Last night, gangs of men sexually assaulted two women in the areas of the estate where my girlfriend lives whilst she's at University. Upon checking the police figures, sexual and violent crimes have tripled there in the last year. Naturally, she's quite concerned about all this, and really wants some way of protecting herself.
Unfortunately, British laws are exceptionally tight on personal defence. No guns (obviously), no edged weapons, in fact, no weapons, period. Carrying anything the police judge to be a weapon (which is a very wide range of things) is enough to get arrested. Chemical sprays are also illegal, so no mace or suchlike. About the only designated self-defence items that are legal are a non-toxic staining spray (to later identify people with), and 'rape alarms' which emit a loud noise.
Naturally, I'm trying to find her something a bit more effective than a paint spray and pseudo-car alarm. But the catch is to try and keep it legal. So far, the best I've come up with is a very high powered metal torch (for blinding, 200 lumens plus) that can be used as a club in a pinch, and one of those long combs with a spike on the end.
How about a hair pin? Good long one of a sturdy material could make a good stabbing weapon in a pinch (go for the groin), but it sounds like your cops have a lot of leeway in their ability to define something as a weapon so I don't know XD
Another thing to review is her habits and routine for safety. You can go a long way to improving one's safety by ensuring you don't travel alone, or at dark areas at night. College campuses are generally dangerous for females to be alone at during the late hours.
Basic safety precautions to aid prevention not resolution, stay out of dodgy areas, avoid night time, dont go alone, use taxis if possible, stay in touch with family as to whereabouts etc etc. seem more pertinent imo.
Ratius wrote: Basic safety precautions to aid prevention not resolution, stay out of dodgy areas, avoid night time, dont go alone, use taxis if possible, stay in touch with family as to whereabouts etc etc. seem more pertinent imo.
Very much this. Everything should be done to ensure that she isn't in that situation before you go looking for ways to skirt weapon laws.
Well many things can be used as weapons effectively.
I don't think the police would have issues with her carrying a bunch of keys attached to a sling. I (as student) have a small padlock for the library attached as well. This is a nasty flail in case of need.
Or a screwdriver can potentially be used as a weapon as well. No one should have problems with that since it is a tool.
Basically any sharp object can be used to cut and pierce and any heavy hard object can be thrown or used to hit in order to cause concussion.
Maybe one of each so she has one for medium range and one for close range.
Ratius wrote: Basic safety precautions to aid prevention not resolution, stay out of dodgy areas, avoid night time, dont go alone, use taxis if possible, stay in touch with family as to whereabouts etc etc. seem more pertinent imo.
She works late (she's a bit of an insomniac) and so regularly travels through this estate in the early hours. Unfortunately, the estate is generally not that well lit, and the public transport cuts off late at night. So whilst prevention is all very well and good, I have to deal with the situation as is to an extent.
Wasp spray sounds promising at first, but some quick online search shows that odds are it probably doesn't actually incapacitate an attacker. I suppose it could distract them though, One to consider. Keep 'em coming!
Hmm...that is a bit tougher, then. It's not a good situation for her.
In that case, I would focus on tools that are easy to use or make a racket. Don't listen to this stuff about throwing anything, she's going to have one throw, in the dark and she'll be panicked. That is going to be a guaranteed miss.
A fistful of keys (held to make something of a claw) is good, especially if she goes for eyes and noses. And her other option is sound and a lot of it. Attackers are usually after someone because they believe they are easy or quick prey, the harder she makes it for them, and the more likely she makes it for them to be noticed, the less likely it is for the attack to go on for long.
A good solid torch like a maglite is probably the best bet if she really wants something that can be used as a weapon if need be but isn't likely to get her arrested. She should definitely also carry a rape alarm though.
She doesn't necessarily need to incapacitate an attacker - just make them decide it's not worth the bother.
Go splits on a taxi. The best self defense and peace of mind is removing yourself from the situation.
If that's not an option, you want done thing that will draw attention. Think air horn, rape alarm, sonic devices. In all honesty making an attacker realise they will be seen is a better bet than trying to hit them in a panic if you're unprepared.
Call the local taxi company and arrange a nightly pickup. If you can guarantee them regular business they will provide a cab for you no problem.
Sure theres a cost but infinitely less than 6 months in hospital (or heaven forbid worse).
I suppose if the chances of being sexually assaulted or being maimed are great enough, she ought to weigh that against the disadvantages of being arrested. I should think it is on the whole better to have a record but also to have avoided being raped, maimed, etc, than to be a sexual assault survivor (in the best scenario) with a clean record. And while she is forced to transgress these (as Thomas Aquinas would say) crooked laws, denuding the people of their natural right to defend their own lives, I would suggest perhaps organizing a petition and/or contacting your MP to get the ball rolling on allowing UK citizens some modicum of liberty in protecting themselves.
I've looked into the legal weapon laws in the UK previously, and realised that carrying a multitool in my backpack (lots of things can break, it's useful to have something which can screw your laptop/camera/phone back together) is actually technically illegal thanks to the locking blade. Of course, whether anyone cares about this is another matter, but I imagine that plenty of people break these laws every day without realising it.
However, having an item on your person for the specific purpose of causing harm to someone does appear to be illegal, and I believe the courts can count anything as an offensive weapon if it fits that criterion. Unfortunately, that does mean that there are very few defensive strategies in these circumstances. I would suggest some sort of spray (gel, paint, or wasp ) as even though these don't incapacitate in the same manner as pepper spray, they're basically the most useful tool available to us here, and in a lot of cases, simply deterring or disorientating the attacker will be adequate. EDIT: a metal torch is actually a very good suggestion. Last I checked, I think those were still legal...
-Nazdreg- wrote: Well many things can be used as weapons effectively.
I don't think the police would have issues with her carrying a bunch of keys attached to a sling. I (as student) have a small padlock for the library attached as well. This is a nasty flail in case of need.
Or a screwdriver can potentially be used as a weapon as well. No one should have problems with that since it is a tool.
Basically any sharp object can be used to cut and pierce and any heavy hard object can be thrown or used to hit in order to cause concussion.
Maybe one of each so she has one for medium range and one for close range.
Physical close combat has to be a absolute last resort. If she's fumbling in her bag for something and there's a man twice her size or a group, the odds are that anything she can do like that will probably just make them angrier, even if it hurts. So the emphasis really needs to be on a fast way of incapacitating someone for a few minutes so she can get away.
Ratius wrote: Call the local taxi company and arrange a nightly pickup. If you can guarantee them regular business they will provide a cab for you no problem.
Sure theres a cost but infinitely less than 6 months in hospital (or heaven forbid worse).
Students aren't too flush on cash for regular taxi runs unfortunately.
Unfortunately, British laws are exceptionally tight on personal defence. No guns (obviously), no edged weapons, in fact, no weapons, period. Carrying anything the police judge to be a weapon (which is a very wide range of things) is enough to get arrested. Chemical sprays are also illegal, so no mace or suchlike. About the only designated self-defence items that are legal are a non-toxic staining spray (to later identify people with), and 'rape alarms' which emit a loud noise.
I did not know this, I thought you could carry at least mace. That is pretty terrifying honestly.
Somebody said hair spray, do they come in small enough bottle? Does she smoke? I know it is unlikely to do much more than show, but if she has the time she could definitely make it in to a flame thrower. At least it would make a decent show to discourage people. If she is unable to get the lighter/spray going, the stuff does burn the eyes.
Are tazers also illegal?
Honestly, it sounds like your best bet would be self defense classes.
On a serious note cell phone, keys, flash light, pen, tell her go for the face and eyes. Fight like a wild person screaming, kicking, scratching, biting, there are no rules
Aside from things people have already mentioned (keeping your head on a swivel to maintain SA, avoiding sketchy areas, stay away from dark alleys, things like that), a very bright flash light can really dazzle people and it's easier to use than something silly like wasp spray.
If you blast someone with a 600 lumen face melter, their night vision will be shot.
A lot of these recommendations are unrealistic...poking a compliant person with a hair pin is hard let alone someone fighting you. Wasp spray, bricks, etc. are all huge and she's not going to carry them on her person. A self defense class? Maybe but unless she trains to the level of a competitive fighter, she's still going to get her ass handed to her by a guy with a 25-100 lb advantage. There's no easy fix - by means of passing silly laws, Britain has put its people in danger and it's sad to see.
My votes are for the hair pin and maglite personally. We have an issue in the US of police "protecting and serving" with their 12-inch friends, and they are effective. If she uses a hair pin make sure she actually wears it once in a while. It'll be easier to pull out of her hair to stab a fool than a bag.
Changing habits is both safe and proven to be effective, but at the end of it all a shady area is still a shady area.
Ketara wrote: Unfortunately, British laws are exceptionally tight on personal defence. No guns (obviously), no edged weapons, in fact, no weapons, period. Carrying anything the police judge to be a weapon (which is a very wide range of things) is enough to get arrested. Chemical sprays are also illegal, so no mace or suchlike. About the only designated self-defence items that are legal are a non-toxic staining spray (to later identify people with), and 'rape alarms' which emit a loud noise.
Yarg thats tough :/ i understand the gun thing culturally but completely making your citizens helpless is sad.
a Torch wouldn't be a bad idea. especially since the area you say is not well lit. if its heavy enough it could be used to defend your self at the least.
I remember seeing an ad for a mobile phone app that if you activate it when you feel threatened, will basically have some one listen in and if something bad happens they will the police and record everything and your location and stuff.
edit: as others pointed out though alarms and precaution and making sure people know your scheduled is probably the best start.
-Shrike- wrote:
However, having an item on your person for the specific purpose of causing harm to someone does appear to be illegal, and I believe the courts can count anything as an offensive weapon if it fits that criterion.
Dreadwinter wrote:
I did not know this, I thought you could carry at least mace. That is pretty terrifying honestly.
The general rule of thumb is that anything a policeman wants to count as an offensive weapon is, unless you can produce a legitimate explanation for carrying it. Women have been locked up before for carrying tasers and pepper spray illegally.
Does she smoke? I know it is unlikely to do much more than show, but if she has the time she could definitely make it in to a flame thrower. At least it would make a decent show to discourage people. If she is unable to get the lighter/spray going, the stuff does burn the eyes.
Hi Ragnar Benson, I didn't know you were a member of Dakka.
That's a good suggestion, but potentially dicey.
Honestly, it sounds like your best bet would be self defense classes.
Having just looked into it, her uni offers Muay Thai and MMA classes. Either would give her some experience of grappling with a man trying to get her into a specific angle (to put it delicately). They also have a 'Nin-Jutsu' course which teaches weapon usage, which whilst of dubious usefulness, would give her a legitimate reason for carrying a physical weapon ('I was going to and from practice officer!').
its like all of the people engaging in this thread are playing a game of make-believe, with self-limiting rules. Now gosh how can we get up these stairs? We aren't allowed to use any of our limbs. If you use a limb you might go to jail!
its like all of the people engaging in this thread are playing a game of make-believe, with self-limiting rules. Now gosh how can we get up these stairs? We aren't allowed to use any of our limbs. If you use a limb you might go to jail!
To be honest, weapon laws are like this not only in Britain, but also many other countries in Europe. If I remember correctly, Germany also has this line in the law where you are not allowed to carry anything for the purpose of causing harm to another person, even if it is in self-defense. So if you carry a small knife, you also better carry an apple and a kiwi so that you can argue that you need your knife to cut up your morning snack!
Witzkatz wrote: So if you carry a small knife, you also better carry an apple and a kiwi so that you can argue that you need your knife to cut up your morning snack!
So carrying a bigger fruit means you get to carry a bigger knife?
judgedoug wrote: how far have the British fallen. once masters of the world, striding across the waves and doing as they pleased, it has come to fearing the local thugs and purchasing a pocket comb for protection
So the emphasis really needs to be on a fast way of incapacitating someone for a few minutes so she can get away
tally ho, a gun would be cracking!
Except as a society, we have decided to limit access to firearms to reduce the side effects of widespread ownership. Also, a gun doesn't incapacitate for a few minutes, it kills permanently (or should if you have had any basic firearms training).
haha, oh Britian. laughable. its like all of the people engaging in this thread are playing a game of make-believe, with self-limiting rules. Now gosh how can we get up these stairs? We aren't allowed to use any of our limbs. If you use a limb you might go to jail!
Witzkatz wrote: So if you carry a small knife, you also better carry an apple and a kiwi so that you can argue that you need your knife to cut up your morning snack!
So carrying a bigger fruit means you get to carry a bigger knife?
Yep, up to a maximum of a 3" folding non-locking blade on a penknife. Unless you go to a weapons class or something, then feel free to carry your samurai sword around
Whilst thoroughly impractical, I daresay this would be a highly effective legal method. You don't get many women raped whilst walking large guard dogs!
Ugh I knew things were bad in the UK but not that bad.
I would go for the brightest, most face meeting tacticool flashlight you can find. More likely it is to make the guy go blind the better. If it can attach to something shecan reach easily even better. Then have an airhorn or some other stupidly loud device. Hopefully between being nearly blind and hearing the airhorn go off the guy will smarten up and run.
I would say the good old 4 D Cell maglight, but from the sound of it, police have carte Blanche to label things as weapons, and that this g sure as hell is known to be used as one. We have a lot of cops in the USA who are straight up trained to use them as clubs, and those things are nasty when they hit a human skull.
Honestly, it sounds like anything you could try and use to defend yourself would be illegal purely because you used it to defend yourself. As we've seen with the US school system, anything can be considered a weapon if they want to count it, even everyday objects. Say you stab the guy in the eye with a pen "well she was clearly carrying it as a weapon for this kind of situation". Etc. Especially weirder things like wasp spray or a brick. They're not gonna buy the "I'm deathly allergic to wasps" story if they're not even allowing mace.
It sound slime you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. You'll either have to carry something that the cops could consider a weapon for peace of mind and risk arrest, or pray the few limited options you have would work in an emergency. Or spend hundreds of pounds in cab fare.
*I am not a lawyer and am an American, take everything I said with a massive grain of salt.
Whilst thoroughly impractical, I daresay this would be a highly effective legal method. You don't get many women raped whilst walking large guard dogs!
-Shrike- wrote: [ Except as a society, we have decided to limit access to firearms to reduce the side effects of widespread ownership. Also, a gun doesn't incapacitate for a few minutes, it kills permanently (or should if you have had any basic firearms training).
Okay, so we've set a standard here... however, and as Manchu mentioned, pepper spray doesn't kill, and yet is illegal? Anecdotally I know three women, one of whom is an ex of mine, who escaped assault and/or rape thanks to the use of their pepper spray to incapacitate an attacker. I could simply not imagine the kind of trauma those three friends of mine would have had to endure for the rest of their lives because self-defense is somehow wrong.
Seems like I'd be breaking a lot of unjust - and, simply put, moronic - laws in order to protect my individual liberties.
My advice to the OP: your girlfriend should do whatever it takes to protect her life and her body, just as the other women assaulted in the same area should have been legally justified to do (as they would certainly have been morally justified to act in self-defense).
judgedoug wrote: Seems like I'd be breaking a lot of unjust - and, simply put, moronic - laws in order to protect my individual liberties.
I wonder to what extent UK citizens think of self-defense as a matter of personal liberty considering the draconian nature of these laws. Non-rhetorical question, if any BritCitizens would care to chime in.
MrMoustaffa wrote: Ugh I knew things were bad in the UK but not that bad.
I would go for the brightest, most face meeting tacticool flashlight you can find. More likely it is to make the guy go blind the better. If it can attach to something shecan reach easily even better. Then have an airhorn or some other stupidly loud device. Hopefully between being nearly blind and hearing the airhorn go off the guy will smarten up and run
I would say the good old 4 D Cell maglight, but from the sound of it, police have carte Blanche to label things as weapons, and that this g sure as hell is known to be used as one. We have a lot of cops in the USA who are straight up trained to use them as clubs, and those things are nasty when they hit a human skull.
That looks like a good brand. After some poking around, there's one they do that has 272 lumens but only 6 1/2 inches long. Might recommend it.
Honestly, it sounds like anything you could try and use to defend yourself would be illegal purely because you used it to defend yourself. As we've seen with the US school system, anything can be considered a weapon if they want to count it, even everyday objects. Say you stab the guy in the eye with a pen "well she was clearly carrying it as a weapon for this kind of situation". Etc. Especially weirder things like wasp spray or a brick. They're not gonna buy the "I'm deathly allergic to wasps" story if they're not even allowing mace.
It depends on context. If you have a pepper spray, that's clearly there to be used on people. There's not much in the way of spearate civil usage. If you have a small knife, but are carrying fruit though, you'll be alright. If you have a torch, or a hair pin, or suchlike, again, you can say you have a use for it, and you won't be in any trouble. If it's something like a taser though, you'll be visiting the station. If it's a boken, you better make sure you're a dojo member somewhere.
It all boils down to whether or not you have a legitimate civil peaceful purpose other than 'self-defence' for carrying something.
