New Physics

[CatalinaWOW]

Forget your van de Graf machines, your Tesla coils and the like and throw breakdown voltage concerns to the wind.

Ebay gets you 60 million volts in a compact package.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/24-VIPERTEK-VTS-880-60-Million-Volt-Mini-Stun-Gun-3-Colors-Mix-Wholesale-Lot-/221243834311?hash=item338328ffc7:g:OQIAAOSwofxUbu08

[CatalinaWOW]

But wait - if 60 Megavolts doesn't float your boat, how about 230?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/VIPERTEK-VTS-989-230-Million-Volt-Self-Defense-Stun-Gun-LED-Wholesale-Lot-/310693105059?hash=item4856c08da3:g:vK4AAOSw2XFUgUDi

[TerraHertz]

That's not new physics, just old style lies.

[calexanian]

This is what I use for leak detecting when I am pumping vacuum tubes.

[url]http://www.electrotechnicproducts.com/bd-10as-high-frequency-generator[//url]

I don't know how many jiggavolts it puts out, but it will jump a 6" arc through air easily. Touch any part of a flouro tube and it will light up. Give you one hell of a jolt if it decides you are the best path to earth too, but they are actually quite safe to use if you use it properly.

[David Hess]

For when you absolutely positively have to stun the whole room.

[Brumby]

But wait - if 60 Megavolts doesn't float your boat, how about 230?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/VIPERTEK-VTS-989-230-Million-Volt-Self-Defense-Stun-Gun-LED-Wholesale-Lot-/310693105059?hash=item4856c08da3:g:vK4AAOSw2XFUgUDi

If the actual voltage was anywhere near the claim - I wouldn't want to be holding it when the switch is flicked.

[R005T3r]

People don't realize that they should never buy an item like that on ebay, because they might be regulated as proper firearms...

[Cerebus]

People don't realize that they should never buy an item like that on ebay, because they might be regulated as proper firearms...

In the UK that is, by definition in the Firearms Act 1968, a firearm. Specifically a prohibited weapon under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968. Unlawful possession of section 5 prohibited weapons attracts mandatory minimum jail sentences. Unlike other 'proper' firearms, civilians cannot get a licence to possess a section 5 weapon which also includes automatic weapons, missiles, grenade launchers and assorted other weapons (and I believe, technically, nuclear weapons).

[CatalinaWOW]

People don't realize that they should never buy an item like that on ebay, because they might be regulated as proper firearms...

In the UK that is, by definition in the Firearms Act 1968, a firearm. Specifically a prohibited weapon under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968. Unlawful possession of section 5 prohibited weapons attracts mandatory minimum jail sentences. Unlike other 'proper' firearms, civilians cannot get a licence to possess a section 5 weapon which also includes automatic weapons, missiles, grenade launchers and assorted other weapons (and I believe, technically, nuclear weapons).

This is interesting, as is almost all legislation in all countries.  So an intentionally non-lethal weapon is more tightly restricted than 'proper' but fully lethal weapons.  And apparently cattle prods and electric fences are not used in the UK cattle industry.

[IanB]

People don't realize that they should never buy an item like that on ebay, because they might be regulated as proper firearms...

In the UK that is, by definition in the Firearms Act 1968, a firearm. Specifically a prohibited weapon under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968. Unlawful possession of section 5 prohibited weapons attracts mandatory minimum jail sentences. Unlike other 'proper' firearms, civilians cannot get a licence to possess a section 5 weapon which also includes automatic weapons, missiles, grenade launchers and assorted other weapons (and I believe, technically, nuclear weapons).

I do not see where that would come under the Firearms Act 1968, which seems to be exclusively concerned with projectile weapons. Which part of the Act applies to it?

[Codebird]

A friend and I own an 'amgibuous firearm.' It's a hybrid electro-gas cannon we built to test out a design idea, expecting it to throw a copper test slug a few meters. In practice it blows the barrel up after two shots, takes chunks out of concrete, and has yet to land a projectile anywhere we can actually find it. The muzzle energy is impossible to measure because on our high-speed camera the blur is to fast to follow.

We decided to disassemble the device just in case, as we don't know if it's legal or not. There's just no law regulating a 'weapon' of that nature - the closest we can think of would be a spud gun.

It works by using a four-kilovolt capacitor bank to flash-boil salt water in the base of the barrel. The resulting steam explosion then propels the projectile forwards. And the barrel outwards. And the breach backwards, having usually separated it from the barrel. It's completely impractical as a weapon though, as it can only fire straight up (or the water runs out the barrel) and it has to be tethered to some bulky capacitors.

[Cerebus]

This is interesting, as is almost all legislation in all countries.  So an intentionally non-lethal weapon is more tightly restricted than 'proper' but fully lethal weapons.  And apparently cattle prods and electric fences are not used in the UK cattle industry.

Electric fences, yes those are in use; but that's hardly a portable 'weapon'. An electric cattle prod could be, but I have never seen one in use in the UK. Just not British stuffing 10 kV up Daisy's bum. A slap on the backside and "Move along ol' gal" is more Farmer Brown's style.

