UK: Labour Smoking Ban

[warren]

Seems to be pretty straight forward on the official website. Also, at the Crown Prosecution Service website. There are careful instructions as to how prosecutors are to interpret and apply "self-defense" arguments just as in the US. Discretion is always to be applied in such decisions.

 

[warren]

Of course the understanding of how laws are applied is, for the most part, limited to how English media report "self-defense cases and trials. Just like in the US. Biases and political slanting is part and parcel of reporting, all depends on how the owner/publisher desires his employees to write/report such stories.

 

[WerewolfOfLondon]

You also can’t defend yourself with firearms over there which, as an American, is ludicrous to me.

Yeah, but remember, guns are not as ubiquitous here as they are in the States. We don't need to have guns to protect ourselves, because the chances of someone attacking us with a gun are shrinkingly small. Guns here are legally held by a tiny minority of people, farmers and what not. Illegally owned guns are normally in the possession of gangsters and organised criminals. Neither group is ever likely to use these weapons on the average person. The moral of the story is that you don't need to own a gun to protect yourself, if the ownership of guns is strictly prohibited.

 

[warren]

The moral of the story is that you don't need to own a gun to protect yourself, if the ownership of guns is strictly prohibited.

That kinda depends on your physical condition, age, police response times and so forth. Guns are strictly regulated for law abiding folk and, for the most people a prohibited item. I carry my shillelagh when in London. I'd bet some folk there still have available the guns, thousands of them, daddy brought back from the war. But, you are right about "known"/registered guns being tightly controlled. In London, knives seem to be a weapon of choice these days. Restrictions on knives are becoming more restrictive these days in London I've been reading.

 

[Richmond B. Funkenhouser]

The moral of the story is that you don't need to own a gun to protect yourself, if the ownership of guns is strictly prohibited.

Ahh Yes. We have proven that here in the U.S., in our major cities.

 

[WerewolfOfLondon]

That kinda depends on your physical condition, age, police response times and so forth. Guns are strictly regulated for law abiding folk and, for the most people a prohibited item. I carry my shillelagh when in London. I'd bet some folk there still have available the guns, thousands of them, daddy brought back from the war. But, you are right about "known"/registered guns being tightly controlled. In London, knives seem to be a weapon of choice these days. Restrictions on knives are becoming more restrictive these days in London I've been reading.

Yeah, knives are a serious problem in the UK, but particularly in the big cities. And carrying them is becoming more restrictive. There is a mandatory five years for anyone found carrying one without good reason. The problem is, no one ever gets the five year sentence, because anyone can concoct a plausible reason for carrying one (need it for work, just purchased it and am carrying it back from the shop etc). The carrying of knives is a very serious problem here, no doubt about it, and a problem without seeming rememdy, not like we can put an outright ban on knives.

 

[brian64]

The moral of the story is that you don't need to own a gun to protect yourself, if the ownership of guns is strictly prohibited.

So you're saying that if someone is physically attacked, they do have the right to defend themselves...just not with a gun.

Can they use some other weapon, or do they have to just use their fists? And this is supposed to be the method of self defense for everyone apparently, regardless of age, gender, physical strength, etc?

So, for example, if a woman or an elderly person is being attacked by a man who can easily overpower the victim, should they just politely ask him to stop and wait for the cops?

Or if one's home is invaded by one or more violent lunatics (perhaps armed with machetes as seems to be a popular weapon these days) should they have their own machetes at the ready to have a bloody sword fight? Or maybe a bow and arrow at least? How about a spear?

 

[warren]

The sites I quoted use the word "object" as opposed to defining what weapons can be used in self-defense. Defending property is not considered "self-defense." There are very narrow, well defined rules for self-defense on the government sites I noted above.

Should be noted "reasonable force" is not defined, purposely it seems.

 

[brian64]

Maybe a harpoon?

 

[larryspencer]

What a pity, we're discussing tobacco prohibition in the Western world, while the remainder ponders?

 

[jaingorenard]

That kinda depends on your physical condition, age, police response times and so forth. Guns are strictly regulated for law abiding folk and, for the most people a prohibited item. I carry my shillelagh when in London. I'd bet some folk there still have available the guns, thousands of them, daddy brought back from the war. But, you are right about "known"/registered guns being tightly controlled. In London, knives seem to be a weapon of choice these days. Restrictions on knives are becoming more restrictive these days in London I've been reading.

Worth noting that if your shillelagh is a traditional one with lead, you could well be stopped for carrying an offensive weapon these days in the UK. I looked into this when I looked at buying a shillelagh.

There a no way near as many 'secret' guns than you'd think, apart from in the hands of criminals. There have been a few armistices over the years where huge numbers of Second World War guns were handed in. Raises the question of why we didn't have huge amounts of shooting and gun crime even when there were lots of guns in the hands of presumably quite traumatised people.

 

[WerewolfOfLondon]

So you're saying that if someone is physically attacked, they do have the right to defend themselves...just not with a gun.

Can they use some other weapon, or do they have to just use their fists? And this is supposed to be the method of self defense for everyone apparently, regardless of age, gender, physical strength, etc?

