My friend shtfprepper has a habit of making me smile and he’s outdone himself here.
He sent me a link to an NRA website. [Link]
It is soooo good, I’m printing the article.
The latest dispatch from the United Kingdom’s ongoing campaign to eliminate all forms of armed self-defense seems too incredible to be true. Unfortunately, after tracking down the origin of a publicly distributed statement regarding self-defense products on the country’s “Ask the Police” website, we can confirm that British subjects continue to live at the mercy of their potential attackers. Even to the point of baffling absurdity.
The statement appears in the Frequently Asked Questions section of http://www.askthe.police.uk – a site that is operated by the Police National Legal Database. Information provided by the PNLD and its site are used by local police constabularies to help inform the public.
The question at issue asks, “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 statement then addresses the legality of inert dye sprays that merely mark one’s attacker for later identification; in contrast to self-defense sprays like mace or pepper spray that inflict pain in order to halt an attack. The site is so concerned with the well-being of violent criminals, that in the context of dye sprays, it states,“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.”
Whether it’s this detestable advice, police warning a woman not to display a knife in order to ward off intruders, warrantless firearm storage inspections, or desperate subjects being forced to defend their lives and property with cricket and baseball bats during riots, the UK government appears intent on wiping out any remaining vestiges of the traditional right to self-defense. We’d like to say that we won’t allow ourselves to be shocked by the next ludicrous episode from across the pond, but history shows they’ll somehow manage to astound.
Note:- At the bottom of the web page was this:
© 2015 National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. So I’m thinking they won’t mind me “amusing you” with this well written article.
Now my tuppence. (10 cents)
Living in the UK everything they say and more.
Here the only people carrying guns are the criminals, a few sportsmen, farmers, and the police.
As for the rest of the population?
We’ve been reduced to becoming reactive targets for the criminal element and the police to practice on.
Only it gets better. From the askthe.police.uk website, [Link] Finds this:-
Q85: What lengths can I go to, to protect my home if an intruder breaks in?
Remember we are talking about HOME INVASION here.
In the heat of the moment it is not expected that you should make fine judgements as to how far you can go. What you honestly and instinctively believe is lawful and necessary self defence of either yourself, your family or your property, even if you use a weapon could constitute reasonable force.
You do not have to be attacked first to be able to use reasonable force in self defence.
Even if the intruder dies, provided you have used reasonable force in the circumstances described then you will not necessarily be prosecuted. If, having disabled the intruder you then go on and inflict further punishment then this would be deemed to be excessive and gratuitous force and you could be prosecuted.
Now I highlighted the even if you use a weapon could constitute reasonable force for a reason as it mentions “a weapon”.
In the advice above it clearly says:-
“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.” They are talking about marker dye.
So where does that leave the average person.
Stop an attack using a weapon gets you charged as you used a weapon in a way that was intended to cause injury.
And to think people actually WANT to emigrate to here.