Should UK self-defence laws be reformed?

[Haggisman]

Well, let's consider the recent acid(alkali) attack... Would the woman have been able to defend herself or children if she had a knife (after having whatever thrown in her eyes)? Would a member of the public been willing to stop him from running away if they were armed with a knife, knowing what he'd just done and might still have the ability to do?

 

[Semple]

Well, let's consider the recent acid(alkali) attack... Would the woman have been able to defend herself or children if she had a knife (after having whatever thrown in her eyes)? Would a member of the public been willing to stop him from running away if they were armed with a knife, knowing what he'd just done and might still have the ability to do?

I think knives overstep the line, but had a member of public had pepper spray then I do think they'd be more inclined to intervene. The problem these days is people don't want to intervene out of fear the other person is carrying a knife.

 

[uber soldat]

The criminals already have knives and guns,so allowing the normal man in the street to have them would actually make some of these jokers think twice before attacking people.

 

[jigger]

The criminals already have knives and guns,so allowing the normal man in the street to have them would actually make some of these jokers think twice before attacking people.

It wouldn’t, we’d just have more jokers of a different kind to deal.

 

[Haggisman]

The criminals already have knives and guns,so allowing the normal man in the street to have them would actually make some of these jokers think twice before attacking people.

Or would it make them more likely to actually use them out of fear of the other person being able to fight back?

It's nowhere near as simple as you're suggesting

 

[uber soldat]

Or would it make them more likely to actually use them out of fear of the other person being able to fight back?

It's nowhere near as simple as you're suggesting

So your solution is to keep the victim defenceless?

 

[jigger]

Or would it make them more likely to actually use them out of fear of the other person being able to fight back?

It's nowhere near as simple as you're suggesting

Indeed. The answer to some simple transient problems can be force, but these issues are neither transient or simple.

 

[Mr Badger]

So your solution is to keep the victim defenceless?

Defenceless against what exactly? Are you thinking about a robbery scenario where instead of letting someone take their possessions and then calling the police, a person has the right to carry their own weapon and use it to attack whoever is threatening them?

Or are you thinking of some sort of gang turf war/rapist/serial killer scenario where a person finds themselves literally fighting for their life?

 

[Haggisman]

So your solution is to keep the victim defenceless?

Please feel free to highlight where I said that.

 

[uber soldat]

Please feel free to highlight where I said that.

Well you didn't offer an actual solution so I'm assuming you want to keep things as they are where the criminal with the knife or gun can just attack people knowing there's no way the victim can defend themselves.

 

[Haggisman]

Well you didn't offer an actual solution so I'm assuming you want to keep things as they are where the criminal with the knife or gun can just attack people knowing there's no way the victim can defend themselves.

Well you know what they say about assumption

I'd rather offer no solution than one which would potentially make things worse, because (like I already said), it's not as simple as you're making out.

 

[Abraxaz1]

The laws are based upon the idea of having a active police force/ presence…

We don’t have competent or large police force anymore. So yes the laws need an update. Can’t rely on the government to keep the average person safe.

We are slowly returning to the point where the rich hire thugs to keep themselves safe.

You just have to look at how poor the police have been tackling the expensive watch crime in London. How long until the rich hire strong men to guard them?

 

[uber soldat]

Well you know what they say about assumption

I'd rather offer no solution than one which would potentially make things worse, because (like I already said), it's not as simple as you're making out.

So my assumption was correct

Well we could argue about this all day but I'm going to do something that's not usually done in GD, but I'm going to respect your opinion, which you're entitled to but agree to disagree.

 

[Stu999]

Defenceless against what exactly? Are you thinking about a robbery scenario where instead of letting someone take their possessions and then calling the police, a person has the right to carry their own weapon and use it to attack whoever is threatening them?

People aren’t only attacked in order to take property. It could just be to defend against physical assault (someone takes offence at you) or a Brianna Ghey type situation.

Well you know what they say about assumption

I'd rather offer no solution than one which would potentially make things worse, because (like I already said), it's not as simple as you're making out.

That’s the same as keeping the current status quo.

 

[Haggisman]

People aren’t only attacked in order to take property. It could just be to defend against physical assault (someone takes offence at you) or a Brianna Ghey type situation.

So increase the risk in the much more common ”i want your phone and wallet" scenario, to maybe decrease the risk in the much rarer "I want to attack you regardless, so you having a weapon isn't going to change my mind anyway" scenario?

Makes perfect sense.

That’s the same as keeping the current status quo.

It's not. I don't think the status quo is working, I'm just not simple-minded enough to think it can easily be solved by allowing everyone to carry weapons without at least considering all the repercussions of doing so.

Thankfully we have a log running pilot scheme of over 300 million participants to look at, and see how effective having an armed population is at preventing random acts of violence.

Don't know about you, but I'm actually quite happy that the likelihood of my 12 year old being shot by one of his fellow pupils who took their parents' legally owned gun is so close to 0 that it may as well be.

Don't get me wrong, the current situation is far from perfect, but it could be significantly worse.

 

[potatolord]

Ok. Let's assume weapons are allowed.

If i was having an argument with a man (thinking car parking type) and I saw him reaching, i'd smash him- I'd have to. I'd have to properly do him, just to protect myself from him using his suspected weapon.

Is this what people want?

 

[Haggisman]

Ok. Let's assume weapons are allowed.

If i was having an argument with a man (thinking car parking type) and I saw him reaching, i'd smash him- I'd have to. I'd have to properly do him, just to protect myself from him using his suspected weapon.

Is this what people want?

Apparently so

Yes it allows you to defend yourself in some limited situations, but it also significantly increase risk in many more

 

[Roar87]

I think what needs reforming is the Police, there aren't enough of them and a lot of them are too soft.

 

[Stu999]

So increase the risk in the much more common ”i want your phone and wallet" scenario, to maybe decrease the risk in the much rarer "I want to attack you regardless, so you having a weapon isn't going to change my mind anyway" scenario?

Makes perfect sense.


It's not. I don't think the status quo is working, I'm just not simple-minded enough to think it can easily be solved by allowing everyone to carry weapons without at least considering all the repercussions of doing so.


Don't know about you, but I'm actually quite happy that the likelihood of my 12 year old being shot by one of his fellow pupils who took their parents' legally owned gun is so close to 0 that it may as well.

I’d rather have a better option to defend myself in the “going to be attacked regardless” scenario than hope I’m great at fist fighting or I’m an MMA guy. As I said in the OP I think you’d have to restrict ownership to those without convictions so the people trying to take your phone shouldn’t be armed (not saying that’s impossible, they may also be armed with a knife now).

Thanks for the insult. I didn’t say everyone should be armed. I set out a non-exhaustive set of conditions as a starting point for a discussion. I also said it shouldn’t be exactly like the USA.

I think that school scenario would be extremely remote. There would probably have to be storage conditions, separate locked storage for ammunition, maybe separate locked storage for bolts / firing mechanism. As I said, not a 1:1 recreation of the US. Some people probably wouldn’t even have such a thing if they had kids in the house.

 

[Stu999]

Ok. Let's assume weapons are allowed.

If i was having an argument with a man (thinking car parking type) and I saw him reaching, i'd smash him- I'd have to. I'd have to properly do him, just to protect myself from him using his suspected weapon.

Is this what people want?

It’s a hypothetical scenario. You could drive off, pepper spray them, etc.

The whole point of the thread is to ask people do you think there should be a change and it seems like most people don’t.