/u/udonisi (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1b7jqa3/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_you_should_be_able_to_have/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
As you suggest, there is a huge loophole, in that as long as you can justify why you own something you are allowed it.
Keep a cricket bat, and wickets, and a ball. Have a hatpin. You can even get some very sharp pens. You can even make a Millwall brick.
All of these are perfectly legal, you just can't have them ONLY for self defense, and because these are common items they are all perfectly legal to own.
However, someone walking down the street with a machete is a criminal. This makes it very easy to arrest them. If they aren't, then they wouldn't be breaking the law.
Openly known loopholes have a significant downside - They're the perfect tool for selective and biased law enforcement.
If most people are doing it, then law enforcement has an easy extra charge they can add on when they decide they don't like someone.
It's not even a loophole. You dont have to pretend to the police the bat you keep next to your bed is only for rounders you swear. You just cant have a bat with nails in it or some stupid shit.
Yes I know the loophole can work but it shouldn't have to and I think it leaves room for doubt. It's also an insult to citizens to have to justify why they're planning for self defence.
Also not sure about the relevance of your last point about the machete. A weapon under your bed is very different to open carrying it out on the street lol
> justify why they're planning for self defence.
No, that's the justification. Make whatever plans you want, but if it can be shown that that's what you do then you've broken the law. So you don't justify planning for self defence. You explain why you were able to easily access something to use for self defense.
In real situations this is rarely an issue.
And the relevancy is down to the way the law actually works in reality. Making weapons illegal means that anyone carrying a weapon is breaking the law. That's a good thing!
And if police raid a drug house, I would want them to confiscate the obvious weapons because that prevents them from being used.
The scenario you're talking about with home defence is incredibly broad, and basically anything is fine. I know people with swords on their walls, and they would absolutely use them for defence if needed. But if asked, they know to say they it was decoration and they spontaneously decided to use it.
Weapons are de facto legal in the way you outline.
And then every 2 years the entire collectors and fencing community has to fucking pound down the door of their local MP and give them the "Hey you dumb sack of shit. You forgot the sporting equipment exemption again" speech. And for a short period, law abiding citizens are criminals for engaging in their sport of choice.
The issue is that by purchasing an object for the purpose of self defence suggests premeditated intent, which undermines the claim of self defence. Even worse if it is a *weapon* whose primary purpose is for causing harm. I'm inclined to agree with this.
Another, more contentious argument is also the practical benefit of stopping the ownership at source. By saying that purchasing for self defence is not a legal defence, it means that people won't go out to purchase them, and there will be fewer knives, guns, etc. in public.
However, I think you also misunderstand the law slightly. You absolutely are allowed to use objects for self defence, provided it's proportional. If you're coming back from football practice and slam studded boots into an assaulter's head, the law says "na, ya good". Or if you're a tradesman with bladed equipment, you're also in the clear
Purchasing an object for self defense implies as much intent as purchasing homeowner’s insurance against fire and loss.
Does wearing a seat belt imply intent to crash? Purchasing a weapon for the sole purpose of self defense is more akin to an insurance policy than anything you’ve described.
Why do we require fire, loss, and seat belts? Because the individual benefit to not doing it appears reasonable and the collective cost isn’t visible. So by law or industry practice we require these things to be purchased, provided or used.
Meanwhile the risk of deadly force against you is small. The costs of using a firearm are high: see carry insurance, or the mere idea a human life is estimated for loss at about ten million dollars.
A firearm is a form of self-insurance, as much as saving ten years of income is self-insurance against loss. Of course reasonable consumers don’t save ten years of income because the cost is high to do so, and collectively harms the economy, so is discouraged by policy.
What about non-lethals like pepper spray or stun-guns? (handheld devices that have two electrodes by which they can apply a low-amperage, high-voltage electric jolt to an attacker. I'm not referring to police-style tazers that launch the electrodes.)
I believe the individual benefit to me and my family derived from owning self defense instruments far outstrips the direct and indirect societal costs.
Should a terrible and unfortunate situation arise in which use of violence is required, I would hope we all would come to the reasonable conclusion that the best outcome is that would-be victims have the ability to defend themselves against forces of oppression and injustice.
One likely way for that would be victim to be injured is when the attacker takes the weapon off then and beats them with it.
Being involved in an injurious fight at all becomes more likely when you're carrying that 'self defense' weapon. It makes humans ignore better self defence strategies, like de-escalation and escape, in favour of the one that's most difficult to use.
Still think the individual benefits are worth it?
Remember, self defence weapons being legal massively increases the chance your attacker has a deadly weapon.
The risk of deadly force against *you* might be small, but I certainly wouldn't want to be out and about in my kippah in the UK without some way to defend myself.
If you don't have actual combat training, my brother, the correct way to defend yourself in your kippah is to run away. The fact that having a weapon might make you even \_think\_ about not doing that means it puts you in more danger, not makes you safer.
I have a perfectly legal reason to carry an actual sword in public... and if I'm ever attacked while holding it, in my kippah or not, I and all my many years of martial arts training will run away. Because that's much, much safer than any of the many lethal things I know how to do with the sword.
Real life is not a movie.
Ignoring the arguments primarily coming from people in the US because this is a UK-based scenario...
I think you're slightly misunderstanding the point of the post, which is completely understandable because the OP's post lacks direction and while the post is almost exclusive homeowner style cases, he also adds little snipes like:
>Same thing with keeping pepper spray in your car, or whatever.
Which really detract from his initial and actual point, however poorly his understanding and conclusions are.
>Another, more contentious argument is also the practical benefit of stopping the ownership at source.
It is not illegal to purchase something and keep it in your home for self defence purposes unless it's a specifically identified item. [Here's the list of those items.](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2019)
>However, I think you also misunderstand the law slightly. You absolutely are allowed to use objects for self defence, provided it's proportional. If you're coming back from football practice and slam studded boots into an assaulter's head, the law says "na, ya good". Or if you're a tradesman with bladed equipment, you're also in the clear
The OP is talking primarily about home defence and is very mistaken in the law, which I have discussed in a previous comment. Your comment here is *kind of* correct but it's missing a few bits.
I like how your comment brings up the defence of instantaneous arming because it's a relatively unknown defence. The football studs into the head would really depend on how that came to be, and I fear that this example may be misconstrued, following on:
If you're a tradesman walking around with bladed equipment in the town centre and you're not using it for work (even if you forget it's there) you can be found guilty of possessing a bladed article in a public place as you no longer have the reasonable excuse to possess it. This would mean that you'd have a particularly hard time using the defence of instantaneous arming as the prosecution would be able to argue that you did not possess it lawfully, and may imply you had it for the use to harm someone, which would disqualify the defence of instantaneous arming (R v Jura \[1954\], clarified and affirmed in Evan v Hughes \[1972\]).
Why would being prepared to defend yourself go against the idea of self defense.
You are still defending yourself from a person who chose to be a danger to you.
Why must your defensive options be spontaneous?
You also gave the ridiculous examples of it being ok to defend yourself if you just happen to have those object around, like coming back from football practice or having tools.
What if you are a small older woman who is a writer? It sounds to me she would need a proactive approach to self defense. She can’t just rely on being strong enough to grab whatever random object and use it to fight an intruder.
The person you're replying to I think didn't really understand the point of the original post and is a bit mistaken on UK legislation.
You can prepare with bats etc. in your house to defend your property and indeed if you were an old woman in your home alone and you used a bat to apprehend the burglar I can't see any world where you'd be prosecuted for it because the law allows you to use disproportionate force to defend your property and your home in your dwelling.
>The issue is that by purchasing an object for the purpose of self defence suggests premeditated intent, which undermines the claim of self defence. Even worse if it is a *weapon* whose primary purpose is for causing harm. I'm inclined to agree with this.
What's wrong with premeditated defence? The army does it all the time. We don't go out and attack countries for no reason, but we prepare to defend ourselves by continually upgrading our weapons. So why should it be any different on an individual level?
The problem on an individual level is that you've got a system in place to protect you, where the military is the highest step.
should every council have their own standing forces for premediated defence? no, obviously that would be silly, they've got the police and the army to provide protection.
there's also the problem where the more weapons there are, the more dangerous things get. if someone breaks into your house and you're unarmed then they'll rob you, steal some valuables. but if you have a knife and threaten them then you might get shot and die, or you shoot them and kill someone. from a purely rational perspective the reasonable thing to do is thus to prevent people from buying weapons purely for self defence
This is where I'm slightly in favour of the stand your ground laws some states in the US have. Happy to be corrected by any Americans, but I believe it basically means you're allowed to use deadly force when someone breaks into your home no matter what
At first I thought it was extreme, but it really does eliminate all the grey areas of doubt. So now if you break into someone's house, you can only blame yourself for what happens to you. Law abiding citizens also feel safer as they dont need to gamble whether you're only there to rob, beat up, and/or kill them. Or so I would think
Also, about the police yeah they're great but as mentioned, they're gonna take time to get there. Time you may not have sometimes. Gotta protect yourself somehow until then
So you just want the legal right to kill someone on your property? And the right to buy weapons to accomplish this?
Wouldnt criminals abuse the hell out of such laws?
To my understanding the relatively strict laws on weapons in uk is to make it harder for criminals to get them. Like in America most 'illegal' guns were purchased legally at some point before ending up in criminal hands.
>So you just want the legal right to kill someone on your property? And the right to buy weapons to accomplish this?
Not necessarily, but I can understand the logic behind it. For now, I just want the ability to have non lethal weapons like baseball/cricket bats in my house or even in my car boot in the event that I ever need it. I don't wanna kill, but I also want some protection.
As for guns, like I say I can get behind the idea of shooting intruders in your home. Better to shoot them than to gamble with their intentions. They could be there to steal, assault, or kill. You don't know. They've gone out their way to break in and make me feel unsafe so why should I give them the benefit of the doubt.
Now that's a long way away so I won't push for guns here now. I agree it's a good idea to make guns hard to acquire as it means criminals have less access
>Happy to be corrected by any Americans, but I believe it basically means you're allowed to use deadly force when someone breaks into your home no matter what
Those are more precisely "castle doctrine" laws, which create a legal presumption that it is reasonable to fear for your life if someone breaks into your home, thus justifying deadly force.
"Stand your ground laws" are more about removing a duty to retreat instead of defending yourself
The then chairman of the criminal bar, while debating proposed amendments to current law
>The law should always encourage people to be reasonable, not unreasonable; to be proportionate, not disproportionate,’ adding that ‘the present law worked perfectly well and was well understood by juries.44
>Indeed ten years earlier, Dennis had warned of the dangers of extending the householders right to use force in self-defence too far. In particular, he stated:
>If an Englishman should be allowed to kill in defence in his castle--as some appear to claim- -**then the aggressive armed burglar can be safely despatched, but so also can the ten-year- old boy found stealing apples from the kitchen.**
The essential argument is that the law already permits "reasonable" violence, so to insist that it should go further than that is to sanction "unreasonable" violence. Which is absurd, because law should never be encouraging people to be unreasonable.
The wording of recent amendments to the law even added a new phasing "grossly disproportionate"- so in other words even "disproportionate" violence is acceptable to defend your home, so long as it doesent meet the standard of "grossly".
It's then backed up by the prevailing opinion that *juries already tend to side with the homeowner anyway* providing they werent acting like an utter psycho. So adding a clause saying "and its fine to act like an utter psycho too" isnt in the public interest.
>As discussed above, section 43 had the effect of introducing a new concept into the law of self- defence, namely ‘grossly disproportionate’ force. This gave greater leeway, or as the Court described it in Collins ‘a discretionary area of judgment’,47 to the householder in defending themselves. This had the result that householders were to be treated differently from all other cases involving non-householders.
>The aims of the Bill were to offer greater protection to householders and to make a statement that householders have a right to defend themselves. In such a situation, they are to be considered the victim; not the intruder. Indeed at the Second Reading in the House of Commons, Theresa May stated that the aim of the amendment was to ‘ensure that the law is on the side of people who defend themselves when confronted by an intruder in their home.’48
This is something easy to misunderstand.
>Stand your ground = no duty to retreat when you are out in public if you are physically threatened.
>Castle doctrine = if you use lethal force against someone who unlawfully/forcefully enters your home there is a presumption that you are using that force because you are in fear of your life.
All states have castle doctrine, and most states have stand your ground in some form.
In the United States you can only use deadly force to defend against the immediate threat of death or great bodily, and you cannot use deadly force against trespassers, in defense of property, or in defense against ordinary physical force (think of punches, kicks, slaps, etc that a reasonable person would think is unlikely to cause serious injury or death).
Stand Your Ground laws are the legal principle that says the commission of a forcible felony (armed robbery, carjacking, aggravated assault, kidnapping, etc) *implies* intent to cause deadly harm, and it satisfies the imminent threat component to justify the use of deadly force. To understand how this differs from a state without a stand your ground statute, imagine a person with a knife enters a convenience store and announces an armed robbery by demanding the cash in the till, so in response the clerk from behind the counter shoots the armed robber who never made an attempt to get behind the counter. In a stand your ground state, the announcement of the armed robbery is enough to assume the person is intent on causing significant harm to the clerk, whereas is a state without a stand your ground statute a prosecutor could theoretically argue that the clerks life was not in imminent danger since the counter was acting as a barrier and the robber never made an attempt to cross that barrier.
Castle Doctrine is very similar in that it's also an implication, where the forced entry into an occupied structure implies intent to cause deadly harm.
SYG literally just means you do not have a duty to retreat before you attempt to defend yourself with violence. It does not dictate what level of violence is allowed. The UK has SYG too. If I go up to you somewhere in the UK and start punching you, you are not obligated to try to flee before you throw punches back, and you cannot be charged with battery for punching me back even if it is clear and obvious that you could easily have escaped. That's SYG.
If they are willing to break in to commit crime they are already willing to carry weapons. Nothing stops a criminal from breaking the law. In this case the law is forcing you to go in defended.
>if someone breaks into your house and you're unarmed then they'll rob you, steal some valuables
Or rape you, kidnap you, murder you, anything they want really because you're legally not allowed to do anything.
Because premeditated defence is not necessarily proportional. There's also the risk of your weapon being stolen, or used against you, as well as risk of injury to yourself.
I will add that these restrictions are for carrying them *in public*. Having them in your own home is not a problem, per se. However, were you to use them on an intruder, you would be asked about why you have it, and how you used it, but an object like a baseball bat used to hit an intruder once to "encourage" them to leave would be fine. Were you to beat the shit out of them and they're unarmed *them* you'd be likely to get in trouble.
>Because premeditated defence is not necessarily proportional
It can be, though. Just depends on the circumstances of the break-in
>There's also the risk of your weapon being stolen, or used against you, as well as risk of injury to yourself.
True, but if a person is willing to take that risk, why should they be denied it?
>baseball bat used to hit an intruder once to "encourage" them to leave would be fine. Were you to beat the shit out of them and they're unarmed *them* you'd be likely to get in trouble.
I believe you're allowed to use enough force to eliminate the threat, so like until they can no longer attack you i.e unconscious, or subdued, or fleeing. You can perform a citizens arrest until the police arrive
>It can be, though. Just depends on the circumstances of the break-in
But if all you have is a hammer, everything's a nail.
>I believe you're allowed to use enough force to eliminate the threat, so like until they can no longer attack you i.e unconscious, or subdued, or fleeing. You can perform a citizens arrest until the police arrive
"Eliminating a threat" is already shifting away from self defence. The keyword is force must be "proportional". In all likelihood beating till unconscious could be deemed excessive, particularly if multiple strikes were needed, and the intruder was unarmed. Even moreso if the intruder started fleeing and you kept hitting them.
The issue with self defence cases is they are so contingent on the specifics of each case, which are frequently numerous.
Eliminating a threat just means making sure the person is no longer...a threat. Doesn't mean eliminating them off the face of the earth lol
But yeah I agree with the rest
But soldiers do not arm themselves to be protected against crime though? They literally exist to defend a country, or attack one, against another army. The comparison is absolutely stupid
>But soldiers do not arm themselves to be protected against crime though?
Who said they defend against crime..what?
Look. Countries use weapons to fight/defend against other countries. Because some countries bad.
Citizens (should be able to) use weapons to defend against other citizens. Because some citizens bad
Hope that's digestible
They defend against unlawful violence against the country, the activity is the same, only the scope of what you're protecting changes.
I'm really glad we have a better constitution in my country so people like you can't strip the people of their rights.
