Self defense, ASP & law??

[gregorach]

You stand the very real risk of having whatever self defence tool you choose to carry taken from you and used against you - escalating an incident which may have been a few punches to an assult with a weapon.

I was once told (by a chap who seemed to have some direct experience of such matters) that your chances of getting cut in a knife fight are basically proportional to the number of knives involved. You're as likely to get cut by your own knife as the other guy's. (Assuming you're not highly trained in such matters.)

I'm also convinced that you're far more likely to get into trouble if you go around tooled up for it.

"A wise man does not contend, therefore no one can contend against him."

 

[wanderingblade]

If pepper spray and asp batons just increased your chances of being hurt, I doubt that our police would have them issued.

I imagine they receive a bit of training. Something the average person on the street would not have.

 

[gregorach]

Besides, the job requires getting actively involved in trouble of one sort or another. They don't have the same options for avoidance as us civvies - quite the contrary in fact.

 

[calibanzwei]

Came across the idea of a Koppo Stick in my general interweb wanderings:
http://www.donrearic.com/defendingyourselfinbritain.html

http://www.donrearic.com/koppostick.html

http://www.themartialist.com/pecom/koppowrap.htm

 

[Martyn]

I imagine they receive a bit of training. Something the average person on the street would not have.

Again, if I am responsible for my own safety, I would prefer I made the choice about whether or not i was adequately trained to defend myself with said weapons. If I am wrong, then I get hurt. The option to run away or avoid trouble is still there, regardless of what I have in my pocket.

I just dont subscribe to the notion that the state knows best and for my own safety I am denied these things because I am too stupid to make the judgement for myself.

 

[Martyn]

Besides, the job requires getting actively involved in trouble of one sort or another. They don't have the same options for avoidance as us civvies - quite the contrary in fact.

Occasionally, us civvies have no option. People sometimes have violence thrust upon them through no fault or action of their own. At that time, these tools would be just as useful to us as they are to a police officer.

 

[gregorach]

I just dont subscribe to the notion that the state knows best and for my own safety I am denied these things because I am too stupid to make the judgement for myself.

No, it's because the rest of society isn't prepared to trust you just on your say-so. I don't know you from Adam, so why should I trust you to wander the streets armed? There's a lot of dangerous nutters out there with no previous convictions.

Whenever you claim you should have the right to go armed, you're also claiming that all those "chavs" should. You're not special.

 

[Draven]

There's a lot of dangerous nutters out there with no previous convictions

...which has absolutely nothing to do with legislation. They're dangerous anyway, and probably won't think "I'll leave it at home, it's illegal . . .". Furthermore it gives weapons a lot more wow power amongst kids

Legislation on self defence just ensures that it's only crooks who carry weapons.

 

[C_Claycomb]

How about we drop it? Everything has been pretty good natured thus far. A good thread with some good information, and the OP has been answered well.

Now its getting into a debate which can have no conclusion; a discussion of the rights and wrongs of legislation, and an arguement about why or why not a law should or should not be changed. Everyone has an opinion, most won't change it based on any remarks here.

Before posting further, ask what you hope your post will achieve, and whether you really think it will change anyone else's opinion. Simply posting because you reckon someone's opinion is wrong and you want to set them straight isn't a good enough reason for keeping this thread going. That's what the Practical Tactical section of Blade Forums is for!

 

[Martyn]

No, it's because the rest of society isn't prepared to trust you just on your say-so. I don't know you from Adam, so why should I trust you to wander the streets armed? There's a lot of dangerous nutters out there with no previous convictions.

Why should you trust me to drive a car? I can do far more damage with a 2 ton defender than a tin of mace.

Whenever you claim you should have the right to go armed, you're also claiming that all those "chavs" should. You're not special.

Of course. But anyone who commits a crime, should be punished severely. You either treat adults as adults until proven otherwise, or you treat everyone as imbeciles who are not safe tyeing their own shoelaces. I know which I prefer. Besides, I strongly suspect that if people were allowed to carry mace legally, we'd see far less old folks getting terrorised by teenagers.

But Chris is right, it's a purely academic discussion. The law is the law and my opinion (really is) irrelevant.

 

[gregorach]

Why should you trust me to drive a car?

