Thread: British Law?

No law here denies the right for self-defence. Law just reflects how it is in society these days; banning knives is logical because your changes to get robbed or physically threatened is very low; it rather that the law tries to prevent overreactions which might easily happen when you start to wave around with the knife without knowing what or how to do.

I do not know if these tell you anything but last two cases where knives had been used went like this. Both happened within say last 6 months:
1) A raper attacked 24 yo woman, first breaking her nose and trying to force her into sex. The woman carried a knife, so she took it and put it on the rapers throat, forced him to go down and kept the knife there until police arrived. She surely knew how to use a knife as the raper never got even a tiniest wound. Woman was never charged even she illegally carried a knife; raper went to jail. That is how the law works. Had she stabbed the raper she surely would have been in trouble with the law as well.

2) Few months ago 18 year kid in a school class withdrew his knife and without any warning stabbed to death 18 yo girl that was sitting next to him. Then he escaped, went home, wrote a suicide note where he said that few days earlier he had gotten a note from some unknown schoolmate who had promised to beat him. He was just defending himself. Then he killed himself. No charges raised, of course as there was no-one to charge. Just a self defense of an unstable mind.

salior things like that need to be stopped but he still would have done that even if the law said all lawabiding citizens need leave your knives and other weapons at home. its not the weapons that need control its the people imo 1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense -- give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p.125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arm" refers to the state.

15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons", but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles", because they are military weapons.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, finger printing, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over hand guns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

40. Handgun Control, Inc. says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.

Well stated my friend. If only politicians and the vocal minority had as much common sense as you. We might actually find a decent compromise to the whole issue of being armed in public.


Mick

Good list there bro!

Hi, I think we've chewed this bone before, but let me give it another try. Mine in bold...

Originally Posted by Sailor

No law here denies the right for self-defence. Law just reflects how it is in society these days; banning knives is logical because your changes to get robbed or physically threatened is very low; it rather that the law tries to prevent overreactions which might easily happen when you start to wave around with the knife without knowing what or how to do.

I believe you're from Finland, and I have not been there, but I can assure you that in Germany and the UK, while not explicitly denied, a civilian's right to self-defense is severely limited to using whatever the law there considers to be "reasonable" force. I'm 52 yrs. old. If I'm attacked by 4-6 aggressive young men who show every intention and ability of causing me serious physical harm, then here in Arizona and many other US states, I can use deadly force to defend myself. I do not even have to try and run away - it's called the right to stand your ground - and besides, I have bad knees. In Germany and the UK, attacks of this nature are happening on a weekly basis, with rising tendency. The increase of street violence in parts of Europe is a publically acknowledged and well-documented fact and problem. Nevertheless, if I were in the same situation as above and used deadly force in self defense say on a Berlin subway platform, with a small knife really being the only legal option over there, and I end up killing or severely injuring one or several of the attackers, there's a very good chance that I would be prosecuted on principle alone. If you're interested, PM me, I can provide you with some interesting case histories from the past few years. With that in mind, I do not believe that banning knives and other weapons for law-abiding citizens is logical at all, not even close to logical, but is on the contrary a governmentally authoritarian, ill-conceived, kneejerk reaction to the perceived increase of violence in society - the intent being to disarm criminals, the effect being to disarm those on whom the criminals would prey.

I do agree that training is required to effectively utilize any weapon, however, you as a military professional may have a hard time imagining that civilians can be quite capable of discipline, and are fully able to obtain proper training in the use of knives and other arms (see rule no. 34 above :-)). I have never been in the military or law enforcement, but I've worked private security cases for many years now, and have trained extensively on firearms, edged weapons and unarmed tactics with civilians, military and law enforcement personnel alike. I also provide training to civilian groups, most recently a Church congregation in Colorado. I can assure you that we can be as disciplined and effective as anyone in uniform... in some cases, more so!



I do not know if these tell you anything but last two cases where knives had been used went like this. Both happened within say last 6 months:
1) A raper attacked 24 yo woman, first breaking her nose and trying to force her into sex. The woman carried a knife, so she took it and put it on the rapers throat, forced him to go down and kept the knife there until police arrived. She surely knew how to use a knife as the raper never got even a tiniest wound. Woman was never charged even she illegally carried a knife; raper went to jail. That is how the law works. Had she stabbed the raper she surely would have been in trouble with the law as well.

See, this is what I mean, it's crazy - why should she have been in trouble with the law? THE GUY BROKE HER NOSE, THEN TRIED TO RAPE HER!!! That sounds like quite a hostile individual to me. Who knows what else he could have done... She should have just cut his throat and then called the police.

2) Few months ago 18 year kid in a school class withdrew his knife and without any warning stabbed to death 18 yo girl that was sitting next to him. Then he escaped, went home, wrote a suicide note where he said that few days earlier he had gotten a note from some unknown schoolmate who had promised to beat him. He was just defending himself. Then he killed himself. No charges raised, of course as there was no-one to charge. Just a self defense of an unstable mind.

That's tragic, especially for the poor girl. Personally, I don't believe that banning knives and other weapons is going to prevent guys like this from acting out. They tend to find a way...

