Sunday, December 27, 2009

Gun Laws in India

Meri News ran a story about the history of gun laws in India. What I found fascinating besides the Indian-English style of writing is the similarity of the arguments to those in the United States.

After putting an end to mutiny of 1857, British viceroy Lord Lytton (1874 -1880), brought into existence the Indian Arms Act, 1878(11 of 1878);an act which, exempted Europeans and ensured that no Indian could possess a weapon of any description unless the British masters considered him a "LOYAL" subject of the British Empire. Father of Nation M.K.Gandhi referring to Arms Act of 1878 remarked "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest" (page 238, My Experiment with Truth, M K Gandhi).

After a lengthy description of modern laws which have left the Indian people disarmed still, the author presents these ideas.

Many may say,'What difference will possessing arms make?'. The right answer to this question could be perfectly answered by ones logical mind. On 26/11, even if 10% of the crowd at Taj Hotel beared arms, there wouldnt have been a human slaughter! The simple reason being atleast 50% of the 10% arms owner would have had the guts to shoot-down the terrorist. It has been one complete year for 26/11 event and still our Indian Government are busy requesting quotations from foreign arms manufacturers.

Although we have a few "well-known" shooters in India (on state/national level) only a few make it to the Internationals. Why? The reason being stringent gun laws. Today, if a professional shooter is to import a "air-gun" , he/she has to go through the whole officials hierarchy just to acquire the permission ! Believe it or not , Indian made "air-guns" are good for level 0-1 only , ammunition and shooting range charges excluded . If one decides to take the shooting sport professionally , he/she has to think it twice (from money/time aspect).

It has always been talked about guns affecting the crime rate of a country, but never ever has it been thought, to take an effective action on illegal arms trade, which in turn will reduce the crime rate itself. A fact never known to the law abiding comman man, is that, these criminals posses pistols/revolvers which are as sophisticated as a .44 magnum, whose one bullet is sufficient to take down a 85kg healthy man. Whereas our Indian police use the same old Service Revolvers/Pistols , which malfunction when they are needed the most!

Legally armed citizen, in fact can help government to curb the crime and fight militancy.There have been many instance in country where citizens snatched weapons from criminals/terrorists and foiled their designs thus preventing loss of life and property. In one such incident,reported from Jammu and Kashmir, a girl not only killed one militant commander but also scared others to run for their life without doing any harm to her family.These results can be optimized by helping these citizens getting armed with adequate knowledge and arms as they have full right to protect their life and property,after all they are law abiding citizens of this country.

Fascinating, isn't it? What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

27 comments:

  1. I'd say the author of this article has but aside all of the irrational fears that gun control loons have and understands that the world is a dangerous place because of the presence of dirtbags, not because guns exist.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Actually, this is an opinion piece by a blogger and does not represent an informed history of the issue.

    Gandhi's quote (often cited by gunloons) is lifted out of context. If one reads Gandhi's quote, in context, it actually refers to Gandhi's outrage that Indians weren't allowed to join the British military in WWI--a move Gandhi saw as integral to the eventual self-determination of India.

    The rest of the op/ed is standard revisionist gunloon fantasy and claptrap. We've seen it before: gunloons believe guns are or were the cure to history's greatest tragedies and injustices: the Holocaust wouldn't have happened if the Jews had guns, slavery wouldn't have happened if blacks had guns, British atrocities in India wouldn't have happened if....etc., etc.

    Serious scholars as well as military historians laugh at such nonsense. The notion that Joe Sixpack and his buddies can pick up their guns and repel or defeat invading or oppressive military forces is more mythical than pink unicorns.

    As Gandhi knew, the greatest obstacle to self determination is access to political power and institutions. Without such access, no amount of gunloonery is going to change things.

    -JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  3. FWM, The world is a dangerous place because of the dirtbags, and it becomes much more dangerous when they have easy access to guns. I don't know how you could deny that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "it becomes much more dangerous when they have easy access to guns."

    They don't have "access" to guns. They simply have guns. Access would imply that you could somehow cut off that access and prevent them from attaining guns, which is impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mikeb30200:

    The Partition of India and Pakistan (http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/Independent/partition.html) and the emergence of the former East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War#Atrocities) were all accompanied by horrific interncine bloodshed.

    India still has a serious problem with mobs running amok and killing the "other", for sectarian, ethnic and political reasons.

    Sri Lanka has been the site of a protracted civil war for something over 20 years now.