That said, the advice for crown prosecutors says that cattle prods would not normally be treated as prohibited weapons for possession offences. Where one was deliberately used as an offensive weapon then I suspect that a sensible view would be taken as to whether the use as a weapon was merely incidental in innocent possession of the device (say, a farmer on his own land), or whether it was acquired with intent to use it as a weapon, where I imagine a possession offence would probably be charged.

The history of electroshock weapons ending up as Section 5 prohibited weapons is interesting. Originally electroshock weapons were not legislated for. The part of Section 5 used to cover them applies to "5 1 (b) any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing" and was originally written to cover the use of water pistols filled with ammonia solution, an old bank robber's favourite when ammonia was a common household chemical and, if caught, avoided a prosecution for robbery with a firearm. Thus the intent was to treat this tactic as seriously as a real firearm. Then someone somewhere used an electroshock weapon and case law decided that electricity could be a "noxious liquid, gas or other thing".

As to "intentionally non-lethal weapon" - given there are reported deaths from the use of electroshock weapons I think we can only accept "less-lethal". And further, as to "more tightly restricted than 'proper' but fully lethal weapons", I think it's closer to say as tightly restricted as more lethal weapons for all practical purposes. Remember, the only real firearms that a 'civilian' can lawfully possess in the UK are single shot target or hunting rifles and single and double barrelled shotguns. No handguns and no repeating weapons, and all weapons and all ammunition require a license which will always carry conditions on where weapons are stored, where they are used and how much ammunition may be purchased or possessed at any time.

To put things into perspective, there were in March 2015 582,494 shotgun certificates and 153,603 firearm certificates covering 1,338,399 shotguns and 525,125 firearms in existence. That covers every farmer, pest controller, sporting shooter and shooting club in the country. Even spread out among the population that's one 'firearm' for every 34 people and some 'firearms' that might be covered by a certificate are not what one might traditionally think of as a firearm such as a line throwing gun. In practice, regular contact with, or experience with, firearms is much, much less common than that 1 in 34 overall figure might suggest. Basically, 'proper' firearms are exceedingly rare in the UK.

[Cerebus]

People don't realize that they should never buy an item like that on ebay, because they might be regulated as proper firearms...

In the UK that is, by definition in the Firearms Act 1968, a firearm. Specifically a prohibited weapon under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968. Unlawful possession of section 5 prohibited weapons attracts mandatory minimum jail sentences. Unlike other 'proper' firearms, civilians cannot get a licence to possess a section 5 weapon which also includes automatic weapons, missiles, grenade launchers and assorted other weapons (and I believe, technically, nuclear weapons).

I do not see where that would come under the Firearms Act 1968, which seems to be exclusively concerned with projectile weapons. Which part of the Act applies to it?

Section 5 1 (b) "any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing", as in the discharge of lots of electrons. See above for the history of this.

[IanB]

The history of electroshock weapons ending up as Section 5 prohibited weapons is interesting. Originally electroshock weapons were not legislated for. The part of Section 5 used to cover them applies to "5 1 (b) any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing" and was originally written to cover the use of water pistols filled with ammonia solution, an old bank robber's favourite when ammonia was a common household chemical and, if caught, avoided a prosecution for robbery with a firearm. Thus the intent was to treat this tactic as seriously as a real firearm. Then someone somewhere used an electroshock weapon and case law decided that electricity could be a "noxious liquid, gas or other thing".

The loophole here would seem to be whether a particular device is a "weapon" or a "tool" or merely a "curiosity"? I would imagine that if something was not designed to be used as a weapon, and was not used or possessed with the intent of being a weapon, then the prosecution would have to find some way to argue that the device contravenes the Act.

[Cerebus]

The history of electroshock weapons ending up as Section 5 prohibited weapons is interesting. Originally electroshock weapons were not legislated for. The part of Section 5 used to cover them applies to "5 1 (b) any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing" and was originally written to cover the use of water pistols filled with ammonia solution, an old bank robber's favourite when ammonia was a common household chemical and, if caught, avoided a prosecution for robbery with a firearm. Thus the intent was to treat this tactic as seriously as a real firearm. Then someone somewhere used an electroshock weapon and case law decided that electricity could be a "noxious liquid, gas or other thing".

The loophole here would seem to be whether a particular device is a "weapon" or a "tool" or merely a "curiosity"? I would imagine that if something was not designed to be used as a weapon, and was not used or possessed with the intent of being a weapon, then the prosecution would have to find some way to argue that the device contravenes the Act.

Whether it was a weapon or not is a question of fact and intent wouldn't be an issue if a court found that it was, as a fact, designed, or made or modified to be a weapon. English law is always quite clear whether intent is a necessary part of an offence, as you can see from the rest of the Act.

Whether something would be deemed a weapon if it is not ipso facto a weapon but was used with intent as a weapon is a different case. I suspect it would - there is a parallel in the law regarding possession of an offensive weapon. So in the case of Farmer Giles owning a cattle prod, that would be legal. Owning a cattle prod and walking with it to the pub in order to give Farmer Brown a piece of his mind with said prod might well lead to a firearms possession offence but would require proof of the intent.

