Sword sticks and the law

[Scully]

 

 

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?

This is the mentality I can't understand. That 500 quids worth of stuff is yours; why you think it's acceptable that some piece of dirt would want to take it from you or not worth fighting for is beyond my comprehension.

Rece t events have proven time after time that there are those among us who simply want nothing off us but our lives; the intent is not to rob but to kill. Can you tell one from the other?

I have no doubt you'd fight back in such circumstances, but with what?

[Wb123]

This is the mentality I can't understand. That 500 quids worth of stuff is yours; why you think it's acceptable that some piece of dirt would want to take it from you or not worth fighting for is beyond my comprehension.

Rece t events have proven time after time that there are those among us who simply want nothing off us but our lives; the intent is not to rob but to kill. Can you tell one from the other?

I have no doubt you'd fight back in such circumstances, but with what?

It is not worth fighting because a week off work dealing with either the legal fall out, injury, or both will cost substantially more than the loss. If you hand everything but your underpants over you spend an hour on the phone sorting bank cards out, order a new phone, spend an hour giving the police a statement, and the matter is dealt with in an afternoon. In your latter case naturally one would fight but with limited means.

 

I would sooner take a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of being killed by a swivel eyed loon who set out to do it, than a 1 in 100,000 chance of being killed as a result of taking someone on the street by surprise as they didnt realise i was walking behind them, or going for my keys, etc...

 

This isnt about principal it is about actual risk benefit.

[ips]

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.

My apologies I must have missed your scenario / question. I will have a look back.

[ips]

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.

Excellent post 👍

[ips]

 

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

I know, but i was cajoled back against my better judgement 😁

[Twistedsanity]

So to summarise, anyone who breaks the law and carries any sort of impliment for use in self defense is wrong despite the laws Complete inability to protect them from harm 99% of the time, we should all walk around waiting to get mugged/attacked/raped with no hope whatsoever of defending ourself from an armed assailant because they don't care about the law and we do, whilst if you are a member of the rich and shameless ( Ian Duncan smith after his attack in the disabled for example) it's OK to have armed trained security guards paid for at the taxpayers expense to ensure your safety. While I realise this is the law and the way things are whatever side of the argument you sit on you must be able to see what a Complete farce this is and how wrong it is. If you lack the inability to see this I sincerely hope one of your loved ones never falls foul of said scroats, I don't think people arming themselves is the answer to the problem but I do think given the current circumstances and complete inability of the law to protect the innocent the choice to arm yourself should be a personal one and not governed by legislation made by those with personal security guards. I can look after myself and live in leafy Hertfordshire but many others in society can't and are forced to live in areas where I wouldn't want to walk alone at night let alone let my.child walk home from school on a dark evening.

Edited July 9, 2017 by Twistedsanity

[ips]

If you lack the inability to see this I sincerely hope one of your loved ones never falls foul of said scroats, .

I little bit uncalled for don't you think !!

[guzzicat]

BRING BACK DRESS SWORDS EH! & (& I think you mean ability)

[Bazooka Joe]

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?

 

 

I wonder how many recent victims of the London terrorists attacks would be alive today if they had means to defend themselves......

 

As quick as the Police were on the scene, pepper spray alone could/would have saved lives.

[Twistedsanity]

I wonder how the outcome.of this would have been different if a)the police were able to do their job or b)the victims were afforded the ability to defend the themselves http://news.met.police.uk/news/four-men-stabbed-in-harrow-250725

[Twistedsanity]

I little bit uncalled for don't you think !!

Not at all, I have taught enough victims of unwarranted attacks to defend themselves, I think too many people live in areas with low crime.rates and can't connect with how much of an issue this is for some folk, the above post in Harrow happened last night and they were all someone's sons/dad's/brothers/uncles that were victims, it's easy to sit behind a keyboard in judgement when you have never been there yourself

[ips]

Other than in the movies if one is attacked out of the blue you would have little to no chance of defending yourself even if you have a defensive weapon secreted upon your person.

 

Panic ensues and even the most grounded of people are left in a position of confusion. This is why certain tactics are used by our forces upon entering areas and or buildings were heavily armed and dangerous criminals are. In the panic and confusion of an attack even hardened dangerous people can be overwhelmed.

Edited July 9, 2017 by ips

[Wb123]

Not at all, I have taught enough victims of unwarranted attacks to defend themselves, I think too many people live in areas with low crime.rates and can't connect with how much of an issue this is for some folk, the above post in Harrow happened last night and they were all someone's sons/dad's/brothers/uncles that were victims, it's easy to sit behind a keyboard in judgement when you have never been there yourself

I live and work in Belfast...

[Bazooka Joe]

Other than in the movies if one is attacked out of the blue you would have little to no chance of defending yourself even if you have a defensive weapon secreted upon your person.

