• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gunman kills several in west Cumbria

Jetboogie...

It has been pointed out repeatedly, including by me, that ALMOST ALL mass-murders in the USA occur in places where citizens are forbidden to carry personal firearms.

If you didn't know better, why, you'd think the crazies TARGET people in places where they won't be armed...
 
England and Wales have far fewer minorities than the United States, too. Just pointing out a fact.

My point, you ask? You're comparing the whitest country in the world to the most diverse country in the world. Not a very honest comparison, IMO.

Seriously.. the race card............
 
Seriously.. the race card............

Whats the murder rate in Africa? How about the murder rate in Mexico? Rio de Janeiro has the highest murder rate in the world. The intent of the post I responded to was to imply: Europeans good. Americans bad. I was only pointing out the facts to dispute that implication. If that stings a little too much for you, then I apologize. However, remember your complaint the next time you use, "white", to describe persons's actions you disagree with.
 
I wasn't sure if Adpst knew what he was talking about, regarding a racial comparison of murder rates, so I decided to do some research.

FBI report on murders in the USA:


Offenders
The data for 2004 concerning the murders for which the offenders were known showed that 91.7 percent of the offenders were adults and 8.3 percent were juveniles. A breakdown of the data by gender showed that 90.1 percent of the offenders were male and 9.9 percent were female. In homicides where the race of the offender was known, 50.0 percent were black, 47.6 percent were white, and 2.4 percent were other races. (Based on Table 2.5.) Data from single victim/single offender incidents showed that 92.2 percent of black victims were murdered by black offenders, and 84.8 percent of white victims were murdered by white offenders. (Based on Table 2.7.)
Murder - Crime in the United States 2004


Racial breakdown of America:

Race and Hispanic or Latino origin Percentage Number
White alone....... 75.0%....... 228.2 million
Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, of any race ......15.4%....... 46.9 million
Black or African American alone ........12.4% .........37.6 million
Some other race alone ........4.9%....... 15.0 million
Asian alone ............4.4% ........13.4 million
Two or more races ..........2.3% ..........7.0 million
American Indian or Alaska Native alone........ 0.8% ......2.4 million
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander alone......... 0.14%..... 0.43 million

Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So in effect, 50% of murders are committed, according to FBI stats, by an ethnic group that is 12% of the general population. I should note at this point that I really hate pointing this out because it may sound racist (and I'm not)...but facts are facts. However, there could certainly be other factors not directly related to race that affect these numbers, like poverty, lack of education, involvement in gangs and drug trafficking, etc.


Racial breakdown of England:

Ethnic group 2001 population 2001 percentage 2007 population 2007 percentage
White ............. 44,679,361 .............90.92%...................45,082,900................ 88.2%
Asian or Asian British 2,248,289............4.58%.................... 2,914,900 ..............5.7%
Black or Black British 1,132,508 ............2.30% .................1,447,900 .................2.8%
Mixed ...................643,373 .................1.31% ..................870,000................... 1.7%
Chinese, including British Chinese 220,681 0.45% 400,300 0.8%
Other 214,619 0.44% 376,100 0.7%

Demography of England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The most recent murder rate for England I can find is 1.37 (per 100k).
For Europe as a whole, the murder rate is 5.4, for western/central Europe 1.5
The most recent murder rate for USA I can find is 5.4, which is the same as Europe-as-a-whole.

47% of those murders in America are committed by caucasians.... so the "white murder rate" in the US is roughly 2.6, which is lower than Europe-as-a-whole, about 1.7x that of Wester/Central Europe, not quite double England. It is worth noting that the murder rate for caucasian Americans is less than 1/14th of the world's top rate, which is southern Africa, as noted below.

So America's "white murder rate" is still much higher than England's and Western Europe's, but lower than Europe as a whole. The picture that is emerging looks more like poverty is the prime factor than race, even though the raw numbers point to a vastly higher murder rates among nonwhites...


Now, here's a list of homicide rates for various international regions, from a different source...

Intentional homicide rates per 100,000 population by region and subregion, 2004[6] Rate
Southern Africa 37.3
Central America 29.3
South America 25.9
West and Central Africa 21.6
East Africa 20.8
Africa 20
Caribbean 18.1
Americas 16.2
East Europe 8.1
North Africa 7.6
World 7.6
North America 6.5
Central Asia and Transcaucasian countries 6.6
Europe 5.4
Near and Middle East/South-west Asia 4.4
Oceania 4
South Asia 3.4

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you'll notice, the top rate is 37.3 in southern Africa.

North America is 6.5 and Europe is 5.4.... comparatively speaking not a lot of difference.

The single most common theme seems to be: those places with the most abject poverty and primitive living conditions, are the same places where murder rates are highest.
A secondary factor could be conjectured from American stats, namely that ethnic groups with the worst rates of poverty, drug use and trafficking and gang involvement are where the worst murder rates are found also.
"Gun control" does not really appear to be a substantial factor, not when comparing the vast differnces that exist in various regions.

Make of it what you will, I suppose.
 
Goshin's sources are essentially correct, there has been for a long while a right (this time written as in our original "Bill of Rights") but the 1953 Prevention of Crime Act is generally cited as making the carrying of any object for the purpose of self-defence a criminal offence.

This means things like pepper spray which a woman could carry in her handbag to ward off a rapist is illegal and she could be prosecuted - even if she somehow exercised her right to self defence. What we have is one right to self defence but on the other hand severe restrictions on how we might protect ourselves - i.e. we aren't allowed to carry anything that could be used for self defence...

I can remember hearing about someone being arrested for carrying pepper spray which I agree is ridiculous - unless of course they use it for some other reason.

I lived at Kings X for a while. I went on a short woman's self defence course called 'Stand Your Ground. It was only 10 weeks long but helped you to get over ideas you might have of being scared to respond and in the ten weeks (1 day a week) taught you all the vulnerable parts of the body and that you should always give a follow up. I have never had to use this but I was no longer scared after the course and I still remember some of the things - like how to get a knife off someone, 30 years later.




I recognise I'm in a minority - however as I pointed out above the law puts us in a quandary - you are allowed to protect yourself in an attack but you aren't allowed the means to do so. I strongly believe in an educated populace - this might include what the Swiss do and require everyone to have yearly re-training with their weapons. Equally and without meaning to insult the US posters, Canada is a very good example where there is almost as high gun ownership as in the US but has far less incidents. I'm not entirely sure why - I haven't looked at it in great depth.

The UK had pretty high gun ownership until the 1953 act that began to erode gun ownership - I can find no "Dunblane" or "Hungerford" or now "Whitehaven" type incidents in the UK before 1953 - I don't know if the people who went out and shot so many would have done if there had been greater gun ownership among the populace. I don't know if the evil men who perpetrated the horrors would have been put off knowing that UK citizens they encountered could protect themselves.

I DO know that these three incidents happened after the 1953 act. I'm not theorising - just commenting.

Yes, well I think on this one I was influenced by my parents. They did not want the police to have guns and obviously if civilians generally own them then the police will too. I just like not having guns.

I live in a small village and can go out and leave my door open so if there was to be any gun crime here it surely would be one of these people who have temporarily lost their marbles.

Apart from not wanting everyone to own them and hence not have the police carrying them, personally I don't have a serious interest so don't keep up with laws......but as for changes since '53 and why we had no mad shootings then, my guess would be that it was a different world, most people did not even have a tv so they needed something to do and that something was more often than not making friends with those around - something good to fall back on in hard times.

Portillo was talking the other night about the quick and not so good legislation put through after Dunblane but he did also say that the reality is that these sort of things do happen more often where people have more access to guns, Switzerland and Canada possibly being exceptions.

It seems to be access to guns plus society.

My brother shot me in the foot with an air rifle when I was a child - possibly another reason I don't like them. ;)
 
Whats the murder rate in Africa?

What is the poverty rate?

How about the murder rate in Mexico?

What is the poverty rate?

Rio de Janeiro has the highest murder rate in the world.

Again where in Rio do most of these murders happen? And the highest murder rate is in Joburg in South Africa last I heard if you say that Baghdad is a war zone.. if not, it is Baghdad.

The intent of the post I responded to was to imply: Europeans good. Americans bad.

And you threw in the race card to explain and defend the pathetic US statistics. It is not the first time you do this if I remember right. There was a debate about child mortality rates and I believe it was you or American or one of those types that automatically threw out the race card.

I was only pointing out the facts to dispute that implication.

What fact? That poor people tend to commit more crimes including murder? Oh what a shocker! See how easy it is to avoid the race card? Your "facts" are the usual race based right wing fear mongering crap we see on a daily basis on these boards and in the US mass media. The murder and crime rate among American with a dark skin is not because they have a dark skin, but because of the poverty said persons grow up in, the racism that keeps them in that poverty generation after generation and a justice system that does not exactly favour poor people.

If that stings a little too much for you, then I apologize. However, remember your complaint the next time you use, "white", to describe persons's actions you disagree with.

It does not sting me one bit, since it is you that makes a fool of yourself in a flawed attempt to defend your countries pathetic record in the western industrialized world on crime and murder statistics. Using race as an excuse is the absolute low blow of epic proportions.. why not use the jew card instead as much sense as the race card.
 
I wasn't sure if Adpst knew what he was talking about, regarding a racial comparison of murder rates, so I decided to do some research.