There's a parallel with a rolled up magazine. I can walk down the road with one with impunity. However, if I walk down the road with a rolled up magazine with the intent of using it as an offensive weapon then I commit the offence of "possessing an offensive weapon in a public place" contrary to section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 because of the definition of offensive weapon in section 4: "“ offensive weapon ” means any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him".

Even if you didn't get busted for the firearms offence you'd get busted for the offensive weapon offence as long as it was a public place and they could prove intent.

Footnote: It's amazing how much law you can learn from being cajoled into helping a law student girlfriend revise for her 2nd year criminal law, jurisprudence and constitutional law exams (back in 1979 no less!). Most of this came from memory and I just had to find the text of the acts to ensure that I was quoting accurately.

[nitro2k01]

Sssixty million volts...

[PointyOintment]

The two listings linked at the start of the thread now claim 90 MV and 500 MV, respectively.

[CatalinaWOW]

This is interesting, as is almost all legislation in all countries.  So an intentionally non-lethal weapon is more tightly restricted than 'proper' but fully lethal weapons.  And apparently cattle prods and electric fences are not used in the UK cattle industry.

Electric fences, yes those are in use; but that's hardly a portable 'weapon'. An electric cattle prod could be, but I have never seen one in use in the UK. Just not British stuffing 10 kV up Daisy's bum. A slap on the backside and "Move along ol' gal" is more Farmer Brown's style.

That said, the advice for crown prosecutors says that cattle prods would not normally be treated as prohibited weapons for possession offences. Where one was deliberately used as an offensive weapon then I suspect that a sensible view would be taken as to whether the use as a weapon was merely incidental in innocent possession of the device (say, a farmer on his own land), or whether it was acquired with intent to use it as a weapon, where I imagine a possession offence would probably be charged.

The history of electroshock weapons ending up as Section 5 prohibited weapons is interesting. Originally electroshock weapons were not legislated for. The part of Section 5 used to cover them applies to "5 1 (b) any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing" and was originally written to cover the use of water pistols filled with ammonia solution, an old bank robber's favourite when ammonia was a common household chemical and, if caught, avoided a prosecution for robbery with a firearm. Thus the intent was to treat this tactic as seriously as a real firearm. Then someone somewhere used an electroshock weapon and case law decided that electricity could be a "noxious liquid, gas or other thing".

As to "intentionally non-lethal weapon" - given there are reported deaths from the use of electroshock weapons I think we can only accept "less-lethal". And further, as to "more tightly restricted than 'proper' but fully lethal weapons", I think it's closer to say as tightly restricted as more lethal weapons for all practical purposes. Remember, the only real firearms that a 'civilian' can lawfully possess in the UK are single shot target or hunting rifles and single and double barrelled shotguns. No handguns and no repeating weapons, and all weapons and all ammunition require a license which will always carry conditions on where weapons are stored, where they are used and how much ammunition may be purchased or possessed at any time.

To put things into perspective, there were in March 2015 582,494 shotgun certificates and 153,603 firearm certificates covering 1,338,399 shotguns and 525,125 firearms in existence. That covers every farmer, pest controller, sporting shooter and shooting club in the country. Even spread out among the population that's one 'firearm' for every 34 people and some 'firearms' that might be covered by a certificate are not what one might traditionally think of as a firearm such as a line throwing gun. In practice, regular contact with, or experience with, firearms is much, much less common than that 1 in 34 overall figure might suggest. Basically, 'proper' firearms are exceedingly rare in the UK.

No getting around lawyers anywhere.  The fact remains that the less lethal stun device is more controlled (you can't get a license) than the more lethal (yes, many people do survive gunshot wounds) single shot firearms and shotguns.  For which several hundred thousand have been issued.

I am not really faulting UK law.  In many ways I envy you.  You have retained freedoms which we have lost here in the US.  I used the word interesting intentionally.  Law in my country and in many other countries (I would suggest all) has many interesting features.  For me the word covers everything from logical inconsistencies to violations of physical law, with stops in between for strange focus on different behaviors in different locals.

The discussion on intent makes the laws murkier, but potentially fairer.  And provides a good window into the law profession from my point of view as an outsider.  A constant attempt to codify the uncodifiable.  With substantial success and glaring failures.

[Cerebus]

No getting around lawyers anywhere.  The fact remains that the less lethal stun device is more controlled (you can't get a license) than the more lethal (yes, many people do survive gunshot wounds) single shot firearms and shotguns.  For which several hundred thousand have been issued.

There is technically a way to get a license, be authorised by the defence council, but in practice that just doesn't happen except for the police and military (this is the basis on which the police can carry Tazers).

The whole situation is a common one in UK law. Something new comes along that wasn't foreseen by legislators when they introduced a law and so the common law takes over and tries to make sense of it. Where the existing law has a provision that, with a little creative thinking, could be thought to apply to the 'new thing' then that is what gets used even if, in hindsight, it ought to have its own, more precisely defined, place in law. Thus a precedent is set, and the law moves on subtly modified.

Electroshock weapons just about fitted section 5 so they got squeezed in there and became 'firearms' and 'prohibited weapons' for which mere possession is an offence, instead of 'offensive weapons' which requires you to have them in a public place before mere possession becomes an offence. I agree that they properly ought to have their own place in the scheme of things that more accurately reflects their relative lethality.

