[abhijeet]

I wrote something on this topic a while back... you might want to check it out HERE >> While you are at it you should also read the Parable of the sheep. I will reserve my other comments, till some of you have read one/ both of the above links... Cheers! Abhijeet

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by DieselFan

... ... ... Gun is not licensed unless the owner gets trained on using the same. He has to complete a minimum number of hours in the shooting range. ... ... ...

Would that be anything like the minimum hours of driving lessons that people have to have before taking the driving test and getting their driving licence?

As responsible citizens don't we drink responsibly and not drive after we have drunk over the limit. This applies to owning guns too.

"We" might well be responsible in that way. Unfortunately the other guy may not be. So far as the drunk-driving example is concerned, that other guy is woefully lacking in responsibity, and quite a few of them die here on the East Coast Road on their way home from partying.

I would prefer Hurting a Dacoit then myself getting hurt or worse killed.

You can be sure that he will be better able, practiced and equipped at hurting people than you are. Your gun may not get you very far, or even spend very long in your hand.

Another point... As the number of guns held in private houses increased, the number of robberies in which guns are stolen would also increase and the number of criminals in possesion of guns will increase. Your gun could be used to kill your neighbour.

[abhijeet]

Originally Posted by aah78

Check this out: BBC News - Americas - Illinois baby obtains gun permit.

I don't think any person named "Bubba" should be handling a gun, no matter what the age!

I'm afraid that this story tells a half truth mixes in sensationalism and therefore must be taken with a pinch of salt!

The story makes a big deal about the child being issued an FOID card. PLEASE NOTE - and FOID card is NOT a license to own a firearm! If you walk into any store and brandish your FOID card to purchase a gun, you will be politely refused or simply laughed out of the store!

Buying a firearm requires a driver's license (proof of age - minimum 18 years), financial statements for at least 3 months, proof of residency and official documentation for your address, a 3 working days waiting period during which a background check is conducted on the FBI database, etc.

FOID cards are issued to anyone who has a clean record and they are merely permission to shoot at a range or under supervision in the case of those below 18. When a minor is issued a FOID card, it implies that the parent applying for it is responsible for anything that could go wrong while the minor uses a firearm.

The article is clearly anti-gun propaganda!

Cheers!
Abhijeet

[Samurai]

I don't mind having a gun. But if that means many people around me too can have it, then I rather not have it.

I prefer weapons that are hard to master, that way others can't take it away and use it against me.

[DieselFan]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Would that be anything like the minimum hours of driving lessons that people have to have before taking the driving test and getting their driving licence?

I was an NCC cadet and I know how the knowledge of firearms makes a person really rational at handling firearms. Yes in my experience it definitely works.

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

"We" might well be responsible in that way. Unfortunately the other guy may not be. So far as the drunk-driving example is concerned, that other guy is woefully lacking in responsibity, and quite a few of them die here on the East Coast Road on their way home from partying.

There are checks and balances everywhere and we need to believe MOST humans exhibit rational behavior most of the time. Sometimes this may backfire.

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

You can be sure that he will be better able, practiced and equipped at hurting people than you are. Your gun may not get you very far, or even spend very long in your hand.

Not really. Only small percent of Indians have firearms and are proficient in using the same. most robberies are carried out using crude weapons like knifes and swords.

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Another point... As the number of guns held in private houses increased, the number of robberies in which guns are stolen would also increase and the number of criminals in possesion of guns will increase. Your gun could be used to kill your neighbour.

Fat chance . Even if a thief steals the gun he will try selling it and usually get caught doing it.

Why do all developed nations build Nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction. It is only to deter your enemy from using similar weapons on you. This is the exact reason why responsible people carry guns.

[lurker]

In Kashmir and North-East especially for the minorities living there, GUN OWNERSHIP IS A MUST. Please do not believe for a single moment that the Govt of India is going to protect you. If these people do not get a license then by hell you just gotta obtain a weapon by hook or by crook.

As for the rest of the country, a lot of incidents like road-rages can be avoided if both the parties realize that each other are armed. Strength always begets respect. Whatever else the liberals and other might teach people.

