Sign in to follow this  
DietCola

Weapons for Self-Defense

Recommended Posts

I'd like the right to spray people with irritants and beat them with blunt implements if it maintains my immediate safety.

If it were me personally I would avoid all confrontation (ignore provocation, talk my way out of it, take flight) until I had no other alternative but to deal with somebody physically. Then I would much rather use pepper spray than attempt to best a small group of young males in blunt bare-knuckle fighting. It would hopefully give me enough time to run a good distance away. It also means my gran wouldn't have to take karate lessons :)

There have been times when I felt like these people making my life hard on the bus insulting and throwing rubbish at me could do with a hard lesson, but I ignored them and reached my stop without being physically engaged and so another violent situation was avoided. But had it gone the other way, I'd appreciate having the spray to defend myself against the five of them for long enough for me to run past them and off of the bus. However if it's legal to carry these around I'll see kids in school laughing at how their mates respond to being sprayed with mace -_-

So, there are a million problems with the idea, but I still don't think pacifism works when it comes to society even if the law attempts to enforce it. Anyway, discuss :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
falling_down.jpg

No!!!

ahahaha WHAT A MOVIE :p

But yeah thats a sticky one. I bought an air-rifle in yorkshire whilst on holiday from scotland, and brought it home for target shooting. And now im bloody petrified to take it from the house!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To carry a weapon, even for self-defense, is against the law.

Criminals by their very nature have no regard for the law and so carry weapons.

End result? Law abiding people dont carry weapons, criminals do and so the only people with the weapons are the bad guys...

Americas gun laws contribute massively to their crime stats, but even so sometimes i wonder if they have the right idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glasgow already has the accolade of being the knife crime capital of Europe, the last thing we need is to legitimise people carrying any kind of weapon. A lot of people who currently carry a knife think they need it for self defense. The hard fact is if you have a weapon you are more likley to be injured not less likley. That's without the debate about what constitutes self defense. In my own opinion if you carry a weapon you intend to use it and you should not be left to walk the streets.....end of...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To carry a weapon, even for self-defense, is against the law.

Criminals by their very nature have no regard for the law and so carry weapons.

End result? Law abiding people dont carry weapons, criminals do and so the only people with the weapons are the bad guys...

Americas gun laws contribute massively to their crime stats, but even so sometimes i wonder if they have the right idea.

I know the USA have the right idea.

My eldest daughter used to work for Cambridge and was dead against firearms. SHe married an American and now lives in Colorado. There is a hand gin in the house so she learnt to use it. She has changed heroppinion about guns.

Personally I would like the right, if some scroat broke into my house , to shoot him. I have no qualms about shooting another person, if it was them or me any day I would choose them.

I know we have discused this before but if I was in a situation where I was in fear for my life I would resort to taking the first suitable thing which came to hand and defend myself. The hard thing is to only use reasonable force. When you are *******g yourself it can be hard to know when enough is enough.

I do believe we need the self defence laws to be overhauled. One thing I do know the "criminal" who is using force against me would not consider "reasonable" in their task description. So I ask why should I have to?

Rog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote a big article containing various points, but I deleted it cause I thought it was boring and not much to the point (I write as I think, sporadically) :)

So yeah, lethal weapons aren't much good for protecting anything, I'd like guns to stay on the shooting/hunting range where I'm only given access to them for these purposes. Though I would like the right to obtain my own for use at these places, and also the right to own smaller projectile weaponry for pest control and small game hunting where I see fit, though I'd still like them to be regulated to prevent crazed people like myself from losing it and aiming for the wrong things :)

I don't consider it a right to shoot because I *feel* threatened, regardless of their threat or intrusion. I would shoot if I *were* threatened, but where to draw the line is of course blurred, and I use situations where someone's raised a gun to cops in America and been shot only to find out it was a water pistol painted black, as my evidence. They assumed because he raised it at the policeman, he intended to shoot him with it, and so he was shot and killed. I never understood that logic considering the police in America point their guns at people rather a lot and assuming they have the intention of shooting you, your reaction will probably be... non-compliant. I don't think anyone is willing to wait around for somebody to fire the first shot though.