So, for example, if a woman or an elderly person is being attacked by a man who can easily overpower the victim, should they just politely ask him to stop and wait for the cops?

Or if one's home is invaded by one or more violent lunatics (perhaps armed with machetes as seems to be a popular weapon these days) should they have their own machetes at the ready to have a bloody sword fight? Or maybe a bow and arrow at least? How about a spear?

As if I am saying an individual doesn't have the right to defend themselves if attacked. I suppose it is as simple as this. If you allow people to defend themselves with guns, it increases the likelihood of them being attacked with a gun. If we carry your logic to its conclusion, then people should be allowed to own RPGs to defend themselves.

I do understand that the ubiquitous nature of guns in America means everyone has to be allowed to legally own them. I do get that. But say you were creating a new society. Say we teraformed Mars. Would you say it would be a good idea to allow guns on the basis of self-defence? Thus increasing the chances of being attacked by one?

 

[brian64]

As if I am saying an individual doesn't have the right to defend themselves if attacked. I suppose it is as simple as this. If you allow people to defend themselves with guns, it increases the likelihood of them being attacked with a gun. If we carry your logic to its conclusion, then people should be allowed to own RPGs to defend themselves.

I do understand that the ubiquitous nature of guns in America means everyone has to be allowed to legally own them. I do get that. But say you were creating a new society. Say we teraformed Mars. Would you say it would be a good idea to allow guns on the basis of self-defence? Thus increasing the chances of being attacked by one?

I utterly disagree that you are "carrying my logic to its conclusion". A conventional firearm is a personal defense weapon...comparing it to an RPG is ridiculous. That said, I personally would have no problem whatsoever with people owning RPG's...as long as they don't commit a crime with it.

Your logic, on the other hand, is based on two premises that I completely reject. First, that government has the right to criminalize the ownership of firearms by peaceful citizens for self defense. It's sad and astonishing to me that anyone would want to grant this right to government.

And second, that it's possible to disallow gun possession in society. Such laws result only in disarming peaceful, law abiding citizens, not violent criminals.

And to reiterate my previous point, by criminalizing the use of firearms for self defense, you are primarily victimizing the weakest and most vulnerable members of society.

And if I ever go to Mars, I'm sure as hell not going unarmed.

 

[warren]

I do understand that the ubiquitous nature of guns in America means everyone has to be allowed to legally own them.

Certainly, totally incorrect. Lack of research and logic here. I'm done. (Did I hear a collective sigh of relief from the participants?)

 

[Richmond B. Funkenhouser]

Just my view:

It's hard to explain the rights of a citizen to a subject.

 

[fireground_piper]

Would you say it would be a good idea to allow guns on the basis of self-defence? Thus increasing the chances of being attacked by one?

No, my basis would be that they are fun as hell. There’s nothing quite like shooting targets, moving or otherwise, with a firearm.

 

[WerewolfOfLondon]

And second, that it's possible to disallow gun possession in society. Such laws result only in disarming peaceful, law abiding citizens, not violent criminals.

And to reiterate my previous point, by criminalizing the use of firearms for self defense, you are primarily victimizing the weakest and most vulnerable members of society.

Empirically, none of that is true. The state of gun ownership in the states is proof of that. Cast iron proof I'm afriad. You have far more gun crime than we do. Your gun laws are far more liberal than ours. It's an open and shut case.

I know you will now say you won't be dictated to by your governmnet, and that you can't believe how people in Europe allow such a thing. But who protects your second amendment rights? Do you think that the amendment equips you to protect it yourself? Do you think, that even if you did have an RPG, you'd be able to protect it if the government decided to revoke it? It never fails to amaze me how some Americans are naive enough to believe the second amendment is something that the government doesnt protect, and instead believe it is they themselves that protect it.

 

[brian64]

Empirically, none of that is true. The state of gun ownership in the states is proof of that. Cast iron proof I'm afriad. You have far more gun crime than we do. Your gun laws are far more liberal than ours. It's an open and shut case.

I know you will now say you won't be dictated to by your governmnet, and that you can't believe how people in Europe allow such a thing. But who protects your second amendment rights? Do you think that the amendment equips you to protect it yourself? Do you think, that even if you did have an RPG, you'd be able to protect it if the government decided to revoke it? It never fails to amaze me how some Americans are naive enough to believe the second amendment is something that the government doesnt protect, and instead believe it is they themselves that protect it.

Are you actually from Mars? Or maybe a real Werewolf? Because I feel like I'm talking to someone from another planet...or another species.

You don't even begin to understand my perspective or what I'm saying...but I'm done...it's an exercise in futility. Maybe someone else wants to try.

Have a nice day.

 

[WerewolfOfLondon]

Maybe someone else wants to try.

I very much doubt anyone else will try. They are more than welcome of course.

 

[captainsousie]

I was classified as a threat to the queen when I took 5 knives into one of the queen's residences. Four were ignored but the tiniest one was a locking knife. 2" or 5cm got me on a watch list for 10 years. The security said no worries about storing my backpack with the knives but a tiny knife got me on a watch list for 10 years. The rest of the knives were collectables from Switzerland. They didn't care about those.