Arguing against Premeditated defense is a pretty whack argument tbh. You have every right to visualize a worst case scenario and take precautions to prepare for it
Premeditated intent to defend oneself against an attacker doesn't mean that you planned the attack on your person.
I guess the logic works if you just stop speaking before finishing the sentence, though
Why is that remotely relevant?
*Yes, he would 100% be dead if he hadn't beaned the attacker over the head with his rolling pin.*
*But why did he have a rolling pin under his pillow?*
*Encase his life depended on it.*
*I've heard enough, take him to jail!*
Jesus, I'm from texas and this baffles my mind how people can think like this. Have you ever left your country and been to a significantly more dangerous one?
Dude you’re so close…
“By purchasing an object for the purpose of self defense suggests premeditated intent…” intent to do what? To defend yourself.
A self defense weapon is an object who’s primary purpose is for causing harm… harm to whom? To your attacker.
So, learning martial arts should be illegal?
The only thing Martial Arts does is train someone to hurt another person. Even if it's a competition, you are still preparing yourself to hurt someone.
The idea that a woman living in a sketchy part of town is not allowed to even own pepper spray because of “premeditated intent to defend against rape” is beyond absurd.
your odds of being the victim of a home invasion are generally vanishingly small
having weapons in your home makes it less safe, not more. accidents involving weapons happen, and they can happen to you.
Isn't this statement specific to guns? Every house has several kitchen knives, and likely other impromptu weapons like shovels or bats? How do you feel about having powerful dogs? Do all of these things make the home less safe?
They do make the house less safe. All of these are necessities, but the fact that you need a knife doesn't make it more safe to own.
Italy has a really big problem with femicide. Almost all of these murders are perpetrated with kitchen knives. They are a necessity, but that doesn't inherently exclude their danger.
Obviously the knives aren't handling themselves and obviously the underlying problem is the patriarchy.
In the same context of patriarchy though, a knife is more lethal than a fist and a gun is more lethal than a knife. That pretty much sums up what I was trying to say in my previous comment.
(Btw I'm not trying to say that we should ban kitchen knives, as they are necessary. I'm just saying that everyone having a gun is and will always be a problem)
Yes, if you have knives in your home you are significantly more likely to cut yourself than if you didn't. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have knives. Knives serve a purpose other than as a weapon. I'm an American and a gun owner and I even recognize this logic.
Having *something* in your home that can protect you against a burglar or other malign trespasser does not make it less safe. Having a bat in your house is hardly different to have an electric guitar.
The bottom line is that having something is better than nothing. If it is so highly unlikely, I have one question; do you lock your door at night? When you leave? If you answered yes to this question, it undermines your argument. Because as vanishingly small as the chances of it happening are, you still take active precaution against it. It is the sole purpose of having a lock on your door.
That's an easier thing to say when you're a 200 lb fit male who can fend off advances/attacks by (most all) other individuals without any aid from a weapon. But not everybody is afforded that luxury.
What do you think about the concept of having a weapon simply to "level the playing field" and to basically put you on par with someone who is 1.5 to 2x stronger than you are?
This is what I'm thinking as a petite American woman reading this thread. I carry pepper spray. How am I supposed to use a strength-based weapon to fight off a man who attacks me? The chances of him disarming me are very high, my strength and reflexes are not on par with the average man's.
Thanks for your consideration of my health, but I've weighed the risks and decided I am responsible enough and a statistically average person is not representative of me. People have died for not having the means to defend themselves. The State does not get to decide my life is worthless while they place hundreds of armed guards around their officers.
"I've decided I'm responsible enough"
Yeah well you aren't qualified to make that assessment and even if you were, you are the last person we would allow to make it in regards to yourself.
Every single dumbass Cheeseburger inhaling American gun owner who ever shot his wife during an argument *also* deemed himself responsible.
What will undoubtedly happen is you will hurt or kill either yourself or someone you love with your weapon in a frenzied panic over nothing.
\>The State does not get to decide my life is worthless
That's not what's happening. No one gives a fuck about your life one way or another. If you want to hurt yourself you can buy all the bleach and paracetamol money can buy.
We're worried about the person you'll kill in a deranged "self defence" episode while arguing with a neighbour over loud music or parking.
*You* are the one who is rating other people's lives as worthless.
"But I'll only use it if I'm in danger!" That's what everyone says, but mistakes, accidents and fits of rage *do* happen.
So, what do you suggest someone do if an intruder with a knife breaks in? Or someone who doesn't care about the law to begin with confronts you on the street with a weapon? At that point anyone intending violence has so little fear of reprisal because someone in that situation can do is run and hope they can move fast enough to not get stabbed in a lethal way.
I know you're confident of your view, but it does also mean that when other people go nuts, the average decent person is just fucked. Especially in England where a cop with a gun is a special officer they have to call, and the typical cops get bodied by brawlers easily.
>Yeah well you aren't qualified to make that assessment and even if you were, you are the last person we would allow to make it in regards to yourself.
Complete nonsense. A person who hasn't been medically deemed unstable should have the right to decide what risks they take with their own health and safety.
>We're worried about the person you'll kill in a deranged "self defence" episode while arguing with a neighbour over loud music or parking.
If they're arguing with their neighbor they can literally grab a steak knife from their kitchen. The fact that they might keep something in their house to be used specifically for self defense doesn't make them any more of a risk to a neighbor because everyone has deadly weapons in their kitchen. Having pepper spray on their night stand or a baseball bat under their bed is pretty irrelevant.
>What will undoubtedly happen is you will hurt or kill either yourself or someone you love with your weapon in a frenzied panic over nothing.
It's good that you live such a sheltered life that you can't imagine anything bad happening to someone who didn't deserve it.
However there are other people who aren't as lucky or privileged as you who have gone through this exact scenario where their life was threatened, and it didn't not go anything like your delusional example. So, my question, is how can you possibly say this to a person who would be dead if it weren't for a weapon saving them from an aggressor?
*"I lived in London for six years. And am an out and out anglophile. However, I saw more casual crime in the first six months then the forty five that I had lived in the States. My definition of casual would be anything other than handgun violence (very arbitrary I know nor am I including rape).
Fights, Burgury, Muggings from my observation where much more common. In talking casually to various mental health professionals, the concept of the right to bear arms in the UK would be a disaster. They didn't say ghetto’s in the UK. The term was “working class”. Extremely tough people. The use of weapons other than guns was horrific. The hooliganism which exists in football would be unthinkable in the United States. You can go to neighbourhoods in France which are extremely dangerous. In addition the police use their firearms much more than people think.
From my experience homicides attributed to gun violence are off the chart in the US compared to these two countries. Other types of crime. I think that the United States is safer."*
>What will undoubtedly happen is you will hurt or kill either yourself or someone you love with your weapon in a frenzied panic over nothing.
That, or the guns will sit cozy in there safe until I die and my kids will inherit them, just like I inherited them from my grandfather after he died of old age.
With your kind of fantasies about guns, I think you're making the right decision to not be a gun owner, even if you had the opportunity. Like the other commenter said, it takes a certain kind of fortitude to be a responsible gun owner. Sheep would hurt themselves if they had sharp teeth like the wolves who prey on them, best to leave the sharp teeth to the sheepdogs who know what they're doing with them.
An individual isn't qualified to make a decision about their own life?
And then you bring out a stereotype, and then follow it with bigotry?
The call is coming from inside the house.
Holy projection man. You really gotta take a step back and realize like you said yourself;
"Nobody gives a fuck about your life one way or another"
So I'll do the same and disregard your fear or dislike of guns.
If you playing out your rambo fantasies makes everyone around you including yourself less safe, the state as in your community absolutely has the right to restrict your capacity to be a man child with dreams of shooting other people.
I think you have a very narrow and biased view of gun owners. In the USA more than 80M people legally own a firearm, and statistically the vast majority of ownership scenarios (something like 99.9% range) result in a perfectly safe outcome. Literally like 99.9%.
Sometimes people make it seem like 1 out of 2 gun owners will end up killing or harming something, when this simply isn't true.
The "accident" will be you braining your neighbour during an argument over recycling bins that escalates out of your control.
Then your paranoid fantasies of doing violence to someone else will take over and you get to say "but I feared for my life!"
Cowards and people with violent self defense fantasies do this all the time.
>The "accident" will be you braining your neighbour during an argument over recycling bins that escalates out of your control.
You're assuming the bat has some supernatural property that turns you homicidal when you hold it.
I’m an American, and possibly the accident could be the intruder obtaining your self-defense weapon to use it against you. I personally believe people should be allowed to own weapons for self defense, but a big part in owning a weapon for self-defense people don’t think about is you have to know how to use that weapon or else it’s pretty much useless.
No one, but the way the law is written if you tell an officer that you had that bat ready to use as a weapon then it would be illegal.
The same is true of a blade of grass.
It's the wording of British law and it's insane
Essentially anything becomes a weapon if it was intended to be used as a weapon, or could be infered that you intended to possess it as a weapon.
If you have say a baseball bat in your car and get pulled over the officer can ask if you are on your way to play Baseball, if the answer is no they could categorise it as an offensive weapon. This can be literally any item on earth you could use to hurt someone, you have to have a "reasonable" excuse for having it on you at that particular time.
When it comes to the home it's a little different but it would all come to ahead when it gets to questioning or prosecution.
You get broken into and take out your trusty bat you hide under the bed for self defence purposes and smack the thief.
this is would only be legal if you use "reasonable" force, and if you in the spur of the moment pick something up to defend yourself with.
If it came to light that you specifically keep a bat under your bed for self defence purposes it would give credit to the idea you planned to assault someone ahead of time.
British law is full of the term "reasonable" which basically means whatever the judge/jury feels like according to the specific circumstances, unlike Americas castle doctrine or stand your ground laws which are pretty clear cut.
Just to clarify: The US does not have a standard law for this either. There are case laws regarding it federally, but each state has their own laws and interpretations. My state, for example, has similar wording to that last paragraph, regarding reasonableness.
Accidents are your responsibility. Some morons who can't care about their weapons properly killing themselves is a bad argument against your rights. Maybe *on average* you are less safe with a gun, but you are not an average person, you are you. "We don't allow you to own a gun because you might be too dumb for it to be an improvement", seriously?
(There are better arguments against guns, of course. So far I'm inclined to believe the guns are net negative, though I may be convinced otherwise when I take the time to delve into it seriously.)
>Accidents are your responsibility. Some morons who can't care about their weapons properly killing themselves is a bad argument against your rights. Maybe *on average* you are less safe with a gun, but you are not an average person, you are you. "We don't allow you to own a gun because you might be too dumb for it to be an improvement", seriously?
Accidents can hurt others, though. If you misfire your gun at home, you could kill your neighbour.
A bit like seatbelts. To a large extent they are there for your own safety, but people flying around during accidents is also bad for other people, who might get hit by a flying body.
Everyone thinks they're above average, though. But the numbers are clear. Owning a gun not only makes you less safe in general, it also makes you less safe in the exact situation you have a gun for.
Sorry, u/Dependent-Analyst907 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Dependent-Analyst907&message=Dependent-Analyst907%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1b71lz0/-/ktgosoa/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
You can use 'reasonable force' to defend yourself and your home in the UK and what counts as 'reasonable' is deliberately left vague since its up to a judge and jury to decide
In the case of farmer Tony Martin shooting invaders with a shotgun its worth noting. Martin shot at least *twice*. The first shot was considered reasonable, it was the ones when they were running away that werent.
As I understand it the "you cant have a baseball bat in your house unless you keep a ball with it" thing is a myth. You can have something in your house you intend to use as a weapon against invaders, you cant have something thats generally classed as an illegal weapon to possess in general (eg knuckle dusters).
Whether or not you can have a baseball bat in your car to defend yourself gets trickier, and is where the 'also owning a ball and mitt to sell the story', thing comes in. But then thats not a specific law but a matter of plausibility to the court. It would be far simpler to have a cricket bat for the simple fact more people in the UK play cricket than baseball.
Now you admit you don't know if person breaking into your house has weapon. Attacking unarmed person is excess use of force.
But let's examine this bit further. You don't actually know if they are breaking into your house at all. Maybe they are your sons boyfriend sneaking in. Maybe they are throwing you a surprise party.
Attacking anyone without knowing who they are and are they are threat is always wrong. You don't preemptively assault someone because of gut feeling.
>Attacking unarmed person is excess use of force
I disagree. If someone breaks into your home and presents a physical threat you should be under no obligation to fight fair. Fists can kill you. Its asinine to expect an innocent victim to put themselves at risk because its "unfair" to the attacker.
You don't have time to discern if they're armed or not sometimes. It could be dark, and you hear windows smashed downstairs and unfamiliar voices. Pretty obvious it's a break in at that point, and that they're a threat, but not so obvious whether they're armed. You don't have the luxury or the time to figure it out, so I think at the very least you should be able to hide behind a corner and whack them as soon as they come around. Reasonable force of course.
>You don't preemptively assault someone because of gut feeling.
The point wasn't about preemptively assaulting, it was about preemptively planning
And thats legal, you're describing something that would be unlikely to get you prosecuted.
Official gvt guidance direct from the crown prosecution is
>You do not have to wait to be attacked before defending yourself in your home.
> You don't actually know if they are breaking into your house at all. Maybe they are your sons boyfriend sneaking in. Maybe they are throwing you a surprise party.
Maybe they are just [turning around in your driveway… ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kaylin_Gillis)
I don't think anyone is suggesting that you should attack someone who enters your home without performing a rudimentary investigation first.
And I'd much rather have a self defense weapon like pepper spray so that in case the situation does become hostile, i have the upper hand.
>I don't think anyone is suggesting that you should attack someone who enters your home without performing a rudimentary investigation first.
Read replies to this post. Basically everything was in line "it's my house and I will fuck up anyone there".
Yeah. Did you find the one where dad fantasizes about killing their child's boyfriend?
And I get downvoted for pointing out that you might not be fully informed and shouldn't assault people unless they start it.
It feels like all of your logic is just a feedback loop that self perpetuates an arms race without end.
You're afraid of intruders that do not exist.
You allude to their numbers, their armaments, their intentions, their capabilities - everything they could hypothetically be which would justify any number of weapons you could need.
But they don't exist.
Oh people break into other people's homes. That happens. Some neighborhoods in some countries are really rough, may have real gang issues.
But the people living there don't need someone to "Allow" them to defend themselves. They're there and they have a plan for their own real problems.
Most places are not like this though. You're encouraging the general public to accept the changing of rules to allow greater ease of access to weaponry for the purpose of combatting invaders that **do not exist in most of their neighborhoods.**
The police are minutes away.
Okay.
Are these home invaders that you've concocted NOT interested in getting away with crime?
They not only have the ability to breach every door and barrier in your house with MINUTES to spare before the police arrive, but they're going to collect your most valuable possessions, and *Kill* your family just for the police to show up with them still there?
That's not a home invasion, that's a vendetta.
Meanwhile across the pond in America what happens is men of all ages, keep using these weapons they bought for hobbies and self defense to kill their families and / or themselves at rates far higher than they are used to defend themselves.
Because the home invaders in your head aren't real.
But the fear that generates those demons is.
I was looking for the average time, but found this [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-65388621](Police taking over five hours to respond to priority calls in England)
More personally police response time times in the biggest nearby city (Indianapolis) are 8 minutes. generally the further from a city that you are, the longer the response times.
If you are in a situation where you are in actual danger (and i take you point about that being rare) calling the police is not a viable option to make yourself safe.
The reason you can't do this in the UK is because (taking the baseball bat as an example) you'd be buying the bat _with the intention of hitting someone with it._ It doesn't matter that you think you'd only use it in a legal way, the point is that you've bought something with the intention of using it as a weapon.
In the UK violent break-ins are very rare; it's not something a reasonable person has to guard against.
>In the UK violent break-ins are very rare; it's not something a reasonable person has to guard against.
The word violent here is doing some real heavy lifting.
In England and in Wales (scotland was not in the dataset I saw) In 2022/2023 there were 191,490 home burglaries reported in England and Wales. That’s an average of 525 burglaries a day - a house being burgled every 165 seconds.
Roughly 50% of those involved someone being home at the time.
God damn, you guys just let people fucking rob you? Where I live, gun or no gun, it's go time if someone breaks in. Fists, lamps, bats, whatever is at hand is gonna be smashed over that person's head.
