Shooting incident at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, USA

Energon

DFI stars
Ambassador
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
1,199
Likes
767
Country flag
Virendra said:
Citizenry is not supposed to charge aggressively at the terrorists. If you can shoot to save your life, that is enough.
But when 5 armed men can kill 163 and injure so many others, I'd say 5 legally (semi-auto) armed, trained and in practice citizen would have taken them down early and with minimal collateral if at all. We would be looking at a much smaller tally by all means
This I fear is conjecture.I admit my opinions on India are merely based on observations as an outsider because I have never lived in the country for a significant period. However to refer to an example I'm more familiar with.. in the sixty some odd mass killings in the United States over the past three decades the role of armed citizens has been highly limited and in spite of this being such a hot debate there is very little evidence showing the advantage of armed citizens in the mitigation of mass scale shootings. Furthermore none of the incidents closely resembled the sort of chaos that ensued during the Mumbai attack. Either way I remain unconvinced about civilians with semi automatic rifles quelling the situation without collateral casualties. I am however highly inclined to believe that if India had a competent police force and an adequate emergency response system the damage would have been much, much lesser. Also a quick note on 'shooting to save your life'. This concept is only valid when you discharge a firearm within a confined space on your property. Getting into a firefight anywhere else by default involves other lives which in turn changes the paradigm.

Now I must clarify, I think the United States and India are two very different cases and when it comes to guns I think the best way to proceed is to take it on a case by case basis. You mentioned Switzerland, which incidentally happens to be a country where I've spent a significant amount of time; I agree that they have a very good system of armed citizenry. However I would highly advise against taking inspiration from the Swiss model because for a variety of reasons the Swiss are capable of doing numerous things which would be impossible elsewhere.


In regards to India, you're right the law and order situation is really bad and I completely understand the desire of many Indian citizens to arm themselves. And clearly it all comes down to whether citizens should take charge of their own security by arming themselves on account of the state's incompetence. IMO if Indians truly want to resolve many of the rudimentary problems including security, the society's efforts would be better spent improving and implementing current public systems rather than arming themselves. For one, the likelihood of creating a new mechanism to ensure appropriate screening and training of prospective gun owners is practically nil which means pretty much anyone will be able to acquire arms. Indian citizens will have to decide whether that is worth the risk (again, I can' really comment upon this). I've noticed that Indian citizens circumvent governmental purview of many things spanning from construction zoning laws to traffic rules. They do this because it is far less taxing than forcing the government's hand. And while the level of libertarianism is impressive the actual outcome is quite disastrous. Again, if you ask me I think Indian citizens would get a far better outcome by collectively taking on the government and forcing them to be accountable (which is the biggest advantage of being a democracy) as opposed to opening access to all sorts of firearms. I say this because I have also spent time in countries where everyone carries guns and I must say, it doesn't necessarily make things better. Unfortunately people in these countries do not have the type of political set up that India has.

I certainly appreciate your wish to see an increased awareness about guns among the general population, but frankly the Indian people have far more pressing concerns and the development of a gun culture is pretty far down the list.

On the other hand in the case of the United States I don't really object to availing certain types of firearms to civilians because we have the resources to implement screening measures and the American establishment has a pretty decent history of competent oversight. As I mentioned in my earlier post I have no problem with people keeping hand guns in the confines of their homes. I also have no problem with allowing certain people like off duty police officers to carry their service weapons (because there is actual evidence of off duty officers being helpful in the events of mass shootings). As I mentioned earlier real life gun stand offs involve a highly coordinated protocol where multiple police officers accost each armed assailant and hence anyone who is able to participate in such maneuvers is bound to be helpful. However I see no point to letting random Joe Schmoe's carry their guns around (I have as yet to see statistics proving the advantages of this) because there are no real life Rambo's and Jason Bournes. This is probably why law enforcement agencies aren't endorsers of armed civilians either. Also there are no real life situations in this society requiring civilians with semi automatic rifles. Sane people who buy these rifles do so purely for recreational purposes. And I believe that we should be open about our affinity for certain guns as a recreational indulgence instead of conjuring up moronic scenarios of getting into firefights and killing bad guys in the event of an emergency or a total apocalyptic collapse of our society (in the case of Nancy Lanza and many, many others).


