What's the legality in carrying a roll of coins for defense?

[Pugwash]

Now that's just another kettle of fish entirely... A sad state of affairs that a crim was able to sue for compo for injuries sustained during a criminal act

You can sue for anything you want. I could sue you for offending me on the internet, even though it's plainly clear you haven't. And, just like the pikey, I would not get very far.

So, it's not a sad state of affairs. It would be if he'd stood a chance of winning, but he didn't, so it's not.

[P4GTR]

In the US, You could get a permit ro carry a Handgun in some states.....like Arizona, Texas, Washington, Montana, Utah, Florida......just to name a few! That's also why they don't have a lot of Road Rage in those states.......

Ha! You haven't met my Mrs. Don't even let your shopping cart come within 1ft of her in the store, all hell breaks loose.

[TeeJay]

I think the booby traps were planks of wood and buckets of stones rather than kettles of fish but you are right about how sad it was to see that he could sue for damages, maybe next time Tony will use some thing with better range an penetration.

back to the original idea i have thought about getting one of these to carry round

I first got the idea after watching "Lock stock and two smoking barrels"

And to avoid strange question just gift wrap it and write your better half's name on the label.

Hence my post of the stainless steel dildo Keeping a cricket bat under the bed (while not impossible to rule out 'marital relations') certainly wouldn't be as easy to explain as something specifically sold as an 'adult toy', but one thing's for sure, I wouldn't want a stainless steel bludgeon hitting my melon whatever name it's sold under It would be amusing to hear in court though

Tony Martin deserved jail time. He set a trap and laid in wait with an illegal firearm. He only got the murder reduced to manslaughter because he was certified a loony.

But, was he not laying in wait due to repeated burglaries? I agree, it was an illegal firearm, but, when an unwell mind is threatened (or perceives itself to be threatened) the results are often most unpleasant...

Murdering people, even pikeys, is illegal.

I don't know why that struck me as funny, but it did...

May - "Don't use that!"

Hammond (with hammer) - "Why not?!"

May - "It's the tool of pikey..."

She made that bit about being told off up. Don't believe the hype.

Really? I hadn't seen that anywhere, did she admit to it in an interview or something?

It's vague so there can be leeway. It's never cut-and-dried, but most cases never make it to court.

I agree, but, as mentioned by P4GTR, it's sad that the first thought through a person's mind if they're jumped or hears a noise downstairs should be "Can't hit them tooo hard, don't want to get banged up for defending myself..." Personally speaking, I think once someone intentionally forces their way into someone else's property, they should lose the law's protection if they get smacked about, although of course, illegally held fire-arms are a different matter all together, and one of the key issues I'd hoped to explore in this discussion, was the legality of using a legal item 'in a manner other than its intended purpose', or rather, how such intent could actually be proven

You can sue for anything you want. I could sue you for offending me on the internet, even though it's plainly clear you haven't. And, just like the pikey, I would not get very far.

So, it's not a sad state of affairs. It would be if he'd stood a chance of winning, but he didn't, so it's not.

I know, it's just the idea that a crim can try and sue for something which happened while they were being illegal really gets me.

[Pugwash]

Really? I hadn't seen that anywhere, did she admit to it in an interview or something?

Not yet, but the police are bewildered as they can't even work out what law she thought they thought she was breaking.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8451877.stm

I know, it's just the idea that a crim can try and sue for something which happened while they were being illegal really gets me.

Welcome to living a free country. You can sue anyone for anything, but it doesn't mean you stand a chance. Trust me, it's better this way.

[TeeJay]

Not yet, but the police are bewildered as they can't even work out what law she thought they thought she was breaking.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8451877.stm

Interesting read, thanks for the link I was just looking up what constituted an 'offensive weapon', and thought this an interesting and relevent piece:

Possession of an Offensive Weapon

11. Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 prohibits the possession in any public place of an offensive weapon without lawful authority or excuse. (Archbold, 24.106a)

12. The term 'offensive weapon' is defined as: "any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use". The courts have been reluctant to find many weapons as falling within the first limb of the definition and reliance should usually be placed upon the second. On that basis, it must be shown that the defendant intended to use the article for causing injury (24-115 Archbold).