FBI report on murders in the USA:

Murder - Crime in the United States 2004

Racial breakdown of America:

Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So in effect, 50% of murders are committed, according to FBI stats, by an ethnic group that is 12% of the general population. I should note at this point that I really hate pointing this out because it may sound racist (and I'm not)...but facts are facts. However, there could certainly be other factors not directly related to race that affect these numbers, like poverty, lack of education, involvement in gangs and drug trafficking, etc.

Racial breakdown of England:

Demography of England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The most recent murder rate for England I can find is 1.37 (per 100k).
For Europe as a whole, the murder rate is 5.4, for western/central Europe 1.5
The most recent murder rate for USA I can find is 5.4, which is the same as Europe-as-a-whole.

47% of those murders in America are committed by caucasians.... so the "white murder rate" in the US is roughly 2.6, which is lower than Europe-as-a-whole, about 1.7x that of Wester/Central Europe, not quite double England. It is worth noting that the murder rate for caucasian Americans is less than 1/14th of the world's top rate, which is southern Africa, as noted below.

So America's "white murder rate" is still much higher than England's and Western Europe's, but lower than Europe as a whole. The picture that is emerging looks more like poverty is the prime factor than race, even though the raw numbers point to a vastly higher murder rates among nonwhites...

Err, now wait a minute. First off European countries do not do their statistics according to race, so it is impossible to compare. Secondly, you say Europe as one large entity. It is not. Every country has different laws and punishments for crimes, unlike in the US where the law is pretty much uniform across the country for most crimes. Hence any comparison has to be between individual countries in Europe and the US.

Oh and the murder rate you were looking at was for England and Wales.. not the whole country.. that stands at 2.03... yea the Northern Irish and Scots are blood thirsty bunch.

Now, here's a list of homicide rates for various international regions, from a different source...

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you'll notice, the top rate is 37.3 in southern Africa.

North America is 6.5 and Europe is 5.4.... comparatively speaking not a lot of difference.

Actually these statistics mean jack ****. For one.. North America has 3 major countries. US, Canada and Mexico. Canada's murder rate is very very low, the US is so so and Mexico's are very high. Mexico´s high rate skews it way up and then Canadas low rate takes it down considerably. The same goes for Europe. European numbers include a few countries that have massively high murder rates and a huge majority of countries that have very low murder rates. Again, comparing countries individually is the only way to go.

The single most common theme seems to be: those places with the most abject poverty and primitive living conditions, are the same places where murder rates are highest.

Yes and that has nothing to do with race... and yet again it is not exactly right. Morrocco, Sengal, Vietnam and others are all are poor countries with low murder rates. So it is not the only factor. Culture and sadly religion also have a big impact. And then there comes reporting.. for example in India there are hundreds of thousands of "kitchen fires" that kill women each year.. they are honour killings but are registered as accidents.

A secondary factor could be conjectured from American stats, namely that ethnic groups with the worst rates of poverty, drug use and trafficking and gang involvement are where the worst murder rates are found also.

Still has nothing to do with the colour of their skin. It is a poverty issue and social/cultural issue. Using race is nothing but a lame excuse to avoid dealing with the real issues leading to the problem.
 
I can remember hearing about someone being arrested for carrying pepper spray which I agree is ridiculous - unless of course they use it for some other reason.

You can be arrested for carrying pepper spray/CS and charged under section 5 of the firearms act 1968 including any other gas canister or self defence method regardless of whatever excuse you give to the police. If the spray was used on a rapist or attacker and he suffered eye injuries, you could be arrested for serious assault or if he had asthma and it was induced, manslaughter.

There is no way around it, only other "legal" (read: legislators has not gotten round to banning them yet) alternatives and because the use of them haven't been challenged in court yet, until they are I wouldn't carry it around. The only legal self defence product that can be accessed is a rape alarm, like a whistle :roll:
 
Last edited:
You can be arrested for carrying pepper spray/CS and charged under section 5 of the firearms act 1968 including any other gas canister or self defence method regardless of whatever excuse you give to the police. If the spray was used on a rapist or attacker and he suffered eye injuries, you could be arrested for serious assault or if he had asthma and it was induced, manslaughter.

There is no way around it, only other "legal" (read: legislators has not gotten round to banning them yet) alternatives and because the use of them haven't been challenged in court yet, until they are I wouldn't carry it around. The only legal self defence product that can be accessed is a rape alarm, like a whistle :roll:

Although I was surprised at the time - and pepper spray was a new invention when I was a young women, I guess the problem is that any old toe-rag can get their hands on it and so use it simply for violence.

As far as whistles, on my self defence course I was told not to call for help as most people become afraid and ignore but better to call 'Fire!' which is more likely to get people out to see what is happening.

I know under UK Law you can use sufficient force necessary for self defence, up to killing the person if that is needed.