Ketara wrote: Last night, gangs of men sexually assaulted two women in the areas of the estate where my girlfriend lives whilst she's at University. Upon checking the police figures, sexual and violent crimes have tripled there in the last year. Naturally, she's quite concerned about all this, and really wants some way of protecting herself.
Unfortunately, British laws are exceptionally tight on personal defence. No guns (obviously), no edged weapons, in fact, no weapons, period. Carrying anything the police judge to be a weapon (which is a very wide range of things) is enough to get arrested. Chemical sprays are also illegal, so no mace or suchlike. About the only designated self-defence items that are legal are a non-toxic staining spray (to later identify people with), and 'rape alarms' which emit a loud noise.
Naturally, I'm trying to find her something a bit more effective than a paint spray and pseudo-car alarm. But the catch is to try and keep it legal. So far, the best I've come up with is a very high powered metal torch (for blinding, 200 lumens plus) that can be used as a club in a pinch, and one of those long combs with a spike on the end.
Ketara wrote: It all boils down to whether or not you have a legitimate civil peaceful purpose other than 'self-defence' for carrying something.
I'm just a backwater colonial, but in my judgement self-defense (no need to write 'self-defence') is certainly a legitimate civil peaceful purpose.
The very nature of this conversation belies the fundamental injustice of the laws under question. We are talking about buying a heavy flashlight, it being equivalent to an expensive mace or billy club in terms of its intended use vis-a-vis this discussion, to carry around for the purpose of a woman defending herself while at the same time putting self-defense is scare quotes.
Maybe you can carry a pepper shaker with this stuff? Just throw it at your attacker (you'd get hit too unfortunately).
If the po-po tries to claim it as a weapon, just say that you use it to "spice up" your meals.
The very nature of this conversation belies the fundamental injustice of the laws under question. We are talking about buying a heavy flashlight, it being equivalent to an expensive mace or billy club in terms of its intended use vis-a-vis this discussion, to carry around for the purpose of a woman defending herself while at the same time putting self-defense is scare quotes.
How does the UK court system work? Do you have "trail by jury"? And if so, does the concept of "jury nullification" exist in the UK?
Ketara wrote: It all boils down to whether or not you have a legitimate civil peaceful purpose other than 'self-defence' for carrying something.
I'm just a backwater colonial, but in my judgement self-defense (no need to write 'self-defence') is certainly a legitimate civil peaceful purpose.
The very nature of this conversation belies the fundamental injustice of the laws under question. We are talking about buying a heavy flashlight, for which the intended use makes it equivalent to an expensive mace, to carry around for the purpose of a woman defending herself while at the same time putting self-defense is scare quotes.
The laws were put into place and have been adapted due to the number of people being attacked by 'self-defence' weapons. Samurai swords, tasers, etc, have all been used to attack other people, and so the laws were modified. Knives are iffy, if you have no reason for carrying it you can get in trouble with the police (thanks to the number of gangs which carry knives and commit stabbings, it's a fairly crucial piece of legislation in that area of policing). If it's in a picnic hamper, you're probably safe. If it's a flick knife though (blade on a spring), it's illegal to carry regardless. Context is everything, which is where it's left up to the discretion of the officers. Which is why you generally need a reasonable explanation for carrying.
I'm not sure I agree with the pepper spray one. But even there, it's used offensively from time to time.
judgedoug wrote: So, better someone is raped than their attacker is maimed or killed.
Not even as much as maiming or killing but just, in the case of capsicum spray, being temporarily incapacitated, if even that.
@Ketara: we also have laws against carrying around huge knives, switch blades, and so forth; the exception I take is the apparent assumption that self-defense is illegitimate, which to be fair I don't know whether that is just how you are talking about it ITT or if that reflects British law and cultural attitudes
Ketara wrote: It depends on context. If you have a pepper spray, that's clearly there to be used on people.
Yes, absolutely, thankfully so for my ex and two other friends.
Ketara wrote: It all boils down to whether or not you have a legitimate civil peaceful purpose other than 'self-defence' for carrying something.
Would "device to discourage a criminal from forcefully inserting his penis into my vagina while I cry and scream and sob whilst he beats me about the face and necks with his fists and I suffer a lifetime of trauma" be a legitimate enough reason?
Or is the entirely legal, non-toxic staining spray even more effective at disabling such reprehensible activities?
-Shrike- wrote: a gun doesn't incapacitate for a few minutes, it kills permanently
Alright, for the sake of argument, then why is pepper spray also illegal?
I don't know. I don't think it should; in my personal opinion, the potential utility of such a device outweighs the downsides.
judgedoug wrote:
-Shrike- wrote: [ Except as a society, we have decided to limit access to firearms to reduce the side effects of widespread ownership. Also, a gun doesn't incapacitate for a few minutes, it kills permanently (or should if you have had any basic firearms training).
Okay, so we've set a standard here... however, and as Manchu mentioned, pepper spray doesn't kill, and yet is illegal? Anecdotally I know three women, one of whom is an ex of mine, who escaped assault and/or rape thanks to the use of their pepper spray to incapacitate an attacker. I could simply not imagine the kind of trauma those three friends of mine would have had to endure for the rest of their lives because self-defense is somehow wrong.
See above for my comments on pepper spray. Also, nobody said self-defence is wrong, merely that we have limited access to objects whose primary purpose is to be a lethal weapon.
Seems like I'd be breaking a lot of unjust - and, simply put, moronic - laws in order to protect my individual liberties.
Humour me for a minute. Precisely which of your individual liberties are limited by these so called "moronic laws"?
My advice to the OP: your girlfriend should do whatever it takes to protect her life and her body, just as the other women assaulted in the same area should have been legally justified to do (as they would certainly have been morally justified to act in self-defense).
They are legally justified to act in self-defence, but their access to weapons is limited. That's the fundamental point of this thread.
Chute82 wrote: Did a little research and a Schutzhund trained German Shepard cost around 60k if you want a protection dog. Be cheaper to buy her a car.
There might be local shelters that train rescued dogs. The dog in my avatar was Schutzhund trained because the people who rehabilitated him before we adopted him worked with lots of Rotties andGerman Shepherds, and he was practically free. You don't even need to Schutzhund train a dog, just get a moderately big dog and train him with German command words.
Ketara wrote: The main issue with self-defence weapons, is that they can always be used as offensive weapons. It's a tricky one.
Offensive use of a weapon is illegal, however. People who are willing to break that law will not be deterred by another law which punishes citizens for carrying and using weapons for self-defense. It's not very tricky at all. The only people who really suffer under this regime are the ones who are law abiding.
-Shrike- wrote: Humour me for a minute. Precisely which of your individual liberties are limited by these so called "moronic laws"?
I think this is getting to this:
Manchu wrote: I wonder to what extent UK citizens think of self-defense as a matter of personal liberty considering the draconian nature of these laws. Non-rhetorical question, if any BritCitizens would care to chime in.
Chute82 wrote: Did a little research and a Schutzhund trained German Shepard cost around 60k if you want a protection dog. Be cheaper to buy her a car.
There might be local shelters that train rescued dogs. The dog in my avatar was Schutzhund trained because the people who rehabilitated him before we adopted him worked with lots of Rotties andGerman Shepherds, and he was practically free. You don't even need to Schutzhund train a dog, just get a moderately big dog and train him with German command words.
Plus German sounds aggressive.
Dogs are one thing but there's law involved there too. Ie agressive dogs get put down.
Ketara wrote: It depends on context. If you have a pepper spray, that's clearly there to be used on people.
Yes, absolutely, thankfully so for my ex and two other friends.
Ketara wrote: It all boils down to whether or not you have a legitimate civil peaceful purpose other than 'self-defence' for carrying something.
Would "device to discourage a criminal from forcefully inserting his penis into my vagina while I cry and scream and sob whilst he beats me about the face and necks with his fists and I suffer a lifetime of trauma" be a legitimate enough reason?
Or is the entirely legal, non-toxic staining spray even more effective at disabling such reprehensible activities?
I'll be honest squire. I made this thread for the purpose of asking for suggestions to help my girlfriend. So far, your entire contribution has been a ton of sarky and argumentative tripe about the state of Britain and the law there. If you want to have a passive-aggressive de'bait' about that sort of thing, please feel free to go and start your own thread on the matter.
Ketara wrote: The main issue with self-defence weapons, is that they can always be used as offensive weapons. It's a tricky one.
Offensive use of a weapon is illegal, however. People who are willing to break that law will not be deterred by another law which punishes citizens for caring and using weapons for self-defense. It's not very tricky at all. The only people who really suffer under this regime are the ones who are law abiding.
I suspect it's more about limiting the supply of potentially offensive weapons, and decreasing the number of them on the streets and available for sale. Otherwise, you end up in the 'Well, why bother making guns illegal? Everyone should carry them to see off violent attackers (who might have guns)' circular debate. Which really has no answer.
Ketara wrote: It depends on context. If you have a pepper spray, that's clearly there to be used on people.
Yes, absolutely, thankfully so for my ex and two other friends.
Ketara wrote: It all boils down to whether or not you have a legitimate civil peaceful purpose other than 'self-defence' for carrying something.
Would "device to discourage a criminal from forcefully inserting his penis into my vagina while I cry and scream and sob whilst he beats me about the face and necks with his fists and I suffer a lifetime of trauma" be a legitimate enough reason?
Or is the entirely legal, non-toxic staining spray even more effective at disabling such reprehensible activities?
I'll be honest squire. I made this thread for the purpose of asking for suggestions to help my girlfriend. So far, your entire contribution has been a ton of sarky and argumentative tripe about the state of Britain and the law there. If you want to have a passive-aggressive de'bait' about that sort of thing, please feel free to go and start your own thread on the matter.
As I said get her to take some martial arts/self defense classes and form a neighborhood watch around her neighborhood. I mean what is british law gonna do make her arms and legs illegal (on the subject of martial arts/self defense)?
Seems like I'd be breaking a lot of unjust - and, simply put, moronic - laws in order to protect my individual liberties.
Humour me for a minute. Precisely which of your individual liberties are limited by these so called "moronic laws"?
Sure! I think it's because I've been raised in a society whose core concept is basically, well, effectively unlimited rights that are limited only by another citizen's rights. The idea of being "born" with these liberties, not granted by anyone, but simply having them for being born. It appears to be, to my mostly untrained eye, that other countries' citizens are merely granted morsels of rights by the fiat of another group of people. So, anyways, put simply, my individual right to life would be limited by someone attempting to take it away from me.
It's important to take into account that a self-defense class is something that has to be done regularly and with conviction, otherwise it'll just create a false sense of security, because she's "doing something". Muscle memory needs to be formed, and a proper response even when suddendly attacked.
A large metal flashlight has been mentioned. As she is traveling at night that is a completely reasonable use. She is not carrying for defensive purposes, just so she won't walk into a wall at night.
As I said get her to take some martial arts/self defense classes and form a neighborhood watch around her neighborhood. I mean what is british law gonna do make her arms and legs illegal (on the subject of martial arts/self defense)?
Problem is it will take time for those classes to make her effective, especially if she is against more than one person.
What about a can of spray deodorant? Spray that in someone's face and it'd definitely sting their eyes plus irritate their throat and make breathing difficult. I also doubt that any police officer would consider it unusual for a woman to carry a small can of deodorant in her purse/bag, either.
Along side a decent heavy duty torch, of course. Can't remember what make it is but my dad got a torch for christmas which runs on a lithium ion battery and at full beam could illuminate our entire back garden like a mains powered spotlight.
Ketara wrote: I made this thread for the purpose of asking for suggestions to help my girlfriend.
The best solution, albeit a long term one, is probably to organize/vote for candidates who will work to repeal laws that hamstring the capacity of people who are already vulnerable, because of where they can afford to live, what shifts they get stuck with at work, their inability to afford safe transport, etc, etc, to defend themselves against violent crime. The short term solution is of course to carry whatever effective weapon one can obtain if the probability of being sexually assaulted, maimed, or worse is sufficiently alarming.
Ketara wrote: I'll be honest squire. I made this thread for the purpose of asking for suggestions to help my girlfriend.
Then I would invest in illegal pepper spray, an illegal collapsible police baton, or some other excellent illegal self-defense weapon, if you'd like your girlfriend to actually be protected - it worked for mine.
Witzkatz wrote: It's important to take into account that a self-defense class is something that has to be done regularly and with conviction, otherwise it'll just create a false sense of security, because she's "doing something". Muscle memory needs to be formed, and a proper response even when suddendly attacked.
True but it's better than many of the other options and it's totally legal far as I know.
Witzkatz wrote: It's important to take into account that a self-defense class is something that has to be done regularly and with conviction, otherwise it'll just create a false sense of security, because she's "doing something". Muscle memory needs to be formed, and a proper response even when suddendly attacked.
I suspect that the torch idea combined with some form of MMA or Thai Kickboxing a few times a week would appear to be the most logical solution here. From what I can find, the wasp spray seems to be an imperfect solution that could potentially infringe upon the law, the dog is impractical right now, and whilst totally awesome, the modified lighter/flamethrower probably wouldn't deter someone so much as seriously injure them and get her arrested.
Ketara wrote: I'll be honest squire. I made this thread for the purpose of asking for suggestions to help my girlfriend.
Then I would invest in illegal pepper spray, an illegal collapsible police baton, or some other excellent illegal self-defense weapon, if you'd like your girlfriend to actually be protected - it worked for mine.
That's wonderful. Next time, please read the part of OP and title noted as 'Legal'.
Ketara wrote: I made this thread for the purpose of asking for suggestions to help my girlfriend.
The best solution, albeit a long term one, is probably to organize/vote for candidates who will work to repeal laws that hamstring the capacity of people who are already vulnerable, because of where they can afford to live, what shifts they get stuck with at work, their inability to afford safe transport, etc, etc, to defend themselves against violent crime. The short term solution is of course to carry whatever effective weapon one can obtain if the probability of being sexually assaulted, maimed, or worse is sufficiently alarming.
As far as I'm aware, there's absolutely no mainstream political party that champions that sort of agenda. Weapons ownership is quite antithetical to the British in many regards. It simply isn't the same political hot topic it is in the US.
Whilst assault is always a risk, I suspect it isn't high enough to potentially get arrested/locked up for violating offensive weapons law, and the lady herself has asked for it to be kept legal. Hence the specification 'legal'. I could get a dozen tasers posted from the US if I wanted, but alas, it doesn't help my problem right now.
Chute82 wrote: Did a little research and a Schutzhund trained German Shepard cost around 60k if you want a protection dog. Be cheaper to buy her a car.
There might be local shelters that train rescued dogs. The dog in my avatar was Schutzhund trained because the people who rehabilitated him before we adopted him worked with lots of Rotties andGerman Shepherds, and he was practically free. You don't even need to Schutzhund train a dog, just get a moderately big dog and train him with German command words.
Plus German sounds aggressive.
Dogs are one thing but there's law involved there too. Ie agressive dogs get put down.
Trained dogs are typically not aggressive, unless commanded to be. A big friendly dog is still a deterrent because nobody is going to think that dog is cool with an attacker hurting his owner.
Obviously big dogs are not the most practical for everyone.
whatever object she chooses for defense should be something she can carry in her hand the entire journey. Anything she carries in her purse or pocket might as well be on the moon in a self defense situation.
I think women should all be able to carry pepper spray. The pepper spray itself should have an alarm that activates when the trigger is depressed, as loud as an air horn, so that anyone can hear and come to the situation. It will then act as a further protective device for women using it as a self defense object and a deterrent towards using it offensively as you'll clearly be able to be found. Make it so the pepper spray won't come out if the alarm isn't in place, and the alarm can't be shut off by anyone other than a police officer who could have a key or datacard specifically to shut the alarms off. If someone tries to high tail it and leave it in a bush, fingerprints. It's not like it can be used to kill, anyway.
That being said I personally am not the least bit worried about getting pepper sprayed for no reason. Women live in a scary world of large, strong, perverse animals that can take advantage of them.. Society should do everything to alleviate that fear and lack of comfort. Of course investigations should be done properly, but come on.. is there really any reason to prohibit pepper spray? The only people afraid of pepper spray should be those that provoke its use.
If anyone is really worried about it, just take names of the customer every time a pepper spray is purchased, and stamp a serial number on the inside of the can. That way, if one is used by an assaulter and they get away, you can at least go question the person who originally purchased it and investigate from there, and they shouldn't be able to remove the number without breaking the spray and hurting themselves in the process.
It's very saddening to me that women need to be afraid like this... they need to be allowed to defend themselves.
If someone is assaulting your girlfriend and she brains them with a police baton or flashlight or anything really, is that guy actually gonna go to the fething cops about it? He's probably gonna turn his tail and be satisfied with freedom for the time being, or lay on the concrete with his head busted until he's found by someone. Women don't generally assault people. I'm not telling her to break the law, but with my current mindset if I was worried about my freedom to not be violated against my will, I'd carry the most effective weapon I could and use it with no second thoughts.