Although in theory under the common law system the courts can create law de novo, nowadays they are highly reluctant to in a way they were not in the past. For instance, cheat is a common law offence and there is no equivalent statutory law, it was created purely by a judge recognizing that "here is something that should be treated as a criminal act". It is still used, by sheer chance I know someone (a lawyer no less) who was jailed for "common law cheat" for making the taxman less money than the taxman thought he ought to have. In a situation like that you really don't know who to cheer for - couldn't the judge have jailed the taxman as well, just on principal? 

Older legislation is often, in my opinion, better drafted, and takes more care over filling the gaps that might appear by new technologies etc. appearing. Older law tended to be based on principles of good or bad behaviour, newer law tends to focus on banning the things that might be used for bad behaviour. The Offences Against The Person Act 1861 stood as the primary legislation that covered everything from assault to rape and murder for well over a hundred years because it covered behaviour. By contrast we've had about 4 acts in the last 20 years that cover exactly what kind of knife it's legal to possess in a public place because we now focus on things rather than actions and intent.

I have a suspicion that the rot set in the '60s when sociological ideas about language became fashionable. Things like "If you don't know bad words you can't have bad thoughts", so by extension "if you don't have bad things you can't perform bad acts". Which is clearly arrant nonsense, but I have a suspicion that a quietly internalised version of this has made its way into lawmaking (along with a streak of Calvinistic disapproval of fun). I don't think it's mere coincidence that I could now probably get into more legal trouble for using the wrong word or words on Twitter than I probably would if I hit someone in a bar.

Clearly, I find the whole process fascinating too.

[David Hess]

No getting around lawyers anywhere.  The fact remains that the less lethal stun device is more controlled (you can't get a license) than the more lethal (yes, many people do survive gunshot wounds) single shot firearms and shotguns.  For which several hundred thousand have been issued.

This has happened in the US as well.  We now have split court decisions upholding prohibition of less than lethal weapons and protecting them under our 2nd Amendment which makes an odd sort of sense because now we also have split court decisions both protecting weapons useful for a militia and and forbidding weapons useful for a militia.

A couple years ago we had a case in Kansas which had and has both legal bearing of firearms and a stand your ground law where defensive use of a firearm is a legal defense.  The result was someone who only "threatened" lethal force by blandishing their firearm, which resolved the situation without any injury, was convicted of a felony in a situation where had he used lethal force without warning, he would have been protected by law.  The law literally required him to use the firearm and attempt to shoot the attacker rather than warning the attacker off and that was how the prosecutor and courts saw it.  The prosecutor even saw it that way after the legislature fixed the law and made it retroactive for that specific incident.

[Neilm]

There is technically a way to get a license, be authorised by the defence council, but in practice that just doesn't happen except for the police and military (this is the basis on which the police can carry Tazers).

Or private companies who work in the defence business. I used to work for such a company and on several occasions had to grin going to the workshop and asking for a machine gun.

[Cerebus]

There is technically a way to get a license, be authorised by the defence council, but in practice that just doesn't happen except for the police and military (this is the basis on which the police can carry Tazers).

Or private companies who work in the defence business. I used to work for such a company and on several occasions had to grin going to the workshop and asking for a machine gun.

There's a long list of people who are exempted from various firearms licensing requirements including carriers, auctioneers,  I think warehousemen and quite obviously registered firearms dealers and manufacturers. The latter two get a long list of records they must keep instead.

[apelly]

Interesting thread of the day award! Thanks for the law review guys.

This is what I use for leak detecting when I am pumping vacuum tubes.

http://www.electrotechnicproducts.com/bd-10as-high-frequency-generator

I don't know how many jiggavolts it puts out, but it will jump a 6" arc through air easily. Touch any part of a flouro tube and it will light up. Give you one hell of a jolt if it decides you are the best path to earth too, but they are actually quite safe to use if you use it properly.

Remind me how this works please, someone... I've seen it done on youtube, but it escapes me right now.

Also, the link says it's useful for detecting pinholes in linings and tanks. Are we holding a ground probe on the other side of the material for this process?

[Red Squirrel]

Wow you'd think that would arc internally.  Those numbers can't be close to being real.

Or maybe they're just using alternate physics. 

[donotdespisethesnake]

they are actually quite safe to use if you use it properly.

Everything is safe if used properly, by definition.

The possible exception is weapons or explosives, however generally even those are designed to be safe for the operator. I guess the ultimate exception are suicide devices, which could genuinely carry the warning "this device is dangerous to the operator when used properly"

[MarkS]

In the UK that is, by definition in the Firearms Act 1968, a firearm. Specifically a prohibited weapon under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968.

I couldn't find a reference to a stun gun or taser, but I did find this and it is troubling:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27

Section 5:

F16(af)any air rifle, air gun or air pistol which uses, or is designed or adapted for use with, a self-contained gas cartridge system;

So, paintball, for example, is illegal in the UK? 

[edit] It helps to read the whole thread before commenting...

[Cerebus]

In the UK that is, by definition in the Firearms Act 1968, a firearm. Specifically a prohibited weapon under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968.

