Indians For Guns

We know that the licensed weapons we own are for our own self defense & our own property too but when it comes for others, what are the guidelines for that? Suppose I'm in a bank with my concealed weapon & a robbery happens at that moment, can I shoot the robbers with my gun to control the situation or suppose if some terrorists took some people as hostages & I did the same thing, what should I get to help others? Should I get an award or a punishment? Comments please

self defence- to defend one self and ones property.
shooting someone who is not attacking you may not be self defense.
helping the police is not self defense.

if under attack or perceived to be under attack then self defense.

Indian police being what they are and the law being what it is you could be charged with murder. As depends on the local police in charge who they think of such matter.

Terminator-X

Scenario 1. Bank robbery

You are in a bank with a concealed weapon.That means that you are already in violation of the law. The bank robbers have their weapons drawn and you start fiddling with your own,I mean firearm Considering the shoddy quality of gun holsters in the country and the lack of any practice of the average gun owner on drawing and firing a handgun, the likely out come would be:-

a)The bank robbers notice what you are doing and confront you and take away your handgun.So now they have an extra firearm and you have an explanation to give to the police as to why you were carrying it in the bank.In all probability you are looking at a court case.

b) The bank robbers notice you fiddling with something around your waist and they shoot you.Considering that they are also not very proficient in the use of firearms and are in all likelihood armed with desi kattas,you may survive to face police questioning about what you were doing carrying a firearm in the bank followed by a court case against you under the Arms Act.

Scenario 2.Terrorist attack (love this)

You decide to pull out your S&W snub nose .32 S&W long revolver to confront terrorists armed with automatic rifles.Terrorists who have spent months if not years, training for what they are doing.People who have been indoctrinated and brain washed into believing that dying for their cause is something noble and infact the basic objective of their very existence.The likely outcome:-

a) you will not be even able to clear your belt before you are riddled with bullets.Depending upon where you are hit,your body will probably need to stitched up to prevent the organs from spilling out.In all likelihood,a closed box will be put on the funeral pyre.

b) You are able to get off a shot or two.In all likelihood you hit a hostage.After all there are more of them than the terrorists and you are in a hurry to get off a shot.Your quota of 25 cartridges does not give you enough ammo to practice to be good at hitting your intended target in a pressure situation.Thereafter it will be either a repeat of a) or if they disarm you they will:-
i) take some pleasure in torturing you to death or
ii) kill you in some other gory manner(decapitation,disembowelment..)

But what about those very vocal discussions we had about the Mumbai attacks and the armed citizen?
Didn't a load of people wax eloquent about how things would have been very different if a few of the victims had been armed?
So why such a negative reply sire? Even though your outlines may be built on a load of facts, we are only talking theory here.

dev wrote:But what about those very vocal discussions we had about the Mumbai attacks and the armed citizen?
Didn't a load of people wax eloquent about how things would have been very different if a few of the victims had been armed?
So why such a negative reply sire? Even though your outlines may be built on a load of facts, we are only talking theory here.

This... to the OP (and will hopefully answer some of Dev's questions)
Getting a licence to carry a handgun does not make you a junior G-man. Get that thought out of your head. If you think a license to carry gives you any kind of law enforcement authority, then you shouldn't be trusted with a gun. The reason that a private citizen carries a handgun is so he can defend himself (or herself) and his loved ones.That is it, period.

Now I'm not saying that if you see someone in dire peril, that you shouldn't help. You should do that whether you have a gun license or not. Just remember that the licence does not give you extra rights or responsibilities that are different from other citizens.

As far as interfering in a crime, you'd better have a very clear idea of what is going on. There was a recent story of a Federal law enforcement agent who walked in on a drug store robbery. He pulled his gun and was struggling with the bad guy when an off-duty police officer walked in. He saw the agent with a gun, thought he was the crook and shot him dead. Now the cop probably will not get the book thrown at him but if it was a private citizen who had shot the federal agent, you'd better bet he would have been charged with everything they could find. If a trained police officer with years of on the job training can screw up so badly, how well do you think you will do (with no training)? If you are the civilian in this scenario, you are probably going on an all expenses paid vacation as a guest of the Departmrnt of Corrections. Most likely to the wrong side of the Andamans or some other suitably charming spot.

There was another incident a couple of years ago where a permit holder witnessed a purse snatching. He pulled his gun and made the robber lie down on the pavement. Another permit holder was passing by and saw a guy with a gun holding someone hostage and he drew on the first permit holder. Luckily the cops showed up and after almost shooting both the guys with guns, managed to defuse the situation. Threatening someone with deadly force? Attempted murder? Most likely another vacation coming up.

See, having a permit for a gun does not give you a licence to kill. Only James Bond had that. In real life, attempting either of the two scenarios described by the OP will most likely end up exactly as Winnie described it. Just Remember, if you use that gun, you are probably going to Jail, no matter what the outcome. If really lucky, you might still be alive and if even luckier; unhurt.

