Give a thought to us Brits

[thesmurf]

So I can't really get involved with this whole firearm discussion because we don't have access to such stuff here in the UK. That's cool though. I'd like to discuss all the ways that you can do to defend yourself that doesn't include shooting anything! That means getting creative. I'm new to this forum so this may have been discussed at length already, I reckon there's always room to add to that list?

[grumpyviking]

always room for one more Brit mate!

[majorhavoc]

Here are a couple of recent discussions on this exact topic.

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=117236

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=117332

These kinds of discussions are very worthwhile, even to us Yanks, because firearms are not the be all and end all for weapon needs.

[woodsghost]

Also Brits have access to firearms, as I understand. Folks will have to correct me if I"m wrong, but I believe Brits can have shotguns which hold a maximum of 3 rounds and can only buy birdshot.

Additional licencing and a lot of headache will, as I understand, let you own some other firearms.

[Stercutus]

And the Winchester.....

[thesmurf]

I've never seen a gun in real life, or even picked up a gun, let alone fired one - think I would be more hazardous to myself than a zombie attacking!

[feanor]

That's what practice is for.

[grumpyviking]

as long as he knows which end is the dangerous end!!

[feanor]

as long as he knows which end is the dangerous end!!

Yeah, that's a mistake you only make once.

[NamelessStain]

Two words: Air Rifle

Good for small game and from my understanding, OK in the UK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_gun_l ... ed_Kingdom

http://basc.org.uk/airgunning/advice/ba ... -practice/

[grumpyviking]

there are 10,800 guns including shotguns registered in Devon & Cornwall, that's out of a population of 1.65 million.
and yes Air Rifles are ok in the UK, provided they are under the maximum power levels allowed, if they are above it they need a Fire Arms Certificate.

[drop bear]

Cowboy action shooting.
http://www.westernshootingsupplies.com

Otherwise avoiding fights is going to be less risk and less effort than getting in to them. I imagine surviving wil be hard enough without that exta hassle.

[grumpyviking]

avoidance is first on my list, getting into fights its when you've run out of other options, and is an action of last resort.

[jor-el]

I've never seen a gun in real life, or even picked up a gun, let alone fired one - think I would be more hazardous to myself than a zombie attacking!

This statement, this thought is the greatest danger you Britons face, worse than bomb vests and AK-47s.

You have 90,000 men and women in your Regular Army, 25,000 Army Reserve, 30,000 Regular Reserve, and about 8,000 Royal Marines. Maybe 150,000 total.
Before they became the soldiers that they are today, they had to overcome this idea. They all had to start somewhere.

The first foe you have to defeat is yourself. If you see yourself as unable to provide for your own defense, no weapon, no knowledge or skill can overcome self doubt.
There is nothing I can say or do that would be of any aid so long as that idea above lingers in your head.

Avoidance only goes so far in a land twice the size of my state, with about the same population density but with a higher percentage of Whites than here.

[Zimmy]

Bows and quarterstaffs come to mind when I think of the U.K.

[Ad'lan]

Bows and quarterstaffs come to mind when I think of the U.K.

As someone who has trained in both... while effective, they aren't what I'd pick over a firearm, and they have many of the same legal issues. We are only allowed to use reasonable force in self defence.

Yes, we have tight controls on firearms, but a more important control was when it was decided that "reasonable force" did not include shooting them (I think this can be dated to the 50's), then did not include preparing a tool to use, then began to include a duty to retreat, which has since faded somewhat. None of these decisions were made by our legislature, but by the police and judiciary in their precedents set on different legal cases. It's also why folding knives can't have locks without being an offensive weapon.

So, if I were to grab my bow from off the wall, string it at the top of my stairs and knock and release an arrow at the burly figure breaking through my landladys door... well, I wouldn't fancy my chances in court, because of the amount of prior planning and thought I have clearly put into putting down someone potentially "only" burgling the place.

Much better to forget to put away your cricket bat, or your grandfathers steel golf clubs. To grab in your fear and instinct at your antique bayonet display and administer first aid after the robber ran upon your steel in his haste to assault you.


If you are threatened, and someone in your house mentions using your firearms, the police can and have taken them away to stop you. If you stab an armed robber with their knife, you will be brought to trial (fortunately he was found innocent. Trial by Jury is an important right). The tide is changing, slowly and my own experiences (chasing down a burglar and holding him by force) are pretty positive, but this is climate we have to think in.

I've never seen a gun in real life, or even picked up a gun, let alone fired one - think I would be more hazardous to myself than a zombie attacking!

Plenty of clubs have open days if you are interested in becoming a shooter, and it's a fun and rewarding hobby. Experience and having to clean the dam things thoroughly demystified firearms for me.

Also Brits have access to firearms, as I understand. Folks will have to correct me if I"m wrong, but I believe Brits can have shotguns which hold a maximum of 3 rounds and can only buy birdshot.

Additional licencing and a lot of headache will, as I understand, let you own some other firearms.

AFAIK, Slugs are the only shotgun ammunition you can't have on a Shotgun Certificate.

[Aikibiker]

I will go ahead and recommend contacting BASC for information on firearms ownership and legal ways to get training and practice in the UK. The Field Sports UK channel on YouTube is a good way to see wha sort of firearms are available over there. You can get a lot more than you think.

[shrapnel]

Avoidance only goes so far in a land twice the size of my state, with about the same population density but with a higher percentage of Whites than here.

Err. What?

