Indians For Guns

I received this image on my 'Whatsapp'.....To say the least I was shocked & left speechless

Briha

Shocking and sad indeed

Paws were probably cut off as the villagers may have wanted to keep the claws for use in traditional "charms"/ lockets...

Very sad to see this image. Such a majestic animal fighting for its own survival.

Got no words to say....... ashamed to be human!

Here's my opinion, from an observer who doesn't live in India, please tell me if I'm wrong on anything.

In the US, say, 100 years ago, anyone outside town would have a firearm with them, and most people in town. There were not many (like 1 or 2) recorded instances of the cougar (also called mountain lion) attacking anyone since the US was settled. Pretty sure some happened but weren't recorded.

In the last 10 years, there have been many attacks, and a disproportionately high amount in California. The cougar is about the same size as the leopard, just not spotted, and I would think, not as aggressive. They will prey on people, but for example, I remember reading about leopards, I think in india, that had killed a couple hundred people before Corbett shot them, so I don't think a cougar really compares. But it is the same size.

So here's my point about all that--California probably has the most restrictive gun control laws in the US, so many fewer people carry firearms there. Many fewer people carry weapons all over the US than 100 years ago, probably only 30% as many as a population. Since we stopped being armed, attacks are up a lot, not just from cats but all other alpha predators, and up more where firearms are more restricted, like California. They aren't afraid of us any more. People used to mean guns, and before that, bows and spears, and death. Not any more.

Am I right that fewer people in India are armed now than in days gone by? I mean, if they were only carrying bows or spears, they were still armed, but am I right about that? Probably no one would carry a spear now, and it appears to me guns are very restricted there. People are tool-users, we don't have claws or big teeth, and most animals are stronger pound-for pound, so if we don't have the tools, we can't outfight them one-on-one. Before people had good weapons, our strategy for dealing with a big predator was to mob them with all the people there at once. Appears that is what happened.

I have to say the lynching could be entirely justified. I have no idea of the circumstances, but if some monster were eating my children, the gov't wouldn't do anything, and I had no recourse, then i might want all my neighbors to help me kill it. Especially if it was illegal to kill it, because arresting one person is easy, but arresting 3,000 a lot harder. And it might look worse than that had it actually killed one of my family. Think about it, kids are the easiest prey there is, so I bet they go missing right with the dogs and goats.

How can anyone expect reasonable people to allow their children and themselves to be killed to protect the monster who is killing them, no matter how endangered the animal is ?

Atul

Atul

In the end the big question is why are the cats straying into our civilisations? We did it!

Though Unfortunate, if its any consolation;like uncle darwin says its survival of the fittest

ROHIT_GAVAI wrote:In the end the big question is why are the cats straying into our civilisations? We did it!

Though Unfortunate, if its any consolation;like uncle darwin says its survival of the fittest

You have answered your own question. Why we did it (encroached in tiger territory), because it is survival of the fittest.
I believe that it was right to kill the offender who endangers our or our families (may even be another human being). But personally I do not agree with the exhibition part of it.

Atul

ROHIT_GAVAI wrote:In the end the big question is why are the cats straying into our civilisations? We did it!

Though Unfortunate, if its any consolation;like uncle darwin says its survival of the fittest

It is the human population that is rapidly multiplying and encroaching on wildlife territories in India. As per latest census report of government of India, the population is up from around 1.2 billion to around 1.3 billion in ten years. Population in India is more than China per square kilometers. Was reading that some religious cum political outfit has declared rewards of rupees two hundred thousand each for those couples giving birth to five or more children. Whom to blame?

goodboy_mentor wrote:Was reading that some religious cum political outfit has declared rewards of rupees two hundred thousand each for those couples giving birth to five or more children. Whom to blame?

Very stupid option, it won't even cover the cost of hospital and admission in a school.

I do agree it's terrible to see a beautiful animal treated that way, I do agree it is the fault of humans (we, allegedly, have the brains), I just don't see how anyone can expect people to allow other people to be killed and eaten and take no action.

It's not the killing part which shocks people. Most of us are supportive of Prashantji and his team when they go out after maneaters. Most of us are also fans of Corbett. Many of us were supportive of the American dentist who shot that lion in Zimbabwe.

What is shocking is treating an animal, out for food (in whatever form), in a way which, by law, you cannot do to even the worst psychos. Mutilation, "victory parades"..... reminds one of the worst excesses of the Romans and Incas!

No one captured a "mob" better than Shakespeare, and this seems to be one of the worst manifestations.

Just for the disclaimer, the last human kill by a leopard in Mumbai about 3 years back was hardly 100 yards from my back windows. And the CCTV video doing the rounds a couple of years back showing a leopard snatch a dog from the foyer of an apartment building? That building is 10 minutes walk away (less than 5 minutes if there was a straight line).

What matters above all I have seen on here, EssDee, is that you actually have a "dog in the fight" to use an old expression. Your own a55 is on the line in this discussion. For what it's worth from someone who doesn't live there, I agree with you 100%, both that the killing is justified and that the mutilation etc is not. Although, to me, that is understandable, if not justified. Some of the anger directed towards the animal, by rights, should be directed at a government that does not protect its people and forces them to live in such a place, by "place" I mean not specifically geography, but a place where they are denied the means to protect themselves from large predators living in their midst.

It's your government, not mine, so maybe I don't have a right to comment, but that is my opinion. My government has done the same in different ways, so none are exempt from blame, really. I think your government is ignoring the rights of poor people to even live and protect themselves because they are poor. I also see the endangered animals as being given a higher priority in law than the right to remain undigested amongst poor people. Or, have I got it wrong and all those people in the mob are wealthy or at least middle-class?