Hello everyone.

[nagarifle]

well come sid

enjoy the freedom of views, while it last,

guys lets leave this as a welcome thread and take up the discussion on an other thread.

[Drunknhappy]

@ Inder.

What I was meaning is this:

Every person has the right to defend himself and his family. How is another question. It is up to the state to provide legislation to provide a means for a common person to be able to protect himself. If the criminals in an country are heavily armed then let the laws be lenient enough for a lawful citizen can bear arms to protect himself. If the country is safe and well governed then let there be no reason for a common man to bear arms.

In todays India, many more Indians should be allowed to bear arms in certain categories ( you dont want RPGs and automatic rifles in the hands of you neighbourhood lala ) because of the shitty law and order situation. The ability to bear arms may not level the playing field between us and the bad guys but at least allow us to maintain a minimum deterrent.

I hope I am clear this time , if not I will be glad to clarify my stand again.


@goodboy_mentor

Whoa!! strong words there mate.

I understand the need to stand up against tyranny and yes the right to bear arms levels the playing field, but pray tell me what do you do when the bad guys decide that they need to move up the chain to bio, nuclear and other weapons to enhance their advantage? Maybe I am going overboard but at the least they will move to heavier calibers and automatic rifles? We end up in what we call an arms escalation. The US is not safer due to free gn availiabilty, instead teh bad guys now tote automatic weapons and anthrax, so what do we do now legalise automatic weapons and bio weapons?

I am NOT misinformed about facts about gun control and as someone who has lost near and dear in gun related deaths, I have a better understanding of the impact of guns on the psych of a person and the ensuing bravado that can get out of hand. Your statistics about gun related massacres are touching and sad indeed but there were a lot more deaths by way of war and in many cases the ethnic cleansing is by way of a corrupt regime and in those cases the round up would happen anyway. I myself say that in a corrupt country the citizen bears a higher right to bear arms.

I am NOT against the right of a person to bear arms against tyranny or oppression but I am definetly AGAINST putting guns in everyones hands so that he can be prepared to retaliate to a percieved threat. This is my view.You cannot have a blanket law. We need a well regulated gun law. Not the one we presently have in India.

I am sure you will not agree to my perspective and I dont expect it. I am however convinced of my stand and that is unshakeable.

Please forgive me if I have sounded offended or defensive or have said anything rude. Not the intention. I would appreciate a debate and maybe we should start another thread for it? Lets leave this one for my intro to the forum

@1905mauser aka Siddharth: Thanks a lot mate. Hope to be of some use here.

@ngrewal: Thanks for the welcome. Ribbing is always welcome, I hope the other will take the response as game as me .
I guess my choice of words was wrong when I put my point across, maybe my reply to Inder and goodboy_mentor helps clear it up. Cheers!

Dear Sid,
I have to disagree with you.

To answer your first point regarding state legislation:
Self defense is a fundamental right and it is considered to pre-exist like your right to breathe. No government may take, control or regulate such a right. Most constitutions are written to prevent the government of the people from regulating such rights. For example even if you read the US constitution it states “the right to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. This is not a law granting a privilege such as driving on public roads to people it is a limitation on the government saying it cannot take away this pre-existing fundamental right.

As for your second point stating an equal level of arming people:
Self defense is not about fair fights. I don’t care if a person attacking my family has a knife or a baseball bat; I am going to use the best weapon possible. Force continuum does not apply in self defense. If you feel there is an immediate threat to your life or limb (or that of a third person) then you are justified to use force to neutralize the threat. We are not fighting for honor; we are fighting to survive so we may go home to our families. Even if the bad guys only have knives, it is unethical to limit self-defense to a similar weapon.

Further as for your comparison with RPGs and automatic rifles:
RPG is an indiscriminate weapon and cannot effectively be targeted against an aggressor in an urban situation. Neither can an automatic weapon be used for basic self defense unless there is a riot but I am not against automatic weapons. Remember guns and weapons don’t kill people just as pens and typewriters don’t misspell words.

As for bad guys moving higher than guns to bio and nuclear weapon:
That argument is a logical fallacy as it fails to consider middle ground. It would moot the purpose of an attacker if he dies in the attack unless his purpose is religion, revenge or honor. Such weapons are indiscriminate again and cannot effectively be moved or concealed for that matter. Further the cost and level of education required to make and/or operate such weapons is beyond most common thugs. Thus your argument is a slippery slope fallacy. A similar argument would be if we allow gay marriage soon people will want to marry their animals, what about marrying inanimate objects. How about marrying your spoon with your fork? See what I mean.

As for heavier calibers or automatic rifles:
A .32 will kill you just as dead as a .45. Would you take a person pointing a .32 less seriously than one pointing a .50 cal rifle at you?

As for saying bad guys have automatic weapons and anthrax:
Your data is false. Look up statistics from the FBI which shows that not even a fraction of criminals use automatic weapons. As for anthrax I think you are talking about people over reacting. Please before quoting facts or statistics make sure you can back them up.

As someone who has lost near and dear in gun related deaths:
I am sorry for your loss. But having lost loved ones does not make you more knowledgeable about the subject. What you have is an emotional response towards guns, instead of an emotional response toward the attacker.
As for citizens bearing a higher right to bear arms in corrupt government countries:
What if a country’s government slowly turns corrupt, do you think they will let you acquire guns after that? Guns are like insurance, you cannot get it after the fact. I bet the Jews would never have given up their guns if they knew what would happen to them.

You cannot have a blanket law:
Freedom is about having very few laws, most laws should prevent mala in se acts and not be targeted at creating malum prohibitum cases. Again self defense is a fundamental right and when knives were the most advanced tools of self defense they were the right, today guns are the most advanced tools of personal self defense and thus they are our right. Tomorrow we may have ray guns or light sabers and then those will be our right to protect ourselves. These are small arms designed to neutralize a threat. They are not designed to kill people. Unlike the guillotine or the electric chair which serve no other purpose but to kill people.

[buddha141]

Like I said I have my views and would like to keep them. I would like to reiterate the suggestion backed by nagarifle to keep this to introductions. I do not intend to get into a discussion here. thanks to all for their views.

Sid