Self defense and right to bear arms in UK

Some jurisdictions in the US require police and private security to be Tasered or pepper sprayed before carrying them.  I think it should be universal, including for people who want to carry them in areas where private ownership of Tasers is legal.  I bet there wouldn't be many who'd apply for them if that was a requirement.

I bet less people would apply to be a bomb disposal expert if the training required you to strap C4 to your face and detonate it, or having an M16 magazine unloaded into you as part of basic army training because it doesn't follow logic "hey North Korea before you try and nuke anyone first you gotta nuke yourselves, see how you like it" see my point?

Yes! me and my friends were attacked by someone just last week, luckily there were 5 of us and one of him and a police van nearby but what if it had been 5 attackers and just me alone? back to the point, in an ideal world I shouldn't have to justify to you or the state what I use to defend myself, ok guns can cause a a lot of damage in the wrong hands but there is no sane reason why pepper spray is illegal, in France its legal and their society seems to function fine. Someone else mentioned rape alarms or something, but they're just useless and demeaning

You live in Plymouth, which you describe as relatively safe. It’s my impression that you’ve never lived in London, New York (or any other large city) yet you assume these places are so unsafe that being armed is required to walk the streets.

I was simply asking a question. You seem very concerned about safety and I think it legitimate to ask whether or not you've been a victim of violence, because if you’ve had no experience in this area, as you’ve had no experience living in a large city, then it’s all an academic argument.

If your position is that a person has the right to carry a weapon, whether it be a gun, knife, mace, pepper spray, whatever for whatever reason, without government permission or interference then fine. But why do you make blanket statements to justify your position that are patently untrue?

The same rules that apply in Plymouth also apply in London. If you not fussed about not being able to carry mace in Plymouth, what’s the bother about not being able to carry it in London, given that London is not unsafe?

You live in Plymouth, which you describe as relatively safe. It’s my impression that you’ve never lived in London, New York (or any other large city) yet you assume these places are so unsafe that being armed is required to walk the streets.

I was simply asking a question. You seem very concerned about safety and I think it legitimate to ask whether or not you've been a victim of violence, because if you’ve had no experience in this area, as you’ve had no experience living in a large city, then it’s all an academic argument.

If your position is that a person has the right to carry a weapon, whether it be a gun, knife, mace, pepper spray, whatever for whatever reason, without government permission or interference then fine. But why do you make blanket statements to justify your position that are patently untrue?

The same rules that apply in Plymouth also apply in London. If you not fussed about not being able to carry mace in Plymouth, what’s the bother about not being able to carry it in London, given that London is not unsafe?

I would still carry mace in Plymouth if I could and many parts of London are statistically more violent than Plymouth, such as Brixton, Hackney, Peckham. Why do you have to be a victim of violence to justify carrying something to protect you? its like waiting till you've had a fire before you fit a smoke alarm 

I bet less people would apply to be a bomb disposal expert if the training required you to strap C4 to your face and detonate it, or having an M16 magazine unloaded into you as part of basic army training because it doesn't follow logic "hey North Korea before you try and nuke anyone first you gotta nuke yourselves, see how you like it" see my point?

Yeah because they are pretty much the same thing.  C4=Taser=nuclear bomb=pepper spray

Yeah because they are pretty much the same thing.  C4=Taser=nuclear bomb=pepper spray

I wouldn't like to be tased or nuked.. 

I would still carry mace in Plymouth if I could and many parts of London are statistically more violent than Plymouth, such as Brixton, Hackney, Peckham. Why do you have to be a victim of violence to justify carrying something to protect you? its like waiting till you've had a fire before you fit a smoke alarm 

I didn't say a person needs to be victim of violence in order to be justified in carrying a weapon. But to me if a person has been a victim of violence or lives in an area of high crime I could understand that person thinking it a necessity or reasonable to be armed to protect him or herself.

You said previously you're not bothered by not being able to carry mace in Plymouth because it's generally safe. To me if you are a libertarian, you would argue it's your right to carry mace anywhere for any reason. You're being inconsistent because I'm sure there are some parts of Plymouth that are just as dangerous, if not more, than many parts of London.

If you want to fight for your right to bear arms, knock yourself out. My only objection, if that’s what you want to call it, is using blanket generalisations, such as London being unsafe, despite statistical evidence to the contrary and making statements of fact on a subject that is wholly measured based on personal experience. The concept of ‘safe’ and ‘safety’ is relative to one’s experience.

I wouldn't like to be tased or nuked.. 

Of course not.  But people seem to think that because it is a non-lethal weapon, it can be used more freely or in situations where other forms of force might not be justified.  It's a weapon with serious health consequences for some people.  Using it (for example) on someone who refused to show his university ID even after he was on the ground is probably not called for.

Having experienced what it feels like might make some people hesitate to use it when it wasn't justified.  In NYS, it's a requirement for police and others in position of authority who will be carrying Tasers (and, IIRC, pepper spray) to be Tased (sprayed) during training for the weapon.  I am not sure why anyone else should expect less, particularly private citizens who feel they need something like this for "protection".