The middle-class in our country esp needs to be armed with Guns because at a social level there are a large number of have-not's in this country who exhibit symptoms of social jealousy which result in organized/spontaneous rioting situations seen on many an occassion.

For religious minorities of various hues living in the country, please remember that Gujarat and Delhi can occur again and the cops ain't going to do anything to protect you, and will on occassion aid the rioters so you are on your own to protect your skin. Be armed and be prepared so that the rest can continue to share the love.

[DieselFan]

Originally Posted by abhijeet

I wrote something on this topic a while back... you might want to check it out HERE >> While you are at it you should also read the Parable of the sheep. I will reserve my other comments, till some of you have read one/ both of the above links... Cheers! Abhijeet

The story of the sheep is just great.

[abhijeet]

Originally Posted by Samurai

I don't mind having a gun. But if that means many people around me too can have it, then I rather not have it.

I prefer weapons that are hard to master, that way others can't take it away and use it against me.

Samurai, I'm afraid the fact of the matter is that criminals have access to guns - irrespective of what the law says! Criminals DO NOT apply for permits and buy guns legally, they buy untraceable guns off the black market for a fraction of the price of a legal firearm. Did you know that an imported pistol costs approximately INR 50,000/- (give or take a couple of thousand) on the black market? The same gun if bought legally, would cost 3 to 4 times that amount! Who is being penalised here? The person who wishes to stay within the law or the criminal?

Therefore it comes as no surprise that our stringent firearms laws do not seem to be having the desired effect. In fact in spite of their freer gun laws and almost 1 gun per capita, India and the USA aren't that far apart in (per capita murder rates) - USA is 24th, India 26th. In fact, if we consider total murders (rather than per capita figures), India does rather poorly relative to the US.

Also, there is an much another side to this... If India is truly a free country, a democracy, a "government by the people" - THEN WHY do we see the servants disarming their masters by force? What do they (the government) fear from us, if theirs is truly a legitimate, benevolent government? If the State does not seek to control us, why does it want us disarmed?

The usual answer - is that "the common man"/ "mere citizens" are half-witted children, incapable of safely handling "dangerous" commodities such as guns or explosives or medicines or information. And only when some half-witted children pass a civil service exam or are elected by other halfwits to work for the wise and benevolent State do they magically become smart and honest and trustworthy enough to carry guns and decide whom shall be "allowed" to possess guns and what sort of design, shape, or weight such weapons shall be.

Cheers!
Abhijeet

[tsk1979]

If you make gun ownership difficult, it will mean that the criminals will have guns and ordinary people wont.

[Samurai]

Owning the weapon is one thing, and having the guts to use it is another.

I remember this incidence from 20 years back. I was the NCC Under Officer of our college. Although I had 80 cadets in my NCC company, barely 30-40 used to attend regularly. Then we announced a two day rifle shooting event.

On the first day we had 78 cadets show up, some I had never met before, many didn't have uniform since they never picked it up.

And....second day only 22 showed up. Rest were scared out of their wits by the massive recoiling of .303 Lee Enfield. People thought shooting was as easy as shown in movies. The acrid gun powder smell and the repeated rude kick to their collar bones by the recoiling evoporated all the romance of the guns.

One needs a certain ruthlessness to use any kind of weapon against a living thing. Putting a weapon in the hands of normal person won't turn him to a brave fighter.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Some of the pro gun arguments here have entered the realms of the insane.

Its one thing to propose that a weapon may be used to protect one's family, and even to project a situation where all the righteous protectors are skilled and discipled users of that weapon --- but to proclaim it as a symbol of democrasy! Oh dear.

As they say in that land of freedom: I'm outa here.

[abhijeet]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Owning the weapon is one thing, and having the guts to use it is another.

I agree - BUT does this make not having ANY means to defend yourself OK? While it is impossible to tell how a particular individual will react under stress in the heat of a situation, it is clear that if a normal person is attacked by a superior force (numbers/ size) he/ she would be hard pressed to offer any effective defence merely by using his/ her bare hands.

