[Zedicus]

UK Legistators, Politicans and Police all say that they are outlawing everything that has the possibillity of being used as, or classified by, the UK media buzz word "Offencive Weapon".

If that is the case, Why are Humans allowed to "Leagaly" exist in the UK?
Humans are the oldest "Offencive Weapon" known in History...

[Mark Tyson]

They might as well try to outlaw fire, blunt objects and garden tools. Humans are violent animals and have been doing each other in since the first Enlightened Primate picked up a rock and bashed in his neighbor's skull. Why don't they just lobotomize everyone and get it over with.

[Mr. Bombastic]

One day, I'm sure they'll come around to collect all the opposable thumbs. :rolleyes:

[agricola]

zedicus,

can you evidence this?

the existing position over here is already broad enough, so one suspects that no changes are planned (if of course this is an actual story).

[Zedicus]

can you evidence this?
Is that the only thing you know how to respond with?:rolleyes:

[agricola]

zedicus,

once before you made a statement that was not evidenced by anything - a statement that alleged a serious malpractice in a Scottish Police force. you now have made a second statement that appears not to coincide with any policy initative in the groups you describe. if you were to bemoan the state of the armed populace in the UK, then fair enough - that is a matter of opinion; but you do appear to be making statements of fact that are not true.

as it happens, as i mentioned above the law is already very strict on such items here thanks to s1 Prevention of Crime Act 1953 and s139 Criminal Justice Act 1988 as amended by the Knives Act 1997.

oh, and "offensive weapon" is a legal term dating from at least 1953, and not a media buzzword.

of course, if you can provide the links to the news that announced this further tightening up of the laws with regards to this issue, then that will suffice.

[Orthonym]

Hasn't the Common Law (pretty much) always required one to retreat "to the wall" before using deadly force in self-defense? That said, I think the C.L. presumes equality of violent skills between the combatants, and never heard of firearms. If someone points a gun at me to, oh, rob me, I can't very well retreat from him more quickly than his bullet would follow me right up, can I? That is why (I believe) some States here have gone from the "Duty to Retreat" theory to the "True Man" theory of law. I.e., If someone picks a deadly fight with you, you're free to mix it up with him, with no prejudice against you if the thing comes to a court.

[c_yeager]

Sources do greatly enhance one's argument.

[agricola]

orthynym,

not really. self defence here basically means using reasonable force to defend yourself or another, including deadly force and pre-emptive strikes - there is no mention of "a duty to retreat" although a failure to retreat may negate the use of any defence.

an example of this might be someone who, say, is involved in a fight with a neighbour, retreats to the kitchen to arm himself, then returns and stabs the neighbour and subsequently claims self defence.

there is no legal provision for the use of deadly force solely to protect property although the law recognizes a certain amount of overlap here.

[Mr. Bombastic]

Agricola,

How does one use 'reasonable force' without having the ability to use tools to aid you in that end?

If you're lucky enough to be at home, then you might be able to defend yourself with a kitchen knife. Hopefully the criminals won't be better armed.

But what about becoming the victim of street violence? How does a woman defend against a rapist without a defensive weapon? How does a wheelchair-bound man defend himself against a knife wielding nutcase without being charged himself, with the crime of carrying an 'offensive weapon'? How do you or I defend ourselves against violence if we have no 'right' to carry anything to aid in that task?

How can one write a novel without pen or paper?

How can one travel to work without shoes or a car?

How can one physically defend themselves without a defensive weapon?

Run away? Of course! But running isn't always an option. In a society that outlaws defensive as well as offensive weapons, there is no other option other than run, and leave behind whoever you were with.

If you can.

[agricola]

mr bombastic,

For a start, you should know that all of the offensive weapon legislation applies to public places only, and not the home (nor indeed any other private property where the owner consents to your presence). This means you could, if you wanted, festoon yourself with all manner of melee weapons if you wished, to say nothing of the shotgun, long barrelled pistol or rifle you could have if you were willing to join a shooting club.

Secondly, stranger rape is (in terms of the total number of rapes) comparatively rare in the UK - most rapes take place where the suspect is known to the victim, which would tend to reduce the usefulness of any weapon. There is also a (sadly growing trend) of rapes taking place where the victim is intoxicated, either through their own actions or through the actions of the suspect. These offences would also probably not be affected by any public carriage of weapons.

Thirdly, the legislation has meant that habitual criminals do not habitually carry weapons on the street - the much wider stop and search powers in the UK mean that those criminals do get stopped all the time.

Fourthly one must remember that the UK suffers (in comparison with the US) from (in terms of rates) more less serious offences - our robberies are rarely fatal or armed, our burglaries are rarely (less than 1%) robberies-in-the-home, and our assaults are rarely life-threatening. Public carriage of either weapons or firearms would possibly (though Greenwood found no evidence that firearms legislation had any affect on the underlying rate of gun crime) lower the overall number of offences by dissuading the oppurtunist criminal (of which we have loads) from committing his acts.

