London acid attacks, result of no firearm rights?

S

Sawyer.N

New member
Kind of a rant here...

Here is a very chilling documentary by Vice, about "the Rise of acid Attacks in the UK". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EscjYGHKHxM

"Since 2010 there have been 1,800 reported acid attacks in the London, with a steep 70% rise between 2015 to 2016" As cited from the video description.

From aggravated assaults, to using acids such as drain cleaners as a means of accomplishing theft and burglary, these criminals have resorted to something that they can easily get to commit their crimes.

From my viewpoint, this has direct correlation to the UK's preposterous gun control culture and laws. Controlling firearms, restricting firearms, and making them very inaccessible to the public has resulted in criminals doing what criminals do; finding different ways and means of violence to do their work. Violent crime still happens, and is in fact more brazen and barbaric.

On a radio news show I heard officials in the London government saying that they will now develop ways and means to make these house hold acidic products restricted, and hard to access....because thats gonna solve the problem isnt it? Forgive me for my ranting, but how can people STILL not see that gun control DOES NOT accomplish what they want to accomplish. Take guns away from everyone, and the criminals will pick up clubs, knives, and apparently acids, and the victims are just supposed to deal with it, live life in fear? What a stunning demonstration of the ineffectiveness, and the ludicrous nature of gun control.

What is your thoughts on this issue? Why cant it be seen as bright as daylight that gun control = people control, that a civilians can not truly be free without the right to bear arms? Thank god for our Constitution.
 
Ummm no.
The UK government is not proactive, but reactive, which = losing bet.
Many simple ways to rein terror without guns, knives or acid, I'm not going to list but go back about 3-5,000 years and lots of people were terrorized / murdered without any of that.

Basically the terrorist have won over there.
What's next, banning rocks, vehicles, 2x4's, nail guns, glass, gravity and water?

A dedicated attacker will virtually always succeed. The trick is to provide an environment where people don't see the need to resort to such tactics to meat their personal and group needs.
 
With the recent reports of the multiple attacks from a scooter, I was thinking about this subject.

The only real conclusion that I came to was that if you have acid thrown in your eyes without warning, a gun really isn't going to do you much (if any) good, anyway.
Yea, that's not the attitude expected here, but I see it as the reality of the situation.

Bad guys always find a way to be bad.
Whether they're thugs on the street or politicians in office, they always find a way.


I'm not saying that I don't think Brits should remain in the state they're in, with minimal gun rights. I do wish they could get some rights restored.
But, I don't think it's very applicable to acid attacks, in particular.

...Even for bystanders. What do you do? Open fire on every person that throws a Slurpee in someone's face?
 
FrankenMauser,

Fair enough. I agree, having a CCW while being accosted in a split second with acid would pose no use, most of the time. I'm just speculating on the overreaching theme of how this is a perfect example, that like you said, thugs will always find a way. guns or no guns. atleast with guns accessible to citizens we have the ability to defend our selves on a more relative playing field.
 
What good is a gun going to do when someone throws acid in your face? Gun or no gun, youre not going to be able to defend yourself. We have easy access to guns here in America and violent crimes still happen every day, so no, it wouldnt make any difference.
 
The knee jerk reaction was a call to ban the sale of caustic substances. That's not surprising, but what about those who use caustic substances legitimately? This is sounding like more restrictive laws for gummint control!
 
The government is too busy trying to appease certain segments and not "offend them" that they have lost control. Also seems to be happening here in certain cities and states - the same ones (to keep this on topic) where restrictive gun measures and/or taxes have been put in place (CA, WA, etc.) They too are finding themselves heading in the same directions. Criminals will always find a way to accomplish their objective. A gun is not always the best solution, however.
 
I'm of the take that if just one acid thrower received instant, immediate justice, mentalities would be changed somewhat...........
 
We could say the same thing here about knock-out gamers, fake race riots, and the other violent protest groups that use violence and terror as a means to try and get their way.
 
I would point out that it isn't just guns that the British have been stripped of, it is also the largest part of the legal concept of self defense, with any weapon, or with NONE.

"die if you must, but never fight back" seems to have become the entrenched mentality of the British government.

Banning something, because someone, somewhere, uses it for an evil purpose has NEVER worked to stop evil, anywhere, at anytime.

It is, however, a cheap thing (much cheaper than actual police and police work, prisons and actual punishment) and it LOOKS like the govt is actually doing something, and that they care.

They aren't, and they don't, but it looks like it, so they do it.
 
44amp I agree. I don't know but reasonably believe it was not the whole of the People wanting to be disarmed. As it is here the hand full of want to dehorn the cattle.
They are not interested in the victims surviving and the perps dying, only an idea of preventing deaths among their cattle. But that doesn't exactly fit as they have arrested people having a screwdriver in their coveralls for having a deadly weapon, and homeowners jailed for using a gun or knife or a baseball bat to rebuff assaults by home invaders and rewarded the criminals.
Only thing I can link it possibly to is the attitude of the government when the infamous Sullivan Law was passed in New York, Sullivan got it passed as his gang members and other gangs were losing too many embers, when they broke into homes and assaulted people. It was designed to protect the Criminals. So maybe that is it.
 
If you want to win against violence you have to prosecute those individuals who are violent.
A lot of people die from the violent use of hands and feet. It shows the idiocy of trying to ban the tool instead of the violent individual. You can't always defend yourself but if there were people around you who could stop the person then it would empower more people and minimize the violence.
Governments don't like empowered people so they focus on the tools.
 
It is, however, a cheap thing (much cheaper than actual police and police work, prisons and actual punishment) and it LOOKS like the govt is actually doing something, and that they care.
Click to expand...

