Obviously guns are best but where I live they are not a practical option for defence of life and home. What are the best options /k/ has?
I was looking for:
-A good fighting knife type
-A good sabre/one handed sword
-(possible) crossbow (some of them shoot bullets)
I don't care about looks, only durability and ergonomics. Airguns are pretty much out as an option as they are only allowed to be 12ft/lbs for rifles; 6ft/lbs semi auto/revolver rifle/pistol.
Tried a slingshot but its hard to find a place to practice and they require a lot of that. Yes stones are free and steel balls are cheap; I need lead because it ricochets less.
Ideas, /k/?
>>30198273
Come on there must be SOMETHING that's better than no gun for survival, no?
>>30198273
>>30198273
Get a hefty beatin stick
>>30198358
Its a good idea, but a bit too small to swing around my small home. I was thinking sharper and shorter.
Maybe a buckler would be a good investment? Or some gauntlets?
Get a dog.
>>30198376
It got one with nails but its too long and lightweights, plus I am very weak (but working on improving). Hammer too but again, hard to control in desperate situations. Something like a Gladius repro or bayonet is more what I was thinking of.
Also a slingbow that hoots bullets but they are rare/expensive. Here is example:
http://www.outdoorhobbies.co.uk/talon-raptor-crossbow---free-target--free-uk-shipping-1377-p.asp
Those bullets sure look expensive too...
>>30198399
I would but I have 2 cats, if it were any good as protection it would probably eat them.
>>30198381
>Maybe a buckler would be a good investment? Or some gauntlets?
>>30198422
Tell me your better ideas then. No guns or pepper spray or CS or TAZERs either.
large torch of some sort, you won't cut yourself and will be of more use than an exotic weapon that you have to hide from normies and your parents etc, cheap and easy to have at your side but not as obvious as a baseball bat, a stereotypical weapon
equally if you want less legal issues but more force then a tool such as a wrench, good heavy loading at the hitting end, more likely to be lying around your house in the middle of a DIY job for when you 'fear for your life' and you have to use reasonable force etc
remember to lean it on your shoulder when locating/engaging as any surprise will have you automatically swinging it down at your attacker in move 1 before you have to work out what to do with it
also: sup fellow Britfag
>>30198431
Section 43 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (use of force in place of residence)
8. The provisions in section 43 of the Crime and Courts Act also amend section 76
of the 2008 Act. These changes go further than clarifying existing law; they
strengthen the law in relation to householders who are defending themselves
from intruders in their homes.
9. Section 43 adds new subsection (5A) to section 76 of the 2008 Act. The effect of
subsection (5A) is that householders who use a disproportionate level of force to
protect themselves or others in their homes will not automatically be regarded as
having acted unlawfully and treated as criminals. The use of grossly
disproportionate force will continue to be unlawful however.
10. The provision does not give householders free rein to use disproportionate force
in every case they are confronted by an intruder. The new provision must be
read in conjunction with the other elements of section 76 of the 2008 Act. The
level of force used must still be reasonable in the circumstances as the
householder believed them to be (section 76(3)). Section 76(7) says if people
only do what they honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a
legitimate purpose, this will be strong evidence that only reasonable action was
taken for that purpose.
(fakkin) cont...
>>30198491
11. The key change introduced by section 43 is that if householders act honestly and
instinctively to protect themselves or their loved ones from intruders using force
that was reasonable in the circumstances as they saw them, they will not be
guilty of an offence if the level of force turns out to have been disproportionate in
those circumstances. The provision is designed to give householders greater
latitude in terrifying or extreme situations where they may not be thinking clearly
about the precise level of force that is necessary to deal with the threat faced.
12. The court will need to consider the individual facts of each case, including the
personal circumstances of the householder and the threat (real or perceived)
posed by the offender. There are no hard and fast rules about what types of force
might be regarded as ‘disproportionate’ and ‘grossly disproportionate’. The
following example is included for illustrative purposes only and prosecutors and
the court would need to come to its own view, taking into account all of the
evidence available and individual circumstances of the cases.
>>30198273
There is nothing more practical for self defence than firearms.
>>30198498
various other points, but other than having an illegal/unlicensed weapon anything goes as long as it is not grossly disproportionate in the situation and you can prove that in a court of law
the main point of these clarifications is to move towards allowing the use of disproportionate force in defense, ie not having to go toe to toe matching any level of force/use of weapon with your attacker to make things all fair and tea sipping
if you dress up all tactiqueer and camp out with designed to maim weapons waiting for go time, you might not be looked upon well when your case comes up, you have to prepare and make it look like it was improvised for your best chance of neither being judged by 12 or carried by 4
>>30198273
Well let's consider what we are most likely going to be defending against
>large knives
>pistols
>baseball bats
I'd say a sturdy shield and a decent size dagger, maybe a foot or a foot and a half long
>>30198505
he lives in Britanistan, which should have been made clearer if constructive comment was required
as it is he is on a pointless killing fantasy and being supported in it by Burgers rather than preparing sensibly
A mace of some sort would be a good choice. Easy to use, easy to make, easy to practice with. A short sword or machete would also be good, but requires more skill. Lastly a good modern hunting crossbow for long range and stand off engagements.
>>30198538
>Britanistan
seriously the only choice
Just get a basic claw hammer if you don't already have one, a bat or a sword will be shit in a hallway and the hammer will actually be useful outside of your shitty home invasion fantasies.
Using any weapon on someone in the UK will put you in prison and since you've been going round telling everyone you plan to kill the first person to enter your house they can add murder to the list.
You're a weak beta, it's not like you could use any of these weapons anyway.
>>30198448
That looks about right. Machete?
Min price on a good one?
>>30198621
>Using any weapon on someone in the UK will put you in prison
Not so. What about police? What about home defenders who weren't arrested? Of those who were, what of those who weren't convicted?
>>30198381
Ask yourself, are you really willing to cleave a man to death of necessary though? It's going to make a bloody gurgly ptsd inducing mess and a lot of people aren't willing to do it and that's ok.
>>30198621
you have not read the wall of legal in the thread
reasonable force, disproportionate force and grossly disproportionate force are all that matters to the law in this case
if the weapon is illegal then even if you use the appropriate level of force you can still be convicted of firearms or other offences related to possession, NOT to the use as that is covered desperately
>>30198695
*ahem* 'separately' not desperately
freudian
>>30198695
OBVIOUSLY that's why I'm asking about things can can be owned legally in the home and used effectively for self defence.
BTW interest in historical swords is legal.
