[Goober5000]

Not illegal, but whenever a death is involved, in particular, it all gets very very messy, since, remember, in the UK the guy shouldn't have been carrying the knife any more than the kids should have been carrying the guns.

It's illegal in the UK to carry a pocketknife?

Okay, the UK is right out.  What other countries are left for me to move to?  Canada?  Australia?  Ireland?  I hear Ireland's doing pretty well in the tech industry.

[Descenterace]

The problem with outlawing weapons is that only outlaws will have weapons. The thing about criminals is that they don't obey the law. So laws banning weapons don't really have a lot of effect other than disarming the law-abiding populace and ensuring that the criminals will be sure to use their weapons only when the number of witnesses is minimal.

As for this particular story... nice one, mate! Bunch of thugs try intimidation tactics and end up getting their asses kicked. It's a shame most of them survived; by rights they should've been removed from the gene pool.

[Mefustae]

Okay, the UK is right out.  What other countries are left for me to move to?  Canada?  Australia?  Ireland?  I hear Ireland's doing pretty well in the tech industry.

A piece of advice; don't come to Australia. It's a nice place to live, but with our Prime Minister's head still planted firmly in Dubya's crotch, we're going downhill fast.

The problem with outlawing weapons is that only outlaws will have weapons. The thing about criminals is that they don't obey the law. So laws banning weapons don't really have a lot of effect other than disarming the law-abiding populace and ensuring that the criminals will be sure to use their weapons only when the number of witnesses is minimal.

Yes, because weapon saturation in the US just works sooo well. Honestly, your inability to see the obvious astounds me here, you're saying that having ready access to weapons is good for society?!

IMO, when confronted by muggers, just give the f***ers what they want, we're not all marines y'know, and you don't want to lose your life over your damn iPod after all.

[aldo_14]

Personally, I think the UK is going waaaay overboard with its nanny-statism. I recently read about a national week of "knife amnesty". Oh noes, knives! Next thing you know all pads of paper will be rounded off at the corners and pointy, dangerous pens will be replaced with fun, safe crayons for everyone.

About 800 people a year die in the UK from stabbings, and it's often due to their own weapons being turned against them.  This sort of amnesty, I think has been shown to work in previous cases.  Certainly I remember it happening in Scotland; in the 12 months after a 1993 amnesty, murder fell by 26%, attempted murder by 19% and offensive weapon possession by 23%.

Albeit you're looking at not pocketknives but actual stabby-knives - switchblades, combat knives, daggers, etc in terms of an amnesty.

So it's illegal to defend ones' self in the UK?

Seems pretty retarded.

No, not in the slightest.  But any killing or serious assault has to be investigated in order to ensure it was self defense.

There does seem to be a common misconception about this, particularly with regards to the issue of 'home' self-defense, such as against burglars.

The problem with outlawing weapons is that only outlaws will have weapons. The thing about criminals is that they don't obey the law. So laws banning weapons don't really have a lot of effect other than disarming the law-abiding populace and ensuring that the criminals will be sure to use their weapons only when the number of witnesses is minimal.

The problem with legalising weapons - especially things like guns - is that it makes access to them so, so much easier for the common criminal.  Me, I'd rather be faced with a mugger using a kitchen knife than a 9mm automatic.

The other thing is that, with guns in particular, i'm pretty sure the majority or at least a significant perspective of them are 'heat of the moment' type events, rather than premeditated crimes, where it's the access to a quick, minimal effort and effective killing device that causes the death to occur.  Obviously, guns being purpose built to kill makes this a different situation to knives in general, although there's little justification I can think of for carrying about a katana.

It's illegal in the UK to carry a pocketknife?

Um, no, I don't think so.  http://www.police-information.co.uk/legislation/legislationindexsco.html#Offensive

Section 49#1 specifically excludes pocketknives with a blade under 3 inches.

[Sandwich]

Oh noes, knives! Next thing you know all pads of paper will be rounded off at the corners...

BSG, anyone?

Okay, the UK is right out.  What other countries are left for me to move to?  Canada?  Australia?  Ireland?  I hear Ireland's doing pretty well in the tech industry.

*ahem* We like knives and guns here, you know.

...you're saying that having ready access to weapons is good for society?!

Ready access, no, perhaps not. Israel's situation is somewhat unique, in that the majority of the population has done military service, and therefore has been taught the most important thing regarding weapons: respect. It's the first thing you learn as a soldier - respect your weapon and the power & danger inherent in possessing one.

With a populace like that, it's not generally a risk to supply them with a moderated means* to acquire firearms as civilians.

* "Moderated", meaning that one has to apply for a gun licence with a general reason to want to possess a firearm, such as if one lives beyond the green line (Judea or Samaria, a.k.a. the West Bank), or has any other such increased threat element in one's daily life. Also, even if one were to acquire a weapon without a licence, it is rather cumbersome to live a regular life in such a state, since entry into malls, restaurants, department stores, McDonalds', theaters, bus stations, or any other place with a security guard at the entrace, would be near-impossible. One would have to live as a mafia-type or something.

