Sword sticks and the law

[saddler]

Interested as to the reasons these people were granted side arms for self defence.

 

Normal I define as people who are not in the forces or involved in personal protection / security

 

Can you point me towards evidence of this

WHAT evidence have you got that makes you keep up with the assumption that personal protection/security guards are ARMED??

 

YES

Lots....not all the UK followed the handgun ban.

Used to sell a LOT of 9mm pistols to builders & milkmen & a few others that had been advised by the police to get themselves a gun.

(Never heard of any being told to get "side arms": NOT being American would ecplain that anomoly)

 

If you've seen any recent political news you've seen a good few people with personal protection FACs....but THAT occupation is NOT reason enough for a PP FAC

 

You also seem to think anyone in the armed forces has rights to carry for personal protection & will have an FAC for said firearm.

Why do you think that is the case?

[ips]

Oh well as you say it wont land him in it then 😉

[ips]

WHAT evidence have you got that makes you keep up with the assumption that personal protection/security guards are ARMED??

 

YES

Lots....not all the UK followed the handgun ban.

Used to sell a LOT of 9mm pistols to builders & milkmen & a few others that had been advised by the police to get themselves a gun.

(Never heard of any being told to get "side arms": NOT being American would ecplain that anomoly)

 

If you've seen any recent political news you've seen a good few people with personal protection FACs....but THAT occupation is NOT reason enough for a PP FAC

 

You also seem to think anyone in the armed forces has rights to carry for personal protection & will have an FAC for said firearm.

Why do you think that is the case?

My apologies for the term side arm.

 

I assume the blokes that protect the royal family and the prime minister have something more suitable tan a can of hairspray tucked in there belt.

 

QUOTE

Specialist Protection (SO1)

 

The Specialist Protection Branch of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) Protection Command provides armed protection for the current British Prime Minister, along with former Prime Ministers.

 

SO1 Protection Officers also provide close protection for Ambassadors and other VIPs believed to be under a specific threat.

 

It is believed that SO1 Protection Officers are routinely armed with Glock 17 or Glock 26 9mm pistols. The Glock 26 is a sub-compact version of the Glock 17 and is reportedly used by female SO1 officers

UNQUOTE

 

You are obviously talking about NI then, you should have really been clear on that point, it would have saved us all the hassle

Edited July 8, 2017 by ips

[ips]

Depends how you define normal, i have worked with what i would regard as 'normal people' licenced to carry handguns for self defence.

 

Are you defining normal as having no added reason beyond anyone else to carry a firearm for self defence though?

 

 

 

 

My understanding of the matter in the states is that allowing weapons for self defence leads to those who feel vulnerable due to percieved threats arming themselves. A larger proportion of these people then tend to over react and harm people who were not a threat than those who benefit from arming themselves. As such the over all impact on society is for the worse.

 

If as per the above mentioned individuals I was advised by the police to carry a personal protection weapon I probably would, otherwise i think it is a recipe for disaster. If people feel that threatened they should stick to hairspray so they can do reasonably limited damage.

Your US example is how I understand it also. 👍

[ips]

Another point to consider is this.. Hypothetical story ten years from now.

Your walking through town in the evening with your trusty sword stick carried purely for self defence as you are sure that you are wiling to use it should the need arise. Local gang members spot your cunningly concealed weapon cos there not thick and the silver ferral is a give away. They offer to relieve you of this item so as to use it for there personal protection, the thing is they are prepared to use it......there are many endings to this story none of them are good and none would have happened if carrying weapons for ones own protection had remained illegal

[saddler]

SO1 are POLICE, NOT holders of FACs, they have Crown Indemnity purely while at work.

 

Didn't know I had to name whwre it was legal in the UK to have an FAC for personal protection.

 

Still not any wiser on your security firms that are armed

[ips]

You are obviously trying to be argumentative, I have no idea why.

 

The security personnel I referred to are the ones as per the quote they are protection officers, my apologies if I failed to make that clear.

 

Regards

[Bazooka Joe]

I agree to disagree on this one.

I am respectfully out as I have said my piece.