Because you've (presumably) applied for a license, passed your driving test, your car can easily be uniquely identified thanks to its highly visible registration number, and it's tied to you by the DVLA database. If that's the kind of model and level of safeguards you had in mind, then we can probably come to an agreement... Although I'm not sure how you can attach a sufficiently visible registration number to a practical weapon. Perhaps if it were simply attached to the licensee? That would be sufficient, I think. (And it's basically equivalent to letting Police Officers wander around armed as long as they're identifiable via their badge numbers.)

Anyway, Chris' point is fair enough.

 

[Pict]

Pict, don't you think that kids brought up with guns and taught to see them as hunting tools and means of defence, have less of a power fetish with regard to arms?

I don't mean to belabor this thread either...

Harryhaller,

Kids brought up in the "gun culture" of the US tend to see guns in the same line as power tools, dangerous, useful, require skill and responsibility, and you can never own enough of them. Studies done here have shown that kids who hunt are far less likely to use a firearm as a tool of aggression.

Guns tend to become a power trip for kids in those places where they are banned because they are taboo, give status, and take advantage of a serious imbalance in personal power.

The way it works here is that if a kid wants to carry a gun he subjects himself to a five year minimum sentence if caught and the risk of getting shot by a wide cross section of the legally armed population. Our criminals tend to only carry a gun when they are going to do something specific with it. The perception that because guns are so available here that criminals are all armed all the time is very far off the mark.

My brother is a police officer. He told me about an interesting phenomenon that happens very often. In his city it is often local criminals and drug dealers that will tip the police off to aggressive criminals who always carry guns. They don't want to deal with it personally, they don't want to be forced to face that 5 year minimum themselves. They actually use the law to their advantage. Mac

 

[Minotaur]

How about we drop it? Everything has been pretty good natured thus far. A good thread with some good information, and the OP has been answered well.

Yeah have to agree. We are getting into the age old self-defense arguement, and people have not listened before so why will they listen this time?

 

[harryhaller]

Studies done here have shown that kids who hunt are far less likely to use a firearm as a tool of aggression.

Thanks Mac. Some very interesting points.

Chris, the reason why this discussion doesn't belong in the Practical Tactical section of Blade Forums is because I think it really does have something to do with bushcraft.

The kids we are talking about are city kids. They have had little contact with the countryside - certainly much less with hunting.

I remember a long time ago that the tabloids made a scandal about a probation officer - or someone who had to do with criminal kids - who took convicted youths out in the country to do camping, climbing etc. I thought this was good idea - to broaden the horizons of kids who only know their ghetto, who haven't had the chance to stretch themselves in nature and all the other things about which we talk here on this forum.

It makes me think whether bushcraft should be taught in schools and a real emphasis be put on getting kids out of the city. In any case, while the tabloids were moaning about tax payers money being wasted on "holidays" for convicted youths - I thought, and think, that taking criminal kids out of the city and giving them the challenges of the countryside, mountains and rivers, include hunting and trapping, would have a good effect on them.

Harry

 

[Pict]

Harry,

I would agree. There are a great many kids, and policy makers for that matter, who have never seen a gun or knife used in a legitimate context.

There is great value in taking city kids out to the bush. This is a regular feature of my life in Brazil. Most of these kids have never handled a knife or machete. There is always a moment or two of "saber rattling" but then they quickly realize that such tools are just tools and they have a steep learning curve ahead of them. I tell them once, any foolishness with the blades and they go in my pack. I have yet to pack up someone's sharps.

I genuinely do feel the pain of you who have to justify common tools to merely transport them or keep them handy or face the risk of fines and confiscation just to practice bushcraft. I face similar situations in Brazil, for instance I can't transport a fishing pole without a fishing license or I am considered to be fishing illegally. If I transport my bow and have an article of camouflage clothing in the vehicle I am considered to be hunting. Crazy, yes, but laws can be changed if those above get the message that their jobs depend on it. Mac

 

[armie]

But Chris is right, it's a purely academic discussion. The law is the law and my opinion (really is) irrelevant.

Don't stop having an opinion though!

"I feel I was denied critical need-to-know information!"
~ Burt Gummer

Wasn't that Hiram Gummer?