Virendra said:
Organized crime and macro level challenges are always best left to Organized deterrence (State) and macro level measures.
Individual right to self-protection against personal threats and random acts of violence is a different game. State can't run as my bodyguard.
However good it may become, a State is just a system, a mechanism. It will have its limitations.
I can see how an Indian civilian might feel this way. However I find it ridiculous when gun nuts tend to make arguments like this in the United States. Unlike India we've specifically built a system where our police forces are expected to do a whole lot more than simply accost macro level organized crime; police forces are accountable for protecting individual citizens within reasonable parameters. This is why cops have to respond immediately to victims of domestic abuse or parents of missing children (even if it's only in the mall) or date rape victims or any other cases involving individuals. Furthermore permanently arming oneself just because the police isn't omnipresent is silly. The minute you step outside your house you are exposed to countless risks and it's ludicrous to obsess over one of the least probable ones.
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
This I fear is conjecture.I admit my opinions on India are merely based on observations as an outsider because I have never lived in the country for a significant period. However to refer to an example I'm more familiar with.. in the sixty some odd mass killings in the United States over the past three decades the role of armed citizens has been highly limited and in spite of this being such a hot debate there is very little evidence showing the advantage of armed citizens in the mitigation of mass scale shootings.
Have you observed where the mass killings take place?
At gun free zones like temples, schools, movie halls.
The assailant knows beforehand that there is no one armed who could counter him.
How can you judge the role of armed citizenry when it isn't there at the first place?
Is it possible to place armed guards at every temple, school, movie hall etc.? If they do, then I will rest my case.

Furthermore none of the incidents closely resembled the sort of chaos that ensued during the Mumbai attack. Either way I remain unconvinced about civilians with semi automatic rifles quelling the situation without collateral casualties.
I will repeat myself. Quelling a situation is not what a citizen is supposed to to. As an individual you fire only in self defense, not to accomplish some Rambo mission.
When you have a man shooting at you or about to shoot and there's no way out; you can shoot back to thwart him.
There is no rocket science involved in training people how to respond to such situations, armed or otherwise. Training and practice.
It is one of the basic Gun safety rules that you don't fire until you have a clear shot at your target, that you don't fire in clamor.
But I personally believe that if you
a) wait for the Security Forces to arrive and mean while let the bodies fall to automatic fire; or otherwise
b) take a shot at him when you see him clear
and compare the death toll after both the approaches, you will have your answer. Just a dry run would be enough.
There are no 2+2 simple rules in such scenarios. There would be some amount of chaos no matter how well the State mechanism and the civilians are trained.
It all depends on the scenario and how well the people respond. That will contain the casualties.
In Sandy hook the death toll rose for the following reasons :
a) He was armed to the teeth and yet managed to enter the premises of a Gun free zone.
b) The time he was allowed to continue shooting (there was no one to stop him) Guards?? ... Cops ?? .....
c) Helped by b) above, the ammo he had to continue shooting.
In every such case, the killing finally stops when there is a gun shooting back at him, his own (suicide) or someone else's.

I am however highly inclined to believe that if India had a competent police force and an adequate emergency response system the damage would have been much, much lesser.
Indeed. Sadly that is not the case.

Also a quick note on 'shooting to save your life'. This concept is only valid when you discharge a firearm within a confined space on your property. Getting into a firefight anywhere else by default involves other lives which in turn changes the paradigm.
I don't agree. The law doesn't confine one to a place.
It talks about private defense, not private property defense.
You own your life whether you are at home or outside.

IPC section 96 -- Nothing is an offense which is done in the exercise of the right of private defense.
This right can be exercised if there is no sufficient time for recourse to public authorities.

IPC section 97 -- Every bonafide citizen has the right (subject to the restrictions contained in section 99):
(1) to protect one's own body, and the body of any other person, against any offenses affecting the human body.
(2) To protect one's property or of any other person, whether moveable or immoveable, in case of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or an attempt to do so.

IPC section 98 -- When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offense, is not that offense, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.

IPC section 99 -- There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonable cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt. There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities.
"Where there is an element of invasion or aggression on the property by a person who has right to possession, then there is obviously no room to have recourse to the public authorities and the accused has the undoubted right to resist the attack and use even force if necessary"; ~ Puran Singh v. State of Punjab, 1975 Cr LJ 1479 SC

IPC section 100 -- The right of private defence of the body extends to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely:—
First.— Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
Secondly.—Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehen-sion that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
Thirdly.— An assault with the intention of committing rape;
Fourthly.—An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust;
Fifthly.— An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abduct-ing;
Sixthly.— An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release

IPC section 101 -- If the offense be not of any of the descriptions enumerated in the last preceding section, the right of private defence of the body does not extend to the voluntary causing of death to the assailant, but does extend, under the restrictions mentioned in Section 99, to the voluntary causing to the assailant of any harm other than death.

IPC section 102 -- The right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence though the offence may not have been committed; and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues.

IPC section 103 -- The right of private defence of property extends, under the restrictions mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the wrong-doer, if the offence, the committing of which, or the attempting to commit which, occasions the exercise of the right, be an offence of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely:—
First.— Robbery;
Secondly.—House-breaking by night;
Thirdly.— Mischief by fire committed on any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwell-ing, or as a place for the custody of property;
Fourthly.—Theft, mischief, or house-trespass, under such circum-stances as may reasonably cause apprehension that death or griev-ous hurt will be the consequence, if such right of private de-fence is not exercised.

IPC section 104 -- If the offence , the committing of which, or the attempting to commit which, occasions the exercise of the right of private defence, be theft, mischief, or criminal trespass, not of any of the descriptions enumerated in the last preceding section, that right does not extend to the voluntary causing of death, but does extend, subject to the restrictions mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary causing to the wrong -doer of any harm other than death.

IPC section 105 -- The Right of private defence of property commences when a reasonable apprehension of danger to the property commences.
The right of private defence of property against theft continues till the offender has effected his retreat with the property or either the assistance of the public authorities is obtained, or the property has been recovered.
The right of private defence of property against robbery continues as long as the offender causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint of as long as the fear of instant death or of instant hurt or of instant personal restraint continues.
The right of private defence of property against criminal trespass or mischief continues as long as the offender continues in the commission of criminal trespass or mischief.
The right of private defence of property against house-breaking by night continues as long as the house-trespass which has been begun by such house-breaking continues.

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.
Illustration
A is attacked by a mob who attempt to murder him. He cannot effectually exercise his right of private defence without firing on the mob, and he cannot fire without risk of harming young children who are mingled with the mob. A commits no offense if by so firing he harms any of the children.


Now I must clarify, I think the United States and India are two very different cases and when it comes to guns I think the best way to proceed is to take it on a case by case basis. You mentioned Switzerland, which incidentally happens to be a country where I've spent a significant amount of time; I agree that they have a very good system of armed citizenry. However I would highly advise against taking inspiration from the Swiss model because for a variety of reasons the Swiss are capable of doing numerous things which would be impossible elsewhere.
I know that Guns at macro level are not a standalone solution for every society. For best results, they have to be coupled with good laws tweaked according to the society, training, practice, infrastructure for these and lastly good implementation of the licensing process.
As far as India is concerned, the present Arms Act 1959 and Rules 1962 are workable, provided there is better implementation and change in the colonial attitude of ages old bureaucracy.

the likelihood of creating a new mechanism to ensure appropriate screening and training of prospective gun owners is practically nil which means pretty much anyone will be able to acquire arms.
No. The present licensing procedure is pretty much capable of screening candidates.
There is a background check for criminal records
There is a background check of mental physical fitness via Interviews
There is a background check of age and other bonafide documents.
And on top of that now there are ridiculous demands of 'proving a threat to life', providing financial data and tax details etc. They aren't coming from the Arms Act.
Sir I don't think we need to smother any further the law abiding citizenry who quietly line up at the govt. offices for a legal, traceable fire-arm.
These are not the guys you want to look out for.
The ones we should, are those who roam into gray markets, buy illegal desi kattas cheaply and then use them on our people.

