Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   Shifting gears (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/shifting-gears/)

-   -   Gun Ownership (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/shifting-gears/27343-gun-ownership-2.html)

Hehehe, nice one. Well maybe at a subconscious level it has an effect. You wont know until a real gun is brought into the equation. Another reason why we dont need em ;)

No Sirji. Why whats the connection ? I got that from something on gang violence and afro-American / Hispanic neighborhoods in the USA.

Well, the same study was taken as evidence in a case! Although they claim its a work of fiction, its surprising the amount of research they do into their fiction!

There is a lot of similarities between the 2 countries. America is a multi-racial community & India is a multi-sub-caste community. I guess that is why. :)

The Good, The Bad & The Ugly.

Quite a lot of people will be 'doom'ed, not just you. So it is better we stay away from the guns, we tend to fight a lot better with our mouths.;)

:OT, i know, so please bear with me....

.22 caliber bullets are just as lethal as 9mms, especially at the close ranges that are involved in day-to-day altercations. For a long time, the US Secret Service details which were used to protect the VIPs, especially the president, used to carry a .22 Walther. This was true for the personnel who were closest to the president, since the .22 has very little recoil, allowing for a minimal time gap between shots. However, they have now moved to .357 caliber SiG Sauer P229. Also, most ex-KGB agents, who went on "wet missions" (usually to assassinate high level defectors) worked with a .22 caliber pistols.

A .22 rimfire cartridge, used in "civilian approved" guns in India, have ranges of over 1000m, meaning that these bullets will do significant damage at 1000m. However, the effective range (range up to which it can be aimed and fired) is 250m. This difference is because beyond 250m, the aerodynamic forces on the bullet will cause too much deflection for any proper aiming. However, like i said earlier, in our day to day purposes, we will most probably end up shooting a guy who is less than 5 feet away from us. At this distance, any caliber handgun / rifle is lethal. Hell, even bean-bag shotguns, the "non-lethal" (non lethal, as they fire small bags filled with rubber pellets) shotguns that are supposed to be used for riot control in the US, can lead to serious injuries or even death.

Guns in India are bad news. Its that plain and simple.

We don't need easy gun licenses in India !

The only Pro : It'll reduce our Population ! :uncontrol

Ha, welcome to the US of A, madan. :) Thats the way those guys are.

And regarding guns, like most sane guys said on the thread, we dont need that here. We already have too many problems. Why take on another one ?

Wow, this is very insightful.

I've read a point on similar lines - people who've learnt complex martial arts like tae-kwon-do and the likes often have immense self-control. This is because the amount of discipline and effort invested in gaining that skill has vested them with that self-control.

Not the case with a person who walks into a store and buys a gun.

What Delhi needs is a tough police chief who means business not guns.

Or maybe we can adopt a milder version of MIddle East policy of public lashings and whippings so that people understand what the concequences are.

The prospect of having my own pistol is quite appealing to me. stupid:

:OT @ ashwin390 - Still, I would feel safer with a .45 ACP.
AFIK, we are allowed to keep (with license) .22, .32ACP(7.65x17) and the 12guage(not sure).

Edit: Not the shotgun. Sorry.

Thats very true. A person who has learnt martial arts can keep a check on his anger, and hence save himself (to a large extent) by not reacting to untoward incidents. He/she would rather take charge of the situation with good control, than go for a gun/weapon to settle things.

Its a useful thing to have,especially in the US. About other countries,I'm really not sure. In India it would be handy to scare away those pests on the street who behave like they own it, but again the risk is way too high.
It was rightly said, that when a person holds a gun in his hand, his anger or emotion of wanting to take revenge is much much higher. The gun takes charge of his senses,and then God help the situation. Having been in the NCC for over 2 years (including fire-arm training),I have experienced the 'kick' of holding a gun..

There are quite a few colleagues of mine who own guns,some have atleast 8-10 while the Sr. VP of the Intellectual Property owns over 100. :Shockked: ..he's got a room just for the guns thats monitored 24/7.

Having learnt mixed martial arts myself,I can vouch for the fact that the useage of a gun would be limited only to the extreme situation when I can't protect myself/near ones. That too,it would be against someone who's equally or more equipped than myself.

Increasing punishment is not the answer.

People tell me that execution is a deterrent. I ask them why, then, does Saudi Arabia have so many executions?

Thad, sometimes punishment is just that - punishment! I am not talking about KSA here.

On topic:

I remember one of the members here got into an accident with a rickshaw and the rickshaw driver was at fault. A crowd gathered and tried to beat him but got scared after seeing a gun on his body guard. Why shouldn't I have the same luxury, atleast when I am not at fault?


PS: I do not support guns but for different reasons.

Crowd is scared after seeing the gun on his body guard. Now rickshaw driver pulls out his gun. Crowd gets life after seeing this gun. Some in crowd pull out their guns. What do you do?

A bloody gunfight takes place, and when the gun powder smoke settles down, a lone figure gets on his steed and slowly fades away into the sunset.

The titles start scrolling up... wait! This is a not a movie. Cancel the subtitles, instead the police start showing up now that the danger is over.

There was a very interesting debate going on about this in Brazil where gun violence is very very high. The govt wanted to have a referendum on whether normal citizens should be allowed to keep guns at home or not. What people said is that 'if there is an armed robber who enters the house, it is very less likely that you can reach out for your gun at that time' (usually kept at unreachable and hidden places). Well, the other end of the spectrum said, 'If the robber knows for sure that the gun doesnt even exist, then its even better for me'. Both sides had valid points, but situation over there is drastically different.

I personally feel that owning a gun is going to complicate things further. The urge for using it, the restraint that should be shown at panic situations, the consequences of mis-firing, the head ache of kids not getting a hold of it...it is really not worth it.

But what I need right now is an gun to fire at a few dogs who are barking their throats off at night, right in front of my house! :)