I couldn't find a reference to a stun gun or taser, but I did find this and it is troubling:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27

Section 5:

F16(af)any air rifle, air gun or air pistol which uses, or is designed or adapted for use with, a self-contained gas cartridge system;

So, paintball, for example, is illegal in the UK? 

[edit] It helps to read the whole thread before commenting...

The reference to "self-contained gas cartridge system" is vague and the confusion is understandable but is intended to cover things like the Brocock pistols that have a cartridge that contains both a small gas charge and a pellet, and resembles a standard (powder and lead) pistol round - right down to the fact that it is fired by a hammer hitting a valve on the base where the percussion cap is on a standard cartridge. Essentially you used them just like a conventional firearm, each (rechargeable) cartridge gave you one shot and you filled a magazine or loaded a revolver with them. Of itself, this system was less dangerous than most air weapons because the small capacity of the gas charge made them very low powered. The problem is that the pistols made for this type of system are trivially easy to convert into a fully fledged working firearm that takes normal pistol ammunition and became an underworld favourite because they were legally and cheaply available.

[PointyOintment]

Wow you'd think that would arc internally.  Those numbers can't be close to being real.

Or maybe they're just using alternate physics. 

I don't know if it would occur at the claimed voltages, but I think with sufficient voltage the entire circuit would implode from electrostatic attraction. If it somehow avoided that, it would arc through the entire circuit, vaporize everything, and explode in the user's hand. If it somehow avoided that, the electrons in the arc would transfer enough momentum to the ions and neutral gas molecules to eject them from the arc, if the device could produce enough current to do that, leaving a vacuum except for the electrons. These electrons would emit X-rays and gamma rays on impact with the anode. Some electrons would pass by the anode and negatively ionize the air beyond it. If there was a solid insulator there, they would be injected into it and you could produce 3D Lichtenberg figures better than the Captured Lightning ones (which are produced using a 5 MV electrostatic particle accelerator accelerating electrons to (obviously) up to 5 MeV).

[CatalinaWOW]

The reference to "self-contained gas cartridge system" is vague and the confusion is understandable but is intended to cover things like the Brocock pistols that have a cartridge that contains both a small gas charge and a pellet, and resembles a standard (powder and lead) pistol round - right down to the fact that it is fired by a hammer hitting a valve on the base where the percussion cap is on a standard cartridge. Essentially you used them just like a conventional firearm, each (rechargeable) cartridge gave you one shot and you filled a magazine or loaded a revolver with them. Of itself, this system was less dangerous than most air weapons because the small capacity of the gas charge made them very low powered. The problem is that the pistols made for this type of system are trivially easy to convert into a fully fledged working firearm that takes normal pistol ammunition and became an underworld favourite because they were legally and cheaply available.

It is hard to hold my tongue on things like this.  The bottom line is that human beings are intrinsically very dangerous animals.  There is virtually nothing that cannot be re-purposed into a weapon, from shoe laces to Cross pens, automobiles and on through any of hundreds of other items in daily use.  Combine that with the fact that virtually anyone can duplicate in their garage the most advanced technologies that created killing machines up through and including WWI and beyond.  Attempts to legislate danger out of life are almost futile.  They do have some positive effect in slowing down the really stupid or un-motivated.

[Cerebus]

The reference to "self-contained gas cartridge system" is vague and the confusion is understandable but is intended to cover things like the Brocock pistols that have a cartridge that contains both a small gas charge and a pellet, and resembles a standard (powder and lead) pistol round - right down to the fact that it is fired by a hammer hitting a valve on the base where the percussion cap is on a standard cartridge. Essentially you used them just like a conventional firearm, each (rechargeable) cartridge gave you one shot and you filled a magazine or loaded a revolver with them. Of itself, this system was less dangerous than most air weapons because the small capacity of the gas charge made them very low powered. The problem is that the pistols made for this type of system are trivially easy to convert into a fully fledged working firearm that takes normal pistol ammunition and became an underworld favourite because they were legally and cheaply available.

It is hard to hold my tongue on things like this.  The bottom line is that human beings are intrinsically very dangerous animals.  There is virtually nothing that cannot be re-purposed into a weapon, from shoe laces to Cross pens, automobiles and on through any of hundreds of other items in daily use.  Combine that with the fact that virtually anyone can duplicate in their garage the most advanced technologies that created killing machines up through and including WWI and beyond.  Attempts to legislate danger out of life are almost futile.  They do have some positive effect in slowing down the really stupid or un-motivated.

The problem with such legislation is that it is almost always pursued with little care for the harm that it does along with the supposed good. Worse still, it is never revisited if it doesn't work. Private ownership of licensed handguns was completely banned in the UK after a single unfortunate incident. This means that the British Olympic pistol team has to travel to France to train and eventually there will be no British Olympic pistol team as there is no longer a stream of future Olympic hopefuls emerging from the target shooting clubs. Yet, since the ban there has been no corresponding shift in handgun related crime so all the ban has succeeded in doing is in destroying the legal, responsible use of firearms. I have heard no suggestions that the government is even thinking of thinking about repealing the ban.

[MarkS]

Yet, since the ban there has been no corresponding shift in handgun related crime so all the ban has succeeded in doing is in destroying the legal, responsible use of firearms. I have heard no suggestions that the government is even thinking of thinking about repealing the ban.