[Mefustae]

...you're saying that having ready access to weapons is good for society?!

Ready access, no, perhaps not. Israel's situation is somewhat unique, in that the majority of the population has done military service, and therefore has been taught the most important thing regarding weapons: respect. It's the first thing you learn as a soldier - respect your weapon and the power & danger inherent in possessing one.

With a populace like that, it's not generally a risk to supply them with a moderated means* to acquire firearms as civilians.

When you've got the training to deal with a given weapon, then fine. Honestly, I would guess that your personal safety and that of your family would be generally improved with a firearm as long as you are properly trained to use it. My issue stems from Descenterace's seeming support for weapons being available to everyone, training or no. A result of which might have something to do with the US seeing upwards of 15,000 gun-deaths per year, opposed to the 40 or so Australia sees with our strict gun-laws.

My point being: of course criminals are going to procure weapons, but how on Earth can anyone come  to the conclusion that weapons must be available to everyone to curtail this?! It's insanity!!

[aldo_14]

There was an interesting statistic I found a while back, indicating that people with basic (obv. different from comprehensive) firearms training - such as police or people at gun clubs - in the US were actually more, not less, likely to have a gun accident in the home.  I'm not sure what the general reason was; i would guess a combination of complacency, or perhaps being more likely to have multiple weapons(?). 

Also worth noting vis-a-vis gun deaths, that more people commit suicide by gun than are killed;  IIRC from 1990-2000 (from Epidemiology) it was about 44% murdered and 51% suicide out of 350,000 (the other percentage was unknown or accidental).

Myself, I've always thought the 'I need a gun to shoot other people with guns' to be a really, really dodgy arguement; it's essentially calling for a criminal-civillian arms race, and you really have to ask where that ends up.

[Mefustae]

...and you really have to ask where that ends up.

Being mugged in a back-alley by a bloke brandishing an old Soviet MIRV 90-Kiloton Warhead?

[Fragrag]

The problem with outlawing weapons is that only outlaws will have weapons. The thing about criminals is that they don't obey the law. So laws banning weapons don't really have a lot of effect other than disarming the law-abiding populace and ensuring that the criminals will be sure to use their weapons only when the number of witnesses is minimal.

Yes, because weapon saturation in the US just works sooo well. Honestly, your inability to see the obvious astounds me here, you're saying that having ready access to weapons is good for society?!

IMO, when confronted by muggers, just give the f***ers what they want, we're not all marines y'know, and you don't want to lose your life over your damn iPod after all.

Unfortunately that happened here in Belgium, created quite an uproar, but one thing I noticed, is that nobody said that if someone has the means to kill you, you should try and at least comply with him/her.

[aldo_14]

Incidentally, given that this guy was a marine and presumably quite well trained in the whole fighting lark, I'm pretty sure he'd have fought them off sans-knife?

[Goober5000]

Yes, because weapon saturation in the US just works sooo well. Honestly, your inability to see the obvious astounds me here, you're saying that having ready access to weapons is good for society?!

IMO, when confronted by muggers, just give the f***ers what they want, we're not all marines y'know, and you don't want to lose your life over your damn iPod after all.

So you're taking "guns = bad" as a foregone conclusion?  The number of crimes prevented by guns (i.e. by victims defending themselves with guns either through use or threat of use) is much greater than the number of crimes committed with guns.

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." — The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times) speaking at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland, Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter takes aim at a classmate

No, not in the slightest.  But any killing or serious assault has to be investigated in order to ensure it was self defense.

So, won't that discourage people from defending themselves, out of fear they'll be persecuted*?

The general trend today seems to be to turn the populace into helpless sheep completely dependent on Mommy Government to take care of them in every situation.  Whatever happened to being self-reliant?

*Yes, that's the word I meant.

*ahem* We like knives and guns here, you know.

Israel did occur to me too. You're kind of in the middle of everything (in many ways), though, which is a little intimidating.

[Flipside]

I certainly agree with Goobers position is that our government is trying to make us utterly dependent upon them for protection and basic needs. That, I think, is the only way our government really manages to maintain its influence.

[aldo_14]

So you're taking "guns = bad" as a foregone conclusion?  The number of crimes prevented by guns (i.e. by victims defending themselves with guns either through use or threat of use) is much greater than the number of crimes committed with guns.

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." — The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times) speaking at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland, Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter takes aim at a classmate

Actually, that's not true.  If you're using the source I think you are, it's utter statistical nonsense; a tiny survey source, and one where - for example - one woman claimed to have defended (defended was also left very open to debate in that study) herself with a gun 12 times.  IIRC, using the same logic as that used to conclude self defense, about 25% of Americans have been abducted by aliens.

EDIt; i.e. you'll need to cite a source here.

Of course it is fair to defend yourself from harm.  That's never been in debate here.  However, giving a population easy access to lethal weapons isn't IMO a particularly sensible way to protect from harm, because all it can ever do is increase the capacity for the population to hurt each other.  Hell, it even helps terrorists - the IRA used to buy and ship lots of their weapons from the US.