The person assaulting me or anyone in this manner more than deserves anything they get. If caught by the police, there's no use for them anyway, and they aren't willingly going to go to the police if they're assaulters. Sexual abuse is not okay and needs the highest punishment available for it.
I don't know what the laws are like in the UK as far as sentencing, but I know people commonly get far less jail time for sexual assault than they should here.
Witzkatz wrote: It's important to take into account that a self-defense class is something that has to be done regularly and with conviction, otherwise it'll just create a false sense of security, because she's "doing something". Muscle memory needs to be formed, and a proper response even when suddendly attacked.
I suspect that the torch idea combined with some form of MMA or Thai Kickboxing a few times a week would appear to be the most logical solution here. From what I can find, the wasp spray seems to be an imperfect solution that could potentially infringe upon the law, the dog is impractical right now, and whilst totally awesome, the modified lighter/flamethrower probably wouldn't deter someone so much as seriously injure them and get her arrested.
It may also be possible to make certain appeals. Get cops to patrol the area or something. Talk to law makers about this situation (and hope they don't drag their ***es on it). One time there had been break-ins around a neighborhood I was in and somebody often in the late hours would knock on my door (probably waiting for me to open the door so they could jump me). I looked from inside my place and nobody was outside. I called the police about it (not 911 but the department number) and described the situation and they said they'd send a car to patrol the area from time to time. I never heard a knock again at that time at night.
It may also be possible to make certain appeals. Get cops to patrol the area or something. Talk to law makers about this situation (and hope they don't drag their ***es on it). One time there had been break-ins around a neighborhood I was in and somebody often in the late hours would knock on my door (probably waiting for me to open the door so they could jump me). I looked from inside my place and nobody was outside. I called the police about it (not 911 but the department number) and described the situation and they said they'd send a car to patrol the area from time to time. I never heard a knock again at that time at night.
There's actually police tape and officers all over the area at this exact moment (I'm told). Multiple assaults by groups of men is taken quite seriously (I doubt the local constabulary wants a Cologne on their watch). That presence is a temporary measure though of course.
I'll suggest that she try and get the SU to press for more lighting to be placed. Considering that one of last night's assaults took place on a main road in front of an off-license though, I'm not sure what good that'll do....
I can understand that firearms aren't an option to common people in other countries (and many would be uncomfortable carrying anyways), but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around why pepper spray isn't legal.
I mean, it's not fun to be pepper sprayed, but it's not lethal or even permanently damaging. Worst-case scenario, someone is irresponsible or crazy with pepper spray, the victim is in pain for a couple days at most and the person who sprayed them gets stuck with an assault charge.
Regardless, it's more than troubling to imagine having the only weapon legally available to defend yourself with is basically a spray can paint to hopefully identify your attacker after you're robbed, raped, killed, or all of the above.
How did that come about?
But on-topic, my brother is a cop in the US and he has an extremely bright rapid-strobe flashlight meant to blind attackers. It is mounted on the bottom of his service pistol, though, so it's not exactly his last resort. You can try googling 'rapid strobe flashlights' for some options.
It might be a thought, but, again, it's a bit concerning to think of using a flashlight as a personal safety measure. And it would be nigh-useless against multiple attackers.
Witzkatz wrote: It's important to take into account that a self-defense class is something that has to be done regularly and with conviction, otherwise it'll just create a false sense of security, because she's "doing something". Muscle memory needs to be formed, and a proper response even when suddendly attacked.
True but it's better than many of the other options and it's totally legal far as I know.
It really isn't. Learning self defense in an area known for gang rapes is like going to the gym to get in shape and not having it count until you look like Schwarzenegger. I took Krav Maga for months when I lived in Oakland and the most important lesson I learned is that self defense martial arts are practically worthless outside of certain specific situations. She's not going to River Song her way through four or five guys who get the drop on her.
It may also be possible to make certain appeals. Get cops to patrol the area or something. Talk to law makers about this situation (and hope they don't drag their ***es on it). One time there had been break-ins around a neighborhood I was in and somebody often in the late hours would knock on my door (probably waiting for me to open the door so they could jump me). I looked from inside my place and nobody was outside. I called the police about it (not 911 but the department number) and described the situation and they said they'd send a car to patrol the area from time to time. I never heard a knock again at that time at night.
There's actually police tape and officers all over the area at this exact moment (I'm told). Multiple assaults by groups of men is taken quite seriously (I doubt the local constabulary wants a Cologne on their watch). That presence is a temporary measure though of course.
I'll suggest that she try and get the SU to press for more lighting to be placed. Considering that one of last night's assaults took place on a main road in front of an off-license though, I'm not sure what good that'll do....
Were these women attacked by themselves? If so perhaps you could make them go home in groups. If nothing else even if they do overpower the group of people saying one person couldn't get away and alert police would be hard to believe.
Witzkatz wrote: It's important to take into account that a self-defense class is something that has to be done regularly and with conviction, otherwise it'll just create a false sense of security, because she's "doing something". Muscle memory needs to be formed, and a proper response even when suddendly attacked.
True but it's better than many of the other options and it's totally legal far as I know.
It really isn't. Learning self defense in an area known for gang rapes is like going to the gym to get in shape and not having it count until you look like Schwarzenegger. I took Krav Maga for months when I lived in Oakland and the most important lesson I learned is that self defense martial arts are practically worthless outside of certain specific situations. She's not going to River Song her way through four or five guys who get the drop on her.
Would you recommend she take the 'Nin-Jutsu' class so she can carry a boken or something instead then? I know martial arts have something of a mixed rep in real life situation, but the only experience I have is of Kendo/iaido based, so not really applicable to the bare-fist stuff.
It sounds like a few people ruined it for everyone by messing around with pepperspray and as a knee jerk reaction everyone was banned from having it.
sounds very silly to me.
Edit: 90% sure that nin jutsu class is a complete sham and a waste of time and money. most of those classes wont be of any use in actual situations. i think some one mentioned earlier its a false sense of security. she really needs to aim for the nuts and run the feth away. assuming they come exactly from the front. and not blind side her and stuff.
Witzkatz wrote: It's important to take into account that a self-defense class is something that has to be done regularly and with conviction, otherwise it'll just create a false sense of security, because she's "doing something". Muscle memory needs to be formed, and a proper response even when suddendly attacked.
True but it's better than many of the other options and it's totally legal far as I know.
It really isn't. Learning self defense in an area known for gang rapes is like going to the gym to get in shape and not having it count until you look like Schwarzenegger. I took Krav Maga for months when I lived in Oakland and the most important lesson I learned is that self defense martial arts are practically worthless outside of certain specific situations. She's not going to River Song her way through four or five guys who get the drop on her.
Would you recommend she take the 'Nin-Jutsu' class so she can carry a boken or something then? I know martial arts have something of a mixed rep in real life situation, but the only experience I have is of Kendo/iaido based, so not really applicable to the bare-fist stuff.
Alternatively, take up LARPing as a wizard. Gives her a reason to carry a heavy wooden staff in case she needs to go Gandalf on somebody
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Desubot wrote: It sounds like a few people ruined it for everyone by messing around with pepperspray and as a knee jerk reaction everyone was banned from having it.
sounds very silly to me.
That sounds like a lot of UK law, with special emphasis on UK drug law.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: She's not going to River Song her way through four or five guys who get the drop on her.
^
As my sensei once said, the best solution to confrontation is to run like a mad bat mother fether out of hell!
The idea that you can just learn some kung fu on the weekends and then take out a band of potential rapists in a 4v1 fight only happens in Hollywood. Even in a 1v1 fight, it's a huge risk because the attack could just get angrier, have a knife, or who knows what. The best solution is always to run, and do whatever is necessary to assure escape.
Alternatively, take up LARPing as a wizard. Gives her a reason to carry a heavy wooden staff in case she needs to go Gandalf on somebody
'Honestly Officer, I was just trying to cast Magic Missile, and my thumb slipped and used 'Head Crack' instead!'
I'd heard good things about Muay Thai, but as I said, I'm really no expert in the hand to hand stuff. By the sounds of things, it would be most advisable to just give her a legit reason to carry an actual weapon of some kind and training to use it. I know from my own training you can kill/hurt someone with little more than a stick if you know what you're doing with it.
But on-topic, my brother is a cop in the US and he has an extremely bright rapid-strobe flashlight meant to blind attackers. It is mounted on the bottom of his service pistol, though, so it's not exactly his last resort. You can try googling 'rapid strobe flashlights' for some options.
Ketara wrote: As far as I'm aware, there's absolutely no mainstream political party that champions that sort of agenda.
I mean, that just seems incomprehensible. Here we are having a discussion because your lady friend justifiably fears being sexually assaulted to the point of wanting to obtain, let's be honest here, a weapon to defend herself but faces the problem of carrying whatever might be considered a weapon, even in the context of self-defense, being illegal. And you're telling me that there is nobody credible over there who can take up this issue as a matter of politics? It's an absolute paradox from my perspective.
Alternatively, take up LARPing as a wizard. Gives her a reason to carry a heavy wooden staff in case she needs to go Gandalf on somebody
'Honestly Officer, I was just trying to cast Magic Missile, and my thumb slipped and used 'Head Crack' instead!'
I'd heard good things about Muay Thai, but as I said, I'm really no expert in the hand to hand stuff. By the sounds of things, it would be most advisable to just give her a legit reason to carry an actual weapon of some kind and training to use it. I know from my own training you can kill/hurt someone with little more than a stick if you know what you're doing with it.
But on-topic, my brother is a cop in the US and he has an extremely bright rapid-strobe flashlight meant to blind attackers. It is mounted on the bottom of his service pistol, though, so it's not exactly his last resort. You can try googling 'rapid strobe flashlights' for some options.
This is a good suggestion. Thank you.
I dunno I suggested a night watch, going home in groups, getting cops to patrol the area and I dunno. If running is the best option just have her run on a treadmill or in real life every day. I'm kinda out of suggestions over here.
UK law sounds like it'll ban everything from the dangerous to the merely annoying. Jeez I'd be surprised if the UK isn't entirely baby proofed. Seriously I understand having assault rifles (some types) legal in the usa is probably too far but UK law is very restrictive on the most basic types of self defense. How can you ban pepper spray? In the usa as long as you have a license it's totally fine far as I know.
Witzkatz wrote: It's important to take into account that a self-defense class is something that has to be done regularly and with conviction, otherwise it'll just create a false sense of security, because she's "doing something". Muscle memory needs to be formed, and a proper response even when suddendly attacked.
True but it's better than many of the other options and it's totally legal far as I know.
It really isn't. Learning self defense in an area known for gang rapes is like going to the gym to get in shape and not having it count until you look like Schwarzenegger. I took Krav Maga for months when I lived in Oakland and the most important lesson I learned is that self defense martial arts are practically worthless outside of certain specific situations. She's not going to River Song her way through four or five guys who get the drop on her.
Would you recommend she take the 'Nin-Jutsu' class so she can carry a boken or something instead then? I know martial arts have something of a mixed rep in real life situation, but the only experience I have is of Kendo/iaido based, so not really applicable to the bare-fist stuff.
I don't know, man. My wife carries pepper spray and an alarm and still calls for a security escort if she has to leave work after a certain hour. We also have maglites and those car windshield breakers everywhere, as well as a very scary dog for home defense. None of those sound like an option for her. If a martial arts class isn't too much of a burden and let's her walk around with a weapon, go for it. If she is in a drama class or artistically inclined, you could probably get away with carrying a display sword or something that she ostensibly uses for cosplay. A big padlock might be useful if she has a reason for it.
In all honesty, though, if there are gangs of violent guys about then she could do everything right and it still wouldn't save her. Minimizing the amount of time she spends in that neighborhood might be the best defense.
Alternatively, take up LARPing as a wizard. Gives her a reason to carry a heavy wooden staff in case she needs to go Gandalf on somebody
'Honestly Officer, I was just trying to cast Magic Missile, and my thumb slipped and used 'Head Crack' instead!'
I'd heard good things about Muay Thai, but as I said, I'm really no expert in the hand to hand stuff. By the sounds of things, it would be most advisable to just give her a legit reason to carry an actual weapon of some kind and training to use it.
Muay Thai is brutal and very effective but it's an art that involves a fair amount of brute force and getting really close to your opponent. It is not a defensive art but an offensive one. For beating the gak out of people, it works great, but for defending yourself from harm it is counter intuitive. And to be blunt, unless your girlfriend is very brawny, Muay Thai wouldn't help her much. It's physical intensive and you need to condition yourself a lot to make full use of it. Arts like Judo and Jujitsu with lots of grappling would also be counter intuitive. The last thing you want in a street fight where there may be multiple attackers is to be on the ground.
If you want to learn some basic self defense, and one that actually serves that purpose rather than something to boast about, Aikido is a good pick. It was specifically designed by its creator as a defensive art (as in for protecting yourself). You don't need much physical conditioning to use it, and it is predominantly about controlling an opponents ability to move and harm you rather than beating them senseless. The focus is on arm and wrist locks and simple throws that can be done while standing. There are several versions of Kung Fu that are also designed this way.
Also, tell her to get a cheap bike. She will be a lot more mobile, and muggers/attackers are looking for easy targets. If it gets stolen, so what? It was a cheap bike.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: She's not going to River Song her way through four or five guys who get the drop on her.
^
As my sensei once said, the best solution to confrontation is to run like a mad bat mother fether out of hell!
The idea that you can just learn some kung fu on the weekends and then take out a band of potential rapists in a 4v1 fight only happens in Hollywood. Even in a 1v1 fight, it's a huge risk because the attack could just get angrier, have a knife, or who knows what. The best solution is always to run, and do whatever is necessary to assure escape.
Ketara wrote: As far as I'm aware, there's absolutely no mainstream political party that champions that sort of agenda.
I mean, that just seems incomprehensible. Here we are having a discussion because your lady friend justifiably fears being sexually assaulted to the point of wanting to obtain, let's be honest here, a weapon to defend herself but faces the problem of carrying whatever might be considered a weapon, even in the context of self-defense, being illegal. And you're telling me that there is nobody credible over there who can take up this issue as a matter of politics? It's an absolute paradox from my perspective.
I believe UKIP says you should be able to legally own a licensed handgun, but that's a bout it.
The British, generally speaking, don't do weapons. That's why there's no belief that it's infringing on our rights. Because we generally don't care to have them. The only people who do are those who want to do nasty things with them. Obviously, the law is exceedingly broad here, and perhaps should be changed (certainly in the case of pepper spray), and I think that's because of the occasional knee-jerk legislative change (I know it was the case with katanas).
Compared to the US though, where everyone fights about your right to own and carry what can best be described as 'tactical arsenal', nobody here cares about such things. Mainly because it doesn't normally infringe on our lives. Crime rates have been going down for decades, so there just isn't the call for it.
Witzkatz wrote: It's important to take into account that a self-defense class is something that has to be done regularly and with conviction, otherwise it'll just create a false sense of security, because she's "doing something". Muscle memory needs to be formed, and a proper response even when suddendly attacked.
True but it's better than many of the other options and it's totally legal far as I know.
It really isn't. Learning self defense in an area known for gang rapes is like going to the gym to get in shape and not having it count until you look like Schwarzenegger. I took Krav Maga for months when I lived in Oakland and the most important lesson I learned is that self defense martial arts are practically worthless outside of certain specific situations. She's not going to River Song her way through four or five guys who get the drop on her.
Would you recommend she take the 'Nin-Jutsu' class so she can carry a boken or something instead then? I know martial arts have something of a mixed rep in real life situation, but the only experience I have is of Kendo/iaido based, so not really applicable to the bare-fist stuff.
I don't know, man. My wife carries pepper spray and an alarm and still calls for a security escort if she has to leave work after a certain hour. We also have maglites and those car windshield breakers everywhere, as well as a very scary dog for home defense. None of those sound like an option for her. If a martial arts class isn't too much of a burden and let's her walk around with a weapon, go for it. If she is in a drama class or artistically inclined, you could probably get away with carrying a display sword or something that she ostensibly uses for cosplay. A big padlock might be useful if she has a reason for it.
In all honesty, though, if there are gangs of violent guys about then she could do everything right and it still wouldn't save her. Minimizing the amount of time she spends in that neighborhood might be the best defense.
If this happens mainly at night then never have her go outside in that neighborhood at night. If she'd need to go there and it's night time have her stay the night somewhere else and go back to her place during the day. I'm fairly sure you wouldn't mind keeping your girlfriend company during the night ;P.
Just keep in mind OP, if that maglite is used correctly, it can cause serious damage. Basically the way cops use it is you hold it near the light, with the long handle extending back toward your face. If the attacker keeps coming, youre already holding like a club or a bat, essentially like if you were testing it on your shoulder (its not long enough to reach your shoulder, but gives the mental image) If the guy keeps coming, you swi g for the face. Don't bother with anything else, aim for the face and skull.