Practical part has been explained. Yes there is a difference between law in practice and law in theory. Anyways for the theory part, Sections 96 to 106 IPC describes the right of private defense which is corollary to the right to life guaranteed under the Article 21 of Constitution of India. For this particular question raised by author of this thread, he may read Section 97 of IPC which says the following:

"Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend—

First.— His own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body;

Secondly.—The property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, rob­bery, mischief or criminal trespass."

Recent judgement of Supreme Court in Darshan Singh Vs State of Punjab in Criminal Appeal 1057 of 2002 can be read where following principles emerge on scrutiny of the judgement:

(i) Self-preservation is the basic human instinct and is duly recognized by the criminal jurisprudence of all civilized countries. All free, democratic and civilized countries recognize the right of private defence within certain reasonable limits.

(ii) The right of private defence is available only to one who is suddenly confronted with the necessity of averting an impending danger and not of self-creation.

(iii) A mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put the right of self defence into operation. In other words, it is not necessary that there should be an actual commission of the offence in order to give rise to the right of private defence. It is enough if the accused apprehended that such an offence is contemplated and it is likely to be committed if the right of private defence is not exercised.

(iv) The right of private defence commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension arises and it is co-terminus with the duration of such apprehension.

(v) It is unrealistic to expect a person under assault to modulate his defence step by step with any arithmetical exactitude.

(vi) In private defence the force used by the accused ought not to be wholly disproportionate or much greater than necessary for protection of the person or property.

(vii) It is well settled that even if the accused does not plead self-defence, it is open to consider such a plea if the same arises from the material on record.

(viii) The accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt.

(ix) The Indian Penal Code confers the right of private defence only when that unlawful or wrongful act is an offence.

(x) A person who is in imminent and reasonable danger of losing his life or limb may in exercise of self defence inflict any harm even extending to death on his assailant either when the assault is attempted or directly threatened.

(ii) The right of private defence is available only to one who is suddenly confronted with the necessity of averting an impending danger and not of self-creation.

Most civilized nations will follow this. By injecting yourself into a situation where your life is then put into danger, you could forfeit the right to claim self defense.

Dev,

The fellow is talking about confronting bank robbers during the course of a robbery.Or in other words getting into a shoot out with dacoits when there are innocents around who can get hurt.He also wants to know about a situation in which there are hostages being held by terrorists.Again a situation in which innocents can lose their life because of the heroics of a misguided individual.Infact it would be extremely stupid for any one to intervene in any of these situations.

Mumbai was different to both these scenarios.Where people are being slaughtered,by all means shoot,shout,throw a rock whatever.

one tends to forget that robbers will be high on adrenalin etc and will be quick in res ponce to resistance.

always best not to do anything unless they intend to harm then it should be the case of "do and may live or don't and die thing". last resort.

Hey,
New here and of minimal to no knowledge about firearms.
But I have to agree with the pooh.
1. Bank robbers want to steal money and get out. Firstly one would try to avoid any hostage situations in the first place. Secondly, even a trained (or is it especially a trained) law enforcement official would probably keep it holstered in that situation what with all the bystanders.
2. In a terrorist situation, it would rarely be just one or two of them. And no matter what hollywood tells you no one can shoot fast enough to take down more than 2 armed individuals in the given time of ... shall we say 2-3 seconds.

Hello sirs,

iI would like to thank Terminator for having brought the matter to the forum. I my self thought of posing such questions. Because, if not to use but for the love of it, I some time carried the arms with me in public places( of course concealed and with the copy of the licence). If any thing of the situation discussed here manifest I must excercise my second option not to be involved in shooting heroic. What a enlightening discussion! Thank you all.

+1 to WTP, xl and the likes.

No one needs james bonds.
I consider myself decently well versed in the use of the firearms i posess.
The london riots took place where i worked and the burned sony warehouse was less than a km away from where i live.
I was more than ready to use force if anyone tried to enter my property or even my building but i didnt go around trying to defend the warehouse or the shops. Neither the law, nor police nor the public thought it was irresponsible or cowardly of me to do so.

winnie_the_pooh wrote:
Mumbai was different to both these scenarios.Where people are being slaughtered,by all means shoot,shout,throw a rock whatever.

This is confusing, isn't the slaughtering being done by the same automatic wielding, brain washed, disembowelling green smiley terrorists you warn us not to engage?

its stupid to take stones to a gunfight. unless one wants to deprave one self of life.

however if one is going to die any way, what the heck, then might as well fart in their faces and hope for the best.

Goodboy_mentor has already cleared the legal position. There are large number of case decisions during the last 100 years on the subject. The law and the case laws are very clear and covers widest possible range of situation.When one should intervene , should be left to the individual concerned. No point in having an academic discussion on the same.