IANAL, but my brief understanding is: you may only use force to defend yourself against force, and you may only use lethal force to defend yourself against lethal force. Self-defense is a valid defense against certain crimes (which I understand is not quite the same thing as being a right, though I can't say I really see the difference); there is no "castle doctrine". When the famous Tony Martin case happened (a farmer shot and killed some burglars (few people have guns in the UK, but farmers are an exception, and relatively commonly own (licensed) shotguns on the grounds of needing to shoot vermin)), I remember a local police officer's comment being "if they were shot in the front he'll get off, but if they were shot in the back he's going to jail".
I think this is pretty similar to the rest of the western world, and certainly to the legal frameworks in much of the US. The interpretation is probably very different, though. So is the legality of carrying weapons in anticipation of an assault...
Interesting. Lethal weapons are banned in much of the world, but based on my reading of it, the UK seems to be pretty radical when it comes to non-lethal tools, compared to most of Europe. Looks like pepper spray, stun guns, or really anything else is not legal to carry.
Legal self-defense tools apparently include bright flashlights / strobes (I kid you not) and personal alarms.
It's actually a pretty extreme doctrine, no? The UK does not enjoy a particularly low rate of assault or rape, compared to most other western countries. If unarmed self-defense is the only thing you can try, this would seem to put smaller-framed women, the elderly, and less physically fit people at a distinct disadvantage. Weird.
Assault with a hand is much less likely to end in serious injury than assault with a weapon.
Additionally, anyone carrying a weapon is up to no good and can be arrested now. Do you know how often I carry a weapon? Never. I've never touched a loaded firearm (and I've been in the UK reserve forces for 15 years). I've never seen a firearm in the hands of anyone who isn't a trained professional (although if I lived in a rural area I'd probably see a farmer use one for vermin). I've never seen anyone with a knife bigger than a penknife (which mustn't lock) outside a kitchen or workshop, and if I did I'd call the police because they're up to no good. I believe that I am much safer than I would be if people around me were carrying weaponry.
You say it's weird. I think it's weird for people to wander around carrying weaponry. I know someone in the US whose brother considered taking a gun to the shops in case there was anyone there with a gun. Carrying weapons causes them to be used. When I go to the pub, do you know how often I wonder if the loud-mouthed slightly drunk guy is carrying a weapon? Never.
Casual UK knife crime (by which I mean the recent influx of stabbings etc amongst, typically, poor teenagers; not hardened criminals, but idiot, insecure children) is rooted in the unfortunate belief that they need to carry weapons to be safe.
> Assault with a hand is much less likely to end in serious injury than assault with a weapon.
Really? I'd take pepper spray over fists. I'm talking specifically about non-lethal choices, especially for people who do not stand a chance in a fist fight.
Most of Europe does allow pepper spray, stun guns, and similar tools, and they really don't see more violence than the UK. In fact, violent crime in the UK is fairly high in comparison with many EU states.
As an aside, do they measure violent crime in the same way? I understand that over half of UK recorded violent crime results in no physical injury to the victim, and there are some recorded violent crimes in which the victim is not required to be present.
There is a common false comparison of violent crime between the US and the UK that appears to indicate the UK suffers more violent crime, because what counts as "violent crime" in the UK is much wider than in the US.