Personal safety beat fear of escalation, but only narrowly: Yes carried the vote by 253 to 200. The result was less a ringing endorsement than a demand for another option when police cannot arrive in time, with the floor’s most-respected Yes argument reducing the case to “always better than nothing”.
The Yes side argued from vulnerability and delay. Its strongest voices wanted a controlled defensive tool: “As a woman I'd like the option to have something to defend myself with”, while another said police response is not always timely and spray could be “at least a deterrent and at best a defence”. Licensing, traceability and heavy punishment for misuse featured repeatedly, suggesting support for a regulated exception rather than a free-for-all.
No voters answered that the weapon’s availability would change the street for everyone, including attackers. The sharpest objection called it an “arms race”, while another warned that “Escalation of carry weapons always ends one way”; the concern was not only muggers and abusers, but school bullying, accidental misuse and the prospect of pepper spray becoming routine.
The two sides often argued from different starting points. Yes voters saw criminals as already armed and citizens as exposed; No voters saw legal access as adding another weapon to volatile encounters. A notable strand of Yes opinion also folded the question into anger about borders, punishment and the state’s reluctance to let citizens defend themselves, while several supporters still insisted on “very heavy punishment for misuse”.
This was a self-selected online vote, not a national poll, but its shape is clear: the chamber accepted risk as the price of giving potential victims one more means of resistance.
17 Opinions
We lost our hand guns under the lie that it would stop gun crime. Always a fallacious argument pushed by the MSM. The argument that criminals - those who use machetes, guns, knives etc would exploit the derogation is simply laughable. Yes if it prevents one rape it’s a good thing. UKGovt does not like citizens defending themselves it wants fear & control so they can wring their hands.
I would prefer that we could just live safely in our land but the government has flung open the borders and refuses to punish offenders properly so we’re at a point that we need to defend ourselves.
Yes, but only with very heavy punishment for misuse.
Escalation of carry weapons always ends one way.
NO Simply because we've seen where it leads, if you've not, just go look at the USA.. TRUE FACT The US public kill more inoccent citizens every year than any terrorist organisation worldwide. Making the US public the most murderous organisation in the world, thousands of more murders yearly than Al-Qaeda & Boko Haram put together. We don't want that on the streets of Great Britain!!
But I agree with slawomir guns would be preferred. Getting to a stage where more and more gangs are carrying them. How do you expect us to defend ourselves
With the importation of stabby raoey men I think we should have pepper spray.. hell I'd even go as far as to say we should be able to have the right to bare weapons for protection . If the gov stopped importing these demons and closed our borders then there would be no need , but that's not what this gov will do . We are sitting ducks with no form of protection at all.
If they were legalised then the muggers, rapists etc could use them as weapons, something must be done to protect decent people but I don't have an answer I'm afraid,
Pepper sprays, sold under licence, with a smartwater tagging agent would make a good defence tool, that is instantly traceable to who purchased it, if it was used criminally. Criminals already have zombie knives, this isn't making that situation worse.
Half this country can't even drive a car after supposedly passing a test. God help us if we grade access to pepper spray the same way.