I see plenty of advantages to guns, but very few in terms of self-defense. Save them for the practice and hunting ranges, so you know how to fight off the apocalypse and hunt for food, but aren't given the opportunity to go play with it in public. I've been paintballing a few times, I own a BB gun shaped like an M16, and I hope to go airsoft sometime. Ohh, btw if me and my mates go to a park or some private land which is open to public use while it's quiet and get caught in the middle of a skirmish with these BB guns, what are the consequences?? Most of them are more than 50% luminous in colour to comply with new (and stupid) laws on BB guns, so while you probably won't mistake them for real guns they could still hurt someone if a pellet hit a person in the eye (happened to me before, wasn't pleasant). I'm not stupid enough to keep playing the game if a person walks by without eye protection, but the police may not feel my responsibility is enough on my part, if you know what I mean. I don't know what the consequences of doing that are.

If you want to protect your property, try pepper spray. It can have a long effective range, and deter the criminal without having to restrain them yourself, they will either be caught in the ten minutes they are blind staggering round your house or in the next 45 minutes as they stagger out of your house and down the road feeling rather rotten. They could suffer an allergic reaction, it could fail and just annoy an already hostile individual, or it could cause them to blindly hop into their van and start trying to get-away with CS spray still on their face. That and people have said being hit with that stuff is worse than being hit with a taser. Tasers by the way, are only effective while discharging, so unless you want to electrocute them until the police arrive, I'd recommend pepper spray. While it's a nice idea that I could use pepper spray outside of the home when threatened with violence, if everyone was allowed to do so there would obviously be a much greater increase in people carrying and using them outside. I see kids "borrowing" them or buying them at a store and then using them for lulz which would be dangerous and rather unpleasant, that and I don't believe enough testing has gone into it's use. But I would like to see some means of protecting myself that doesn't involve me being adept in martial arts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dietcola you can't have pepper spray it's illegal! And if you can own it so can the guy breaking into your house. Tasers are far more effective than any spray. You have obviously never been pepper (cs or whatever) or tasered to have an informed opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your self defence preparations have to structured to take account of the law , the single most reliable method of self defence is fitness, so you can retreat faster than the offender .

At home it is slightly different scenario, so if you are so keen on baseball that you sleep with the bat in your bed this would tend to give you an advantage :lol:

As previously mentioned there is no " weapon" that you can justify carrying for self defence purposes alone . This does not mean that if you were a female and had a can of hairspray in your handbag that you should not use it as a "weapon" in a self defence situation .

Like a lot of law its very scenario based, because that is how legislators have to frame the law when considering all its implications before enactment .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carry a newspaper then roll it to use as a weapon if required!!!! :lol:

In another thread I was criticised for carrying an ofensive weapon in my car, A crook lock and a walking stich as I said I would use them if need be. As I have thought about it and I have them in the car I was told thar meant there was intention and thus it made these innocent items into offensive weapons. So I wouuld argue the newspaper must also become such.

I totally agree with Trojan that a tazer would be a better defence than a pepper spray. I have never been sprayed but a long time ago it was standard practice for service personell to have to experience Gas. I found that onnce you have experienced it a lot of the efect is reduced. Yes it is unpleasant but it is not going to kill if you have the guts and stamina you can keep going to some extent.

Also I have never ben tazered but I have seen its effect. I have never seen anyone cary on threatening they tend to lay down and twitch a bit like a fles ridden dog. Ok so a tazer it is , but isnt that also illegal to have or carry.

This is why I say the laws on selp defence need a complete overhaul.

I do believe it should be possible for me , a law abiding citizen to defend myself. At 66 I dont think I stand much of a chance in a straight fist fight with a 20 or even 30 year old. I have a knackered hip so running is not an option. weilding the walking stick we have already covered.

I rest my case

Rog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know we have discused this before but if I was in a situation where I was in fear for my life I would resort to taking the first suitable thing which came to hand and defend myself. The hard thing is to only use reasonable force. When you are *******g yourself it can be hard to know when enough is enough.

Yeah, totally agree with those points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely if you are confronted with someone who has broken in to your house, you should have the right to defend yourself & the right to live? some posts about having a gun are a bit far fetched, but if you heard someone breaking into your house isn't the first thing your going to grab a knife or a tool that can do some damage? in my personal opinion i think that it should be acceptable to protect yourself & possibly family whilst you are in your own home.

Cheers

Luke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from articles covered by the firearms act, you can have whatever weapons you like within your own home. Batons, knives, high powered air rifles etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are 7 hidden replies in this thread that you do not currently have access to as a Guest User of our forum. To unlock the forum register for an account for FREE today by clicking HERE
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this