Are You Authorized to Defend Yourself?

Discussion in 'Politics & Society' started by Rage, Mar 8, 2010.

?

Do you think Civilians should own Guns?

  1. 1. Yes, its a un-encroachable natural right. Pick one right away. No holds barred.

    22.5%
  2. 2. Yes, but apply for a license, go through background checks to qualify for a (semi-automatic) gun.

    52.3%
  3. 3. No need, we have cops and army to do the job.

    10.8%
  4. 4. Not at all, too many potential desperados who'll become terminators in no time.

    14.4%
  1. Spindrift

    Spindrift Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    388
    Likes Received:
    270
    The arms act that the British enacted in India was commonly know as the disarming act.

    While granting exemption to the Kodavas in February 1861, the then Chief Commissioner of Coorg, Mark Cubbon, said in the notification : “In consideration of the exalted honour and loyalty characteristic of this little nation of warriors and in recollection of its conspicuous services in aid of the British government, it is my pleasing duty to notify hereby for general information, in virtue of the power vested in me by the government of India that provisions of the Arms Act, commonly called Disarming Act, are not applicable to the gallant people of Coorg.”
     
  2. valkyrie_1810

    valkyrie_1810 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2017
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    137
    Well the degenerates who live in my area jump out of nowhere and attack people,taking their purse and phone,they sometimes have gun with them and they shot dead a lady last year,should we as a citizen not have a gun with us to protect ourselves in those kind of situation? How the fuck should I explain to the authorities that a mad man today night will try to rob me?

    There should be no free gun culture,but look at Switzerland,how they manage it,they are being taught the consequence of every bullet.

    There are many gun enthusiast in India who would love to have a shooting range and fire some bullets but the govt is a cancerous organization.
     
  3. Horushmar.

    Horushmar. Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2017
    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    190
    Location:
    One of the 7 sisters
    I think even air guns need license now.
    And if you do acquire a license you have to spend your kidney's worth on a decent handgun or
    buy IOF crap.
    Meanwhile good guns are being sold illegally:doh:
     
  4. mendosa

    mendosa Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2017
    Messages:
    382
    Likes Received:
    1,375
    This sounds nice only if you ignore a slight desi nuance. If you give equal rights to people who are impeded in accessing those rights due to other inequalities, then it creates another kind of power-disharmony. The average income of an American family is 48k$/pa, the average income of an Indian family is 3k$/pa. If it's made legal in India, the rich ones will grab the opportunity to dominate others.

    We need Indian solutions for Indian problems.

    The 'armed government' versus 'armed civilians' binary excludes a third middle ground option. There can be more guns in non-government hands. As in, everyone who owns a building (school, college, office, commercial complex, library, residential complex) will have not just the right but the responsibility to have an armed guard. So that if a riot happens, the functional part of the society who wants nothing to do with the riot and wants to go about their business can do so by safely ferrying from their homes to offices without having to be gun owners themselves. The armed guards at these buildings will have to be paid and maintained by the owner of that particular business.

    Give the right to bear arms to civilian institutions. 1 armed gunman can protect 5000 residents in a society. All 5000 don't need to own guns. Saves money, prevents bullying and prevents deaths from negligence (kids getting access to their parent's firearms and shooting up schools).

    The cornerstone of civilization is the fact that the subjects no longer have to worry about personal security, unlike in the stone age, and can invest their time and money in more productive endeavors. If we're going back to the 'each man for himself' model, we are essentially reversing the progress that civilization has made. If it works for the US or not is debatable (given the school shootings, and the highest per capita gun deaths compared to any other country), they are continuing with it for political reasons, not practical ones. The US constitution was based on the distrust of the government. Indian constitution is a socialist manifesto based on community interests and the state reserves the exclusive privilege to wield instruments of violence.

    There are actually special chapters dedicated to the issue of civilian safety, in all civilizations (Chanakya, Sun Tzu) which states that orderly behavior is not the default state of human beings and any any instance of lawful behavior is only an artificially conditioned behavior premised on the existence of retribution from a higher authority who enforces the law (state). In order for there to be law and order, the state must have a monopoly over violence and well meaning citizens must voluntarily accede to the status quo of the state having the means to execute violence in the common interest.

