Gun Control laws in America - Debate

[hit&run]

Law would not save or kill anyone. The means of defense used and reaction of victim and assailant determines how many lives are saved or lost. There are n number of scenarios where rookies fanboys lay hands on reckles parents guns and cause mayhem. There are n number of scenarios where one armed civilian's timely response avoids a bigger incident.
Our attention focuses of those once in a while incidents because of Guns while we forget how many are avoided exactly because of an armed citizenry. Because absence of bad news doesn't make headline in papers or TV.

From Liberal Gun Laws I mean having easy access to gun and owning one.

Either you prove it scientifically; take advice of some expert before telling me how people have been able to save lives. Every incident needs to be discussed objectively with all the details. You must talk with authority so that people can understand your point and follow you. If you have no authority or an expertise your comment makes zero impression to me when you talk about using firearms. I am not an authority too, but I have chosen to discourage people to have a gun without having few prerequisite things which I know are must, with my own experience.

And what after the guards are down or have fled? Now that we're talking about 26/11 I hope you know what happened at CST. Cops armed with 303 rifles ducked for cover and refused to fire while the terrorists were spraying bullets all around. I'm not blaming the cop alone but am pointing to the situation and its consequences.

I do not feel invited to discuss shoddy scenarios. I will stop my imagination further if I be able to see a security guard armed with a weapon which I would assume has been trained by a certified good training school not the shoddy agencies we have in India, before entering Hotel Taj for sip of the tea.

Hey who was the one to bluntly say "I bet you haven't ever operated a gun"? I didn't even say anything blunt and you're already blaming me. Pot calling the kettle black?

Since when you have started speaking for others.

I wasn't quoting you in my first comment. This is from where I came to conclusion that you were in haste, not able to draft your sentence properly and blunt. You have proved my point again.

Yeah I would need the terrorist's mercy and good amount of luck. Or better I ask the 163 dead victims of 26/11 how they feel about not making it out alive. Probably they will give a good idea.
I'm not talking about chest thumping ape wars with a jihadi. If escape is an option I'd take it. I don't want to fire fight with a better trained jihadi just because I'm armed and have seen the Rambo movie.
Being aggressive is not our job. That is security forces job. Our job is to do whatever we can to save our lives. So let me say again - its all about the entities involved, the scenario, and its manifestation.
What about when you're pinned down without the time or means of escape? What about when he is directly shooting at you to kill you? Would a Gun in your hand make a difference? Would you atleast be able to try not just stand there and wait for him to make thorough blood popping tunnels in your body?

You are now becoming boring; maybe you should direct some Bollywood movie .

To live long life you need three things, Good Gene, Good Exercise (Physical fitness) and Good luck, not gun. All these three things will be able to save you in any scenario.

I would like to live in a safer city and safer nation with strict gun laws than in any City exposed/vulnerable to such threats in first place. I would use my energy while ranting on a forum to make my City safer than encouraging fools have the authority to defend themselves or society with sophisticated weapons.

But its a Yes so will go ahead.
to be aware of your fire-arm and its action.
to keep the fire-arm clean.
to keep your finger out of the trigger guard until you're ready to fire.
to not point the fire-arm in the direction where you don't want to destroy anything.
to be mindful of what is around & behind your target.
to never assume that the fire-arm is empty. Check and double check.
to never leave the fire-arm and its ammo un-attended if it is in reach of kids or others who aren't trained & trusted.
to never display your fire-arm unncessarily, causing impulses/doubts and un-nerved minds around.
to never carry the fire-arm to place where it is not allowed.
Lastly, every person has a different comfort level with Guns and will somewhat tweak his method of carry and use accordingly. For example- there are people who carry but with an empty chamber and there are others who carry with a loaded chamber.

I hope you were trained by someone good.

Let me give you few good advices as I can see you own a gun. The first rule of having gun is 'never use it'. If you are in a threatening situation rather using a Gun, run if you can. After running far if you still think you are not safe, run again.

As said above, I am not going to be King Kong with an armed jihadi if there are any means of escape. But if there aren't any means of stall/escape, I'd like my means of self-defense please.

But you are not allowed to carry guns in many places targeted by maniacs quite often?
Also my point is vindicated that having a Gun cannot help you in many situations especially when determined terrorists plan to kill.

I am aware that the system isn't very helpful and doesn't offer a lot; which again is an issue with the system and not the people. However the process of licensing is a lot more rigorous in India as compared to US. I've no issues with it as long as a genuine case willing to learn and abide by, is being accommodated. But that doesn't happen a lot.
Anyway, as far as preparation and training is concerned. There are shooting ranges for the ones who're willing to step out and learn. Then there are occasional training programmes for civilians carried out by Police departments also. Bottomline - a man having the intent and will to learn proper use of Guns has his options and will eventually get his way; while the whinners will keep talking and talking.

With due respect, Stop here !.

If you cannot spend money on training and build yourself physically and psychology you do not deserve a gun. The bold bit is simply worrying and has further affirmed my belief that people who think they will eventually get their way with guns do not deserve gun.

You talk about law coming to bite our ass and then gloss over those IPC sections? Who is contradicting?

This is not a womanly quarrel.

I be contradicting myself I f I haven't detailed my point further which you forgot to quote.

In the court of law you have to prove that you have shot someone to defend yourself. The police will make a report of that incident; will put IPC sections on you. If you are lucky they will make a report in your favour, but if you have shot someone with more influence you will spend rest of your life fighting against IPC sections they charged you with.

I am not throwing questions of quantum physics at you so that you are confused not to understand my point. I am not against carrying a gun but I need law and enforcement and Judiciary complementing my act of defence performed by gun even screwdriver or car keys; If I am trained to use it, yes people are taught how to use car keys in all good schools in USA.

If someone owned and used a legal/illegal gun without reading the book first, they are the biggest fools of the party.

The law make it sure they all read it, but the law isn't, neither they have resources nor cognitive ability to think about how to make sure people read it. So till then 'eventually somehow some way they will get their way with guns' is everyone's approach, like you mentioned above.

Originally Posted by hit&run
The other group misuse these laws.

Whose fault?

Because they know Police is their bitch, easy sell off, clueless, unscientific.

I agree completely but again, whose fault that the fence is eating the crop? Not of the citizen.

Well onus is on those to answer and find solution who encourage people to have Gun, not me.

Till then In that uncertainty don't let people have guns.

I don't agree that money essentially determines a man's character. There are good & bad, calm & desperate people on both sides despite of the stark disparity. But then you have your opinion and I have mine.

My uncle who owns a transport agency with a fleet of trucks passing through a state wouldn't agree with you. He will stop his business once he knows that looters can buy good guns now. I mean it's good that we have strict gun laws in India, people in India are timid, have no time to invest for training, are happy about it, wants to do business and earn money, exchange money in bags around shops and banks. I know many traders in Ludhiana who feel happy that people do not have guns, only few gun loving fan boys do not like it who buy Americans POV without knowing the their history and agenda and Indian realities.

Prevailing disparity is one good factor. Disparity increases desperation and then crime. It is natural order of things and any crime psychologist can prove it.

Indeed, I might just say dude you're on your own but there are too many scenarios plausible in real life and accordingly many different best routes to take (one or two in each). What I'd stress on here is, training is never enough as you can't predict what would befall you. But everyone serious enough gets trained as much as they can and try to do their best, Real life is not a lab test where you can control variables and dictate scenarios or conclusions. Its a slugfest out there; the man with skills and means to defend himself has a chance even when that "rather hide and run away and wait for police to come" is not possible. What of the unarmed unskilled man then? Why are you a member of a Rifle club and learning martial Arts when a skilled assasin might still get the better of you?

Sorry, you are negating an important point that people having guns are supposed to be trained physically and mentally under the watch of Law and enforcement agencies.

It is you who was creating particular scenarios which I was rejecting. The only message I was/am sending is voiding a conflict the best possible way you can and you do not need a gun to do it.