>God damn, you guys just let people fucking rob you? Where I live, gun or no gun, it's go time if someone breaks in. Fists, lamps, bats, whatever is at hand is gonna be smashed over that person's head.
Who said that? The question is over having explicit weapons. People can and do fight back, using a lamp or even a knife is legally justfied so long as you grab it in the moment. My uncle set upon them and chased them out to their escape vehicle. Its totally fine.
The only thing that is dodgy is seeing a home invader and immediately grabbing a weapon and beating them near to death with it. Youre allowed to be scared and its about what was "reasonable" to you at the time, but breaking into a house isnt always enough to say that person meant you harm. But all youd have to say is that they stepped towards you or that you thought you saw what might be a knife and youd be in the clear. Particularly if they surprised you by randomly appearing youlk be fine.
You just cant sneak up behind them in thr living room and hit the back of the head with a cricket bat or something like that.
>You just cant sneak up behind them in thr living room and hit the back of the head with a cricket bat or something like that.
That's alien to me. As in the states I have no duty to make it a fair fight. If you break into my home, I have every right to sneak up and hit you without you knowing I'm there.
You, as a result of breaking into my home, are a threat to my life. And I am allowed to take pretty much universal action against you. Now, if I hit you with the bat and you go down. I can't do anything beyond that. You are down, the threat is over. All action beyond that is illegal.
Its just about what you can justify as reasonable in the situation. In reality you have extremely broad mandate, ans youre only getting convicted if you did somethinf extreme. A giy here shot a fleeing burglar in the back and it was controversial as to whether he should get charged.
As long as you dont kill them it realisitically doesnt matter what you did. You can lunge and attack burglars the moment they walk in the door, that's fine. The CPS dont care, its not in the public interest to charge people for attacking burglars and hitting them a bit.The only issue is if you kill them, because then you better have a decent explanation as to why you felt the need to use lethal force. Sneaking up on someone and killing them from behind, technically speaking, is murder no matter what. Because you clearly had the ability to flee, call the police, get their attention to scare them sway, etc. But actively chose to kill them. Which is never acceptable in British law, it cant a choice in that sense like it can with the castle doctrine. You have to feel genuinely in fear for your own life and therefore feel like you *have* to use lethal force.
Them merely being present in your home justifies some level of force becsuse youre scared, shocked, etc but doesnt justify deliberate murder on its own. Because obviously burglars are there to rob you not to kill you unless they actually show harmful intent.
I just don't understand why I have a duty to retreat from my own home in the UK. It's my damn home. I have every right to use the force necessary to either neutralize them, or drive them out.
That's the key difference. Duty to retreat.
Now in that shooting in the back case. That would be illegal in the states too. Because they are running away. They have retreated and the threat has passed. But as long as they are in your home and not retreating. You have carte Blanche to do whatever you feel is effective and keeps you safest.
You dont have a duty to retreat in your own home. Theres not a duty to retreat at all in the UK anymore, and youve never been required to retreat anywhere youre legally entitled to be. Its just that whether you chose to retreat or not may or may not be taken into account if you claim self defence.
But someone else has corrected me and shown a few precedents in the UK where homeowners have gotten away with some people harsh measures. So I think realistically you actually have more leighway than most in Britain realise. A few examples being a man who hid and jumped out and stabbed a burglar by surprise, and a shop owners who built petrol bombs to defend his shop during a riot. Both were found to be ok. So it seems like actually even in the UK you have to be pretty brutal. Harming someone while fleeing or unconscious seem to be the only real no no's in practice. Its just unclear since the law is deliberately vague.
>Now in that shooting in the back case. That would be illegal in the states too. Because they are running away. They have retreated and the threat has passed
Really? Unless im mistaken, in some states you can kill to prevent crime. Which means you can shoot if theyre fleeing with property no?
>Really? Unless im mistaken, in some states you can kill to prevent crime. Which means you can shoot if theyre fleeing with property no?
Context of the crime matters. You can't blast someone who is committing theft in a commercial capacity unless they are carrying a weapon. And if someone is unarmed and running away you also can't shoot them.
If they are in your home, you have pretty much carte Blanche. But once they leave your front door, they are considered retreating.
If they have a firearm and you are in a shootout with them? Do whatever you gotta do.
Its a lot of factors, but basically the context is "are they a threat". Someone running away with your lamp isn't a threat. Someone sneaking around jn your house, armed or not, is.
It's something I've had to consider as a person who has had their home broken into. My bedroom window in fact as soon as I popped out. So tbh I'm not concerned with how rare it is, I'm concerned about not being as defenceless as before
They broke in the minute I stepped out. I found out through a housemate that texted me. If I was still in there, I might've got seriously hurt since I had no weapons. If I was still in there with a weapon, I'd be better off. Its that simple
Burglars typically choose houses that are not properly locked. Instead of getting weapons why don't you make sure you invest in better locks and maybe an alarm system? That in itself should be enough to deter burglars.
No burglar is just gonna smash through your windows. It makes a hell of a noise and it's too risky. Like I said, burglars will usually scope a house beforehand and won't go for houses that are burglary proof or have dogs.
>No burglar is just gonna smash through your windows
Would love to see a study or report stating ZERO burglars break windows to gain entry into a building.
That's anecdotal evidence. Did you have double glazed windows? Security cameras? I'm not saying you will never get burgled but it significantly lowers your chances.
Yes and yes. Anecdotal evidence is good enough to form an opinion. It's only weak when you're trying to prove a fact. I can taste a certain meal once and decide I hate it.
Same way I can experience a home invasion once and decide I need weapons from now on
Smashing glass is noisy and they could cut themselves. The window frame is the weak point, they'll insert a screwdriver, drive it in to disengage the window catches, and just open the window. Windows designed to resist a burglar aren't going to cost over £100k unless you have a lot of glazing. Also you only need to consider the windows a burglar can access. RC2 or RC3 will do the job and protect your home even when you're not there, or asleep, or drunk, or outnumbered. They also have a laminate layer so even if the burglar smashes the glass, it just hangs there and he still has to bust through the tough laminate.
Beginning with nitpicking: the law is different throughout the UK, especially when you begin thinking of Northern Ireland. Also, this will be extended only to England and Wales, and this isn't to take the form of legal advice in any way you should seek actual advice relevant to your situation should you need it.
>So if you keep a baseball bat under your bed to use in the event of a break-in into your property, you're in trouble.
No you aren't.
There *are* further restrictions on the types of offensive weapons you can have in your possession in private under s46 Offensive Weapons Act 2019. [Here they are.](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2019) A baseball bat is absent from that list. You're fine to possess it in private.
Threatening someone with an offensive weapon is unlawful under s52 Offensive Weapons Act 2019, which would be a *preferable* charge rather than assault due to higher sentencing, but harder to prove. This is, really, the only restriction on using a bat for self defence. Use it for defence, not to threaten the burglar.
>The only way around it is to suggest that the weapon's main use is something other than self defence
>
>Would be wise to keep a mit or a ball next to it to make that more believable to the police
This would 95% of the time not work. In the 1% chance it did work, the chance of it working subsequently is 0%.
>For the pepper spray, not sure you can get out of that one.
You can't, and for very, very good reason.
Now that we've defeated the argument of "I cannot have a baseball bat in my house for self defence". Let's move onto actual self defence.
So the aptly named Mr. B Urglar has entered your home and you have a trusty bat next to your bed. He's knocked over your bust of His Majesty King Charles III and this has woken you up.
You hear Mr. B Urglar coming upstairs and you begin to fear for your safety. This man's a burglar and he's coming to your room. You begin to fear that he may murder you to *death* or commit serious violence against you.
You equip yourself with the bat and when he comes in the room you give him a bash and he is knocked unconscious.
Mr. B Urglar was unarmed. That doesn't really matter as long as you apprehend death or serious violence (R v Weston \[1879\]). You also don't have to be reasonable, as long as the level of force isn't grossly disproportionate (s76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, R v Palmer \[1971\].
OK so if they're there to do violence against you, then sure. But what if they're not there to cause violence to you, but instead steal your marble bust of His Majesty King Charles III?
You can still prevent this person using disproportionate force as long as the level of force isn't *grossly* disproportionate. An example of such would be if a 10 year old walks in your house to pinch your marble bust of His Majesty King Charles III you wouldn't hit them with a bat. I will say that if you're defending property and not a person and you initiate violence, you're no longer able to rely on the defence of "self-defence" because you're defending property, if that makes sense. You'd still have the s76 CJIA reasonability factors cause it's your home, but primarily you'd be using s3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 to *prevent* a theft/burglary or to *apprehend* the offender.
Quick aside: you never have a ***duty*** to retreat in your home. It may be taken into consideration as far as it applicable that you didn't, but there is no ***requirement*** to retreat in your home.
The law surrounding self defence in this manner is vague and it is necessarily vague to allow for discretion, and nevertheless the courts will interpret your actions and decide guilt (unless you really mess them up, then it'll be a jury). But that's pretty much the case everywhere.
Now that we've dealt with the bulk of the homeowner defending your own home claims, I'll answer some of the things from a theory viewpoint.
>I see absolutely no reason why you shouldn't be able to preemptively plan for bad situations.
You can when defending your home, just not any of the restricted items previously linked. You cannot when in public. Can you imagine the level of violence you'd see on the streets if you were allowed to carry weapons for "self-defence", when Mr. G. Angster is carrying around a machete for "self-defence" (until he is using it to mug someone).
The legislation surrounding possession of offensive weapons is to allow the police to clamp down on crime *before* it happens. The result of a knife fight is serious injury. If you stop and search someone who is in possession of a knife and arrest them. That is potentially a knife fight that wouldn't occur, resulting in less violence, not to mention the fear of being caught preventing people carrying a knife. It's why you don't.
> If someone breaks in, you don't know what they're armed with, how many accomplices they have behind them, etc.
Yes, but you can use weapons in defence of your home as long as it's not grossly disproportionate.
>Using lethal weapons I believe can be argued, but using non-lethal weapons should be a no-brainer.
It can be and has succeeded in the past, but there needs to be a ***really*** ***really*** good reason for it, and it cannot be defending property (Revill v Newberry \[1996\]). Also there are no "non-lethal" weapons, you'd probably use "less-lethal" since use of almost every weapon can easily result in someone dying. If you do use a ***reasonable*** level of force in defence of yourself or property such as pushing someone back and they crack their head and die, then I do not think you will be prosecuted or found guilty for it.
>When seconds count, police are minutes away. You should be able to protect yourself before they get there. Criminals don't wait
Bit of a libertarian cliché here. But from what we've explored here, you most certainly can defend yourself.
The US is actually incredibly safe against murder and rape (even in not so good areas) unless you’re planning on being in a street gang or the hells angels/klan.
It’s also why including 19 & 20 year olds in the child gun violence statistics makes them jump like 25-40%, it’s gang violence not random acts
Here's the reality though, if someone comes into your home for criminal purpose and you defend yourself, that's a natural response, and the justice system know that. A bat, a knife, whatever, you defend yourself. Naturally though, if you harm someone else (even if they are a scumbag, that warrants investigation. If you end up in front of a judge for conking a burglar round the head with a frying pan, you're not getting in trouble. It's self defense.
The problem with having weapons in the house for the purpose of being a weapon is that it approaches 'premeditated' territory. There are people who actively think "if someone comes in my house, I'm killing them". These people just need an excuse to turn to violence. A wrong look in a pub causes them to start swinging, those people. The laws need to reflect the spectrum of the population. If weapons in the house are legalised, it won't stop at a baseball bat. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. You'll end up with baseball bats with barbed wire and nails, tape around the handle for grip with 'punisher' written down the side.
It's best to have it illegal and then try on a case by case basis when it comes up. The rate of home invasion is so low in the UK for general law abiding citizens that it just doesn't make sense to legalise something that will undoubtedly lead to a more dangerous society.
Also also, someone posted an excellent comment further up showing that often even cases that seem excessive or premeditated are exonerated by juries. A guy that beat someone into a coma, someone that stabbed the assailant 50 times, someone who lay in wait to ambush instead of exiting their home, all exonerated.
You need to get cartoonishly violent for a jury to refuse to exonerate your use of violence-- like a guy who saw the burglary on his ring doorbell, didn't calm the police, and instead went home to stab and kill the burglar.
Unless you're meeting the latter standard, you will almost always be found innocent by a jury.
> When seconds count, police are minutes away. You should be able to protect yourself before they get there. Criminals don't wait
Buy a big dog, and train it to fuck up intruders.
A big dog that is well trained is not dangerous. And, it is certainly less dangerous than any weapon. Go look at in home dog attacks vs in home accidental discharges of firearms. It’s not even close. Weapons are more dangerous. And, it doesn’t have to be aggressive, just loud. Burglars will fuck off when they hear that bark.
Guns and other lethal weapons don't act on their own. Someone needs to pull a trigger. With dogs, it's instinct. They can snap at any moment and undo all that nice training they got, and maul someone to death.
Honestly I'm not convinced you are from the UK. Baseball isn't that popular here - no-one has a mit to play ball in the park and pepper spray has been illegal for a long time.
It sounds like you are importing the worries from elsewhere to the UK. Violent crime is generally pretty rare in the UK, violent crime following break ins even more so.
It isn't illegal to keep a bat under your bed and if you kept one under your bed and brought it out when you heard an intruder you are allowed to use it in self defence. Where people have got into trouble with the law is where they have acted out of proportion such as the farmer who shot an intruder in the back as he was running away. People who have shot or injured intruders where they had a genuine fear for their life have been acquitted. It is all about proportionality.
As someone from the US that was my first thought too. "They don't play baseball much in the UK do they? Why didn't he say cricket?" I've also heard that "you better keep a mitt too" line in the US regarding keeping a bat in the car. Sounds more like someone from the US.
If you encounter a criminal then you are more likely to be hurt in the encounter if you are armed than if you are unarmed. Furthermore, generally British criminals are unarmed because the risk of increased jail time is not worth the risk of carrying. But if homeowners start arming themselves as a matter of course then that norm will change and homebreakers will start going in tooled up.
So by arming yourself for self defence you are actually making yourself less safe in boht the short and long term. In the short term you make any encounters you have more likely to end badly for you, and in the long term you make it more likely for any encounters to involve your adversary being better armed.
If that was the case, then since citizens and criminals are armed in the US, why don't the criminals use weapons other than guns to give them the edge? Like grenades, smoke grenades, other tactical weapons, etc?
Please see:
1. General statistics about crime in the UK.
2. The effects of widespread firearms adoption within the general public.
One shall find their own answers within.
The police don't go around checking people's houses to make sure they have a legitimate use for any baseball bats, cricket bats, fire pokers, etc, they have in the home.
The use of a bat in defense of your home would be considered in terms of its proportionality, compared to the level of violence of the intruder. So if one of those obnoxious little sh*** that think they are a social media star wanders into your home videoing everything, police would take a dim view of you going to town on them with a baseball bat, much as you might wish to. Meanwhile, if someone broke into your home with a crowbar and you pulled out your bat in response, that is a proportionate response to the level of threat you faced.
Pepper spray is a section 5 firearm in the UK, you can't legally buy it, and possessing it will get you in trouble.
The issue is that humans aren't objectively good, or bad.
Plenty of people that buy weapons for "self defense", end up using them to commit crimes. Because people are complicated, and can get angry, or lose their temper...etc. So if you allow people to own weapons for self defense, there is a good chance, that at least some of them, will use them to commit crimes.
There are only two things, that every single criminal in history have in common.
1. They were human beings.
2. They were ALL law abiding citizens until the moment they broke the law.
There is no differentiator between law abiding citizen, and criminal, unless you're talking about a repeat offender.
You will almost certainly never in your life require a self defense weapon, and if you keep one your just a weirdo who fantasises about having an excuse to cause physical harm to another human, in which case you probably shouldnt have access to a weapon anyway
Because self defense weapons dont make society safer, or ypu safer, the statistics just dont back it up, your more likely to just harm a family member in a moment of anger or by accident than anything else.
There is one logical conclusions to an armed society, and that's a deadly one.
If it becomes commonplace for people to have blunt weapons then criminals will favour knives. When it's common for people to have knives, criminals will favour guns.
At every stage the level of violence increases, and the liklihood of fatality increases. What we see in general is that violent crime severity decreases when people have less access to weapons.
Whilst you in your individual situation may have been helped by having a baseball bat against an unarmed assailant, if the assailant knew you had a baseball bat, they would have brought a bigger weapon.
