Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.






Also there's this stuff, identifier paint with a strong odor. http://www.amazon.co.uk/defence-spray-genuine-Protec-pouch/dp/B00AZXPGHO

Give her a knife or pepper spray. Going to jail for a few months or getting fined is preferable to getting gang-raped I imagine. feth the law.

 Orlanth wrote:

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.

 Desubot wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

There is a debate to be had about pepper spray.

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.

 Desubot wrote:

So you already associate self defense with being a criminal act.

Self defense is classed as a basic right in the UK providing that the use of force is both proportional and reasonable.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
but that's just the way it is in the UK.

Its also the way it should be.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

So you already associate self defense with being a criminal act.

Self defense is classed as a basic right in the UK providing that the use of force is both proportional and reasonable.

But you've made all the tools to enable self defense illegal. So much for a basic right.

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.

I like the bike idea. Instead of throwing money into self defense classes, buy a mo-ped/motorcycle. Stick to the main roads as much as possible.

Trying to stand up and defend yourself against a larger number of opponents is insane, turn and run is the best option.

 djones520 wrote:

 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?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
That kind of sounds like "Just take one for the team."

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.

 Desubot wrote:

Spoiler:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

 djones520 wrote:

 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)

https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/

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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 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...

 djones520 wrote:
If I did the usual fallacious argument

You finally realized your regular arguments are fallacious?

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.

Let's agree to disagree.

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.

 RiTides wrote:


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.).

 djones520 wrote:

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.