Self-defence (even with a gun or knife or such tool that you happen to have in your hand) is a legitimate defence. However, you cannot legally carry any kind of weapon, including a pointy stick or cricket bat, just in case.
You live in a different country. Your country’s experience does not map particularly well to mine, and it is futile to attempt to do so.
Some GQ-esque things:
In 1987, a twat killed 16 people using two semi-automatic rifles and a handgun. Semi-autos were banned.
In 1996, an utter beast of a man killed 16 primary one children, and one of their teachers, using a mix of handguns. All bar one of the 28 children in that gymnasium sustained gunshot wounds. Handguns were banned
In 2010, an absolute fud killed 11 people, using a shotgun and a .22 rifle. Shotguns and rifles were not banned, and there was no great clamour for them to be banned either.
Mainland UK public opinion seems to have settled on what the balance between the utility of legal firearms and the risk to public safety is.
There’s plenty of debate threads discussing UK gun laws on here, and searching for “Hungerford” or “Dunblane” or “Cumbria” should get you most of them.
There is an important distinction between using something you have handy as a self-defence weapon, and going out of your way to get one.
If you are on your way to cricket practice and use the bat you are carrying to defend yourself, that is legitimate, so long as you don’t use excessive force. That means that it’s okay to hit an assailant with it, but not to chase them down and club them to death.
I watched an episode of Bull this evening (yes I am sure that it really is ‘bull’ even in the USA) but he got a battered wife acquitted of murder, even though she took a gun from a drawer and shot him while he was sleeping. In this country that would have been murder with a 25-year minimum sentence, regardless of the provocation.
I used to have a friend in the Metropolitan Police. Sometimes they would stop random cars in the early hours of the morning and check them out. Many of them would be private-hire car drivers, and it wasn’t uncommon to find a couple of feet of scaffold pole or a heavy screwdriver on the floor beside the seat. They would ask what it was doing there, and the sensible ones would say “Oh! That’s where it is, I was looking for that.” The stupid ones would say “I keep it there to defend myself with if a customer gets aggressive,” The former would be sent on their way with a cautionary word; the latter would be nicked for carrying an offensive weapon.
It is 5 years in prison for being in the possession of an unlicensed firearm. Those who have a license are also committing an offence if it is carried in a public place.
The only time you see guns is when the police are on terrorist alert or responding to any report of someone possessing a firearm or sometimes armed police are seen guarding foreign embassies.
Bodyguards have to use their unarmed combat skills.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/firearms
“It is further emphasised that the specified minimum terms are 5 years’ imprisonment where the offender was 18 years or over at the date of conviction and, in accordance with section 289 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, 3 years’ detention under section 91(A) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 for an offender aged at least 16 but under 18 years.”
What happens when a foreign head of state visits is , I guess, subject to a lot of negotiation.
Or the famous “Carry a baseball bat in your car but also a glove and a ball and claim you were just on the way to the park” defense
There was a cause célèbre a few years ago, where an elderly farmer living on his own shot and killed an unarmed burglar in the middle of the night. The tabloid papers and assorted political bandwagon-jumpers were up in arms when he was charged with murder, but during the trial it was proved that he shot the burglar in the back. So he was convicted of murder. But then, new evidence was brought in that his mental health had been compromised by repeated night burglaries, and in appeal the verdict and sentence were downgraded to manslaughter.
If you lash out with whatever to happen to have to hand, there may be consequences. Self-defence has to be proportionate to the threat, and if you shoot and injure someone, you’re going to have to convince all and sundry that you had good reason to fear for your life.
The kind of instinctive response you describe is exactly why we have such a restrictive attitude to gun ownership.
Not at all. That would be a proper case of diminished responsibility following *R v Ahluwalia * (1993) 96 Cr App R 133
Farmers and landowners are permitted some categories of firearms for vermin control. I don’t think deer are included in that - so scaring them away, rather than killing them, is the normal practice.
The most dangerous wild animals in Britain (literally, the wild animal responsible for the most human deaths) are bees and wasps - guns are pretty ineffective forms of defence against these ferocious killers, so up to about a dozen people are still killed each year by these beasts.
There are other (non-wild) animals that cause a greater number of deaths - dogs, cows and horses kill more people than wasps and bees, but guns probably aren’t the answer there either.
For those interested, the UK law on self-defence is set out and explained here.
It boils down to: you can use force to defend yourself, or others, or property. If you find yourself relying on self-defence when accused, your defence will rest on:
whether it was necessary for you to act;
whether the action you took was reasonable in the circumstances as you believed them to be.
The italicised part is critical - even if you were wrong, and even if you were unreasonably wrong (i.e. you’ve just blasted a pair of nuns who knocked on your door for directions because you mistook them for Spetznatz assassins), if the jury is convinced that you really, really did believe that, then you should be acquited. Of course, the more flagrantly mistaken you are, the less likely the jury are to believe that your were merely mistaken and not just lying about your true intentions.
In more detail: self-defence is both common law and statutory law. The relevant common law is summed up in the following quotes:
The question of what force is reasonable is situational and to be decided by a jury:
So if you claim that you believed that you were under immediate threat of serious violence, and the jury believes you, they can find it reasonable that in the heat of the moment you felt you had no choice but to use your shotgun/cricket bat/screwdriver, alas fatally. As to whether the jury should believe that you honestly believed you were under such a threat:
There is a re-wilding movement that’s looking to reintroduce wolves in the Highlands, mainly as a means of deer control. (There is even, on the fringes, talk of bear.) It’s not going to happen any time soon, if at all, but if it ever does I wonder if it would create greater demand and/or a new rationale for firearm ownership.
I doubt it. The people who would be affected would most likely already have guns. I suppose the technicalities may be such that the likelihood of wolves attacking farm livestock would justify a different sort of weapon from what the person concerned was already licensed for (e.g., a hunting rifle rather than a shotgun) but my guess would be that most of the people concerned would already hold that sort of gun as well. What you wouldn’t get, I’m almost certain, is random hikers suddenly demanding and being allowed a gun on the off-chance of meeting a wolf: it would probably be the landowner’s responsibility to post warning signs and if necessary maybe to arrange for people to hire an armed guide as a condition of access to the land in question.
<Need Like button>