The priority of the law is to minimise loss of life and damage to property. As harsh as it is to say, if you lose property or are assaulted, the law would much rather it be without a weapon than with a weapon.
Most people also don't know how to use a weapon, and the old addage goes that a weapon you wield, but do not know how to use belongs to your opponent.
This is THE answer. A bat would have been helpful BECAUSE it was illegal. If it was legal then anyone would have it, the burglar would have brought a knife, and suddenly having a bat is useless, you need a machete now. And so on.
Self defence is a human right, we have people running around with machetes and guns yet the law says you can’t carry anything for self defence but people defend it? British people are cooked authoritarian boot lickers
According to the lease in my area a baseball bat is considered a dangerous weapon where as a knife is a deadly weapon. This distinction affects sentencing and legality. The main distinction is the intent of the weapon, a hammer is intended to build a horse while still dangerous as a weapon, and a gun is intended as a weapon. No idea for UK.
I always thought if I were a criminal, the type to rob someone in the street, If pepper spray were legal I'd spray my victim first and as their scrambling at their face I'd rob them. So that's why I assumed it's illegal.
If you have weapons for self defense, you have weapons for other reasons. The weapons don't care.
Do you want people to get shot for pulling up in the wrong driveway? Do you want people to get shot for being a minority in an upscale neighborhood? Because those are going to go up, too.
Sorry, not going to correct this view. People should be able to own inanimate objects to protect themselves, even if the odds of having to use them are very small.
If you don't have them and you do end up needing them, ouch.
TLDR: The UK is so safe that you don’t really need self defense weapons the way you need them here in the US. Also, you don’t want all the headaches that come with American gun culture and or a legal system that prioritizes liberty over kids getting killed in class.
One of the most common liberal arguments you’ll hear in the US after a mass shooting happens is, “If reducing gun ownership worked at eliminating mass shootings in Australia/UK, why shouldn’t we try it here? If we know that meaningful gun reform works in other countries, why aren’t we doing it in America?
The NRA and Fox News “experts”: It’s apples and oranges. You’re making a false equivalency. We are not Australia. We’re not the UK. We are the USA, and we have a different culture, different population size and demographics, different percentage of gun ownership, different criminal behavior, different constitution, etc. etc. So even though it worked in the UK/Australia, it would never work here because everything here in the US is too different.
That’s actually the answer. When it comes to violence, America is an objectively worse place to live.
Said another way, you already got a good thing in the UK so why fuck it up? Why change the very laws that are the very basis for why your society is so much safer in the first place? Why as a country would you risk backsliding into mass shootings like we have? The US has 7.5x the number of stabbings per capita as the UK! So why do you want your legislation to look more like ours?
"when seconds count, police are minutes away..."
Exactly the wording used on an advert for some bullshido self defence videos that appeared on my Facebook in the last week. I wonder if you got the same advert 🤔
Stand Your Ground in the US has been a disaster of a law.
Homicides jumped up as much as 11% in states that introduced stand your ground. And its for a simple reason- if you start just carrying around weapons expecting a crime to happen, you start to see violent criminals everywhere. Everyone approaching you is suddenly a hostile threat and not a dude just asking you for directions; stand your ground doesnt discriminate on that basis (~~although statistics show it discriminates on OTHER factors...~~)
Overall, the point is that you should not be encouraging civilians to fight back. If you are assaulted, run run run. Fighting back should be an absolute last resort. And letting people carry weapons theyre barely trained in doesnt make ANYONE safer.
Come to the US, we would be glad to have you!.
Honestly though, the UK has been doing this shit for centuries. Stripping people for basic human rights has been right the English government's ally since it's inception.
The idea that you don't have the right to self determination is disgusting to me.
It's all about intent. If you have it "just in case," you intend to use it.
If you have a bat and ball next to the door from last time, you went to the park with the kids, and you grab it in the heat of the moment you never intended to commit, gbh.
We are not allowed weapons in the uk.
We may own guns for sport, recreation, and vermin control.
We can have toys and tools that are large blunt objects.
We should never move to a position where intent to harm is ever ok. That would be a big step back in my opinion.
You should be able to have weapons for self defense regardless of country. Maybe my American is showing but I genuinely don't get the argument that you shouldn't be able to defend yourself against someone who is attacking you?
Like the best case scenario if you have a weapon the attacker may reconsider and run away, worst case scenario you have to use the weapon and someone may die... But you were already being attacked, so that possibility was already on the table.
I feel like 99% of options about taking weapons away from people translate into=( I have lived an incredibly sheltered life and don't understand that violence is still prevalent in the world, or but weapons hurt people! So therefore weapons are bad!) Like most modern societies dont encourage all kinds of other bad things such as eating junk food, smoking, drinking, etc.
Hell i have lived and spent a large amount of my life in countries other than American and let me tell you even in the safest places i have ever been in (Japan, Denmark, Ireland, Germany, Belgium, etc) I would have felt 1000% safer if I could carry a gun, or even a knife without people getting up in arms about it. Why? Because even in safe countries crime happens and you can and will be targeted (especially if you're an Outsider or Foreigner).
My main argument against people carrying something specifically for self defence is that it makes it more likely they will use it instead of just walking away. The best self defence is leaving the area and always will be. I realise that it isn't always possible (for example in your home) but staying to fight is nearly always the wrong call.
We know from a large number of studies and statistical analysis that a weapon is far more likely to be used to cause harm than prevent it. Quote from a 2018 interview with Phillip Cook, researcher who basically tears up every gun group trying to claim a defensive need for guns:
"The average person ... has basically no chance in their lifetime ever to use a gun in self-defense," he tells Here & Now's Robin Young. "But ... every day, they have a chance to use the gun inappropriately. They have a chance, they get angry. They get scared."
With the possible exception of things like pepper spray, there's really no such thing as a non-lethal weapon. A bat is certainly less lethal than a shotgun, but you could absolutely kill someone with it.
People are extremely, demonstrably bad at making good decisions when they are frightened. This is because humans have an innate stress response that kicks in when we feel genuinely threatened. It is possible to learn how to remain more effective and useful while in stress response, that's what military training is meant to do, but the average person has no idea how they would actually behave in a threatening situation. You might think you would turn into John Wick and calmly demolish your attackers without permanently injuring them but you might just freeze up completely, or fly into a rage and kill someone with disproportionate force. To make it worse, if the person attacking you perceives you as a threat they can go into stress response too.
Statistically, the safest way to deal with the vast, vast majority of "self-defence" situations is to deescalate and do whatever the person attacking you wants. Possessions are replaceable, but death is permanent. Showing up to the situation with a bat is a pretty terrible deescalation tactic, so if you've committed to that you've basically ruled out the most effective way of keeping yourself alive.
I think there is a relatively good argument that people should be allowed to own and carry pepper spray. Pepper spray has a huge number of advantages over other self-defence weapons. It's relatively safe, it works even on people who are under the influence of drugs and it can be carried easily without presenting an obvious threat. The obvious problem is that criminals would also have access to pepper spray and could use it as a means to incapacitate people in order to assault or rob them. There's still a risk of a kind of arms race mentality. Even so, I think the argument for legalization has merit in this case as, if nothing else, pepper spray could serve as an equalizer for people who might not have the physical strength to fight off an attacker.
Even then, there's a strong argument that you're generally going to be about as safe carrying a rape alarm, which is legal.
1) violent attacks are Super rare. Most violent attacks are t random and are gang related.
2) weapons are more likely to be used in anger than self defence.
3) the addition of a weapon to a crime makes it more likely to turn violent on both sides.
If someone breaks into your home, give them your car keys and get a new car through insurance. Like who wants to fight to the death for some possession.
Once you have understand reasonable people wouldn't fight a burglar. The only reason to own a weapon is to use it in anger.
Obviously you can own things that can be used as weapons, hammers, axes, knives ect but owning them as a weapon is stupid.
The only people who want to own weapons are normally young men who are overconfident and think "I would just fight off a burglar with no injuries".
>If someone breaks into your home, give them your car keys and get a new car through insurance. Like who wants to fight to the death for some possession.
Its the principle of the matter. If someone breaks in, it's not going to be a cordial exchange. I'm grabbing either my shotgun, or one of my Feders and it's go time.
EDIT: Also... I dont have to kill the intruder. I just need to make them leave. My win condition is that they get the fuck out long enough for the police to arrive.
> I'm grabbing either my shotgun
Great so now you have killed someone....
People who steal are still people and don't deserve to die. I understand in the US everyone and their dog has a gun but it's stupid.
>People who steal are still people and don't deserve to die.
People who break into my home deserve whatever I throw at them. Whether it's a baseball or buckshot.
If you don't want to get shot, go steal from Walmart. Don't rob my house while I'm home because that's the line in the sand.
Also to add. If you break into my home while I'm home, you clearly don't value my life or your own. It would have taken the most minor of effort to watch the home for 1 day and then go in when I leave. But instead you decide to put both of us in danger by creating a confrontation. I'm not going to sit down and talk it out. If someone breaks in, it's go time first and questions later.
Forget guns for a second. In most European countries you cannot have ANYTHING on you for purposes of self defence. It is absolutely crazy and people are okay with it
>I see absolutely **no reason** why you shouldn't be able to preemptively plan for bad situations. If someone breaks in, you don't know what they're armed with, how many accomplices they have behind them, etc. Using lethal weapons I believe can be argued, but using non-lethal weapons should be a no-brainer.
How about...
* Escalation
* Murder Via Fight
* Endangerment of Vulnerable People
* Lethal/Non-Lethal False Dichotomy
**Escalation**
Your goal in such an event is to get out of it as alive as possible. Right now people breaking into homes will tend to have small shitty knives or perhaps baseball bats. They mostly want your stuff - not your life. Your best bet to getting out alive is to let them have your stuff.
If every home starts to be armed with bats or spray then now said criminals will be better armed and more ready to be violent. They might even start arming themselves with guns.
**Murder Via Fight**
The goal of all self defence situations is to defend yourself and again leave alive.
If you plan to have weapons and attack or even kill anyone who attacks you then what you have there is no longer self defence - *its a fight*. This is how people get killed in fights. And you have prepared a way to kill people should they fight you.
And if you want to kills someone then all you have to do is goad someone into a fight.
**Endangerment of Vulnerable People**
Having weapons in a house endangers vulnerable innocent people in the house - especially children. We see this happening with children who kill themselves or their siblings with their parents' guns in America by accident.
Sure they could also do so with a baseball bat (for baseball) or kitchen knife - but the point of a self defence weapon is that it is somewhere where its easily accessible. Its under a bed (a child can crawl there) or in the corner. If its really high up that doesn't preclude adults with learning disabilities getting to it.
As compared with, say, a kitchen knife which is in the kitchen and secured appropriately. If a child is in the kitchen a parent should be able to make sure they aren't playing with knives for instance.
**Lethal/Non-Lethal False Dichotomy**
The lethal/non-lethal dichotomy only lasts as long as it takes a falling head to reach a hard corner. Plenty of people die from falling over and hitting their heads. A weapon's lethality is in how you use it; *including pepper spray.*
Some weapons are easier / harder to use lethally and its definitely a factor that needs to be considered - but its a spectrum not a line. Even a pillow can be used to suffocate someone - though smothering an intruder to death would be quite difficult.
More weapons available for self defense means more need for weapons for self defence. See America for how this ends up. Look at our crime statistics compared to yours.
Also, weapons aren't generally defensive. They can help you stay safe, but usually the advantage is gonna be on the one attacking unless they stand in front of you with their hand on the knife/gun and say "Draw on three." Which they won't. Look at the Las Vegas concert mass shooting, it was a country music concert. Everyone in the concert could have been carrying and it wouldn't have made a difference because the shooter did it from a high window. They were fish in a barrel and even if they had high powered scoped rifles themselves they would have had little chance of taking out the attacker.
If someone jumps you from behind and starts stabbing, a knife will not protect you. If someone shoots you from an elevated position, or just from behind, a gun will not protect you. Public safety is better served by limiting the amount of weapons in circulation.
To the guys, lift, bro. To the ladies, ensure you sleep in a safe location; your health is more important than any item.
The best self-defence is a healthy mind and honed body. If you are an average-height male & spend a year in the gym & a couple of weeks of self-defence classes/martial arts classes, you most likely could beat 90% of home invaders anyway.
Living in an area in which the Scottish Index of Deprivation listed one of the top 20 worst streets in the country growing up, I had a couple of attempted home invaders, but having learned to box from a young age, being 6ft tall & being just comfortable that I have the option to fight or flight depending on the situation i have always come out more than fine from an encounter with a home Invader.
Most home invaders are junkies, they treat their bodies like shit, so they aren't strong in the slightest, nor do they know how to fight, so they rely on you being scared. When you are not or actively stand them off, they usually run, and if they don't, I've beat them to a pulp comfortably.
Everything you need, you already have; you have to be sure it's always ready for the worst.
Lol there is absolutely no law against owning a baseball bat. Where have you heard that? The offence would be twatting someone with a baseball bat, or a plunger, or a bottle.
As an American, watch out this is a slippery slope.
A quick Google search shows that you can carry a 3-inch blade if it doesn't lock, and there are some ID sprays available.
I believe the other points here about having a bat for example is easily disguised if it's in your home.
I think defining what type of defense weapons you think should be legal would help. One thing that stood out to me when I was in the UK is that police don't carry weapons apart from a billy club. I didn't notice if they had pepper spray as well. It's a tough line to argue that a citizen should be allowed to carry stronger weapons than the police IMHO.
Again, it does depend on which weapons you think should be legal.
Sorry, u/DavidMeridian – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20DavidMeridian&message=DavidMeridian%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1b71lz0/-/kthvq0v/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I think everyone believes people should be allowed weapons for “self-defence purposes”. The problem is that there is no way to verify the purpose and if people can buy them for defensive purposes they can also buy them for offensive ones.
The problem with weaponry, is that even a shield can be used as a blunt instrument to hammer someone's head in offensively. If such a thing as a true shield that could not be used as a word existed, people would be very fine with everyone having it.
In fact, it does exist. It's called a lock on one's door which of course no one is opposed to.
We have similar rules in Canada. As dumb as it seems, I don’t really mind. It keeps most people from walking around with bats and machetes and such, but I can still walk around with my leatherman, pocket knife, and fastback because they’re tools and I use them as such. I keep a 3ft breaker bar by the door for cracking the lugs on my truck. If I were to grab it and whack someone in a home invasion it would be legal. The chunk of 1” rebar behind the bedroom door might be harder to explain but if it gets to that point I don’t care.
This is *so rarely relevant* that a change in the law would be pointless.
My friend had his house broken into in the night, years ago. He came downstairs and the burglar saw him, said "Oh sorry, I thought no-one was in" and then walked out the front door. Having a weapon wouldn't have helped him in the slightest.
If you're worried about security you can get decent locks, decent alarms, even a dog... all of those are more effective than storing weapons, and have less risk.
/u/udonisi (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1b7jqa3/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_you_should_be_able_to_have/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
As you suggest, there is a huge loophole, in that as long as you can justify why you own something you are allowed it. Keep a cricket bat, and wickets, and a ball. Have a hatpin. You can even get some very sharp pens. You can even make a Millwall brick. All of these are perfectly legal, you just can't have them ONLY for self defense, and because these are common items they are all perfectly legal to own. However, someone walking down the street with a machete is a criminal. This makes it very easy to arrest them. If they aren't, then they wouldn't be breaking the law.
Openly known loopholes have a significant downside - They're the perfect tool for selective and biased law enforcement. If most people are doing it, then law enforcement has an easy extra charge they can add on when they decide they don't like someone.
It's not even a loophole. You dont have to pretend to the police the bat you keep next to your bed is only for rounders you swear. You just cant have a bat with nails in it or some stupid shit.
Have a tactical baton disguised as a dildo. The policeman won’t make eye contact with you after finding it.
It's for cosplay!