And you can bet that those in power have armed protection, because - well, because THEY are special and need that protection..... ;)
 
Tinbucket said:
Only thing I can link it possibly to is the attitude of the government when the infamous Sullivan Law was passed in New York, Sullivan got it passed as his gang members and other gangs were losing too many embers, when they broke into homes and assaulted people. It was designed to protect the Criminals.
Click to expand...

It sounds like OSHA for criminals...
 
A gun might very well be effective against acid throwers.
If the acid is being thrown at someone else, that gives time to stop the bad guy before he picks another victim.
The same for knife attacks, as well as most every other act of terrorism.
Just a thought.
 
Don't forget that most of the "call the Bobbies and stay away from the crims" attitude was developed out of necessity to keep healthcare costs down.

It isn't just an anti-violence, or anti-gun, or 'don't hurt yourself with a knife' stance.

It's the government trying to reduce healthcare costs by keeping criminals from being injured.

Let that bounce around your brain box for a while, and try to come up with an argument for defense against acid attacks that Parliament would actually go for... :rolleyes:
 
Seems to be more a problem of Self Defense no longer being a right, a too passive attitude, a "call the police, let the authorities handle it " attitude.
 
The poor British people have been "de-horned" for so long,,,
They wouldn't know what to do with a gun if they were allowed to carry them.

It's a lot like what we are seeing in America now,,,
People that are two or three generations from a gun culture.

So just allowing them to have guns again would not solve their problems,,,
I'm of the opinion that they would do more harm than good with them.

Their problems (and ours in many cases) would take a complete re-training/orientation of their people,,,
And I don't see that happening in either country.

Aarond

.
 
44amp
I would point out that it isn't just guns that the British have been stripped of, it is also the largest part of the legal concept of self defense, with any weapon, or with NONE.

"die if you must, but never fight back" seems to have become the entrenched mentality of the British government.

Banning something, because someone, somewhere, uses it for an evil purpose has NEVER worked to stop evil, anywhere, at anytime.

It is, however, a cheap thing (much cheaper than actual police and police work, prisons and actual punishment) and it LOOKS like the govt is actually doing something, and that they care.

They aren't, and they don't, but it looks like it, so they do it.
Click to expand...

Very good insight into this attitude. I just cant imagine living with that mentality, "Die if you must, but never fight back". The actions of this government perpetuate so much of the issue.
 
It makes sense that if you have limited access to firearms you'd look for something else to use.

It's not that they don't exist though.
I mean figure most of the people doing mass shootings are doing it because it's very easy.. you just need a gun, and the willingness to die in it's use.
Hard to stop someone willing to sacrifice their life.
It does not even take much experience to use a gun, they're pretty simple devices.. now to use them well.. that's a different subject.

Im reminded of the recent incident in NY hospital where the supposed gun used was a AR15, It was a flat top, no sights.. It's pretty obvious that guy knew next to nothing about guns but he had a finger and a mission so he was dangerous all the same.

So if you can't get access to a firearm, there are knifes, clubs, cars, Molotov cocktails, etc.. we have no shortage of ways to kill and maim each other.

Acid honestly hadn't thought of that, It seems to do more disfiguring then killing but holy god can it disfigure, I guess if you're goal is "terror" it works quite well.. I think I'd rather take my chances with a bullet then a cup of acid.

On the other hand these are all really direct and low tech ways of getting the job done if you're out to kill people I would think a bomb would really be your best weapon but that takes skill not to kill your self in the process.

So ya I think the rise of acid attacks is probably in part due to the high restrictions on firearms.

Having said that these lone wolves don't have the knowledge or savvy to tap into the black market to get them.. as evident with their knife, car, hammer attacks.

It's not that they're not there, you can find articles of career criminals having guns, thing is they are "CAREER" criminals.. not go out and throw your life away criminals.

aarondhgraham said:
The poor British people have been "de-horned" for so long,,,
They wouldn't know what to do with a gun if they were allowed to carry them.

It's a lot like what we are seeing in America now,,,
People that are two or three generations from a gun culture.

So just allowing them to have guns again would not solve their problems,,,
I'm of the opinion that they would do more harm than good with them.

Their problems (and ours in many cases) would take a complete re-training/orientation of their people,,,
And I don't see that happening in either country.

Aarond

.
Click to expand...
I mostly agree with you, I don't think it's as bad in American though.
If you've never seen it look up the documentary no guns for negro's.

Talks about the discrimination of gun ownership even after slavery ended.

Then we have the lovely 1934 law.. what was our excuse back then? how about 1968? Pretty much killed off the mail order business.. I have one of my dads old rifles that Im fairly certain was bought that way.

You could order a rifle with your choice of stock, action, caliber, etc and they would be made to order and sent right to your door.

I think there is a tipping point in America, Guns are much more ingrained in our society, It's part of the American identity (even the anti's are often hypocritical on ownership) then pretty much any other industrialized nation.

The last 8years has brought a lot of new owners into the market especially females, and conceal carry is way more popular than just the gun nuts like us.

Gun culture has shifted in this country but if anything it's away from hunting and typical arms used for it more to semi auto rifles and handguns.

Even non gun owners overwhelmingly consider gun ownership a right.

I doubt we'll ever see the machine gun registry reopened but I think we're better off now then we was 10-15 years ago.

The previous administration might actually have done more to expand gun ownership than anything else, and with more people invested in the discussion the better off we are.

I think the change in state laws to constitutional carry is growing and with it an ever expanding base of gun owners that have a interest in the future of the 2a.

If somehow we are ever disarmed it will not be as suddenly as the British.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top