You are the first person I've ever heard make that argument from across the pond. The counter argument is what is shouted ad nauseam by the gun control crowd here and it just doesn't make logical sense for many reasons, including yours. Restricting the legal access to a weapon doesn't control crime. It merely changes the instrument used to perpetrate the crime.

[Cerebus]

Yet, since the ban there has been no corresponding shift in handgun related crime so all the ban has succeeded in doing is in destroying the legal, responsible use of firearms. I have heard no suggestions that the government is even thinking of thinking about repealing the ban.

You are the first person I've ever heard make that argument from across the pond. The counter argument is what is shouted ad nauseam by the gun control crowd here and it just doesn't make logical sense for many reasons, including yours. Restricting the legal access to a weapon doesn't control crime. It merely changes the instrument used to perpetrate the crime.

Bear in mind that I'm talking about weapons that were already under very tight control, which I think is a good thing. There's a balance to be made between the extremes of the US (selling ammunition in the local supermarket, open carry laws), and the UK (government doing its best to ensure that there are ultimately no firearms in private hands (which I'm fairly certain is the internal, unofficial policy of the home office)). While I'd like to see some sensible liberalization of UK firearm laws, equally I wouldn't want firearms controls to be so loose that I was reading about toddlers shooting each other with insecurely stored arms as seems to happen on a weekly basis in the US. Seriously, there are more people accidentally shot by toddlers in the US than there are shootings of any kind in the whole UK - which is terrifying.

Firearms are especially dangerous things to be in control of. We licence other dangerous things too, vehicles, drivers, trades like electrical and gas installation and so on. The position of some US commentators that no gun control is acceptable is untenable. Like all things that involve risk, there's a balancing act to be performed between public safety and personal freedoms.

[MarkS]

I agree, but unfortunately this issue has split down the middle with each side taking extreme positions. One side wants all guns and ammo freely accessible and the other side wants everything banned. They make poorly veiled attempts at appearing "moderate", but that is just a ruse. There is a middle ground, but no one wants to step on it. Either side tries and the other attacks. Sad.

[Codebird]

I agree, but unfortunately this issue has split down the middle with each side taking extreme positions. One side wants all guns and ammo freely accessible and the other side wants everything banned.

A consequence of a legal system based on a constitution and court precedence. Proponents of gun ownership know that the second amendment is the best legal defense they have - if a court decides that the government has the power to deny the people guns, in any way, however small, then it opens the legal door to far more restrictive regulations in future. They also know that the US has a rich tradition of lawmakers weaseling their way around the constitution by achieving things indirectly that courts have rules they cannot do directly.

Much the same situation exists with regard to abortion: A lot of people have to defend access to abortion without restriction in all circumstances, because they know that the minute Roe is overturned a few states are going to run instantly right to the opposite extreme and ban it entirely.

[Marco]

Wow you'd think that would arc internally.  Those numbers can't be close to being real.

Being generous they might just be multiplying a winding ratio with an excitation voltage, where they ignore capacitance and leakage induction eating most of it.

[Cerebus]

A consequence of a legal system based on a constitution and court precedence.

I might point out that is no different to England. The US inherited the common law precedence system from England, and the UK most emphatically has a constitution (it's just not neatly written in one document), and it was the pre-existing right to bear arms in the British Bill of Rights 1689 that influenced the 2nd amendment to the US constitution in the US Bill of Rights in 1789.

[Fx: Wanders off muttering 'What do they teach kids in school today?']

[IanB]

I might point out that is no different to England. The US inherited the common law precedence system from England, and the UK most emphatically has a constitution (it's just not neatly written in one document), and it was the pre-existing right to bear arms in the British Bill of Rights 1689 that influenced the 2nd amendment to the US constitution in the US Bill of Rights in 1789.

Unfortunately, since Parliament can change the constitution on a whim it is of very little value in conferring rights on citizens or restraining the worst excesses of lawmakers.

[Cerebus]

I might point out that is no different to England. The US inherited the common law precedence system from England, and the UK most emphatically has a constitution (it's just not neatly written in one document), and it was the pre-existing right to bear arms in the British Bill of Rights 1689 that influenced the 2nd amendment to the US constitution in the US Bill of Rights in 1789.

Unfortunately, since Parliament can change the constitution on a whim it is of very little value in conferring rights on citizens or restraining the worst excesses of lawmakers.

That is simply not true. The government is bound by existing domestic law and international treaties and even by parliamentary conventions that would rapidly become law if they needed to be tested in the courts. If government abolished the vote tomorrow it would be unconstitutional and would be ruled so by the courts.  Just because it isn't neatly written in one place but is instead scattered through statute and common law doesn't mean that there isn't a substantial body of constitutional law including laws limiting how constitutional changes can be made. I'm not saying that it's clear or simple (a reading of any British constitutional law text book such as Smith de Smith would make that clear in short order) but it exists and, by definition being constitutional law, cannot be changed on a whim.

That all said, it would be in my opinion much preferable to have a formal written British Constitution but I wouldn't trust politicians to write one. Remember that our two most important constitutional laws, Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights were essentially written with a knife to the ruler's throat.

[IanB]

That is simply not true.