Also, lest we forget in more than 80% of the cases that a firearm is brought to bear (in self defence), it is not fired! The mere fact that one has the ability to cause serious injury/ death to the attackers is usually enough of a deterrent...

You also point out the difficulties in acquiring the skills required to effectively use a firearm... may I take this opportunity to point out that one can be taught how to use a handgun safely and effectively - by effectively I mean for the very short ranges one encounters in self defence situations (usually less than 15 yards) - within a matter of days! On the other hand it takes a really long time and serious dedication to learn any kind of unarmed combat discipline. This is not to denigrate the martial arts, it is just to point out the fact that most people do not have the time and/ or inclination to put in that kind of effort to learn BUT they still do have a right to life and should be able to defend their own and their family's life.

Furthermore, while a firearm due to it's deterrent factor, can help ensure that you come out of a situation without having to actually resort to violence; any unarmed combat technique REQUIRES you to cause physical injury to your attacker, to disable him from causing you further harm - merely taking a defensive kung fu stance is not going to scare the attackers away...

One needs a certain ruthlessness to use any kind of weapon against a living thing. Putting a weapon in the hands of normal person won't turn him to a brave fighter.

I think the question here is of necessity. If someone threatens you/ your wife/ child with grave physical harm, there is little choice left... it's a question of survival really. The vast majority of humans WILL NOT wish to cause another human physical harm, however the instinct for survival is a strong one...

[msdivy]

'India second heavily armed country in the world'

This news may come shocking. A report released by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies says India is the second most heavily armed country in the world. The United States comes first.

With an estimated 46 million firearms outside law-enforcement agencies and the military, India has the world's second-largest civilian gun arsenal. But this represents just four guns per 100 people.

The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world.China, third with 40 million privately held guns, has 3 firearms per 100 people. Pakistan has 12 firearms per 100 people, while Iran has five.

In most of the world, the state is not the primary holder of guns; civilians are. The survey also plucks holes in the notion that Latin America and Africa are the world's most dangerous places with massive accumulation of firearms, says the Small Arms Survey 2007.

In many cases, state-owned weapons are not the most likely to be used. Though research on the relative dangers of civilian and military small arms still requires systematic investigation, civilian-owned weapons appear increasingly prominent in global small arms phenomena, the report says.

Americans own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, it says. At least 4.5 million of the 8 million guns manufactured each year are purchased by Americans, the report says.

The report also throws light at some shocking figures: There is roughly one firearm every seven people worldwide. And Uncle Sam is the main culprit. If the US figures are dropped, the count drops to one firearm per 10.

On per capita basis, Yemen has the second most heavily armed citizenry behind the United States, with 61 guns per 100 people, followed by Finland with 56, Switzerland with 46, Iraq with 39 and Serbia with 38. With 30 guns, France, Canada, Sweden, Austria and Germany are next.

Nigeria, which is perceived as a violent torn country, has just one gun per 100 people.

"Firearms are very unevenly distributed round the world. The image we have of certain regions such as Africa or Latin America being flooded with weapons -- these images are certainly misleading," Small Arms Survey director Keith Krause said.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by msdivy

The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world.

That's an outrageous statement. that means in a family of four, at least 3 have guns. Take 10 families with 4 members, then all members of 6 families have guns and 3 members in remaining 4 families have guns. How come I never met such families in my decade long stay in USA.

[DieselFan]

Originally Posted by msdivy

'India second heavily armed country in the world'

Nigeria, which is perceived as a violent torn country, has just one gun per 100 people.

"Firearms are very unevenly distributed round the world. The image we have of certain regions such as Africa or Latin America being flooded with weapons -- these images are certainly misleading," Small Arms Survey director Keith Krause said.

I do not think the image of some african/latin american countries that are flooded with weapons are misleading. The statistics is misleading here. What I would like to point out is in Nigeria major portion of the firearms are owned by terrorists or antisocial elements and they use them very frequently and indiscriminately. That is not the case in the US where most of the weapons are owned by sane and reasonable people for their protection and if at all used, they are used once in a bluemoon.