13. Lord Lane, CJ. in R v Simpson ©, (78 Cr.App.R.115), identified three categories of offensive weapons:

those made for causing injury to the person i.e. offensive per se. For examples of weapons that are offensive per se, see Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988, (Stones 8-22745) and case law decisions. (Archbold 24-116). The Criminal Justice Act (1988) (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) Order 2008 came into force on 6th April 2008 with the effect that a sword with a curved blade of 50cm or more (samurai sword), has been added to the schedule to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988;

those adapted for such a purpose;

those not so made or adapted, but carried with the intention of causing injury to the person.

14. In the first two categories, the prosecution does not have to prove that the defendant had the weapon with him for the purpose of inflicting injury: if the jury are sure that the weapon is offensive per se, the defendant will only be acquitted if he establishes lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

On the true subject of the topic, I can certainly see how making a roll of coins (in the UK) could constitute an offensive weapon, as it is something 'adapted for such a purpose', but, given that the items making that item are legal tender, and can always be explained as 'emergency funds', I'm curious as to if it would be something someone could be charged for, simply for possessing (and if no one has been hit) as I think it would be very hard to prove the intent to use them as a weapon, over the intent to have 'emergency funds'. Of course, if said roll of coins was carried while inside a sock, then that would be a bit easier to prove 'intent'...

[Edit to add]

For example: Someone carrying a stack of coins in a roll, can always use the defense that they are being carried as legal tender, where someone carrying a stack of metal washers in a roll, cannot justify it as anything other than a make-shift cosh...

Welcome to living a free country. You can sue anyone for anything, but it doesn't mean you stand a chance. Trust me, it's better this way.

Better than what?

[highoeyazmuhudee]

Yeah in Canada too if you use the intruders weapon against him and you werent in a situation where it was him or you, you're in the wrong. If you over hear someone planning to break into your house and you setup a trap and it injures them, youre in the wrong, which means premeditating to use a blunt common object as a weapon is a crime once used. You can get around carrying pepperspray if it's labeled "bear repellent" it still contains 0.5% capsicum but is NOT "intended" to be used on humans. In Switzerland it's your civic duty to be armed and carry your weapon, things like the Gestapo I guess have made some nations edgy since and it's not a far fetched scenario as history has taught us. I used to think Americans were gun totting fanatics, and I never understood the obsession. But after taking a history lesson in high school and learning about world war 2 and American history i'd say this quote from Thomas Jefferson clarified it for me "tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry". the right to protect your family and property is a good right to have. In my experience police exist after the fact, to collect information and make arrests. I'd have to say I take a more proactive interest in protecting my loved ones cause after the fact may be too late, and wouldnt rely on the police to provide such protection with all due respect to the officers who put their lives on the line daily.

I think if you murdered a burglar with his own weapon that he intended to use against you a jury of your peers would not, should not ever find you guilty. I know Louisiana has a "shoot the carjacker" law, which means if you're threatened with a carjacking youre within your rights to shoot them with out fear of prosecution, but then again Louisiana has other interesting antiquated laws as well... is it still legal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet there?

[TeeJay]

Yeah in Canada too if you use the intruders weapon against him and you werent in a situation where it was him or you, you're in the wrong. If you over hear someone planning to break into your house and you setup a trap and it injures them, youre in the wrong, which means premeditating to use a blunt common object as a weapon is a crime once used.

Now that touches back on the stainless steel dildo scenario...

Attourney: "Why do you keep a stainless steel truncheon by your bed, Sir?"

Defendant: "My wife likes it shoved in her *insert orifice of choice here* while we have intercourse..."

That'd get a chuckle if nothing else

You can get around carrying pepperspray if it's labeled "bear repellent" it still contains 0.5% capsicum but is NOT "intended" to be used on humans.