But you illustrated it yourself. The Bill of Rights has been stripped away over the years every time the government decided it knew best. The right to bear arms being a case in point. The right to avoid self-incrimination is another. If your car is captured by a speed camera you are required under penalty of law to sign a form declaring that you are the guilty party.

[vodka]

I don't know  if an other countries existed the legal figure of "the use proportional of the force" what limited the selfdefense rights.

Here , we have examples(the idiots judges)  that are for crying for not laughting.

That is an used disproportionate of the force to attack a thief when he has assaulted  and he has got into  your home. Indepently , if the thief or thieves are weapon or unweapon.
At resulting of the attacked,  the thief or thieves  recieve injures or died, you have to expose that your live were on danger. 
(Certain, if i found a thief with a rod on my living-room, i have to presume that he has good purpose).

Other example, the officers only can use the lethal force when the  criminal got a gesture of attack.(Certain, at first the criminal with gun  must shoot and after the police get back the shoot).

[Cerebus]

That is simply not true.

But you illustrated it yourself. The Bill of Rights has been stripped away over the years every time the government decided it knew best. The right to bear arms being a case in point. The right to avoid self-incrimination is another. If your car is captured by a speed camera you are required under penalty of law to sign a form declaring that you are the guilty party.

You said "Parliament can change the constitution on a whim", I say there is more to it than that. As for speed cameras, you're misstating the law, you're required to account for who was driving a vehicle registered to you; it's still open to you to contest the case. And as to bearing arms, the original Bill of Rights clause ends something like "... suitable to their station and according to law"; it was never an unqualified right to bear arms.

[IanB]

Well perhaps saying "on a whim" seems to make light of the situation, but given the sovereignty of parliament in the British system, I think there isn't much more to it. It is well established that parliament can make any law it likes, including laws that change the constitution.

The law that banned ownership of handguns was made by the then government over and against the advice and recommendation of the commission set up to investigate following the Dunblane tragedy. If disregarding expert advice following thorough investigation is not "on a whim" then it is certainly not a proportionate and considered act.

Regarding speed cameras, how am I misstating the law? You are required to state who was driving the vehicle, particularly if it was yourself (the common case). If you admit it was you driving the vehicle that is taken as evidence of guilt and you are prosecuted on that basis. The only way to defend against conviction is to find some way of casting doubt on the facts, which is not usually possible.

If you decline to state who was driving, you are prosecuted for failing to provide the information required by law, which leads to a stiffer penalty. Therefore the law requires you to incriminate yourself or be penalized for failing to do so.

That your admission of being the driver is the basis of prosecution is clear from the cases where people have successfully argued that "they could not remember" who was driving. In such cases no prosecution has followed and the driver has not been convicted. This circumstance in particular has led to a new generation of cameras that photograph the driver of the vehicle from the front, thus making it possible to prove who was driving from photographic evidence.

That this violates the right to avoid self-incrimination was very clear when the law was made, and it was duly challenged in court. The courts ruled that the benefit to society as a whole outweighed the rights of the individual, and therefore the law was upheld.

[IanB]

Well, sure, interactions with the EU do affect the constitution. But the holding of a referendum is more of a convention than a necessity. For instance, the British government has negotiated and and then ratified several treaties with the EU purely through executive action and subsequent acts of parliament without holding a referendum on the changes.

Scottish independence was another interesting one. Although Scottish independence would affect the whole of the UK, only Scottish residents were allowed to vote on the matter.

Brexit involved a referendum because it was a "big" change. But smaller changes can be made by the government without such a referendum, although an election mandate is often used as a justification. One example of the latter was the reform of the House of Lords to remove a majority of the hereditary peers from its membership.

[IanB]

I'm not at all qualified to debate this at any length. Are you sure "big" doesn't really just mean "constitutional"? It is easy to argue that all contitutional changes are "big", even if they are small changes to the constitution.

Not really. The change to the makeup of the House of Lords was certainly a constitutional change, and it was made simply by an Act of Parliament. No referendum occurred.

[David Hess]

And as to bearing arms, the original Bill of Rights clause ends something like "... suitable to their station and according to law"; it was never an unqualified right to bear arms.

Which is just another way of saying that there was no right to bear arms and everything this implies.  How many other clauses have qualifications which swallow the right?  All of them?

[Cerebus]

And as to bearing arms, the original Bill of Rights clause ends something like "... suitable to their station and according to law"; it was never an unqualified right to bear arms.

Which is just another way of saying that there was no right to bear arms and everything this implies.  How many other clauses have qualifications which swallow the right?  All of them?

No, it's subtler than that. You need context from the times, remember this is just as James II (a Catholic) has quit the scene and William of Orange (a Protestant) is installed in his place, and most of the Bill of Rights addresses restoring or securing common rights that it was felt that James had usurped.

The "suitable to their station" alludes to a feudal/chivalrous distinction about what weapon was suitable for a certain class of person - a Duke wasn't going to run around with a pike (a commoner's weapon) but would carry a sword. "According to the law", well, weapons have been banned in certain places and in the hands of certain people at all times that there have been laws or social codes of conduct. For instance, in many places at many times weapons have been banned by law (or in pre-legal societies by at least very strong social conventions) in sacred places or places of worship. It's be way more research than I'm prepared to go into to discover the exact laws that are referenced - 17th century law isn't something you're going to find on Lexis.