However, using the US as a guide (which is fraught with danger in itself) we would see an upswing in murders, armed robberies and home invasions because the criminal would have to contend with an armed victim - this (as said above) would deter some, but would also mean that those that remain (and remember criminals still exist in the States despite the 2A) invariably arm themselves.

[Mr. Bombastic]

Agricola,

Firstly, being able to own a shotgun in the home (locked away and unloaded) 'if' the government grants you a license is not anyway to 'grant' people the right to protect themselves.

Secondly, how can you advocate the disarmament of rape victims because they 'might' know the person who raped them or because they might be intoxicated?

Thirdly, habitual criminals DO carry weapons in the street. Violent crime is RISING and happens everyday. Stop and search means that a minority of criminals get stopped, and often TOTALLY INNOCENT people get stopped in the street and FORCED to prove they are innocent of the crime of being able to protect themselves.

Fourthly, violent crime in Britain is comparable to the US, even though weapons are largely outlawed here. Robberies are often armed, even though you say they aren't. Robberies are also carried out by groups of people who outnumber their unarmed victims. Thusly, violent criminals need not be armed as long as they know their victims are unarmed and vulnerable. Also, states like Vermont and Alaska show that criminals do not all take up arms if they believe their victims might be armed, in fact, they often stop making people victims.

If, as you say banning firearms have no effect on gun crime, then why ban them and turn innocent, law-abiding people into criminals?

Yes, America has a violence problem. Compared to the well-armed people of Switzerland, so do we.

[agricola]

mr bombastic,

firstly most robberies are not armed - if youre going to use the official statistics to back up your argument that violent crime is rising (which is not as clear cut as it seems, as i have oft pointed out) then you must also accept that most robberies (90%) are not armed - unless you have special, magic statistics that are not available to the rest of us.

secondly i pointed out that arming people would probably not have that much of an affect on the overall rape figures (and it may well actually increase the number of attacks given that most criminals would now be armed) because most rapists are not going to put themselves in the position of facing a sober or "unknown" victim - they will have either wormed their ways into the victims trust or incapacitated him or her.

thirdly you cannot compare places like Vermont and Alaska with the UK. For a start, our country is much more urbanized than the US - aside from the far north of Scotland and mid Wales you are very unlikely to be more than an hour's drive from a city of a million people. Urban centres present a much different criminal environment than the countryside which means that, in a comparison with the US, one must look at the big cities for a comparison.

fourthly, Colin Greenwood said that the laws had had no effect on gun crime, and i agree with him but he was not talking about anything like a CCW style system in the UK.

lastly criminals do not habitually carry weapons in the street, as the statistics show (when compared with stop and search results).

[Mr. Bombastic]

most robberies are not armed

Tell me then, do the bad guys just say "Please hand over all your money, or we'll ask you again."?

Most criminals who commit robberies aren't armed? Where do you get your magical statistics from? The robbers?

it may well actually increase the number of attacks given that most criminals would now be armed

How exactly do violent criminals currently commit crimes without being better armed, stronger, or outnumbering their victims then?

[Orthonym]

Why, by being bigger, younger, stronger, nastier, and more numerous than the victim of the moment. (and maybe well-armed, too)

Edit: That is, what Mr Bombastic said, except more so.

[agricola]

mr.b,

check the official statistics, armed robbery forms about 10% of the total number of robberies, the data for which comes from the victims. what evidence do you have to support your beliefs?

[Tamara]

armed robbery forms about 10% of the total number of robberies

Is unarmed (or "strongarm") robbery really all that much better? What percentage of those robberies might be foiled if someone could at least carry OC?

[seeker_two]

Fourthly one must remember that the UK suffers (in comparison with the US) from (in terms of rates) more less serious offences - our robberies are rarely fatal or armed, our burglaries are rarely (less than 1%) robberies-in-the-home, and our assaults are rarely life-threatening.

Care to cite your sources? :scrutiny:

Also, what is defined as a "weapon" in these statistics? Guns? Knives? Cricket bats? Skill in "strong-arm" fighting tactics? Numerical superiority?

Seems to me that the British LEO's are more for suggesting that the populace should surrender their property and bodies (i.r. rape) to the criminals than try to defend themselves & their own.....

Are your LEO's attending the police academy in France, now? :uhoh:

[agricola]

seeker,

my sources have been published here and on TFL every time this debate comes up. here are the bare statistics again, further googling can tweak out more data (you can do that, or try reading any of the threads on either TFL or THR):

England and Wales: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb703.pdf

US: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/01crime2.pdf

in short:

We have less armed robberies, murders, rapes, home invasions (equivalent to a robbery in the home or an aggravated burglary over here) and serious assaults (your aggravated assault equates to a GBH with intent over here) than the US. We have more burglaries and robberies, in terms of rates, than the US.

please show your new-found willingness to get to the truth of the matter by similarly requiring Zedicus to present his source, though I advise you not to hold your breath.

tamara,

strongarm robbery is (obviously) a serious offence but it is much less likely to lead to a serious injury. As I said above, probably a majority of "strongarm" robberies (which at least over here are oppurtunistic - ie some kids see someone walking and talking on their mobile and decide to take it off them) would be detered by a carry system, either of guns or other weapons, in the UK - but we would also see those criminals who were determined to commit crime arming themselves - both to counter the intended victim, and because the OB would be able to do nothing about it to interdict the offence.

