is fascinated by violence.  It's not that every American is violent, but it does seem that Americans are more likely to embrace violent solutions to society's problems than citizens of another society somewhere else in the world.  Think about it: When there is a crime problem, we give the police more and better weapons and we talk about whether we should kill more of the worst criminals through the human sacrifice ritual known as the death penalty. 

When there is a dispute with a foreign country (or even a dispute between two other countries that doesn't even involve the U.S.), the question is always whether it is time to send in troops and/or bombers. 

The U.S. cranks out the most violent movies in the world and has the best people when it comes to creating realistic simulations of violence in those movies.

I am always surprised at the complete lack of any kind of national discussion about the U.S.'s use of nuclear weapons against Japan.  Everyone seems to casually accept that there was no alternative to incinerating almost 100,000 Japanese civilians in order to shorten WWII.  Truman in particular seems not to have been troubled at all by ordering this action, which I have always hoped was the result on him not entirely understanding what he had ordered (he didn't even know the atomic bomb existed until a few weeks before his orders to use it on Japan).  Only a society that is very comfortable with violence would be able to let such an action sit in the history books without a lot of hand wringing about whether it was actually a horrific war crime.

I took a film class in college and one of the films we watched was a documentary about the survivors of the atomic bombings in Japan.  It was very sad and when it was over many of the women in class were crying.  As I looked around at the tears I could tell that many of the people in the room had never really given much thought to what actually happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  They had just casually accepted it as one more bit of American pragmatism when faced with a challenge.

[Libertarian666]

The biggest problem with gun control to me is that it makes no difference either way.

You can substitute drugs, butter knives, meta data collection and so on into the same arguments for the same net effect on crime.

The only effect you actually notice in the UK is that you don't have to deal with police who are armed, which is one thing that continues to freak me every time I go abroad. 

There is no question that the U.S. is a society that is fascinated by violence.  It's not that every American is violent, but it does seem that Americans are more likely to embrace violent solutions to society's problems than citizens of another society somewhere else in the world.  Think about it: When there is a crime problem, we give the police more and better weapons and we talk about whether we should kill more of the worst criminals through the human sacrifice ritual known as the death penalty. 

When there is a dispute with a foreign country (or even a dispute between two other countries that doesn't even involve the U.S.), the question is always whether it is time to send in troops and/or bombers. 

The U.S. cranks out the most violent movies in the world and has the best people when it comes to creating realistic simulations of violence in those movies.

I am always surprised at the complete lack of any kind of national discussion about the U.S.'s use of nuclear weapons against Japan.  Everyone seems to casually accept that there was no alternative to incinerating almost 100,000 Japanese civilians in order to shorten WWII.  Truman in particular seems not to have been troubled at all by ordering this action, which I have always hoped was the result on him not entirely understanding what he had ordered (he didn't even know the atomic bomb existed until a few weeks before his orders to use it on Japan).  Only a society that is very comfortable with violence would be able to let such an action sit in the history books without a lot of hand wringing about whether it was actually a horrific war crime.

I took a film class in college and one of the films we watched was a documentary about the survivors of the atomic bombings in Japan.  It was very sad and when it was over many of the women in class were crying.  As I looked around at the tears I could tell that many of the people in the room had never really given much thought to what actually happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  They had just casually accepted it as one more bit of American pragmatism when faced with a challenge.

If the US had lost, Truman would obviously have been tried and convicted as a war criminal, as Lincoln and Wilson would have been.
But the good news about war is that you only have to stand trial if you lose!

[MediumTex]

If the US had lost, Truman would obviously have been tried and convicted as a war criminal, as Lincoln and Wilson would have been.

But the good news about war is that you only have to stand trial if you lose!

That might be the very best feature of winning--no accountability for all of the terrible things you did in order to win.

[MachineGhost]

If the US had lost, Truman would obviously have been tried and convicted as a war criminal, as Lincoln and Wilson would have been.
But the good news about war is that you only have to stand trial if you lose!

Better democracy won than imperialism!  Did you see what the Japanese did to the Chinese?

The mentality still lives on: they still kill dolphins and whales for food/sport.

[MediumTex]

If the US had lost, Truman would obviously have been tried and convicted as a war criminal, as Lincoln and Wilson would have been.
But the good news about war is that you only have to stand trial if you lose!

Better democracy won than imperialism!  Did you see what the Japanese did to the Chinese?

The mentality still lives on: they still kill dolphins and whales for food/sport.