In such a case, would someone have to prove that they actually needed to repel bears (ie camping etc) or would the fact that it's "bear repellent" rather than "Mace" on the can be sufficient?

In Switzerland it's your civic duty to be armed and carry your weapon, things like the Gestapo I guess have made some nations edgy since and it's not a far fetched scenario as history has taught us. I used to think Americans were gun totting fanatics, and I never understood the obsession. But after taking a history lesson in high school and learning about world war 2 and American history i'd say this quote from Thomas Jefferson clarified it for me "tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry". the right to protect your family and property is a good right to have. In my experience police exist after the fact, to collect information and make arrests. I'd have to say I take a more proactive interest in protecting my loved ones cause after the fact may be too late, and wouldnt rely on the police to provide such protection with all due respect to the officers who put their lives on the line daily.

I think if you murdered a burglar with his own weapon that he intended to use against you a jury of your peers would not, should not ever find you guilty. I know Louisiana has a "shoot the carjacker" law, which means if you're threatened with a carjacking youre within your rights to shoot them with out fear of prosecution, but then again Louisiana has other interesting antiquated laws as well... is it still legal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet there?

I totally agree with you, and I think the quote in my OP definitely covers the same issue (why Jefferson quoted it). That's interesting about the carjacking law, and indeed, many strange antiquated laws about. In England, it's still illegal for a young man not to practice his archery on the village green on a sunday due to an antiquated by-law...

[Pugwash]

For example: Someone carrying a stack of coins in a roll, can always use the defense that they are being carried as legal tender, where someone carrying a stack of metal washers in a roll, cannot justify it as anything other than a make-shift cosh...

The moment you use a roll of coins to deck someone, it's a weapon. You have no defence at that point.

If you're worried about being stopped and searched for weapons, maybe there's something fundamentally wrong with something else. Hopefully,. this is all conjecture rather than a plea for assistance in helping you commit a crime.

Better than what?

Better than having laws that restrict what you can attempt legal action over. Those sorts of laws tended to favour the gentry.

In England, it's still illegal for a young man not to practice his archery on the village green on a sunday due to an antiquated by-law...

This law was repealed in 1863.

The legal system isn't that stupid, thankfully.

[PeteM]

In the UK the use of the words 'Going equipped' only refers to Burgulary not acts of Violence.

The term 'intent' refers to the action taken by a person in hitting them with hands etc or weapon. If you done someone with a bat you would be charged with GBH with intent and carrying an offensive weapon if you took the bat off your attacker and did him with it you would probably be charged with GBH only though tht depends on at what point he stopped being a threat and whether you carried on hitting him with it.

For carrying weapons the key as TeeJay mentioned is 'Offensive' basically its an article that can have no other use but as a weapon or be an article carried by a person who could have no other reason than to use it as a weapon. So it can be a matter of circumstances and rely on Police descretion.

A kid on the way back from the park carrying a basebal bat and ball during the day has a better reason than a kid on his way back with just the bat at night. So the former wouldnt be considered to be carrying an offensive weapon on the face of it.

In the old days it was common practice to always have a ball to hand in your car say if you were carrying a bat or the like in it.

Of course sharpening steel combs, razor blades in soles of shoes or sharpened coins were also common plus the Millwall brick (rolled up newspaper) was also a way of getting round this if you knew how to use it/them. But generally the best way was to be aware of your surroundings and items to hand and whether or not you feel the situation is deteriotating enough to do so or concerned it would. Kubos were also pretty useful as they sat nicely on a key ring though these were better for self defense rather than offense. Many a time bricks would be removed from the top of gardens walls you name it you can use it.

Currently football authorities are considering banning coins at footie matches as they are thrown regularly at fans and players.

UK law is softening with self defense mitigation as violent anti social crime increases. The key is 'reasonable' force in self defense which is measured generally in what would it reasonably take to stop that person from threatening or harming you that in turn depends on there size, weapon, number etc. You can also go on state of mind fear can easily turn to panic and panic can increase the response of the defensive action.

