Why are Batons, Pepper Spray and other non-lethal self-defence devices ILLEGAL? (2 Viewers)

[Freedom_]

I have seen enough sci-fi movies to know that this would not be a smart thing to do.



This neither.

why?

 

[murphyad]

Look you're mate's example is the exception.

Possibly. Tbh this is pure speculation but I get the feeling that the police are successful in preventing the perversion of justice more often than not. Just imagine the clutter if the press actually ran stories such as 'Police Thwart Minor Disturbance of Peace'

Perhaps there is some study that refutes me; and I would be happy to hear about it.

Suffice to say there are going to be a lot of cases where the only way a person can prevent something awful happening to them is by having a weapon.

I agree that self-defence can be justified, but that is no excuse to arm ourselves to the hilt. Self-defence through force is a touchy issue because there is a question over what is an appropriate level of force, which obviously varies in almost all circumstances. Plus the moral consequences: gun control debate in the US, anyone?

 

[copkiller]

Possibly. Tbh this is pure speculation but I get the feeling that the police are successful in preventing the perversion of justice more often than not. Just imagine the clutter if the press actually ran stories such as 'Police Thwart Minor Disturbance of Peace'

Perhaps there is some study that refutes me; and I would be happy to hear about it.

I don't need a study. Every year hundreds of people in this country are beaten, raped and murdered. Obviously in these cases the police have failed to protect them. If these people were armed, some of them could have been saved.

I agree that self-defence can be justified, but that is no excuse to arm ourselves to the hilt.

If you made firearms legal, everyone wouldn't rush out and arm themselves to the hilt. I also fully support the right of property owners to ban guns on their property. Chances are you couldn't walk into an office building or a shopping mall with a gun. Most of the time people would not feel the need for guns, because in most contexts police and security companies can protect people quite efficiently.

But there are times when it would help to have a gun. Traveling down a remote highway in central Australia would be a good example. Calling the cops isn't going to do you much good there.

Self-defence through force is a touchy issue because there is a question over what is an appropriate level of force, which obviously varies in almost all circumstances.

Sure, that's always going to be a problem. But surely this problem exists equally when the police are defending you through force. After all, they too are just fallible human beings.

 

[murphyad]

I don't need a study. Every year hundreds of people in this country are beaten, raped and murdered. Obviously in these cases the police have failed to protect them. If these people were armed, some of them could have been saved.

Yes the police have failed to protect them, but how do we know that they are not the exception? Hard statistics are necessary to make any definitive judgements here imo. Disregarding the ambiguity of 'protection', in how many cases did the police successfully 'protect' the victim? If the ratio is 99 successes for every 1 failure, then this should be more comendable than a 50:50 split. Therefore I think the question of the effectiveness of the police force ultimately needs to be grounded in empirical fact as opposed to arbitrary discussion.

Furthermore, your point that they could be saved if carrying a weapon is also questionable. Firstly, how many would be saved: 1%? 100%? It is difficult to say and thus difficult to quantify in terms of relevance. Also, the presence of a weapon may in fact incease the potential for harm. In the same way that an attacker may attempt to quickly smash a mobile, might they also attempt to gain control of the victim's weapon, if they had one? Now I grant that there are significant differences between a phone and a harmful implement, but human strength or wit could possibly negate the advantages of a weapon in the first few moments of such an exchange.

Another point: how does one control the use of weapons for 'self defence'? Surely they may also end up in greater use as offensive weapons in any potential infringement.

If you made firearms legal, everyone wouldn't rush out and arm themselves to the hilt. I also fully support the right of property owners to ban guns on their property.

And how would this be enforced? If guns were legal, but banned in a shopping mall, surely the only way to apprehend someone who entered a shopping mall with a gun and intending to brandish or use it in a coercive manner would be to use a gun. If there was some private security present who enforced the gun ban in this way, there is potential for an abuse of power (e.g. someone getting shot for shoplifting or some other non-lethal act) that renders the idea of a gun-ban in specific instances rather pointless; it would be better to make use of blanket restrictions regarding the procurement and use of firearms that would make these isolated instances far less likely. Generally, the legalisation of lethal weapons increases the overall potential for lethal violence.