[CatalinaWOW]

And as to bearing arms, the original Bill of Rights clause ends something like "... suitable to their station and according to law"; it was never an unqualified right to bear arms.

Which is just another way of saying that there was no right to bear arms and everything this implies.  How many other clauses have qualifications which swallow the right?  All of them?

No, it's subtler than that. You need context from the times, remember this is just as James II (a Catholic) has quit the scene and William of Orange (a Protestant) is installed in his place, and most of the Bill of Rights addresses restoring or securing common rights that it was felt that James had usurped.

The "suitable to their station" alludes to a feudal/chivalrous distinction about what weapon was suitable for a certain class of person - a Duke wasn't going to run around with a pike (a commoner's weapon) but would carry a sword. "According to the law", well, weapons have been banned in certain places and in the hands of certain people at all times that there have been laws or social codes of conduct. For instance, in many places at many times weapons have been banned by law (or in pre-legal societies by at least very strong social conventions) in sacred places or places of worship. It's be way more research than I'm prepared to go into to discover the exact laws that are referenced - 17th century law isn't something you're going to find on Lexis.

I think your interpretation is generous.  Commoners weren't of a station to have any weapon (except as part of an armed force), while those of appropriate class could carry the weapons of the day in non-war situations.  Part of the US experiment was extending those rights of the upper classes to all.  There are good things about that, and as time has shown, there are obvious bad things.  No easy answers.

[raptor1956]

I just discovered this thread and I have an update.  Apparently there's been a break-through and they are now up to 960MV.  I'm guessing it's being powered by a single 18650 battery of 100AHr capacity.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/960-Million-Volt-Personal-Security-Stun-Gun-Red-Scorpion-928-Taser-Case/292231978939?_trkparms=aid%3D555018%26algo%3DPL.SIM%26ao%3D2%26asc%3D47507%26meid%3D0147661165844006b8d0e885b5eedc78%26pid%3D100012%26rk%3D2%26rkt%3D12%26mehot%3Dpp%26sd%3D310693105059&_trksid=p2047675.c100012.m1985


Brian

[amyk]

Item location: United States, United States
Shipping to: United States
Excludes: APO/FPO, Africa, Asia, Europe, Middle East, North America, Oceania, Southeast Asia, South America, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Costa Rica, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Martinique, Montserrat, Netherlands Antilles, Nicaragua, Panama, Saint Kitts-Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands

The US is no long part of North America?

[raptor1956]

Item location: United States, United States
Shipping to: United States
Excludes: APO/FPO, Africa, Asia, Europe, Middle East, North America, Oceania, Southeast Asia, South America, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Costa Rica, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Martinique, Montserrat, Netherlands Antilles, Nicaragua, Panama, Saint Kitts-Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands

The US is no long part of North America?

Who the hell reads the fine print -- it's 960MV for Christ sake!


Brian

[IanB]

That excludes list is pretty much the whole world, is it not?

[raptor1956]

Honestly, this looks like something you'd see posted on the Onion -- or Harbor Freight!


Brian

[amyk]

It clearly comes from a world where the US is no longer part of North America and 960MV handheld stun guns exist.

[IanB]

It's strange though. You'd have thought that for another measly 40 MV they could have had 1 GV !! 

[IanMacdonald]

This is interesting, as is almost all legislation in all countries.  So an intentionally non-lethal weapon is more tightly restricted than 'proper' but fully lethal weapons.  And apparently cattle prods and electric fences are not used in the UK cattle industry.

Electric fences are very widely used in the UK, in fact some are used rather carelessly where people could touch them without realising.

There has been a lot of controversy over whether police should be allowed to use Tasers.  In one facepalm incident an officer pulled a Taser on a crook and was promptly shot dead. It could be argued that the pulling of the Taser inflamed the situation into a firearms confrontation, and the crook might well have surrendered otherwise.

[Cerebus]

Item location: United States, United States
Shipping to: United States
Excludes: APO/FPO, Africa, Asia, Europe, Middle East, North America, Oceania, Southeast Asia, South America, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Costa Rica, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Martinique, Montserrat, Netherlands Antilles, Nicaragua, Panama, Saint Kitts-Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands

The US is no long part of North America?

Yeah, the whole semi-continent has filed for divorce. First god damns all of them in perpetuity (see below) now the very ground has had enough .

[CJay]

This is interesting, as is almost all legislation in all countries.  So an intentionally non-lethal weapon is more tightly restricted than 'proper' but fully lethal weapons.  And apparently cattle prods and electric fences are not used in the UK cattle industry.

We live in a knee jerk society where the tabloids drive policy and 'shock horror, stun guns available to anyone on the internet' headlines are often, and occasionally on the very next page, followed by 'nanny state wants to block all your internet fun' headlines.

We do live in a pretty safe society here in the UK though, there just aren't that many firearms in the hands of the public, legally or otherwise.

Electric fences are most definitely used in British livestock farming though I'm not sure about cattle prods, I'll ask my partner's dad next time I see him, he was a farmer for some years with a decent sized dairy herd.