[grumpyviking]

You have 90,000 men and women in your Regular Army, 25,000 Army Reserve, 30,000 Regular Reserve, and about 8,000 Royal Marines. Maybe 150,000 total.

the total number of regular British army troops as of now is 81,700, not sure how many are reservists or T.A., Royal Marines are Navy not Army.

[jor-el]

You have 90,000 men and women in your Regular Army, 25,000 Army Reserve, 30,000 Regular Reserve, and about 8,000 Royal Marines. Maybe 150,000 total.

the total number of regular British army troops as of now is 81,700, not sure how many are reservists or T.A., Royal Marines are Navy not Army.

1) 150,000 men and women under arms and trained. At least. I would imagine double that factoring in retired personnel.

There should a portion of your population not frozen in fear of firearms.

Your legal climate is a nearly insurmountable obstacle to a clear and frank discussion given a widely differing definition of the "reasonable man" doctrine of the CONUS and GBR.
Another divergence is The level of authority Law Enforcement has in administering rules and regulations, the quality of respect the average citizen has for Law Enforcement in our two lands.

[jor-el]

Yes, we have tight controls on firearms, but a more important control was when it was decided that "reasonable force" did not include shooting them (I think this can be dated to the 50's), then did not include preparing a tool to use, then began to include a duty to retreat, which has since faded somewhat. None of these decisions were made by our legislature, but by the police and judiciary in their precedents set on different legal cases. It's also why folding knives can't have locks without being an offensive weapon.

Much better to forget to put away your cricket bat, or your grandfathers steel golf clubs. To grab in your fear and instinct at your antique bayonet display and administer first aid after the robber ran upon your steel in his haste to assault you.

If you are threatened, and someone in your house mentions using your firearms, the police can and have taken them away to stop you. If you stab an armed robber with their knife, you will be brought to trial (fortunately he was found innocent. Trial by Jury is an important right). The tide is changing, slowly and my own experiences (chasing down a burglar and holding him by force) are pretty positive, but this is climate we have to think in.

I'm sure there will be a test case soon, but is "constructive possession" a thing in your courts?

[Ad'lan]

Yes, we have tight controls on firearms, but a more important control was when it was decided that "reasonable force" did not include shooting them (I think this can be dated to the 50's), then did not include preparing a tool to use, then began to include a duty to retreat, which has since faded somewhat. None of these decisions were made by our legislature, but by the police and judiciary in their precedents set on different legal cases. It's also why folding knives can't have locks without being an offensive weapon.

Much better to forget to put away your cricket bat, or your grandfathers steel golf clubs. To grab in your fear and instinct at your antique bayonet display and administer first aid after the robber ran upon your steel in his haste to assault you.

If you are threatened, and someone in your house mentions using your firearms, the police can and have taken them away to stop you. If you stab an armed robber with their knife, you will be brought to trial (fortunately he was found innocent. Trial by Jury is an important right). The tide is changing, slowly and my own experiences (chasing down a burglar and holding him by force) are pretty positive, but this is climate we have to think in.

I'm sure there will be a test case soon, but is "constructive possession" a thing in your courts?

Not, as far as I know, in your own home apart from with explosives. We make salt beef and thus my mother buys potassium nitrate by the kilo when she does. She had to provide ID and an address. Suspicious amounts are justification for police investigation.

For carrying in public, any item you intend to use as an offensive weapon becomes, legally an offensive weapon, even before you use it. There's an episode of Reality TV with the fuzz pulling over a dumb kid from a rough area. They find a baseball bat in his backseat and ask him why it's there, he Um's and Ahh's and instead of saying he played rounders with his buddies, he mumbles something about protecting himself. Snap, instant arrest for possession of an offensive weapon. I don't know if he was prosecuted, copped a plea or what, but that's how the law seems to be interpreted nowadays.

On private property however, you can own and build all sorts of weapons and not violate the law. Just don't use them. Setting up traps is similarly illegal, although obvious deterrents like barbed wire or glass sunk into the top concrete of a wall are common place.

[the_alias]

We make salt beef and thus my mother buys potassium nitrate by the kilo when she does. She had to provide ID and an address. Suspicious amounts are justification for police investigation.

I had to show ID and an address to buy Cold and Flu drugs in the USA.

[quazi]

So do you actually have to prove you regularly engage in hobbies that you have the equipment for? Like if you were to whack a home invader with a cricket bat would you need to have a bunch of other cricket paraphernalia and be able to show that you at least occasionally play in cricket games? Or is just a pretext generally good enough? "I keep that ice axe beside my bed because some day I'd like to climb Everest!"

Is it more a matter of convincing the law enforcement officials or of convincing members of a jury?

If someone were to take up a hobby that involved purpose-built weapons, like HEMA and sword collecting, do you think they would be able to get away with using them for self defense? Or would a jury probably convict them for being a crazy weirdo compared to a "normal" cricket player? Does this vary depending on where you live? In some places in the U.S. if you shoot someone in self defense local prosecutors will supposedly go after you on principle and you have to worry about jurors judging you on how scary your weapon looks and how evil-sounding the name of your ammunition is. In other places firearms ownership is commonplace and nobody really gives a shit what gun you use or if you hand loaded your ammunition.
*Or so I've been told, I haven't done too much research into this.

We make salt beef and thus my mother buys potassium nitrate by the kilo when she does. She had to provide ID and an address. Suspicious amounts are justification for police investigation.

I had to show ID and an address to buy Cold and Flu drugs in the USA.

How else were they supposed to know whether you had a cold or were just faking it? After all, pseudoephedrine is basically constructive possession of meth. They should have done a urine test and run your fingerprints.