Indian citizens will have to decide whether that is worth the risk (again, I can' really comment upon this). I've noticed that Indian citizens circumvent governmental purview of many things spanning from construction zoning laws to traffic rules. They do this because it is far less taxing than forcing the government's hand. And while the level of libertarianism is impressive the actual outcome is quite disastrous.
Those who break the rules are to be punished accordingly and the law is equipped for that as well and it happens too.
I can see that we don't ban or curb driving because of those nut jobs.
Again, if you ask me I think Indian citizens would get a far better outcome by collectively taking on the government and forcing them to be accountable (which is the biggest advantage of being a democracy) as opposed to opening access to all sorts of firearms.
After the rang rape when people went to apply for gun licenses for their daughters, the Delhi Police had the gall to say that "there has to be a clear danger to life to get a license."
People then asked Police officials to give in writing that their daughters would be safe. Needless to say, none were given.
I no longer know what is a "threat to life" in govt.'s dictionary, because to me - random acts of violence could befall anytime anywhere on anyone.
Whats more, my astrologer is not that good in predicting them.

I say this because I have also spent time in countries where everyone carries guns and I must say, it doesn't necessarily make things better. Unfortunately people in these countries do not have the type of political set up that India has.
It is not just the gun but the culture that is important. What kind of society it is and what culture, gun etiquettes are instilledi nthe people.
That matters a lot
India is already ruled by accomplished, tight gun laws. As accepted by a Delhi Cop in interview with TOI, more than 90% of gun violence in Delhi is done by illegal fire-arms.
It is the system that is the problem, where you see genuine eligible cases being tossed in red tape quagmire. While the Mantri ji's right hand would get it in a breeze.
Does it call for tightening of gun laws or baning Guns? Certainly not. It calls for system overhaul.
By the way, banning guns also is just a farce. Banning only works on legal ones. Criminals never use licensed fire-arms.
You can't take away all illegal guns from all the criminals. Both have always been there and are there to stay (in varying intesities of course).

I certainly appreciate your wish to see an increased awareness about guns among the general population, but frankly the Indian people have far more pressing concerns and the development of a gun culture is pretty far down the list.
The matter is the core of fundamental right of self-protection; the seniormost law of nature.bWithout means it is just a line in our constitution.
I don't mind calling for more awareness and wider debate. Believe me, staying disarmed and oblivious the Indian civilians are completely siting ducks. No wonders we keep getting shockers.

On the other hand in the case of the United States I don't really object to availing certain types of firearms to civilians because we have the resources to implement screening measures and the American establishment has a pretty decent history of competent oversight. As I mentioned in my earlier post I have no problem with people keeping hand guns in the confines of their homes. I also have no problem with allowing certain people like off duty police officers to carry their service weapons (because there is actual evidence of off duty officers being helpful in the events of mass shootings). As I mentioned earlier real life gun stand offs involve a highly coordinated protocol where multiple police officers accost each armed assailant and hence anyone who is able to participate in such maneuvers is bound to be helpful.
There is a big difference between US and India. The Govt. has provided better infrastructure and the people go to shooting ranges regularly, train, practice, train and practice.
These things are almost completely abesnt in India.
Hence even if you are a well meaning, law abiding citizen;
ifyou don't know how to respond in what situation; when and how to safely use your Gun anywhere;
then not only are you incapable despite of being armed but also, there are those occasional incidents where we hear that the Gun got accidently discharged and bullet hit someone. That gives Govt. another reason to curb lawful ownership further.
It is a pathetic state of affairs.

