Rossphorus

This is basically rule number one in the autocrat's handbook: Rule something as illegal but make it necessary (e.g. give your public servants a near-zero salary, making them dependent on taking bribes to live). Then at any point the leaders have the legal grounds to arrest whoever they want for 'corruption'. It's a very common tactic.

Selective enforcement is one of those concepts that isn't talked about much outside of legal ethics circles unfortunately, but I think it's an important concept to be aware of and the potential issues with it. I first heard about it from The Dictators Handbook, which explores many behaviours of politicians and those in power, including how and why corrupt nations often employ selective enforcement. It's an interesting read, would recommend. It definitely changed how I looked at the world.

I have no strong feelings on which particular weapons should be legal to carry, even if it's just pepper spray or brass knuckles or something. The main thing is that it should be legal to carry something.

Also, selectively enforced laws are a terrible, HORRIBLE concept and should be avoided at all costs. It gives police and those in power the ability to selectively punish (or pardon) whomever they choose, often at the whims of their personal biases. Passing and exploiting selectively enforced laws is a common tactic used by corrupt nations and can be used to silence political opponents, target selected groups, promote agendas and so forth. The law should not rely on cops 'being nice' and choosing not to arrest you.

For a start it shouldn't be a crime to merely carry something for self-defense. The current laws say that carrying anything for the express purpose of self-defense is illegal. There's a bizarre cat and mouse game where the law says 'its fine to defend yourself' while simultaneously expressly forbidding you from carrying anything that you might be able to use for self-defense. It puts anyone actually in a life threatening situation at a supreme disadvantage: An attacker is already breaking the law so they'll be armed to some extent, but under the law the victim is designed to be defenseless. If they do decide to arm themselves against the law and use it to defend themselves they can be prosecuted for carrying a weapon after the fact.

I never said anything about changing gun laws.

New Zealand. Gun laws are pretty strict, though we have lots of farmers who have guns for defending livestock. You can own guns with a valid reason (e.g. recreational shooting, not self defense) but essentially the only two places they can be is in a locked safe or (being transported to) a gun range.

In addition any and all tools and weapons are illegal to carry for the purpose of self defense (knives, pepper spray, tazers, clubs, screwdrivers, etc.). There's a crime epidemic here at the moment, corner stores being robbed by people with machetes, jewelry stores ram raided with trucks, but if you dare even carry pepper spray to defend yourself you can be jailed. Don't bother calling the cops either, they won't be there until at least half an hour later. Cops don't care about robberies. We literally once had the dispatcher tell us that no police would be coming. It's ridiculous.

I wish self defense laws were less crazy here, if someone enters your home or property armed with a weapon you should be able to respond appropriately without fear of going to jail yourself.