But there are times when it would help to have a gun. Traveling down a remote highway in central Australia would be a good example. Calling the cops isn't going to do you much good there.

Again, the 'norm/exception' argument applies.

Sure, that's always going to be a problem. But surely this problem exists equally when the police are defending you through force. After all, they too are just fallible human beings.

I agree with you here. The issue remains regardless of the party or it's orientation.

 

[copkiller]

Yes the police have failed to protect them, but how do we know that they are not the exception? Hard statistics are necessary to make any definitive judgements here imo. Disregarding the ambiguity of 'protection', in how many cases did the police successfully 'protect' the victim. If the ratio is 99 successes for every 1 failure, then this should surely be more comendable than a 50:50 split.

Its irrelevant. Even if in 99% of cases the police are successful, if in 1% they fail, then in those cases guns could help people.

Furthermore, your point that they could be saved if carrying a weapon is also questionable. Firstly, how many would be saved. 1%?

Even 1% of 1% (which is a huge underestimate) is still people that are saved from rape and murder.

Also, the presence of a weapon may in fact incease the potential for harm.

Granted. Its up to individuals to decided for themselves if having a gun will make them more safe or less safe.

Another point: how does one control the use of weapons for 'self defence'? Surely they may also end up in greater use as offensive weapons in any potential infringement.

They already do. There is a thriving black market for illegal guns in Australia and criminals can easily obtain them. The laws really only prevent law abiding citizens accessing guns.

And how would this be enforced? If guns were legal, but banned in a shopping mall, surely the only way to apprehend someone who entered a shopping mall with a gun and intending to brandish or use it in a coercive manner would be to use a gun. If there was some private security present who enforced the gun ban in this way, there is potential for an abuse of power (e.g. someone getting shot for shoplifting or some other non-lethal act) that renders the idea of a gun-ban in specific instances rather pointless; it would be better to make use of blanket restrictions regarding the procurement and use of firearms that would make these isolated instances far less likely.

What you have described is exactly the same problem we have with the police who enforce gun laws. We can ask all the same questions of the police; what if they abuse their power? Why should we think private security firms would abuse their power any more than the police?

I'd say the opposite is true. The owner of the mall who pays the private security officers has an incentive to treat customers well and ensure that they feel safe (including from the guards). If you don't like the way a mall is run, you can immediately stop shopping there. The police on the other hand are much more indirectly accountable. You can't avoid the police and its policies unless you move a long distance, and to even have a say in changing how the police are run you may have to wait years for an election.

Generally, the legalisation of guns increases the overall potential for lethal violence.

This coming from they guy who demands I back up everything I say with studies and statistics...

 

[murphyad]

What you have described is exactly the same problem we have with the police who enforce gun laws. We can ask all the same questions of the police; what if they abuse their power? Why should we think private security firms would abuse their power any more than the police?

We shouldn't. However that's missing the point of whether or not isolated gun-bans are workable, whether the police enforce them or not.

I'd say the opposite is true. The owner of the mall who pays the private security officers has an incentive to treat customers well and ensure that they feel safe (including from the guards). If you don't like the way a mall is run, you can immediately stop shopping there. The police on the other hand are much more indirectly accountable. You can't avoid the police and its policies unless you move a long distance, and to even have a say in changing how the police are run you may have to wait years for an election.

An argument based on assumption: a) that customers have any interest in the punishment of others who have broken the rules (or law) and b) that the consumer activism you advocate would actually work. What if I live in a smaller urban settlement and there is only one shopping mall in town? What if that shopping mall maintains a monopoly on particular goods? The owner of the mall also has an incentive to produce that paticular situation, and this mitigates the usefulness of your point, if customers have nowhere else to shop. Anyway, this is getting a bit off topic (and maybe a bit slippery-slopeish) and would be more suited to the 'anarcho-capitalist' thread, so I will stop discussing this issue here.