However I see no point to letting random Joe Schmoe's carry their guns around (I have as yet to see statistics proving the advantages of this) because there are no real life Rambo's and Jason Bournes. This is probably why law enforcement agencies aren't endorsers of armed civilians either. Also there are no real life situations in this society requiring civilians with semi automatic rifles. Sane people who buy these rifles do so purely for recreational purposes. And I believe that we should be open about our affinity for certain guns as a recreational indulgence instead of conjuring up moronic scenarios of getting into firefights and killing bad guys in the event of an emergency or a total apocalyptic collapse of our society (in the case of Nancy Lanza and many, many others).
I don't care about moronic scenarios and people don't need them to own means of self defense.
Robbery, Rape, Murder are stark realities that every individual faces today and so many who actually suffer them everyday.
Those are not moronic scenarios.
Moreover, nothing is random when you have a licensing procedure as rigorous as the one in India. I've heard that in some US states the gun laws and licensing procedures are very dilute, like non-existent. I can't appreciate if it is like an over the counter sale of grocery. Not good.
I agree that self defense in most scenarios can be done by hand guns. Not everyday there is chance that you'd be torn to pieces in pogroms so you need a long range weapon.
But I don't know how much the criminals are armed. I've heard meany of them have rifles !!

I can see how an Indian civilian might feel this way. However I find it ridiculous when gun nuts tend to make arguments like this in the United States. Unlike India we've specifically built a system where our police forces are expected to do a whole lot more than simply accost macro level organized crime; police forces are accountable for protecting individual citizens within reasonable parameters.
Could you please cite the law and the paramters. I'm afraid not every crime abides by those parameters.
As far as India is concerned, tomorrow if you or someone you know get robbed, beaten, raped or killed .. cannot sue the govt. and cops for failing to protect.
Why? Because they are not constitutionally accountable for every individual's protection all the places all the times.
Like I said before, they are a system with limits. They cannot even be supposed to save everyone everywhere all the time.
The accountability of a person's self protection ultimately falls on himself/herself.

This is why cops have to respond immediately to victims of domestic abuse or parents of missing children (even if it's only in the mall) or date rape victims or any other cases involving individuals.
Do you mean responding after the event had happened? What good are they at that point of time?
Then Furthermore permanently arming oneself just because the police isn't omnipresent is silly. The minute you step outside your house you are exposed to countless risks and it's ludicrous to obsess over one of the least probable ones.
I don't think it is silly. But each to his own. I'd say carry it if you feel safe with it and know well what to do. If you don't, then don't carry and leave it at home.
Probability and statistics cannot interefere when the crime confronts you and it can happen anywhere anytime.
One has the right to possess means of self defense for those scenarios. Thats all.
Those who aren't comfortable with this, there is no compulsion .. their life.

Regards,
Virendra
 

Energon

DFI stars
Ambassador
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
1,199
Likes
767
Country flag
Your arguments are certainly compelling; which is not to say I agree with a lot of them and I will keep voting against them in my congressional district if the opportunity were to arise. But if it's truly possible to develop the ideal gun culture then I don't have a problem with gun proliferation (among non criminal citizens).

Either way well argued.
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
Your arguments are certainly compelling; which is not to say I agree with a lot of them and I will keep voting against them in my congressional district if the opportunity were to arise. But if it's truly possible to develop the ideal gun culture then I don't have a problem with gun proliferation (among non criminal citizens).

Either way well argued.
Thanks for your compliments. :namaste:
Of course .. we're all entitled to have our opinion/vote and express the same freely.
I post on this topic (RKBA) to generate wider debate and awareness in my people .. the Indians who I believe are extremely oblivious to the whole topic as of now.
There is bound to be some agreement and disagreement.
As long as I'm able to pitch in where I want, I am happy doing it.

Regards,
Virendra
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top