# Self-Defence spray



## FieldDiscipline (May 28, 2008)

In the new liarbor utopia :bs: that is Great Britain today; mace, tasers etc are banned.  Despite even MPs getting mugged.

What does everyone make of this, with nothing else other than fisticuffs available, how do you rate the efectiveness of this kit?


----------



## arnisador (May 28, 2008)

Knives are restricted there too...what is one to do?


----------



## FieldDiscipline (May 28, 2008)

There's a vid for it here.

I'm just thinking in terms of female colleagues etc.  I wonder how easy this kit is to deploy when frightened and/or under attack.

Doesnt look like there is a lot of it.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 28, 2008)

Well if it is legal the it is better than nothing.  Still I think I would probably go for a cane and a rather sturdy metal pen as my first line based on the situation in the UK.  

Those that are self defense oriented in the UK have it tough.  Still I would hope that more people are flocking to unarmed self defense training.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (May 28, 2008)

You'd hope so wouldnt you Brian?  I'm not sure it is the case.

The heavier duty version shown here looks a bit better, but even the demonstrator seems to struggle to get it on target to begin with.  When the target is moving I think I'd rather be doing something else.  

Thanks for the links, will have a look at those.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 28, 2008)

What's a liarbor?


----------



## FieldDiscipline (May 28, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> What's a liarbor?



This.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 28, 2008)

FieldDiscipline said:


> This.



Former Chancellors and current PM's?  My, what a curious phrasing.

ETA:  Oh, I finally get it.  The LIEbrul treatment for Labor.  My, how clever and amusing...


----------



## FieldDiscipline (May 28, 2008)

Do I detect sarcasm there?  Its a play on Labour and lies actually.


----------



## Jai (May 28, 2008)

agreed that it is total bs. People are victims enough and now government makes them the bad guys for defending themselves unless they use this fancy little kit that doesn't look like it would work unless the attacker stood there and looked stupid for 20 minutes while the victim figures out how to use it.


----------



## Deaf Smith (May 28, 2008)

First the spary cannot be carried in England as to do so it becomes an 'offensive weapon'. That is the weapon IS designed for defense and not something normaly carried, like an umbrella, and thus it's banned.

It maybe ok for the house, but I'd consult their laws first.

As for fistcufts. Do not be suprised when the MPs demand the banning of martial arts in England. It's coming. After all, the punching and kicking is making the arms and legs 'offensive weapons' in their own right. 

In Canada they have already banned books on how to kill, so if they can ban that knowledge, then there is no reason they cannot ban the passing of knowlege of the martial arts.

And that will put England on par with Okinawa back when the Japanese banned all swords and martial arts (and Korea for that matter.)

Deaf


----------



## tellner (May 28, 2008)

Remember, _*anything*_ that is carried for the purpose of self defense is an illegal weapon in the UK. And _*anything*_ that you keep in your house for that purpose is at least questionable as well. You can have a three foot battle ax as long as you're a legitimate collector. And you can smite someone with it if you have to do so to protect your life. But if you carry so much as a Bic pen for the purpose of self defense it's a crime if you tell that to the police when questioned.


----------



## chinto (May 29, 2008)

Amazing what happens when people do not look at history!!  NO WHERE IN THE WORLD IN HISTORY has any kind of weapons ban worked to disarm the criminal!! all that happens is the honest man is deprived his method of defense.

that is historical fact.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 14, 2008)

chinto said:


> Amazing what happens when people do not look at history!! NO WHERE IN THE WORLD IN HISTORY has any kind of weapons ban worked to disarm the criminal!! all that happens is the honest man is deprived his method of defense.
> 
> that is historical fact.


 A fact LOST on the statist left who have sought to run western civilization of late!  I often wonder who's side their really on.....then I remember!


----------



## tellner (Jun 14, 2008)

As I pointed out in excruciating detail you can't completely disarm people even in prison. But you can reduce the availability and popularity of different classes of weapons. That's why there's little to no machine gun or grenade crime in the US even though they were more popular a lifetime ago.

Oh, and the term "statist" is one of the stupidest things to come out of the mouths of the fundie libertarians. All it means is that people believe the government has some legitimate function other than protecting the property of the very rich and that nations are a good thing.


----------



## Drac (Jun 14, 2008)

FieldDiscipline said:


> I'm just thinking in terms of female colleagues etc. I wonder how easy this kit is to deploy when frightened and/or under attack.


 
That's the $64.000.000 question..Will they be able to use it when the time come???


----------



## Kacey (Jun 14, 2008)

Okay, so you've marked him with dye that looks like he's bleeding from a head wound... other than coating an attacker's eyes shut, how does this help you defend yourself?  Does it sting?  Hurt?  Is it sticky?  I mean, how is this stuff actually _defensive_?