I would always advise girls to go on self defence courses. I think it is really important to be a ble to protect yourself. Possibly even more so for boys. That being said, my daughter refused to go.
 
You can be arrested for carrying pepper spray/CS and charged under section 5 of the firearms act 1968 including any other gas canister or self defence method regardless of whatever excuse you give to the police. If the spray was used on a rapist or attacker and he suffered eye injuries, you could be arrested for serious assault or if he had asthma and it was induced, manslaughter.

There is no way around it, only other "legal" (read: legislators has not gotten round to banning them yet) alternatives and because the use of them haven't been challenged in court yet, until they are I wouldn't carry it around. The only legal self defence product that can be accessed is a rape alarm, like a whistle :roll:

That is truly appalling.


Although I was surprised at the time - and pepper spray was a new invention when I was a young women, I guess the problem is that any old toe-rag can get their hands on it and so use it simply for violence.

As far as whistles, on my self defence course I was told not to call for help as most people become afraid and ignore but better to call 'Fire!' which is more likely to get people out to see what is happening.

I know under UK Law you can use sufficient force necessary for self defence, up to killing the person if that is needed.

I would always advise girls to go on self defence courses. I think it is really important to be a ble to protect yourself. Possibly even more so for boys. That being said, my daughter refused to go.


And yet, addressing the bolded sentence first, you are denied the use of any effective tools in defending yourself. It is a reasonably good bet that if the attacker intends to do you serious harm, he will likely have a knife or cudgel, but you can't even carry pepperspray. :roll:
So you can kill him if you have to, but you can't use anything but your bare hands. :doh

Addressing the self-defense courses.... this is a good thing, everyone should take these.... but understand that their utility is limited. Professional MMA fighters have gotten themselves killed going up against armed thugs, even
though they train intensively as a full-time profession.

A serious-amateur martial artist (trains 4 hours a week for 4 years, say) might handle ONE typical unarmed thug
readily enough, (if the MA he trains in is practical), but add weapons or multiple attackers and his chances drop like a rock down a well.

A short-course in self-defense... well if you are attacked by one unarmed thug who underestimates you and isn't
all that tough, and doesn't have serious fighting skills on his own.... you might manage to escape... maybe.

Another problem is that the quality and practicality of these courses vary a great deal. I've spent some time teaching short-course self-defense (SCSD) to small groups, and evaluating other SCSD programs for
merit... and there is more horse-manure than gold nuggets out there. Some of these SCSD progs are worse
than useless; most are mediocre at best; a relative few are gold-star quality.

If you have no prior experience in dealing with real-world violence, your ability to judge the quality of the training
you are receiving is going to be somewhat limited.

A good course should spend a great deal of time on the subjects of security proceedures (locks, alarms, habits),
awareness and avoidance (indicators of criminal behaviors or intent, observation and avoidance of same),
how crime develops and the stages it passes through, tactical considerations, and dealing with the aftermath.

In the physical, a roughly equal amount of time should be spent on how to not get hit, striking vital points
(mostly with your hands or knees, kicks should be low), and how to escape from various holds and chokes.

Weapons disarms are a tricky subject. I've tried teaching disarms to people with no martial-arts background
before and it usually doesn't work out that well. They get the general idea, or to be more precise they learn
the rote-technique... but it takes more than that to pull it off in real life in most cases. Most people who
are not at least serious-amateur MAists seem to lack the attributes (speed, precision, complex-movement-coordination) to manage disarms very well in realistic scenarios.

Well, anyway, that's my two bits, and I teach this stuff...

If that's how you all want it, it's not my country so it isn't my place to say, but rather to just wish you good luck with it.

If you can't even carry pepperspray it sounds like you need all the luck you can get.
 
And yet, addressing the bolded sentence first, you are denied the use of any effective tools in defending yourself. It is a reasonably good bet that if the attacker intends to do you serious harm, he will likely have a knife or cudgel, but you can't even carry pepperspray. :roll:
So you can kill him if you have to, but you can't use anything but your bare hands. :doh

Addressing the self-defense courses.... this is a good thing, everyone should take these.... but understand that their utility is limited. Professional MMA fighters have gotten themselves killed going up against armed thugs, even
though they train intensively as a full-time profession.

A serious-amateur martial artist (trains 4 hours a week for 4 years, say) might handle ONE typical unarmed thug
readily enough, (if the MA he trains in is practical), but add weapons or multiple attackers and his chances drop like a rock down a well.

A short-course in self-defense... well if you are attacked by one unarmed thug who underestimates you and isn't
all that tough, and doesn't have serious fighting skills on his own.... you might manage to escape... maybe.

