Chronos wrote:Once you open the door it could be very hard to shut it. Not having a go just asking the "devils advocate" question
And it's good to consider both sides. Something that should be encouraged more in a world that seems to be increasingly of the opinion "Shut the other side up, they're dangerous"...
Firstly remember that I'm talking about defensive non lethal weapons. Not offensive lethal weapons.
As for attackers carrying these things - criminals already carry worse. That's the similar logic that's used against us as LAFO's. What if a criminal gets the weapon.
Knives seem to be quite popular already. (And illegal to carry). If they managed to get their hands on pepper spray, I'll take my chances with getting sprayed over stabbed any day. Even better if I had the equivalent to fight back with.
By restricting law abiding people from having access to defend themselves you make the fight one way. By allowing people to have some sort of equipment you counter that. Take a page from the USA and see where the massacres occur. In areas where there are tighter restrictions on the law abiding.
Now before you think I'm going gun ho - I'm not saying that we go the way of America and give out lethal weapons - but you can learn from what's happened there where they have placed restrictions on the law abiding and the results and apply it to our situation...
As Gwion asked (A fair and reasonable question worth consideration):
"How would you guys suggest the law be changed so that 'decent' people can defend themselves but 'thugs/crims' can still be charged for carrying offensive weapons; or, do you just let everyone carry what ever they like and wait for the thugs to be caught with a weapon after a known offence, before they can be charged???" - a reasonable question that adds to the discussion.
As such, my suggestion would be to allow people to get a permit for carrying such items. (Similar to CC in America, but have it here with non lethal options). Requirements could include a clean record, law abiding, etc. It would have a two fold approach in my opinion:
1) It would allow people who are concerned, or even have a need to have some sort of defense available. (Such as those with IVO's against someone else)...
2) It would also give an incentive to people to have a clean record. If you have a good record, you can be trusted more. At present, good record or not - we're all untrusted.
The government rarely use incentives, and instead just try to go for penalties. Giving out incentives such as the ability to be trusted carrying such equipment may actually give people more of an incentive to do the right thing.