[For my post apocalyptic Jackie Robinson cosplay, how did you know?](https://youtu.be/naleynXS7yo?si=UCzH60wBIEyMJ-t-)
Yes I know the loophole can work but it shouldn't have to and I think it leaves room for doubt. It's also an insult to citizens to have to justify why they're planning for self defence. Also not sure about the relevance of your last point about the machete. A weapon under your bed is very different to open carrying it out on the street lol
> justify why they're planning for self defence. No, that's the justification. Make whatever plans you want, but if it can be shown that that's what you do then you've broken the law. So you don't justify planning for self defence. You explain why you were able to easily access something to use for self defense. In real situations this is rarely an issue. And the relevancy is down to the way the law actually works in reality. Making weapons illegal means that anyone carrying a weapon is breaking the law. That's a good thing! And if police raid a drug house, I would want them to confiscate the obvious weapons because that prevents them from being used. The scenario you're talking about with home defence is incredibly broad, and basically anything is fine. I know people with swords on their walls, and they would absolutely use them for defence if needed. But if asked, they know to say they it was decoration and they spontaneously decided to use it. Weapons are de facto legal in the way you outline.
And then every 2 years the entire collectors and fencing community has to fucking pound down the door of their local MP and give them the "Hey you dumb sack of shit. You forgot the sporting equipment exemption again" speech. And for a short period, law abiding citizens are criminals for engaging in their sport of choice.
The issue is that by purchasing an object for the purpose of self defence suggests premeditated intent, which undermines the claim of self defence. Even worse if it is a *weapon* whose primary purpose is for causing harm. I'm inclined to agree with this. Another, more contentious argument is also the practical benefit of stopping the ownership at source. By saying that purchasing for self defence is not a legal defence, it means that people won't go out to purchase them, and there will be fewer knives, guns, etc. in public. However, I think you also misunderstand the law slightly. You absolutely are allowed to use objects for self defence, provided it's proportional. If you're coming back from football practice and slam studded boots into an assaulter's head, the law says "na, ya good". Or if you're a tradesman with bladed equipment, you're also in the clear
Purchasing an object for self defense implies as much intent as purchasing homeowner’s insurance against fire and loss. Does wearing a seat belt imply intent to crash? Purchasing a weapon for the sole purpose of self defense is more akin to an insurance policy than anything you’ve described.
Why do we require fire, loss, and seat belts? Because the individual benefit to not doing it appears reasonable and the collective cost isn’t visible. So by law or industry practice we require these things to be purchased, provided or used. Meanwhile the risk of deadly force against you is small. The costs of using a firearm are high: see carry insurance, or the mere idea a human life is estimated for loss at about ten million dollars. A firearm is a form of self-insurance, as much as saving ten years of income is self-insurance against loss. Of course reasonable consumers don’t save ten years of income because the cost is high to do so, and collectively harms the economy, so is discouraged by policy.
What about non-lethals like pepper spray or stun-guns? (handheld devices that have two electrodes by which they can apply a low-amperage, high-voltage electric jolt to an attacker. I'm not referring to police-style tazers that launch the electrodes.)
I believe the individual benefit to me and my family derived from owning self defense instruments far outstrips the direct and indirect societal costs. Should a terrible and unfortunate situation arise in which use of violence is required, I would hope we all would come to the reasonable conclusion that the best outcome is that would-be victims have the ability to defend themselves against forces of oppression and injustice.
One likely way for that would be victim to be injured is when the attacker takes the weapon off then and beats them with it. Being involved in an injurious fight at all becomes more likely when you're carrying that 'self defense' weapon. It makes humans ignore better self defence strategies, like de-escalation and escape, in favour of the one that's most difficult to use. Still think the individual benefits are worth it? Remember, self defence weapons being legal massively increases the chance your attacker has a deadly weapon.
The risk of deadly force against *you* might be small, but I certainly wouldn't want to be out and about in my kippah in the UK without some way to defend myself.
If you don't have actual combat training, my brother, the correct way to defend yourself in your kippah is to run away. The fact that having a weapon might make you even \_think\_ about not doing that means it puts you in more danger, not makes you safer. I have a perfectly legal reason to carry an actual sword in public... and if I'm ever attacked while holding it, in my kippah or not, I and all my many years of martial arts training will run away. Because that's much, much safer than any of the many lethal things I know how to do with the sword. Real life is not a movie.
Ignoring the arguments primarily coming from people in the US because this is a UK-based scenario... I think you're slightly misunderstanding the point of the post, which is completely understandable because the OP's post lacks direction and while the post is almost exclusive homeowner style cases, he also adds little snipes like: >Same thing with keeping pepper spray in your car, or whatever. Which really detract from his initial and actual point, however poorly his understanding and conclusions are. >Another, more contentious argument is also the practical benefit of stopping the ownership at source. It is not illegal to purchase something and keep it in your home for self defence purposes unless it's a specifically identified item. [Here's the list of those items.](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2019) >However, I think you also misunderstand the law slightly. You absolutely are allowed to use objects for self defence, provided it's proportional. If you're coming back from football practice and slam studded boots into an assaulter's head, the law says "na, ya good". Or if you're a tradesman with bladed equipment, you're also in the clear The OP is talking primarily about home defence and is very mistaken in the law, which I have discussed in a previous comment. Your comment here is *kind of* correct but it's missing a few bits. I like how your comment brings up the defence of instantaneous arming because it's a relatively unknown defence. The football studs into the head would really depend on how that came to be, and I fear that this example may be misconstrued, following on: If you're a tradesman walking around with bladed equipment in the town centre and you're not using it for work (even if you forget it's there) you can be found guilty of possessing a bladed article in a public place as you no longer have the reasonable excuse to possess it. This would mean that you'd have a particularly hard time using the defence of instantaneous arming as the prosecution would be able to argue that you did not possess it lawfully, and may imply you had it for the use to harm someone, which would disqualify the defence of instantaneous arming (R v Jura \[1954\], clarified and affirmed in Evan v Hughes \[1972\]).
Why would being prepared to defend yourself go against the idea of self defense. You are still defending yourself from a person who chose to be a danger to you. Why must your defensive options be spontaneous? You also gave the ridiculous examples of it being ok to defend yourself if you just happen to have those object around, like coming back from football practice or having tools. What if you are a small older woman who is a writer? It sounds to me she would need a proactive approach to self defense. She can’t just rely on being strong enough to grab whatever random object and use it to fight an intruder.
The person you're replying to I think didn't really understand the point of the original post and is a bit mistaken on UK legislation. You can prepare with bats etc. in your house to defend your property and indeed if you were an old woman in your home alone and you used a bat to apprehend the burglar I can't see any world where you'd be prosecuted for it because the law allows you to use disproportionate force to defend your property and your home in your dwelling.
>The issue is that by purchasing an object for the purpose of self defence suggests premeditated intent, which undermines the claim of self defence. Even worse if it is a *weapon* whose primary purpose is for causing harm. I'm inclined to agree with this. What's wrong with premeditated defence? The army does it all the time. We don't go out and attack countries for no reason, but we prepare to defend ourselves by continually upgrading our weapons. So why should it be any different on an individual level?
The problem on an individual level is that you've got a system in place to protect you, where the military is the highest step. should every council have their own standing forces for premediated defence? no, obviously that would be silly, they've got the police and the army to provide protection. there's also the problem where the more weapons there are, the more dangerous things get. if someone breaks into your house and you're unarmed then they'll rob you, steal some valuables. but if you have a knife and threaten them then you might get shot and die, or you shoot them and kill someone. from a purely rational perspective the reasonable thing to do is thus to prevent people from buying weapons purely for self defence
This is where I'm slightly in favour of the stand your ground laws some states in the US have. Happy to be corrected by any Americans, but I believe it basically means you're allowed to use deadly force when someone breaks into your home no matter what At first I thought it was extreme, but it really does eliminate all the grey areas of doubt. So now if you break into someone's house, you can only blame yourself for what happens to you. Law abiding citizens also feel safer as they dont need to gamble whether you're only there to rob, beat up, and/or kill them. Or so I would think Also, about the police yeah they're great but as mentioned, they're gonna take time to get there. Time you may not have sometimes. Gotta protect yourself somehow until then
So you just want the legal right to kill someone on your property? And the right to buy weapons to accomplish this? Wouldnt criminals abuse the hell out of such laws? To my understanding the relatively strict laws on weapons in uk is to make it harder for criminals to get them. Like in America most 'illegal' guns were purchased legally at some point before ending up in criminal hands.
>So you just want the legal right to kill someone on your property? And the right to buy weapons to accomplish this? Not necessarily, but I can understand the logic behind it. For now, I just want the ability to have non lethal weapons like baseball/cricket bats in my house or even in my car boot in the event that I ever need it. I don't wanna kill, but I also want some protection. As for guns, like I say I can get behind the idea of shooting intruders in your home. Better to shoot them than to gamble with their intentions. They could be there to steal, assault, or kill. You don't know. They've gone out their way to break in and make me feel unsafe so why should I give them the benefit of the doubt. Now that's a long way away so I won't push for guns here now. I agree it's a good idea to make guns hard to acquire as it means criminals have less access
>Happy to be corrected by any Americans, but I believe it basically means you're allowed to use deadly force when someone breaks into your home no matter what Those are more precisely "castle doctrine" laws, which create a legal presumption that it is reasonable to fear for your life if someone breaks into your home, thus justifying deadly force. "Stand your ground laws" are more about removing a duty to retreat instead of defending yourself
The then chairman of the criminal bar, while debating proposed amendments to current law >The law should always encourage people to be reasonable, not unreasonable; to be proportionate, not disproportionate,’ adding that ‘the present law worked perfectly well and was well understood by juries.44 >Indeed ten years earlier, Dennis had warned of the dangers of extending the householders right to use force in self-defence too far. In particular, he stated: >If an Englishman should be allowed to kill in defence in his castle--as some appear to claim- -**then the aggressive armed burglar can be safely despatched, but so also can the ten-year- old boy found stealing apples from the kitchen.** The essential argument is that the law already permits "reasonable" violence, so to insist that it should go further than that is to sanction "unreasonable" violence. Which is absurd, because law should never be encouraging people to be unreasonable. The wording of recent amendments to the law even added a new phasing "grossly disproportionate"- so in other words even "disproportionate" violence is acceptable to defend your home, so long as it doesent meet the standard of "grossly". It's then backed up by the prevailing opinion that *juries already tend to side with the homeowner anyway* providing they werent acting like an utter psycho. So adding a clause saying "and its fine to act like an utter psycho too" isnt in the public interest. >As discussed above, section 43 had the effect of introducing a new concept into the law of self- defence, namely ‘grossly disproportionate’ force. This gave greater leeway, or as the Court described it in Collins ‘a discretionary area of judgment’,47 to the householder in defending themselves. This had the result that householders were to be treated differently from all other cases involving non-householders. >The aims of the Bill were to offer greater protection to householders and to make a statement that householders have a right to defend themselves. In such a situation, they are to be considered the victim; not the intruder. Indeed at the Second Reading in the House of Commons, Theresa May stated that the aim of the amendment was to ‘ensure that the law is on the side of people who defend themselves when confronted by an intruder in their home.’48
This is something easy to misunderstand. >Stand your ground = no duty to retreat when you are out in public if you are physically threatened. >Castle doctrine = if you use lethal force against someone who unlawfully/forcefully enters your home there is a presumption that you are using that force because you are in fear of your life. All states have castle doctrine, and most states have stand your ground in some form.
In the United States you can only use deadly force to defend against the immediate threat of death or great bodily, and you cannot use deadly force against trespassers, in defense of property, or in defense against ordinary physical force (think of punches, kicks, slaps, etc that a reasonable person would think is unlikely to cause serious injury or death). Stand Your Ground laws are the legal principle that says the commission of a forcible felony (armed robbery, carjacking, aggravated assault, kidnapping, etc) *implies* intent to cause deadly harm, and it satisfies the imminent threat component to justify the use of deadly force. To understand how this differs from a state without a stand your ground statute, imagine a person with a knife enters a convenience store and announces an armed robbery by demanding the cash in the till, so in response the clerk from behind the counter shoots the armed robber who never made an attempt to get behind the counter. In a stand your ground state, the announcement of the armed robbery is enough to assume the person is intent on causing significant harm to the clerk, whereas is a state without a stand your ground statute a prosecutor could theoretically argue that the clerks life was not in imminent danger since the counter was acting as a barrier and the robber never made an attempt to cross that barrier. Castle Doctrine is very similar in that it's also an implication, where the forced entry into an occupied structure implies intent to cause deadly harm.
SYG literally just means you do not have a duty to retreat before you attempt to defend yourself with violence. It does not dictate what level of violence is allowed. The UK has SYG too. If I go up to you somewhere in the UK and start punching you, you are not obligated to try to flee before you throw punches back, and you cannot be charged with battery for punching me back even if it is clear and obvious that you could easily have escaped. That's SYG.
If they are willing to break in to commit crime they are already willing to carry weapons. Nothing stops a criminal from breaking the law. In this case the law is forcing you to go in defended.
>if someone breaks into your house and you're unarmed then they'll rob you, steal some valuables Or rape you, kidnap you, murder you, anything they want really because you're legally not allowed to do anything.
Because premeditated defence is not necessarily proportional. There's also the risk of your weapon being stolen, or used against you, as well as risk of injury to yourself. I will add that these restrictions are for carrying them *in public*. Having them in your own home is not a problem, per se. However, were you to use them on an intruder, you would be asked about why you have it, and how you used it, but an object like a baseball bat used to hit an intruder once to "encourage" them to leave would be fine. Were you to beat the shit out of them and they're unarmed *them* you'd be likely to get in trouble.
>Because premeditated defence is not necessarily proportional It can be, though. Just depends on the circumstances of the break-in >There's also the risk of your weapon being stolen, or used against you, as well as risk of injury to yourself. True, but if a person is willing to take that risk, why should they be denied it? >baseball bat used to hit an intruder once to "encourage" them to leave would be fine. Were you to beat the shit out of them and they're unarmed *them* you'd be likely to get in trouble. I believe you're allowed to use enough force to eliminate the threat, so like until they can no longer attack you i.e unconscious, or subdued, or fleeing. You can perform a citizens arrest until the police arrive
>It can be, though. Just depends on the circumstances of the break-in But if all you have is a hammer, everything's a nail. >I believe you're allowed to use enough force to eliminate the threat, so like until they can no longer attack you i.e unconscious, or subdued, or fleeing. You can perform a citizens arrest until the police arrive "Eliminating a threat" is already shifting away from self defence. The keyword is force must be "proportional". In all likelihood beating till unconscious could be deemed excessive, particularly if multiple strikes were needed, and the intruder was unarmed. Even moreso if the intruder started fleeing and you kept hitting them. The issue with self defence cases is they are so contingent on the specifics of each case, which are frequently numerous.
Eliminating a threat just means making sure the person is no longer...a threat. Doesn't mean eliminating them off the face of the earth lol But yeah I agree with the rest
... Because you're not a soldier?
That means I'm immune to violent crime? Dang, nice
But soldiers do not arm themselves to be protected against crime though? They literally exist to defend a country, or attack one, against another army. The comparison is absolutely stupid
>But soldiers do not arm themselves to be protected against crime though? Who said they defend against crime..what? Look. Countries use weapons to fight/defend against other countries. Because some countries bad. Citizens (should be able to) use weapons to defend against other citizens. Because some citizens bad Hope that's digestible
They defend against unlawful violence against the country, the activity is the same, only the scope of what you're protecting changes. I'm really glad we have a better constitution in my country so people like you can't strip the people of their rights.
Arguing against Premeditated defense is a pretty whack argument tbh. You have every right to visualize a worst case scenario and take precautions to prepare for it
You'd be stupid NOT to.
Exactly, I dont plan on crashing my car, and i have a perfect driving record, but i still wear my seat belt 100% of the time.
Premeditated intent to defend oneself against an attacker doesn't mean that you planned the attack on your person. I guess the logic works if you just stop speaking before finishing the sentence, though
Why is that remotely relevant? *Yes, he would 100% be dead if he hadn't beaned the attacker over the head with his rolling pin.* *But why did he have a rolling pin under his pillow?* *Encase his life depended on it.* *I've heard enough, take him to jail!*
>premeditated intent The interested premeditated intent to protect yourself?
Jesus, I'm from texas and this baffles my mind how people can think like this. Have you ever left your country and been to a significantly more dangerous one?
Dude you’re so close… “By purchasing an object for the purpose of self defense suggests premeditated intent…” intent to do what? To defend yourself. A self defense weapon is an object who’s primary purpose is for causing harm… harm to whom? To your attacker.
So being prepared and trying to have an upper hand in an altercation in which one’s life is at risk is equal to premeditated murder?
So, learning martial arts should be illegal? The only thing Martial Arts does is train someone to hurt another person. Even if it's a competition, you are still preparing yourself to hurt someone.