Another problem is that the quality and practicality of these courses vary a great deal. I've spent some time teaching short-course self-defense (SCSD) to small groups, and evaluating other SCSD programs for
merit... and there is more horse-manure than gold nuggets out there. Some of these SCSD progs are worse
than useless; most are mediocre at best; a relative few are gold-star quality.

If you have no prior experience in dealing with real-world violence, your ability to judge the quality of the training
you are receiving is going to be somewhat limited.

A good course should spend a great deal of time on the subjects of security proceedures (locks, alarms, habits),
awareness and avoidance (indicators of criminal behaviors or intent, observation and avoidance of same),
how crime develops and the stages it passes through, tactical considerations, and dealing with the aftermath.

In the physical, a roughly equal amount of time should be spent on how to not get hit, striking vital points
(mostly with your hands or knees, kicks should be low), and how to escape from various holds and chokes.

Weapons disarms are a tricky subject. I've tried teaching disarms to people with no martial-arts background
before and it usually doesn't work out that well. They get the general idea, or to be more precise they learn
the rote-technique... but it takes more than that to pull it off in real life in most cases. Most people who
are not at least serious-amateur MAists seem to lack the attributes (speed, precision, complex-movement-coordination) to manage disarms very well in realistic scenarios.

Well, anyway, that's my two bits, and I teach this stuff...

If that's how you all want it, it's not my country so it isn't my place to say, but rather to just wish you good luck with it.

If you can't even carry pepperspray it sounds like you need all the luck you can get.

Actually I am aware that the course I went on was very good and that I was very fortunate to find it = one of the reasons my daughter did not go on one. It dealt with both the psychological area - ways of disarming the person by saying the unexpected for instance as well as breaking thfough our dislike of hurting.

The techniques were very good. It certainly was sufficient for me and the woman who taught it believed people learnt more on how to actually protect themselves on this short course than in several years of study on occasions.

For most people meeting most people a course of that calibre is sufficient. If I had been confronted by the SAS I might have had problems and now my arthritis presents the same.

Likewise for most people the likelihood of needing a gun is so minuscule as imo not being worth all the accidental deaths both by the police and the public which would no doubt ensue.

Yes, for personal empowerment I would recommend a good self defence course though I would agree that finding such a course might not be so easy.

Also mine recommended not just getting yourself free but doing something after to disable the attacker for 5 minutes or so....might there be a conflict as to this being necessary if you did it a bit hard and caused harm, don't know but the important thing is that this course got me through my emotional conflict of worrying about such a thing in such a situation.

(I never would have done the one poking the eyes though! :shock:

If you can't even carry pepperspray it sounds like you need all the luck you can get.

My guess would be that this is due to misuse. When I was a teenager before the stuff was invented I used to carry pepper when I was hitch hiking.
 
Actually I am aware that the course I went on was very good and that I was very fortunate to find it = one of the reasons my daughter did not go on one. It dealt with both the psychological area - ways of disarming the person by saying the unexpected for instance as well as breaking thfough our dislike of hurting.

The techniques were very good. It certainly was sufficient for me and the woman who taught it believed people learnt more on how to actually protect themselves on this short course than in several years of study on occasions.

For most people meeting most people a course of that calibre is sufficient. If I had been confronted by the SAS I might have had problems and now my arthritis presents the same.



Yes, for personal empowerment I would recommend a good self defence course though I would agree that finding such a course might not be so easy.

Also mine recommended not just getting yourself free but doing something after to disable the attacker for 5 minutes or so....might there be a conflict as to this being necessary if you did it a bit hard and caused harm, don't know but the important thing is that this course got me through my emotional conflict of worrying about such a thing in such a situation.

(I never would have done the one poking the eyes though! :shock:

As best I can tell from a secondhand account, it sounds like the course was ok. One thing I tell my SCSD students is that they need ongoing practice if they expect to be able to use what I teach them in a sudden, emotionally traumatic attack. Something you did once twenty years ago may not stick with you well enough in such a situation, really.

I've noted that a lot of people are very squeamish about "poking someone in the eye". I go further than that; I teach how to remove the eyeball entirely. :cool: Invariably someone shudders and says "I could never do that". My reply is that if the chap intends to rape you with a broken bottle then strangle you with your own stockings and leave your naked and bleeding corpse on the street, you might think otherwise.

Close-quarters unarmed combat, in a life-or-death situation, isn't pretty and it isn't at all civilized. I've done it and it is just as ugly as any gunshot wound.

Likewise for most people the likelihood of needing a gun is so minuscule as imo not being worth all the accidental deaths both by the police and the public which would no doubt ensue.

I have my doubts about that. In the USA, accidental gunshot deaths are relatively small and have been in decline for half a century. Self-defense uses, even by the most conservative of estimates, outnumber accidental deaths by at least 50 to 1. But, as I say... it is your country, do what you will. Not my call.

