Or anywhere in the UK to accurate.Is there no concealed carry in London? If there was that problem would go away overnight.
Or anywhere in the UK to accurate.Is there no concealed carry in London? If there was that problem would go away overnight.
Murder rate in Arizona per capita: 8.1 / 100,000 inhabitantsWe don't have very many murders anywhere but the inner-urban depressed city areas.
I imagine a person carrying a weapon. He points it to you that are riding a bicycle. The rider stops and say "Wait, I carry a concealed gun". The thug would then go away scared like hell. Problem solved, sure.Or anywhere in the UK to accurate.
Welp, if someone were to pull a gun on me while i was riding my ebike, I'd seriously think they were gonna shoot to kill me.I imagine a person carrying a weapon. He points it to you that are riding a bicycle. The rider stops and say "Wait, I carry a concealed gun". The thug would then go i away scared like hell. Problem solved, sure.
It's not logistically possible. There can never be enough police to defend all the citizens. Heck, they can't even ENFORCE the laws when they have criminals dead to rights.In my opinion (and many studies confirm that) the defense of citizens should not be theirs but the prerogative of the state.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. The fact that this guy was packing heat saved a lot of lives when someone crashed his party and started shooting.If you start with a "non-lethal pepper spray" 1) be sure that it will be used first by thugs (who at that point will have the right to have it), while the poor old lady at risk of having her pension stolen will never be able to make use of it in time against two thugs assaulting her, and 2) you start like this and you end up with people buying weapons of war at the supermarket, because of the "escalation effect".
Yes, I agree. That is long-term thinking though, and politicians cannot be bothered with anything that's not going to get them re-elected in the short term. There has to be a culture where everybody does the right thing just because it's right.I don't know if that reminds you of anything... I would rarther worry about studying what the roots of the problem are and how to reduce it.
In my opinion (and many studies confirm that) the defense of citizens should not be theirs but the prerogative of the state. If you start with a "non-lethal pepper spray" 1) be sure that it will be used first by thugs (who at that point will have the right to have it), while the poor old lady at risk of having her pension stolen will never be able to make use of it in time against two thugs assaulting her, and 2) you start like this and you end up with people buying weapons of war at the supermarket, because of the "escalation effect".
I don't know if that reminds you of anything... I would rarther worry about studying what the roots of the problem are and how to reduce it.
That's just awful, how you are not allowed to defend yourself in the UK. If you had not sprayed him, he would have beaten you up (or tried to) and ran. The police wouldn't have caught him. But since you defended yourself, the police fined you? What happened to the thug? Why do they punish the victims in the UK?Just one note
My Autistic 19 year old was being attacked by a 45 year old thug and had taken cover in a flat with friends (Police were called) he phoned me and I went there armed, with a water gun with some hot sauce and water in, the thug came for me (60) I sprayed him ONLY when he came at me. I was find £200 by the Police.
Even in some cities in the USA, they have penned regulations where you "have an obligation to retreat".Is there more to that story? Why would they fine you? Doesn't make sense.
As a father of 6 kids, and 3 step-children, I know how it feels to have one of them treated badly by a stranger. There is often a strong parental desire to have the enjoyment of dealing with the source of your child's pain. It isn't a rational feeling, but it is a strong feeling.putting aside for a moment the unpleasantness of the situation in which his son and himself have fallen, what I would like to know is why he didn't call the police rather than confronting a criminal, with all the additional risks involved. I guess he had a good reason, but I want to understand why, as his son was safe in a house and there was no emergency involved.
Thanks for the response. I am really glad I don't live in one of those cities or states. For me personally.......I will protect myself....my family...even my friends if threatened.......no law would hinder me from protecting these folks if need be......just the way I roll. .Even in some cities in the USA, they have penned regulations where you "have an obligation to retreat".
If you can possibly get away, and avoid a confrontation, they will fine you should you fail to do so (in those areas).
These restrictive US cities model their regulations off European cities.
The concept seems odd to Americans, but we are already seeing the beginning of them appearing here.
There are 12 states where if you are in your home, and have a gun, and someone breaks in, you have a "duty to retreat".
They are mostly a cluster of Northeastern states.
New York City has under article 35, a duty to retreat, when a threat "could be mitigated by retreating". In other words, you will be punished if you cause harm to a criminal, IF you had the opportunity to retreat (lift your skirt and run away).
A similar clause is why PinHead got in trouble. He arrived with a "device" which indicated an intent to be in a conflict without retreating. As I recall, in the UK, pepper sprays are forbidden. He went to where the "troublesome person" was at, this also showed intent. Now, if he had been walking down a blind alley, and was accosted by the thug (where retreat was not an option), then he could legally act in a more forceful fashion.
When I travel to a less-traditional city, I take the time to review whether they are an obligation to retreat zone. This defines how directly I am allowed to ensure my defense. It is because of regulations like this, which make some people in large cities reticent to get involved when a person is being robbed or assaulted.