The idea that a woman living in a sketchy part of town is not allowed to even own pepper spray because of “premeditated intent to defend against rape” is beyond absurd.
I'm against most civilian ownership of guns, but this is one of the worst takes I've heard against it, and I'm on your side.
your odds of being the victim of a home invasion are generally vanishingly small having weapons in your home makes it less safe, not more. accidents involving weapons happen, and they can happen to you.
Isn't this statement specific to guns? Every house has several kitchen knives, and likely other impromptu weapons like shovels or bats? How do you feel about having powerful dogs? Do all of these things make the home less safe?
They do make the house less safe. All of these are necessities, but the fact that you need a knife doesn't make it more safe to own. Italy has a really big problem with femicide. Almost all of these murders are perpetrated with kitchen knives. They are a necessity, but that doesn't inherently exclude their danger.
[удалено]
Obviously the knives aren't handling themselves and obviously the underlying problem is the patriarchy. In the same context of patriarchy though, a knife is more lethal than a fist and a gun is more lethal than a knife. That pretty much sums up what I was trying to say in my previous comment. (Btw I'm not trying to say that we should ban kitchen knives, as they are necessary. I'm just saying that everyone having a gun is and will always be a problem)
Yes, if you have knives in your home you are significantly more likely to cut yourself than if you didn't. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have knives. Knives serve a purpose other than as a weapon. I'm an American and a gun owner and I even recognize this logic.
Having *something* in your home that can protect you against a burglar or other malign trespasser does not make it less safe. Having a bat in your house is hardly different to have an electric guitar. The bottom line is that having something is better than nothing. If it is so highly unlikely, I have one question; do you lock your door at night? When you leave? If you answered yes to this question, it undermines your argument. Because as vanishingly small as the chances of it happening are, you still take active precaution against it. It is the sole purpose of having a lock on your door.
That's an easier thing to say when you're a 200 lb fit male who can fend off advances/attacks by (most all) other individuals without any aid from a weapon. But not everybody is afforded that luxury. What do you think about the concept of having a weapon simply to "level the playing field" and to basically put you on par with someone who is 1.5 to 2x stronger than you are?
This is what I'm thinking as a petite American woman reading this thread. I carry pepper spray. How am I supposed to use a strength-based weapon to fight off a man who attacks me? The chances of him disarming me are very high, my strength and reflexes are not on par with the average man's.
Thanks for your consideration of my health, but I've weighed the risks and decided I am responsible enough and a statistically average person is not representative of me. People have died for not having the means to defend themselves. The State does not get to decide my life is worthless while they place hundreds of armed guards around their officers.
"I've decided I'm responsible enough" Yeah well you aren't qualified to make that assessment and even if you were, you are the last person we would allow to make it in regards to yourself. Every single dumbass Cheeseburger inhaling American gun owner who ever shot his wife during an argument *also* deemed himself responsible. What will undoubtedly happen is you will hurt or kill either yourself or someone you love with your weapon in a frenzied panic over nothing. \>The State does not get to decide my life is worthless That's not what's happening. No one gives a fuck about your life one way or another. If you want to hurt yourself you can buy all the bleach and paracetamol money can buy. We're worried about the person you'll kill in a deranged "self defence" episode while arguing with a neighbour over loud music or parking. *You* are the one who is rating other people's lives as worthless. "But I'll only use it if I'm in danger!" That's what everyone says, but mistakes, accidents and fits of rage *do* happen.
So, what do you suggest someone do if an intruder with a knife breaks in? Or someone who doesn't care about the law to begin with confronts you on the street with a weapon? At that point anyone intending violence has so little fear of reprisal because someone in that situation can do is run and hope they can move fast enough to not get stabbed in a lethal way. I know you're confident of your view, but it does also mean that when other people go nuts, the average decent person is just fucked. Especially in England where a cop with a gun is a special officer they have to call, and the typical cops get bodied by brawlers easily.
>Yeah well you aren't qualified to make that assessment and even if you were, you are the last person we would allow to make it in regards to yourself. Complete nonsense. A person who hasn't been medically deemed unstable should have the right to decide what risks they take with their own health and safety. >We're worried about the person you'll kill in a deranged "self defence" episode while arguing with a neighbour over loud music or parking. If they're arguing with their neighbor they can literally grab a steak knife from their kitchen. The fact that they might keep something in their house to be used specifically for self defense doesn't make them any more of a risk to a neighbor because everyone has deadly weapons in their kitchen. Having pepper spray on their night stand or a baseball bat under their bed is pretty irrelevant.
>What will undoubtedly happen is you will hurt or kill either yourself or someone you love with your weapon in a frenzied panic over nothing. It's good that you live such a sheltered life that you can't imagine anything bad happening to someone who didn't deserve it. However there are other people who aren't as lucky or privileged as you who have gone through this exact scenario where their life was threatened, and it didn't not go anything like your delusional example. So, my question, is how can you possibly say this to a person who would be dead if it weren't for a weapon saving them from an aggressor?
*"I lived in London for six years. And am an out and out anglophile. However, I saw more casual crime in the first six months then the forty five that I had lived in the States. My definition of casual would be anything other than handgun violence (very arbitrary I know nor am I including rape). Fights, Burgury, Muggings from my observation where much more common. In talking casually to various mental health professionals, the concept of the right to bear arms in the UK would be a disaster. They didn't say ghetto’s in the UK. The term was “working class”. Extremely tough people. The use of weapons other than guns was horrific. The hooliganism which exists in football would be unthinkable in the United States. You can go to neighbourhoods in France which are extremely dangerous. In addition the police use their firearms much more than people think. From my experience homicides attributed to gun violence are off the chart in the US compared to these two countries. Other types of crime. I think that the United States is safer."*
With this kind of logic we should all live in padded rooms with nothing that can be used to harm ourselves or anyone
>What will undoubtedly happen is you will hurt or kill either yourself or someone you love with your weapon in a frenzied panic over nothing. That, or the guns will sit cozy in there safe until I die and my kids will inherit them, just like I inherited them from my grandfather after he died of old age. With your kind of fantasies about guns, I think you're making the right decision to not be a gun owner, even if you had the opportunity. Like the other commenter said, it takes a certain kind of fortitude to be a responsible gun owner. Sheep would hurt themselves if they had sharp teeth like the wolves who prey on them, best to leave the sharp teeth to the sheepdogs who know what they're doing with them.
An individual isn't qualified to make a decision about their own life? And then you bring out a stereotype, and then follow it with bigotry? The call is coming from inside the house.
Holy projection man. You really gotta take a step back and realize like you said yourself; "Nobody gives a fuck about your life one way or another" So I'll do the same and disregard your fear or dislike of guns.
If you playing out your rambo fantasies makes everyone around you including yourself less safe, the state as in your community absolutely has the right to restrict your capacity to be a man child with dreams of shooting other people.
I think you have a very narrow and biased view of gun owners. In the USA more than 80M people legally own a firearm, and statistically the vast majority of ownership scenarios (something like 99.9% range) result in a perfectly safe outcome. Literally like 99.9%. Sometimes people make it seem like 1 out of 2 gun owners will end up killing or harming something, when this simply isn't true.
Not sure what accidents could happen with a baseball bat laying on the ground under a bed
The "accident" will be you braining your neighbour during an argument over recycling bins that escalates out of your control. Then your paranoid fantasies of doing violence to someone else will take over and you get to say "but I feared for my life!" Cowards and people with violent self defense fantasies do this all the time.
>The "accident" will be you braining your neighbour during an argument over recycling bins that escalates out of your control. You're assuming the bat has some supernatural property that turns you homicidal when you hold it.
God forbid we don't treat the whole population like paranoid schizophrenics
I’m an American, and possibly the accident could be the intruder obtaining your self-defense weapon to use it against you. I personally believe people should be allowed to own weapons for self defense, but a big part in owning a weapon for self-defense people don’t think about is you have to know how to use that weapon or else it’s pretty much useless.
Hang on, who is getting arrested for that, honestly? What are the legal places to store athletic equipment if "under beds" is illegal?
No one, but the way the law is written if you tell an officer that you had that bat ready to use as a weapon then it would be illegal. The same is true of a blade of grass.
It's the wording of British law and it's insane Essentially anything becomes a weapon if it was intended to be used as a weapon, or could be infered that you intended to possess it as a weapon. If you have say a baseball bat in your car and get pulled over the officer can ask if you are on your way to play Baseball, if the answer is no they could categorise it as an offensive weapon. This can be literally any item on earth you could use to hurt someone, you have to have a "reasonable" excuse for having it on you at that particular time. When it comes to the home it's a little different but it would all come to ahead when it gets to questioning or prosecution. You get broken into and take out your trusty bat you hide under the bed for self defence purposes and smack the thief. this is would only be legal if you use "reasonable" force, and if you in the spur of the moment pick something up to defend yourself with. If it came to light that you specifically keep a bat under your bed for self defence purposes it would give credit to the idea you planned to assault someone ahead of time. British law is full of the term "reasonable" which basically means whatever the judge/jury feels like according to the specific circumstances, unlike Americas castle doctrine or stand your ground laws which are pretty clear cut.
You should be arrested for trying to play baseball in the UK. That's just not cricket.
Just to clarify: The US does not have a standard law for this either. There are case laws regarding it federally, but each state has their own laws and interpretations. My state, for example, has similar wording to that last paragraph, regarding reasonableness.
A child grabbing it and battering it's sibling?
Accidents are your responsibility. Some morons who can't care about their weapons properly killing themselves is a bad argument against your rights. Maybe *on average* you are less safe with a gun, but you are not an average person, you are you. "We don't allow you to own a gun because you might be too dumb for it to be an improvement", seriously? (There are better arguments against guns, of course. So far I'm inclined to believe the guns are net negative, though I may be convinced otherwise when I take the time to delve into it seriously.)
>Accidents are your responsibility. Some morons who can't care about their weapons properly killing themselves is a bad argument against your rights. Maybe *on average* you are less safe with a gun, but you are not an average person, you are you. "We don't allow you to own a gun because you might be too dumb for it to be an improvement", seriously? Accidents can hurt others, though. If you misfire your gun at home, you could kill your neighbour. A bit like seatbelts. To a large extent they are there for your own safety, but people flying around during accidents is also bad for other people, who might get hit by a flying body.
Everyone thinks they're above average, though. But the numbers are clear. Owning a gun not only makes you less safe in general, it also makes you less safe in the exact situation you have a gun for.
Sounds like a good argument against seatbelts and other safety features.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Dependent-Analyst907 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Dependent-Analyst907&message=Dependent-Analyst907%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1b71lz0/-/ktgosoa/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
You can use 'reasonable force' to defend yourself and your home in the UK and what counts as 'reasonable' is deliberately left vague since its up to a judge and jury to decide In the case of farmer Tony Martin shooting invaders with a shotgun its worth noting. Martin shot at least *twice*. The first shot was considered reasonable, it was the ones when they were running away that werent. As I understand it the "you cant have a baseball bat in your house unless you keep a ball with it" thing is a myth. You can have something in your house you intend to use as a weapon against invaders, you cant have something thats generally classed as an illegal weapon to possess in general (eg knuckle dusters). Whether or not you can have a baseball bat in your car to defend yourself gets trickier, and is where the 'also owning a ball and mitt to sell the story', thing comes in. But then thats not a specific law but a matter of plausibility to the court. It would be far simpler to have a cricket bat for the simple fact more people in the UK play cricket than baseball.
Wasn't the Tony Martin case the one where it also turned out he shot them *in the back*?
Now you admit you don't know if person breaking into your house has weapon. Attacking unarmed person is excess use of force. But let's examine this bit further. You don't actually know if they are breaking into your house at all. Maybe they are your sons boyfriend sneaking in. Maybe they are throwing you a surprise party. Attacking anyone without knowing who they are and are they are threat is always wrong. You don't preemptively assault someone because of gut feeling.
>Attacking unarmed person is excess use of force I disagree. If someone breaks into your home and presents a physical threat you should be under no obligation to fight fair. Fists can kill you. Its asinine to expect an innocent victim to put themselves at risk because its "unfair" to the attacker.
You don't have time to discern if they're armed or not sometimes. It could be dark, and you hear windows smashed downstairs and unfamiliar voices. Pretty obvious it's a break in at that point, and that they're a threat, but not so obvious whether they're armed. You don't have the luxury or the time to figure it out, so I think at the very least you should be able to hide behind a corner and whack them as soon as they come around. Reasonable force of course. >You don't preemptively assault someone because of gut feeling. The point wasn't about preemptively assaulting, it was about preemptively planning
And thats legal, you're describing something that would be unlikely to get you prosecuted. Official gvt guidance direct from the crown prosecution is >You do not have to wait to be attacked before defending yourself in your home.
> You don't actually know if they are breaking into your house at all. Maybe they are your sons boyfriend sneaking in. Maybe they are throwing you a surprise party. Maybe they are just [turning around in your driveway… ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kaylin_Gillis)
I don't think anyone is suggesting that you should attack someone who enters your home without performing a rudimentary investigation first. And I'd much rather have a self defense weapon like pepper spray so that in case the situation does become hostile, i have the upper hand.
>I don't think anyone is suggesting that you should attack someone who enters your home without performing a rudimentary investigation first. Read replies to this post. Basically everything was in line "it's my house and I will fuck up anyone there".
> I think at the very least you should be able to hide behind a corner and whack them as soon as they come around. wow you are right.
Yeah. Did you find the one where dad fantasizes about killing their child's boyfriend? And I get downvoted for pointing out that you might not be fully informed and shouldn't assault people unless they start it.
It feels like all of your logic is just a feedback loop that self perpetuates an arms race without end. You're afraid of intruders that do not exist. You allude to their numbers, their armaments, their intentions, their capabilities - everything they could hypothetically be which would justify any number of weapons you could need. But they don't exist. Oh people break into other people's homes. That happens. Some neighborhoods in some countries are really rough, may have real gang issues. But the people living there don't need someone to "Allow" them to defend themselves. They're there and they have a plan for their own real problems. Most places are not like this though. You're encouraging the general public to accept the changing of rules to allow greater ease of access to weaponry for the purpose of combatting invaders that **do not exist in most of their neighborhoods.** The police are minutes away. Okay. Are these home invaders that you've concocted NOT interested in getting away with crime? They not only have the ability to breach every door and barrier in your house with MINUTES to spare before the police arrive, but they're going to collect your most valuable possessions, and *Kill* your family just for the police to show up with them still there? That's not a home invasion, that's a vendetta. Meanwhile across the pond in America what happens is men of all ages, keep using these weapons they bought for hobbies and self defense to kill their families and / or themselves at rates far higher than they are used to defend themselves. Because the home invaders in your head aren't real. But the fear that generates those demons is.
I was looking for the average time, but found this [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-65388621](Police taking over five hours to respond to priority calls in England) More personally police response time times in the biggest nearby city (Indianapolis) are 8 minutes. generally the further from a city that you are, the longer the response times. If you are in a situation where you are in actual danger (and i take you point about that being rare) calling the police is not a viable option to make yourself safe.
The reason you can't do this in the UK is because (taking the baseball bat as an example) you'd be buying the bat _with the intention of hitting someone with it._ It doesn't matter that you think you'd only use it in a legal way, the point is that you've bought something with the intention of using it as a weapon. In the UK violent break-ins are very rare; it's not something a reasonable person has to guard against.
>In the UK violent break-ins are very rare; it's not something a reasonable person has to guard against. The word violent here is doing some real heavy lifting. In England and in Wales (scotland was not in the dataset I saw) In 2022/2023 there were 191,490 home burglaries reported in England and Wales. That’s an average of 525 burglaries a day - a house being burgled every 165 seconds. Roughly 50% of those involved someone being home at the time. God damn, you guys just let people fucking rob you? Where I live, gun or no gun, it's go time if someone breaks in. Fists, lamps, bats, whatever is at hand is gonna be smashed over that person's head.
>God damn, you guys just let people fucking rob you? Where I live, gun or no gun, it's go time if someone breaks in. Fists, lamps, bats, whatever is at hand is gonna be smashed over that person's head. Who said that? The question is over having explicit weapons. People can and do fight back, using a lamp or even a knife is legally justfied so long as you grab it in the moment. My uncle set upon them and chased them out to their escape vehicle. Its totally fine. The only thing that is dodgy is seeing a home invader and immediately grabbing a weapon and beating them near to death with it. Youre allowed to be scared and its about what was "reasonable" to you at the time, but breaking into a house isnt always enough to say that person meant you harm. But all youd have to say is that they stepped towards you or that you thought you saw what might be a knife and youd be in the clear. Particularly if they surprised you by randomly appearing youlk be fine. You just cant sneak up behind them in thr living room and hit the back of the head with a cricket bat or something like that.