Basically the 'self defense' defence is subject to great confusion in the UK and where you are in the country, who you are, what you did, how you did it, why you did it and who you did it to can mean the difference between no charge and jail time.

Thats IMHO

[TeeJay]

The moment you use a roll of coins to deck someone, it's a weapon. You have no defence at that point.

If you're worried about being stopped and searched for weapons, maybe there's something fundamentally wrong with something else. Hopefully,. this is all conjecture rather than a plea for assistance in helping you commit a crime.

If I was going to commit a crime, I certainly wouldn't discuss it on an internet forum This is all very hypothetical conjecture about the legality, given that a roll of coins is quite simply, legal tender, until, as you rightly pointed out, its used to deck someone, but, the issue which interested me, was: If someone was to carry a roll of coins with the intent of it being 'emergency funds' or self-defense, would that be categorized as an offensive weapon, given that it would be 1) legal tender, and 2) not being carried by a crim with the intent to whack someone, but possibly by someone wanting to carry an 'equalizer' should they be attacked...

Better than having laws that restrict what you can attempt legal action over. Those sorts of laws tended to favour the gentry.

That's definitely true.

This law was repealed in 1863.

The legal system isn't that stupid, thankfully.

I didn't realize it had been repealed, but that is interesting to know

[cornerstone]

I think it would be very hard to prove the intent to use them as a weapon, over the intent to have 'emergency funds'. Of course, if said roll of coins was carried while inside a sock, then that would be a bit easier to prove 'intent'...

Reading the thread it sounds like you're honing in on the point. Carrying a roll of coins could be an offence with intent to use them as a weapon (as suggested), proving intent is a matter of evidence.

The moment it gets used in a fight, then there's both intent and also a very good chance of proving it. In fact it would be a very bad idea to use coins, because it would raise the type of charge and penalty, and reduce the odds of success of claiming any kind of self-defence - it's more likely to be argued that the person was out 'looking for trouble'.

But someone walking down the street with coins in their pocket being wrongly accused? It would be very hard to prove intent. That may not stop the police intervening, but the odds of it being prosecuted would be minimal, and of actually succeeding even less. There are circumstances where you can imagine intent being proven though. If a group of thirty men going to a football match all had a roll of coins in their pocket, I think that would be an unlikely coincidence, say.

[Ronin]

Ditto what Pug said above, but on a serious note...

I knew someone who was punched by someone with a roll of quarters. It literally caved in the side of his face. Multiple plastic surgery's later, and lawsuits against the guy who punched him, the guy with the quarters LOST.

Using something like this will invoke devastating damage. Your LIFE better be at real risk here, and not just a testosterone based bar fight.

As a martial artist for over 25 years, and instructor at times, lesson #1 is to avoid a physical altercation. So be a Pussy and run. Then if push comes to shove, use what you have at your disposal.

Also, by the time you reach into your pocket to pull out your roll of coins you have 'telegraphed' your move so badly you might just loose anyway. (I know if I saw someone reach into their pocket and pull out the coins, their ass would be knocked out (with one proper blow) before they could raise their fist)

[Anopsis]

Not that I have an issue with strict licensing laws. I'm a firm believer in the Second Amendment rights, but, much as people are tested and licensed to drive, I don't think it unfair that people be tested and licensed to carry firearms

I agree that people should be licensed and tested to carry, but not to own. The US Constitution / Bill Of Rights do not mention your RIGHT to drive a car. Operating a motor vehicle is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT and as such can be controlled to the nth degree.

I am a Concealed Carry Instructor for the State of Kentucky, and our laws are pretty relaxed.

WITHOUT a permit for concealed carry, a person may:

• carry it on their person, provided it is VISIBLE (legal, but not recommended obviously)
  
• Place it in a glovebox (NOT a center console, etc.), on the dash, or on the seat next to you in a vehicle. Again, must be visible unless in the glovebox.
  
