On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:34:10 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:

>> It *is* an offensive weapon and useful as such when needed.   It might
>> not stop an attack,
>> but a good stout walking stick could do a lot of damage when rapped
>> around  the head
>> of some braindead  thug.

>Who will no doubt immediately take it from you and use it on you in a far 
>more vicious manner than a 'rap around the head'............

Yes, I keep hearing the story that defensive weapons are useless
because the attacker will simply take it from you and use it against
you, so you are better off defenceless.

The problem with that theory is that the attacker usually already has
an offensive weapon of his own, so you won't be giving him any
significant advantage even if he does get hold of yours.

And how come the police risk carrying weapons if they are such a
useless liability?

-- 
Cynic

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:38p8p49epq6rle9rn8q5sp5sb9o7iiur9v@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:34:10 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
>>> It *is* an offensive weapon and useful as such when needed.   It might
>>> not stop an attack,
>>> but a good stout walking stick could do a lot of damage when rapped
>>> around  the head
>>> of some braindead  thug.
>
>>Who will no doubt immediately take it from you and use it on you in a far
>>more vicious manner than a 'rap around the head'............
>
> Yes, I keep hearing the story that defensive weapons are useless
> because the attacker will simply take it from you and use it against
> you, so you are better off defenceless.
>
> The problem with that theory is that the attacker usually already has
> an offensive weapon of his own, so you won't be giving him any
> significant advantage even if he does get hold of yours.
>
> And how come the police risk carrying weapons if they are such a
> useless liability?
>
> -- 
Because they are trained to use them.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:53:57 -0000, "Steve O" 
wrote:

>>>Who will no doubt immediately take it from you and use it on you in a far
>>>more vicious manner than a 'rap around the head'............
>>
>> Yes, I keep hearing the story that defensive weapons are useless
>> because the attacker will simply take it from you and use it against
>> you, so you are better off defenceless.
>>
>> The problem with that theory is that the attacker usually already has
>> an offensive weapon of his own, so you won't be giving him any
>> significant advantage even if he does get hold of yours.
>>
>> And how come the police risk carrying weapons if they are such a
>> useless liability?
>>

>Because they are trained to use them.

How much training is needed in the use of pepper spray?  If that's the
*only* reason I may not carry any, then let's have training courses
and allow everyone suitably qualified to carry.

-- 
Cynic

Cynic wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:34:10 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
>>> It *is* an offensive weapon and useful as such when needed.   It
>>> might not stop an attack,
>>> but a good stout walking stick could do a lot of damage when rapped
>>> around  the head
>>> of some braindead  thug.
>
>> Who will no doubt immediately take it from you and use it on you in
>> a far more vicious manner than a 'rap around the head'............
>
> Yes, I keep hearing the story that defensive weapons are useless
> because the attacker will simply take it from you and use it against
> you, so you are better off defenceless.
>
> The problem with that theory is that the attacker usually already has
> an offensive weapon of his own, so you won't be giving him any
> significant advantage even if he does get hold of yours.
>
> And how come the police risk carrying weapons if they are such a
> useless liability?

The only offensive weapon the police carry, that someone is likely to try 
and take from them is the baton. The old truncheon had a wrist strap, and 
the new batons are side-handled - both designed to reduce the likelihood of 
removal.
Also the police receive training in how to use these weapons and how to 
prevent someone taking them from you.

Ret.

Cynic wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:53:57 -0000, "Steve O" 
> wrote:
>
>>>> Who will no doubt immediately take it from you and use it on you
>>>> in a far more vicious manner than a 'rap around the
>>>> head'............
>>>
>>> Yes, I keep hearing the story that defensive weapons are useless
>>> because the attacker will simply take it from you and use it against
>>> you, so you are better off defenceless.
>>>
>>> The problem with that theory is that the attacker usually already
>>> has an offensive weapon of his own, so you won't be giving him any
>>> significant advantage even if he does get hold of yours.
>>>
>>> And how come the police risk carrying weapons if they are such a
>>> useless liability?
>>>
>
>> Because they are trained to use them.
>
> How much training is needed in the use of pepper spray?  If that's the
> *only* reason I may not carry any, then let's have training courses
> and allow everyone suitably qualified to carry.

