New Physics

[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