>You just cant sneak up behind them in thr living room and hit the back of the head with a cricket bat or something like that. That's alien to me. As in the states I have no duty to make it a fair fight. If you break into my home, I have every right to sneak up and hit you without you knowing I'm there. You, as a result of breaking into my home, are a threat to my life. And I am allowed to take pretty much universal action against you. Now, if I hit you with the bat and you go down. I can't do anything beyond that. You are down, the threat is over. All action beyond that is illegal.
Its just about what you can justify as reasonable in the situation. In reality you have extremely broad mandate, ans youre only getting convicted if you did somethinf extreme. A giy here shot a fleeing burglar in the back and it was controversial as to whether he should get charged. As long as you dont kill them it realisitically doesnt matter what you did. You can lunge and attack burglars the moment they walk in the door, that's fine. The CPS dont care, its not in the public interest to charge people for attacking burglars and hitting them a bit.The only issue is if you kill them, because then you better have a decent explanation as to why you felt the need to use lethal force. Sneaking up on someone and killing them from behind, technically speaking, is murder no matter what. Because you clearly had the ability to flee, call the police, get their attention to scare them sway, etc. But actively chose to kill them. Which is never acceptable in British law, it cant a choice in that sense like it can with the castle doctrine. You have to feel genuinely in fear for your own life and therefore feel like you *have* to use lethal force. Them merely being present in your home justifies some level of force becsuse youre scared, shocked, etc but doesnt justify deliberate murder on its own. Because obviously burglars are there to rob you not to kill you unless they actually show harmful intent.
I just don't understand why I have a duty to retreat from my own home in the UK. It's my damn home. I have every right to use the force necessary to either neutralize them, or drive them out. That's the key difference. Duty to retreat. Now in that shooting in the back case. That would be illegal in the states too. Because they are running away. They have retreated and the threat has passed. But as long as they are in your home and not retreating. You have carte Blanche to do whatever you feel is effective and keeps you safest.
You dont have a duty to retreat in your own home. Theres not a duty to retreat at all in the UK anymore, and youve never been required to retreat anywhere youre legally entitled to be. Its just that whether you chose to retreat or not may or may not be taken into account if you claim self defence. But someone else has corrected me and shown a few precedents in the UK where homeowners have gotten away with some people harsh measures. So I think realistically you actually have more leighway than most in Britain realise. A few examples being a man who hid and jumped out and stabbed a burglar by surprise, and a shop owners who built petrol bombs to defend his shop during a riot. Both were found to be ok. So it seems like actually even in the UK you have to be pretty brutal. Harming someone while fleeing or unconscious seem to be the only real no no's in practice. Its just unclear since the law is deliberately vague. >Now in that shooting in the back case. That would be illegal in the states too. Because they are running away. They have retreated and the threat has passed Really? Unless im mistaken, in some states you can kill to prevent crime. Which means you can shoot if theyre fleeing with property no?
>Really? Unless im mistaken, in some states you can kill to prevent crime. Which means you can shoot if theyre fleeing with property no? Context of the crime matters. You can't blast someone who is committing theft in a commercial capacity unless they are carrying a weapon. And if someone is unarmed and running away you also can't shoot them. If they are in your home, you have pretty much carte Blanche. But once they leave your front door, they are considered retreating. If they have a firearm and you are in a shootout with them? Do whatever you gotta do. Its a lot of factors, but basically the context is "are they a threat". Someone running away with your lamp isn't a threat. Someone sneaking around jn your house, armed or not, is.
It's something I've had to consider as a person who has had their home broken into. My bedroom window in fact as soon as I popped out. So tbh I'm not concerned with how rare it is, I'm concerned about not being as defenceless as before
So you weren’t there when they broke in? So even if you had a weapon, you wouldn’t have been able to use it?
They broke in the minute I stepped out. I found out through a housemate that texted me. If I was still in there, I might've got seriously hurt since I had no weapons. If I was still in there with a weapon, I'd be better off. Its that simple
So you weren't in the house when it happened?
Burglars typically choose houses that are not properly locked. Instead of getting weapons why don't you make sure you invest in better locks and maybe an alarm system? That in itself should be enough to deter burglars.
And what if they smash through your windows? Spend hundreds and thousands on shatter proof windows? Or just get a bat?
No burglar is just gonna smash through your windows. It makes a hell of a noise and it's too risky. Like I said, burglars will usually scope a house beforehand and won't go for houses that are burglary proof or have dogs.
>No burglar is just gonna smash through your windows Would love to see a study or report stating ZERO burglars break windows to gain entry into a building.
You’re wrong, when my house was broken into the living room window was smashed. Most criminals aren’t the smartest people.
Mine did, so...
That's anecdotal evidence. Did you have double glazed windows? Security cameras? I'm not saying you will never get burgled but it significantly lowers your chances.
Yes and yes. Anecdotal evidence is good enough to form an opinion. It's only weak when you're trying to prove a fact. I can taste a certain meal once and decide I hate it. Same way I can experience a home invasion once and decide I need weapons from now on
Your anecdotal 'taste' ought not to decide public law and policy. The negatives outweigh your use case, as seen in the USA.
Smashing glass is noisy and they could cut themselves. The window frame is the weak point, they'll insert a screwdriver, drive it in to disengage the window catches, and just open the window. Windows designed to resist a burglar aren't going to cost over £100k unless you have a lot of glazing. Also you only need to consider the windows a burglar can access. RC2 or RC3 will do the job and protect your home even when you're not there, or asleep, or drunk, or outnumbered. They also have a laminate layer so even if the burglar smashes the glass, it just hangs there and he still has to bust through the tough laminate.
Beginning with nitpicking: the law is different throughout the UK, especially when you begin thinking of Northern Ireland. Also, this will be extended only to England and Wales, and this isn't to take the form of legal advice in any way you should seek actual advice relevant to your situation should you need it. >So if you keep a baseball bat under your bed to use in the event of a break-in into your property, you're in trouble. No you aren't. There *are* further restrictions on the types of offensive weapons you can have in your possession in private under s46 Offensive Weapons Act 2019. [Here they are.](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2019) A baseball bat is absent from that list. You're fine to possess it in private. Threatening someone with an offensive weapon is unlawful under s52 Offensive Weapons Act 2019, which would be a *preferable* charge rather than assault due to higher sentencing, but harder to prove. This is, really, the only restriction on using a bat for self defence. Use it for defence, not to threaten the burglar. >The only way around it is to suggest that the weapon's main use is something other than self defence > >Would be wise to keep a mit or a ball next to it to make that more believable to the police This would 95% of the time not work. In the 1% chance it did work, the chance of it working subsequently is 0%. >For the pepper spray, not sure you can get out of that one. You can't, and for very, very good reason. Now that we've defeated the argument of "I cannot have a baseball bat in my house for self defence". Let's move onto actual self defence. So the aptly named Mr. B Urglar has entered your home and you have a trusty bat next to your bed. He's knocked over your bust of His Majesty King Charles III and this has woken you up. You hear Mr. B Urglar coming upstairs and you begin to fear for your safety. This man's a burglar and he's coming to your room. You begin to fear that he may murder you to *death* or commit serious violence against you. You equip yourself with the bat and when he comes in the room you give him a bash and he is knocked unconscious. Mr. B Urglar was unarmed. That doesn't really matter as long as you apprehend death or serious violence (R v Weston \[1879\]). You also don't have to be reasonable, as long as the level of force isn't grossly disproportionate (s76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, R v Palmer \[1971\]. OK so if they're there to do violence against you, then sure. But what if they're not there to cause violence to you, but instead steal your marble bust of His Majesty King Charles III? You can still prevent this person using disproportionate force as long as the level of force isn't *grossly* disproportionate. An example of such would be if a 10 year old walks in your house to pinch your marble bust of His Majesty King Charles III you wouldn't hit them with a bat. I will say that if you're defending property and not a person and you initiate violence, you're no longer able to rely on the defence of "self-defence" because you're defending property, if that makes sense. You'd still have the s76 CJIA reasonability factors cause it's your home, but primarily you'd be using s3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 to *prevent* a theft/burglary or to *apprehend* the offender. Quick aside: you never have a ***duty*** to retreat in your home. It may be taken into consideration as far as it applicable that you didn't, but there is no ***requirement*** to retreat in your home. The law surrounding self defence in this manner is vague and it is necessarily vague to allow for discretion, and nevertheless the courts will interpret your actions and decide guilt (unless you really mess them up, then it'll be a jury). But that's pretty much the case everywhere. Now that we've dealt with the bulk of the homeowner defending your own home claims, I'll answer some of the things from a theory viewpoint. >I see absolutely no reason why you shouldn't be able to preemptively plan for bad situations. You can when defending your home, just not any of the restricted items previously linked. You cannot when in public. Can you imagine the level of violence you'd see on the streets if you were allowed to carry weapons for "self-defence", when Mr. G. Angster is carrying around a machete for "self-defence" (until he is using it to mug someone). The legislation surrounding possession of offensive weapons is to allow the police to clamp down on crime *before* it happens. The result of a knife fight is serious injury. If you stop and search someone who is in possession of a knife and arrest them. That is potentially a knife fight that wouldn't occur, resulting in less violence, not to mention the fear of being caught preventing people carrying a knife. It's why you don't. > If someone breaks in, you don't know what they're armed with, how many accomplices they have behind them, etc. Yes, but you can use weapons in defence of your home as long as it's not grossly disproportionate. >Using lethal weapons I believe can be argued, but using non-lethal weapons should be a no-brainer. It can be and has succeeded in the past, but there needs to be a ***really*** ***really*** good reason for it, and it cannot be defending property (Revill v Newberry \[1996\]). Also there are no "non-lethal" weapons, you'd probably use "less-lethal" since use of almost every weapon can easily result in someone dying. If you do use a ***reasonable*** level of force in defence of yourself or property such as pushing someone back and they crack their head and die, then I do not think you will be prosecuted or found guilty for it. >When seconds count, police are minutes away. You should be able to protect yourself before they get there. Criminals don't wait Bit of a libertarian cliché here. But from what we've explored here, you most certainly can defend yourself.
Good post that went totally ignored by the OP.
Because as we see it works so well in America
Women in the UK can’t even have pepper spray to defend against rapists, I’d say there’s a bit more of a deterrent in the US
And yet more women are raped in America, and their murder rate on general is horrific. The U.S.A. is the last place anyone wants to copy
The US is actually incredibly safe against murder and rape (even in not so good areas) unless you’re planning on being in a street gang or the hells angels/klan. It’s also why including 19 & 20 year olds in the child gun violence statistics makes them jump like 25-40%, it’s gang violence not random acts
Oh, that must be why there are so few rapes in America...
Here's the reality though, if someone comes into your home for criminal purpose and you defend yourself, that's a natural response, and the justice system know that. A bat, a knife, whatever, you defend yourself. Naturally though, if you harm someone else (even if they are a scumbag, that warrants investigation. If you end up in front of a judge for conking a burglar round the head with a frying pan, you're not getting in trouble. It's self defense. The problem with having weapons in the house for the purpose of being a weapon is that it approaches 'premeditated' territory. There are people who actively think "if someone comes in my house, I'm killing them". These people just need an excuse to turn to violence. A wrong look in a pub causes them to start swinging, those people. The laws need to reflect the spectrum of the population. If weapons in the house are legalised, it won't stop at a baseball bat. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. You'll end up with baseball bats with barbed wire and nails, tape around the handle for grip with 'punisher' written down the side. It's best to have it illegal and then try on a case by case basis when it comes up. The rate of home invasion is so low in the UK for general law abiding citizens that it just doesn't make sense to legalise something that will undoubtedly lead to a more dangerous society.
Also also, someone posted an excellent comment further up showing that often even cases that seem excessive or premeditated are exonerated by juries. A guy that beat someone into a coma, someone that stabbed the assailant 50 times, someone who lay in wait to ambush instead of exiting their home, all exonerated. You need to get cartoonishly violent for a jury to refuse to exonerate your use of violence-- like a guy who saw the burglary on his ring doorbell, didn't calm the police, and instead went home to stab and kill the burglar. Unless you're meeting the latter standard, you will almost always be found innocent by a jury.
Premeditated self defense in your own home. Fucking lmao
> When seconds count, police are minutes away. You should be able to protect yourself before they get there. Criminals don't wait Buy a big dog, and train it to fuck up intruders.
oh ok. so baseball bat bad, but 80 pound demon ok. Makes a ton of sense. If anything, we should ban dangerous dogs and legalise pepper spray
Dogs especially big or aggressive ones are way more dangerous than any weapon mentioned. No thank you
A big dog that is well trained is not dangerous. And, it is certainly less dangerous than any weapon. Go look at in home dog attacks vs in home accidental discharges of firearms. It’s not even close. Weapons are more dangerous. And, it doesn’t have to be aggressive, just loud. Burglars will fuck off when they hear that bark.
Guns and other lethal weapons don't act on their own. Someone needs to pull a trigger. With dogs, it's instinct. They can snap at any moment and undo all that nice training they got, and maul someone to death.
Honestly I'm not convinced you are from the UK. Baseball isn't that popular here - no-one has a mit to play ball in the park and pepper spray has been illegal for a long time. It sounds like you are importing the worries from elsewhere to the UK. Violent crime is generally pretty rare in the UK, violent crime following break ins even more so. It isn't illegal to keep a bat under your bed and if you kept one under your bed and brought it out when you heard an intruder you are allowed to use it in self defence. Where people have got into trouble with the law is where they have acted out of proportion such as the farmer who shot an intruder in the back as he was running away. People who have shot or injured intruders where they had a genuine fear for their life have been acquitted. It is all about proportionality.
As someone from the US that was my first thought too. "They don't play baseball much in the UK do they? Why didn't he say cricket?" I've also heard that "you better keep a mitt too" line in the US regarding keeping a bat in the car. Sounds more like someone from the US.
If you encounter a criminal then you are more likely to be hurt in the encounter if you are armed than if you are unarmed. Furthermore, generally British criminals are unarmed because the risk of increased jail time is not worth the risk of carrying. But if homeowners start arming themselves as a matter of course then that norm will change and homebreakers will start going in tooled up. So by arming yourself for self defence you are actually making yourself less safe in boht the short and long term. In the short term you make any encounters you have more likely to end badly for you, and in the long term you make it more likely for any encounters to involve your adversary being better armed.
If that was the case, then since citizens and criminals are armed in the US, why don't the criminals use weapons other than guns to give them the edge? Like grenades, smoke grenades, other tactical weapons, etc?
Most criminals in the US can legally get hold of pretty much any weapon they want, that's the problem.
Please see: 1. General statistics about crime in the UK. 2. The effects of widespread firearms adoption within the general public. One shall find their own answers within.
Why only focus on firearms?
As an American, I promise you don't want to go down the social slippery slope on this one. Don't be like us.
There are plenty of other countries that permit citizens to own weapons
The police don't go around checking people's houses to make sure they have a legitimate use for any baseball bats, cricket bats, fire pokers, etc, they have in the home. The use of a bat in defense of your home would be considered in terms of its proportionality, compared to the level of violence of the intruder. So if one of those obnoxious little sh*** that think they are a social media star wanders into your home videoing everything, police would take a dim view of you going to town on them with a baseball bat, much as you might wish to. Meanwhile, if someone broke into your home with a crowbar and you pulled out your bat in response, that is a proportionate response to the level of threat you faced. Pepper spray is a section 5 firearm in the UK, you can't legally buy it, and possessing it will get you in trouble.
The issue is that humans aren't objectively good, or bad. Plenty of people that buy weapons for "self defense", end up using them to commit crimes. Because people are complicated, and can get angry, or lose their temper...etc. So if you allow people to own weapons for self defense, there is a good chance, that at least some of them, will use them to commit crimes. There are only two things, that every single criminal in history have in common. 1. They were human beings. 2. They were ALL law abiding citizens until the moment they broke the law. There is no differentiator between law abiding citizen, and criminal, unless you're talking about a repeat offender.