You have be trained physically to best of your ability and minimum to what Law requires to you to be. You are sending a wrong and dangerous message that It doesn't matter. It's like 'ye ho sakta hai, wo ho saktka, kuch be ho hai', 'maut to kabhi be aa sakti hai'.

I think you know by now that I won't disagree with you on this.

Which is exactly what has to be done in India aswell. But not only is the Govt. unwilling, even the citizenry is sleeping. Then one day there's an incident and scores die, there's hue and cry. And then life goes on But we won't introspect. We won't demand on the given rights. We won't question the paralytic system. We won't arm up with awareness and means.

You should have opened this particular post with above statement as opening statement.

Might have saved my time.

Self-defence is a science, an education; people must learn it before taking such responsibilities for themselves or others. Also they need to weight the consequences by understanding the litigation process and account trends of complicities of law agencies they might have to face in India.

By the way a question popped up if you could please answer.
if you're alone one-on-one against an armed assailant and there's no way to call for help, runaway. He doesn't want your surrender either. He simply wants to kill you with his weapon.
You have a gun; you only know how to point and press the trigger and aren't as savvy trained and informed as your tall standard "Americans".
Now - would you go ahead and try ... or say no I'm not well trained and informed so wouldn't use??

Its a failure of state to let person have a gun who is not trained.

Living in New Zealand, Australia and ~ UK Its mandatory to join a Gun Club and visit there for minimum numbers of times in a years. Otherwise your licence will be cancelled. You are not allowed to have concealed weapon at all. It should be locked in safe with bullets locked in a different safe in your house or vehicle. I will be never in a position to pull out my gun. I have to defend myself the best possible way I can. If I be able to manage to get a hold on my gun and shoot him, the onus will be on me automatically to prove my innocence, which is not the case in USA. If luckily acquitted I will be recorded permanently as a murdered (do not know the legal term or impression) for rest of my life.

If I am in America I will be trained for sure and I will shoot him before he blinks his eyes. I be worried about the carpet I may need to cut and change.

If I am in India and not trained I may shoot. I be worried about Police report and their blackmail, my solicitor not compromising to other party, proves getting contaminated or doctored in labs, witness becoming hostile, social stigma I may have to face from society getting uncomfortable with my presence, will be burdened with guilt of killing someone, ridden by unknown bad mental repercussion/effects for rest of my life (because no good counselling available).

Also Americans are not the example I would blindly take precedence from, they have gone seriously wrong by letting anyone buy weapons with ease. Yes they stand tall in training than Indians, they are more prosperous than India, even their laws complement self-defence, never heard of a police officer sparing sons of politicians and wealthy businessmen (who killed jassica), use best of the technology when investigating, people are brave to come out and help investigation and the Law. They have all the pre requisite of a better Gun culture and security atmosphere but I would like to see them having restriction on type and numbers of weapons they can buy etc.

Now you have three different types examples in front of you and I hope you have got my answer.

Let me wind this up by saying that we're not gun totting fan boys mate. We only want ourselves and our people to be able to protect themselves should the need face them someday.

I do not think you are ready to take this responsibility, I may be wrong.

God Saves India.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

This page contains links to web pages relevant to the controversy over an article in the Journal of Legal Studies by John Lott and David Mustard, in which they offer statistical evidence that laws requiring states to issue concealed carry permits to ordinary citizens reduce some forms of crime.It was created and is maintained by David Friedman. My objective is to provide links to the original documents (the Lott and Mustard paper and, when and if they are webbed, published articles criticizing or defending it), to web pages critical of the article, and to responses and comments. If you are aware of relevant online material to which I do not have a link, please let me know.

The Lott and Mustard argument appears in an expanded form, along with responses to critics, in John Lott's recent book More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (University of Chicago Press, 2000).

Does Concealed Carry Deter Crime?: The Lott/Mustard Controversy

 

[hit&run]

And might that sentence apply to you my friend, you've already hijacked this thread to oblivion. We are discussing the United States here, aren't we ?

By discussion I mean my discussion not the title of the thread. Report my post if you think its OT and keep sticking to the title to decide things for Americans uninvited, In the mean time I will use this opportunity to help and build a case for my country India in this forum using this thread.

"India", dang mate! Which state is that now and where in the continental United States? Comparing apples with oranges eh ?!!

I am sorry I never thought a new poster will call me out out with a poor nitpick.

The person I intended to deliver the message has got it. There has been few discussion on this topic before and people who been lurking around on different forum know how few posters have been plagiarizing and thrusting American POV on Indians, which I object.

True, now that this thread has gone South"¦er East !

Why you are itching for some heated exchanges with one liners.

Is it so ?

Ok you have lost me now.

Either you make a detailed point or shut up.

Why then ? In light of the aforementioned point ? Are you 'preparing' for something ?

I am not preparing for something but still training because where I live I am not allowed act like a rag tag barbarian who do not know a squat about guns, but still owns one to boast around and bully. The kind of sophistication we as a community have inculcated and practised as far as firearms and security is concern is way beyond someone who is still living with primitive mind set up with self made generic theories on the same.

No Job = Higher Stakes ??? Anyway !

Yes once you shine your gun out in public the community will hang your ass on lamp post by telling the police right-away on the phone. For every job you need police clearance certificate. This what I call high stakes. Not to forget the fines you have to pay spending your fortune out.

Only you sir, I agree. And everyone else who wants a guns is a blooming nutjob, not to mention; a wimp who can't even lift a finger much less a Firearm; who would panic at the repercussions/symptoms of an impending mosquito bite.

When you were learning to wear pyjama I was elected as student President of GGN Khalsa college Ludhiana 1995-1997. It is easier to sound bravado on Internet but I real life I have seen many punks running back with their tails in their legs. It takes so much courage to point a gun at someone and here you are telling others in an open forum that killing someone has no post assault repercussions ?

Just try to point your gun at me if you ever get a chance ,I am visiting India in January first week next year. I swear to god your testicles will shrink to oblivion forever just by confronting with me and for rest of your life you will shit from some another hole.

Ah, I see the sound first-hand experience on which that blooming nutjob benchmark is based.

Well I have seen many a$$holes like him, the way you sound by not picking the drift and my main POV which even Virendra has (who thanked you), tells me that you are the same kind like my cousin, the benchmark.

I have done many bad things one could Imagine, I was lucky, have seen many rotting in Jails for doing nothing, I am now settled down well and wants to talk good and intelligent for my countrymen because I know things are not fair here.

 

[asianobserve]

Despite militarized society, Israel's strict gun laws keep civilian violence down
JTA July 24, 2012
Despite militarized society, Israel's strict gun laws keep civilian violence down | Israel | Jewish Journal

Young israelis carrying M16 and Tavor assault rifles on Jaffa Street in the center of the city of Jerusalem.

First-time visitors to Israel might be taken aback to see groups of armed teenagers walking through a city plaza on a weeknight, or surprised to walk into a public bathroom and see an M-16 laying across the sinks as a soldier washes his face.

But guns are ubiquitous in Israel, where most 18-year-olds are drafted into the army after high school.

However, once those soldiers finish their service two or three years later, they are subject to civilian gun control regulations that are much stricter than American laws.

In fact, it's pretty much impossible for civilians who live in Israel to acquire an arsenal of weaponry of the sort used by the alleged shooter in last week's massacre in Aurora, Colo. James E. Holmes, who is accused of killing 12 people and wounding 58 in an Aurora movie theater, legally bought the firearms he used, according to reports, including a semiautomatic rifle, a semiautomatic pistol and a 12-gauge shotgun. Leading up to the shooting, he reportedly bought thousands of bullets online.

In Israel, assault rifles are banned except for special circumstances. And while political violence in Israel is all too common and gun violence is a growing problem, random shootings of strangers—like the Aurora massacre—are virtually unheard-of here.