  
  Obtaining a permit is necessary only for concealed carry. Kentucky has reciprocity with several other states (concealed carry is regulated at the state level and not Federal), but not all states in the US will recognize ours because we allow other items to be carried with the permit. It's not a "concealed gun permit", it's a "concealed deadly weapons" permit.
  
  As such, KY allows:
  
  • Firearms
    
  • Knives, including autos
    
  • Brass knuckles
    
  • Billy clubs
    
  • Blackjack / Slapjack
    
  • Throwing stars (I'm serious here)
    
  • Nunchaku (see above)
    

  I am constantly amazed that some states will not recognize our permit because we allow knives. A GUN is ok, but not a knife.

[highoeyazmuhudee]

in Canada licensing is ALL about knowing and demonstrating gun safety and not having a history of mental health issues or intent to offend or have previously offended, I believe there is nothing wrong with this process. However I disagree with the Canadian government when it comes to prohibited restricted weapons and carrying a weapon like carrying your wallet. I believe one should be allowed to carry for safety reasons once you've acquired a single license (PAL) to buy and own AND CARRY even a handgun or pistol, and short of buying WMDs we should be allowed to own assault rifles and handguns like the AK47 if we so desire. Our laws are indeed odd, if you collect guns and can demonstrate knowledge about your collection you can infact own prohibited restricted firearms in Canada as long as its part of a collection and registered, or if you have the firing pin removed you can possess it as well. I find that ironic since if you're a nut job you'd probably have an arsenal of weapons (a collection if you will) and there fore technically allowed to posses it. But our government sees no reason in allowing hand guns to the public because they seem to have no other purpose than to kill your fellow man without them seeing it coming, and hunting a deer doesnt take a fully automatic assault rifle. Also kevlar body armor for a civilian is illegal, which I also DONT agree with since it comes down to personal protection whether you actually need it or are just paranoid. But I guess the government sees it as being harder for the police to kill you if they really have to in a shoot out.

handgun permits are reserved for police and brinks truck security guards.

knuckles, autos, throwing stars, asp batons, other martial art devices are all also illegal to carry. However these new "spring assisted knives" seem to fall outside of the law and are offered for sale locally and even on ebay, im not sure how theyre differently than autos really

[Pugwash]

As a martial artist for over 25 years, and instructor at times, lesson #1 is to avoid a physical altercation. So be a Pussy and run. Then if push comes to shove, use what you have at your disposal.

Lesson 2 is run.

Lesson 1 is don't be there in the first place.

(I may have studied a bit of martial arts in my youth)

[Anopsis]

Lesson 1 is don't be there in the first place.

EXACTLY. I have had students with a "now I can walk through the bad part of town at 3am" attitude. There will always be some people that just don't understand carrying a weapon is a defensive measure.

deadly force is a last resort, not a first option.

[fakemaster]

I'd love to help you. But in all the years I've been alive I have never had the need to carry a roll of quarters on me.

[FxrAndy]

is it still legal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet there?

Yep and you can hunt pigs with spears, but you cant hunt with a crossbow unless you are handicaped (too easy)

[cornerstone]

I guess the upshot of the conversation is to take a roll of notes instead - to throw up in the air as chaff while you leg it.

[FxrAndy]

I guess the upshot of the conversation is to take a roll of notes instead - to throw up in the air as chaff while you leg it.

And it would work

[TeeJay]

I'm heading off to help run a mind/body/spirit fair with my father in law, so wanted to try and address everything before 24 hours away from a computer... Thanks for the awesome comments and input, amigos, this has truly been an interesting and enlightening discussion

In the UK the use of the words 'Going equipped' only refers to Burgulary not acts of Violence.

The term 'intent' refers to the action taken by a person in hitting them with hands etc or weapon. If you done someone with a bat you would be charged with GBH with intent and carrying an offensive weapon if you took the bat off your attacker and did him with it you would probably be charged with GBH only though tht depends on at what point he stopped being a threat and whether you carried on hitting him with it.