It is unlikely that anyone would try to take pepper spray from an officer 
because once it has been used they are incapacitated. Having walked through 
a light mist of dilute pepper spray during training I can confirm its 
debilitating effects.

Ret.

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:jg09p413anpgdokba7uidbqge3k8mrc5kj@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:53:57 -0000, "Steve O" 
> wrote:
>
>>>>Who will no doubt immediately take it from you and use it on you in a 
>>>>far
>>>>more vicious manner than a 'rap around the head'............
>>>
>>> Yes, I keep hearing the story that defensive weapons are useless
>>> because the attacker will simply take it from you and use it against
>>> you, so you are better off defenceless.
>>>
>>> The problem with that theory is that the attacker usually already has
>>> an offensive weapon of his own, so you won't be giving him any
>>> significant advantage even if he does get hold of yours.
>>>
>>> And how come the police risk carrying weapons if they are such a
>>> useless liability?
>>>
>
>>Because they are trained to use them.
>
> How much training is needed in the use of pepper spray?

None at all.
UK police don't use pepper spray.

> If that's the
> *only* reason I may not carry any, then let's have training courses
> and allow everyone suitably qualified to carry.

It's not the only reason
>

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:46:12 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:

>> And how come the police risk carrying weapons if they are such a
>> useless liability?

>The only offensive weapon the police carry, that someone is likely to try 
>and take from them is the baton. The old truncheon had a wrist strap, and 
>the new batons are side-handled - both designed to reduce the likelihood of 
>removal.
>Also the police receive training in how to use these weapons and how to 
>prevent someone taking them from you.

If what you say is true, then carrying pepper spray and tazers should
not be a problem, and carrying a baton should be permitted after
suitable training.

-- 
Cynic

Cynic wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:46:12 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
>>> And how come the police risk carrying weapons if they are such a
>>> useless liability?
>
>> The only offensive weapon the police carry, that someone is likely
>> to try and take from them is the baton. The old truncheon had a
>> wrist strap, and the new batons are side-handled - both designed to
>> reduce the likelihood of removal.
>> Also the police receive training in how to use these weapons and how
>> to prevent someone taking them from you.
>
> If what you say is true, then carrying pepper spray and tazers should
> not be a problem, and carrying a baton should be permitted after
> suitable training.

The problem is, as you well know, that these are offensive weapons and, if 
freely available, are more likely to be carried by muggers and other 
criminals than members of the public. A quick squirt in the face from a CS 
aerosol and you are not going to be in any position to counter an attack.

Ret.

"Steve O"  wrote in message 
news:6vj9i6Fkeai8U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Cynic"  wrote in message 
> news:38p8p49epq6rle9rn8q5sp5sb9o7iiur9v@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:34:10 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>
>>>> It *is* an offensive weapon and useful as such when needed.   It might
>>>> not stop an attack,
>>>> but a good stout walking stick could do a lot of damage when rapped
>>>> around  the head
>>>> of some braindead  thug.
>>
>>>Who will no doubt immediately take it from you and use it on you in a far
>>>more vicious manner than a 'rap around the head'............
>>
>> Yes, I keep hearing the story that defensive weapons are useless
>> because the attacker will simply take it from you and use it against
>> you, so you are better off defenceless.
>>
>> The problem with that theory is that the attacker usually already has
>> an offensive weapon of his own, so you won't be giving him any
>> significant advantage even if he does get hold of yours.
>>
>> And how come the police risk carrying weapons if they are such a
>> useless liability?
>>
>> -- 
> Because they are trained to use them.
>

Rubbish.

You local Sealed Knot group gets more weapon training time than most police 
officers...