 

 

For someone who was out your still bleating on 8 posts later...

[GingerCat]

I can't believe its gone as far as it has. The law is very simple. It's written down even. Sword sticks are specifically prohibited weapons. Just like flick knives and knuckle dusters.

What does that mean? Simples. You can't have them unless antique and within you house.

What sentence would you get? Up to the judge depending on the crime.

All this talk about having a weapon just in case is poppycock. Who needs something "just in case" unless you are of a certain pursuasion and quite like a bit of a tumble.

Having worked with the very roughest of people in the very nastiest of areas I can say with authority (happy for anyone to check up on this too) that talk of carrying a weapon for self protection "just in case" is ball cock and you need to get a grip. "But what if" grow up if you can't deal with something than carrying a sword wont help.

"But I've got an fac" dont mean shot to me, last time I checked your situation a awareness,policies,powers,legislation,situation awareness, etc etc etc wasn't checked, why shold you be allowed to carry anything to case harm?

I don't mean to be rude but I suspect I am and wont apologise some people need to get over themselves.

[Dirty Harry]

As an aside; I have numerous bayonets in my collection; none are locked away; they simply hang on the walls. I don't live in fear of them.

Scully, the sword stick is locked away because it's old and fragile and I have 2 young boys who would love to play with it.

Not for any other reason.

 

Harry

[Muddy Funker]

You are obviously trying to be argumentative, I have no idea why.

 

The security personnel I referred to are the ones as per the quote they are protection officers, my apologies if I failed to make that clear.

 

Regards

 

As Saddler pointed out S01 are Police not civvies with some sort of special licence.

 

The role is probably a little unique that in certain circumstances they might have to keep hold of weapons off duty, like an overnighter in a hotel where there is no chance of securing weapons in an armoury between shifts. I think this is a rarity though and generally a last resort if there is no police armoury within a reasonable distance.

 

I'm not aware of any civilian type security role where anyone could be armed lawfully?

[BrowningB525]

 

As Saddler pointed out S01 are Police not civvies with some sort of special licence.

 

The role is probably a little unique that in certain circumstances they might have to keep hold of weapons off duty, like an overnighter in a hotel where there is no chance of securing weapons in an armoury between shifts. I think this is a rarity though and generally a last resort if there is no police armoury within a reasonable distance.

 

I'm not aware of any civilian type security role where anyone could be armed lawfully?

What about the people who work in anti piracy on boats? I don't know, just speculating.

[welshwarrior]

 

As Saddler pointed out S01 are Police not civvies with some sort of special licence.

 

The role is probably a little unique that in certain circumstances they might have to keep hold of weapons off duty, like an overnighter in a hotel where there is no chance of securing weapons in an armoury between shifts. I think this is a rarity though and generally a last resort if there is no police armoury within a reasonable distance.

 

If they are away with work they are on duty, no different to the armed forces on excerise and transit there are times where your not physically working but you are on duty and still armed.

 

As for private security I know some have sect 5 weapons but as far as I know they are only for training not protection duties on GB soil.

Edited July 9, 2017 by welshwarrior

[Twistedsanity]

I used to teach self defence years ago and we would advise women to carry around that non offensive weapon and cheap tiny and popular aerosol spray called "impulse" if alone at night, it would fit in a pocket or handbag perfectly and should never be used to spray into the face of an attacker

[ips]

 

As Saddler pointed out S01 are Police not civvies with some sort of special licence.

 

 

 

I'm not aware of any civilian type security role where anyone could be armed lawfully?

Correct, they are not "normal man on the street". FAC is not issued for self defence in any way on mainland uk and nor should it be.

[poontang]

Correct, they are not "normal man on the street". FAC is not issued for self defence in any way on mainland uk and nor should it be.

 

Is the safety of the 'normal man on the street' not as important as that of the 'VIP's' who enjoy armed protection at home and on the streets?

[Wb123]

Is the safety of the 'normal man on the street' not as important as that of the 'VIP's' who enjoy armed protection at home and on the streets?

Only if we are assuming carrying a weapon improves the safety of the normal man on the street.