For carrying weapons the key as TeeJay mentioned is 'Offensive' basically its an article that can have no other use but as a weapon or be an article carried by a person who could have no other reason than to use it as a weapon. So it can be a matter of circumstances and rely on Police descretion.

A kid on the way back from the park carrying a basebal bat and ball during the day has a better reason than a kid on his way back with just the bat at night. So the former wouldnt be considered to be carrying an offensive weapon on the face of it.

In the old days it was common practice to always have a ball to hand in your car say if you were carrying a bat or the like in it.

Of course sharpening steel combs, razor blades in soles of shoes or sharpened coins were also common plus the Millwall brick (rolled up newspaper) was also a way of getting round this if you knew how to use it/them. But generally the best way was to be aware of your surroundings and items to hand and whether or not you feel the situation is deteriotating enough to do so or concerned it would. Kubos were also pretty useful as they sat nicely on a key ring though these were better for self defense rather than offense. Many a time bricks would be removed from the top of gardens walls you name it you can use it.

Currently football authorities are considering banning coins at footie matches as they are thrown regularly at fans and players.

UK law is softening with self defense mitigation as violent anti social crime increases. The key is 'reasonable' force in self defense which is measured generally in what would it reasonably take to stop that person from threatening or harming you that in turn depends on there size, weapon, number etc. You can also go on state of mind fear can easily turn to panic and panic can increase the response of the defensive action.

Basically the 'self defense' defence is subject to great confusion in the UK and where you are in the country, who you are, what you did, how you did it, why you did it and who you did it to can mean the difference between no charge and jail time.

Thats IMHO

That's precisely the point I was trying to focus on, as a roll of coins, at the end of the day, is literally just a roll of coins, and can always be used as the currency they're intended to be, rather than something which has been modified into a weapon, and will remain a weapon (like a sharpened comb, for instance)

Reading the thread it sounds like you're honing in on the point. Carrying a roll of coins could be an offence with intent to use them as a weapon (as suggested), proving intent is a matter of evidence.

The moment it gets used in a fight, then there's both intent and also a very good chance of proving it. In fact it would be a very bad idea to use coins, because it would raise the type of charge and penalty, and reduce the odds of success of claiming any kind of self-defence - it's more likely to be argued that the person was out 'looking for trouble'.

But someone walking down the street with coins in their pocket being wrongly accused? It would be very hard to prove intent. That may not stop the police intervening, but the odds of it being prosecuted would be minimal, and of actually succeeding even less. There are circumstances where you can imagine intent being proven though. If a group of thirty men going to a football match all had a roll of coins in their pocket, I think that would be an unlikely coincidence, say.

That's precisely the points I was meaning: Would a roll of coins, on their own (with no fight occuring) be considered an 'offensive weapon', or, would they simply be considered as carrying currency? Of course, as soon as someone tools up and hits someone, then that's a different matter, but even then, there is a difference between an offensive, and a defensive weapon...

Ditto what Pug said above, but on a serious note...

I knew someone who was punched by someone with a roll of quarters. It literally caved in the side of his face. Multiple plastic surgery's later, and lawsuits against the guy who punched him, the guy with the quarters LOST.

Using something like this will invoke devastating damage. Your LIFE better be at real risk here, and not just a testosterone based bar fight.

As a martial artist for over 25 years, and instructor at times, lesson #1 is to avoid a physical altercation. So be a Pussy and run. Then if push comes to shove, use what you have at your disposal.

Also, by the time you reach into your pocket to pull out your roll of coins you have 'telegraphed' your move so badly you might just loose anyway. (I know if I saw someone reach into their pocket and pull out the coins, their ass would be knocked out (with one proper blow) before they could raise their fist)

I have to admit, I didn't realize a roll of quarters could inflict that kind of damage, that's some pretty serious stuff. I guess the guy with the quarters was the one starting the fight? And you're absolutely spot on about avoiding physical confrontations. I think it's funny when people think they're going to learn martial arts 'to be hard', when anyone who's actually studied martial arts will try and avoid confrontation where possible.

