Team-BHP - Gun Ownership

Quote:

Originally Posted by shajufx (Post 528519)

Very frankly, I dont mind carrying a mini-self-protection gun around my waiste. Many family men might wish to carry the same to protect their wife and kids from unexpected events by anti-social characters in our cities. So, owning a gun, be it social status or self protection, anyone would wish to carry one with them. Be true to yourself guys... dont you really wish to own one in the present world ?? Offcourse you do. Now it comes to the second point of thought:

Who is eligible for a gun ? Thats the most important factor here to consider and evaluate. It should be a licensing authority without even 5% of corruption in deciding the eligibility of any individual purely based on the following criteria:

01. Age criteria minimum 25 and above (same like 18 for a driver's license)
02. Lack of any criminal, anti-social records individually and family wise
03. Special training on the safe usages and tactics of self defense
04. Permission to shoot below waiste line in case of emergency.
05. Regular authorised checks and records of the bullets loaded and used
06. Serious punishments and cash fines in violating the purpose of usage

I think few points could be added to it to make sure licensed individuals dont violate the law in the actual intention of the license. Its purely for self protection. If a driver commits mistakes on the road which goes to the extend of killing himself or others on the road, same thing could be considered in the worst case scenario of guns.

For all those who oppose the view of licencing for guns: You havent actually gone through any situation with yourself or with family that you would have wished to get an immediate help from police or authority to save yourself from an unhappy event or tragedy. Having a gun doesnt mean you have to hurt someone. Sight of a gun itself could be enough to stop a crime or tragedy. Think about that !!

Aptly put.

PPL here in this board probably dont realize few things:

1. You safety is your own responsibility first, and state's responsibility later.
2. State's responsibility means Police. Now if that is really effective, then we won't be in such a "hazardous" situation.

3. Those who condemn this by saying that anti-social elements will have free access to guns, possibly choose to ignore the fact that anti-social elements already are armed. It is the knowledge that the other person (a shareef unarmed guy usually) has no means of retorting back aggresively or even protect self, that gives them confidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shajufx (Post 528519)

People in the US carry guns under the same excuse. BUt I have rarely heard of an example where a gun owner succesfully protected his family from intruders or burglars using his gun.

What you always hear is how the gun got into the wrong hands and was misused to end innocent lives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shajufx (Post 528519)

For all those who oppose the view of licencing for guns: You havent actually gone through any situation with yourself or with family that you would have wished to get an immediate help from police or authority to save yourself from an unhappy event or tragedy. Having a gun doesnt mean you have to hurt someone. Sight of a gun itself could be enough to stop a crime or tragedy. Think about that !!

Buddy think about it this way, the person who tries to mess around with you also will have access to a gun which in turn will lead to more people being killed, Also Im sure the "bad guys" will have a lot more guns than the "good guys". What happens then?

Quote:

Originally Posted by doctorkats (Post 528546)

we don't need guns.
we need education.
we need poverty eradication.
we need good health.
we need more patience and tolerance.

speech over.applause..

:Cheering::Cheering:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nitin (Post 528787)

My brother's FIL owns a gun, and every year he has to report to a police station and declare that he still owns the gun. He told me that its a big pain to have a licence for a firearm, given that everytime there's some armed robbery in the vicinity, the police turn up at most of the households that own a gun.

Typical of the police. Does anyone really think someone would use a licenced and registered weapon for a crime? I have also heard that whenever there is a social disturbance, they go around and collect all the guns. So what good are they then?

Quote:

Originally Posted by shajufx (Post 528519)

Having a gun doesnt mean you have to hurt someone. Sight of a gun itself could be enough to stop a crime or tragedy. Think about that !!

i don't think most of us are cool-headed enough to handle a gun in an emergency situation.

Frightened man, gun in hand, pulls trigger. First, the bullet could go anywhere with this guy's hands shaking like crazy. Second, he probably doesn't practice, and the shock of the recoil may cause him to drop the gun --- at which point it then belongs to whoever picks it up.

Sure, in the mental picture where someone is threatening me or my family with a machete I'd like to be holding a gun --- but the reality is it probably wouldn't do me much good at all. I've never fired a gun. I suspect most people haven't. I'm sure that what happens would be nothing like it is in the movies; but I suspect a lot of people imagine it would.

OK... I don't know what I'm talking about here, but the big point is that many of those who support gun ownership won't either.

That's not aimed at anyone, of course: I'm sure some of you guys do shooting for sport and do know how to handle a gun.

But I still wonder if event that prepares you to use one in a real, violent situation.