Good Lord, though, you'd think they'd at least let you have pepperspray, of all things.

My guess would be that this is due to misuse. When I was a teenager before the stuff was invented I used to carry pepper when I was hitch hiking.

:shrug: In America, we don't believe in banning a product because some small minority might misuse it. Automobiles are an excellent example: some people drive drunk. We don't ban cars, we just prosecute drunk drivers.
 
Last edited:
What's the racial and cultural makeup of those countries?

The point is, that before you start slamming the United States, you have to be honest with yourself and admit that there are other parts of the world that are far worse.

Poverty is no excuse for acting like an asshole. I didn't have **** when I was growing up and I didn't do all that stupid ****.
 
What's the racial and cultural makeup of those countries?

The point is, that before you start slamming the United States, you have to be honest with yourself and admit that there are other parts of the world that are far worse.

Dunno who you're responding to, we were talking about that pages ago.

Yes it is self evident that there are far worse places than the US. South Africa 37.4...

Poverty is no excuse for acting like an asshole. I didn't have **** when I was growing up and I didn't do all that stupid ****.

I don't think anybody said poverty was an excuse. However, murder rates do seem to be far worse in countries that are desperately impoverished, culturally primitive, and/or ill-governed.
 
Last edited:
-- I know under UK Law you can use sufficient force necessary for self defence, up to killing the person if that is needed.

I would always advise girls to go on self defence courses. I think it is really important to be a ble to protect yourself. Possibly even more so for boys. That being said, my daughter refused to go.

If you remember the case of Omari Roberts in Nottingham who came home and found two robbers in his house one of whom was armed with a kitchen knife - Roberts managed to defend himself and in the process ended up stabbing one of the attackers with a kitchen knife. The second guy came back to cause more aggor and in the 2nd fight Roberts stabbed him too and ended up in an 12 month court case to clear his name.

He was only cleared when the surviving burglar finally confessed he'd lied and claimed that Roberts had attacked them without provocation.

A dose of pepper spray (if we're not allowed guns to protect our own homes) might have meant the robbers were dealt with without deaths. Even so - you're allowed to defend yourself in your own home (but be prepared to spend months clearing your name if the robber lies to the police) but you cannot use something like pepper spray to defend yourself with!

That is truly appalling.

Absolutely!

-- Addressing the self-defense courses.... this is a good thing, everyone should take these.... but understand that their utility is limited. Professional MMA fighters have gotten themselves killed going up against armed thugs, even
though they train intensively as a full-time profession.

-- snip--
If you can't even carry pepperspray it sounds like you need all the luck you can get.

Now you get the picture in the UK..
 
Lets be clear about something, and no offense to my brother Goshin.


There is no such thing as a one time 2 week or 2 month whatever, effective self defense "course"....
 
If you remember the case of Omari Roberts in Nottingham who came home and found two robbers in his house one of whom was armed with a kitchen knife - Roberts managed to defend himself and in the process ended up stabbing one of the attackers with a kitchen knife. The second guy came back to cause more aggor and in the 2nd fight Roberts stabbed him too and ended up in an 12 month court case to clear his name.

He was only cleared when the surviving burglar finally confessed he'd lied and claimed that Roberts had attacked them without provocation.

I have a dim memory but it wasn't something I followed closely. Unfortunately our justice system makes mistakes - one of the reasons we don't have the death penalty. I do not for instance support shooting burglars in the back as they are fleeing which has also happened. By law you do have the right to use whatever force is necessary to protect yourself. Having not followed the case you mention I can't comment much on it. In that situation I would have thought any benefit of the doubt would have been given to the householder so I am imagining circumstantial evidence or something made him appear guilty.

A dose of pepper spray (if we're not allowed guns to protect our own homes) might have meant the robbers were dealt with without deaths. Even so - you're allowed to defend yourself in your own home (but be prepared to spend months clearing your name if the robber lies to the police) but you cannot use something like pepper spray to defend yourself with!

I don't think I have made up my mind about pepper spray. I do not remember hearing anything about it being illegal when it came out so imagine there must be some reason why this has happened.

My own house is secure to the level that allows me to sleep at night. I feel no need to sleep with pepper spray at hand. However I appreciate that there may be people who do fear for break ins at night. I would think it would be best to approach that by both adequate policing and sorting out any underlying social problems which give rise to the problem.

Of course I could get broken into these things happen. It is just unlikely enough for me not to feel the need to lie in expectation.

If people believe they need pepper spray in their homes in order to be safe then it is up to them try and get the law changed on this.
 
Last edited:
As best I can tell from a secondhand account, it sounds like the course was ok. One thing I tell my SCSD students is that they need ongoing practice if they expect to be able to use what I teach them in a sudden, emotionally traumatic attack. Something you did once twenty years ago may not stick with you well enough in such a situation, really.