Keep in mind if she's doing this correctly, even a fairly weak woman could cause serious brain damage or even kill the attacker with a solid enough metal flashlight. These things are brutal.
I know I'd rather be shot in the gut than be hit in the skull with a really solid maglite.
Additionally, if you go the maglite route, MAKE SURE SHE KNOWS THIS, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, IS MENTALLY PREPARED FOR IT. Bashing a guy in the face with something like that will not be pleasant. There will be blood, there will be other fluids, it will be very unpleasant. People make this mistake all the time in the USA when they decide to carry guns or knives. They think its gonna be all Hollywood and clean but when the moment comes its a horrible, traumatic experience, and they freeze up or panic.
Also, tell her to get a cheap bike. She will be a lot more mobile, and muggers/attackers are looking for easy targets. If it gets stolen, so what? It was a cheap bike.
Now THAT is a good suggestion! You don't tend to hear about many people on wheels getting attacked for anything but a bike theft. I'll suggest that to her, definitely.
Thanks, Kronk Kronkington the first.
MrMoustaffa wrote: Just keep in mind OP, if that maglite is used correctly, it can cause serious damage. Basically the way cops use it is you hold it near the light, with the long handle extending back toward your face. If the attacker keeps coming, youre already holding like a club or a bat, essentially like if you were testing it on your shoulder (its not long enough to reach your shoulder, but gives the mental image) If the guy keeps coming, you swi g for the face. Don't bother with anything else, aim for the face and skull.
Keep in mind if she's doing this correctly, even a fairly weak woman could cause serious brain damage or even kill the attacker with a solid enough metal flashlight. These things are brutal.
I know I'd rather be shot in the gut than be hit in the skull with a really solid maglite
Ketara wrote: As far as I'm aware, there's absolutely no mainstream political party that champions that sort of agenda.
I mean, that just seems incomprehensible. Here we are having a discussion because your lady friend justifiably fears being sexually assaulted to the point of wanting to obtain, let's be honest here, a weapon to defend herself but faces the problem of carrying whatever might be considered a weapon, even in the context of self-defense, being illegal. And you're telling me that there is nobody credible over there who can take up this issue as a matter of politics? It's an absolute paradox from my perspective.
I believe UKIP says you should be able to legally own a licensed handgun, but that's a bout it.
The British, generally speaking, don't do weapons. That's why there's no belief that it's infringing on our rights. Because we generally don't care to have them. The only people who do are those who want to do nasty things with them. Obviously, the law is exceedingly broad here, and perhaps should be changed (certainly in the case of pepper spray), and I think that's because of the occasional knee-jerk legislative change (I know it was the case with katanas).
Compared to the US though, where everyone fights about your right to own and carry what can best be described as 'tactical arsenal', nobody here cares about such things. Mainly because it doesn't normally infringe on our lives. Crime rates have been going down for decades, so there just isn't the call for it.
Then why is this such a problem for you? If crime rates are going down why are you so stumped with how to handle these increasing rates of groping and possibly worse soon in your girlfriend's neighborhood? Clearly your laws aren't perfect or this wouldn't be a problem. I think we agree pepper spray should've been allowed to an extent or just some sort of preventative measure. They should have a clue how to handle this effectively rather than shrug their shoulders and say 'I dunno.'
Wasp spray is one of the best/worst available items you can spray in the eyes. Hell just breathing it in will cause massive coughing. Get it in the eyes and the dude is going to have to spend quite a while with his eyes under a water faucet before he is able to see without being in pain and might have to go to the hospital. If he goes blind, who cares? He is a scum bag anyway. Say she is allergic to bee stings so she carries the can just in case.
A large mag light is a good choice for multiple things. Although practicing with a similar item just to get a handle of how to use it and range will be required. Its the least effective thing I can think of.
Does she work with electronics or electricity? You can get your self a handy dandy line workers belt kit which has a razor on it with a handle designed for slicing open wire casing. Close in it would be an effective weapon as it is very sharp and would cause more damage than the maglight. Its a real tool so it should be legal.
I have a similar problem with my wife. She works often well after dark on a large campus in Central Florida with a large number of foreign students(almost 2/3s at her college), most are simply rude and obnoxious(more for cultural reasons than actual malice) but no doubt there are some dangerous ones, they are deported as fast as they are caught and paperwork done. Not to mention a high South/Central American population off campus including well known international gangs like the Latin Kings. The campus has an extremely high crime rate although most is not attributed to the campus for PR reasons and the chief is either incompetent, forced to follow a script, or simply has his head in the sand. A frat house on campus was robbed at gun point a few weeks back, never made the news. Thankfully they are about to pass a law in FL that allows concealed carriers to carry guns on campus. That will put my mind at ease quite a bit. She doesn't like guns but she can bulls-eye the hell out of targets with me distracting her at 10m with a .38. Not an option for you guys though, sadly. We will see in a few years how that opinion changes as violence increases in Europe in general and violent crimes here continue to decrease as gun ownership increases. Self defense is a human right and should not be legislated(Within reason of course).
One further comment earlier about a spray inconveniencing them short term and a bullet ending them forever. Yeah and? Rapists deserve to die. Anyone who preys on the weak deserves whats coming to them.
I didn't feel like going thru the whole thread but has anyone mentioned a kubaton. And if that doesn't pass you can get a pen that functions like one. They are very effective. But she would still need some training.
Then why is this such a problem for you? If crime rates are going down why are you so stumped with how to handle these increasing rates of groping and possibly worse soon in your girlfriend's neighborhood? Clearly your laws aren't perfect or this wouldn't be a problem. I think we agree pepper spray should've been allowed to an extent or just some sort of preventative measure. They should have a clue how to handle this effectively rather than shrug their shoulders and say 'I dunno.'
Pardon? I said in the very post you quoted I thought pepper spray should be legal.
I also don't have control over crime rates in specific neighbourhoods, or indeed the general nature of mankind. I'm really not entirely sure what you're getting at here, you seem to be conflating my specific need here with my statement about British cultures approach to weapons generally.
Ketara wrote: I believe UKIP says you should be able to legally own a licensed handgun, but that's a bout it.
Judging by your government-sponsored news agency's take, which FYI we hear quite a bit of over here, or can do anyhow, I was not under the impression that UKIP is considered mainstream. One would think that, given how inimical weapons are to the British mindset per your comments, UKIP would perhaps talk more about legalizing pepper spray (rather than going straight to handguns). All I can find with my casual googling is UKIP praising Germans for buying up pepper spray in the wake of the mass sexual assaults at New Year's.
Perhaps she can take some wine with her or some sort of glass bottle filled with something. If an attacker comes around she can break it or smash it over their face. They can't exactly tell her not to carry a glass bottle filled with a alcohol or something.
Then why is this such a problem for you? If crime rates are going down why are you so stumped with how to handle these increasing rates of groping and possibly worse soon in your girlfriend's neighborhood? Clearly your laws aren't perfect or this wouldn't be a problem. I think we agree pepper spray should've been allowed to an extent or just some sort of preventative measure. They should have a clue how to handle this effectively rather than shrug their shoulders and say 'I dunno.'
Pardon? I said in the very post you quoted I thought pepper spray should be legal.
I also don't have control over crime rates in specific neighbourhoods, or indeed the general nature of mankind. I'm really not entirely sure what you're getting at here, you seem to be conflating my specific need here with my statement about British cultures approach to weapons generally.
I thought this thread was you asking how to overthrow your namby-pamby government, young man!
Also, tell her to get a cheap bike. She will be a lot more mobile, and muggers/attackers are looking for easy targets. If it gets stolen, so what? It was a cheap bike.
Now THAT is a good suggestion! You don't tend to hear about many people on wheels getting attacked for anything but a bike theft. I'll suggest that to her, definitely.
Thanks, Kronk Kronkington the first
That's another false sense of security. A relative of mine was pulled off her bike and assaulted in broad daylight. Joggers and bikers get attacked all the time in big city parks.
Still, if she rides a bike on a wide, well lit path and pays attention to her surroundings then it is much safer. Just don't think of a bike as unassailable.
One thing to consider with all the legal options being offered.
Is she willing to maim or kill another human and strong enough to do so?
If not, many of the options presented are gonna piss off an attacker and likely get your gal beat senseless. If she uses a Mag light and does not break the attackers wrist right off (assuming he goes to block) or knock him unconscious, he is likely to be in too close for another swing to land with force, and be upset.
Attitude/psychological prep MUST accompany any capability. If she can't commit to destroying another human it may be best not to escalate the attacker's anger and aggression levels.
Then why is this such a problem for you? If crime rates are going down why are you so stumped with how to handle these increasing rates of groping and possibly worse soon in your girlfriend's neighborhood? Clearly your laws aren't perfect or this wouldn't be a problem. I think we agree pepper spray should've been allowed to an extent or just some sort of preventative measure. They should have a clue how to handle this effectively rather than shrug their shoulders and say 'I dunno.'
Pardon? I said in the very post you quoted I thought pepper spray should be legal.
I also don't have control over crime rates in specific neighbourhoods, or indeed the general nature of mankind. I'm really not entirely sure what you're getting at here, you seem to be conflating my specific need here with my statement about British cultures approach to weapons generally.
I know I said we both agreed on it. I'm making a point that your government is a bit too strict. I also am just saying despite the numbers certain crimes might be on the rise whereas others (violent crimes or possibly murders are on the low end).
@kronk: What do you expect? I'm an American. We've wanted to see the UK government get toppled for centuries now and see their queen pushed down some stairs (yes I know that's horrible but I'm kidding). It's long overdue ;P.
Ketara wrote: I believe UKIP says you should be able to legally own a licensed handgun, but that's a bout it.
Judging by your government-sponsored news agency's take, which FYI we hear quite a bit of over here, or can do anyhow, I was not under the impression that UKIP is considered mainstream. One would think that, given how inimical weapons are to the British mindset per your comments, UKIP would perhaps talk more about legalizing pepper spray (rather than going straight to handguns). All I can find with my casual googling is UKIP praising Germans for buying up pepper spray in the wake of the mass sexual assaults at New Year's.
UKIP are semi-mainstream right now. They took a good chunk of the vote last election, but probably won't in the next. They're something of a spent force.
kronk wrote:
I thought this thread was you asking how to overthrow your namby-pamby government, young man!
Drat. My secret motive is revealed!
BobtheInquisitor wrote:
That's another false sense of security. A relative of mine was pulled off her bike and assaulted in broad daylight. Joggers and bikers get attacked all the time in big city parks.
Still, if she rides a bike on a wide, well lit path and pays attention to her surroundings then it is much safer. Just don't think of a bike as unassailable.
Oh certainly. Nothing short of Abrams makes her completely unassailable.
That being said, most bike assaults are done with the goal of hijacking the bike. And I'd far rather someone nicked a cheap bike and she got a bruise from being pulled off then she's down the station after a sexual assault, y'know? Lesser of two evils and all that.
CptJake wrote:One thing to consider with all the legal options being offered.
Is she willing to maim or kill another human and strong enough to do so?
Probably not unless pushed to do so with no choice. That's why we're discussing ways generally to make an opening in which to escape (lights, a single blow, some kind of spray, etc). I'm not going to recommend she learn Muay Thai to try and beat up a gang of blokes, I'm not that silly.
Attitude/psychological prep MUST accompany any capability. If she can't commit to destroying another human it may be best not to escalate the attacker's anger and aggression levels.
This probably deserves to be reiterated.
It's another reason why I'd propose Aikido to anyone looking to learn some self defense to protect themselves from harm. Throw someone to the ground right and you have a good chance to run off before they can get back on their feet. Simple as that. Muay Thai is a good example of a fighting art with a ruthless mentality behind it. Lacking that, it is more likely you'll piss someone off than actually hurt them or ensure your own safety.
sell a knife to anyone under 18 (16 to 18 year olds in Scotland can buy cutlery and kitchen knives) unless it’s a knife with a folding blade 3 inches long (7.62 cm) or less, eg a Swiss Army knife
carry a knife in public without good reason - unless it’s a knife with a folding blade 3 inches long (7.62 cm) or less
carry, buy or sell any type of banned knife
use any knife in a threatening way (even a legal knife, such as a Swiss Army knife)
If the rape rate is so high, legally she can easily argue "reason" to carry an offensive weapon, so long as she doesn't use it in a threatening way, I finished my law degree some time ago and haven't kept up to date on current legislation, but this would be considered a "safe case" if it went to court and grounds for legal compensation from the police for not doing enough to curb the problem, as well as damages for stress etc.
I'd suggest speaking with the police before band however and explain the situation, this would put you in good stead legally should it be nessesary.
That which is nessesary is legal, while not an actual law in the UK, is still considered.
Manchu wrote: One would think that, given how inimical weapons are to the British mindset per your comments, UKIP would perhaps talk more about legalizing pepper spray (rather than going straight to handguns). All I can find with my casual googling is UKIP praising Germans for buying up pepper spray in the wake of the mass sexual assaults at New Year's.
Well...
judgedoug wrote: its like all of the people engaging in this thread are playing a game of make-believe, with self-limiting rules. Now gosh how can we get up these stairs? We aren't allowed to use any of our limbs. If you use a limb you might go to jail!
It sadly seems as if they are content to play by the "no limbs" rule even though if they but stand up they could make it up the stairs with no problem.
Asking the police for advice sounds like a good idea to me. They probably have a good idea of what might help.
I don't feel like strategies that involve fighting off half a dozen people at a time are going to be winners. I walk at night from time to time and if a guy is walking the opposite direction there's nothing to tell me if he's going to attack me, especially in the dark. If he chose to, I imagine he would do so when he was close enough that I couldn't react in time.
Also, another thing that comes to mind is you mention the rate of violent crime and sex offenses, but usually those aren't AFAIK committed by strangers. It's entirely possible she is still very safe - though a I say that, if people were getting attacked near where I was walking right now I would think twice about walking there too.
Whilst thoroughly impractical, I daresay this would be a highly effective legal method. You don't get many women raped whilst walking large guard dogs!
Yes, it is most definitely a solution but sadly it sounds like it's not one you can use. But big dogs certainly do the trick
A knife or weapon does you zero good if you don't know how to break a physical hold of someone stronger than you.
That is why most self defense is about how to break a hold and disengage, not escalate via using a weapon. There are techniques which can break holds and disengage regardless if size/weight/power and require no weapons.
Also, when you commit to carrying and using a weapon, you have to be prepared to face the consequences when you use force pre-preemptive or inappropriately. I was maced once at a toys R us during Christmas because some lady thought I was following her to her car when I wasn't. If I didn't have a witness who saw me not even close to her and doing nothing to her, she could have said 'he attacked me'. She sought me out and sprayed me out of preemptive fear. I pressed charges but if I didn't have a witness, I probably would have been in jail with a record now.
Physical unarmed self defense and how to disengage and escape is your best bet. Arming yourself, especially if you don't have the training to overcome fear or 'fight/flight' mechanisms will only escalate a bad situation.
Kilkrazy wrote: I suggest self-defence classes, and carrying a rape alarm and one of those sprays that shoots off indelible paint.
Obviously it is also a good idea to be streetwise in general.
Rape alarms are sadly quite useless, statistics have shown people are very likely to intervene unless they have direct line of sight to the attack, you are better off shouting fire.
I'm currently looking into the legality of carrying flick sticks, as these seem to be a grey area in the UK.
Whilst thoroughly impractical, I daresay this would be a highly effective legal method. You don't get many women raped whilst walking large guard dogs!
Yes, it is most definitely a solution but sadly it sounds like it's not one you can use. But big dogs certainly do the trick
My wife lived in the east side of Youngstown, Ohio by herself before we got married. She has a German Shepard that is well trained and would take the dogs for walks in the evening. Dog knows how to bark and growl on command. When she would walk the dog people would cross the street so they didn't have to walk near the dog. Thankfully she never had a problem
High heels shoes. Especially, stiletto types. That heel can put one heck of a puncture wound when used. Hold the inner heel in the palm of the hand, and "slap" someone with it.
In all seriousness, have her take self defense classes, EVERYTHING within reach is a potential weapon, the rock, the tree, the gravel, your pen, and even the droid can be used to defend oneself with the proper training.
Rather than all this stuff that will probably either do nothing, make the situation worse or get her a criminal record, how about seeing if the university have a safty bus? Most do.
Also, remember that she is more likely to die in a car crash taking a taxi than be raped or killed walking home.
Ketara wrote: As far as I'm aware, there's absolutely no mainstream political party that champions that sort of agenda.
I mean, that just seems incomprehensible. Here we are having a discussion because your lady friend justifiably fears being sexually assaulted to the point of wanting to obtain, let's be honest here, a weapon to defend herself but faces the problem of carrying whatever might be considered a weapon, even in the context of self-defense, being illegal. And you're telling me that there is nobody credible over there who can take up this issue as a matter of politics? It's an absolute paradox from my perspective.
