Posted on 06/03/2015 4:03:28 AM PDT by HomerBohn
British citizens seeking advice on what’s legal to use for self-defense found some answers at www.askthe.police.uk, a website sponsored and operated by the government’s Police National Legal Database.
Question 589: Are there any legal self-defence products that I can buy?
Answer: The only fully legal self-defence product … is a rape alarm.
There may be other products, according to the website, but they haven’t been fully tested and “if you purchase one you must be aware … there is always the possibility that you will arrested and detained until the product, its contents and legality, can be verified.”
In an effort to reduce any anxiety, the website goes on to point out that any product a British citizen purchases, other than a rape alarm, “must not be a product which is made to cause a person injury. Possession of such a product in public (and in private in specific circumstances) is against the law.”
It offers some suggestions, along with a disclaimer. A British citizen may use a squirt bottle filled with a safe but brightly colored dye that may help police find and apprehend a criminal after the attack has been successfully completed. But, says the website, a citizen “should be aware that even a seemingly safe product … would become an offensive weapon [if] it would be used in a way that is intended to cause injury.”
And, the disclaimer: “The above advice is given in good faith. You must make your own decision and this website cannot be held responsible for the consequences of the possession, use or misuse of any self defence product," with the exception, of course, of a rape alarm.
This is not someone’s idea of a bad joke, or a parody. Readers may verify the veracity on their own by going here: https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q589.htm
The National Rifle Association (NRA), when it learned of the presence of the website and its response to the question about self-defense products that are legal to own in Great Britain, confirmed “that British subjects continue to live at the mercy of their potential attackers.” It reads, says the NRA, like an appeal for victims to graciously suffer criminal violence while removing “any remaining vestiges of the traditional right to self-defense.”
Real people have experienced the absurdity of such rules being enforced with diligence across the country. Three knife-wielding burglars [guns are illegal in England] invaded a home in England, tied up the family members and threatened to kill the father. One of the members managed to escape and get help. The family member and the helper returned and inflicted permanent brain damage on one of burglars — a criminal, by the way, with more than 50 previous convictions — using a cricket bat. Authorities arrested the defendants — the victims — and sent them to prison for more than two years. The attacker? He escaped punishment.
A well-known television personality was sitting at her kitchen table with her daughter one evening when she caught several young men peering through the kitchen window. Looking around for something to defend herself and her daughter from imminent attack, she found — oh, no! — a kitchen knife and waved it in front of them, chasing them away. Hertfordshire police arrived at the scene and informed her that the knife was an “offensive weapon” and therefore was illegal. She avoided being arrested, but the Sunday Telegraph explained: “She was not looking to be a vigilante … but ... police explained to her that even if you’re at home alone and you have an intruder, you are not allowed to protect yourself.”
There are precious few Hollywood actors who see the absurdity of such laws, but one of them, Vince Vaughn (The Internship, The Watch, Couples Retreat) was interviewed by the British version of GQ Magazine:
I support people having a gun in public … not just in your home. We don’t have the right to bear arms because of burglars; we have the right to bear arms to resist the supreme power of a corrupt and abusive government. It’s not about duck hunting: it’s about the ability of the individual. It’s the same reason we have the freedom of speech.
It’s well known that the greatest defense against an intruder is the sound of a gun [being cocked].
Since 1979, International Living magazine has offered people advice on where to live if they are looking for alternatives to where they are. “Retiring abroad has never been more attractive,” says its website, and among the 25 countries on its list are places with great climate, excellent and inexpensive healthcare, modest living costs “and more.” American citizens observing the changes that appear to be making the United States more and more like England may be tempted to subscribe to International Living for advice.
Economist Gary North, on his members-only website, is often asked the same question, with variations: Where would you go if you were looking to get out of the country, Gary? North outlined his list of requirements:
A country that collects no more than 20 percent of its GDP in taxes.
A country where foreigners are trying to get in.
A country with English as the common language.
A country with a common law tradition.
A country where an entrepreneur can start a business in one day.
A country with a highly developed system of roads.
A country where cartoons lampooning politicians and their policies are not only legal but welcomed.
A country where home schooling is legal.
A country where police on the streets do not carry machine guns.
A country with no history of military coups.
Despite its problems and threats to liberty that appear to be mounting on a daily basis, America is still a pretty nice place to live, especially compared to Great Britain.
The US is trying to do the same thing. I’ll go to jail for defending myself and others if I have to. I don’t need the elite’s permission to survive in the chaotic society they have created with the open border, cultural cleansing and fouled up criminal justice system.
