The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Scouse · September 9, 2012, 03:36 PM

The element of British laws that I find difficult to understand, is that it is illegal to keep any item for the specific purpose of self defence. As I understand it, that forethought means it is not in the eyes of the law a defensive weapon, but an offensive one, rendering it illegal and its use enough to send you to prison.

That is how I understand it anyway, I would dearly like to be corrected if I have got it wrong. Obviously that makes the PSNI permitting people to legally hold firearms for defence slightly anomalous, but I guess that is a product of local realities.

As for rights to self defence, in theory we have them as much as anyone anywhere in the States, what with the shared origins of the legal systems and principles and all. When in reasonable fear of attack one can use reasonable force to repel it - all the subjectivity of reasonableness aside, it is pretty simple. Problem for us is, we do not have the legal means to effective and ready self defence. The points made about the elderly and infirm are good ones I feel.

As for WebleyMKV's very reasonable comment about ''reasonableness'': I think this is a product of our system and it's differences to your own. The law knows very well what it means by reasonable, and has for centuries because it is a product of precedent e.g. that couple in the farmhouse shooting the two burglars was reasonable, another infamous case about a decade ago when a burglar was killed (with an illegally held shotgun this time) and another maimed (in a way that would send shivers down the spine of every man who has ever lived, if you catch my drift, though that is entirely beside the point) with evidence of concerted attempts to kill as they retreated was not reasonable. In practice, that it is not written down is not a problem, though I can see why in theory it would be. Obviously this can change and it is not as strong a protection as rights enumerated in a codified constitution but the way things work here produces moderation in politics and law, sometimes that is good, sometimes bad, but it is how it is.

When it comes to pubs on every corner, not sure that is anything to do with guilt.

September 9, 2012, 03:36 PM	#23
Scouse Senior Member Join Date: June 9, 2011 Posts: 133	The element of British laws that I find difficult to understand, is that it is illegal to keep any item for the specific purpose of self defence. As I understand it, that forethought means it is not in the eyes of the law a defensive weapon, but an offensive one, rendering it illegal and its use enough to send you to prison. That is how I understand it anyway, I would dearly like to be corrected if I have got it wrong. Obviously that makes the PSNI permitting people to legally hold firearms for defence slightly anomalous, but I guess that is a product of local realities. As for rights to self defence, in theory we have them as much as anyone anywhere in the States, what with the shared origins of the legal systems and principles and all. When in reasonable fear of attack one can use reasonable force to repel it - all the subjectivity of reasonableness aside, it is pretty simple. Problem for us is, we do not have the legal means to effective and ready self defence. The points made about the elderly and infirm are good ones I feel. As for WebleyMKV's very reasonable comment about ''reasonableness'': I think this is a product of our system and it's differences to your own. The law knows very well what it means by reasonable, and has for centuries because it is a product of precedent e.g. that couple in the farmhouse shooting the two burglars was reasonable, another infamous case about a decade ago when a burglar was killed (with an illegally held shotgun this time) and another maimed (in a way that would send shivers down the spine of every man who has ever lived, if you catch my drift, though that is entirely beside the point) with evidence of concerted attempts to kill as they retreated was not reasonable. In practice, that it is not written down is not a problem, though I can see why in theory it would be. Obviously this can change and it is not as strong a protection as rights enumerated in a codified constitution but the way things work here produces moderation in politics and law, sometimes that is good, sometimes bad, but it is how it is. When it comes to pubs on every corner, not sure that is anything to do with guilt.