I never get why folk struggle with this. We don't see emulating criminals as the way to reduce crime. The more people are walking around armed, in whatever way, the more you're going to end up with situations where folk end up maimed or dead that didn't need to be. It's callous, but at the end of the day from a utilitarian perspective you have to weigh the harm caused by a small number of assaults going ahead unimpeded which would have been stopped had the victim been armed, against the harm caused if many assaults which aren't so one-sided become much more serious because one or more people involved are toting knives and batons, as well as all the other scenarios where an armed populace could exacerbate or create harm.
You know what happens when it's legal to walk around with weapons, in our experience? You go from only hardened criminals carrying to all criminals, then just thuggish and antisocial people generally, then normal folk feel the need to get weapons to "protect themselves", then it becomes normal so kids and teens start doing it - then you've got kids stabbing each other over someone nicking their last ciggy or snogging their girlfriend, bouncers getting stabbed by low-level drug dealers they caught who didn't want to get taken in by the police, street brawls that end with brain damage because some genius pulled out the police baton they bought off ebay, etc etc etc. Then of course the logical thing to do is arm the police with guns so they can keep order, which means of course the criminals get guns, then thugs, etc etc, and oh look we're America, what time's the next school massacre?
I know that's a touch flippant, and at first glance looks very slippery and slightly sloped, but our laws came from experience every bit as much as yours did.
Ketara wrote: As far as I'm aware, there's absolutely no mainstream political party that champions that sort of agenda.
I mean, that just seems incomprehensible. Here we are having a discussion because your lady friend justifiably fears being sexually assaulted to the point of wanting to obtain, let's be honest here, a weapon to defend herself but faces the problem of carrying whatever might be considered a weapon, even in the context of self-defense, being illegal. And you're telling me that there is nobody credible over there who can take up this issue as a matter of politics? It's an absolute paradox from my perspective.
I never get why folk struggle with this. We don't see emulating criminals as the way to reduce crime. The more people are walking around armed, in whatever way, the more you're going to end up with situations where folk end up maimed or dead that didn't need to be. It's callous, but at the end of the day from a utilitarian perspective you have to weigh the harm caused by a small number of assaults going ahead unimpeded which would have been stopped had the victim been armed, against the harm caused if many assaults which aren't so one-sided become much more serious because one or more people involved are toting knives and batons, as well as all the other scenarios where an armed populace could exacerbate or create harm.
You know what happens when it's legal to walk around with weapons, in our experience? You go from only hardened criminals carrying to all criminals, then just thuggish and antisocial people generally, then normal folk feel the need to get weapons to "protect themselves", then it becomes normal so kids and teens start doing it - then you've got kids stabbing each other over someone nicking their last ciggy or snogging their girlfriend, bouncers getting stabbed by low-level drug dealers they caught who didn't want to get taken in by the police, street brawls that end with brain damage because some genius pulled out the police baton they bought off ebay, etc etc etc. Then of course the logical thing to do is arm the police with guns so they can keep order, which means of course the criminals get guns, then thugs, etc etc, and oh look we're America, what time's the next school massacre?
I know that's a touch flippant, and at first glance looks very slippery and slightly sloped, but our laws came from experience every bit as much as yours did.
So you already associate self defense with being a criminal act. I understand why you dont want guns or knives or what not as they are for the most part dangerous and have a crazy spectrum of culture attached. but what of pepper spray and the likes of non lethal types.
So you already associate self defense with being a criminal act. I understand why you dont want guns or knives or what not as they are for the most part dangerous and have a crazy spectrum of culture attached. but what of pepper spray and the likes of non lethal types.
Because pepper spray escalates and doesn't incapacitate, where physical self defense de-escalates and escapes and is more effective at incapacitating than non-lethal devices.
Also, the self-defense training actually prepares you for fight or flight, where having any form of weapon, without training doesn't help you and puts you more at-risk and helps escallate as you have now potentially provided an unarmed assailant a weapon to use on you due to your unprepared training.
Knowing how to break a grip on your wrist, how to cause sharp pain to break a hold, how to run and actually having done it under live scenarios with practice is far superior and will make you safer over carrying mace or a knife.
pgmason wrote: A good solid torch like a maglite is probably the best bet if she really wants something that can be used as a weapon if need be but isn't likely to get her arrested. She should definitely also carry a rape alarm though.
She doesn't necessarily need to incapacitate an attacker - just make them decide it's not worth the bother.
6 cell maglites are considered suspect by the police. The only people who 'should' have one are police. You will notice you can only easily get 4 cells maglites or less. It is not illegal to have a bigger one and it is a great self defence tool. Not only as a club, slime it in someones face, ruins their night vision and enables her to evade them. It also shines through bushes not into them, so it uncovers lurkers.
So you already associate self defense with being a criminal act. I understand why you dont want guns or knives or what not as they are for the most part dangerous and have a crazy spectrum of culture attached. but what of pepper spray and the likes of non lethal types.
I provided two links earlier of people being attacked by thugs with pepper spray. The problem with weapons of any kind is that it doesn't discriminate against who's pressing the weapon, a girl fighting off a rapist, or a racist hooligan who just spotted a 'Paki' and 'wants a laff'. If you can't buy pepper spray, you can't use it. Sure, it raises the odds of the girl getting raped. But it also raises the odds of that other chap walking away without screaming and clawing at his eyes.
This applies for any weapon, be it knives, guns, telescoping batons, flamethrowers, or tanks.
Different societies set the bar at different levels. In America, everyone and their mums is packing. The result is that firearm incidents are not uncommon, whilst here, they're frontpage news because they're so rare. The flip side of the coin, Britain, has stringent weaponry laws which means you have very little in the way of self-defence. But that means that the worst weapon I've ever seen pulled in a street fight is cheap Chinese knuckleduster. I know that the inner London gang violence is a little worse, but generally speaking, weapons aren't the norm. As a result, weapon inflicted injuries are not the norm either.
I personally think pepper spray should be legal. I believe it has the potential to help more women then it saves victims in that regard, and that the kind of people who would use pepper spray as an offensive weapon are just as likely to brain someone with a brick. I doubt they'll cease to be vicious just because they don't have it. But I'd draw the line at tasers, for example, I don't believe those should be legal.
Without any training any form of physical self defense more than likely wouldn't work. Most people can't take someone twice their size. Let alone several.
The very best martial art for her to learn, imho, is wing chun, it's low energy, very close range and concentrates on deflection. Some of it's opportunistic attacks are really nasty.
I would suggest an insecticide or weedkiller aerosol in her purse, along with the receipt, so if challenged she can say she simply forgot to remove it after purchasing it and that it was the first thing that came to hand, if she was attacked. Some of those can be very very nasty on contact with the eyes. Oven cleaner is also a massively horrible irritant.
Thirdly, we recently adopted a very protective lad, my wife walks him in the park down the road from us very late at night, we have gangs and dealers and all sorts down there, they get right the feth out of the way for him... He suffers no gak.
pgmason wrote: A good solid torch like a maglite is probably the best bet if she really wants something that can be used as a weapon if need be but isn't likely to get her arrested. She should definitely also carry a rape alarm though.
She doesn't necessarily need to incapacitate an attacker - just make them decide it's not worth the bother.
6 cell maglites are considered suspect by the police. The only people who 'should' have one are police. You will notice you can only easily get 4 cells maglites or less. It is not illegal to have a bigger one and it is a great self defence tool. Not only as a club, slime it in someones face, ruins their night vision and enables her to evade them. It also shines through bushes not into them, so it uncovers lurkers.
Sometimes our cultures seem really similar, and sometimes I read threads like this. The fact that large numbers of people think pepper spray is too dangerous for civilians to possess is pretty out there, from my perspective. As mentioned, if someone is going out to attack someone, there are much better weapons than self-defense items like pepper spray to use.
That said, no amount of self defense training, pepper spray, or melee weapons is really going to keep a woman safe from a determined group of attackers. So, life is risk - go with whatever seems the best. The strobing flashlight thing seems like a good idea.
Ketara wrote: As far as I'm aware, there's absolutely no mainstream political party that champions that sort of agenda.
I mean, that just seems incomprehensible. Here we are having a discussion because your lady friend justifiably fears being sexually assaulted to the point of wanting to obtain, let's be honest here, a weapon to defend herself but faces the problem of carrying whatever might be considered...
...
...
I know that's a touch flippant, and at first glance looks very slippery and slightly sloped, but our laws came from experience every bit as much as yours did.
So you already associate self defense with being a criminal act. I understand why you dont want guns or knives or what not as they are for the most part dangerous and have a crazy spectrum of culture attached. but what of pepper spray and the likes of non lethal types.
No. We associate carrying weapons with criminality, because in the UK it is normally only criminals who carry weapons. The knife crime stats also show that people who carry knives are more likely to get into fights and stabbed than people who don't.
I want to say one more thing about self-defense and martial arts, with people suggesting different styles, be it Muay Thai, Aikido, Wing Chun, whatever. In my experience, the style itself it not the deciding factor, it is the trainer. If the trainer does proper, realistic self-defense stuff and trains the proper mindset, do whatever he does.
But if his training focuses on impracticable flashy techniques, no physical training, little contact, but still gives off the vibe of "you can beat anyone with this"...be wary of that. In my experience, the non-contact martial arts like Aikido are more prone to have these trainers...then you put one kickboxer in there who actually is trained to HIT people and everyone is suddendly confused why their stuff isn't working.
That is true. It is why I chose Bujinkan over Karate - the former is designed for actual use, whereas the latter is meant to score points in tournaments.
I wouldn't even consider self defence classes as an immediate solution; it takes years to become proficient, but only weeks to become over confident, unfortunately the kind of characters that commit these crimes are often regular offenders, and know how to deal with a basic level of retaliation. As others have said, this will often make the situation worse if it fails. I'm not saying that the classes themselves aren't beneficial, and they do give really good advice (like targeting eyes instead of groin) just that they wouldn't help her much until she had been going for a while and is capable of actually defending herself against earnest attackers, not her sparring partner. However, the inflated self confidence sometimes pushes the "fight" mode to prevail over the "flight" mode.
Taxis, well lit streets, taking a longer, safer route home, a small maglite attached to a set of keys makes a surprisingly good flail, not walking home intoxicated, wearing trainers and loose trousers so it's easier to run away...
Could you go and meet her and walk her home? Apologies if that's already been asked.
To be honest, pepper spray isn't that great anyway. I've known people who have used it and if you don't deploy it just right - which is hard to do in a panicked, self-defense situation - you're likely to catch some of it yourself. It's also not always effective even if it were legal in that situation, which it is not.
I'd lean towards a dog or the bike if either are possible. If it's not possible, then the maglight is the next best of a very few bad options. If it were me personally, with so little options, I'd be inclined to just carry the pepper spray anyway and take the chance. As Blaxican said, whatever charge I might catch would probably be a pretty good alternative towards something worse - but everyone has their own tolerance for lawbreaking and I respect that.
Speaking of lawbreaking, as a side note, someone suggested a screwdriver - at least in the US, carrying around a sole screwdriver can get you popped for possession of burglary tools. Generally speaking that's an add-on charge to someone who has already been arrested for whatever, but I would be worried about the legality there when it seems so much else is banned.
A lot of American dakka members are not sure of the situation in Britain when it comes to this sort of thing, so here's a quick 101 on British history/civics, and to say on topic, I'll post some suggestions for Ketara, as well.
Contrary to popular opinion, firearm ownership was very popular in Britain at one time. The glorious revolution of 1688 protected the individual's right to own guns, and gave every Englishman the right to treat his home as his castle.
I wonder where the USA got its inspiration for its 2nd and 4th amendments from?
And yes, Whembley, we do have jury trials in this country!
Moving on, the Jacobite rebellions in Scotland (1715 and 1745) led to a crack down on firearm ownerships in the Scottish Highlands (and it never really recovered) but in the rest of the UK, it remained.
At the start of the 20th century, there was a big problem with anarchists from Europe, e.g groups that were anti-Russian Tsar, and a lot of them were heavily armed with new Mauser pistols.
There were a number of high profile bank robberies and of course, the infamous seige at Sidney street, where the police had to call on army artillery to blast them out!
The aftermath of this saw restrictions in gun ownership and a genral delcine in gun ownership, though paradoxically, Britain was one of the world's biggest arms producers, and outsripping even the USA by the 1930s.
In modern times, two high profile incidents, the hungerford massacre, and the Dunblane massacre (schoolkids getting murdered ) led to a major crackdrown on gunownership.
There are gun owners in the UK, but they have to jump through a ton of hoops, and are faced with restrictions which would start a another revolution in the USA, but that's just the way it is in the UK.
Not having the legal right to carry a baton, knife or gun doesn't affect the right to self defence. All it does is limit how much damage you can inflict.
Tbh as an American, you should understand how annoying it is when people start banging on about how "crazy" your laws are. In the UK we manage just fine without being armed to the teeth, and overwhelmingly, we prefer it that way.
Our crime statistics hold up pretty well in comparison to every other western democracy, so there's not much wrong with what we do, or how we do it in that respect.
r_squared wrote: Not having the legal right to carry a baton, knife or gun doesn't affect the right to self defence. All it does is limit how much damage you can inflict.
Tbh as an American, you should understand how annoying it is when people start banging on about how "crazy" your laws are. In the UK we manage just fine without being armed to the teeth, and overwhelmingly, we prefer it that way.
Our crime statistics hold up pretty well in comparison to every other western democracy, so there's not much wrong with what we do, or how we do it in that respect.
OP's concern seems to disagree with you. Also, as someone who has had extensive training in hand to hand self defense, believe me when I'd say I'd much rather have a "baton, knife, or gun" to defend myself with.
Why does it disagree? The UK isn't awash with rapists, but you seem to be suggesting that isn't safe to walk the streets over here without a weapon.
That's patently untrue, because if it was I wouldn't have just let my 13 year old daughter go into town with her friend without an adult.
Am I the only one that thinks it is odd to see a country with a much higher crime rate telling a country with a lower crime rate what is wrong with how they handle crime? The US isn't as bad as made out but in comparison it is still far more problematic, so I would take that advice on how others should handle it with a grain of salt as we're still figuring it out without the conversation, and until then our response is to shoot or stab it. RIP AND TEAR.
Ahtman wrote: Am I the only one that thinks it is odd to see a country with a much higher crime rate telling a country with a lower crime rate what is wrong with how they handle crime? The US isn't as bad as made out but in comparison it is still far more problematic, so I would take that advice on how others should handle it with a grain of salt as we're still figuring it out without the conversation, and until then our response is to shoot or stab it. RIP AND TEAR.
Actually, the UK Crime Rate (all, not just violent) is 3 times higher then the US. Violent crime rate, when doing an apple to apple comparison is still two times higher in the UK by best estimates.
Ahtman wrote: Am I the only one that thinks it is odd to see a country with a much higher crime rate telling a country with a lower crime rate what is wrong with how they handle crime? The US isn't as bad as made out but in comparison it is still far more problematic, so I would take that advice on how others should handle it with a grain of salt as we're still figuring it out without the conversation, and until then our response is to shoot or stab it. RIP AND TEAR.
Actually, the UK Crime Rate (all, not just violent) is 3 times higher then the US. Violent crime rate, when doing an apple to apple comparison is still two times higher in the UK by best estimates.
As I ask every time this is brought up, did you account for the differences in what is classified as a violent crime in UK crime stats when compared to US crime stats?
And how is comparing the rate of every crime ever committed in the UK to just a subset of crimes in the US in any way a useful comparison? Apart from it allowing you to throw around that "3 time higher!" bit of misinformation?
Essentially, yes. I don't see why that's controversial, in a rational society all laws must be made with one eye on the individual and another on society as a whole; if permitting the carrying of weapons would end up causing substantially more injury and death than banning them(and in our experience that is the case), I have no problem with banning them. I was attacked once, when I was 17, four guys just about kicked my head in, I spent a week in hospital - you know what would have happened if I'd been armed? Exactly the same, but they'd likely have been armed as well, and so I'd have been stabbed or clubbed to death. An armed society doesn't prevent violence, it merely escalates the severity of the violence.
Ketara wrote: As far as I'm aware, there's absolutely no mainstream political party that champions that sort of agenda.
I mean, that just seems incomprehensible. Here we are having a discussion because your lady friend justifiably fears being sexually assaulted to the point of wanting to obtain, let's be honest here, a weapon to defend herself but faces the problem of carrying whatever might be considered a weapon, even in the context of self-defense, being illegal. And you're telling me that there is nobody credible over there who can take up this issue as a matter of politics? It's an absolute paradox from my perspective.
I never get why folk struggle with this. We don't see emulating criminals as the way to reduce crime. The more people are walking around armed, in whatever way, the more you're going to end up with situations where folk end up maimed or dead that didn't need to be. It's callous, but at the end of the day from a utilitarian perspective you have to weigh the harm caused by a small number of assaults going ahead unimpeded which would have been stopped had the victim been armed, against the harm caused if many assaults which aren't so one-sided become much more serious because one or more people involved are toting knives and batons, as well as all the other scenarios where an armed populace could exacerbate or create harm.