I personally think the the whole logic of "I have to have a gun, as the bad guys have them" is not right. This is blind apeing US. One has to remember that US was created with guns and they always believed in gun talk. Now whether that is right or wrong is not for me to say. I personally do not subscribe to their way of thinking. But to each their own.

Guns in the hands of amatures are very very dangerous. Not many people realise this. It is not a toy and cannot be treated as one to be used only when you need to. You cannot think you can buy a gun and be an expert at it in the first try. An untrained gun wielder is a danger to himself and others around him. If you have to have a gun, you need to have regular practice on a firing range, else you can end up harming others including loved ones with it.

If you have to have something for self defence there are other non-lethal option, pepper sprays, tasers, the good old stick or baton etc. As mentioned in this post earlier, just by having a gun does not mean that crimes against the owner will be reduced. And just remember if everyone start having a guns, you can be sure that the "bad guys" will upgrade their weapons too. And in case of a confrontation, with lead flying around, are you sure you want to risk your family's lives!

The only sensible reason for having lethal weapons is if your life is directly threatened. This means a definite threat, and not some possible likelihood of something happening like a robbery, etc. In such cases it is possibly justified to have a weapon to defend yourself. But tell me, how many of us who wants guns are in such a dire situation today???

When I made my first post on guns here, I clearly mentioned most of the important factors that should follow the licensing and usage of self-owned guns. If those criteria are seriously taken into consideration, there is no worry about wrong usage, lack of practice, and all other related points.

Gun is a gun, it can not be a rose. Realities in life are too true to believe sometimes. Same with protecting your family and yourself from unexpected situations. Dont think indian police can save you from any situations. What you see in movies are too real. Cops here are trained to be lazy by nature. They have the weapons that were left behind by the britishers who quit India in 1947. Police is good only at firing a group of people who are gathered for a rally or a dharna in India. Because you dont have to aim at anyone, its a group, so they can shoot anywhere it will hurt someone in the crowd. When you realise the facts of the police system here, you will first laugh non-stop then you will regret about the insecurity this country provides to its citizens.

Celebrating 60 years of freedom doesnt mean much to a common citizen here. Politicians have accumulated crores of wealth by serving the public, political parties have assets all around the states. Where does the common citizen stand ?? His role is to elect someone and be silent to the next election.

I am sure members here have seen the movie "Mudhalavan" stared by Arjun in Tamil and the same remake into Hindi as "Nayak" stared by Anil Kapoor. This movie has not shown even 10% of corruptions what is actually happening in our states. So its better the real truth is hidden from the public. Otherwise you will start hating wrong use of democracy.

Situations are not promising for India anymore. International terrorist groups are targeting India. Sadly we dont have the right hands (educated young politicians) to lead the country safely. Here comes the importance of training yourself to be a protector to whomever you can. It doesnt matter what means you follow, end result should be a fight for justice, security and rights of the citizens here. Jai Hind ! Happy Independence Day to everyone !

Sorry if too many subjects came across in the post. Its a cry of a common indian citizen. Who hears that cry ?

Why only 'Mudhalavan' almost all of Shankar's movie deal only with corruption and his cinematic solution to the problem. Sivaji, Anniyan, Mudhalvan, Indian, Gentleman. All these are super hits and so many people have seen it. They are educated about the subject of corruption and they are now practicing it. But why bring the topic of corruption into gun business??

Quote:

Originally Posted by shajufx (Post 530789)

Gunman opens fire on freeway, killing 2 and then himself - CNN.com

Gist of the news: A gunman opened fire and killed two motorist who stopped to help in an accident on the freeway. He wounded another 2, including a policeman, and then shot himself. No one know why did did what he did.

Everyone know that one should be responsible when having a gun, but what is to stop incidents like this from happening if everyone has access to guns? All it is is one guy/lady who had a really bad day in office or home followed by a frustrating drive on the road. Incidently, it appears that some other motorist had a weapon which was used to fire at the gunman.

I say once more, there are other non-lethal way of protecting oneself to some degree without resorting to guns. Ask yourself, if a robber gang (they always work in gangs) comes to rob you with guns, do you really think that on your own you will be able to subdue the whole gang??? THis is not a movie! It will just make think worse for you and others with you. So then, why then would you want a gun? Ego? peer pressure? self-esteem? Road rage/ accident solution/protection? I don't think these are the right reasons for having a gun! Like I said earlier, if one's life is directly threatened with terminal violence, then it makes sense to be armed, one cannot resort to waving a gun to resolve issues. These are just my thoughts on this issue.