    There's also the issue of taxes. If I'm paying through my teeth to build my home, and they paying some more to provide security, electricity, water, education what am I getting in exchange for the taxes that I am paying? If guns become legal, my Delhi-wala real estate broker may be the first one to buy a gun for showoff, I am not too keen on buying a gun, but now he gets to bully people. Let violence be a monopoly of the state.

    PS : There are 22 countries in the world which don't even have an army. It works for them but that doesn't mean it will work for us. We have a different threat matrix, so we need different measures.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2017
  5. Krusty

    Krusty Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,531
    Likes Received:
    4,775
    Seconded! One of my colleague's Sister in the USA fought with her dad and moved to her boyfriends place because he wouldn't get her a gun. WTF is that? I'm sure it's what the founding fathers of USA would have wanted... everyone in the USA says whatever is needed to be said to retain firearms. Just like drug addicts. Tyrannical Govt, protect property blah, blah... everything points only to mistrust in the system and an inherent sense of instability which is covered up... stories like these are never discussed about.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2017
  6. mendosa

    mendosa Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2017
    Messages:
    382
    Likes Received:
    1,375
    It also creates redundancy.

    Citizens get guns, so local law enforcement is required to arm themselves with higher caliber guns to maintain the relative edge over civilians, plus bullet proof vests. This itself will be prohibitively costly if applied in India. At the same time there is a devil hiding in plain sight. Civilians getting guns does not prevent the government from getting higher caliber guns. If the whole point of civilians owning guns is that they could get together to take on the collective might of the government when it turns tyrannical, then the citizens will obviously be outmatched because the government has bigger guns and better trained people and even has the army at their disposal.

    I'm open minded about a provision for more guns in India and also wouldn't mind if those guns were not exclusively under government control. But the argument has to be contextually relevant to what problems it will solve if there are more guns, and also what problems it will create.

    If residential complexes are allowed to hire licensed private security people with guns, that seems like a good golden middle without going into the whole theoretical debate about 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' which plagues the gun law debates in the US. If Cama hospital had an armed person guarding it during 26/11, then many lives would have been saved.

    If Indian civilians were allowed to have guns, it would require the law enforcement to spend billions just to arm themselves to maintain an edge over the civilians otherwise the armed groups will start acting as a quasi-government body. The only reason any country can 'enforce' any law and order is because they are relatively stronger than the civilian masses, otherwise it would become mob rule. Even in the US, the domestic police spend a lot to maintain their edge. We cannot afford this right now. Those billions are much better spent fencing the Bangladesh border and preventing the criminals from coming in instead of allowing them in and telling the civilians to buy guns to defend themselves.

    We already don't have the funds to give good equipment to our police. The bullet proof vests sanctioned after 26/11 are yet to arrive. The fast patrol crafts which were sanctioned to Mumbai police after 26/11 are not patrolling because there was no allocation for petrol. Our anti-naxal forces are already under equipped. If guns and ammo becomes commercially available, it would undoubtedly flow into the hands of naxals.

    Allow 1 privately licensed gun per commercial building, not per person. This is a good golden middle for Indian scenario.

    Anyway, Indian government lacks the logistics to turn tyrannical. The ratio of police to civilians is 106 cops per 1 lakh Indians*. At any given point of time, less than 1% of the entire population of India is engaged in law enforcement, that is not enough to control the remaining 99% people against their wishes. The jails are already overflowing. If the people choose not to obey the law, there is literally no place for GOI to keep new convicts. So the tyrannical government premise doesn't apply here. Poor police is already short of breath struggling to provide us with basic security from petty crimes, how are they going to have the might to arrest 99% of us and where are they going to keep us.

    *http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/i...-police-population-ratios-in-the-world/245425

    Let's also appreciate the dark humor here, when citizens of a country like the US which spends 1 trillion $ per year on its external security, plus 300 billion on internal security, still feel insecure enough to spend some more money to buy guns to defend themselves, and still have the highest per capita homicide rates, something has got to be wrong. One would have expected a society of 300 million people who spend 2 trillion $ annually to be a bit more secured and peaceful than that.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2017
  7. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,131
    Likes Received:
    19,254
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Most of the things I have written here are repetitive. Please read the entire thread before responding.
    It is not a question of "if." It is already happening.

