Jump to content

  •  

Photo

Civilian self-defence


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
187 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   Moxnil

Moxnil

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Banned
  • 868 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 12:21 PM

What are your thoughts on civilians being allowed the following for self-defence

 

 

1. Items that help, but don't actually do any damage i.e rape alarm, marker spray

 

2. Items to injure/incapacitate (Tasers, baton, spray)

 

3. Guns

 

 

I know some would like partial changes, but don't want civilians having particular weapons which is why I split this into 3 parts. I sometimes carry something from the first category, a marker spray. Ideally I would like pepper spray and a gun.

 

And two questions solely for officers. Would you carry your parts of your PPE off duty, and which if so?



#2 OFFLINE   Sub-seven

Sub-seven

    UKPOLICEONLINE Icon

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,962 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 01:44 PM

Do you mean "members of the public" as opposed to "civilians"?



#3 OFFLINE   Moxnil

Moxnil

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Banned
  • 868 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 01:52 PM

Do you mean "members of the public" as opposed to "civilians"?

 

Yes.



#4 OFFLINE   Sub-seven

Sub-seven

    UKPOLICEONLINE Icon

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,962 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 01:54 PM

Thought so.



#5 OFFLINE   Moxnil

Moxnil

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Banned
  • 868 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 01:59 PM

So what's your thoughts on it then?



#6 OFFLINE   Bart

Bart

    UKPO Staff

  • Moderators
  • 6,285 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 03:00 PM

I hope this topic isn't going to end up on 12 pages of bickering as per other weapons topics.

#7 OFFLINE   Moxnil

Moxnil

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Banned
  • 868 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 03:09 PM

Me too! Nothing wrong with disagreement, but I'm hoping it will stay civil.


Edited by Moxnil, 08 January 2013 - 03:11 PM.


#8 OFFLINE   Sub-seven

Sub-seven

    UKPOLICEONLINE Icon

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,962 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 03:54 PM

I hope this topic isn't going to end up on 12 pages of bickering as per other weapons topics.

 

Precisely why I'm staying out of it - been done to death on here.



#9 OFFLINE   intheblitz

intheblitz

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 04:02 PM

I hope this topic isn't going to end up on 12 pages of bickering as per other weapons topics.

Spoil sport.  :whistling:



#10 OFFLINE   Bart

Bart

    UKPO Staff

  • Moderators
  • 6,285 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 04:11 PM

Now now ladies - play nice. :lol:



#11 OFFLINE   Moxnil

Moxnil

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Banned
  • 868 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 05:16 PM

Is it civilians/MOP's having anything for personal protection that people object to, or just specific weapons?



#12 OFFLINE   gripper

gripper

    UKPOLICEONLINE Guru

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,864 posts
  • Interests:Monkey hanging!

Posted 08 January 2013 - 05:33 PM

We can see where this is going. Boring.

#13 OFFLINE   Moxnil

Moxnil

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Banned
  • 868 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 05:44 PM

I know that a lot of people on the forum are generally against civilians having guns, so maybe I shouldn't have included them. It was really just to see whether it was an objection to the type of weapon, or an objection to them carrying something for protection. Personally I would carry at least a gun and a spray, the reason being that I'd want a less than lethal option as well as a lethal one, in case you encounter a situation that doesn't justify using lethal force. I can't use a gun on someone who's just trying to punch me.


Edited by Moxnil, 08 January 2013 - 05:48 PM.


#14 OFFLINE   Anna32

Anna32

    UKPOLICEONLINE Master

  • Power User (Enhanced)+
  • 2,552 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 05:51 PM

Moxnil: Is this a hypothetical preference thing for people to discuss what they would/ wouldn't like to see, or do you intend people to refer to legislation and debate the law as it stands?

 

(And to echo Bart: Play nicely everyone... :tongue:)



#15 OFFLINE   Moxnil

Moxnil

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Banned
  • 868 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 05:59 PM

It's not to discuss the law. We all know what the law is, and it will probably remain the same for a long time. I'm interested in what people personally prefer. In the firearms threads I've posted in the general feeling I get is that most aren't keen on the idea of MOP's having guns. I want to know if it's the weapon they object to, or the idea of a MOP having one in the first place. Is it "I don't want a MOP having a gun, but I don't mind if it's a baton/spray" or just "I don't want a MOP having a weapon at all". And I also wanted some opinions on a third category - Items that can help you but don't actually injure the person, like rape alarms and marker sprays.


Edited by Moxnil, 08 January 2013 - 06:00 PM.


#16 OFFLINE   SimonT

SimonT

    -

  • Account Closed
  • 7,290 posts
  • Interests:police, climbing

Posted 08 January 2013 - 07:14 PM

I think that the public at large should be able to have the items they can legally possess and not have the illegal things.
I'm not being sarcastic, that's what I think

#17 OFFLINE   Moxnil

Moxnil

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Banned
  • 868 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 07:25 PM

I think you maybe misunderstood. I was asking for your opinion i.e what do you personally think should be legal, and what should be illegal?