Unlike in the United States, where the right to bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution's Second Amendment, Israel's department of public security considers gun ownership a privilege, not a right. With few exceptions, gun owners in Israel are limited to owning one pistol, and must undergo extensive mental and physical tests before they can receive a weapon. Those who have not served in the military or in a government volunteer agency must wait until age 27 to apply for a firearms license. Gun owners are limited to 50 rounds of ammunition per year. West Bank settlers can obtain permits to carry guns for security purposes.

Lior Nedivi, an Israeli firearms expert, said that despite Israel's militarized society, neither soldiers nor veterans engage in extensive gun violence because 18-year-olds are tested for mental and physical fitness before being drafted.

"They don't recruit everyone," said Nedivi, who runs a company called Advanced Forensic Science Services. "If you are a person with a record of violence, you will be discharged."

Nedivi favors allowing private gun ownership with tight regulations, noting that armed civilians have used their guns to stop terrorists during attacks. He said that gun massacres don't occur in Israel because gun owners here undergo more comprehensive psychological screenings than do U.S. gun owners.

"It's not guns that kill, it's people that kill," Nedivi said. "If this person in Colorado will be screened now, they will say he has mental problems. In Israel, most people like this don't get a chance to get a gun."

Gun violence does still occur in Israel, though gun control is not a sensitive political issue.

"We think the society is over-armed," said Smadar Ben-Natan, a lawyer who co-heads Gun-Free Kitchen Tables, an Israeli coalition to end domestic gun violence. "There are too many weapons going around. There is no justification that these weapons go home and are present in civilian surroundings."

Rather than lobbying for new laws, Gun-Free Kitchen Tables is pushing for the enforcement of current regulations, which require security guards to leave their weapons in their workplace. Ben-Natan said private security companies often do not abide by the law.

"The private police companies offer an illusion of security," Ben-Natan said. "They're not accountable in terms of the public interest. They don't bear the cost of the precautions that need to be in place. The people that pay this price are the women and family members who get shot."

For soldiers who take their weapons home on weekends and off nights, the rule is they must be on their person at all times or under double-lock if left at home.

 

[Virendra]

From Liberal Gun Laws I mean having easy access to gun and owning one.

I'm not advocating easy access to Guns here. It is irrational and crazy. I'm asking for reasonable access based on your need and credentials.

Either you prove it scientifically; take advice of some expert before telling me how people have been able to save lives. Every incident needs to be discussed objectively with all the details. You must talk with authority so that people can understand your point and follow you. If you have no authority or an expertise your comment makes zero impression to me when you talk about using firearms. I am not an authority too, but I have chosen to discourage people to have a gun without having few prerequisite things which I know are must, with my own experience.

Firstly, your experiences aren't a universal goliath appliance. They are your experiences and your conclusions might stand true to those experiences, not everywhere.
Secondly, neither of us are Gun experts and need not be to make our points. You're putting yours and I'm putting mine.

I do not feel invited to discuss shoddy scenarios. I will stop my imagination further if I be able to see a security guard armed with a weapon which I would assume has been trained by a certified good training school not the shoddy agencies we have in India, before entering Hotel Taj for sip of the tea.

26/11 CST station was not a shaddy scenario. Also it was not about your or my imagination. It was a real life incident that left huge scars on us.
Again the stark difference betwen US and India. That difference is a reason why people feel unsafe and un-protected.
That difference is what compells people to arm themselves. Wishing to own a gun is a fantasy.
But actually going through red tape, corruption and numerous turmoils to own a fire-arm legally? No. People do it out of basic necessity of self preservation, not a rambo fascination.

Since when you have started speaking for others.
I wasn't quoting you in my first comment. This is from where I came to conclusion that you were in haste, not able to draft your sentence properly and blunt. You have proved my point again.

I know it very well for whom it was and that it wasn't aimed at me.
My point is that you were the one to first get blantly personal with "I bet you've never done this and that" kind of statements.
Then again you were the one to first sniff and blame me that I was "preparing" to get personal with you while I hadn't yet even said anything like that. Have the cake and eat it too !
Anyway, if you wish that only the person you quoted should reply at your argument. Then I'd suggest this is an open discussion forum and you should probably take to PMing the person for a one-to-one conversation.
And I don't speak for either one of you who are still bickering with each other at a personal level. I speak for a cause I believe in and don't tolerate arrogant conjectures.
This is from where I came to conclusion that you judge in haste and unilaterally.

You are now becoming boring; maybe you should direct some Bollywood movie

I'm not here to entertain you. If it is getting boring for you, you may walk out anytime you like.

To live long life you need three things, Good Gene, Good Exercise (Physical fitness) and Good luck, not gun. All these three things will be able to save you in any scenario.

Firstly those are not good enough for every scenario. May be for Rajni who can run faster than the bullet, not for the common man. May be if the criminals at large could never touch gun powder.

I would like to live in a safer city and safer nation with strict gun laws than in any City exposed/vulnerable to such threats in first place.

Sadly the safe cities and nations aren't in abundance. What now?
Lets say we disarm the citizenry of licenses/weapons and the street criminal's black market brand pistol is still staring at your chest. What now?

I would use my energy while ranting on a forum to make my City safer than encouraging fools have the authority to defend themselves or society with sophisticated weapons.

I don't know who you're calling a fool. The entire society? Every man who wants access to the means of self preservation? This time I lost you.

Let me give you few good advices as I can see you own a gun. The first rule of having gun is 'never use it'. If you are in a threatening situation rather using a Gun, run if you can. After running far if you still think you are not safe, run again

I know that and agree completely. I don't own an actual fire-arm. I was only trained on one and then was given an Air-Rifle to retain practice till I get a license of my own.

Also my point is vindicated that having a Gun cannot help you in many situations especially when determined terrorists plan to kill.

Vindicated how? Just by saying it? I can say the same way that a Gun can definitely help you in many situations especially when a determined killer has got you on cross-hair and you have no means of stall/escape.
But I know you'll again gloss it as a "shoddy scenario".

With due respect, Stop here !.
If you cannot spend money on training and build yourself physically and psychology you do not deserve a gun

Misunderstanding. By "eventually getting their way" I didn't mean circumventing the system. By "eventually getting their way" I didn't mean coercing or bribing someone for Gun/license.
By "getting his way" I meant becoming reasonably skilled in use of fire-arm, knowing the Do's and Donts.

This is not a womanly quarrel.

Yes Sir this thread is manly only because you the great are participating here.

In the court of law you have to prove that you have shot someone to defend yourself.

So an armed robber who made charging forceful entry in my room is invisble? A terrorist spraying bullets at me in a cafe, again invisible?

The police will make a report of that incident; will put IPC sections on you. If you are lucky they will make a report in your favor, but if you have shot someone with more influence you will spend rest of your life fighting against IPC sections they charged you with.

Yes and if the cops can use the same IPC sections against you anyway, why do you own a Gun? If it is all about luck as you say above, then seriously - God save this country !

I am not against carrying a gun

Glad that we agree again.

I need law and enforcement and Judiciary complementing my act of defence performed by gun even screwdriver or car keys; If I am trained to use it, yes people are taught how to use car keys in all good schools in USA

Yes I would like to be trained as well and so would every genuine license applicant. In some countries the training happens before license while in others after license. India is not devoid of shooting ranges.
But anyway, while waiting for realization of those fantastic parameters that you set for Indian state and its agencies; the applicant doesn't want to stand tactically naked in front of the armed seasoned criminal who would visit without appointment.
Specially when he/she is physically & mentally fit, has no prior records, has cleared his/her interview with the licensing authority.
Ultimately whose responsibility is it to save me? Who is accountable? Me or someone else?

Because they know Police is their bitch, easy sell off, clueless, unscientific.

+1

Well onus is on those to answer and find solution who encourage people to have Gun, not me.

Onus is not on Gun or anti-Gun lobbies. Onus is on the society and the state collectively to find the solution. This fence eating crop corruption is a wider topic out of this thread's belly.

Till then In that uncertainty don't let people have guns.

I wouldn't accept or reject applications with such sweeping generalization. If there is so much uncertainty (don't agree) everywhere in this country that almost no one can own guns for protection then again, God save this country.

My uncle who owns a transport agency with a fleet of trucks passing through a state wouldn't agree with you. He will stop his business once he knows that looters can buy good guns now.

Almost all of the organized criminals buy their weapons and ammo from black market. Not the legal merchandise from registered gunshop of the city so they could be traced in their crime
By the way, how did the term 'poor people' suddenly transform into 'looters'? Aren't we doing wrong generalizations here?
Poor people have enough kitchen knives to kill for money. In fact every Indian household has a kitchen knife perfectly capable of pulling the guts out.
Do you see them all going crazy homicidal?

Sorry, you are negating an important point that people having guns are supposed to be trained physically and mentally under the watch of Law and enforcement agencies.

Yes they should be trained, it is for their own good. But are they in India? Have they even been? Does the lack of a particular level of training mandate that we disarm him for every possible violent scenario he might be facing?
How much of rocket science is needed to pull the trigger to get rid of a b***ard standing in front willing to kill you?

It is you who was creating particular scenarios which I was rejecting. The only message I was/am sending is voiding a conflict the best possible way you can and you do not need a gun to do it.

Yes and many scenarios don't have the liberty of allowing you avoid a conflict. Many of them are real life scenarios (26/11).

You have be trained physically to best of your ability and minimum to what Law requires to you to be. You are sending a wrong and dangerous message that It doesn't matter.

When did I say training doesn't matter? Hell it matters a lot. It can help me save my life in the most serious troubles.

It's like 'ye ho sakta hai, wo ho saktka, kuch be ho hai', 'maut to kabhi be aa sakti hai'.

What ??

You should have opened this particular post with above statement as opening statement.
Might have saved my time.

You started replying to my post without reading it completely?

Self-defence is a science, an education; people must learn it before taking such responsibilities for themselves or others. Also they need to weight the consequences by understanding the litigation process and account trends of complicities of law agencies they might have to face in India.

I don't disagree. A lot of it comes by hands on. For hands on ... you need your hands on it.

Its a failure of state to let person have a gun who is not trained.
Living in New Zealand, Australia and ~ UK Its mandatory to join a Gun Club and visit there for minimum numbers of times in a years. Otherwise your licene will be cancelled. You are not allowed to have concealed weapon at all. It should be locked in safe with bullets locked in a different safe in your house or vehicle. I will be never in a position to pull out my gun. I have to defend myself the best possible way I can. If I be able to manage to get a hold on my gun and shoot him, the onus will be on me automatically to prove my innocence, which is not the case in USA. If luckily acquitted I will be recorded permanently as a murdered (do not know the legal term or impression) for rest of my life.
If I am in America I will be trained for sure and I will shoot him before he blinks his eyes. I be worried about the carpet I may need to cut and change.
If I am in India and not trained I may shoot. I be worried about Police report and their blackmail, my solicitor not compromising to other party, proves getting contaminated or doctored in labs, witness becoming hostile, social stigma I may have to face from society getting uncomfortable with my presence, will be burdened with guilt of killing someone, ridden by unknown bad mental repercussion/effects for rest of my life (because no good counseling available).
Also Americans are not the example I would blindly take precedence from, they have gone seriously wrong by letting anyone buy weapons with ease. Yes they stand tall in training than Indians, they are more prosperous than India, even their laws complement self-defense, never heard of a police officer sparing sons of politicians and wealthy businessmen (who killed jassica), use best of the technology when investigating, people are brave to come out and help investigation and the Law. They have all the pre requisite of a better Gun culture and security atmosphere but I would like to see them having restriction on type and numbers of weapons they can buy etc.
Now you have three different types examples in front of you and I hope you have got my answer.

So you suggest till the Govt. legislates it necessary to visit shooting range n number of times before license, we should deny means of self-defense even to the genuine citizen who had no prior records, is physically and mentally fit. Just because the system doesn't ask for training yet?
From what I know, with an armed robber who has barged into your house and charges towards you with his weapon - aiming at him and pulling the trigger doesn't take rocket science or special forces training.
I'd rather save my life by taking his. Can worry about the law and courts later. Worrying of it while death stares me in the face, wouldn't help me.
Then again, like I said already one has to judge the threat and it manifestation. For example - you don't shoot to kill (head, abdomen) if you can afford neutralizing the threat by shooting to injure (legs).
Although the law may in theory defend your shoot to kill even then. But like you said - our cops can seriously twist our fate by what they write in their reports and say in the court.
What would the law say? "How dare you shoot the armed robber who barged into house and charged towards you ! You have no training ! :clobber: ...."

I do not think you are ready to take this responsibility, I may be wrong.

I believe I'm ready.

Millions in India going about their busy their lives daily drive on roads. They don't go through a Govt. sponsored Masters Degree of Driving Science. They go through a basic training and knowledge gathering. They don't go about doing funky stunts on road or mowing down pedestrians like a drunk Salman Khan on Land Cruiser.
At some places some people might as well bribe a few bucks and get the driving license. At some places some jerk would drink and drive with or without a license. The point is, do we ban driving for all or let genuine people looking for driving license suffer indefinitely?
Problem - Schools kids over speeding on city roads. Solution - Reduce the traffic speed limit further. Is that it ??

I guess I got the gist here, though I may not be accurate:
Your point - Till the system improves with more, sustained training cum evaluation for applicants and owners, Guns should not be given to citizenry at all.
My point - God knows when this training setup would be a reality. With the dismal record of state organized deterrence and crime being so prevalent in our society, banning legal fire-arms doesn't help the citizenry to guard itself against organized crime and random acts of violence.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[hit&run]

I'm not advocating easy access to Guns here. It is irrational and crazy. I'm asking for reasonable access based on your need and credentials.

Define need and credentials.

People can/do fake need and credential. You need an honest society and robust system deciding whether you need it or not. You can get police clearance by paying good amount of money. Fake identity is easier (getting difficult these days but still possible), which not the case in developed nations.

Firstly, your experiences aren't a universal goliath appliance. They are your experiences and your conclusions might stand true to those experiences, not everywhere.
Secondly, neither of us are Gun experts and need not be to make our points. You're putting yours and I'm putting mine.

I am chewing what I can digest, cannot say same about you. My experience telling is not something above the scale of this discussion. Your exposure to guns is almost Zero, nor you own a Gun neither you have got training from a good school. You somehow got your raw nerve touched by my first post, felt compulsive to call me out.

Originally posted by Virendra
And what after the guards are down or have fled? Now that we're talking about 26/11 I hope you know what happened at CST. Cops armed with 303 rifles ducked for cover and refused to fire while the terrorists were spraying bullets all around. I'm not blaming the cop alone but am pointing to the situation and its consequences.
..........................
Originally Posted by hit&run
I do not feel invited to discuss shoddy scenarios. I will stop my imagination further if I be able to see a security guard armed with a weapon which I would assume has been trained by a certified good training school not the shoddy agencies we have in India, before entering Hotel Taj for sip of the tea.

..............
26/11 CST station was not a shaddy scenario. Also it was not about your or my imagination. It was a real life incident that left huge scars on us.
Again the stark difference betwen US and India. That difference is a reason why people feel unsafe and un-protected.
That difference is what compells people to arm themselves. Wishing to own a gun is a fantasy.
But actually going through red tape, corruption and numerous turmoils to own a fire-arm legally? No. People do it out of basic necessity of self preservation, not a rambo fascination.

How about buying bulletproof jackets for all on subsidy?

Having a concealed weapon cannot make you feel safe if you are standing in CT Railway station and a Pakistani Kasab and his friends are firing with their automatic weapons indiscriminately. Sorry, I would rather buy a bulletproof jacket to feel safe. If the guards are down I will run, hide, wait for more guard to come, if they cannot kill the terrorist, I will wait for special forces to come, so and so forth.

I know it very well for whom it was and that it wasn't aimed at me.
My point is that you were the one to first get blantly personal with "I bet you've never done this and that" kind of statements.

Here you go. I always knew you are surviving in this discussion for the sake of the plunge to take in haste and heroism.

Please quote me properly If you want to Quote about what I said to him.

A poster who has a computer and has desire to print his opinion in an open forum I assume is not a bottle milk sucking nipper. Nobody needs your help to take sides for them. There was nothing personal in my statement but a Judgement still awaiting an answer.

Then again you were the one to first sniff and blame me that I was "preparing" to get personal with you while I hadn't yet even said anything like that. Have the cake and eat it too !

You have just proved me right, that you pointed out something you don't like; which was never ever addressed at you. I love baking cakes in my Owen and I deserve to eat them up too.

Anyway, if you wish that only the person you quoted should reply at your argument.

I wish you should have waited for him or started your argument with right frame of mind without gasping.

Then I'd suggest this is an open discussion forum and you should probably take to PMing the person for a one-to-one conversation.
And I don't speak for either one of you who are still bickering with each other at a personal level. I speak for a cause I believe in and don't tolerate arrogant conjectures.
This is from where I came to conclusion that you judge in haste and unilaterally.

This is not your business to call me out for others. No Heroism. Let other's talk and moderators moderate. I am happy to be proved wrong, many have. No big deal.

I'm not here to entertain you. If it is getting boring for you, you may walk out anytime you like.

Thanks I will walk out. Sleep tight.

Firstly those are not good enough for every scenario. May be for Rajni who can run faster than the bullet, not for the common man. May be if the criminals at large could never touch gun powder.

That was pure academic from British journal of medicine.

Sadly the safe cities and nations aren't in abundance. What now?

Then make one, before finding alternatives.

Lets say we disarm the citizenry of licenses/weapons and the street criminal's black market brand pistol is still staring at your chest. What now?

4

Indian administration disarm people during election, people are enforced to deposit their firearms in local police stations.

It's all about decreasing the probability of letting others have access to weapons, getting it from black market means something is working well to decrease that probability, more needs to be done to avoid this i.e. your new scenario.
If someone is pointing gun at my chest, I am pinned down then I can do nothing even having a concealed weapon. I will pray to lord almighty or do try to out fight him physically.

I don't know who you're calling a fool. The entire society? Every man who wants access to the means of self preservation? This time I lost you.

This is sad that you have lost me, irrespective of my detailed answers. Why you are so touchy when am talking about others, may be you have nothing to say.

Anyway, anyone who owns a gun but benign about physical and mental training of using that gun and all the repercussions of post using it, still using it to defend himself or other civilians from a determined combatant having more sophisticated weapons is a fool to me.

Vindicated how? Just by saying it? I can say the same way that a Gun can definitely help you in many situations especially when a determined killer has got you on cross-hair and you have no means of stall/escape.
But I know you'll again gloss it as a "shoddy scenario".

My point vindicated because in that particular paragraph you admitted that you wouldn't flash your gun out, you won't hunt down terrorists. This is from where I started my first post and you felt invited to call me out on this ?

In many situations having gun is not going to help.

1. You are not allow to carry a Gun in theatres, trains, malls where terrorist attack.
2. You are not trained to fight a combatant, even our forces took so long with some causality.

After filtering so many scenarios you have been entrapped to only one scenario that if you have been pinned down you will kill the terrorist or an invader in your house using your gun. Fair enough what you want from me now.

You can leave your comment clean and clear without calling me out if you agree with me or have totally different opinion based on your own scenario. What is the fuss ?

Misunderstanding. By "eventually getting their way" I didn't mean circumventing the system. By "eventually getting their way" I didn't mean coercing or bribing someone for Gun/license.By "getting his way" I meant becoming reasonably skilled in use of fire-arm, knowing the Do's and Donts.

I know what you were saying.

I wouldn't let you touch Gun without mandatory training/dos and donts under supervision of good registered school required by law and law making sure you have gone through it. If there are no schools and no good laws like commonwealth countries do have then I will shout at authorities if they are listening to arrange both (robust where people cannot cheat) before letting people have guns.

So an armed robber who made charging forceful entry in my room is invisble?

Law is blind, ......I hope you wouldn't nitpick it for a breather, just a metaphor, take it easy.

You still have to prove that he was a robber, not plumber and that was a forceful entry etc.

The point I made was if the police report is compromised you have to face difficulties in court. This is unlikely in many countries.

If the person you killed was influential you will face these questions for sure.

A terrorist spraying bullets at me in a cafe, again invisible?

You said you will not use your gun in that case. Also you are not trained to kill a terrorist. If unfortunately you killed a civilian in a cross fire you will be busted for long.

Yes and if the cops can use the same IPC sections against you anyway, why do you own a Gun? If it is all about luck as you say above, then seriously - God save this country !

For last 7 years I am not living in India. I know what is happening elsewhere and I want same to be replicated in India.

Glad that we agree again.

I am glad you can quote something in isolation to feel congenial.

Yes I would like to be trained as well and so would every genuine license applicant.
In some countries the training happens before license while in others after license. India is not devoid of shooting ranges.
But anyway, while waiting for realization of those fantastic parameters that you set for Indian state and its agencies; the applicant doesn't want to stand tactically naked in front of the armed seasoned criminal who would visit without appointment.
Specially when he/she is physically & mentally fit, has no prior records, has cleared his/her interview with the licensing authority.
Ultimately whose responsibility is it to save me? Who is accountable? Me or someone else?

Gun Laws in India are quite strict; I am against to make them lenient rather like to see them to be stricter especially on training aspect. Also uncertainty about police behaviour and litigation process deter people to be involved in such conflicts, which defeat the cause of better security sense amongst people. For situations like 26/11 I do not think civilians can do much about it. It's a state's responsibility to look after these matters than letting people have guns on wholesale.

Onus is not on Gun or anti-Gun lobbies. Onus is on the society and the state collectively to find the solution. This fence eating crop corruption is a wider topic out of this thread's belly.

The onus is on those who have misplaced priorities and cannot find solution one by one, first at administration level but wants to add new problems with their benign approach and generic theories on self defence and security issues.

Originally posted by Virendra I agree completely but again, whose fault that the fence is eating the crop? Not of the citizen.

Originally Posted by hit&run
Till then In that uncertainty don't let people have guns.
...........................
I wouldn't accept or reject applications with such sweeping generalization. If there is so much uncertainty (don't agree) everywhere in this country that almost no one can own guns for protection then again, God save this country.

I think there is disconnect between your previous posts.

I found you helpless on poor performance of administration 'fence eating crops?. Not of the Citizen'; so the uncertainty is on your part. I have rather given you a solution.

Almost all of the organized criminals buy their weapons and ammo from black market. Not the legal merchandise from registered gunshop of the city so they could be traced in their crime

You can divert discussion much you want. I have answered this black market thingy above.

Originally posted by Virendra I don't agree that money essentially determines a man's character. There are good & bad, calm & desperate people on both sides despite of the stark disparity. But then you have your opinion and I have mine.

By the way, how did the term 'poor people' suddenly transform into 'looters'? Aren't we doing wrong generalizations here?
Poor people have enough kitchen knives to kill for money. In fact every Indian household has a kitchen knife perfectly capable of pulling the guts out.
Do you see them all going crazy homicidal?

You were saying you do not believe in disparity has any connection with crime. Now you are adding words in my statements. I have given you examples of trucks passing through few states been looted by public and they loot them even for bag of wheat grain.

It is good if people will use knives. That is why my uncle is still doing transport business. It's all about increasing the probability of victim to survive.
Knife is good to kill but more sophisticated or potent weapon used means less the chances of victim to survive. I can say it with authority, have treated few, I am been paid 4.5 k before taxes every fortnight for this job by my hospital.

h of rocket science is needed to pull the trigger to get rid of a b***ard standing in front willing to kill you?

Easier said then done.

Why kill, use non-lethal weapons. In household and for personal defence people can use non-lethal especially for the scenarios you have contained yourself to.

BTW I have given you detailed answer on this with my personal opinion, if in India, USA or Australia.

Yes and many scenarios don't have the liberty of allowing you avoid a conflict. Many of them are real life scenarios (26/11).

People have, they have been rescued and have survived those attacks without having guns.

When did I say training doesn't matter? Hell it matters a lot. It can help me save my life in the most serious troubles.

Impression of your post suggests so. If you agree with me then why you are wasting your time.

What ??

Your scenarios, I am sorry if you do not understand Hindi.

You started replying to my post without reading it completely?

Though it's not my style to go quote by quote, but I have found people getting away unanswered with my style of posting.

It was worth answering your flip flops. In Punjabi there is a saying ''sukka ne jaan dena'' don't let them pass dry/ being unattended.

Best of luck with your weapon you are going to own, I hope you will eventually find your way with your gun.

I will leave this discussion on people's judgement from here.

I owe an apology to you because a good poster like you has found me on wrong side. Sometimes things have to be like this.

Regards.

 

[Virendra]

Define need and credentials.
People can/do fake need and credential. You need an honest society and robust system deciding whether you need it or not. You can get police clearance by paying good amount of money. Fake identity is easier (getting difficult these days but still possible), which not the case in developed nations.

Our licensing process has a thorough background check done by Cops for scrutinizing out those fakes. And even after that check the interview with the licensing authority who grill you properly before making a move.
Your credentials are your records and behavior, on books as well as practical (verified in background check and interview).
Your need is the need of self preservation, protection of your family and property.
Tell me which society is completely honest. Do you mean bribery doesn't happen in developed countries?

I am chewing what I can digest, cannot say same about you. My experience telling is not something above the scale of this discussion. Your exposure to guns is almost Zero, nor you own a Gun neither you have got training from a good school. You somehow got your raw nerve touched by my first post, felt compulsive to call me out.

Training is never enough and how much you need depends on how you intend to use the fire-arm. Aggressively as a Cop/Soldier or only defensively in those self defense scenarios as a civillian. And I didn't call you out, I called your argument out. I was not the one to get personal or put up arrogant conjectures.


If I have to pull the trigger in order to save my life I will. Like I said previously, will worry about the results after I've avoided my dead body from being chalked out by the cops at the crime scene.
If it is between fighting to prove my innocence in the court and lying down dead because I was unarmed or didn't use it. I will pick the first one.

How about buying bulletproof jackets for all on subsidy?

Good idea but you know that bullet proof jackets don't cover your head. You want people to wear bullet proof helmets 24x7?

Having a concealed weapon cannot make you feel safe if you are standing in CT Railway station and a Pakistani Kasab and his friends are firing with their automatic weapons indiscriminately. Sorry, I would rather buy a bulletproof jacket to feel safe. If the guards are down I will run, hide, wait for more guard to come, if they cannot kill the terrorist, I will wait for special forces to come, so and so forth.

Yeah I'd do the same if run hide and wait is an option. But if it is not, then I'll take my chances. My life is at stake.

Here you go. I always knew you are surviving in this discussion for the sake of the plunge to take in haste and heroism.

I'm in no haste. Am I not debating with you for so many days now?

Please quote me properly If you want to Quote about what I said to him.
A poster who has a computer and has desire to print his opinion in an open forum I assume is not a bottle milk sucking nipper. Nobody needs your help to take sides for them. There was nothing personal in my statement but a Judgement still awaiting an answer.

A wrong is wrong, whether you do it to me or someone else. I will call it out as many times I have to.

You have just proved me right, that you pointed out something you don't like; which was never ever addressed at you. I love baking cakes in my Owen and I deserve to eat them up too.

It is not about my liking or disliking. I'm not commenting on your hobbies am I? You made an haughty conjecture like an Oracle and I didn't agree with it. Is it so tough on you that I disagree?
You are so worked up to prove yourself right aren't you? Half of your statements are like "You proved me right" "I proved me right" "My point is vindicated"

I wish you should have waited for him or started your argument with right frame of mind without gasping.

I don't need to wait for him to make my point. He will revert with an answer if he has one. This was not about him. My response was about your conjecture which I find uncalled for. Can you not handle disagreement?

This is not your business to call me out for others. No Heroism. Let other’s talk and moderators moderate. I am happy to be proved wrong, many have. No big deal.

See above.

Then make one, before finding alternatives.

If making a safe city was this easy and quick, it would've happened ages ago. I'll do all I can to make my city safe but until that fantasized safety comes around completely, how do I defend myself? How safe can we get, air tight .. super duper tight? how tight? 100% ?

Indian administration disarm people during election, people are enforced to deposit their firearms in local police stations.

Yes and it dangerously disarms the very law abiding citizenry which is first exposed to any kind of violence. Anyway, it is a temporary and not as disastrous as a permanent ban.

It’s all about decreasing the probability of letting others have access to weapons, getting it from black market means something is working well to decrease that probability, more needs to be done to avoid this i.e. your new scenario.

You want to minimize the guns that kill for crime? Go after the criminal who builds and owns it illegally. Not the law abiding citizenry. Who gets Gun and Ammo from black market? Who wants to hide his Gun from the Govt. ..from everybody? The common man ? Or the criminal.

If someone is pointing gun at my chest, I am pinned down then I can do nothing even having a concealed weapon. I will pray to lord almighty or do try to out fight him physically.

Good luck with that.

This is sad that you have lost me, irrespective of my detailed answers. Why you are so touchy when am talking about others, may be you have nothing to say.

Want to call me touchy? Fine I don't mind that. What I mind is taking arrogant conjectures lying down.

Anyway, anyone who owns a gun but benign about physical and mental training of using that gun and all the repercussions of post using it, still using it to defend himself or other civilians from a determined combatant having more sophisticated weapons is a fool to me.

To me he is a law abiding citizen wiling to go by the book yet deprived of better training. Good part of the Indian license holders fall in that category. You don't have to be Arnold Schwarzenegger or Stephen Hawkings to use a Gun properly.

My point vindicated because in that particular paragraph you admitted that you wouldn't flash your gun out, you won't hunt down terrorists. This is from where I started my first post and you felt invited to call me out on this ?

I said I wouldn't go after him chest thumping like a hero. But if he comes after me I wouldn't sit down and meditate. Which is what I've written below as well. The soldier would go after the terrorist. But conversely the terrorist would go after the civilian. Perceivably a soft target you know.

In many situations having gun is not going to help.
1. You are not allow to carry a Gun in theatres, trains, malls where terrorist attack.
2. You are not trained to fight a combatant, even our forces took so long with some causality.

Depends on the scenario. Having a Gun in a theater is not a scenario. What threat exactly comes up at theater and how it manifests, what your options are. All that builds the scenario.
The soldier went after the terrorist. But conversely the terrorist went (or would go) after the civilian.

After filtering so many scenarios you have been entrapped to only one scenario that if you have been pinned down you will kill the terrorist or an invader in your house using your gun. Fair enough what you want from me now.

No mate I don't want you to do anything. Whatever has to be done will be done by me. My trouble that he barged in.

You can leave your comment clean and clear without calling me out if you agree with me or have totally different opinion based on your own scenario. What is the fuss?

No fuss. See above.

I know what you were saying.
I wouldn't let you touch Gun without mandatory training/do's and dont's under supervision of good registered school required by law and law making sure you have gone through it. If there are no schools and no good laws like commonwealth countries do have then I will shout at authorities if they are listening to arrange both (robust where people cannot cheat) before letting people have guns.
If you have any leverage with authorities and law makers, please do arrange such training. You'll be like my Godfather May be you can contact them - About NAGRI

You still have to prove that he was a robber, not plumber and that was a forceful entry etc.

If he was a robber he will show up in records. If it was a forceful entry the broken door or window will tell the story. Like I said before, I would choose the trouble of proving my innocence over the convenience of losing my life to him.

The point I made was if the police report is compromised you have to face difficulties in court. This is unlikely in many countries.

I agree. Not a good situation of course.

If the person you killed was influential you will face these questions for sure.

Last two comments above.

You said you will not use your gun in that case. Also you are not trained to kill a terrorist. If unfortunately you killed a civilian in a cross fire you will be busted for long.

I'm trained to point and shoot if my life is in danger. I will take my chances regardless of the title of asssilant. I deserve to try my best and try it with best possible means of self defense.
How many times do I have to repeat it? I'd love to get trained, every genuince applicant would. But until the state and its system provides that sort of mechanism, citizenry cannot stand naked just because some Alpha Omega level training is yet to be launched.

If unfortunately you killed a civilian in a cross fire you will be busted for long.

Reminds me of the Hindi dialogue you pulled up on me. "Ye bhi ho sakta hai. Wo bhi ho skta hai. Kuch bhi ho sakta hai"
Anyway, about the civilian. Here, read this -
IPC section 106 -- If in the exercise of the right of private defense against an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of death, the defender be so situated that he cannot effectually exercise that right without risk of harm to an innocent person his right or private defense extends to the running of that risk.

I am glad you can quote something in isolation to feel congenial.

Sorry. I have to be careful. You don't like me agreeing with you either. I wanted to agree on some other points as well but can't express it now. Anyway.

You can divert discussion much you want. I have answered this black market thingy above.

What? Where?

You were saying you do not believe in disparity has any connection with crime. Now you are adding words in my statements. I have given you examples of trucks passing through few states been looted by public and they loot them even for bag of wheat grain.

Another generalization. They are not looted by public but by free-loaders who're looking for every opportunity of petty gains by petty crime.
If your uncle is afraid of firing warning shots in the air, even the best cops can't help him. The State and its agencies are a system, an organized deterrence to organized crime. There is no escape from random acts of violence.

It is good if people will use knives. That is why my uncle is still doing transport business. It’s all about increasing the probability of victim to survive.
Knife is good to kill but more sophisticated or potent weapon used means less the chances of victim to survive. I can say it with authority, have treated few, I am been paid 4.5 k before taxes every fortnight for this job by my hospital.

My point was not of comparing Guns and Knives. My point was - if even knives are good enough to kill, why we don't see knife wielding homicidals, specially when knives are not licensed. Because crime is not about the weapon.
It is about the character standing behind the weapon and his motive.

Easier said then done.

Can say the same about building a safe society where Guns are not needed in the citizenry

Why kill, use non-lethal weapons. In household and for personal defense people can use non-lethal especially for the scenarios you have contained yourself to.

I agree but it would depend on the threat and its manifestation, wouldn't it? Even the cops and para military are armed with sticks and tear gas. Yet they sometimes end up shooting bullets and killing. Differs from scenario to scenario.

People have, they have been rescued and have survived those attacks without having guns.

Yes and so many have died as well.

Impression of your post suggests so. If you agree with me then why you are wasting your time.

I'm not wasting my time. If debate and discussion is time waste to you then you and I both wasted time here. By the way I am wasting (or not wasting) my time because I don't agree with you completely. I think I gave a gist in the ned of my last post. I agree on some points and disagree on others. Not a rare thing.

Your scenarios, I am sorry if you do not understand Hindi.

Yeah whatever floats your boat.

I will leave this discussion on people's judgement from here.

sure mate :thumb:

I owe an apology to you because a good poster like you has found me on wrong side. Sometimes things have to be like this.
Regards.

You don't owe me any apology, not for the discussion at least. Thank you for giving your insight and view point.
The only reason I bought RKBA discussion to DFI was to invoke wider debate and discussion. The awareness about Guns and self preservation rights sucks in India. It is a taboo to even talk about it.
If even a few souls are better informed and poised for more digging after reading these exchanges, I don't think either of our time & efforts went waste.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[ejazr]

Not sure if this has been posted earlier by Fareed Zakaria highlights some important (and shocking stats)

Time to face facts on gun control – Global Public Square - CNN.com Blogs

It has now been just over a week since a lone gunman opened fire on moviegoers in Aurora, Colorado. The airwaves have been dominated by soul searching.

Most of the pundits have concluded that the main cause of this calamity is the dark, strange behavior of the gunman. Talking about anything else, they say, is silly. The New York Times' usually extremely wise columnist, David Brooks, explains that this is a problem of psychology, not sociology.

At one level, this makes sense, of course, as the proximate cause. But really, it's questionable analysis. Think about this: are there more lonely people in America compared with other countries? Are there, say, fewer depressed people in Asia and Europe? So why do they all have so much less gun violence than we do?

The United States stands out from the rest of the world not because it has more nutcases – I think we can assume that those people are sprinkled throughout every society equally –but because it has more guns.

Look at the map below. It shows the average number of firearms per 100 people. Most of the world is shaded light green – those are the countries where there are between zero and 10 guns per 100 citizens. In dark brown, you have the countries with more than 70 guns per 100 people. The U.S. is the only country in that category. In fact, the last global Small Arms Survey showed there are 88 guns for every 100 Americans. Yemen is second at 54. Serbia and Iraq are among the other countries in the top 10.

We have 5 percent of the world's population and 50 percent of the guns.

But the sheer number of guns isn't an isolated statistic. The data shows we compare badly on fatalities, too. The U.S has three gun homicides per 100,000 people. That's four times as many as Switzerland, ten times as many as India, 20 times as many as Australia and England.

Whatever you think of gun rights and gun control, the numbers don't flatter America.

I saw an interesting graph in The Atlantic magazine recently. A spectrum shows the number of gun-related deaths by state. Now if you add one more piece of data – gun control restrictions – you see that the states with at least one firearm law (such as an assault weapons ban or trigger locks) tend to be the states with fewer gun-related deaths.

Conclusion? Well, there are lots of factors involved, but there is at least a correlation between tighter laws and fewer gun-related deaths.

I've shown you data comparing countries, and comparing states. Now consider the U.S. over time. Americans tend to think the U.S. is getting more violent. In a recent Gallup survey, 68 percent said there's more crime in the U.S. than there was a year ago. Well, here's what I found surprising: the U.S. is actually getting safer. In the decade since the year 2000, violent crime rates fell by 20 percent; aggravated assault by 22 percent; motor vehicle theft by 42 percent; murder – by all weapons – by 13 percent.

But guns are the exception. Gun homicide rates haven't improved at all. They were at roughly the same levels in 2009 as they were in 2000. Meanwhile, serious but non-fatal gun injuries caused during assault have actually increased in the last decade by 20 percent, as guns laws have gotten looser and getting automatic weapons has become easier.

We are the world's most heavily-armed civilian population. One out of every three Americans knows someone who has been shot.

Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but not to his or her own facts. Saying that this is all a matter of psychology is a recipe for doing nothing. We cannot change the tortured psychology of madmen like James Holmes. What we can do is change our gun laws.

 

[ejazr]

And the atlantic article referred above with some interesting data

The Geography of Gun Deaths - Richard Florida - The Atlantic

.
.
.
What about politics? It's hard to quantify political rhetoric, but we can distinguish blue from red states. Taking the voting patterns from the 2008 presidential election, we found a striking pattern: Firearm-related deaths were positively associated with states that voted for McCain (.66) and negatively associated with states that voted for Obama (-.66). Though this association is likely to infuriate many people, the statistics are unmistakable. Partisan affiliations alone cannot explain them; most likely they stem from two broader, underlying factors - the economic and employment makeup of the states and their policies toward guns and gun ownership.
.
.

 

[Known_Unknown]

This entire "debate" is actually not a debate at all. As someone far more knowledgeable than me once said, "If more guns made people safer, then America would be the safest country in the world".

The fact that it isn't is proof that pro-gun advocates live in la-la-land. Period.

 

[Virendra]

This entire "debate" is actually not a debate at all. As someone far more knowledgeable than me once said, "If more guns made people safer, then America would be the safest country in the world".
The fact that it isn't is proof that pro-gun advocates live in la-la-land. Period.

