quote:“Are there any legal self defence products that I can buy?” Succinctly epitomizing the sad state of natural rights in Great Britain, the first sentence states, “The only fully legal self defence product at the moment is a rape alarm.”
And to add even more insult to human dignity, the statement cautions subjects against the use of nearly any other type of defense product, and reads like an appeal for victims to graciously suffer criminal violence. The answer makes clear “You must not get a product which is made or adapted to cause a person injury. Possession of such a product in public (and in private in specific circumstances) is against the law.” So even in the sanctity of one’s home, the statement seems to suggest that care for violent offenders outweighs the rights of potential victims to be safe and secure against attack.
The site even goes so far as to warn people that "marking dyes" used to merely ID perps later must not be used in a way that harms the criminal.
quote:However, be aware that even a seemingly safe product, deliberately aimed and sprayed in someone's eyes, would become an offensive weapon because it would be used in a way that was intended to cause injury.
You hear that girls? Please be careful not to get the marking dyes in your rapist's eyes, it might hurt him.
If you think this is mere official policy, consider what has happened in practice.
The funny thing is, Americans by and large don't seem to be buying it. Support for gun control has decreased, especially in light of the home grown Islamo-Nazi threats that are now surfacing more frequently on American soil.
I get the feeling populations in certain countries have been put through a process of taming, disarming, and monitoring them at all times; kind of like being in prison except you can still go to the Apple Store. The surveillance state is up and running in the UK, and it appears that Canada, the U.S. and the UK are happily sharing resources in this programme to advance it.
Regarding disarming, I think the process of taming is a useful one to then get towards disarming and finally preventing from defending oneself. I've heard in Toronto that it's highly discouraged to defend yourself and to even make an attempt at all to stop crime.
It's very tough to tame Americans as a whole, and so disarming can't yet proceed. Overall Americans seem to believe plenty in defending themselves.
So in this sense I'd say the British are more along the way than are the Canadians and Americans in moving towards this Brave New World where individuals are meant to be helpless followers. Even some civil issues in the UK such as SSM seem to be prosecuted in a more advanced setting than America is seeing yet. Perhaps Seneca is a right that there's a trend and that America may be moving in that direction eventually.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014
| IP: Logged |
I think it boils down to if you believe the authorities CAN protect you. If we universally trusted our police and had faith that their response times everywhere were fast enough, we would be more willing to give up our guns.
As it stands, the gains in safety from a disarmed society do not make a large number of us feel more safe. We are very willing to make sacrifices if we feel we get something of value in return. "Security" just doesn't seem a tangible return for giving up the right to defend yourself.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |