Indians For Guns

Hi Guys,

I stumbled upon an interesting video on gun rights situation in India and its effects in making the law abiding citizens of India .... A sitting Duck...


Please take a moment to watch this small video...





Cheers..

they could not have been prevented, but they could have been contained much sooner with significantly less loss of lives of Indian citizens

And people went home like nothing happen - Haji

Frankly, the narrator's voice sounds about as intelligent as his reasoning: dismal. This is only a rant about the supposed "small government" issue, not a true RKBA issue, IMHO.

Some of his facts about RKBA is correct, but I don't believe that this corroborates his conclusions.

He grants that there are too few guns in the hands of civilians in nations like the USA to prevent such a thing. Frankly, I think that very little would be different were a Mumbai-style attack to occur in New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, or Dallas would be any different.

I think of this whole business like a fire: The best way to deal with a fire is not to let it happen in the first place. If fire does break out, damage will occur, and the amount will depend on how the fire starts, the fuel available, and the fire-fighting equipment that can be brought to bear.

Similarly, in a Mumbai-style attack, the training of the police/paramilitary, the training of the terrorists, and other such issues will determine the extent of the damage done. However, prevention, which is essentially an intelligence job (e.g., CIA, Research and Analysis Wing, etc) function. As the old saying goes, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

Turning loose a bunch of untrained people in a Mumbai situation may help, but it also could cause more trouble than it's worth.

Turning loose a bunch of untrained people in a Mumbai situation may help, but it also could cause more trouble than it's worth.

As Tim points out training is a big issue. Throwing a bunch of armed civilians into the mix may or may not have the outcome that one wants. For example, if you have 15 people with gun permits and they have all have their guns out and are shooting, how do you tell who is a good guy and who is a bad guy?

Most people carry a gun to defend themselves and shouldn't consider themselves a replacement for police or paramilitary forces. However, part of the problem with the Mumbai incident is that there were police on the scene but they just sat tight, especially in CST. If you pull out a gun in a situation like that, what if the cops themselves decide that you are one of the terrorists and shoot you?

Good points from timmy and xl_target. "Training" and "thinking on the toes" are two important facets when civilian force enters a combat situation. The same applies to the police force. Can the cops be made more "stable". In non-terrorist situations,in countries like the US, cops have shot first when the supposedly suspect had hands in his jacket pockets. Similarly, as xl pointed out the cops would first shoot a heroic civilian than a terrorist, simply because they saw a guy shooting with a gun. Now, in Mumbai-style attack, the bad guys would typically come blazing with an AK-47 or AK-56 while the civilian would in all probability have a handgun. That could be one differentiating factor. The other could be a momentary study of scenario by the cops to ascertain who is shooting at whom and then take a call. Then of course the terrorist would have a sac or something to hide his automatic in the first place along with RDX, grenades etc. while a civilian normally would not. But then with IT professionals and college guys sporting similar sac, it would be a tough call.But then all this would be too much to expect from the cops who are already on a short fuse, right ? And then comes the issue of whether civilian would pull out his handgun in face of a blazing auto simply because he knows that he can not match the terrorist in terms of range, accuracy and firepower ? However, this might just work when the terrorists are "separated" and/ or the civilian has a backup too. Just my 2 cents worth.

civilians with weapons don't have much choice as you all say.
how many catridges do we all carry to work?maybe 7 to 10 that too a small .22,.25,.32,compared to 9mm.
but still it can give us an oppurtunity to try than to go down meekly.
imagine,if there where more civilians with guns,it would have had some good outcome.
it is time that our MHA make some sensible precautions :train the police and even civilians to counter terrorism.more guns more safe.
regards

The terrorists operate on the principle of surprise -- ideally (from their perspective) nobody knows were they will strike. This counteracts the chief tactical advantage of the police/security: concentration of force. The idea of the police is that there aren't many of them, but they swarm like bees to outnumber a bad guy where there is trouble.

In both cases, the terrorists and the police are well armed. Both (again, ideally) have heavy firepower compared to a civilian carry weapon, perhaps body armor, and sophisticated communications. The police are (again, ideally) well trained, and it is increasingly common for terrorists to be well trained, as well.

The civilian who is carrying is not prepared for these kinds of situations by training, nor are they armed to take part in these situations, either. Communications wise, they may have a cellular or even perhaps a smart phone by which they can get broadcast or internet news, but they aren't tapped into a security-type communications network to coordinate their actions and firepower to defeat terrorists. Thus, they cannot concentrate their force, even if there are a lot of armed civilians.

If a civilian in this case can pop a terrorist, this is much more a matter of luck that it is a reliable tactic by which terrorists can be thwarted.

Take, for instance, Mister Average Rajan coming home from work and getting into a fracas in a train station, like Mumbai. Is he going to whip out his compact 9mm and drop two determined and trained terrorists armed with AK 47s and grenades? Perhaps, but not likely. Or, take Mr. Average Imran, sitting in his hotel room and going down with his wife to the Taj dining room. Is he going to whip out his handgun and do battle with a couple of AK 47 armed goons roaming the halls looking for some innocent citizens to shoot? Again, maybe, but most likely not.

This kind of stuff is, I think, largely and charitably fantasy. The intelligence services need to do their job. The police need to do their job. Our job when we, as private citizens carry, is to protect our life and the lives of our family from goons.

Pistol packing citizens are not going to defeat organized terror, nor are citizens armed with hunting rifles or the occasional AR15/AK semi-auto clone going to make a dream of the movie Red Dawn come true, no matter how much fantasizing goes on over such scenarios.

Going a bit further, in our quest for just and legal RKBA, I think it is possible to convince many reasonable people on the need to be able to protect ourselves, our families, and our homes from criminals. However, I seriously doubt that we will convince the average person on the street to agree to our RKBA ideas on the basis of our giving vigilante protection to society against armed terrorists. Very few reasonable people will "buy" such a pitch -- in fact, I don't either. I don't want to rely on my neighbors to quell a band of terrorists. I expect the government intelligence and security forces to do this.

An armed citizen can only hope to counter criminals looking for victims of opportunity.A rifle would also be mighty handy in case a riot breaks out.However,as Tim says,he/she can not hope to achieve much when pitted against terrorists.

No attack can be "prevented" where the attackers are well prepared for self destruction but surely the damage can be minimized by proper steps.

but still it can give us an oppurtunity to try than to go down meekly.

While it is true that terroists and security agencies work as well organised and co-ordinated groups but this does not mean that civillians should not be prepared to fight back and simply give themselves up, to die if faced with any kind of deadly attack. There are plenty of examples where civillians have not only killed but successfully repulsed attacks by organized gangs of criminals including terrorists etc. A latest example that was in the news is of Rukhsana Kausar who killed a LeT terrorist using an axe and injured another at her residence in Rajouri district and drove the rest of the gang away.

Yes it could have been prevented if our central and state machines were in order, which even today are not......

Even a cornered rat puts up a fight.........so will armed civilians....even if 25-30 people were armed in the hotels that were attacked. I am pretty certain the outcome would have been different.....

M.

It is difficult to agree that civilians cannot or are not supposed to defend themselves and the role is of State only. Village Defense Committees do play an important role in disturbed areas where armed civilians take responsibility to do vigil in and around their villages. The Punjab Village and Small Towns Patrol Act, 1918 is another example where armed villagers and small town residents do patrolling at night to thwart activity and movement of criminal elements.

Rukhsana had the element of surprise on her side when she came out of the hiding and attacked the terrorist (1 out of 3) with an axe. But she shot and killed him with an AK-47 that fell down. She also succeeded in injuring the second (2/3). He and the third one (3/3) panicked. Remember the terrorists had come only for her - she was kidnapped some weeks back. In all probability humiliated - we don't know the entire story - they had returned with whatever nefarious designs they had set for her. Good thinking on her and her bro's part they actually used a confined space of a room to their advantage killing one and catching the other two in a pincer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rukhsana_Kausar

Now when we are talking about preventing terrorist attacks,there are two scenario's

1)Preventing the attack itself from happening.

This is a total responsibility of Intelligence agencies more so of internal intelligence in our case the IB.Unless there is local support such an attack cannot be carried out,Pervez Musharraf himself said no insurgency can survive without some sort of support including local support in your enemy's land.In the 26/11 context such an attack was sort of hard to grasp as infil was through sea route though R&AW warned the coast guard.CIA and NSA with their technology,global presence couldnt prevent 9/11,MI5 & MI6 couldnt prevent the london bombings.It is very hard to trace such a thing being planned across the border in some sh*t-hole by 5-6 nutjobs.Now what we could have done I will illustrate in Scenario 2.

2)Attack has happened - Reacting Quick by local forces and preventing further damage.

Now once the attack has happened how can you prevent further damage.Simple well trained forces within the police that can react very quick and are on alert all the time.Considering 1993,2006 bombing,parliament and Akshardham attack if police in Metro's didnt have such forces then MHA and the state Home Affairs need to slap themselves real hard.Few examples of countries:

1)Countries much smaller than India facing terrorist threat.

-UK has 2 teams of SAS -red and blue under full alert for any attack like 26/11 or similar,the 1980 Iranian embassy siege was an amazing example of their performance.

-Germany has the GSG9 and France has the GIGN which can react real fast,both are not military forces.

2)Big countries

-USA has the SWAT and FBI HRT in almost every major state.

Now we all saw how the police reacted,they did so because they were complacent even with all that has happened in lieu of terrorist attacks on Indian Soil they didn't have a quick reaction force.They believed rather all police forces believe that NSG will handle it,how can they when they operate from a single base that cant cover such a big country,many said MARCOS could have come earlier but firstly they are a military Special Forces unit and unless the situation according to intel provided to them isnt justifiable and they are not permitted by authorities at high levels they just cant come in guns ablaze.We all saw how Mahrashtra Govt. and the Media initially reported as first that it was a gangwar and then in an hour that they believe upto 50 terrorists are present,even the terror handlers across the border were laughing on this when talking to the terrorists.

So as timmy sir mentioned civilians cant put down an organised terror attack as it means hours of gunfighting to last in requires strenous training,26/11 terrorists were very well trained because you need high level training to last 72 hours and also from some accounts when engaging police and NSG they changed their tactics and fired double taps like any well trained unit.What is needed is good police infrastructure but still RKBA is needed in countries with high terrorist threats.

-My 2 cents

xl_target wrote:

Turning loose a bunch of untrained people in a Mumbai situation may help, but it also could cause more trouble than it's worth.

As Tim points out training is a big issue. Throwing a bunch of armed civilians into the mix may or may not have the outcome that one wants. For example, if you have 15 people with gun permits and they have all have their guns out and are shooting, how do you tell who is a good guy and who is a bad guy?

Most people carry a gun to defend themselves and shouldn't consider themselves a replacement for police or paramilitary forces. However, part of the problem with the Mumbai incident is that there were police on the scene but they just sat tight, especially in CST. If you pull out a gun in a situation like that, what if the cops themselves decide that you are one of the terrorists and shoot you?

Firstly, the Civilians license application procedure has to have at least some brief training cum evaluation module having potential real life scenarios. There if you do not show maniacal or dumb tendencies and serious physical fitness issues; you should be good to go.
Secondly, if the cops have their senses working they would know who opened the fire first, who is firing indiscriminately through automatic rifle and who is replying through a semi auto pistol because he received fire in the first place.
If they didn't see or understand even that much, it ain't the civilian's fault.
Thirdly, IPC section 96 to 106 lay the responsibility on civilians to do what is necessary for private defense.

Regards,
Virendra