You know what happens when it's legal to walk around with weapons, in our experience? You go from only hardened criminals carrying to all criminals, then just thuggish and antisocial people generally, then normal folk feel the need to get weapons to "protect themselves", then it becomes normal so kids and teens start doing it - then you've got kids stabbing each other over someone nicking their last ciggy or snogging their girlfriend, bouncers getting stabbed by low-level drug dealers they caught who didn't want to get taken in by the police, street brawls that end with brain damage because some genius pulled out the police baton they bought off ebay, etc etc etc. Then of course the logical thing to do is arm the police with guns so they can keep order, which means of course the criminals get guns, then thugs, etc etc, and oh look we're America, what time's the next school massacre?
I know that's a touch flippant, and at first glance looks very slippery and slightly sloped, but our laws came from experience every bit as much as yours did.
So you already associate self defense with being a criminal act. I understand why you dont want guns or knives or what not as they are for the most part dangerous and have a crazy spectrum of culture attached. but what of pepper spray and the likes of non lethal types.
No, I associate carrying weapons with being a criminal act, because that's what it is under UK law. It's entirely legal to defend yourself with necessary and proportionate force, and in the vast, vast majority of cases that would not require a weapon of any kind. In those cases where it would have, see above; sometimes you just have to accept reality and try to minimise harm. As long as we exist within a scarcity-based economic system with unhealthy attitudes towards sex, there are going to be violent crimes. We can wish upon a rainbow that things were different, but they're not, and frankly I'd much rather have a political party to vote for that supported a citizen's income, properly funded mental healthcare and social work, and comprehensive sex-ed with a focus on consent, orientation, and gender fluidity from age 9 than I would one that thinks the solution to violent crime is to make crime more violent.
I would not be opposed to people being permitted to carry mace, but it should require a permit only issued on completion of adequate training, not something you can just pick up off the shelf of a supermarket. Other "non lethal"(in fact accurately "less-than-lethal", because you can still die from them in the right circumstances) weapons like tasers - no. I don't even support the police having tasers, no way would I want randoms walking around with them.
Ahtman wrote: Am I the only one that thinks it is odd to see a country with a much higher crime rate telling a country with a lower crime rate what is wrong with how they handle crime? The US isn't as bad as made out but in comparison it is still far more problematic, so I would take that advice on how others should handle it with a grain of salt as we're still figuring it out without the conversation, and until then our response is to shoot or stab it. RIP AND TEAR.
Actually, the UK Crime Rate (all, not just violent) is 3 times higher then the US. Violent crime rate, when doing an apple to apple comparison is still two times higher in the UK by best estimates.
DEFINING VIOLENT CRIME ==============================
United Kingdom:
“Violent crime contains a wide range of offences, from minor assaults such as pushing and shoving that result in no physical harm through to serious incidents of wounding and murder. Around a half of violent incidents identified by both BCS and police statistics involve no injury to the victim.” (THOSB – CEW, page 17, paragraph 1.)
United States:
“In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.” (FBI – CUS – Violent Crime)
Some interesting stats at that link. Namely that:-
You are thus 4.03x (4.6 / 1.14) more likely to be murdered in the US than in the UK.
You are thus 1.27x (58.3 / 45.8) more likely to be knifed in the UK than in the US.
You are thus 35.2x (3.17 / 0.09) more likely to be shot dead in the US than in the UK.
You are thus 1.02x (26.7 / 26) more likely to be raped as a female in the US than in the UK.
You are thus 6.9x (241.05 / 34.7) more likely to suffer aggravated assault in the US than in the UK.
It would appear if his methodology is correct that rape is about as likely to happen in either place, but that getting shot is far more of a US-centric thing. Which is about what you'd expect really.
Ahtman wrote: Am I the only one that thinks it is odd to see a country with a much higher crime rate telling a country with a lower crime rate what is wrong with how they handle crime? The US isn't as bad as made out but in comparison it is still far more problematic, so I would take that advice on how others should handle it with a grain of salt as we're still figuring it out without the conversation, and until then our response is to shoot or stab it. RIP AND TEAR.
Actually, the UK Crime Rate (all, not just violent) is 3 times higher then the US. Violent crime rate, when doing an apple to apple comparison is still two times higher in the UK by best estimates.
As I ask every time this is brought up, did you account for the differences in what is classified as a violent crime in UK crime stats when compared to US crime stats?
And how is comparing the rate of every crime ever committed in the UK to just a subset of crimes in the US in any way a useful comparison? Apart from it allowing you to throw around that "3 time higher!" bit of misinformation?
Notice how I pointed out apples to apples. If I did the usual fallacious argument, it would be something like a 7:1. The US has a higher murder rate, but the UK has a much higher rate of physical assaults and the like. In terms of non-violent crimes car theft in the UK is higher, drug use is higher, etc...
This thread is in danger of turning into a USA is the best because we can defend ourselves with guns Versus Britain is better because we're more civilised about self-defence and giving people guns is crazy anyway, type of thread.
Regular dakka members will know I like to join in with 2nd amendment debates due to my keen interest in American history, but I NEVER tell Americans how to run their country. Your country, your rules.
If America has problems, if America wants to keep the 2nd or repeal the 2nd, that's for the American people to decide.
Years ago, I used to interfere, and saw gun ownership in the USA as black and white. Why don't they just get rid of their guns?
But years later, as I'm older, and having studied the American revolution, it's not as simple as that. It's a cultural thing.
And just as Americans are annoyed at foreigners lecturing them on guns, I was seriously fething annoyed during the Obamacare debate when fox news and other ignorant right-wing commentators started comparing Obamacare to our health service and accusing the UK of mudering people in hospitals.
So yeah, I do understand why Americans get angry at foreigners lecturing them on guns.
If Americans want to walk around with guns and rifles, good luck to them.
If we in the UK have a different attitude towards self-defence, that's our judgement call.
Let's respect our different viewpoints and not fall out over that.
I'm surprised about mace / pepper spray not being allowed. I thought that was considered almost solely an item for self defense, which shouldn't permanently injure but gives the victim a chance to get away.
Just for reference, in bear country in the US the parks highly recommend buying and bringing "bear spray" with you, which is a seriously intense version of the same thing. It shouldn't permanently injure the bear, but deters it and gives you a chance to get away.
Honestly, I think women / vulnerable people of any kind should be allowed such a deterrent, and I really don't think the comparison to guns is relevant (which are intended to, and quite easily can, kill or at least cause serious injury).
Also, it was mentioned as a joke earlier, but seriously a dog of any kind, even a small one which will freak out and bark / etc when its owner is attacked, really could be your best solution.
Dogs (and any pets really) are a huge commitment. I personally advise against getting one in the hopes it will be a good defense against attacks.
You can't have it with you all the time, it takes training which can be expensive both in time and $$$, it needs veterinary care and feeding, walking cleaning up after, many of the best breeds for security shed, and so on. If you are not a pet owner, don;t have the lifestyle and housing and inclination to be a pet owner, it is a lousy suggestion.
Of course you should only get one of you can take care of it (and want it). But it really is an amazing deterrent. The same is true for your home / etc. Definitely a big commitment, though!
I have 6 dogs right now, all 'indoor' dogs. I do understand the commitment.
I also understand why buying one as a knee jerk reaction to feeling threatened is a bad idea. I would never recommend someone I don't really know go out and buy/adopt a dog.
Also, it was mentioned as a joke earlier, but seriously a dog of any kind, even a small one which will freak out and bark / etc when its owner is attacked, really could be your best solution.
The big problem with a dog for the OPs girlfriend is that one of the reasons that she is coming back late is due to working in the university library. So a dog isn't really an option as she can't take the dog in with her and leaving it outside in the cold for hours whilst she does her work is cruel. Plus, in my experience, most student housing has a no pets policy.
The most likely reasons for the OPs girlfriend to be going back to her house late will be situations where a dog wouldn't have been allowed anyway (working late in the library, going out to a nightclub etc.).
Notice how I pointed out apples to apples. If I did the usual fallacious argument, it would be something like a 7:1. The US has a higher murder rate, but the UK has a much higher rate of physical assaults and the like. In terms of non-violent crimes car theft in the UK is higher, drug use is higher, etc...
While it becomes clear that certain types of offenses are marginally higher in the UK than in the US (robbery and knife crime being more likely in the UK by an order of 1.1x and 1.27x respectively) a number of other, more serious offenses, are both marginally and substantially higher in the US. Rape of a female is 1.02x more likely in the US, while theft of a vehicle is 1.29x more likely. More disturbingly, burglary is significantly higher at 1.52x more likely to occur in the US. However, it is at the considerably more, well, violent crimes that America really supersedes England and Wales into its own class. In the United States, you are 6.9x more likely to be the victim of aggravated assault resulting in serious injury than in the UK. You are 4.03x more likely to be murdered than in the UK. And more staggeringly (though not surprising) you are 35.2x more likely to be shot dead in the Unites States than in the UK. Before anybody asks, no, these do not take into account justifiable homicide and other “acceptable shootings”, nor do murders for that matter:
From the link posted by Ketara directly above your post.
Not any force necessary, it must be reasonable and proportionate.
I can't cave someone's head in with a brick for jostling me in the supermarket, but I can tut disapprovingly, or ignore it and carry on.
Matthew wrote: I'm guessing the self defence laws in the UK is that you are allowed to use any force necessary to protect yourself/others?
You are allowed to use up to an equivalent level of force, including lethal force, as you deem the aggressor is going to use to prevent harm to yourself or others. If you go over that level (especially if you kill someone) then there will almost certainly be a criminal investigation.
There are some quite fuzzy areas here obviously but it basically boils down to how the individual reads the situation; if you truly believe that you will need to kill someone immediately before he kills you and the situation that you are in backs this up then you will be legally fine.
Interesting fact, being in the armed forces I was informed that if some scutter tried to blow up our front gate and I shot the bugger before he did it, the first thing that would likely happen would be the I would be arrested, even if I had acted entirely within the rules of engagement. I might get off, but then it didn't help Lee Clegg.
Nice to have that rattling round in the back of your head when the pressures on eh? ;-)
I realise it could likely be horlicks, but then again.....
With those statistics on rape in particular, note the US one excludes non-violent rape and the UK one doesn't.
Keep in mind the vast majority of rape is committed not by strangers jumping out of bushes but by someone the victim knows (in the UK, 90% of cases), which suggests a lot could be left out of that US statistic. Also good to keep in mind that if you are a woman and are murdered it was probably by your partner, according to UK police statistics. It just helps to keep it in perspective.
Hmmm, imagine if the article in addition to pointing such out also showed how the addressed it. OH WAIT
"Therefore, it becomes practically impossible to draw any objective comparison between the two, unless one trawls through the various definitions of crimes that can be said to be the same in definition and execution in the UK and the US. I’ve actually done this, and by going through the PRC and FBI – CUS it is possible, I believe, to find a number of crimes which I think are fairly indicative of the prevalence of “violence” in either country."
So with those statistics in particular what you said has nothing to do with anything.
Just jumping in here, but with the limited options, what do the cops over there tell you what you can do? I'm sure others here have suggested talking to them, also, and that seems like the best advice so you don't find yourself in legal grey areas.
Is it really that good to carry something like a knife? There are studies that show that you're more likely to hurt yourself than anyone else. Something like a spray and then running away should be good.
r_squared wrote: Interesting fact, being in the armed forces I was informed that if some scutter tried to blow up our front gate and I shot the bugger before he did it, the first thing that would likely happen would be the I would be arrested, even if I had acted entirely within the rules of engagement. I might get off, but then it didn't help Lee Clegg. Nice to have that rattling round in the back of your head when the pressures on eh? ;-)
I realise it could likely be horlicks, but then again.....
You mean the soldier who shot at a vehicle after it was past the checkpoint, and was no longer a threat?
Matthew wrote: Is it really that good to carry something like a knife? There are studies that show that you're more likely to hurt yourself than anyone else. Something like a spray and then running away should be good.
That's exactly my thinking. Even over here (where, contrary to what's being portrayed in this thread, no one I know walks around armed!) it's the most acceptable deterrent to carry, as it's clearly intended for defense.
I have to walk around edgy neighbourhoods in my daily life, and I feel like the best way to escape would be to just scream, throw my schoolbag at the attacker and run away. I've never understood why one would need a knife or a gun for that. If someone's holding you at gunpoint there's no point in trying defend yourself, because you have a gun aimed at you.
Matthew wrote: I have to walk around edgy neighbourhoods in my daily life, and I feel like the best way to escape would be to just scream, throw my schoolbag at the attacker and run away. I've never understood why one would need a knife or a gun for that. If someone's holding you at gunpoint there's no point in trying defend yourself, because you have a gun aimed at you.
The reality, baring cowboy vigilante fantasies, is that if you have a gun already on you the best thing you can do is give the guy/gal what he/she wants (women are just as capable of robbing you as anyone else, lets be PC about this ). Most people who go out to mug people in the night aren't looking to be murderers. Giving them what they want is your best chance for escaping without bodily harm.
In response to Ketara, besides changing her behaviour and routine to avoid dangerous situations (use transport, avoid certain areas, don't go out alone), her only real option is probably self defence classes.
That's what I opted for after being threatened with violence at work, so I joined my local karate club. I think the guy running it is a firefighter, and another guy I think is a police officer, so I doubt they're teaching "flashy non contact" karate as one contributor puts it. The incident I experienced at work opened my eyes to the fact that the only person you can really rely on to protect you is yourself.
Matthew wrote: I have to walk around edgy neighbourhoods in my daily life, and I feel like the best way to escape would be to just scream, throw my schoolbag at the attacker and run away. I've never understood why one would need a knife or a gun for that. If someone's holding you at gunpoint there's no point in trying defend yourself, because you have a gun aimed at you.
The reality, baring cowboy vigilante fantasies, is that if you have a gun already on you the best thing you can do is give the guy/gal what he/she wants (women are just as capable of robbing you as anyone else, lets be PC about this ). Most people who go out to mug people in the night aren't looking to be murderers. Giving them what they want is your best chance for escaping without bodily harm.
By that logic, you should always run. After all, they're not looking to be murderers.
Anyone who brings a real loaded firearm when they go looking for someone to mug has already decided that they're prepared to use violence. If they don't want to use violence and they're just bluffing, why not take a fake gun instead?
To be fair, I think it's impossible to make some rule book that will apply in every mugging/assault. There's too many unknowns. You could run, but you very well might get shot. That's why I suggested the best solution if a gun is already on you is to cooperate, especially if you don't happen to have one yourself (even then, trying to pull your gun when one is already on you is... Not what I would consider advisable if you foremost concern is the health of your bodily person XD). Cash is just cash. IDs can be reissued, and credit/debit cards can be cancelled. It sucks but is losing those things worth risking your well being?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Anyone who brings a real loaded firearm when they go looking for someone to mug has already decided that they're prepared to use violence. If they don't want to use violence and they're just bluffing, why not take a fake gun instead?
And it isn't unknown for muggers to use unloaded/fake guns, but I don't think most people can tell a loaded gun from an unloaded gun by sight and in the dark, a plastic gun probably looks the same as a real one unless it has an orange cap at the end.
I'm not denying that having a gun on your is an inherently dangerous and potentially deadly situation to be in. My suggestion however is that someone mugging people wants the rewards of a mugging, and so long as that is given they have less incentive, or reason, to actually use violence. Being prepared to threaten violence, and even use violence to a achieve a goal does not entail a desire to use violence. None of us are mind readers though so we can never tell what someone pointing a gun at us might do. But the general options probably fall into a nice little box;
1 You don't give them what they want, they shoot you
2 You give them what they want and they shoot you anyway
3 You give them what they want and they don't shoot you
4 You don't give them what they want and they don't shoot you
We could hypothesize about it all day, but every scenario will ultimately fit into this box somehow. I would personally never suggest someone count on possibility #4 for the exact reason you bring up.
Anyway, see my edit. Changed my comment to better reflect my argument. Typingon a kindle in the dark is very slow. We more or less agree with each other.
Choosing to run is a calculated risk. You're gambling that they're just bluffing and aren't willing to press the issue by shooting you as you flee. If the attacker is obviously nervous and slips up or diverts his attention, then it be worth it.
Oh yes. Especially depending on distance. I've fired guns once in my life and I missed the target almost everytime at 20 feet (paper target ). If they're a good distance from you (10+ feet would be my advice) you could always take a chance, run, and hope they're no good with a gun. It's a calculated risk but one that may very well be worth taking.
I'd say one of the best tactics to use in these situations is to try and maintain distance. The farther you are from your assailant the safer you are (I think it's safe to assume a run of the mill mugger doesn't spend much time on the range). If they try to approach you, back up. If they tell you to stop, try to play it cool as best you can (stopping though may well be what you should do, they have a gun after all).