 

I would argue there is a difference between the impact of highly trained professional armed security countering a specific high risk threat, and arming Tim the Butcher.

 

As alluded to earler, on the whole people are safer where people who feel vulnerable are not able to arm themselves and then harm each other unneccesarily (though naturally some people come to harm who otherwise may have been better off). Like mandatory vaccination a balance has to be struck between the benefit of legislation versus individual choce to a population overall versus the autonomy of the individual.

[Scully]

Another point to consider is this.. Hypothetical story ten years from now.

Your walking through town in the evening with your trusty sword stick carried purely for self defence as you are sure that you are wiling to use it should the need arise. Local gang members spot your cunningly concealed weapon cos there not thick and the silver ferral is a give away. They offer to relieve you of this item so as to use it for there personal protection, the thing is they are prepared to use it......there are many endings to this story none of them are good and none would have happened if carrying weapons for ones own protection had remained illegal

You simply refuse to get it don't you! It isn't about the sword stick; it's about law abiding people's willingness to be victims rather than fight for even the right to choose to be able to carry 'anything' with which they could defend themselves with if the needs be.

They seem perfectly happy to have become emasculated by progressive state authorities who would rather they WERE victims than run the risk of having law abiding citizens going about their lawful business with the means to defend themselves.

Has no one ever stopped to ask why? What are they afraid of? Why should it be acceptable for those in power to decide no law abiding person can do this while there are street hobgoblins out there already carrying all manner of weapons? How on earth can that be right? I think it's disgusting and truly indicative of the little regard those in authority have for those they govern.

Your scenario is ridiculous; for a start why would anyone given the choice, choose a sword stick?! And why would anyone approach a gang if there was an alternative? The point of being able to defend oneself is as a last resort where there is no alternative; I can't think of one reason why anyone with half a brain would find themselves in the same environment as gangs given an alternative, whether armed or not.

I've answered your scenario despite you not answering mine.

[Muddy Funker]

What about the people who work in anti piracy on boats? I don't know, just speculating.

 

Best guess would be it's covered under maritime laws of which I've no clue.

[poontang]

Only if we are assuming carrying a weapon improves the safety of the normal man on the street.

 

I would argue there is a difference between the impact of highly trained professional armed security countering a specific high risk threat, and arming Tim the Butcher.

 

 

 

I would assume that being able to carry a defensive weapon would be a bonus to Tim the butcher if some drug addled scroate decides to relieve him of his days takings.

 

As things stand he has two options. He could meekly hand over his hard earned takings, or he could try and fight back, risking possible injury.

I would suggest a third option where he could stay at a reasonable distance from the assailant and give him a good long squirt of pepper spray into the face. I really don't see a problem with that approach at all. In fact most EU countries allow, and in places even encourage it... why can't we?

[Scully]

I can't believe its gone as far as it has. The law is very simple. It's written down even. Sword sticks are specifically prohibited weapons. Just like flick knives and knuckle dusters.

What does that mean? Simples. You can't have them unless antique and within you house.

What sentence would you get? Up to the judge depending on the crime.

All this talk about having a weapon just in case is poppycock. Who needs something "just in case" unless you are of a certain pursuasion and quite like a bit of a tumble.

Having worked with the very roughest of people in the very nastiest of areas I can say with authority (happy for anyone to check up on this too) that talk of carrying a weapon for self protection "just in case" is ball cock and you need to get a grip. "But what if" grow up if you can't deal with something than carrying a sword wont help.

"But I've got an fac" dont mean shot to me, last time I checked your situation a awareness,policies,powers,legislation,situation awareness, etc etc etc wasn't checked, why shold you be allowed to carry anything to case harm?

I don't mean to be rude but I suspect I am and wont apologise some people need to get over themselves.

And you regard my post as 'poppycock' !

We carry out all manner of daily routines 'just in case', but far from being regarded as poppycock they are regarded as good sense.

There are many scum out there that despite the laws you so vigorously defend, wish nothing else but harm on others, for various reasons, and despite those same laws carry the means with which to do it. Unbelievable eh!