I agree that people should be licensed and tested to carry, but not to own. The US Constitution / Bill Of Rights do not mention your RIGHT to drive a car. Operating a motor vehicle is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT and as such can be controlled to the nth degree.

I am a Concealed Carry Instructor for the State of Kentucky, and our laws are pretty relaxed.

WITHOUT a permit for concealed carry, a person may:

• carry it on their person, provided it is VISIBLE (legal, but not recommended obviously)
  
• Place it in a glovebox (NOT a center console, etc.), on the dash, or on the seat next to you in a vehicle. Again, must be visible unless in the glovebox.
  
  
  Obtaining a permit is necessary only for concealed carry. Kentucky has reciprocity with several other states (concealed carry is regulated at the state level and not Federal), but not all states in the US will recognize ours because we allow other items to be carried with the permit. It's not a "concealed gun permit", it's a "concealed deadly weapons" permit.
  
  As such, KY allows:
  
  • Firearms
    
  • Knives, including autos
    
  • Brass knuckles
    
  • Billy clubs
    
  • Blackjack / Slapjack
    
  • Throwing stars (I'm serious here)
    
  • Nunchaku (see above)
    

  I am constantly amazed that some states will not recognize our permit because we allow knives. A GUN is ok, but not a knife.

  I agree, people should be allowed to own, because as you say, that's what the Second Ammendment allows, but, as legislation, that could apply to someone being allowed to own one handgun/rifle, possibly of a specific calibre/non-auto, but to be a collector and have access to a wider range of firearms (as well as concealed carrying), that's when I think the licencing should come into play. That's interesting to know that the CDW will allow things like knucks and blackjacks as well as the other more exotic knives, rather than just relating purely to firearms

  EXACTLY. I have had students with a "now I can walk through the bad part of town at 3am" attitude. There will always be some people that just don't understand carrying a weapon is a defensive measure.

  deadly force is a last resort, not a first option.

  Absolutely. I think that is something that some people just can't understand, and in the UK, it is certainly more of a widespread attitude. The recent spate of knife crime in the UK has been horrendous, and I think it's only right that someone be allowed to carry something to defend themselves, should the need arise (Mace, taser, coins etc), and people shouldn't have to live in fear of an attack, or being able to defend themselves, because of the law. As I quoted last night:

  "laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

  - Cesare Beccaria

  I guess the upshot of the conversation is to take a roll of notes instead - to throw up in the air as chaff while you leg it.

  If only we still had pound notes to be able to do that with

[Anopsis]

I guess the upshot of the conversation is to take a roll of notes instead - to throw up in the air as chaff while you leg it.

I wonder what would happen if you threw your stuff up in the air and started yelling things like "Pop flares, take evasive!" and extended your arms like wings. Aircraft engine sounds would be mandatory.

Even criminals don't like messing with nutjobs.

[cornerstone]

If only we still had pound notes to be able to do that with

Scotland still produces pound notes (perhaps for this very purpose!!). Or use fivers

@Anopsis: gut feeling that the airplane impression probably won't help, but would be interested to see the results.

[TeeJay]

Scotland still produces pound notes (perhaps for this very purpose!!). Or use fivers

If only my pockets were deep enough

[narikaa]

A curious anomaly of the English legal psyche that it can devote tombs of explanation of what constitutes an OFFENSIVE weapon (as opposed to just a weapon) with no regard to the fact that theyve now invented a category of weapons. So by definition if there are OFFENSIVE weapons there must be DEFENSIVE weapons...seems to have escaped them though

Another anomaly is its the only time in English law were the accused has to prove his/her innocence. PC Plod takes a disapproving look at your roll o' coins & hoicks you off to the nick, desk sergeant charges you with the offensive weapon, CPS runs with it (banks dont issue these after all - so over to you Charlie)...and you'll end up in court having to PROVE that it is benign.

Anyhoo whats with the weighted punch? Lightsaber not holding a charge these days

.