The other point I'm trying to casually make is that people should choose how they want to protect themselves and in this country you have to make a very steep compromise,

I disagree. That's what the law is for, and that's why we elect a Parliament to make those laws. You can't just choose how you want to protect yourself, you run the risk of descending into anarchy.

I bet less people would apply to be a bomb disposal expert if the training required you to strap C4 to your face and detonate it, or having an M16 magazine unloaded into you as part of basic army training because it doesn't follow logic "hey North Korea before you try and nuke anyone first you gotta nuke yourselves, see how you like it" see my point?

I think you're completely missing the point.

The logic is that, before officers use these 'non-lethal' measures, they know what they feel like.  It's tempting to think that, just because mace, or pepper spray, or a taser can't (usually) kill someone, it's no big deal.  This can lead to them becoming an officer's first or second option for ending a confrontation, rather than remaining the last resort, as they're intended to.

Imagine that you've spent the past 8 hours dealing with crowds of drunk, unruly young people.  Now someone is getting in your face, not wanting to cooperate, and generally being a pain in your backside.  As a responsible law enforcement officer, you've been trained to de-escalate confrontations, and get people to comply with your requests reasonably, without having to resort to violence.  Certainly, you wouldn't pull a firearm on this person.  You could spend the next 20 minutes trying to reason with this person.  But you've got this handy taser right here, and what the hell, it's not like it does any real damage right?  Why not just zap the guy, and solve the whole problem?

Well, because it's wrong.  It's not what the police are for.  They're not supposed to be bullies.  They're supposed to be better than that.

And one of the ways they remain better than that is by really understanding that non-lethal force is still force, and is still an option of last resort, rather than convenience.  And they could watch all the videos in the world, and hear all the lectures about what how these things work, and what effect they have on people, and how careful they should be, etc.... but when they've had to step up and let a classmate or instructor tase or pepper-spray them, then they really know.

Trying to compare that to bomb disposal?  I....I don't even... that's just a completely inaccurate analogy.  Sorry, you fail at logic.

I think you're completely missing the point.

The logic is that, before officers use these 'non-lethal' measures, they know what they feel like.  It's tempting to think that, just because mace, or pepper spray, or a taser can't (usually) kill someone, it's no big deal.  This can lead to them becoming an officer's first or second option for ending a confrontation, rather than remaining the last resort, as they're intended to.

Imagine that you've spent the past 8 hours dealing with crowds of drunk, unruly young people.  Now someone is getting in your face, not wanting to cooperate, and generally being a pain in your backside.  As a responsible law enforcement officer, you've been trained to de-escalate confrontations, and get people to comply with your requests reasonably, without having to resort to violence.  Certainly, you wouldn't pull a firearm on this person.  You could spend the next 20 minutes trying to reason with this person.  But you've got this handy taser right here, and what the hell, it's not like it does any real damage right?  Why not just zap the guy, and solve the whole problem?

Like they do anyway XD haven't you been on youtube recently? maybe the bad cops get publicised more than the by the book ones, but theres been plenty of instances where what you described has happened

Trying to compare that to bomb disposal?  I....I don't even... that's just a completely inaccurate analogy.  Sorry, you fail at logic.

No need to be rude   

They aren't being rude.

In your own words:
I bet less people would apply to be a bomb disposal expert if the training required you to strap C4 to your face and detonate it, or having an M16 magazine unloaded into you as part of basic army training

How on earth can you compare either of these to being tazed or maced? You're comparing non-lethal deterrants to quite lethal weapons. Your logic is not sound at all, and the comparison is absolutely ridiculous!

I have to give credit to everyone that has written out a lengthy reply to you so far - I don't think I could've done the same and not sounded completely exasperated with you.

I have to say that tazers and pepper-spray scare the pants off of me because people *are* more willing to use them. I mean, a gun has its own inherent deterrent (killing someone). These things really don't. I completely support them being used on people who want to use them as part of training/licensing, as do my police officer friends who have had it done to them.

But, yeah. You kind of have to admit that you sound a little silly comparing nukes to pepper spray.

They aren't being rude.

In your own words:
I bet less people would apply to be a bomb disposal expert if the training required you to strap C4 to your face and detonate it, or having an M16 magazine unloaded into you as part of basic army training

How on earth can you compare either of these to being tazed or maced? You're comparing non-lethal deterrants to quite lethal weapons. Your logic is not sound at all, and the comparison is absolutely ridiculous!

Yeah almost as ridiculous as having to be tased before being able to use one for personal protection, do the cops get get beaten in the head with their truncheons as well during basic training? they're non lethal, apparently... and by the way take it easy if you don't like what I'm saying you have every right to disagree just don't apesh*t on my ass

But, yeah. You kind of have to admit that you sound a little silly comparing nukes to pepper spray.

Yeah my apologies, the point I was trying to make is that I wouldn't want to have weapons tested on me, even non lethal ones

Yeah my apologies, the point I was trying to make is that I wouldn't want to have weapons tested on me, even non lethal ones

But you would be willing to use them on someone? Or allow anyone to have one and use it on whomever they wanted?