Well it was 30 years ago and as I said before I have arthritis which would likely make me not very useful at the moment.

We too were told to continue practising. This I did by teaching friends and later my daughter. However for me the need to learn the self defence was related to the reality that I was living in a dangerous neighbourhood. When three or four years later I moved into an incredibly safe one, the need was not felt.

For me the benefit was that I no longer felt scared. However even thirty years later I would say one or two of the things are still pretty instintive to me.

I've noted that a lot of people are very squeamish about "poking someone in the eye". I go further than that; I teach how to remove the eyeball entirely. :cool: Invariably someone shudders and says "I could never do that". My reply is that if the chap intends to rape you with a broken bottle then strangle you with your own stockings and leave your naked and bleeding corpse on the street, you might think otherwise.

It makes me feel sick just to read. I am afraid with that one I thought no. Emotionally I could not look at it and it did go further than a poke as well. There were plenty of alternatives. I can remember thinking 'well I will just remember that one at the back of my mind if all else fails and my life depends on it'.

Close-quarters unarmed combat, in a life-or-death situation, isn't pretty and it isn't at all civilized. I've done it and it is just as ugly as any gunshot wound.

Indeed, for the most I learnt how to repel someone and how to disable them from getting up for sufficient time for me to make a getaway. That was all I wanted. Like I said the main benefit of the course was that it made me feel safe and so was empowering.

I have my doubts about that. In the USA, accidental gunshot deaths are relatively small and have been in decline for half a century. Self-defense uses, even by the most conservative of estimates, outnumber accidental deaths by at least 50 to 1. But, as I say... it is your country, do what you will. Not my call.
By your own statistics your homicide rates are well up on England and Wales and they are still over double that of Scotland. If something works why change it. I see no benefit to be gained.


Good Lord, though, you'd think they'd at least let you have pepperspray, of all things.



:shrug: In America, we don't believe in banning a product because some small minority might misuse it. Automobiles are an excellent example: some people drive drunk. We don't ban cars, we just prosecute drunk drivers.

In the UK if the public feel strongly enough about something, wanting pepper spray for instance, it is up to them to start putting on pressure for that to happen. It's that thing again called democracy. ;)
 
I have a dim memory but it wasn't something I followed closely. Unfortunately our justice system makes mistakes - one of the reasons we don't have the death penalty.

I don't support the death penalty - however that's another subject.

I do not for instance support shooting burglars in the back as they are fleeing which has also happened. By law you do have the right to use whatever force is necessary to protect yourself.

It would be difficult to be 100% accurate that any burglar shot in the back was fleeing, (for example) what if the burglar (for instance) was raping another household member and the shooter came into the room from behind?

so I am imagining circumstantial evidence or something made him appear guilty.

The story is there and links to other reports. The circumstancial evidence was that it was a kitchen knife from his own home and two burglars were stabbed with it - one died. The case against Roberts was simply that the surviving burglar lied to police and said Roberts made an unprovoked attack. The police didn't believe Roberts defence and he ended up in court, it was only under cross examination that the surviving burglar confessed - but this was a year later. Roberts had been under suspicion all that time.

-- Of course I could get broken into these things happen. It is just unlikely enough for me not to feel the need to lie in expectation.

If people believe they need pepper spray in their homes in order to be safe then it is up to them try and get the law changed on this.

I don't think many do (lie in bed waiting to be raped / burgled / robbed) etc and that's not the angle most people keen on self defense rights such as concealed carry argue from - if someone is thinking about attacking another - the doubt or thought placed in the attacker's mind that the "defenceless victim" may nbot actually be so defenceless is what the arguement is about.

I may be wrong - however I do believe that those states in the US that allow concealed carry have a lower crime rate than those that don't. Those Americans allowed to carry a concealed weapon aren't sitting thinking they could be attacked at any moment - they're busy getting on with their lives.
 
It would be difficult to be 100% accurate that any burglar shot in the back was fleeing, (for example) what if the burglar (for instance) was raping another household member and the shooter came into the room from behind?

Oh come on Infinite, this was an actual case. The young burglar was outside running away. I even put in 'as they are fleeing away'


The story is there and links to other reports. The circumstancial evidence was that it was a kitchen knife from his own home and two burglars were stabbed with it - one died. The case against Roberts was simply that the surviving burglar lied to police and said Roberts made an unprovoked attack. The police didn't believe Roberts defence and he ended up in court, it was only under cross examination that the surviving burglar confessed - but this was a year later. Roberts had been under suspicion all that time.