This coming from they guy who demands I back up everything I say with studies and statistics...

This coming from the guy who claims we don't need any..........anyway, I guess I really should provide something. Study claiming direct link between gun ownership and rates of homicide/suicide:

http://www.unicri.it/wwk/publications/books/series/understanding/19_GUN_OWNERSHIP.pdf

 

[Serius]

Ahhhh, just clarifying if you meant to beat attackers, or because the lighting would somehow make you safe.

Still, I think 90% of the time against a violent man, a woman with a maglite is still going to be fucked.

Now, if she could carry a handgun...

You can shine it in their eyes to temporarily blind them then run away, or hit them over the head with it. Pretty awesome tactic.

 

[dcb4usmcfr]

Sarcastic but not always true *anecdote alert*.

The one day some months go now my friend hapened to witness a rape as he was driving home; apparently he called the police and they arrived within less than a minute in full force. Justice appropriately served in this particular instance with no pepper spray required.

This case is true. And police are efficient.

I personally called police once in Sydney when witnessing a man battering his partner.

Police arrived literally within one minute, full force, just like you said.


But don't you think you've forgotten all other cases where police were not alerted?

Not to mention the woman in your case has been assaulted already, do you really think that's real "justice", other than its strict legal meaning?

The point is not whether self-defence or police is effective or not but whether an individual has the right and ability to defend oneself.

If it doesn't matter whether to ban them or not, then why banning them?

 

[dcb4usmcfr]

Have you ever been clobbered by a Maglite torch?

Flashed by a SureFire 9P tactical Xenon light in a dark room, blinded for 10 seconds...

But I really think torch is only an assistant device for self-defence, because the assailants will be pretty mad after they recovered from the light and the victim may not have enough time to react or escape.

 

[dcb4usmcfr]

If a kitchen knife, a pair of scissors or an iron stick are all far more lethal than a police baton and thus presumably better for self-defence, why do you care if a police baton is illegal or not?

Unless I'm somehow missing the point; would you prefer to club someone unconscious in self-defense with a police baton than you would with an iron stick?

More lethal does not mean better self-defence, I was only saying that they are more lethal, not they are better self-defence weapons.

For bad guys they can use a knife scissors whatever they want, their purpose is not to defend themselves but to hurt people. For bad guys police batons equal to wrenchs.

But for potential victims police baton etc are better than knife etc is because they can achieve self-defence purpose while not inflicting excessive damage that crosses the line of self-defence, if the users are trained properly.

So why ban batons when they are less lethal but more effective in self-defence than a knife?

 

[murphyad]

So why ban batons when they are less lethal but more effective in self-defence than a knife?

Ah k so I did misinterpret the OP a bit.

Hmmm...yeah a police baton would be better for self-defence than a knife but what about the good ol' baseball bat? Surely you could achieve a similar outcome to a cop stick with that. It just seems a bit pointless to me.

Also: regarding the effectiveness of police: see my earlier posts and copkiller's as well for discussion on this topic.

 

[Kwayera]

Have you ever been clobbered by a Maglite torch?

they are fucking heavy

and don't provide thattt much light

Flashed by a SureFire 9P tactical Xenon light in a dark room, blinded for 10 seconds...

But I really think torch is only an assistant device for self-defence, because the assailants will be pretty mad after they recovered from the light and the victim may not have enough time to react or escape.

Wow, guys, you sure did misinterpret my suggestion for a Maglite. You don't use it to visually stun the attacker; you use it to stun the attacker by BEATING THEM OVER THE HEAD WITH IT.

 

[kokodamonkey]

compulsory kung fu lessons for girls?