Just in case is a very apt and relevant reason, as it is for so many other functions within our day to day life.

I can assure you I have a firm grip on reality, unlike some.

[Scully]

 

I would assume that being able to carry a defensive weapon would be a bonus to Tim the butcher if some drug addled scroate decides to relieve him of his days takings.

 

As things stand he has two options. He could meekly hand over his hard earned takings, or he could try and fight back, risking possible injury.

I would suggest a third option where he could stay at a reasonable distance from the assailant and give him a good long squirt of pepper spray into the face. I really don't see a problem with that approach at all. In fact most EU countries allow, and in places even encourage it... why can't we?

Here we go. 👍

[Twistedsanity]

Only if we are assuming carrying a weapon improves the safety of the normal man on the street.

 

I would argue there is a difference between the impact of highly trained professional armed security countering a specific high risk threat, and arming Tim the Butcher.

 

As alluded to earler, on the whole people are safer where people who feel vulnerable are not able to arm themselves and then harm each other unneccesarily (though naturally some people come to harm who otherwise may have been better off). Like mandatory vaccination a balance has to be struck between the benefit of legislation versus individual choce to a population overall versus the autonomy of the individual.

Would Simon the scroate be as keen to mug you if you pulled a glock and pointed it in his direction? Of he thought you might have a glock you could point at him? Some people are desperate and simply don't care others are cowards and bullies who prey on the weak and wouldn't be so keen to mug people if they thought they might get hurt. You don't see 15 stone bodybuilders or 6ft skinheads getting mugged do you? Even the way you walk and carry yourself will put a mugger off, maybe we should stop thinking about offensive weapons and refer to these items as deterrents? Walk Like you are drunk or shuffle along slowly you might get mugged, stand upright and walk with purpose and they are going to find a different person because they fear retaliation

[Wb123]

I would assume that being able to carry a defensive weapon would be a bonus to Tim the butcher if some drug addled scroate decides to relieve him of his days takings.

 

As things stand he has two options. He could meekly hand over his hard earned takings, or he could try and fight back, risking possible injury.

I would suggest a third option where he could stay at a reasonable distance from the assailant and give him a good long squirt of pepper spray into the face. I really don't see a problem with that approach at all. In fact most EU countries allow, and in places even encourage it... why can't we?

It works for Tim the butcher under those circumstances assuming said miscreant is not also armed in expectation of a fight, but how much of a threat is he actually at and is it more likely he will end up injuring someone in an unneccesary escalation of force to a misinterpreted threat? The extreme example is the american figures for burglers versus family members shot.

 

The above is more of an issue with weapons capable of more damage than a spray which is a much much more nuanced debate, but it illustrates the main issue, how many avoidable uses of force and their sequalae merit Tim keeping his takings? Sprays are an interesting line here where it would be useful to the debate to see some figures for the impacts of such use.

 

Assuming a spray has a very low likelihood of causing significant injury, and availability for self defence did not alter criminal behaviour in a manner to overall adverse effect, i could be persuaded of its merit. Is there any such data from parts of europe that encourage them?

 

 

All that said replacement cost of everything on me walking down the street will never usually be over £500, who would be crazy enough to risk significant injury and the resulting costs fighting over that?

[Wb123]

Would Simon the scroate be as keen to mug you if you pulled a glock and pointed it in his direction? Of he thought you might have a glock you could point at him? Some people are desperate and simply don't care others are cowards and bullies who prey on the weak and wouldn't be so keen to mug people if they thought they might get hurt. You don't see 15 stone bodybuilders or 6ft skinheads getting mugged do you? Even the way you walk and carry yourself will put a mugger off, maybe we should stop thinking about offensive weapons and refer to these items as deterrents? Walk Like you are drunk or shuffle along slowly you might get mugged, stand upright and walk with purpose and they are going to find a different person because they fear retaliation

That depends if he is also appropriately tooled up to fight or not, if he expects a fight he will either go prepared or pick a softer target, in either case he will have the element of surprise. But as in my previous post the argument is not about you or I and a scrote, it us the bigger picture of benefit and harm that comes from encouraging escalation of conflict.