Like I said our justice system makes mistakes - sometimes the police have even been known to tamper with evidence, refuse people sleep until they get a confession and so on. It does sound a very strange one. I would give the benefit of the doubt to someone who has just been subject to attack. Luckily all came out in court. I appreciate he had this hanging over him for a year. Like I said our justice system is not perfect. Some people even die in jail before their name is cleared.

I don't think many do (lie in bed waiting to be raped / burgled / robbed) etc and that's not the angle most people keen on self defense rights such as concealed carry argue from - if someone is thinking about attacking another - the doubt or thought placed in the attacker's mind that the "defenceless victim" may nbot actually be so defenceless is what the arguement is about.

I may be wrong - however I do believe that those states in the US that allow concealed carry have a lower crime rate than those that don't. Those Americans allowed to carry a concealed weapon aren't sitting thinking they could be attacked at any moment - they're busy getting on with their lives.


You would also have to assume that burglars themselves would start taking firearms more often for fear they were met with one and let them off as soon as they saw anyone. All I can suggest is you try to set up a gun lobby. If it ever looked like it might get successful I would oppose. Until that time I am not that bothered. I just believe that nothing is certain in life. I do think that there are people who do live in some degree of fear in their homes. I would like more help done for that.
 
Last edited:
Oh come on Infinite, this was an actual case. The young burglar was outside running away. I even put in 'as they are fleeing away'

Sorry Alexa, I wasn't familiar with the case you were referring to. Do you mean that farmer in Norwich who eventually joined the BNP?

-- You would also have to assume that burglars themselves would start taking firearms more often for fear they were met with one and let them off as soon as they saw anyone --

Personally I disagree that argument as burglars can already get illegal firearms now. You have to remember that the law now allows a homeowner to protect themselves if attacked - and as you've said, including up to killing your assailant - so if a burglar wants to be protected now they can and probably do go into some places armed.

On the other hand, homeowners can not protect themselves unless they are ready to fight and as Goshin showed - that's not always something that will work.
 
Sorry Alexa, I wasn't familiar with the case you were referring to. Do you mean that farmer in Norwich who eventually joined the BNP?
Sounds like him though I didn't know he had joined the BNP

Personally I disagree that argument as burglars can already get illegal firearms now. You have to remember that the law now allows a homeowner to protect themselves if attacked - and as you've said, including up to killing your assailant - so if a burglar wants to be protected now they can and probably do go into some places armed.

I don't think most burglars of ordinary houses are armed with guns. I also believe their is a much higher sentence if they go in with a gun. Most burglars I think try to avoid going into houses that are inhabited. Having said that if I was a burglar and I thought there was any chance that the person in the house would have a gun and shoot me, I would go armed just like kids now are getting knives, guns and whatever it is the rival gang gets.

i suspect this is a never ending argument depending on whether you want guns or not.

On the other hand, homeowners can not protect themselves unless they are ready to fight and as Goshin showed - that's not always something that will work.

How often are ordinary run of the mill people found in the position where they need to protect their lives from burglars? I don't think it can be very often. I have been alive a long time and lived in many different locations but only once have I suffered a burglary and that happened when I was out and when everyone else around was being burgled as well. It certainly was an unpleasant experience but no one as injured.

Neighbourhood watch schemes can help. Sorting out social problems can help. I just don't see any need for us all to have guns.
 
Sounds like him though I didn't know he had joined the BNP

I haven't looked to closely but after he took payment from the mirror, he was involved with them in some way. Anyhow - I didn't mean to digress.

-- Neighbourhood watch schemes can help. Sorting out social problems can help. I just don't see any need for us all to have guns.

Funnily enough, neither do I. I do however think those who want them legally should be able to have them. Same with things like pepper spray for thoe who don't want a gun.
 
Lets be clear about something, and no offense to my brother Goshin.


There is no such thing as a one time 2 week or 2 month whatever, effective self defense "course"....



In general, I agree. However, you have people who simply are NOT going to spend 4+ hours a week for 3-5 years getting trained up, then put in the necessary refresher time keeping their edge sharp. Some of these folks can benefit from a short course, if it is intensely focused on the practical. Chiefly, I spend about half of the class time talking and demonstrating various scenarios, with the focus on security, awareness and avoidance, and I consider that to be the most important part of the class.

The physical aspect I keep very simple and straightforward. One generic "default/flinch" defense, three or four effective strikes, a few basic hold escapes. That's it. Then I emphasize the need for ongoing practice if they expect to be able to use any of it. Mainly I comfort myself that the security/awareness/avoidance stuff will stick with them and enable them to avoid 80-90% of the trouble they might otherwise have wandered blithely into.

I did have one young gal. about 24 hours after taking my class, this guy was bothering her and she totally kicked his ass. :mrgreen: Another friend of mine eyewitnessed it, said it was awesome, lol.

That was gratifying.
 
Back
Top Bottom