----------



## tellner (Jun 14, 2008)

This crap was around years ago in the States. It never sold for the simple reason that it's worthless. It doesn't incapacitate. It doesn't stop. It doesn't even slow a person down. A paste of warm water and detergent will remove it with a good scrubbing, so the "evidence marker" words are a lie. The upside was that if you returned the used canister to the manufacturer you'd get a free replacement. I supposed one could paint a dorm room cheaply if slowly that way. Cheap plastic thing doesn't even make a good hand packer. 

Brian is, alas, incorrect. It isn't "better than nothing". It's worse. While you're fumbling around for it and spray painting your attacker you could be doing something useful. Wasted seconds are lost lives in a violent self defense situation. 

Its only reason for existence is to transfer cash from the frightened to the greedy.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 14, 2008)

I remember seeing ads for it over 20 years ago...maybe 30. The idea was that knowing he would be indelibly marked would be a deterrent to the criminal--that he would discontinue his assault when he saw that the dyeing was imminent for fear that his friends/fasmily/co-workers would turn him in to the police after the fact. I never heard of an actual use of it;teh closest I know of is the exploding dye packs that banks use sometimes get dye on bank robbers as well as the money.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 15, 2008)

tellner said:


> As I pointed out in excruciating detail you can't completely disarm people even in prison. But you can reduce the availability and popularity of different classes of weapons. That's why there's little to no machine gun or grenade crime in the US even though they were more popular a lifetime ago.
> 
> Oh, and the term "statist" is one of the stupidest things to come out of the mouths of the fundie libertarians. All it means is that people believe the government has some legitimate function other than protecting the property of the very rich and that nations are a good thing.


  No, what is STUPID is the idea that you can trade enough liberty to to the state to feel perfectly safe and secure.  

Individuals in a free society must take on a good measure of their OWN responsibility for their OWN safety, unless they'd prefer the state just put a fence around them and feed them hay on a daily basis.  That's why self-defense isn't just an option, it's a DUTY as a FREE PEOPLE!

As for the silly notion that making something illegal makes it unavailable and eliminates crime, how's that working for cocaine, methamphetamines, heroin, etc, etc, etc,.


----------



## Drac (Jun 15, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> As for the silly notion that making something illegal makes it unavailable and eliminates crime, how's that working for cocaine, methamphetamines, heroin, etc, etc, etc,.


 
and the possession of illegal firearms by felons...


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Jun 15, 2008)

Drac said:


> That's the $64.000.000 question..Will they be able to use it when the time come???





tellner said:


> While you're fumbling around for it and spray painting your attacker you could be doing something useful. *Wasted seconds are lost lives in a violent self defense situation*.



I must admit that was what I was thinking.


----------



## allenjp (Jun 16, 2008)

Yet another thing to make me glad I live in the states...no matter how bad it is getting...


----------



## allenjp (Jun 16, 2008)

Drac said:


> and the possession of illegal firearms by felons...


 
Yeah, it's really frightening how many people just buy into this silly concept...


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 16, 2008)

You probably have to bear in mind that in the inner cities it's often the women doing the attacking. Not joking.
FieldDiscipline you say even MPs and Ministers getting mugged like it's a bad thing lol!
Weapons for women to carry...keys, kubotan, combs (metal) CDs, credit cards, hairspray adn I'm sure you can all think of more. yes all legal. In England and Wales (Scotland too as far as I'm aware) defending yourself is perfectly legal and no you won't be arrested for it, that's a bit of an urban myth. In fact you are allowed to strike first which I believe you may not be allowed to in the States (?), if you are in fear of your life you may use a pre emptive strike. All that is demanded of you is that you use *reasonable* *force*.  
That doesn't mean once the attackers on the floor you can then pummel him to death however much you are tempted.

I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding about the law in UK about SD, there's a good deal of misinformation going about.There's nothing stopping people from defending themselves here and even using a weapon to do so but you have to understand that every case will be investigated as otherwise someone could claim self defence when in fact they were the attacker. It has to be fair, however remember that when it's being investigated it is gaining evidence to enable the CPS to take the attacker to court.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section5/chapter_d.html

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Jun 17, 2008)

Tez those are very useful links.  Will come in very handy for SD courses!  Thank you.

I've certainly always tried to be very clear when teaching about force and SD.  Most people seem to think reasonable force means minimum and involves being careful with the attacker.  My interpretation is that I will employ maximum force.  How can you know if you're gonna win?  Apply absolute *maximum* aggression and get it done.  As soon as they are down, and not getting up again you stop.

You then run away with the speed of a thousand gazelles.  

To indirectly quote someone I once read (I _think_ it was Geoff Thompson):



> Get them down by all means (or words to that effect) but you cant then stay and perform a 56 move Kata on his head!


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 17, 2008)

The law used to read minimum force but was changed to reasonable force. 
Geoff Thompson is absolutely correct! When you've got the attacker down, my instructor says put him in recovery position then call the police!


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Jun 17, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> The law used to read minimum force but was changed to reasonable force.



Great stuff.  I didnt know that.


----------