[Futo Inu]

Under their definition, ALL weapons are offensive weapons, since the only criteria for them to be offensive is capable of harming (apparently), which is already subsumed by the definition of the word weapon, by itself - there is no element of intent of use. So it's redundant - there is no such thing as a defensive weapon. So it's an exercise in misleading people to believe that there might be weapons which are OK to be carried with the purpose of defense. As to what is a weapon (and therefore an offensive weapon), you're right, that's pretty muddy too. At what point are your hands weapons? Orange belt, green, purple, brown, or black? Letter opener? Silliness. I'm now ashamed we derived our system of gov't from those blissninnies.

[Tamara]

I am for some reason reminded of the scene at the end of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, where the bobbies show up to roust the knights, and one cop grabs the shield of a knight, saying "That's an offensive weapon, there, that is!" ;)

[Mr. Bombastic]

check the official statistics, armed robbery forms about 10% of the total number of robberies, the data for which comes from the victims.

Considering I would be classed as 'armed with an offensive weapon' if I stepped out of my door with a locking Swiss Army Knife, and yet robbers armed with various weapons or superior numbers are not considered 'armed' in your statistics, it is easy to see how the British Government can corrupt information.

All that is needed for a victim to use lethal force (under the 'reasonable force' paradigm) is for the criminal to be able to exert the same force on the victim. The criminals don't even have to be 'armed' to do that. They have suprise, superior numbers and the law on their side. Surely that should justify allowing victims to be able to equalise the balance by being armed?

what evidence do you have to support your beliefs?

The Governments history of falsifying reports/statistics et al.

What evidence do you have to support your belief that a woman should not be able to resist an armed and violent rapist on the street? Oh, I forget. UK law also supports your beliefs.

but we would also see those criminals who were determined to commit crime arming themselves - both to counter the intended victim, and because the OB would be able to do nothing about it to interdict the offence.

Criminals in CCW friendly areas in the US are generally BANNED from carrying weapons themselves. Thus, if similar legislation were made here, police could still 'Stop and Search' criminals and deal with them if they were armed. (Not that a danger to the public should be out on the streets anyway.)

Therefore (because as you said, Stop and Search is so effective) the criminals would have no weapons (because they could be stopped and arrested), and the good guys could carry weapons (without being stopped and arrested).

Shouldn't that be 'problem solved' Agricola? :confused:

[agricola]

mr.b,

what you are saying is that the data is twisted or erroneous because it doesnt fit with your interpretation?

nice - you and Zedicus should hold a party.

[Mr. Bombastic]

Nope. The data is twisted and erroneous because not only does it not fit with the governments own (inconsistent) interpretation of the word 'armed', it also doesn't fit with the dictionary definition.

v. armed, arm•ing, arms
v. intr.
To supply or equip oneself with weaponry.
To prepare oneself for warfare or conflict.

What do you think about the suggestion at the end of my post Agricola?

Criminals in CCW friendly areas in the US are generally BANNED from carrying weapons themselves. Thus, if similar legislation were made here, police could still 'Stop and Search' criminals and deal with them if they were armed.

According to your 'interpretation' of the effectiveness of Stop and Search at disarming criminals, shouldn't my suggestion (the introduction of similar CCW legislation) make sure the criminals are just as dissuaded from carrying weapons as they are currently?

Thirdly, the legislation has meant that habitual criminals do not habitually carry weapons on the street - the much wider stop and search powers in the UK mean that those criminals do get stopped all the time.

:confused:

[agricola]

mr b,

it appears i may have been incorrect - the proportion of "armed" robberies is in fact (including all weapons) 33%, at least according to the study below. However those reading it should note that the sample is taken solely from urban areas, and six of the ten sampled sites are in the two forces with the highest numbers of robberies (the Met and West Midlands), so the data may be skewed by this.

It should also be pointed out that the comparison I made was between the firearm robbery rate for England and Wales and the firearm robbery rate contained within the FBI's UCR. The true figure for the US robberies with a weapon is 61%. This may not have been clear from my post.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hors254.pdf

Aggravated burglary means a burglary committed where the suspect(s) has with him a weapon of offence (including anything intended to incapacitate a person), firearm, imitation firearm and explosive. The term "armed robbery" is at least understood by the media and the courts to mean something more than "gunpoint robbery":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/3054009.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/2996028.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/3127297.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/3010823.stm

[Orthonym]

Why is armed robbery NOT understood by the "Media and the Courts" to mean the same as, to be mathematically IDENTICAL to, "gunpoint robbery"?

[Zedicus]

nice - you and Zedicus should hold a party.
First Senceable comment i've seen you make in this one:)
Hows about it? A THR shoot about 8 months after I move to whatever state I end up in...?:D

[agricola]

zedicus,

still no evidence huh? well i guess you must be pretty well exposed for the fibber you are :rolleyes: