Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay
By Anastasia Savina
Growing concern about public safety in the UK has renewed debate over whether civilians should be allowed to carry non-lethal self-defence weapons, such as pepper spray, stun guns or air pistols.
While these items remain prohibited under the Firearms Act, some argue that current laws leave ordinary residents – particularly women and night-shift workers – without practical means to protect themselves.
Others fear that legalisation could escalate violence and fundamentally alter the culture of public safety in Britain.
Public fears and daily realities
Royal Mail employee Salma Brown, 44, supports limited legalisation of self-defence tools.
“Women need something real, not just alarms,” she said. “Alarms don’t help. People don’t intervene. Women should be allowed to carry something small, like pepper spray.”
Salma says that while she has not been attacked, her sense of vulnerability grows during late shifts.
“If police take half an hour to arrive, who helps you in that half hour?”
Image by knivesdeal from Pixabay
Her view reflects a common sentiment among women in London that existing safety measures rely heavily on bystander intervention, which many feel cannot be counted on.
Mammed, 67, has lived in London for over 30 years. His distrust stems from an incident where a stranger entered his home and refused to leave.
“If I defend my family, I become the criminal. Normal people don’t attack they only want to survive,” said Mammed, who did not want to give his surname. “The law protects criminals, not victims.”
For him, the current framework leaves civilians exposed, while those willing to break the law already carry knives or improvised weapons.
Not all residents favour change
Outside Crystal Palace station, John Smith, 64, and Sidney Panay, 70, express concern about making any form of weapon more accessible.
“Give people weapons and they’ll use them for fun. Violence will go up, not down. More weapons will only mean more misuse,” said Smith.
They argue that London has become more crowded, more stressed and more confrontational than in past decades.
“Add weapons to this anger? It’s a disaster waiting to happen,” he added.
Their stance reflects fears that legalisation could normalise weapons in everyday disputes.
Leading to an arms race?
Criminologist Dr James Alexander of London Metropolitan University strongly opposes allowing civilians to carry non-lethal weapons.
“Wherever this is done, it leads to an arms race. Meeting violence with violence does not make people safer,” he said.
“Legalising these weapons leads to an arms race.”
He explains that offenders tend to escalate their weapons in response to civilian access.
“If criminals know people can carry stun guns, they will carry more powerful weapons. A mini arms race occurs.”
According to Dr Alexander, evidence from countries where pepper spray or electric stun devices are legal shows patterns of escalation and misuse.
He also questions whether training can mitigate risks: “Training teaches how to use a weapon, not how to think straight under pressure.”
Expanding access to self-defence tools may shift public mindset in a damaging way, he said..
“Carrying weapons creates an isolationist mindset everyone becomes responsible only for their own safety. That makes society less safe.”
He argues that the focus should instead be on addressing underlying drivers of violence: deprivation, mental health, and trauma.
What the data shows
Met Police statistics indicate that violent crime is concentrated in specific boroughs, not evenly distributed across London.
· Home Office reports show that public fear of crime often rises even when crime levels remain stable or decline.
· Research from European countries where pepper spray is legal highlights cases of pre-emptive use in disputes, contributing to escalation.
Leave a Reply