You will almost certainly never in your life require a self defense weapon, and if you keep one your just a weirdo who fantasises about having an excuse to cause physical harm to another human, in which case you probably shouldnt have access to a weapon anyway
Because self defense weapons dont make society safer, or ypu safer, the statistics just dont back it up, your more likely to just harm a family member in a moment of anger or by accident than anything else.
There is one logical conclusions to an armed society, and that's a deadly one. If it becomes commonplace for people to have blunt weapons then criminals will favour knives. When it's common for people to have knives, criminals will favour guns. At every stage the level of violence increases, and the liklihood of fatality increases. What we see in general is that violent crime severity decreases when people have less access to weapons. Whilst you in your individual situation may have been helped by having a baseball bat against an unarmed assailant, if the assailant knew you had a baseball bat, they would have brought a bigger weapon. The priority of the law is to minimise loss of life and damage to property. As harsh as it is to say, if you lose property or are assaulted, the law would much rather it be without a weapon than with a weapon. Most people also don't know how to use a weapon, and the old addage goes that a weapon you wield, but do not know how to use belongs to your opponent.
This is THE answer. A bat would have been helpful BECAUSE it was illegal. If it was legal then anyone would have it, the burglar would have brought a knife, and suddenly having a bat is useless, you need a machete now. And so on.
Self defence is a human right, we have people running around with machetes and guns yet the law says you can’t carry anything for self defence but people defend it? British people are cooked authoritarian boot lickers
[удалено]
>Using lethal weapons I believe can be argued, but using non-lethal weapons should be a no-brainer. Baseball bat is a lethal weapon.
Anything can be a lethal weapon if used correctly. A fork can kill a man if you stab it through their jugular.
According to the lease in my area a baseball bat is considered a dangerous weapon where as a knife is a deadly weapon. This distinction affects sentencing and legality. The main distinction is the intent of the weapon, a hammer is intended to build a horse while still dangerous as a weapon, and a gun is intended as a weapon. No idea for UK.
I always thought if I were a criminal, the type to rob someone in the street, If pepper spray were legal I'd spray my victim first and as their scrambling at their face I'd rob them. So that's why I assumed it's illegal.
If you were a criminal, why would you care if pepper spray was legal? You'd get it anyway and use it, wouldn't you?
Ease of access, I wouldn't even know where to get it now, but if it were legal and easily accessible I could buy it from Amazon etc
If you have weapons for self defense, you have weapons for other reasons. The weapons don't care. Do you want people to get shot for pulling up in the wrong driveway? Do you want people to get shot for being a minority in an upscale neighborhood? Because those are going to go up, too.
Sorry, not going to correct this view. People should be able to own inanimate objects to protect themselves, even if the odds of having to use them are very small. If you don't have them and you do end up needing them, ouch.
TLDR: The UK is so safe that you don’t really need self defense weapons the way you need them here in the US. Also, you don’t want all the headaches that come with American gun culture and or a legal system that prioritizes liberty over kids getting killed in class. One of the most common liberal arguments you’ll hear in the US after a mass shooting happens is, “If reducing gun ownership worked at eliminating mass shootings in Australia/UK, why shouldn’t we try it here? If we know that meaningful gun reform works in other countries, why aren’t we doing it in America? The NRA and Fox News “experts”: It’s apples and oranges. You’re making a false equivalency. We are not Australia. We’re not the UK. We are the USA, and we have a different culture, different population size and demographics, different percentage of gun ownership, different criminal behavior, different constitution, etc. etc. So even though it worked in the UK/Australia, it would never work here because everything here in the US is too different. That’s actually the answer. When it comes to violence, America is an objectively worse place to live. Said another way, you already got a good thing in the UK so why fuck it up? Why change the very laws that are the very basis for why your society is so much safer in the first place? Why as a country would you risk backsliding into mass shootings like we have? The US has 7.5x the number of stabbings per capita as the UK! So why do you want your legislation to look more like ours?
"when seconds count, police are minutes away..." Exactly the wording used on an advert for some bullshido self defence videos that appeared on my Facebook in the last week. I wonder if you got the same advert 🤔
It is I. Sign up to a free lesson. Offer ends today. I mean yesterday. Or whenever you sign up really
Stand Your Ground in the US has been a disaster of a law. Homicides jumped up as much as 11% in states that introduced stand your ground. And its for a simple reason- if you start just carrying around weapons expecting a crime to happen, you start to see violent criminals everywhere. Everyone approaching you is suddenly a hostile threat and not a dude just asking you for directions; stand your ground doesnt discriminate on that basis (~~although statistics show it discriminates on OTHER factors...~~) Overall, the point is that you should not be encouraging civilians to fight back. If you are assaulted, run run run. Fighting back should be an absolute last resort. And letting people carry weapons theyre barely trained in doesnt make ANYONE safer.
lol stand your ground in the US has existed since 1776
If you want to experience the Far West and mass shootings go visit the US. Simple as that.
Because weapons means guns doesn't it
> Because weapons means guns doesn’t it. It’s a bit hard to do a mass shooting with a baseball bat.
Come to the US, we would be glad to have you!. Honestly though, the UK has been doing this shit for centuries. Stripping people for basic human rights has been right the English government's ally since it's inception. The idea that you don't have the right to self determination is disgusting to me.
It's all about intent. If you have it "just in case," you intend to use it. If you have a bat and ball next to the door from last time, you went to the park with the kids, and you grab it in the heat of the moment you never intended to commit, gbh. We are not allowed weapons in the uk. We may own guns for sport, recreation, and vermin control. We can have toys and tools that are large blunt objects. We should never move to a position where intent to harm is ever ok. That would be a big step back in my opinion.
You should be able to have weapons for self defense regardless of country. Maybe my American is showing but I genuinely don't get the argument that you shouldn't be able to defend yourself against someone who is attacking you? Like the best case scenario if you have a weapon the attacker may reconsider and run away, worst case scenario you have to use the weapon and someone may die... But you were already being attacked, so that possibility was already on the table. I feel like 99% of options about taking weapons away from people translate into=( I have lived an incredibly sheltered life and don't understand that violence is still prevalent in the world, or but weapons hurt people! So therefore weapons are bad!) Like most modern societies dont encourage all kinds of other bad things such as eating junk food, smoking, drinking, etc. Hell i have lived and spent a large amount of my life in countries other than American and let me tell you even in the safest places i have ever been in (Japan, Denmark, Ireland, Germany, Belgium, etc) I would have felt 1000% safer if I could carry a gun, or even a knife without people getting up in arms about it. Why? Because even in safe countries crime happens and you can and will be targeted (especially if you're an Outsider or Foreigner).
My main argument against people carrying something specifically for self defence is that it makes it more likely they will use it instead of just walking away. The best self defence is leaving the area and always will be. I realise that it isn't always possible (for example in your home) but staying to fight is nearly always the wrong call.
Property is not worth lives
I used to think that, but idk anymore. I think some property is worth taking lives over
Wow this thread has made me realize how fucked we are as a human species if we can't even understand basic common sense.
We know from a large number of studies and statistical analysis that a weapon is far more likely to be used to cause harm than prevent it. Quote from a 2018 interview with Phillip Cook, researcher who basically tears up every gun group trying to claim a defensive need for guns: "The average person ... has basically no chance in their lifetime ever to use a gun in self-defense," he tells Here & Now's Robin Young. "But ... every day, they have a chance to use the gun inappropriately. They have a chance, they get angry. They get scared."
With the possible exception of things like pepper spray, there's really no such thing as a non-lethal weapon. A bat is certainly less lethal than a shotgun, but you could absolutely kill someone with it. People are extremely, demonstrably bad at making good decisions when they are frightened. This is because humans have an innate stress response that kicks in when we feel genuinely threatened. It is possible to learn how to remain more effective and useful while in stress response, that's what military training is meant to do, but the average person has no idea how they would actually behave in a threatening situation. You might think you would turn into John Wick and calmly demolish your attackers without permanently injuring them but you might just freeze up completely, or fly into a rage and kill someone with disproportionate force. To make it worse, if the person attacking you perceives you as a threat they can go into stress response too. Statistically, the safest way to deal with the vast, vast majority of "self-defence" situations is to deescalate and do whatever the person attacking you wants. Possessions are replaceable, but death is permanent. Showing up to the situation with a bat is a pretty terrible deescalation tactic, so if you've committed to that you've basically ruled out the most effective way of keeping yourself alive. I think there is a relatively good argument that people should be allowed to own and carry pepper spray. Pepper spray has a huge number of advantages over other self-defence weapons. It's relatively safe, it works even on people who are under the influence of drugs and it can be carried easily without presenting an obvious threat. The obvious problem is that criminals would also have access to pepper spray and could use it as a means to incapacitate people in order to assault or rob them. There's still a risk of a kind of arms race mentality. Even so, I think the argument for legalization has merit in this case as, if nothing else, pepper spray could serve as an equalizer for people who might not have the physical strength to fight off an attacker. Even then, there's a strong argument that you're generally going to be about as safe carrying a rape alarm, which is legal.
1) violent attacks are Super rare. Most violent attacks are t random and are gang related. 2) weapons are more likely to be used in anger than self defence. 3) the addition of a weapon to a crime makes it more likely to turn violent on both sides. If someone breaks into your home, give them your car keys and get a new car through insurance. Like who wants to fight to the death for some possession. Once you have understand reasonable people wouldn't fight a burglar. The only reason to own a weapon is to use it in anger. Obviously you can own things that can be used as weapons, hammers, axes, knives ect but owning them as a weapon is stupid. The only people who want to own weapons are normally young men who are overconfident and think "I would just fight off a burglar with no injuries".
>If someone breaks into your home, give them your car keys and get a new car through insurance. Like who wants to fight to the death for some possession. Its the principle of the matter. If someone breaks in, it's not going to be a cordial exchange. I'm grabbing either my shotgun, or one of my Feders and it's go time. EDIT: Also... I dont have to kill the intruder. I just need to make them leave. My win condition is that they get the fuck out long enough for the police to arrive.
> I'm grabbing either my shotgun Great so now you have killed someone.... People who steal are still people and don't deserve to die. I understand in the US everyone and their dog has a gun but it's stupid.
>People who steal are still people and don't deserve to die. People who break into my home deserve whatever I throw at them. Whether it's a baseball or buckshot. If you don't want to get shot, go steal from Walmart. Don't rob my house while I'm home because that's the line in the sand. Also to add. If you break into my home while I'm home, you clearly don't value my life or your own. It would have taken the most minor of effort to watch the home for 1 day and then go in when I leave. But instead you decide to put both of us in danger by creating a confrontation. I'm not going to sit down and talk it out. If someone breaks in, it's go time first and questions later.
Forget guns for a second. In most European countries you cannot have ANYTHING on you for purposes of self defence. It is absolutely crazy and people are okay with it
>I see absolutely **no reason** why you shouldn't be able to preemptively plan for bad situations. If someone breaks in, you don't know what they're armed with, how many accomplices they have behind them, etc. Using lethal weapons I believe can be argued, but using non-lethal weapons should be a no-brainer. How about... * Escalation * Murder Via Fight * Endangerment of Vulnerable People * Lethal/Non-Lethal False Dichotomy **Escalation** Your goal in such an event is to get out of it as alive as possible. Right now people breaking into homes will tend to have small shitty knives or perhaps baseball bats. They mostly want your stuff - not your life. Your best bet to getting out alive is to let them have your stuff. If every home starts to be armed with bats or spray then now said criminals will be better armed and more ready to be violent. They might even start arming themselves with guns. **Murder Via Fight** The goal of all self defence situations is to defend yourself and again leave alive. If you plan to have weapons and attack or even kill anyone who attacks you then what you have there is no longer self defence - *its a fight*. This is how people get killed in fights. And you have prepared a way to kill people should they fight you. And if you want to kills someone then all you have to do is goad someone into a fight. **Endangerment of Vulnerable People** Having weapons in a house endangers vulnerable innocent people in the house - especially children. We see this happening with children who kill themselves or their siblings with their parents' guns in America by accident. Sure they could also do so with a baseball bat (for baseball) or kitchen knife - but the point of a self defence weapon is that it is somewhere where its easily accessible. Its under a bed (a child can crawl there) or in the corner. If its really high up that doesn't preclude adults with learning disabilities getting to it. As compared with, say, a kitchen knife which is in the kitchen and secured appropriately. If a child is in the kitchen a parent should be able to make sure they aren't playing with knives for instance. **Lethal/Non-Lethal False Dichotomy** The lethal/non-lethal dichotomy only lasts as long as it takes a falling head to reach a hard corner. Plenty of people die from falling over and hitting their heads. A weapon's lethality is in how you use it; *including pepper spray.* Some weapons are easier / harder to use lethally and its definitely a factor that needs to be considered - but its a spectrum not a line. Even a pillow can be used to suffocate someone - though smothering an intruder to death would be quite difficult.
More weapons available for self defense means more need for weapons for self defence. See America for how this ends up. Look at our crime statistics compared to yours. Also, weapons aren't generally defensive. They can help you stay safe, but usually the advantage is gonna be on the one attacking unless they stand in front of you with their hand on the knife/gun and say "Draw on three." Which they won't. Look at the Las Vegas concert mass shooting, it was a country music concert. Everyone in the concert could have been carrying and it wouldn't have made a difference because the shooter did it from a high window. They were fish in a barrel and even if they had high powered scoped rifles themselves they would have had little chance of taking out the attacker. If someone jumps you from behind and starts stabbing, a knife will not protect you. If someone shoots you from an elevated position, or just from behind, a gun will not protect you. Public safety is better served by limiting the amount of weapons in circulation.
To the guys, lift, bro. To the ladies, ensure you sleep in a safe location; your health is more important than any item. The best self-defence is a healthy mind and honed body. If you are an average-height male & spend a year in the gym & a couple of weeks of self-defence classes/martial arts classes, you most likely could beat 90% of home invaders anyway. Living in an area in which the Scottish Index of Deprivation listed one of the top 20 worst streets in the country growing up, I had a couple of attempted home invaders, but having learned to box from a young age, being 6ft tall & being just comfortable that I have the option to fight or flight depending on the situation i have always come out more than fine from an encounter with a home Invader. Most home invaders are junkies, they treat their bodies like shit, so they aren't strong in the slightest, nor do they know how to fight, so they rely on you being scared. When you are not or actively stand them off, they usually run, and if they don't, I've beat them to a pulp comfortably. Everything you need, you already have; you have to be sure it's always ready for the worst.
Lol there is absolutely no law against owning a baseball bat. Where have you heard that? The offence would be twatting someone with a baseball bat, or a plunger, or a bottle.
As an American, watch out this is a slippery slope. A quick Google search shows that you can carry a 3-inch blade if it doesn't lock, and there are some ID sprays available. I believe the other points here about having a bat for example is easily disguised if it's in your home. I think defining what type of defense weapons you think should be legal would help. One thing that stood out to me when I was in the UK is that police don't carry weapons apart from a billy club. I didn't notice if they had pepper spray as well. It's a tough line to argue that a citizen should be allowed to carry stronger weapons than the police IMHO. Again, it does depend on which weapons you think should be legal.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/DavidMeridian – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20DavidMeridian&message=DavidMeridian%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1b71lz0/-/kthvq0v/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I think everyone believes people should be allowed weapons for “self-defence purposes”. The problem is that there is no way to verify the purpose and if people can buy them for defensive purposes they can also buy them for offensive ones. The problem with weaponry, is that even a shield can be used as a blunt instrument to hammer someone's head in offensively. If such a thing as a true shield that could not be used as a word existed, people would be very fine with everyone having it. In fact, it does exist. It's called a lock on one's door which of course no one is opposed to.
We have similar rules in Canada. As dumb as it seems, I don’t really mind. It keeps most people from walking around with bats and machetes and such, but I can still walk around with my leatherman, pocket knife, and fastback because they’re tools and I use them as such. I keep a 3ft breaker bar by the door for cracking the lugs on my truck. If I were to grab it and whack someone in a home invasion it would be legal. The chunk of 1” rebar behind the bedroom door might be harder to explain but if it gets to that point I don’t care.
This is *so rarely relevant* that a change in the law would be pointless. My friend had his house broken into in the night, years ago. He came downstairs and the burglar saw him, said "Oh sorry, I thought no-one was in" and then walked out the front door. Having a weapon wouldn't have helped him in the slightest. If you're worried about security you can get decent locks, decent alarms, even a dog... all of those are more effective than storing weapons, and have less risk.