Better get the geniuses at the New York Times to look at this riddle.
Importantly, in a state of violent chaos, as Britain seems to be today, the two complementary responses to the situation are first, to seek order, which in this case implies vigilantism, to replace ineffectual government in the preservation of law and civilization.
The second is to improvise a weapon that is superior to a gun or knife, which will have such a powerful effect as to negate their use. Almost by definition such a weapon would be very dangerous, even deadly.
It is a mystery why the British people have not yet turned to vigilantism to protect themselves from violent criminals. Even a single individual could radically change the equation by resisting.
Otherwise, I think my choice for deadly weaponry would be some variety of compressed gas, sprayed in a thick waft, perhaps chlorine gas. It is instantly disabling, agonizing, and likely lethal.
I lost the youtube video of UK protesters warning US on gun control.
Anybody have the link?
But that is a bogus comparison. America is a complex society - not a uniform nation with set standards like homogenous Japan is.
England also has unique problems that don't translate well in this debate.
Americans need to be free to own fire arms for reasons only found in America because America is unique. (I don't mean unique in a bragging sort of way I mean it as a plain statement of fact).
The Artful Dodger now packs heat. He doesn’t have to rely on Dirty Bill any more.
This is almost certainly what it comes down to. Just like the US, street crime is largely restricted to certain very bad neighbourhoods. They are not the kind of places you would have any reason to visit.