-- 
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:18:57 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:

>>> The only offensive weapon the police carry, that someone is likely
>>> to try and take from them is the baton. The old truncheon had a
>>> wrist strap, and the new batons are side-handled - both designed to
>>> reduce the likelihood of removal.
>>> Also the police receive training in how to use these weapons and how
>>> to prevent someone taking them from you.
>>
>> If what you say is true, then carrying pepper spray and tazers should
>> not be a problem, and carrying a baton should be permitted after
>> suitable training.
>
>The problem is, as you well know, that these are offensive weapons 

Completely different argument to the point I was countering, which was
your contention that any defensive weapon you might carry is more
likely to be taken and used against you than be of help.

And I disagree that a baton is the only weapon that could be taken
from a police officer.  There have been a few cases where someone has
taken a police officer's CS spay and used it against them.

-- 
Cynic

Ret. wrote:

> Cynic wrote:
> >On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:46:12 -0000, "Ret."
> <xxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > > And how come the police risk carrying
> > > > weapons if they are such a useless
> > > > liability?
> > 
> > > The only offensive weapon the police carry,
> > > that someone is likely to try and take from
> > > them is the baton. The old truncheon had a
> > > wrist strap, and the new batons are
> > > side-handled - both designed to reduce the
> > > likelihood of removal.  Also the police
> > > receive training in how to use these
> > > weapons and how to prevent someone taking
> > > them from you.
> > 
> > If what you say is true, then carrying pepper
> > spray and tazers should not be a problem, and
> > carrying a baton should be permitted after
> > suitable training.
> 
> The problem is, as you well know, that these
> are offensive weapons and, if freely available,
> are more likely to be carried by muggers and
> other criminals than members of the public. A
> quick squirt in the face from a CS aerosol and
> you are not going to be in any position to
> counter an attack.

You get worse.
Freely available? It's a thick short stick.
I have other news for you, the pepper spray is
freely available, and carried by lots of women in
the know. A good substitute is available over the
counter that women often carry with them.
Criminals carry stanley knives, facing one of
those, I want a 2 foot thick stick, not a mobile
phone to call police who will be 20 minutes away.


--

"William Black"  wrote in message 
news:gn3v66$dtq$1@reader.motzarella.org...
>
> "Steve O"  wrote in message 
> news:6vj9i6Fkeai8U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Cynic"  wrote in message 
>> news:38p8p49epq6rle9rn8q5sp5sb9o7iiur9v@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:34:10 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It *is* an offensive weapon and useful as such when needed.   It might
>>>>> not stop an attack,
>>>>> but a good stout walking stick could do a lot of damage when rapped
>>>>> around  the head
>>>>> of some braindead  thug.
>>>
>>>>Who will no doubt immediately take it from you and use it on you in a 
>>>>far
>>>>more vicious manner than a 'rap around the head'............
>>>
>>> Yes, I keep hearing the story that defensive weapons are useless
>>> because the attacker will simply take it from you and use it against
>>> you, so you are better off defenceless.
>>>
>>> The problem with that theory is that the attacker usually already has
>>> an offensive weapon of his own, so you won't be giving him any
>>> significant advantage even if he does get hold of yours.
>>>
>>> And how come the police risk carrying weapons if they are such a
>>> useless liability?
>>>
>>> -- 
>> Because they are trained to use them.
>>
>
> Rubbish.

No, it's a fact.

>
> You local Sealed Knot group gets more weapon training time than most 
> police officers...

Completely wrong.
Baton training, rigid handcuff training and self defence training are 
carried out on a regular basis.

>
>
> -- 
> William Black
>
>
> I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
> Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
> I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
> All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
> Time for tea.

