tirths wrote:Friends and fellow gun enthusiasts,
I am writing this not to negate the right of to pursue the interest in guns actively as a hobby, neither am I trying to “run with the hare and hunt with the hounds” as a friend here has put it, nor am I trying to argue that the members of this forum should not own a gun. I believe, as a forum member, the forum comprises responsible individuals who pursue an active interest in gun as hobby not as a weapon of violence. In this way, I have my trust and respect to the judgment of the forum members.
Now really? Pray tell me how does the simple act of creating an account here make anyone more (or less) responsible than he/ she would otherwise be? You obviously enjoy your hobby of shooting, please let us know what makes you so very special that you should be considered responsible, while others should not be accorded the same degree of benefit of doubt/ assumption of responsible behaviour? Whether or not you own firearms/ plan to own a firearm, whether or not you are happy to just plink away with your airguns, please be aware that your continued enjoyment of your hobby is still under threat. If you did not know this. Ms. Menaka Gandhi and her group has been actively trying to remove the exemption of airguns from the Arms Act, even as we speak the case is currently under appeal. Feeling a little less smug about the (future) continued hassle free enjoyment of your hobby now?
The fact remains, the the
overwhelming majority of people
will not and do not take to crime... all of us have an innate sense of what is right and what is wrong - this is not some special gift given to just a few individuals! On the other hand, the few who are either mentally unstable or have sociopathic tendencies or have already made the required compromises with their conscience, may very well tend towards violent crime. However, even in the most decadent of all societies these people are always a minuscule minority. The whole reason why normal humans find violent crime so abhorrent is because it is completely against our innate nature. This of course does not include wartime/ mob riots wherein other human traits come into play, for a more detailed analysis of human nature you may wish to google some well researched anthropological studies.
It is precisely people like you, who have this elitist attitude of,
"I am responsible, so I can own guns, but they should be denied to everyone else", which is the basic reason for the continued success of gun control in India. How else can one explain the fact that over 90% of our lawmakers have at least one firearm at home, but gun control keeps getting tighter!
tirths wrote:At the same time we are all aware that guns be used as a weapon to kill far more efficiently, in a far more effectively that say a kitchen knife. Compared to a kitchen knife it indeed can be called a weapon of mass murder. Kill efficiently not only one rare murder in self defence, but innocents that includes invalids, old people, women and children. That’s what bothers me!
I am simply amazed that you can so confidently believe in such specious arguments, what amazes me even more is what seems to be your naive belief in the assumption that more gun control is good for everyone. I won't get into the kitchen knife argument, as Inder has clearly demonstrated the hollowness of that claim.
tirths wrote:In my arguments that follows, I request the forum members not to construe my arguments as arguments against the members, but an argument which examines the ills of free flow of licensed arms into society at large.
The USA as a country has long supported the right to carry a weapon equating to right to life. The European countries and the USA have a history of carrying weapons and that of duel fights in order to protect one’s honour.
However, as we are also aware, that they are now made illegal (the right to fight deadly duels to protect one’s honour). Let’s examine the reason why. Carrying a weapon does not mean one is proficient in using at the time of need. Therefore, the less proficient (who is more often that not a good guy) is in grave danger of the bad-guy (who is more often than not is more proficient).
You've been watching too many period and/ or western movies... while duelling in pistols was indeed somewhat popular in different places at different times, this is history not current reality! I completely fail to see what the relevance is... do elaborate...
tirths wrote:Therefore, the government owns the responsibility of protecting the good peaceloving common men. The Journalist that said “I wish I had a gun” when terrorists were in a middle of wrecking carnage – I thank goodness that he did not, if he did (and if he was a non-pro user) in all likelihood he wouldn’t be expressing his wish now, he would be dead.
Governments can NEVER EVER deploy enough troops on the ground to protect every single person, all of the time... it is simply not possible AND anyone who is not willing to defend his own life, should not expect someone else to put his/ her/ their life at risk to save him. Why? Well, you obviously don't value your life enough to try and protect it yourself, so why should someone else (who I imagine does place some value on his own life) endanger himself to save (for you) something which is obviously of so little value to its owner (your life).
As to the reporter in question, maybe he would have perished, maybe he would have survived - who can say? What can be rationally argued though is, his having a gun would certainly have increased the likelihood of one/ more of the terrorists getting shot at and maybe even stopped before they could have killed more people. The cameraman did not seem to have much of problem aiming his camera and taking multiple photos... who knows what would have happened, if he was shooting bullets and not film... it could only have increased the likelihood better outcome than what actually transpired that day, and if even more people were armed, who knows, they may not even had to fly the commandos in from Delhi! Like I said, we can only speculate... but rationally speaking, if more bullets were being fired at the terrorists BEFORE they got into entrenched positions, probability of of them being hit by one and stopped would have been infinitely higher than if no one was shooting at them!
tirths wrote:After so many phychotic murders in the USA (mass murders, killing school kids, college grads due to senseless violence) – well how many should I cite?
Every single one of these mass murders took place in a gun free zone, where the victims were unable to offer any real resistance. Or is that a fact you'd rather gloss over? Even in USA no one with a criminal record or a history of mental illness can LEGALLY get a gun. However, as we all know, for those who ACTUALLY are OUT TO BREAK THE LAW, that is never a real hindrance, NOT in USA and CERTAINLY NOT in India! Gun control only disarms those that wish to stay within the purview of the law. So who are you really helping by advocating gun control? Certainly not the law abiding citizen! The criminals, is that who you seek to help, by offering them a safer work environment?
If you really believe the tripe published on that website, then there is no hope for you. In which case I'll only suggest you give up all of your guns, at least that way you won't sound like a hypocrite!
tirths wrote:Over the years Americans are slowly coming to terms with the truth that free flow of guns into the society hurts them. Americans presidents (from Clinton to Obama) over the years, though the country has a very strong gun lobby, are slowly passing laws to restrict the past practices of gun issue.
I would say, we can learn from their learning rather than have a string of dead innocents like that country had in the not so far in the past.
-Tirtha
Now really! Where are you getting your facts from? Do you even realise that
India is the murder capital of the world? Please note, these are merely reported crimes, as we all know many crimes in India NEVER actually get reported. Apparently all this gun control nonsense, has not percolated down to the level of the common criminals. Gee whiz, do you think we should let them know that they aren't supposed to be killing unarmed peace loving people? How very unsporting of them!
for making sure tht peace loving n law abiding citizens make money n lose it on the hands of their elected ones n crooks...
...where we are deers not lions 
!!! 
with tirtha but 50% or say to the 5th paragraph...
), if only 10% had those "dead innocents" been with weapons they would not have been so many "dead innocents". In US also we have "dead innocents" only in states having "Gun control" because it assures the mass murderer that his victims are unarmed. Have you ever thought why there are not so many "dead innocents" in Switzerland?. Remember "Gun control" only works for law abiding citizens, it never works for criminals and lunatics, they will get guns no matter what. Present reality in India is that criminals have unlimited access to illegal firearms and law abiding citizens are shacked by "Arms Act". Don't get fooled into a false sense of security by gun control laws my dear friend.
