Legal Weapons

jackyann

I think that the main issue is possibly not the legality - but the likelihood of getting badly injured whilst using the implement.

It is unfortunate that Barnacle Bill's wife was unable to get the help she needed. However, I picked up on OP's comment that his wife had specific reason to be concerned - with specific threats having been made. The police will (in my experience) treat this very differently from a general concern.

phil24_7

stator wrote: »

You missed the point. The police were carrying them not because they are good torches but because they were big and heavy and metal and hence good weapons. Even when provided with a better, lighter torch, they still used the old mag lites because they like to have a weapon. So they had to ban the officers from carrying them at all.

Can't see it myself. They are provided with firearms for serious stuff, mace for the next level down and a very formidable baton for all other occasions. Why would they need a heavy unwieldy torch when the baton is so damn good?

phil24_7

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

With a can of pepper spray, a baton, taser, 9mm hand gun and shot gun or assault rifle they still need a makeshift weapon? Link please then.

It seems great minds think alike...yours just works earlier than mine!

phil24_7

prowla wrote: »

Oh, as for guns, you are not allowed them for self-defence in England. Even if you do have one legally (there is a procedure to go through to obtain an FAC, and self defence is not acceptable as a reason), you have to keep it unloaded in a locked cabinet which is fixed to a wall and with the ammunition in a separate locked cabinet; that makes it pretty useless in the circumstance of a break-in, unless you said to the assailants "'scuse me while I just squeeze past you so that I can go and unlock my cabinet to get my gun and then would you mind while I unlock the other one to get the ammo out and load it - thanks awfully!".

You can get some muzzle-loading things "off-ticket", but they are a faff.

The only option firearm-wise, then is something illegal, and in that case you're breaking a more severe law than the real or imaginary miscreants you are protecting yourself against. So I wouldn't even go there.

Even if you were armed, you would have to carry it with you at all times in order to be sure that you had it if you needed it, and if the person was already in the house and sneaked up on you, then it'd do you no good.

You could try an air pistol, which has enough power to at least break the skin, but they can be unreliable (eg. gas cylinders can leak over time), so that would not really fit the bill.

I think a crossbow is legal & unlicensed, but I am damn sure I would not want a loaded crossbow lying around the house. And again there is the space issue.

Indeed, the risk with any weapon is what happens if a curious kid or friend picks it up, and ooops!

I hear what your saying about guns but there have been 2 very high profile cases in the UK where firearms have been used to defend against an intruder and 1 where someone chased after a burglar with a cricket bat and beat him. All are walking free among us!

Silver-Surfer_2

phil24_7 wrote: »

Can't see it myself. They are provided with firearms for serious stuff, mace for the next level down and a very formidable baton for all other occasions. Why would they need a heavy unwieldy torch when the baton is so damn good?

Incapacitants such as mace and pepper spray aren't the next step diwn to a firearm. They are a lesser threat to the suspect than a baton, so you'd need to swap 2 & 3 to be correct.

phil24_7

I beg to differ. Mace is used to disable a 'perp' at close range and is usually used for threat that they do not feel can be dealt with with a baton alone. A baton wont incapacitate like mace will...just hurt like hell!

Silver-Surfer_2

phil24_7 wrote: »

I beg to differ. Mace is used to disable a 'perp' at close range and is usually used for threat that they do not feel can be dealt with with a baton alone. A baton wont incapacitate like mace will...just hurt like hell!

Mace won't break bones or kill you if sprayed on a red are. Trust me CS and pepper spay are ideally used before a baton in the uk.

Maybe they told you different when you were last trained?

phil24_7

Not been trained. Have been hit with a bat or two and they hurt but didn't incapacitate me...I would hate to be maced, it is similar to curry powder which I have had thrown in my eyes. It temporarily blinds you and hurts like mad for a few hours from what I have heard!!!

Silver-Surfer_2

phil24_7 wrote: »

Not been trained. Have been hit with a bat or two and they hurt but didn't incapacitate me...I would hate to be maced, it is similar to curry powder which I have had thrown in my eyes. It temporarily blinds you and hurts like mad for a few hours from what I have heard!!!

I've seen a few broken bones from baton strikes but no lasting effects from being sprayed of tasered. Maybe broken bones don't hurt you, I can't say a shock from a taser is that painful.

phil24_7

So by that reasoning tasers (a firearm) should be used before batons too?

Lasting affects aside, a taser or mace will take someone...anyone down instantly where as a baton wont.

I would think when deciding what to use the officer would think about the risk of injury to themselves first, not the risk of injury to the suspect?