Anyway, we probably won't ever quite agree on this. In the final analysis, my position is that I will take responsibility for my safety and that of my family, my friends... and if that means disregarding local laws at some point, that's a chance I'm willing to take. Best regards, -o

On the face of it, the list by deerhunter makes some sense. Especially that the root cause of most homicides is not the actual weapon but the person that uses it.
I've been a shooter since the age of six, I used to think that weapon control should only mean hitting what you aim at, but even I am beginning to see that wide ownership of firearms is creating more problems than it solves.
I'm no great lover of statistics, there are lies, damned lies .....etc., but one can see a strong correlation between countries with strict control of weapons and a low homicide rate.
Simply put, countries with the least constraints on weapons ownership appear to have more intentional homicides.
It may be that in countries that don't have a 'weapons culture', people are inherently more civilised.
Until recently, the UK was relatively peaceful and even now, the vast majority of our police officers still carry out their duties unarmed. Every time the Police Federation hold a vote on it, the majority of constables want it to stay like that.
We are gradually importing a culture of violence from outside our shores. Weapons have become more readily available in the UK, especially firearms and now our homicide rate is rising to reflect this.
I hate the thought of censorship, but graphic coverage of violent death, either ficticious or real, is present on every television channel. I'm certain that a lot of it is poisoning the minds of our kids. Despite the denials of those in the media, it could well be part of the problem.

I think a large degree of violent attacks actually go unreported in our countries with strict weapons controls, and by and large those very same countries like to report every single weapon crime commited in countries such as the US with less restrictions.
Several days ago, it was reported here how an 18 year old single mum shot and killed one of two men breaking into her home. She was on the 'phone to emergancy services at the time of the incident, scared to death, and the media here were more focussed on trying (unsucessfully I think) to make out like she was getting away with murder, as no charges were going to be laid on her. Indeed the charge of murder was laid, but it was laid squarely on the surviving house breaker, and rightly so in my opinion.
Just today it was reported how a man in this country has finally, after an entire year, been informed that he won't be formally charged by the police for stabbing a man who broke into his home with intent to do serious harm. I can tell you which sort of laws I would rather have, and it wouldn't have a damn thing to do with the stress of wondering if I am going to end up in jail for protecting myself from a criminal.

It just wouldn't do for people with few rights of self protection to know that the criminals really do have the upper hand.


Mick

Originally Posted by MickR

Several days ago, it was reported here how an 18 year old single mum shot and killed one of two men breaking into her home. She was on the 'phone to emergancy services at the time of the incident, scared to death, and the media here were more focussed on trying (unsucessfully I think) to make out like she was getting away with murder, as no charges were going to be laid on her. Indeed the charge of murder was laid, but it was laid squarely on the surviving house breaker, and rightly so in my opinion.

I agree, Mick. In most U.S. jurisdictions, in the commission of a felony, anyone involved in that act is responsible and will be charged for any deaths which occur, even if it's at the hands of the victim in the legal act of self defense.

I think this is one of the most enlightened legal theories out there where it comes to crime and punishment.

mick your right on spot there my friend. i say she should be given a pat on the back for protecting her and her kids. I must say even if i knew it was gonna mean me going to prison and being tried as an adult. id still do what was nesary to stop someone if they come in and threaten my little brother and sister and anut adn uncle. In my openion its the right thing to do if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night and hes there to harm you. by all means shoot first then worrie about the laws at least the rest of my family would be alive to tell about it.

Originally Posted by welshwizard

On the face of it, the list by deerhunter makes some sense. Especially that the root cause of most homicides is not the actual weapon but the person that uses it.
I've been a shooter since the age of six, I used to think that weapon control should only mean hitting what you aim at, but even I am beginning to see that wide ownership of firearms is creating more problems than it solves.
I'm no great lover of statistics, there are lies, damned lies .....etc., but one can see a strong correlation between countries with strict control of weapons and a low homicide rate.
Simply put, countries with the least constraints on weapons ownership appear to have more intentional homicides.
It may be that in countries that don't have a 'weapons culture', people are inherently more civilised.
Until recently, the UK was relatively peaceful and even now, the vast majority of our police officers still carry out their duties unarmed. Every time the Police Federation hold a vote on it, the majority of constables want it to stay like that.
We are gradually importing a culture of violence from outside our shores. Weapons have become more readily available in the UK, especially firearms and now our homicide rate is rising to reflect this.
I hate the thought of censorship, but graphic coverage of violent death, either ficticious or real, is present on every television channel. I'm certain that a lot of it is poisoning the minds of our kids. Despite the denials of those in the media, it could well be part of the problem.

Yep, even as a proponent of gun ownership, I can't argue that. Germany, for example, has a far lower murder rate per capita than the US, as does Canada (even though people do own a fair amount of rifles there, handguns are rare). I do think it's connected to the generally more civilised culture in those countries, but note that also, the level of day to day street violence, fights and assaults, has been increasing for some time now, as have firearm related incidents involving criminals. The UK has always had a low rate of gun homicide, but it's my understanding that other homicides, e.g. stabbings, have actually increased since the various additional edged weapon and firearms bans put into effect there over the last few years...

On the other hand, a country such as South Africa has fairly strict firearms control and one of the highest murder rates in the world, I believe higher than the US. In spite of the laws there, illegal weapons are readily available on the street, and the criminal element seems to be quite violent.