    Law abiding citizens don't have guns. Criminals don't care about the law anyway. So, we have a power-disharmony.
    Ok.
    Non-government guns should be available to everyone, not to a select coterie annointed by the government.
    No, 1 gunman cannot protect 50 (fifty) people. Think of Mumbai CST attack.
    The state de jure reserves the exclusive privilege to wield instruments of violence, but anyone who wants to commit a crime de facto has instruments of violence at his disposal.
    Any instance of lawful behaviour is only an artificially conditioned behavior premised on the existence of retribution, and the statement ends there. Who the retribution comes from is not required to be specified for the purpose of restricting it.
    People are already committing crimes and victims are unable to defend themselves, which they otherwise would if they had the right to bear arms. How much taxes you pay has nothing to do with it. Those that are below the tax bracket also would have the right. You need to secure yourself by a gun. It has nothing to do with showoff. Many people carry guns in the US, but not everyone hangs it on a holster to show people off.
    Agree.
     
  8. mendosa

    mendosa Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2017
    Messages:
    382
    Likes Received:
    1,375
    Law abiding citizens don't have guns. Criminals don't care about the law anyway. So, we have a power-disharmony.

    >>Allowing the framework of legal firearms will allow people to carry even illegal ones without suspicion.

    Non-government guns should be available to everyone, not to a select coterie annointed by the government.

    >>That's what I said, non-government, private ownership of guns by businesses, where the government has nothing to do with the approval.

    No, 1 gunman cannot protect 50 (fifty) people. Think of Mumbai CST attack.
    >>Terrorism is an extreme case scenario. I doubt even a civilian with AK47 can do much in case of another 26/11. The risk of harm to others from someone firing in self defense is far greater.

    The state de jure reserves the exclusive privilege to wield instruments of violence, but anyone who wants to commit a crime de facto has instruments of violence at his disposal.

    >>He has instruments of violence but this is impeded by the punishment that follows. It's not like anyone who wants to commit crime can do so without fear of law.

    Any instance of lawful behaviour is only an artificially conditioned behavior premised on the existence of retribution, and the statement ends there. Who the retribution comes from is not required to be specified for the purpose of restricting it.

    >>This would be fine, if you assume that ALL armed civilians will follow the same moral code. What happens when civilians start forming militias based on their own moral codes and start dispensing their own retribution?

    I am still willing to concede all the above points, my main point is that if civilians are allowed to bear firearms, then the government's incremental cost to arm itself to maintain a comparative edge will be a drag on the defense spending in a major way.

    India is just 70 years into its freedom from 1000s of years of foreign rule which has systematically created fault lines. If arms are allowed, the nation will break up into regions with militias.
     
  9. mendosa

    mendosa Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2017
    Messages:
    382
    Likes Received:
    1,375
    So...umm..this just happened a few hours ago...

    Untitled.png
     
    Krusty likes this.
  10. Krusty

    Krusty Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,531
    Likes Received:
    4,775
    @pmaitra @Project Dharma i know your stance on the logic behind gun ownership in the US. @Razor I'm not so sure.. anyway, here's what I like to get...

    To start off, the problem of protecting my private property against loonies, thieves and thugs. (Since I can't trust the state to do it for me)....

    - ZPU4 on custom automated turrets. One facing the front yard, one at the back, and one on the roof (because why not?). Now with this setup, I can bet any money my house won't be robbed. Oh I would dare people to rob me. To hell with puny alarms and anti theft systems. If it weren't cold, I'd sleep with my doors open. This would stop encroachment onto my private property and my neighbourhood with absolute certainly thanks to me alone.

    - now coming to the question of tyrannical governments.... Well if the government turns tyrannical puny, AR15s and shotguns with limited ammo ain't gonna save me (When would the common American realise this? Or, Drug addict theory...) this ain't 1776 where pro govt forces were armed with muskets and grenades with lightable wicks.. they have F22s and Abhrams and nuke subs. What are you going to do with your puny AR15( if you get hold of one)? So here's my list for a tyrannical government..
    10X Javelin launchers on 5 custom automated turrets
    - 10X stinger on turrets to take care of choppers
    - 1X Fully loaded AH64 Apache hello underground with full AEW suite and a fast Attack craft close to my safe house in the coast to make my dash to Cuba when things go south.

    Now I know the government will obviously overwhelm me as a common citizen inspite of having all these.. so for good measure (1X nuke on a platform capable of reaching the tyrannical White House). Because you know... tyranny should never be allowed to rule. And it's my duty to stop them and a right as my us citizen to arm myself with the equipment needed.

