I have 3 broken fingers...

I'll have to research the legal technicalities so I don't misquote the law. But I believe you can use punches in a self defense situation but cannot use choke holds under any circumstances.

 

To keep this thread on track I have moved the discussion about feudal Japan to here:

http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119288

 

That was pretty cool the way you did that. Ha ha

 

Further to my last post on firearms, the most recent data isn't available in depth, but here is data for the previous year. This year's overall data shows a 9% drop on the figures below.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime...ml#tab-Injuries-sustained-in-firearm-offences

Injuries sustained in firearm offences

In 2011/12 four out of five firearm offences (79%) no injury was sustained by the victim (Table 3.02). In 2011/12, there were 1,970 injuries recorded as a result of firearm offences, a decrease of 18% on the previous year. This is a slightly greater fall than the number of overall firearm offences over the same period (16%) (Table 3.01).

Over the longer term the number of injuries sustained by a victim has fallen by nearly two thirds (64%) from the peak of 5,402 in 2004/05. Of the 1,970 injuries recorded in 2011/12, there were 42 fatal injuries involving firearms, 17 less than in 2010/11 (which includes the 12 people killed by Derrick Bird on 2 June 2010). There were a further 282 firearm offences that resulted in serious injury (an injury which requires a stay in hospital or involves fractures, concussion, severe general shock, penetration by a bullet or multiple shot wounds). In line with the falls in the number of offences involving firearms, there has also been a reduction in the number of serious injuries resulting from these offences in recent years. The majority of the injuries (84%; 1,646 injuries) were slight injuries (Table 3.02).


Injuries by degree of injury

Less than one per cent of all firearm offences in 2011/12 resulted in a fatal injury (Table 3.02). All 42 fatalities in 2011/12 involved a weapon being fired, with 18 of the fatalities involving the use of a handgun, 16 involving the use of a shotgun, 3 involving a rifle and the remaining 5 involving the use of an unidentified or other firearm (Table 3.03 and 3.05).

Three per cent of all firearm offences in 2011/12 resulted in a serious injury. There were 282 serious injuries resulting from firearm offences recorded in 2011/12, a fall of 15% on the previous year, when 330 were recorded (Table 3.02).

Seventeen per cent of all firearm offences in 2011/12 resulted in a slight injury. There was an 18% fall in slight injuries, from 2,013 in 2010/11 to 1,646 in 2011/12. As with serious injuries, the recent trend has been downwards (Table 3.02).

The number of non-air weapon offences that resulted in injuries fell by 18% between 2010/11 and 2011/12 in line with the 17% fall in non-air weapon offences over the same period.

The number of handgun weapon injuries fell by 18%, compared with a fall of 15% in the number of offences involving handguns. For shotguns, the number of injuries and offences also decreased, by 14% and 19% respectively over the same period (Tables 3.01 and 3.04).

The number of air weapon injuries fell by 18% between 2010/11 and 2011/12, while the number of offences involving these firearms fell by 17%. The proportion of air weapon offences where the victim sustained an injury has remained fairly stable over the past eight years, ranging between 11-13% (Tables 3.01 and 3.04).


Injuries by degree of injury and weapon type

The likelihood of a weapon being fired as well as the seriousness of injury sustained varied according to the type of weapon used. Air weapons and imitation firearms1 were the most likely to be fired in an offence (89% and 76% respectively). However, if they were fired, they were the least likely to cause a fatal or serious injury (both accounting for 1% of those fired) (Tables 7 and 3.05).

Handguns were fired in only 13% of the offences they were involved in; and 36% of these offences resulted in a fatal or serious injury. This compares with 5% for all firearms resulting in a fatal or serious injury.

Shotguns were fired in 50% of offences, and if they were fired, 29% of cases resulted in a fatal or serious injury.

 

If lethal force is warranted in a given situation then the execution of said force cannot be restricted to a specific medium - there are peripheral and other issues that arise from choice of medium but thre is no ban in place per se

The phrase "illegal choke hold" is 99% of cases only applied to law enforcement depts, where such moves may be prohibited under policy (mine does not btw). Even if such a move is used it is not instantly illegal, it is just the articulation for such deployment needs much more explanation

 

To put those firearm statistics into some form of risk context, I am more likely to be struck by lightning in England and Wales than I am to be the victim of a fatal shooting.
In the whole of Great Britain 1754 people died in Road Traffic Accidents last year. I am more likely to die from choking, falling off a ladder or hypothermia!

 

Yet you can in theory shoot someone?

Something odd going on with that reasoning perhaps?

 

That'll be NPower and British Gas then.

 

What are the crime statistics, per capita, of USA vs Great Britain, for home invasion, rape and assault & battery? Do British women feel safe knowing that they can't protect themselves from an attack or rape by brandishing a firearm? How do British women protect themselves?

 

So in Great Britain, you have to be an electrician/handiman and an attorney in order to defend yourself. Why can't you just stick an S&W in an intruder's face and let the intruder decide if he feels lucky?

In practice, I have a gut sense of how much force is appropriate. I had a drunk guy try to walk inside my home. I just barred the door with my arm and asked where he was going. He simply had the wrong house. No force was necessary. But if someone breaks into my house, kicks my cat and punches me in the face, I don't want to have to look up on the internet to see how much force I can use by law.

 

Of course there is value. That's why you just brandish the weapon. Let them decide if they want to get shot.

Sure.

Does everybody in your neighborhood have alarms? In must get noisy at night.

 

Because it is simply not necessary.

If this becomes a for and against firearms thread I will shut it down, we have had more than enough of those on MAP.

In answer to the UK v USA question it is difficult to get an answer as the two record crime very differently, but there's a lot of information on this thread to suggest an answer:

http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113975&highlight=violent+usa

 

Awww. OK.

 

In Britain we can use whatever reasonable force is necessary to defend ourselves, our property and others. The sparsity of firearms means that lethal force is a) harder to achieve, b) rarely reasonable, c) rarely necessary.

 

Having looked at the statistics, I'm more worried about falling off a ladder, and I'm at more risk of being in a car crash than I am of being burgled. I take sensible security precautions and other than that it barely registers on my consciousness.