No, not in the slightest.  But any killing or serious assault has to be investigated in order to ensure it was self defense.

So, won't that discourage people from defending themselves, out of fear they'll be persecuted*?

The general trend today seems to be to turn the populace into helpless sheep completely dependent on Mommy Government to take care of them in every situation.  Whatever happened to being self-reliant?

*Yes, that's the word I meant.

I doubt any situation leading to the need to maim or kill in self-defense will have the time to consider 'am I going to be charged for this'.  The purpose of these laws are to prevent you, say, beating away an attempted mugger and then chasing them down with a baseball bat and bludgeoning them to death.  Reasonable force being the key thing to bear in mind.

Self-reliance does not equate to removing the role of police in maintaining an ordered society; being the victim of a crime does not give carte blanche to commit a worse crime in response; we all have a basic responsibility towards such things as civil order. 

That does not, I hope you'll note, entail we can't defend ourselves or are expected to 'submit' to crime (although it is the better option if your life is in danger, simply by dint of personal health > cash), but what it does mean is that people have to take a degree of responsibility for their actions, and those actions need to be fairly judged, or we'd be able to kill anyone who looked at us funny and then claim 'self defense'.

This is akin to the same principles, I think, as the requirement that any shooting by a police officer requires an outside force to automatically investigate the circumstances.

As an example, there was a big furore about the right to self-defense about burglars in the UK, and the clarification of the law.  Most people took this as some sort of 'burglars charter', that outlawed self-defense.  however, that was utter rubbish; the tiny number of convictions for (to paraphrase) assualt in 'self defense' included such cases as a guy who waited in his business premises, set a trap, beat up the burglar, set him on fire, and then threw him in a pit.

[Flipside]

Indeed Aldo, but I think the problem was that a lot of these solutions were bought about because the Police had been contacted on numerous occasions and had refused to take any action, claiming there was 'nothing they could do about it.'. People got pushed into vigilantism by the Police, which is why this whole ASBO thing boiled to the surface, it's was basically an attempt to make up for the complete powerlessness of the Police Force.

[Mars]

US police are only dimwits because of the type of people who go into it. It used to be people who wanted to be heros, now it's a mob of overweight, undertrained bullies with GLOCK 17s. I don't know anyone who likes cops, even the people who want to be cops don't like cops.

[aldo_14]

Indeed Aldo, but I think the problem was that a lot of these solutions were bought about because the Police had been contacted on numerous occasions and had refused to take any action, claiming there was 'nothing they could do about it.'. People got pushed into vigilantism by the Police, which is why this whole ASBO thing boiled to the surface, it's was basically an attempt to make up for the complete powerlessness of the Police Force.

That's not an arguement for relaxing restrictions on self defense so much as getting the polices' arse in gear, though.  Certainly I don't think vigilantism really solves anything; if you go out and cuff a ned round the ear, odds are you'll have a brick through your window and it'll just escalate from there.

I know there have been some ridiculous arrests - the teacher-airgun thing springs to mind - but I think the principle of the self-defense laws is sound, and that when we have things like Tony Martin in the news it tends to see the facts twisted way out of proportion to the truth. 

I abhor crime, of course, but I see - in the tabloid media - a tendency to take the attitude that even petty criminals don't have a right to live, which to me would not only destroy the whole principle of 'justice' but perpetuate crime by destroying the will to identify the root causes and remove them.  It sometimes feels that I'm 'on the criminals' side', simply by calling for a) sane and just punishment through the law and b) looking at the issues behind it.

US police are only dimwits because of the type of people who go into it. It used to be people who wanted to be heros, now it's a mob of overweight, undertrained bullies with GLOCK 17s. I don't know anyone who likes cops, even the people who want to be cops don't like cops.

I'm not sure if this is in reference to Flip, but if it is, he was talking about the UK police forces.

[Mars]

It was an attempt to steer the conversation toward bad police across the world and away from the inevitable debate that's about to take place.

[Flipside]

Nobody escapes the HLP Inquisition!

I agree that what really needs to be done is our own Police given more sensible authority and less running around going 'OMG! He's got a Bike! Terrorist!'. I'm not saying these people are justified in what they did, I'm more saying that the reasons that pushed them over the edge was the lack of power that the Police actually had. It is improving, slowly, but a hell of a lot of work still needs to be done.

[achtung]

To be honest, all large U.S. cities are pretty fubared.

In rural areas, guns actually do provide a means of self-poretcion.  Due to the slow responce times of police forces and their small numbers.

While cities on the other hand, police forces are usually near and numerous, so guns should be strictly regulated.

My little view on the matter.

[Mars]

To be honest, all large U.S. cities are pretty fubared.

In rural areas, guns actually do provide a means of self-poretcion.  Due to the slow responce times of police forces and their small numbers.

While cities on the other hand, police forces are usually near and numerous, so guns should be strictly regulated.

My little view on the matter.

Probably the most logical one I've heard. I do think people should be allowed to own guns in big cities, but they should be strictly regulated.