    Oh BTW, when they miniaturise LaWS, I want that on my roof too. Now, imagine how my house would look like.. the perfect American dream... MURICA!!!! *Q patriotic music and soaring eagles on a Stars and Stripes backdrop *



    Before I start with my portable Defence equipment list, Question for you. why shouldn't I have access to everything on my shopping list? Based on what would you reject it?

    P.S: my list would be far more extensive, but if I could afford more, I'd just develop my own weapons like batman.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2017
    Razor likes this.
  11. Project Dharma

    Project Dharma दुष्ट आत्मा Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2016
    Messages:
    4,563
    Likes Received:
    9,654
    Location:
    United States
    My current stance on free gun ownership in India is that we are not ready for it unless law enforcement
    is also armed, trained and relatively corruption free. Secondly, India has a relatively high capita per income with wealth inequality comparable to most developed European countries. (currently richest 1% own 58% of the wealth). Thirdly, the judicial system has cleared its backlog and is able to deliver harsh, speedy justice in the case of any abuse. Lastly, we have squashed out the different separatist movements like Kashmir, NE insurgency and even the little vestige of Khalistan we have left.

    After that, I have no problem with you owning any of the above provided you can pass a background check, psychiatrist evaluation and can demonstrate competence in handling every firearm that you intend to possess. You have the ability to secure the firearms in your home. And you renew your firearms credentials periodically.

    In those circumstances, I support your ownership of the automated weapons provided that they are not deployed at peace time. (you shouldn't be able to take out a neighbor's kid because of a mis-aimed turret).

    Oh, I would like every gun owning citizen to swear an oath of allegiance and enlist in a National Militia which can be called upon in the case of war to fight.
     
    aditya10r and An Angry Potato like this.
  12. Krusty

    Krusty Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,531
    Likes Received:
    4,775
    Actually I was asking from Americans perspective. @pmaitra, @mendosa and I were having a discussion on American rights to bear arms in another thread which was moved here. Sorry for the confusion.

    This question was put forward in an American context. Please answer likewise.

    Edit: Also, the ZPU4 is for use in peacetime. The rest I'll have them powered down but still in view for deterrence. Accidental killing cannot be avoided. It happens even with small arms. Kids kill themselves, toddlers kill parents. The risk is always there. It's inherent. I'm sure you will have to sign the papers having these clauses before you buy one. if you try to take my ZPU away from me and you are tyrannical too.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2017
  13. Project Dharma

    Project Dharma दुष्ट आत्मा Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2016
    Messages:
    4,563
    Likes Received:
    9,654
    Location:
    United States
    Ah, I just read the post above yours which was talking about India.

    There are more guns in America than people already. Also, its past is based on violent Abrahamical roots combined with a colonial legacy of squashing the natives. Then there is the obsession with guns in Hollywood, music and video games.

    Basically, any bad guy who wants a gun can already own one. Law enforcement is highly militarized and has the equipment and training to neutralize the baddies but they can't be everywhere. Might as well let law abiding citizens own guns as well.

    So my stance is what I tried to articulate above:

    After that, I have no problem with you owning any of the above provided you can pass a background check, psychiatrist evaluation and can demonstrate competence in handling every firearm that you intend to possess. You have the ability to secure the firearms in your home. And you renew your firearms credentials periodically.

    In those circumstances, I support your ownership of the automated weapons provided that they are not deployed at peace time. (you shouldn't be able to take out a neighbor's kid because of a mis-aimed turret).


    I would like to add the importance of having strong castle doctrine laws. Currently, in liberal states as a gun owner I have to think twice of shooting somebody who invades my home because the stupid liberals are more obsessed with protecting the bad guys than the law abiding citizen. I would like a Texas model of "You enter my house, you are fucked" to be applied at the Federal level.

    PS. Apologize if I sound more incoherent than usual, just woke up and still groggy.
     
  14. Krusty

    Krusty Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,531
    Likes Received:
    4,775
    So just to make it very clear, you say you are OK with civilians owning nukes which can be deployed and fired when required provided they pass psychiatric tests and take an oath?
     
  15. Project Dharma

    Project Dharma दुष्ट आत्मा Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2016
    Messages:
    4,563
    Likes Received:
    9,654
    Location:
    United States
    haha I missed this

    (1X nuke on a platform capable of reaching the tyrannical White House).

    I support everything else except for the nuke. The potential damage to national interest because of the whims of one civilian is too high. However, I could (could because I haven't had time to think of this enough) be convinced to support nuclear rights of individual states in addition to Uncle Sam.
     