    As I feel I need to state this from time to time; I am not anti-gun. I am however, unconvinced that allowing people who are quite competent at slaughtering one another with mattocks, axes, grain flails and other farm and household implements would be more selective in such slaughter if they had firearms of any sort, nevermind high volume, high powered semi or fully automatic weapons.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jadegold: "gunloons believe guns are or were the cure to history's greatest tragedies and injustices: the Holocaust wouldn't have happened if the Jews had guns"

    I certainly don't think that "the Holocaust wouldn't have happened if the Jews had guns" but it might have been just a bit harder. The Nazis DID forbid Jews from owning guns, just as the Turks had forbidden the Armenians from owning guns.

    Are we to agree that people should have been rendered defenseless just because the odds were against them? Many nationalities or ethnic groups celebrate times in their history in which groups of them engaged in armed resistance against oppression -- even though they ultimately lost.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Define "high volume, high powered"

    ReplyDelete
  8. "I certainly don't think that "the Holocaust wouldn't have happened if the Jews had guns" but it might have been just a bit harder. The Nazis DID forbid Jews from owning guns, just as the Turks had forbidden the Armenians from owning guns."

    The problem with this argument is manifold.

    First, it tends to blame the victims.

    Second, the entire issue of Nazi gun control is pretty much a canard:


    http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

    As this article points out, had the Jews engaged in armed resistance--it would have more than likely not prevented the Holocaust but made it worse.

    WRT Armenians and the Turks, your history needs some work. The Armenians did have guns--what they didn't have were numbers, organization, a trained military.

    Let's remember, Saddam-era Iraq was awash in guns. You could buy automatic weapons if you desired, Yet, that didn't prevent nearly 40 years of tyranny and oppresion.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jadegold: "Second, the entire issue of Nazi gun control is pretty much a canard"

    Jadegold: "WRT Armenians and the Turks, your history needs some work. The Armenians did have guns--what they didn't have were numbers, organization, a trained military."

    My claim is that the Nazis forbade the Jews from owning guns and that the Turks forbade the Armenians from owning guns. Rather than your usual dancing around a subject, why not give a straight answer:

    The Nazis forbade the Jews from owning guns and the Turks forbade the Armenians from owning guns --
    DO YOU DENY THAT?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jadegold: "As this article points out, had the Jews engaged in armed resistance--it would have more than likely not prevented the Holocaust but made it worse."

    But I did NOT claim that Jewish armed resistance would have prevented the Holocaust.

    I DID write: "Many nationalities or ethnic groups celebrate times in their history in which groups of them engaged in armed resistance against oppression -- even though they ultimately lost."

    They don't "blame" the victims -- they HONOR those who fought back against impossible odds.

    ReplyDelete
  11. mike w.:

    "High volume, high powered"?

    Weren't you just saying, over at Southern Beale's blog the other day that you require a weapon with a 30 round magazine for home protection? I assume since you mentioned it that you own the firearm you wrote about. I was actually thinking more along the lines of weapons like the M-16, AK-47, FN FAL or Galil. I'm sure there's a boatload of others out there. None of them, afaia, are available to the public in this country--I'm sure there are plenty of them in places like the Mid-East, SW Asia and much of Africa.

    In places like Kashmir and Sri Lanka which are quite close to India there are many thousands of military weapons that have been lost in combat between government forces and various competing nationalist or sectarian factions vying or control of lands and people. Those weapons have hardly stemmed the bloodshed.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Demo - It's an AR-15 and I have both 20 and 30 round magazines for it. It is my primary defensive firearm and EXACTLY what you and your ilk want to ban.

    Incidentally, it's also exactly the same thing that the police use as patrol rifles. I even use the same Hornady TAP defensive ammo.

    Give me one rational, factual reason why I should not be able to own such a weapon?

    ReplyDelete
  13. BTW - I wouldn't say that true M16's and AK-47's are "available to the public" here in the U.S.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mike W., I think you're being totally irresponsible. What if your little 30-round magazines are not sufficient? What if you experience a home invasion by an armed band of marauders who are armed to the teeth themselves? Don't you have a responsibility to yourself to be prepared for that?

    Do they still have claymore mines? That's what you really need. Set up a couple of those babies facing the front door and you might stand a fighting chance.

    ReplyDelete
  15. mike w.:

    "Give me one rational, factual reason why I should not be able to own such a weapon?"

    You really can't see the shooting range for the targets, can you? I have told you, repeatedly, that I don't give a rat's ass what YOU own, shoot, brag about, obsess about (except on my blog) or needlessly worry about, re: whatever sort of firepower you feel will save you from the attacks on your life and property that you so greatly fear.