"Steve O"  wrote in message 
news:6vlkcmFknp1oU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "William Black"  wrote in message 
> news:gn3v66$dtq$1@reader.motzarella.org...
>>
>> "Steve O"  wrote in message 
>> news:6vj9i6Fkeai8U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> "Cynic"  wrote in message 
>>> news:38p8p49epq6rle9rn8q5sp5sb9o7iiur9v@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:34:10 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> It *is* an offensive weapon and useful as such when needed.   It 
>>>>>> might
>>>>>> not stop an attack,
>>>>>> but a good stout walking stick could do a lot of damage when rapped
>>>>>> around  the head
>>>>>> of some braindead  thug.
>>>>
>>>>>Who will no doubt immediately take it from you and use it on you in a 
>>>>>far
>>>>>more vicious manner than a 'rap around the head'............
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I keep hearing the story that defensive weapons are useless
>>>> because the attacker will simply take it from you and use it against
>>>> you, so you are better off defenceless.
>>>>
>>>> The problem with that theory is that the attacker usually already has
>>>> an offensive weapon of his own, so you won't be giving him any
>>>> significant advantage even if he does get hold of yours.
>>>>
>>>> And how come the police risk carrying weapons if they are such a
>>>> useless liability?
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>> Because they are trained to use them.
>>>
>>
>> Rubbish.
>
> No, it's a fact.
>
>>
>> You local Sealed Knot group gets more weapon training time than most 
>> police officers...
>
> Completely wrong.
> Baton training, rigid handcuff training and self defence training are 
> carried out on a regular basis.

My information is that the Sealed Knot practice most summer weekends for two 
or three hours before every 'performance'.

How many hours training in this sort of thing do the cops do?

And the shooters,  do they still get three, days once a year?

That's a sight less hours and rounds than your local clay pigeon blaster 
gets.

The reality is that the police rule by consent.  There are too few of them 
to rule by force.

-- 
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

William Black wrote:
> "Steve O"  wrote in message
> news:6vlkcmFknp1oU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "William Black"  wrote in message
>> news:gn3v66$dtq$1@reader.motzarella.org...
>>>
>>> "Steve O"  wrote in message
>>> news:6vj9i6Fkeai8U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Cynic"  wrote in message
>>>> news:38p8p49epq6rle9rn8q5sp5sb9o7iiur9v@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:34:10 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It *is* an offensive weapon and useful as such when needed.   It
>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>> not stop an attack,
>>>>>>> but a good stout walking stick could do a lot of damage when
>>>>>>> rapped around  the head
>>>>>>> of some braindead  thug.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Who will no doubt immediately take it from you and use it on you
>>>>>> in a far
>>>>>> more vicious manner than a 'rap around the head'............
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I keep hearing the story that defensive weapons are useless
>>>>> because the attacker will simply take it from you and use it
>>>>> against you, so you are better off defenceless.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem with that theory is that the attacker usually already
>>>>> has an offensive weapon of his own, so you won't be giving him any
>>>>> significant advantage even if he does get hold of yours.
>>>>>
>>>>> And how come the police risk carrying weapons if they are such a
>>>>> useless liability?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>> Because they are trained to use them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Rubbish.
>>
>> No, it's a fact.
>>
>>>
>>> You local Sealed Knot group gets more weapon training time than most
>>> police officers...
>>
>> Completely wrong.
>> Baton training, rigid handcuff training and self defence training are
>> carried out on a regular basis.
>
> My information is that the Sealed Knot practice most summer weekends
> for two or three hours before every 'performance'.
>
> How many hours training in this sort of thing do the cops do?
>
> And the shooters,  do they still get three, days once a year?
>
> That's a sight less hours and rounds than your local clay pigeon
> blaster gets.

The above is absolute rubbish. As an Inspector who had a couple of 
authorised firearms officers on my team, I was constantly frustrated by 
their regular absences on training and exercises. They do *not* just get 3 
days a year I can assure you.

Ret.

"William Black"  wrote in message 
news:gn49u4$olj$1@news.motzarella.org...
> The reality is that the police rule by consent.  There are too few of them 
> to rule by force.
>
Of course they do.
I've never claimed otherwise.
But what has that got to do with the amount of weapons training they get?