#18 OFFLINE   SimonT

SimonT

    -

  • Account Closed
  • 7,290 posts
  • Interests:police, climbing

Posted 08 January 2013 - 08:06 PM

The things that are currently illegal should remain so. The things that are legal should remain so.

#19 OFFLINE   Moxnil

Moxnil

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Banned
  • 868 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 08:14 PM

Ok, so you don't want any change. Thanks.



#20 OFFLINE   marralass

marralass

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,248 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 04:17 PM

What about, if certain people subject to a specific need, training and a licence (with CRB check, references etc.) were allowed to have pepper spray or similar.

For instance, what about social workers who have to visit clients in their homes who may be violent, or may be estranged from a violent partner who may turn up. What about security guards in remote locations. Then there's MP's who have to make themselves accessible to the public but could be subject to attacks because of their policies. There's also witnesses who may be subjected to threats but not severe enough to put them in a protection program and people who have kicked out a violent partner or other family member and may still be attacked by them.

Should there be a system where people can get licensed to carry an incapacitant spray?

Other than this, I think the law is just about right. Although I would amend it to put lock-knives in the category with folding knives. Also, I would put extra restrictions on those with recent criminal records to ban them carrying any knife unless they could show a specific need, such as work.



#21 OFFLINE   Moxnil

Moxnil

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Banned
  • 868 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 07:24 PM

That's an interesting idea, although I'd prefer that anyone (with obvious exceptions) could at least have pepper spray to defend against attack. People who are at an even higher risk of being attacked than the average MOP could maybe have a bit more leeway. It's not exactly difficult to learn how to deploy pepper spray or batons.

 

There's always going to be people who just don't want others having the same "toys" as them, and there's always going to be people who want the complete opposite - An "Anyone can have anything" approach. Personally I think both are wrong. I don't want someone to be defenceless but I don't want any random person easily buying an automatic. I think there needs to be a compromise, let people carry an item that is only going to do their attacker short term damage, like pepperspray.



#22 OFFLINE   marralass

marralass

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,248 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 08:35 AM

Unfortunately, if pepper spray was available to everyone it would be used by criminals to help them rob people and overpower people to commit sexual offences.

However, Redweb Offender ID has synthetic DNA that ties that canister to the owner and hence the particular incident where they've sprayed it on someone. Whilst this is done to tie the criminal to the crime, if also ties the owner to the spray. So, if synthetic DNA could be put in a pepper spray and people had to prove their identity to buy the stuff then it would make it harder for it to be used in crime.

 

However, considering that most crimes against the person are on drunken nights out, or in the home, I believe that allowing people to carry pepper spray would cause more problems than it would solve. For a start you wouldn't be allowed to take it in most pubs and clubs because of the huge danger of drunken idiot discharging it in a crowded area.



#23 OFFLINE   Moxnil

Moxnil

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Banned
  • 868 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 12:10 PM

Unfortunately, if pepper spray was available to everyone it would be used by criminals to help them rob people and overpower people to commit sexual offences.

However, Redweb Offender ID has synthetic DNA that ties that canister to the owner and hence the particular incident where they've sprayed it on someone. Whilst this is done to tie the criminal to the crime, if also ties the owner to the spray. So, if synthetic DNA could be put in a pepper spray and people had to prove their identity to buy the stuff then it would make it harder for it to be used in crime.

 

However, considering that most crimes against the person are on drunken nights out, or in the home, I believe that allowing people to carry pepper spray would cause more problems than it would solve. For a start you wouldn't be allowed to take it in most pubs and clubs because of the huge danger of drunken idiot discharging it in a crowded area.

 

Possible, but highly unlikely. As we have said, criminals would not be allowed them. Of course a criminal could try to steal one, it's possible, but I don't think that you could really use that possibility to ask for a blanket ban. It's akin to saying that "if officers carry batons, criminals will also use them to commit crimes, so no officer should have a baton".  While I accept that it's possible, and we do hear the odd story of an officer being attacked with their own weapons, it's not really enough of a threat to justify a ban. Every criminal with a kitchen has access to a variety of spices that could cause someone pain if it got in their eyes, and could be used to assist them with a crime, but how often does it actually happen? And no one is calling for spices to be banned.

 

I've never needed to use my marker spray, but that doesn't mean I will never need it in the future. But all it will do is buy me perhaps a few seconds of a distraction. A pepper spray canister would be a lot more helpful.


Edited by Moxnil, 10 January 2013 - 12:11 PM.


#24 OFFLINE   AllLies!

AllLies!

    UKPOLICEONLINE New Member

  • Resident Members
  • PipPip
  • 49 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 08:49 AM

Possible, but highly unlikely. As we have said, criminals would not be allowed them. 

 

Criminals aren't allowed guns, but the cheeky scamps still manage to get hold of them...



#25 OFFLINE   gripper

gripper

    UKPOLICEONLINE Guru

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,864 posts
  • Interests:Monkey hanging!

Posted 22 January 2013 - 09:05 AM

Or drugs!




0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users