    I can't give you a "factual" (I assume you mean "legal") reason why you shouldn't own such a weapon. As for "rational", well, we passed out of that sphere a while back.

    Now, if I was a neighbor of yours and, especially if I had kids I would be talking to you about the eventuality of a stray round of that wonderful Hornady TAP ammo that you use impacting on my life, progeny or property. Wow, what a ballistics profile--you could shoot home invading marauders two at a time if they would oblige you by standing directly behind one another.

    Now, I will grant you that I would be thinking of obtaining just the sort of weaponry you're so enthused about it--if I thought that likelihood of my home being attacked was greater than the likelihood of my house burning down, since I have electricity and (soon!) gas installed and we know how dangerous those two things can be. But, since I'm not convinced that the upstate NY Visigoths are getting all that antsy, just yet, I'll take my chances being armed with a cellphone and all manner of weaponizable household implements and chemicals.

    "BTW - I wouldn't say that true M16's and AK-47's are "available to the public" here in the U.S."

    Neither would, nor did, I. Read the entire sentence.

    Mikeb302000:

    The Claymore mines thing is probably a really bad idea. It's been a lot of years, but I remember reading a piece on the U.S. Army's research project involving Claymore's mounted on the sides of a "Deuce-and-a-half" . The result was an incredible amount of damage to the truck. Deploying them in the living room would prolly wreak havoc with the 60" flatscreen.

    ReplyDelete
  16. would be thinking of obtaining just the sort of weaponry you're so enthused about it--if I thought that likelihood of my home being attacked was greater than the likelihood of my house burning down.

    Who said it's an either/or situation? Why not own both the AR-15 for home defense and a fire extinguisher? Both are tools used for different purposes and both are tools I hope I won't ever need to use inside my home.

    Now, if I was a neighbor of yours and, especially if I had kids I would be talking to you about the eventuality of a stray round.

    Do you talk to your neighbors about all of the various dangers they might have in their homes? Knives, chainsaws, acetone, ammonia & chlorine based cleaners?

    Yay, more blind ignorance from Democommie. .223/5.56 exhibits LESS penetration through drywall & interior / exterior walls than pistol caliber ammunition. Do you have any cops as neighbors? If so do you stop by and talk to them about the possibility of a stray pistol round from their duty pistols? Why not? That has a higher risk of exiting their house than my .223 TAP rounds would.

    http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot14_4.htm

    penetration testing through interior walls. Standard 00 buckshot from a shotgun penetrated all 4 walls, as did the rifle rounds.

    Frankly if you knew anything about law enforcement you'd know that they take overpenetration into account, which is exactly why the LEO's here use .223/5.56 TAP in their patrol rifles.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You specifically mentioned "semi-auto's" when discussing those "high volume, high-powered weapons" which you feel people shouldn't have.

    AK-47's and M16's are NOT semi-auto. Get your facts straight demo.

    ReplyDelete
  18. mike w.:

    You're now going to tell me that you want to use a round that has less chance of penetrating things then a pistol round? Oh, I get it. You're not only an intrepid oneman crimestopper, you're also such an expert marksman that while busting some caps in the baddies' asses you're gonna be sure that none of them go through a window, an open door or something else that won't slow them down appreciably before they scurry on downrange?

    You scare me, not because you're a tough guy, but because you're clueless and you really, really think a gun will solve any societal problem you might have to deal with.

    I know that you think you're a lot smarter than me, but here's a newsflash. I know the difference between a fully automatic weapon and semi-automatic weapon. I know the difference between a shotgun and a rifle. I know the difference between a Glock 9mm and an S&W revolver. The AR-15 is semi-automatic, the M-16, the Galil, the AK-47 and numerous others are selective fire. I know these things; I also know that you're a twit.


    Speaking of guns and fire extinguishers; you do know that there are a lot more fires in homes than there are home invasions, at least in the USA, yes? So, yeah, buying a fire extinguisher, installing smoke alarms, having a plan for evacuation in the event of a fire? Sure, those are all reasonable and prudent things to do.

    Having a semi-auto weapon with both 20 and 30 round magazines in my home, to make sure I'm not killed by someone?--that verges on paranoia.

    Please point to the sentence that included me saying that I feel like people shouldn't have those weapons? Was it on this thread, this blog, or somewhere else.

    I really am beginning to think that you're a nutbag. You do obsess about guns, it's just a fact, sad as it may be.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Having a semi-auto weapon with both 20 and 30 round magazines in my home, to make sure I'm not killed by someone?--that verges on paranoia.