Jumpy attackers are probably the hardest to gauge though. We all know why you don't put your finger on the trigger till you're ready to shoot. Stress. Muscle tension. Navigating uncertainty is really what this is all about and it doesn't get much more uncertain than a meth head 5 feet in front of you with their finger on a trigger.
Yodhrin wrote: We don't see emulating criminals as the way to reduce crime.
Yodhrin wrote: You go from only hardened criminals carrying to all criminals, then just thuggish and antisocial people generally, then normal folk feel the need to get weapons to "protect themselves", then it becomes normal so kids and teens start doing it - then you've got kids stabbing each other over someone nicking their last ciggy or snogging their girlfriend, bouncers getting stabbed by low-level drug dealers they caught who didn't want to get taken in by the police, street brawls that end with brain damage because some genius pulled out the police baton they bought off ebay, etc etc etc.
I would call this "the One Ring" view of weapons. Essentially, you are arguing that anyone who possesses a weapon is a criminal. Intent is not important. The very act of possessing the weapon gradually corrupts the possessor, morphing them into some kind of deranged, viscous chav. A werechav, if you like. Except instead of a full moon, the transformation is triggered by carrying around a can of pepper spray. Fear of this hypothetical pandemic of werechavs (or, if you prefer the Tolkien metaphor, plague of Pepperspraywraiths) seems to be the bigger problem. As you said, the sexual assault victim just has to take one for the team. What's one more sexual assault against a tidal wave of werechavs and Pepperspraywraiths?
I didn't that so much as it saying having a weapon 'gradually corrupts the user' into thinking they need it/need to use it. I'm not saying I necessarily agree, but I don't believe that carrying a weapon makes one a criminal either.
So if I see someone rubbing their mace and whispering "my precious" am I dealing with a Werechav? What do I do? I obviously can't use weapons to deal with the problem. That's how Chavwraiths are made I hear!
Ahtman wrote: but I don't believe that carrying a weapon makes one a criminal either
Neither do I. And unsurprisingly, neither of us has characterized carrying a weapon for self-defense as "emulating criminals."
LordofHats wrote: So if I see someone rubbing their mace and whispering "my precious" am I dealing with a Werechav? What do I do? I obviously can't use weapons to deal with the problem. That's how Chavwraiths are made I hear!
r_squared wrote: Interesting fact, being in the armed forces I was informed that if some scutter tried to blow up our front gate and I shot the bugger before he did it, the first thing that would likely happen would be the I would be arrested, even if I had acted entirely within the rules of engagement. I might get off, but then it didn't help Lee Clegg. Nice to have that rattling round in the back of your head when the pressures on eh? ;-)
I realise it could likely be horlicks, but then again.....
You mean the soldier who shot at a vehicle after it was past the checkpoint, and was no longer a threat?
No, the Soldier who was doing his duty and was arrested and imprisoned and much later, after over 5 years in prison, had his conviction over turned, and was able to return to his regiment, and serve in Afghanistan. Lee Clegg
In response to the discussion about knives and such on pages 2 and 3...I've carried hobby/craft knives on trains and busses before, having completely forgotten I left them in my bag after going to some prior hobby related event. I should probably consider myself lucky that I've never gone to an airport with one...I use the same bag for everything. (An old, big lap top bag).
Yodhrin wrote: We don't see emulating criminals as the way to reduce crime.
Yodhrin wrote: You go from only hardened criminals carrying to all criminals, then just thuggish and antisocial people generally, then normal folk feel the need to get weapons to "protect themselves", then it becomes normal so kids and teens start doing it - then you've got kids stabbing each other over someone nicking their last ciggy or snogging their girlfriend, bouncers getting stabbed by low-level drug dealers they caught who didn't want to get taken in by the police, street brawls that end with brain damage because some genius pulled out the police baton they bought off ebay, etc etc etc.
I would call this "the One Ring" view of weapons. Essentially, you are arguing that anyone who possesses a weapon is a criminal. Intent is not important. The very act of possessing the weapon gradually corrupts the possessor, morphing them into some kind of deranged, viscous chav. A werechav, if you like. Except instead of a full moon, the transformation is triggered by carrying around a can of pepper spray. Fear of this hypothetical pandemic of werechavs (or, if you prefer the Tolkien metaphor, plague of Pepperspraywraiths) seems to be the bigger problem. As you said, the sexual assault victim just has to take one for the team. What's one more sexual assault against a tidal wave of werechavs and Pepperspraywraiths?
From posts on the earlier pages it sounds like the law is similar to what it is here (though here it varies by state). Where I live, unless they've changed it, one of the things that legally determines if something is a weapon is intent to use it as a weapon. The example I recall (correctly or not, I don't know) was a judge ruling that a belt met the definition of a weapon in one case because the accused party had intended to use it as one. This means an important aspect in not becoming a Werechav is purity of heart.
Though, I'm not sure if women can be chavs to begin with? I'm not really up to date on that. We can be bogans, but I don't think they're particularly violent for the most part.
I think we are getting into a bit of a circular argument here, because clearly no one pure of heart would ever intend to carry a horrid thing like a weapon. Doing so is a surefire symptom of a depraved criminal mind. As to bogans, is that a kind of swamp hobgoblin?
Manchu wrote: I think we are getting into a bit of a circular argument here, because clearly no one pure of heart would ever intend to carry a horrid thing like a weapon. Doing so is a surefire symptom of a depraved criminal mind. As to bogans, is that a kind of swamp hobgoblin?
I think the closest American translation is "white trash" but yes, the Diablo 3 monster did prompt a lot of comments!
Also weapons are horrid and I'm quite thankful we're not overrun by werechavs and pepperspraywraiths thank-you very much!
I would say you must be pure but I know you play miniatures wargames and what else is that, or playing violent videogames for that matter, other than a subverted lust for the weapon. Don't you know that if you stare into the weapon then the weapon will stare back into you! What do these laws profit us if the weapons we carry are in our very hearts? I mean, just look at this thread: it is full of all kinds of ideas for breaking the spirit of law right next to righteous defense of its letter. I tell you, there is no help for the wicked. At some point the worthies of the Commonwealth will realize that the crime is life.
No they are protected by powerful charms of government authority.
No, he's right, it's a risk. That's why we need to avoid arming police where possible.
Yes, any cops who can be shown to have intended to use as weapons anything carried on their persons or in their patrol cars should be subject to criminal charges as well. Otherwise, it will just encourage the criminals. Like with Batman.
No, the Soldier who was doing his duty and was arrested and imprisoned and much later, after over 5 years in prison, had his conviction over turned, and was able to return to his regiment, and serve in Afghanistan. Lee Clegg
His conviction was overturned due to a lack of evidence against Clegg himself although the car itself undoubtedly received fire after it had cleared the checkpoint. There was also all kinds of dubiousness surrounding the shooting, not least deliberately wounding one their colleagues in an attempt to make it look as though the occupants of the car had hostile intent.
The judgment attacked the "highly discreditable behaviour" of the paratroopers who were "undoubtedly guilty" of the shootings.
No, the Soldier who was doing his duty and was arrested and imprisoned and much later, after over 5 years in prison, had his conviction over turned, and was able to return to his regiment, and serve in Afghanistan. Lee Clegg
His conviction was overturned due to a lack of evidence against Clegg himself although the car itself undoubtedly received fire after it had cleared the checkpoint. There was also all kinds of dubiousness surrounding the shooting, not least deliberately wounding one their colleagues in an attempt to make it look as though the occupants of the car were armed.
The judgment attacked the "highly discreditable behaviour" of the paratroopers who were "undoubtedly guilty" of the shootings.
I don't understand the line of argument where the car got past the checkpoint therefore it is of no danger. If a vehicle forces itself through your security point are you just supposed to throw up your hands and say "Well, they made a pretty sincere effort and got past us, so they should be able to do whatever they want now."
If you have a checkpoint looking for car bombs, and someone decides to run that checkpoint it is not too crazypants to assume that they have a car bomb they don't want you to discover. So you shoot them. Hopefully a lot.
No, the Soldier who was doing his duty and was arrested and imprisoned and much later, after over 5 years in prison, had his conviction over turned, and was able to return to his regiment, and serve in Afghanistan. Lee Clegg
His conviction was overturned due to a lack of evidence against Clegg himself although the car itself undoubtedly received fire after it had cleared the checkpoint. There was also all kinds of dubiousness surrounding the shooting, not least deliberately wounding one their colleagues in an attempt to make it look as though the occupants of the car had hostile intent.
The judgment attacked the "highly discreditable behaviour" of the paratroopers who were "undoubtedly guilty" of the shootings.
Undoubtedly guilty of the shootings is highly prejudicial and has lead you to believe it means they were guilty of wrongdoing.
However, in context it means that they were the ones pulling the trigger, and they were, that can't be disputed, however, new ballistics evidence resulted in the conviction being overturned based on the fact that they couldn't prove that Lee had in fact fired on the vehicle once it passed his position.
Simply, and callously put, and as someone who's entire family comes from and still lives in N Ireland even though I no longer do myself, you don't steal a car and drive at an armed military checkpoint, refusing to stop and not expect to get shot to ribbons, especially at the time when tensions were still high. Those kids were really, really stupid, they didn't deserve to die, but their own foolish actions were what caused the incident, not Lee Clegg and his colleagues.
I don't understand the line of argument where the car got past the checkpoint therefore it is of no danger. If a vehicle forces itself through your security point are you just supposed to throw up your hands and say "Well, they made a pretty sincere effort and got past us, so they should be able to do whatever they want now."
If you have a checkpoint looking for car bombs, and someone decides to run that checkpoint it is not too crazypants to assume that they have a car bomb they don't want you to discover. So you shoot them. Hopefully a lot.
The British Army's rules of engagement are very clear on this; at least they are now, its possible that they were markedly different in 90's NI although the underlying law hasn't changed. You can only use lethal force to prevent actions that would lead to the imminent death of yourself or others. Suicide bombers didn't exist in NI.
Undoubtedly guilty of the shootings is highly prejudicial and has lead you to believe it means they were guilty of wrongdoing.
That wasn't my quote, that was from the judge who overturned his conviction. I believe that they were guilty of wrong doing because they fabricated evidence and because their version of events didn't tally with eye witness accounts. Also their actions far exceeded what is permissible on card Alpha, at least the modern version of it.
I agree that this has been dragged off topic, and I apologise for bringing up Lee Clegg in the first place, but I want to say one final thing about Clegg. I joined up shortly after the Lee Clegg incident, and the RoE did undergo a change shortly after I joined as I remeber, they have changed again since then, as the right to use lethal force to defend property has been removed as well as other rules that have been modified.
Notwithstanding the RoE for NI was also different from the rest of the UK anyway, and I'm not sure what it actually was at the time, but I think it is wrong to apply modern RoE standards to an event 20 years ago, in a very different legal and social environment that probably lead to the changes we work under today.
We work under the assumption that the RoE is not a get out of jail free card, merely a guide to what's probably defensively legal.
I consider myself fortunate that so far I have not had to face the same decisions that these soldiers did, in those circumstances, because it is unclear how any of us would react, particularly if we felt under significant threat.
r_squared wrote: I think it is wrong to apply modern RoE standards to an event 20 years ago, in a very different legal and social environment that probably lead to the changes we work under today.
The law hasn't changed though so I would find it astonishing if the RoE was significantly different 20 years ago.
r_squared wrote: I consider myself fortunate that so far I have not had to face the same decisions that these soldiers did, in those circumstances, because it is unclear how any of us would react, particularly if we felt under significant threat.
The law of self defense is still, as it was then, disapproving of attacking someone who is leaving the scene of an incident and is no longer a risk. That is something that should always be borne in mind when considering your options for self defense - that engaging a leaving opponent will get you in legal difficulties.
r_squared wrote: I consider myself fortunate that so far I have not had to face the same decisions that these soldiers did, in those circumstances, because it is unclear how any of us would react, particularly if we felt under significant threat.
The law of self defense is still, as it was then, disapproving of attacking someone who is leaving the scene of an incident and is no longer a risk. That is something that should always be borne in mind when considering your options for self defense - that engaging a leaving opponent will get you in legal difficulties.
I don't disagree and I know this is a bit of a tangent, but what about situations when an item has been stolen from you? Does the law permit you to use force to retrieve it as the thief/mugger/whatever is fleeing?
Self defence is easy, you can use anything to hand. You just need a reason to have it to hand.
I knew a chap that always kept a picture frame and hook on the sideboard purely for the reason of keeping a claw hammer to hand. Quite handy when he did get broken into.....no charges brought. On the flip side he also set a bed of fish hooks and nails on the seat of his often targeted car. There was an attempt at theft it but there was also a trail of blood to the nearby A&E until where a suspect was apprehended.
Me, throughout my late teens and early twenties I always had a folding hook knife when I was younger. Of course I used to working a warehouse and needed it but it was still in my pocket all the time when needed.
An apple and a small paring knife might also be legitimately carried for snack purposes by a lady about town for example.
Keyrings are good. You can get keyrings in all sorts of shapes and sizes. Knife shape for example. They don't have to he razor sharp, just handy.
@ Ben. All in all mate I would suggest that if she is worried your better half is best armed with whatever she feels comfortable with and damn the consequences. I'd rather have to explain to the beak why I had a random pointy object that I used to defend myself than be the victim of a much more serious assault.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Does the law permit you to use force to retrieve it as the thief/mugger/whatever is fleeing?
Only if you will literally die without the stolen item. Self defense in the UK doesn't extent towards property.
Citation? Self defense in the UK is to protect yourself, another, or your property from imminent harm.
To the OP and all others interested in what the law is.
I have tried to leave it but as a useful summary of the current law I've gathered up my notes.
1. You must use reasonable force. The exact meaning is debatable. Classic take on it is from Privy Council in Palmer. This requirement is objectively assessed as per R v Owino and R v Martin. Basically you can only use the absolute minimum necessary to be sure of not being prosecuted, but if prosecuted there will be a fair objective assessment of whether your behaviour was reasonable in the eyes of the average person. This is complicated somewhat by the involvment of an subjective belief assessment under S.76(3) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
2. There is no duty to retreat or to de-escalate under R v Julien (1969) 1 WLR 839, R v Cannes (1971) 1 WLR 1600, and R v Bird [1985] 1 WLR 816. You can stand your ground and do not have to run away.
4. You cannot be the aggressor but you may act pre-emptively. Basically you do not have to be stabbed before you can fight back.
5 Protection of property and the prevention of a crime are dealt with in the same way but prevention of crime under s.3 Criminal Law Act 1967 and protection of propery under s.5. Criminal Damage Act 1971
Here are some things that you might want to look at.
Statute
S 3, Criminal Law Act 1967
S 76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
Case law Clegg [1995] 1 AC 482
Martin (Tony) [2003] Q.B. 1
R v Keane [2010] EWCA Crim 2514; [2011] Crim LR 393
Hichens [2011] EWCA Crim 1626
Personally I would not ask the police as they do not know the law. But then you are asking a wargaming forum so they will probably have greater knowledge than most here. Check out the law and then make judgments accordingly. There is no point carrying a weapon if you are not going to use it and if you do you, as the aggressor, will void any opportunity to claim self-defence. Personally I do not think it is necessary and self defence classes may be best.
If you refer to the government webite I psoted earlier that gives the state of the law on self-defence, a person is allowed to use reasonable force to defend themself and their property, and to chase a miscreant to recover stolen property and make a citizen's arrest.
Practically speaking the amount of force you can use to chase someone and arrest them is going to be less than you can use when you are in fear of your life, but the principle is still there.
In fact we have seen a number of cases of legitimate property defence and citizen's arrest by members of the public attacking robbers of jewelry shops, etc. Have a go heroes, in other words.
Kilkrazy wrote: Hey guys, we've kind of got a bit off the topic, which is a serious and worthwhile one.
The only answer worth listening to from a wargaming forum populated by people from all over the world is to ask the local police.
Seems to be the only universal answer on war gaming forums (ask your TO/playgroup/government/etc)
While i disagree with owing a "weapon" as being a criminal act, il chalk it up to being a cultural thing.
But the basics of being in a group (walking buddy(s), having acquitted lighting (flash lights if necessary) and having good situational awareness (noticing anything strange or unusual early on), will keep you safe for the most part.
It's carrying a potential weapon with the intent to use it that is a criminal act.
For example, various workmen have good reasons for carrying around tools like screwdrivers or Stanley knives. Chefs usually own their own roll of knives and carry them to their jobs. There's nothing wrong with that.
Citation? Self defense in the UK is to protect yourself, another, or your property from imminent harm.
Every ROE brief and judgement training session that I have ever had in the Army.