They can murder me if they don’t like it and they can get away with it.
Not this again.
Self defence in the UK is legal. Guns are legal.
Bad gun laws aside, there are still 2.3m legal guns in the UK.
Perhaps if you read myself and the other British freepers, you will see that this headline isn’t true.
Martin, Tony Martin.
The judge deemed (wrongly imo) that he exceeded self defence, as they were 100 yards away and running away.
Sorry, my Canuck friend, you are wrong. A UK homwowner a couple of years ago killed the burglar, and he was perfectly entitled under UK law to do so.
There is a lot of myth and outright rubbish talked in the US about UK self defence and/or guns.
As long as people in the US inc on FR keep telling lies and myth, then yes, I will be here to give the actual facts about the UK, in this case, self-defence. You will also notice other UK freepers do the same, I assume we are all in denial?. Or maybe as actual Brits, we actually KNOW the law better than some US blogger/writer and Freepers.
Maybe because I read every UK thread on FR. Usually to correct crap like this.
The writer says that the only self defence product allowed is a rape alarm. WRONG.
He has BADLY misunderstood that to mean that’s the only weapon allowed. WRONG.
What it ACTUALLY means is that the alarm is the only personal self defence weapon you can buy on the high street. It DOSENT mean its the only self defence item allowed in the UK. Mr Adelmann has got it badly wrong.
BUT you can still defend yourself in the UK with ANYTHING!. Including a gun (as long as its legal), or knife, sword, baseball bat, cricket bat, kitchen knife, anything to hand.
I KNOW this issue, as I did so in 2008. Baseball bat and fists. Ironic as I am a UK gun owner. LOL.
And got nothing but praise from police and the trial judge (junkie burglar got 44months, now serving six to eight years for attempted murder just weeks after release!)
I was replying to the reference BigCinBigD made to an old Mothy Python’s Flying Circus skit.
My wife is a great fan of British mystery and police TV shows. Whenever I watch one with her, I cannot help but get the impression a gun is a no no in Britain. Practically no good guy civilians are ever shown with a gun, unless a shotgun sporting event.
So when I read an article headlined as we are discussing here, I totally believe it.
Thank you for the correction, which prompted me to read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom
Which says in part: “Semi-auto shotguns are legal.[15] All other rifles and their ammunition are permitted with no limits as to magazine size, to include: target shooting, hunting, and historic and muzzle-loading weapons, as well as long barrelled breachloading pistols with a specific overall length, but not for self-defence; however if a home-owner is threatened they may be used in self-defence, so long as the force is reasonable.[16]”
Based on what I read at that site, most of my collection would be illegal in Britain. And unless I lived in Ireland, I probably could not have a concealed permit.
Do they mean a reasonable fear of death, injury, whatever?
Or are they referring to the force used itself?
Sorry, but I didn’t write this piece...
You guys will be laughed at out here until you decide to man-up a bit and stop having a bunch of gun-hating, man-hating women running things there.
Show a bit of your past, please.
Badass, you’d have to ask the scotsman that.
All I did was read wiki about British gun laws which verified his statement about self defense.
Keep in mind wiki is often no more accurate than the news stories we all comment on here at FR.
It would be interesting to hear the definition of “reasonable force”.
That’s still a drop in the bucket compared to the entirety of the population. It is outrageous said laws are allowed to stand. Utterly frightening. Government should fear the people, people should not be fearful of their government.
Fear of the government? A rare, indeed virtually unknown sentiment here in the UK.
Maybe it is by U.S. standards, but it's still as large number as it ever has been. Even before any restrictions handgun ownership, as a conventional item of domestic equipment for the defence of person or property, was never widespread in Britain. Britons have only been interested in guns for two purposees, sport and vermin control.The guns suitable for these purposes - shotguns and various classes of rifle - were the only kinds of gun widely owned: and since they've never been banned, they remain so (particularly with the growing popularity of countryside shooting sports). By contrast handgun ownership was always very small - sold mostly to army officers at a time (up to WW1) when they were still required to provide their own personal weapons, or to men going to work abroad, especially in the wilder reaches of the Empire. The number of legally-owned handguns which had to be surrendered after the post-Dunblane ban was therefore tiny by U.S. standards - some few tens of thousands, as I remember. The notion that Britons were suddenly 'disarmed' in their millions is a bit of a myth.
We’re too busy laughing at ours.
Actually, it’s vermin control that I’m concerned about... of the two-legged variety.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.