    So if having a semi-auto weapon with 20 or 30 round mags is paranoid then I guess any cop who carries and keeps in his home a Sig P226 is also paranoid using your standard. (since the P226 uses 18 or 20 rd. mags)

    A 10 shot semi-auto .22 pistol can kill someone, so can a bolt-action rifle or pump shotgun. It is completely illogical to claim that keeping one type of firearm in the home for self-defense is "paranoia" but keeping another is OK.

    I'm laughing, but I'll ask the question anyway. Exactly what objective criteria do you use to determine whether the weapon a person keeps at home for defensive purposes "verges on paranoia?"

    I know these things; I also know that you're a twit.

    Oooh, big bad man, throwing out the insults again in lieu of a substantive, reasoned position.

    Perhaps you should focus on making a rational argument instead of engaging in petulant name-calling. Also interesting that MikeB allows such comments from you since they are clearly against his commenting policy.

    Why is that mikeb? Why are you so inconsistent in the application of your policy?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Demo - Do you keep a cellphone at home so you can call 911 in emergencies? Why? Are you paranoid?

    Would you use that if someone broke in?

    You do realize that in doing so you'd be calling and asking a stranger to come to your home to hopefully stop the intruder, and that stranger would be armed with a high-capacity (15-20+ rounds) firearm.

    Do you wear a seatbelt? Why? Are you paranoid? Have life insurance? Car insurance? Health Insurance? If so you're clearly paranoid, since using your logic none of that could possibly be explained as simply being prepared for the unexpected.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Mike W., On the ascending list of things we might want to have for self protection, I'd say seatbelts, fire extinguishers and cell phones fall well below the paranoia line. Handguns, AR-15s and claymore mines are beyond it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Good dispatch and this post helped me alot in my college assignement. Gratefulness you as your information.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Mikeb: On the ascending list of things we might want to have for self protection, I'd say seatbelts, fire extinguishers and cell phones fall well below the paranoia line. Handguns, AR-15s and claymore mines are beyond it.

    When you got to the gun part, you specifically named 2 types of guns --ironically, types that are often (but not always) DESIGNED for self protection purposes.

    Nonetheless, the question arises: Are there ANY guns that you find "OK" for for self protection purposes?

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Are there ANY guns that you find "OK" for for self protection purposes?"

    It depends on where you live and what you do. I would imagine most of the prople who have guns for that purpose do not really need them. That's where I get my meteorite silliness from. That's also where I get my idea that it would be better if these folks simply said "I like guns," rather than going overboard justifying them on the basis of self-defense need or 2nd Amendment right.

    These are just my ideas. I don't claim any authority.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Mikeb: "It depends on where you live and what you do."

    Not an answer that makes for further debate, but you probably don't know enough about guns so I won't push it.

    Mikeb: "I would imagine most of the prople who have guns for that purpose do not really need them."

    Those that do need them don't want to lose that right because you think that some don't need it, and gunowners are not willing to give you the power to decide who needs and who does not.

    But as an "amateur" gun control advocate, you are on to something. The Brady gun control group goes to great pains to hide their full agenda, but if you pay attention, sometimes you see that their "gunowner licensing" goal is stated as "NEED-BASED" gunowner licensing (and it ain't the gunowner who will determine "need").

    Mikeb: That's also where I get my idea that it would be better if these folks simply said "I like guns," rather than going overboard justifying them on the basis of self-defense need or 2nd Amendment right.

    Many gunowners like guns, but many own them for self defense WITHOUT any particular fondness.

    Also, I suspect an implication that self-defense or 2nd Amendment is a "cover" for liking guns. Not true -- most of those who argue those rights do not do so as a "cover" but because they strongly believe in them.

    Another Josh Sugarmann remark, when asked if he had learned anything by arguing with a group of us gun guys: "YES -- I used to doubt it, nut I now see that YOU GUYS REALLY BELIEVE IN WHAT YOU SAY. (Although as I metioned earlier, I came away from the discussion believing the OPPOSITE about Mr. Sugarmann.)

    ReplyDelete
  26. FishyJay, Good points and great Sugarmann anecdote. You may be right.
    "Also, I suspect an implication that self-defense or 2nd Amendment is a "cover" for liking guns. Not true -- most of those who argue those rights do not do so as a "cover" but because they strongly believe in them."

    ReplyDelete
  27. I don't think you "need" a blog MikeB, so I guess you won't mind if you're prohibited by law from blogging. After all, you can still publish articles in the local paper to exercize your free speech rights.

    I don't think you "need" a nice car either.

    Let's face it, my rights are NOT based on what some uninformed idiot (or bureaucrat) thinks I do or do not "need"

    ReplyDelete