The British want their handguns back

[Pond James Pond]

Pond, the standard in the US would generally be that a reasonable person would have to believe that you actually intended to harm them, and had the ability to do so, as far as simple assault.

Which is precisely how the "umbrella" clause would be interpreted, hence my comparison. It's not like anyone can simply report you for holding an umbrella in a funny way.

I read that example (written without any reference or link) as a type of "look how backward Britain is" or "look how much better we are".

Despite many posts by the likes of Scouse and Manta49 describing what is and is not permissible in the UK, some members actively cling on to misinformed and sometimes, downright condescending, notions.

Most of the time I bite my tongue thinking my remarks will fall of deaf ears, sometimes I do not, even if it still falls on deaf ears.

 

[csmsss]

Is the "reasonable person" test actually used in British courts? I wouldn't necessarily assume it is. While our judicial system descended from theirs and retains obvious similarities, it's far from identical and quite possibly that the "reasonable person" method of scrutiny a peculiarly American device.

 

[Nathan]

Nathan, it was a multiple choice survey created by the researchers. The people did not pick those choices, they were given those to vote on and 82% chose restoration of handgun rights.

Do you think that lets a little air out of your theory? I doubt you'd get 82% of Americans to vote to keep our handgun rights. At least if our Congress is who we're counting. It would probably be closer to 75%

I'm thrilled when any population chooses gun freedom over gun control. I was simply making light of how backwards so of the other choices seem to Americans. Although, the phrase flat tax is popular here. To Americans, it means take the average joe's net 25% rate and the rich man's net 35% rate and make a single, non-stairstepped rate of lemme guess 35%???, but the flat racers say it would be 10% because people who game the system like Romney would not be able to game below 10%. Ok, then why don't we stop the gaming and loopholing first??

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Don't care about taxes. Take the hint.

 

[Johannes_Paulsen]

This wasn't a scientific poll -- it was an online poll. Doesn't mean anything about opinion in the UK. People voting could've all been from the USA, for all we know.

 

[jimpeel]

So if I go to the States and adopt a boxing stance when walking up to someone, no one would raise the slightest protest?
If the answer is no, how is it any different to your comment?

If you were to take that stance in London and I used my brolly to defend myself against your assault I would be arrested for using the umbrella as an offensive weapon. The laws there are simply insane.

 

[Pond James Pond]

If you were to take that stance in London and I used my brolly to defend myself against your assault I would be arrested for using the umbrella as an offensive weapon.

If you are defending yourself, what ever you use, it is because I have attacked you, and therefore yours is not an offensive act and the umbrella is not a offensive weapon, so your example does not stand.

The law is quite clear: It is about reasonable force, proportional to the threat.
Whether or not an umbrella, being your example of choice, is used illegally in a given situation will depend on the dynamics of the threat.

If it is a 6ft, 90kg man who "umbrellas" six bells out of a mouthy 55kg woman, it is excessive, not proportionate and so illegal.
If the same man, simply keeps said aggressive woman at a distance without ever touching her, it is not excessive, is proportionate and so not illegal.
If it is the man who attacks the woman and she is ready having left home with with a tactical umbrella, then the scope that covers proportionality is greater due to the man's physical advantage in strength.

The laws there are simply insane.

No. No, they are not.
I'm afraid that you have misinterpreted them, taken one erroneous example to base your opinions on or they are simply not all to your liking.

It is excessive and frankly pretty insulting to make such a seeping statement as to call them insane, given what they actually say.

As a more general observation, it is not the first time we've had a thread that either started as or devolved into a "let's all complain about the broken, broken UK" and, sadly, probably not the last.

Time and time again the likes of Scouse, Manta49 and occasionally myself have provided examples, quotes, and links to illustrate the truth about SD and or firearms laws in the UK.

Yet we still come back to the same preconceptions.
I find it ironic that members of this forum complain that "anti's" view everything emotionally, ignoring the facts, and yet I see the same behaviour from many members on here regarding the UK.

If some really feel the need to dissect the UK's laws, fine. By all means.
However, please let's do it based on facts not emotion.

 

[manta49]

If you were to take that stance in London and I used my brolly to defend myself against your assault I would be arrested for using the umbrella as an offensive weapon. The laws there are simply insane.

I wonder were people get this information from probably the media and hearsay if it is in the media than it must be true. When people that actually live in the UK point out what the law is regards self defence in the UK some seam to discount that and believe what they want to believe don't let the truth get in the way. If you went up to someone and hit them with a brolly than that could be seen as using a offensive weapon. If you were attacked and used a brolly to defend yourself then that could be justified. If I knocked the person out and than carried on to beat them to death with the brolly that would be different and not using proportionate force.

 

[Scouse]

Pond's post has a lot of good points in it. This issue has reached the point of becoming one of those points of received wisdom where people just do not budge and respond to very clear, reasoned arguments with claims that just have no relationship to reality.

There are major differences in how the two countries handle certain things, but some of the misconceptions that prevail are amazing.

Like the man says - the reasoned examples and the rebuttals to the absurdities said about the UK legal system, generally without rhetoric, are repeatedly ignored. People still continue to believe things like the umbrella example given.