I'm certainly glad that the allies won WWII.  I just wonder if it was necessary to smoke 100,000 Japanese civilians to get there. 

I don't think that anyone believes Japan would have won the war if Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not been nuked, which means that the nukes were used basically as a convenience, as opposed to a desperation move by a country on the verge of defeat.

[Libertarian666]

If the US had lost, Truman would obviously have been tried and convicted as a war criminal, as Lincoln and Wilson would have been.
But the good news about war is that you only have to stand trial if you lose!

Better democracy won than imperialism!  Did you see what the Japanese did to the Chinese?

The mentality still lives on: they still kill dolphins and whales for food/sport.

I'm certainly glad that the allies won WWII.  I just wonder if it was necessary to smoke 100,000 Japanese civilians to get there. 

I don't think that anyone believes Japan would have won the war if Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not been nuked, which means that the nukes were used basically as a convenience, as opposed to a desperation move by a country on the verge of defeat.

+100,000

[Ad Orientem]

If the US had lost, Truman would obviously have been tried and convicted as a war criminal, as Lincoln and Wilson would have been.
But the good news about war is that you only have to stand trial if you lose!

Better democracy won than imperialism!  Did you see what the Japanese did to the Chinese?

The mentality still lives on: they still kill dolphins and whales for food/sport.

I'm certainly glad that the allies won WWII.  I just wonder if it was necessary to smoke 100,000 Japanese civilians to get there. 

I don't think that anyone believes Japan would have won the war if Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not been nuked, which means that the nukes were used basically as a convenience, as opposed to a desperation move by a country on the verge of defeat.

I've always wondered how many people opposed to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have volunteered to be in the first wave of the invasion of mainland Japan. The War Department warned Truman we could expect a million + killed and wounded conquering the Japanese home islands. The Japanese would likely have suffered two - three times as many casualties.

It will sound extremely cold, but war is a damned cold business. The most humane thing you can do in a war is to end it, as quickly as humanly possible. Dragging out wars just increases the human misery.

1. Never go to war unless you have to and you are prepared to do what needs to be done to win.
2. If you are squeamish, then see rule number 1 above.

"The next worst thing to a battle lost is a battle won." -Arthur Wellesely First Duke of Wellington

[Pointedstick]

I actually agree with Ad Orientem on this. War is a horrible brutish business, no doubt about it. Better to end it quickly and decisively rather than dragging it out, allowing the misery and death to continue on for an extended period of time.

I'm reminded of something Kbg said on this forum earlier this year ago that I felt compelled to save in my "insightful internet snippets" file:

Anyone who understands the history of the 100 Years war also understands, that yes you can kill your way out of something. It's not very fun getting there, but there is a point that even humans get tired of the killing and whatever beliefs they had get mellowed by a stronger desire for peace. People can also be "killed" into accepting beliefs previously absolutely anathema to them when those beliefs are no longer worth the cost. The US civil war is a pretty good example of that. War sucks, but the reason we humans do it is because it actually does work at resolving the big differences.

Assuming the war department's projections were correct, then yes, I think it is preferable that 100,000 Japanese died in nuclear armageddon than 3 million Japanese had died in close combat or further firebombing (arguably less humane). If their assessment was not correct, then that obviously changes things.

[Libertarian666]

I actually agree with Ad Orientem on this. War is a horrible brutish business, no doubt about it. Better to end it quickly and decisively rather than dragging it out, allowing the misery and death to continue on for an extended period of time.

I'm reminded of something Kbg said on this forum earlier this year ago that I felt compelled to save in my "insightful internet snippets" file:

Anyone who understands the history of the 100 Years war also understands, that yes you can kill your way out of something. It's not very fun getting there, but there is a point that even humans get tired of the killing and whatever beliefs they had get mellowed by a stronger desire for peace. People can also be "killed" into accepting beliefs previously absolutely anathema to them when those beliefs are no longer worth the cost. The US civil war is a pretty good example of that. War sucks, but the reason we humans do it is because it actually does work at resolving the big differences.

Assuming the war department's projections were correct, then yes, I think it is preferable that 100,000 Japanese died in nuclear armageddon than 3 million Japanese had died in close combat or further firebombing (arguably less humane). If their assessment was not correct, then that obviously changes things.

My understanding of what happened was that Japan was willing to surrender before the bombs were dropped, if they could keep their emperor. The Allies said "Nope. Unconditional surrender or we keep killing you."

If that is correct, then dropping the bombs was nothing but murder of civilians.