  16. Krusty

    Krusty Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,531
    Likes Received:
    4,775
    BUt i swore an oath and everything! Ok fine. I wasn't asking for one civilian(everyone can have tactical nukes for use against tyranny) but ok. I'll make peace with no nukes (for now. Will circle back to it later) and start with the basic.. ZPU4. Are you saying you are ok with that? If not, why shouldn't I have it

    P.S: when founding fathers wrote the constitution the government didn't have nukes and tanks. So they said guns were ok. They wouldn't even have had any clue what the government would arm themselves with today. So how to tackle a tyrannical government. AR15 and other publicly available arms won't cut it. So either we agree that civvies can own heavy equipment and nukes or accept that the second amendment is obsolete and scrap it. Please start with my ZPU4
     
  17. Project Dharma

    Project Dharma दुष्ट आत्मा Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2016
    Messages:
    4,563
    Likes Received:
    9,654
    Location:
    United States
    As long as we have the ability to carve out chunks of airspace for civilian airlines to use where they are not deployed and outside of reach. If it is not possible or too cumbersome as I suspect then I don't support it because of the destructive potential in the hands of one guy. I would support the right of individual states to have them just like nukes.

    Why not? I would argue that small arms are pretty effective at waging urban guerrilla warfare against a tyrannical government (please consider USA deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan or even India in Kashmir. I'm not calling India or USA tyrannical just giving an example).

    Assault rifles and small arms along with small explosives in the hands of individual civilians. Heavy military hardware like tanks, missiles and AA guns in the hands of individual states.

    Here is the text of the second amendment


    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Notice how it says for the "security of a free state". I believe that includes defense of personal property and life and not just against the government. So how is it obsolete?
     
  18. Krusty

    Krusty Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,531
    Likes Received:
    4,775
    Why is that? There were no flying machines that the government could to Attack you. Now there are. An amendment is required. Laws that were drafted for conditions in 1776 is obsolete to say the least in 2017 especially ones that concerns itself with tech that's constantly evolving. Why should civvies defend only land space? Govt has Attack helos and aircrafts now you know. Who is anyone to decide what civvies should and shouldn't protect around them?
    I do. And the only reason why these malitia survives (especially in Kashmir) is because the army (and government) is barred from using disproportionate force. You think stone pelters and those who shoot from behind stonepelters would last a few weeks if the army REALLY had their way?
    So you imply that the American constitution is based on mistrust on itself and the government. And somehow, that isn't very matured and flawed way to engineer a progressive society. If the security of the people is under threat from the people who run the country themselves, it's nothing short of a rogue/terrorist state and should be de-nuked and de-fanged by the world community. Ofcourse this is my view and not the universal truth.
    Again this 'security of the state' isn't threatened by people with muskets anymore. Defence industries have significantly upped their game. What would you do if a tyrannical government decides to Nuke what it considers a rogue state? (You might think this is funny but trust me, I think the whole second amendment and the concept of 'tyrannical governments' is hysterical in a country which prides itself as a jewel of democracy)
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2017
  19. Project Dharma

    Project Dharma दुष्ट आत्मा Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2016
    Messages:
    4,563
    Likes Received:
    9,654
    Location:
    United States
    @Krusty

    Will reply tomorrow, good debate...
     
  20. mendosa

    mendosa Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2017
    Messages:
    382
    Likes Received:
    1,375
    This debate has gone from knives and guns to anti tank missiles and tactical nukes. God bless America.

    From a non-American's point of view, the US establishment allows its civilians to have guns because it frees up government resources which can be spent on the military to invade new nations and steal more resources. It works for them because they are able to work their way outwards. Murica has had 200+ years to evolve a composite American identity.

    If guns are allowed in India, we will have regional militia and the government resources will have to look inwards to solve domestic separatism. India is just 70 years into its freedom from a system which planted fault lines. 20 years from now, maybe even Indians should start having personal defense weapons. By that time, most regional issues will have died down. Indian youngsters are being rotated across the nation due to employment opportunities, they are settling there and marrying outside their communities and it will take at least 1 more generation for a more homogenous Indian identity to evolve, the groundwork for which has been laid by the economic upsurge.

    Until then, no social experiments in India with gun ownership, please.
     
    Hemu Vikram Aditya and Krusty like this.

Share This Page