 

 

Even if you see it coming/happening.?

 

Amazing how the two transport police acted at the time, but joe bloggs would just freeze,

 

Them having a police baton might have something to do with it....which probably saved their lives..

[Scully]

It is not worth fighting because a week off work dealing with either the legal fall out, injury, or both will cost substantially more than the loss. If you hand everything but your underpants over you spend an hour on the phone sorting bank cards out, order a new phone, spend an hour giving the police a statement, and the matter is dealt with in an afternoon. In your latter case naturally one would fight but with limited means.

 

I would sooner take a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of being killed by a swivel eyed loon who set out to do it, than a 1 in 100,000 chance of being killed as a result of taking someone on the street by surprise as they didnt realise i was walking behind them, or going for my keys, etc...

 

This isnt about principal it is about actual risk benefit.

Yes, for me it is about the principal. No one has the right to decide he will take that watch I wear which was my fathers or even the £20 note I have in my pocket which I earned, not him. Yet the law makes it illegal for me to carry the means to help me avoid those things from being taken, yet that same law does nothing to prevent some piece of dirt from carrying the means to do as he pleases.

There is something severely wrong somewhere.

[Scully]

Other than in the movies if one is attacked out of the blue you would have little to no chance of defending yourself even if you have a defensive weapon secreted upon your person.

 

Panic ensues and even the most grounded of people are left in a position of confusion. This is why certain tactics are used by our forces upon entering areas and or buildings were heavily armed and dangerous criminals are. In the panic and confusion of an attack even hardened dangerous people can be overwhelmed.

We're not talking about the movies; we're talking about real life.

Those attacked in London most recently had little chance to defend themselves because they had nothing with which to do so. We'll never know what the outcome would have been even if just one of them had been armed with something as harmless as a pepper spray.

That transport cop waded in with his baton; a defensive weapon in his hands but an offensive weapon in the hands of a law abiding civilian. How strange; the sheer lunacy of that statement makes me seethe with anger. All those lives lost because the law refuses to allow them to be anything else but victims.

[Wb123]

Yes, for me it is about the principal. No one has the right to decide he will take that watch I wear which was my fathers or even the £20 note I have in my pocket which I earned, not him. Yet the law makes it illegal for me to carry the means to help me avoid those things from being taken, yet that same law does nothing to prevent some piece of dirt from carrying the means to do as he pleases.

There is something severely wrong somewhere.

The law does a huge amount to punish and deter such individuals. We dont pay enough tax to deliver the sort of policing response we would all like but that to a large extent is democracy in action. The law is in my eyes sufficient, the delivery is hamstrung by our choices as a society about how much tax we are prepared to pay and how what we do pay should be utilised.

[wymberley]

The law does a huge amount to punish and deter such individuals. We dont pay enough tax to deliver the sort of policing response we would all like but that to a large extent is democracy in action. The law is in my eyes sufficient, the delivery is hamstrung by our choices as a society about how much tax we are prepared to pay and how what we do pay should be utilised.

Just because I don't entirely agree with it, does not detract from the fact that that is a very good post indeed. It encompasses the problems we currently face and unless they are dealt with the situation will simply get worse. It seems to me that the "huge amount to punish and deter such individuals" remains insufficient. Let's take, "punish". Have you seen what has been confiscated from the inmates in HM Prisons recently? They're not prisons; they're a free Butlins holiday park. "Deter"? If this was correctly pitched, there wouldn't be so many enjoying a break at our expense. What I've always wondered and would love to know the answer,is our judiciary limited by prison beds from awarding the sentence they would otherwise like to award. The recently posted list of tax dodgers would indicate that if they were dealt with as they should be, there'll be sufficient funds to build one prison to put the lot of them in and enough left over to build another to avoid the penal equivalent of NHS 'bed blocking'. Tax? The population is getting older and the percentage of people paying it less and it is patently unfair that those who do pay carry an increasing burden. Consequently, there is a need to make a determined effort to reduce unnecessary expenditure or expenditure deemed inappropriate - I'll leave you to work out what that might be. What's the average price of a car? £5,000? "No road tax, Sir? Your car is confiscated." "Need a new mobility vehicle, Madame? We've got one for you." £5,000 times 'x' a year = £ms saved. Time to grasp the nettle methinks.

[Scully]

The law does a huge amount to punish and deter such individuals. We dont pay enough tax to deliver the sort of policing response we would all like but that to a large extent is democracy in action. The law is in my eyes sufficient, the delivery is hamstrung by our choices as a society about how much tax we are prepared to pay and how what we do pay should be utilised.

We'll have to disagree on that matter too I'm afraid. I not only think the law doesnt do enough to deter, i also think the 'punish' aspect is far from adequate. As for the latter, whilst I agree that punishment is warranted, for the victim it is a moot point if they are severely wounded or in the case of those most recently in London.....dead.