If less licensed Guns would make the citizenry safer, then countries like UK would be the safest in the world.
The fact that it isn't is proof that anti-gun advocates live in la-la-land.
You have even higher Gun ownership in Switzerland than US. How about we compare their Gun crime with US and ask ourselves why nobody ever (in modern history) invaded them
Also lets ponder on why Kennesaw has had minimum gun crime in the past 30 years, since they adopted an ordinance requiring every household to keep a gun.
Guess what our courts have to say about this hyper regulation :

Only respectable and peaceful persons require license. Moreover, unnecessary rejection of applications for grant of firearm license breeds a tendency to keep unlicensed arms - a greater evil", Justice Khan said. ...the court directed the District Magistrate "to grant the licence to the petitioner unless there is something adverse against him like pendency of criminal case".

Having laws governing the citizen's gun ownership is not contested here. What is contested is:
a) not implementing the law properly (implementing it far stricter than on books and using the red tape as means of bribery/harrassment).
b) taking it to ridiculous levels of asking the applicant what serious threat to life he has when there's police.
Period.

 

[s002wjh]

This entire "debate" is actually not a debate at all. As someone far more knowledgeable than me once said, "If more guns made people safer, then America would be the safest country in the world".

The fact that it isn't is proof that pro-gun advocates live in la-la-land. Period.

its really about culture, education etc rather than guns. us as a pop culture, alot gangester etc. even without gun they gonna kill someone with knife or find a way to get guns. even if US stop selling guns right now, there are too many guns out there for criminal to get a hold off. just look at the crime location to know, the kinds of people is a big factor in violent crime.

 

[Virendra]

b) taking it to ridiculous levels of asking the applicant what serious threat to life he has when there's police.
Period.

Oh I forgot to add this icing on the cake :
2 Delhi constables among four arrested for abduction in UP

 

[Blackwater]

Guns are integral part of american culture just as ambassador car is integral part of Indian culture:cool2::shocked::thumb:

 

[Geolemer]

I have lived in America all my live and like most Americans I will tell you out 300,000,000 guns do not cause our very high crime rate. Our very high crime rate is the reason we are own millions and millions and millions of guns. I live on a large farm and less then a less then 3000 Feet from our house is a Meth lab. We have helped the cops look for this lab on many occasions and have been thus far unsuccessful. I am very pro gun and personally own an Ak-47, G3A3, M16 Clone, Russian made Saiga shotgun, PPS-43, A Made in Hungary AMD-65(Ak-47 clone), And over 2 dozen others. I Have used them for defense and Collecting .I have never shot anyone and hope I never will.Most of the time I just fire a shot over the heads of anyone trying to steal my property or harm a loved one. An example of a time I used a Firearm as a tool for defense was about 4 years ago. I Was 17 and my dad Came running in the house. There were poachers on our land and they were trying to kill deer, that is something we do not allow. There were three of them and two of us, dad was armed with a .45 colt "Peace Maker". I was armed with a Remington 597, not one of my better guns. Two of the men were in a truck, the 3rd was in the woods all were armed with scoped 12Ga Shotguns. One in the truck jacked a shell into his gun, but we were quicker and had our guns on them.The last guy in the woods cane up to us saying he was a U.S.M.C. sniper and he had the right of hunt there. We told them to leave and never return and they complied. We escorted them off the farm and returned to the house. Dad retrieved his M16a2 Type rifle, and I My Ak-47, but they never returned.
The mass shootings happen when left wing extremist enter a building full of unarmed citizens, Trying to enjoy a dinner, movie, or Christmas party and open fire. In America we are starting to see a different reaction to these shooting, now they flock to gun shops. On Thursday I turned 22 and went to the next state over,Kentucky, to purchase an AMD-65. They had some left but, they were out of the 75 round magazines I wanted. Do to the recent shootings and the elections(both Obama And Romney are terrible people I will vote for neither)They are out of almost everything. An American with a gun is like a bull with horns.Only a owned bull gets Dehorned. Only a oppressed people get disarmed and in America we own the goverment.

 

[Liberty_and_Freedom]

Armed citizen saves Cop

Not much will be heard about this, it will be ignored by the majority of the media, since it's not "Bad Gun" news. In stark contrast to the New York shootings where low on practice cops let it rip and a few civvies got caught in the crossfire. And of course the knowledgeable media blamed: "Hollow Point" rounds. Life goes on.

There were two big developments Monday in the case of a motorist who was shot and killed along Greenwell Springs Road Friday after a fight with a police officer. Investigators say an autopsy shows the deadly bullet was fired by a bystander, not the officer. Police also announced that no charges would be filed in the case, either against the police officer involved or the bystander who fired the fatal shot into the head of George Temple.

East Baton Rouge Sheriff's spokesman Greg Phares says Officer Brian Harrision was escorting a funeral procession Friday when he pulled Temple over and wrote him a ticket for breaking into the procession. According to Phares, that's when Temple attacked Harrison. Police say Perry Stevens was walking outside of the Auto Zone on Greenwell Springs Road when he heard Harrison yelling for help. Harrison was reportedly on his back with Temple on top of him. That's when Stevens went to his car and grabbed his .45 caliber pistol.

According to Col. Greg Phares, "[Mr. Stevens] orders Mr. Temple to stop and get off the officer. The verbal commands are ignored and Mr. Stevens fires four shots, all of which struck Mr. Temple."

Perry Stevens fired four shots into Temple's torso. Officer Harrison had already fired one shot into Temple's abdomen. With Temple still struggling with the officer, Perry continued to advance toward the scuffle.

"He again orders Mr. Temple to stop what he was doing and get off the officer. Those commands are ignored and he fires a fifth shot and that hits his head. The incident is over with, and as you know, Mr. Temple is dead."

Police are calling the shooting death justified. Perry Stevens has a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Col. Phares would not give out any more details relating to the shooting. Both Phares and Baton Rouge Police Chief Jeff LeDuff stopped short of crediting Stevens with saving the officer's life. LeDuff says the entire incident is unfortunate.

"I spoke with his father at the scene briefly," said LeDuff. "I think this is a tragic situation all around."

9 News is told George Temple has a criminal record, and Officer Harrison was involved in a shooting while employed as a prison guard in East Baton Rouge Parish, where he was suspended for three days back in 1995.

URL: Bystander Fired Deadly Shot, Not Officer - WAFB 9 News Baton Rouge, Louisiana News, Weather, Sports

 

[average american]

I have a permit to carry a weapon, and usually have one handy.

 

[devil510]

the basic and the only reason i have seen that Americans have guns They are scared out of their wits and they live a life of constant fear

 

[average american]

the basic and the only reason i have seen that Americans have guns They are scared out of their wits and they live a life of constant fear

Thats odd I am sure not scared of anyone. This old guy did not seem too scared, Yahoo! Video Detail for Old Man With A Gun Shoots At 2 Armed Robbers Who Picked The Wrong ......

 

[s002wjh]

Re: Armed citizen saves Cop

Not much will be heard about this, it will be ignored by the majority of the media, since it's not "Bad Gun" news. In stark contrast to the New York shootings where low on practice cops let it rip and a few civvies got caught in the crossfire. And of course the knowledgeable media blamed: "Hollow Point" rounds. Life goes on.



URL: Bystander Fired Deadly Shot, Not Officer - WAFB 9 News Baton Rouge, Louisiana News, Weather, Sports

well, is there video type of this incident? cause sound like we only heard 1 side of the story. i mean, you telling me a guy sit in a car, get off his vehicle, and jump the police? 1st the guy should always stay in his car, if he get out without order to do so, the police will get pretty suspicious. so getting out of a car(which he should do) and get a drop/overcome a train officer arm with variety of weapons, non-lethal/lethal weapon is not that easy. 2nd if a guy point guy at me, telling me to get off, ill do that, unless the person is high or something.