Not a legal source. This may come as a shock but the army navy and airforce, as well as every other government organisation are overcautious. But you probably know that. My experience of the government and law is that people who have a vague idea of what the law is are called in to cover the department/branch/organisation's arse and are very overcautious. You can intervene as a bystander for self defense but obviously the ROE are cautiously formulated so as to minimise getting sued. It is an interesting issue and mainly stems from tort law liability and not hugely confident people making the decisions at the top of the food chain
I don't think there is much that you can give her that would help. Even if you are some 200lbs special forces dude, against "a gang of men", you're probably going to get beaten up, and any weapon you have on you is what you're probably going to get beaten with. Self defence training is largely BS too, and can give people a false sense of security, especially girls, who have no concept of what it might be like having a bigger man lay into you with a volley of bone-breaking punches. "Why didn't he stand still, and let me kick him in the groin, like in my classes?"
Those situations are best avoided at all costs. I think the best thing she can do is exercise caution. Tell people where she is going, stay in well lit areas, wear sensible shoes, and know what to do if she is accosted e.g. make noise, attract attention, don't stop, be assertive, fight back etc... The rape alarm honestly isn't a bad idea, those things are painfully loud, and an attacker probably isn't going to want the attention.
An alarm is also less likely to escalate things like a weapon might (people aren't always very forgiving about being maced with wasp spray). Remember she might have to do the same walk over and over, she doesn't want to be looking over her shoulder all the time for some angry gang with a score to settle.
In all likely hood if you get attached in a certain place you are unlikely to go there again for scores to be settled.
While I don't disagree with your points if someone wants to attack someone and that ends up being you, then they will attack you so its already escalated. At that point you want to be an all kicking, all scratching, all hitting, all screaming ball of furious elbows, fists and whatever your can lay your hands on.
Some perps will be put off by alarm noises, some by just showing that it will not be easy to attack you, most will be put off by pain/identifying wounds.
That being the case have something to hand that can cause actual harm to your attacker or poke the prick in the eye/gooliess/both.
If working as a doorman taught me one thing its that when it comes to violence then there are two sensible approaches; Avoid/flee at the merest sign of something vicious or be the worst most horrible bastiche you can be: don't push people away - hit first, shouting like a mad person, cheap shots, kicking, biting and if needs be improvise with anything you have to hand are all valid in this approaches in preventing your self from being hurt.
Protect yourself first, worry about the legal implications later.
notprop wrote: In all likely hood if you get attacked in a certain place you are unlikely to go there again for scores to be settled.
According to the first post, she lives there, so it might hard to just stay away.
While I don't disagree with your points if someone wants to attack someone and that ends up being you, then they will attack you so its already escalated. At that point you want to be an all kicking, all scratching, all hitting, all screaming ball of furious elbows, fists and whatever your can lay your hands on.
I agree, but I have never had someone just attack me out of the blue. Usually there is some kind of prelude, like asking you the time, or something to get you to stop, and then you find yourself boxed in.
Some perps will be put off by alarm noises, some by just showing that it will not be easy to attack you, most will be put off by pain/identifying wounds.
Again, most times I've had someone try to take money from me, there has been a gang of them, and they are usually armed with a knife or a broken glass or something to threaten you with. What are you supposed to do, start jabbing them with your keys? ... Maybe if you want to die.
The best thing is to act like you're not scared, and try to walk away (or even better don't stop in the first place). I don't know how well this works with a sexual assaulter, but I imagine if you keep moving, and don't engage them except to scream feth off, it would be infinitely better than stopping and allowing them to start threatening you, and closing off your escape routes.
be the worst most horrible bastiche you can be: don't push people away - hit first, shouting like a mad person, cheap shots, kicking, biting and if needs be improvise with anything you have to hand
That might be okay if you're a guy, and you know you can do some damage, but if you're a small woman, on her own, then going Rambo probably isn't going to be as impressive. I agree that if attacked, she should fight as hard as she can, and make as much noise as she can, but the objective should be to get away, not curbstomping a muthafetha!
But yeah, maybe something sharp like a ring, would help you in that situation, and might put an identifying cut on the attacker, and it's not the kind of thing that's likely to be used against you.
In a (sort of) related story, a girl from Sønderborg will get fined for possessing pepper spray which she used to defend against an attack. So it seems like government being unwilling to let citizens defend themselves is not strictly a UK problem.
Yahoo! Parenting wrote:Why Teen Who Fended Off Attacker Now Faces Charges Herself
A 17-year-old girl who was attacked by a man in a city center at night told police that he knocked her to the ground and unbuttoned her pants, trying to undress her, but she turned on him with pepper spray and was able to escape. Her assailant fled and hasn’t been caught, but the victim is facing legal consequences.
“It is illegal to possess and use pepper spray, so she will likely be charged for that,” local police spokesman Knud Kirsten of Sønderborg, Denmark, told TV Syd about the incident, which occurred at 10 p.m. on Jan. 20. Her fine will be around 500 kroner ($73), and many commenters on TV Syd’s story have offered to pay it for her.
According to the Local, the backlash against the fine also has to do with the fact that the assault took place near a migrant asylum center. Although it’s not known whether the perpetrator was an asylum seeker or refugee, there has been a spike this month in the number of local women reporting harassment by male residents of the center.
In the U.S., pepper spray, or “self-defense spray,” is legal in all states, but there are restrictions on sizes and strengths in some areas. Most states with limited use specify that people must be non-felons over the age of 18 to purchase the sprays.
Commenters on Reddit are discussing and debating the fairness of the fact that the victim could be charged. “I don’t agree with the fine,” wrote one. “My personal view is that in this situation it should be overlooked.” Another posted: “This girl will never face any permanent repercussions. She will if she doesn’t pay her fine, but that goes away as soon as the debt is cleared.” And a third wondered “What options are available for someone to defend themselves there?”
On Twitter, one person wrote simply: “Avoid Sønderborg. Victims of attempted rape get charged for fighting off their assailants.”
Thank goodness we are punishing those who defend themselves!
Someone go comfort that poor poor rapist he must be very scared at the idea of people fighting back.
for the OT:
mace/pepper spray is illegal in canada too, but bear/dog spray is not despite being basically the same thing
(we have similar laws that say you cannot state the intent of the bear/dog spray is to defend vs humans, but if you just happen to have it and use it its technically not a crime as its stated use/intention is animal control)
On an on-topic note, I very much prefer the spray to be legal. It's nowhere near the same thing as carrying a gun, and seems like a perfectly reasonable defense tool.
Why? None of those countries are dictatorships. Those voters elected the lawmakers who passed regulations making it nearly impossible to defend themselves against physical attack.
My sympathy meter for them is resting on the peg.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Matthew wrote: Is there a reason why pepperspray isn't legal in Denmark? I could go down to a toy (ish) store and buy some right now!
Because Danish voters deem it more socially acceptable for a person to be raped than for a person to carry a non-leathal weapon.
Why? None of those countries are dictatorships. Those voters elected the lawmakers who passed regulations making it nearly impossible to defend themselves against physical attack.
My sympathy meter for them is resting on the peg.
Why? Simply put, seeing any victim of this type of crime punished for attempting self defense is awful.
Why? None of those countries are dictatorships. Those voters elected the lawmakers who passed regulations making it nearly impossible to defend themselves against physical attack.
My sympathy meter for them is resting on the peg.
Why? Simply put, seeing any victim of this type of crime punished for attempting self defense is awful.
Because the voters in that country have chosen to punish people far attempting self defense in their quest for a stable society, and nobody is forced to live there. There are no border guards keeping them from moving to a country where it's okay to mace someone who's trying to rape you. There is nothing stopping them from electing lawmakers who will protect potential victims when they defend themselves. It is up to them.
I'll save my sympathy for those who don't have a real choice.
Obviously the US is all over this, seeing as you can defend yourselves however you like. Clearly no one ever gets raped, or charged for using force, or using an illegal weapon to defend themselves in the States.
We in Europe should be ashamed of ourselves for having differing laws, and attitudes to weapons. We suck, sorry about that.
r_squared wrote: Obviously the US is all over this, seeing as you can defend yourselves however you like. Clearly no one ever gets raped, or charged for using force, or using an illegal weapon to defend themselves in the States.
We in Europe should be ashamed of ourselves for having differing laws, and attitudes to weapons. We suck, sorry about that.
If that was directed at me, I don't think you can find a post I made in this topic extolling the virtues of US law or making any comparison to European country laws. I would feel bad for anyone, in any country who got in trouble for defending themselves from a sexual assault.
CptJake wrote: The young lady who defended herself did not have a choice.
Of course she had a choice. She chose to obtain, carry and use an illegal item. No different than if I decided to make a landmine to guard my house and it blows up an armed robber. There are legal mean I can use, and it's up to me to follow the law.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
r_squared wrote: Obviously the US is all over this, seeing as you can defend yourselves however you like. Clearly no one ever gets raped, or charged for using force, or using an illegal weapon to defend themselves in the States.
We in Europe should be ashamed of ourselves for having differing laws, and attitudes to weapons. We suck, sorry about that.
Why should Europe be ashamed of themselves? Most European countries have taken a certain position on carrying and using certain items such as handguns, knives or chemical spray, and they had their reasons for doing so. It's not like they made self defense illegal, they just limited the means. Can't carry mace? Learn Krav Maga.
The impression I am getting from this thread is that pepper spray, mace, stun guns, what ever are considered weapons and are potentially used offensively and are therefore illegal for civilians to have/use even defensively.
Since they want to make a society of victims and tie their hands behind their backs and simply accept being raped or robbed, then for someone who wants to exercise their right to fight back it brings us to... carry a can of wasp spray. Shoots 20 feet and will blind someone or at least make them have a coughing fit enabling you time to get away. If anyone says anything, say your allergic to wasps.
Cant even carry a large stick or baton? People here carry them when they go walking just to protect themselves from the random angry dog. No that isn't an issue we actually have locally, but people do it anyway.
I think you are perhaps overstating the outrage a little there chap. By that reckoning I might expect to see a US news heading of "woman arrests for fighting attempted rapist off with a flamethrower". There's some things allowed in society and some that are not. Criminals existing is not an excuse for a free for all.
People are allowed to have sticks in Europe, I'm not sure where you would have garners that gem from.
Anyway 20 feet with a wasp spray? What the feth kind of wasps or indeed aerosols are you guys packing out there?
And they are fast so I want as much range as I can get. That and I prefer to stay out of the splatter zone and avoid getting contact nerve poison on me when I can. I go through two cans a year on my house, they love my eaves for some reason.
Might be sidetracking, but does anyone know what my rights are if a dog attacks me without provocation? I often go out running and I'd prefer to know what to do if I get attacked.
notprop wrote: I think you are perhaps overstating the outrage a little there chap. By that reckoning I might expect to see a US news heading of "woman arrests for fighting attempted rapist off with a flamethrower".
Pretty sure flamethrowers are unregulated in most states.
In retrospect I did type that knowing you can get them in the US after seeing a programme recently where a US "historian" went a found some working examples to tickle his immolating itch. Hilariously he even found a Flamethrower restorer, because obviously they must exist in any normal list of tradesmen.
It's just so bonkers that a weapon universally outlawed and removed from the arsenals of most world armies including the US is legitimately available to Joe Average of Crutchville County if he so chooses.
Obviously laws will vary by state and municipality. I know that in some places they are only available as part of certain industries, other places allow anyone to own one.
CptJake wrote: The impression I am getting from this thread is that pepper spray, mace, stun guns, what ever are considered weapons and are potentially used offensively and are therefore illegal for civilians to have/use even defensively.
They are illegal to have. They aren't illegal to use "defensively" (if you do happen to have one), so long as the amount of force is justified. That's why the girl was fined $75, for possessing the spray, and not charged with assault.
Matthew wrote: Might be sidetracking, but does anyone know what my rights are if a dog attacks me without provocation? I often go out running and I'd prefer to know what to do if I get attacked.
As far as I'm concerned, if a dog attacks you and its of a sufficient size and strength to cause you serious injury (A Pit-bull vs a Chihuahua) then you have every right to kill it. The general principle is the same as defending yourself against people I guess, any violence used in self defence must be proportionate. ("The Chihuahua bit me so I broke its neck, your Honor ). But theres obviously a lot more leeway for killing a dog.
And I say that as a dog owner and lover who had a dog for 10 years until a year ago.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Even a medium-sized dog can kill someone if it goes all out against an unprepared victim.
Yes. It depends on the circumstances.
If my lap-dog sized King Charles spaniel attacked someone who was prone or sleeping, and he managed to get at their face or throat then sure, he'd probably be able to cause severe injury. Against a small child, of course. But against a grown adult, especially someone who saw him coming? Probably not. It'd have to be one hell of a freak accident.
He was never like that though. The only thing he ever truly attacked was my toes, postmen's fingers and the TV every time a black person was on.
I had a border collie who could absolutely wreck gak if she got the drop on you, and as a border collie she always got the drop. My lab was Schutzhund trained, but his heart was more into getting the treats than any other part of it. His favorite command was "such" (search). There is a huge difference between a dog who is attacking because maybe he's scared and reacting (or he was trained to grab a sleeve) and a dog who wants to kill.
I was attacked by a pitbull mix once and could have ended up seriously hurt. I got into a defensive position, which prevented a lot of damage, but hesitated to do more than kick back because I'm just so used to dogs who are only trying to jump up or scare me away. The pitbull tore up my knee a bit before his owner got him under control, but if the owner hadn't been there, he probably would have overwhelmed me even though I was already 'prepared'. From the way the trainers talk, if someone is attacked by a big dog and doesn't immediately seize the initiative and injure/strangle that dog, the person will lose.
We have a big 50" plasma, and he would sit on the sofa and watch TV with us sometimes. The only things that would spook him enough to lose his gak, leap off the sofa and charge at the TV barking at whatever was on screen...was animals and black people. Maybe he just didn't recognize black people as people.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: But against a grown adult, especially someone who saw him coming? Probably not. It'd have to be one hell of a freak accident.
It might not need to be that freaky, dog bites can lead to quite serious infections, so even a nip could put you in mortal danger.
My great aunt was always going on about a girl she knew as a child who died after a dog nipped her on the lip. It's probably a lot less likely with modern antibiotics, but it might still be a consideration when deciding whether or not to open fire on charging King Charles spaniel.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: But against a grown adult, especially someone who saw him coming? Probably not. It'd have to be one hell of a freak accident.
It might not need to be that freaky, dog bites can lead to quite serious infections, so even a nip could put you in mortal danger.
My great aunt was always going on about a girl she knew as a child who died after a dog nipped her on the lip. It's probably a lot less likely with modern antibiotics, but it might still be a consideration when deciding whether or not to open fire on charging King Charles spaniel.
Ah. I was talking more about being killed on the spot or shortly afterwards by a nasty bite and the subsequent blood loss, the immediate threat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I was trying not to call him a racist, but now I gotta call him a racist.
CptJake wrote: Wasps and some hornets often build nests under roof overhangs. You need a spray that can reach them.
Exactly. The shortest range wasp spray I sell at work is 21'. Longest is 27'. Also US wasps make UK wasps look like gnats.
Further, there is no law against carrying a putter or 3 Iron. Unless your country is so socialist it outlaws golf.
fethers.
Isn't there still a law banning Scotsmen from carrying Bag Pipes, swords, or bows within the city limits or something?
Not as far as I'm aware. Living in Glasgow 6 months and can't spit without hitting a group of bagpipers playing on the street corners in their kilts. Swords and bows not sure but they're considered deadly weapons. I bought a sword from ComicCon in October and its illegal obviously.
Swords aren't illegal but you would need a good reason to carry one in the dead of night for defence purposes.
My old mans got a Spanish cavalry sabre and a WW1 bayonet for example. Old arms are common enough in old homes or families that have military connections (i.e. allot) but having one on the wall is one thing, convincing the police you stabbed an assailant on the way back from Cavalry practice is another.
notprop wrote: Swords aren't illegal but you would need a good reason to carry one in the dead of night for defence purposes.
My old mans got a Spanish cavalry sabre and a WW1 bayonet for example. Old arms are common enough in old homes or families that have military connections (i.e. allot) but having one on the wall is one thing, convincing the police you stabbed an assailant on the way back from Cavalry practice is another.
Aye, that's what I meant. Carrying it back to my room in the box is fine, having it strapped to my back and wearing my matching ninja costume is another.
Of course if you were wearing a ninja costume the likelyhood of anyone seeing you because of ninjayness would mean you are unlike to be attacked anyway.
notprop wrote: Of course if you were wearing a ninja costume the likelyhood of anyone seeing you because of ninjayness would mean you are unlike to be attacked anyway.
Black pyjamas all round!
Pajamas? What barbarity. Mine are made from the softest silk spun by the spiders of byuvbevebvyu in the middle of nowhere, Japan, worn by the most ancient ninja masters.
) as even though these don't incapacitate in the same manner as pepper spray, they're basically the most useful tool available to us here, and in a lot of cases, simply deterring or disorientating the attacker will be adequate. EDIT: a metal torch is actually a very good suggestion. Last I checked, I think those were still legal... 
) led to a major crackdrown on gunownership.