Is it ok for our legislators to say 'don't worry; the police will protect you' when in fact they can't, or to say to someone ' don't get upset; if your husband/wife/child is killed the perpetrators will be caught and brought to justice' but your husband/wife/child will still be dead. They may well end up dead anyhow, and I fully appreciate that some people would rather not arm themselves given the choice, but at least give us the choice. That's all I ask.

Me carrying a pepper spray/ firearm/ swordstick/ boomerang or squeaky toy will have no impact at all on the tax payer.

[ips]

I am really wishing that I had never got involved in this thread. I am concerned that registered gun owners are talking in this manner. It does not read well. I am definitely out now.

[Scully]

There you go again; that unfathomable mentality that people shouldn't have the temerity to question authority by standing up for themselves merely because they own guns.

Registered gun owners are some of the most responsible level headed people around; otherwise we wouldn't have them.

Perhaps you're not cut out for firearms; you even admit to being terrified of your own swirdstick. I can't get my head around that at all.

[Wb123]

We'll have to disagree on that matter too I'm afraid. I not only think the law doesnt do enough to deter, i also think the 'punish' aspect is far from adequate. As for the latter, whilst I agree that punishment is warranted, for the victim it is a moot point if they are severely wounded or in the case of those most recently in London.....dead.

Is it ok for our legislators to say 'don't worry; the police will protect you' when in fact they can't, or to say to someone ' don't get upset; if your husband/wife/child is killed the perpetrators will be caught and brought to justice' but your husband/wife/child will still be dead. They may well end up dead anyhow, and I fully appreciate that some people would rather not arm themselves given the choice, but at least give us the choice. That's all I ask.

Me carrying a pepper spray/ firearm/ swordstick/ boomerang or squeaky toy will have no impact at all on the tax payer.

How many inappropriate injuries or deaths are acceptable per wounding or death prevented?

 

The american data would clearly suggest you carrying a firearm is significantly more likely to end up with someone innocent injured or killed than to protect you, their data and ours supports the same about bladed weapons. This has huge net costs to the tax payer in health care, incapacity, legal process, and potentially in encouraging criminals to arm themselves increasing the odds of violence against other people. Your choice does have a direct effect on the society around you.

 

Now a spray i suspect might work out far better cost wise, as might a squeaky toy or boomerang. Arming oneself if evidence exists it acts for net benefit i could support, but the evidence seems to be sorely lacking.

[Breastman]

Pepperspray would certainly be a step in the right direction. Last time I looked it was freely available over the counter in France and widely available throughout the European mainland and I'm not aware of the 'rivers of blood' with its use that some seem to think happen when the general public are trusted with such things

 

But, but what about the scrotes being able to buy it I hear you bleat? Well would you rather be hit in the face by pepperspray, legitimately manufactured to be non-lethal and limited in strength, or a Jif lemon filled with bleach, ammonia or even battery acid that they use at the moment?

[Scully]

How many inappropriate injuries or deaths are acceptable per wounding or death prevented?

 

The american data would clearly suggest you carrying a firearm is significantly more likely to end up with someone innocent injured or killed than to protect you, their data and ours supports the same about bladed weapons. This has huge net costs to the tax payer in health care, incapacity, legal process, and potentially in encouraging criminals to arm themselves increasing the odds of violence against other people. Your choice does have a direct effect on the society around you.

 

Now a spray i suspect might work out far better cost wise, as might a squeaky toy or boomerang. Arming oneself if evidence exists it acts for net benefit i could support, but the evidence seems to be sorely lacking.

Interesting and relevant if substantiated. I'd be interested in learning where you found the data so I could check its validity and learn why and by whom the data was commissioned, for the sake of impartiality, and how it was compiled.

It will be interesting to learn how it compares with collateral damage and cost to the tax payer in other instances, such as that caused by alcohol abuse in both the U.K. and USA.

Like I said; it doesn't have to be a gun, and even though a gun can and has brought about the immediate desired effect on an assailant, the responsibility involved in carrying one for such a purpose is astronomically huge.

It's a poor reflection on society if and when we get to this stage, but I sincerely don't see how we can carry on like this.

Armed assault is on the rise according to a BBC report last week, unless I'm mistaken, and there were over 32,000 incidents last year (?) where a knife or other bladed implement was used, again, according to thE same BBC report.

Kids in some parts of the country as young as 8 are reported to be carrying knives.

Why do some seem to prefer it is the law abiding whom are placed in such a vulnerable disadvantage? I know the answer; do you?

[AVB]

If people are so concerned about society that they wish to go equiped to defend themselves then why don't they? As a poster said, the police are so stretched that they never catch 'scrotes' so why be frightened of carrying an illegal weapon if the police are never going to catch you.

 

Surely your life is more important than not breaking the law!