I'm definitely in a minority in spaces I participate in, being pro-self-defense while also trans and British. Not a 2A nut but banning pepper spray is an absurd policy made by a government that openly hates women.
I also don't have a rational counter to the fact that if I could owned a hangun I wouldn't be alive or the fact that I'm far more likely to be maced than need to mace someone. But self-defense shouldn't be rationalised- it should be a right.
And of course there's the fact that criminals don't obey the law which nobody realised when banning weapons.
More than open carry. UK banned non-licensed firearms a long while ago. I think it was due to some nut shooting up a nursery (pre-school) but thatâs before my time. Iâve never known a time where rifles and handguns havenât been heavily restricted to things like hunting. Most Iâve shot is clay pigeons with an over-under.
That said, i grew up in an area with a gun shop and always loved going in there to look at the stock. Most of it was air guns, replicas, knock-offs, etc. Still all incredibly restricted, but on display.
I did at one point know one of the very few registered legit handgun owners in the country. He was permitted it specifically for the purpose of euthanizing severely injured wildlife.
We still have mass shootings and we didn't have particular many to start with. Dunblane could have been prevented with the existing legislation of the time but the police who act as a licensing authority couldn't be bothered enforcing existing firearms law and refused to take the shooters weapons from him leading to the shooting.
Correlationâ causation
British weapons law is notoriously never thought through properly and driven by the government wanting to be seen doing something even if it's not effective. For example the ban on locking knives, despite it being an important safety feature it is illegal to EDC a leatherman
Just to clarify, the person youâre responding to wasnât saying âOCâ meaning open carry, they mean pepper spray, referring to âoleoresin capsicumâ, the irritant in pepper spray.
Thank you for the clarification! I had no idea lol. I thought it was a bit of an odd turn in the conversation but had no idea what else it would have been talking about
Self defense exists only in common law and having something that you intend to use against someone is considered possession of an offensive weapon even if you only keep it for self defense. Your only allowed to use whatever you have to hand at the time of being assaulted to defend yourself.
Pepper sprays sit in the same category of firearm (yes it is considered a gun legally) as say an mg42. Only museums can legally own them
Firearms a separated into different categories and require different licences to own over here. The 2 that are accessible to the general public are a shotgun certified and a firearms certificate.
But things like pepper spray exist as what's know as a section 5 firearm which means only somewhere like a museum could own it with the express permission of the home office and this law dates back to 1968.
The British government likes to capitalise on tragedies for a bit of good PR and this is most clear with regards to knifes. It's standard MO for any political party to give broad variety of knifes/swords a scary name, give a very broad definition of what said weapon is and then issue a blanket ban.
For example saw back knives (i.e. knives with saw on the back) were branded "zombie knives" by the government and media because, and I shit you not, they are popular props in zombie media and banned from sale.
Technically in Canada, a baseball bat, a frying pan, a knife, and a firearm can all sit in the same bucket, and net you a felony weapons charge (though firearms are treated more seriously.) Basically, in the law, anything you intend to do harm with is a weapon. So if you tell a cop "I'm carrying a frying pan to bash my ex's head in", you've just copped a felony weapons charge for possession of a frying pan with intent to do harm. It's more an issue around everyday carry of things like knives as tools - even hinting at self defense can get you in deep trouble. Remember folks: don't talk to cops without your lawyer(s) present.
This is also means you may have to prove lawful purpose for possession of something like bear spray that can, ipso facto, be assumed to be carried to do harm - the carve outs for knives, guns, bear spray etc. are very much "only when you need it for we say are lawful purposes" and generally don't include self defense.
Come on. Iâm not going to pretend that the government has ever been kind to women because it damn well hasnât, but may I direct you toward what happened in Dunblaine? Literally havenât had a single school shooting since.
Shocking that pepper spray isnât allowed though.
Dunblane could have been prevented with the existing law of the time, the police were just feckless and refused to confiscate the shooters firearms despite having grounds to do so, it has absolutely nothing to do with a ban on firearms.
Your also being very selective with your wording because we do infact still have mass shootings despite them not often involving schools
Of course, roughly 55 or so mass shootings I believe since Dunblaine in 1997. An abominable number. But then compare it to the 400 mass shootings in the USA in 2025 alone. But sure, the pedantry really matters. I'm not even anti-gun, I personally enjoy shooting them, but there's no reason for handguns to be accessible, or easily reloadable weapons with however many shots in them.
Places like Austria and Switzerland get by just fine with very liberal firearms laws in comparison to the UK. There are certainly common sense restrictions on firearms that should exist that don't in a place like the US but it's firearms problem extends far past just the guns themselves and into deeper societal issues.
So long as you can demonstrate that you are a responsible firearms owner I see no reason why someone shouldn't be able to own a great deal of firearms.
So long as you can demonstrate that you are a responsible firearms owner I see no reason why someone shouldn't be able to own a great deal of firearms.
A woman who lives with a gun in her home, in the u.s., is statistically more likely to be murdered by her partner with it than to ever defend herself with it.
222
u/VerbingNoun413 25d ago edited 25d ago
This is going to be an interesting arc.
I'm definitely in a minority in spaces I participate in, being pro-self-defense while also trans and British. Not a 2A nut but banning pepper spray is an absurd policy made by a government that openly hates women.
I also don't have a rational counter to the fact that if I could owned a hangun I wouldn't be alive or the fact that I'm far more likely to be maced than need to mace someone. But self-defense shouldn't be rationalised- it should be a right.
And of course there's the fact that criminals don't obey the law which nobody realised when banning weapons.