Indians For Guns

Folks - please pardon me. For me this is going to be more of a theoretical debate in which I seek to educate myself about views so that I can be an informed spokesperson in India if a more liberal arms possession system can be encouraged at some time in the future. The idea is to have all the theory sorted out so that stupid arguments are not made by those who support RKBA - akin to the Karnataka legislator who thinks rapes can be avoided if mobile phones are banned.

Let me start with some basic truisms and propositions.

A firearm is a lethal weapon.

No one should carry a weapon simply to feel secure. A person with a weapon must be ready to use it and a person with a firearm must be considered a person who is ready to use his firearm. A person who carries a weapon for self confidence needs self confidence, not a weapon.

If you exclude shooting sportspersons and members of the military or police forces, the only people who might want to carry firearms are
1. Those who want to carry a firearm for self protection (the majority)
2. Those who want to carry a firearm to harm or kill someone (a minority)

Given that carrying a firearm is a characteristic of only the two groups named above, what would the best law be, open carry or concealed carry?

1. Carriage a firearm for self defence
A person carrying a firearm for self defence who conceals his weapon is not advertising the fact that he is armed. This is desirable if he is simply attending a social funtion or going about his work, where it does not do to go around displaying a firearm. It also protects him against people who might want to attack him, grab his firearm and run away. This has happened even to police officers in India who were carrying a handgun in a holster.

On the downside, a potential mugger who might wish to choose an easy target and who might avoid an armed person might hit a concealed carry weapon bearer. A mugger armed with a gun, machete or club may not allow time for a concealed weapon to be withdrawn, rendering such carriage pointless.

Open carry, if mandated by law, means that a weapon must always be displayed in the open. That means a person who has a handgun has to decide beforehand whether he is going someplace where he can display his firearm in the open as demanded by law. This may not be advisable if he is attanding a marriage or other social function, or even if he is simply going to a supemarket. The choice is his of course, as long as the law mandates that open carry is essential.

When a man carries a weapon in the open, it is an open signal that he is armed and that anyone who confronts him or provokes him has to be willing to face being shot. In fact this may moderate behaviour a bit, but people will not necessarily like it because they will see it as unncessary intimidation. The simple every day act of bargaining for a price in a market can appear like coercion from an armed man who may simply be a law abiding citizen.

2. Carrying a firearm with intent to intimidate or murder
There will undoubtedly be people who will want to carry an firearm to intimidate, rob or murder. For these people concealed carry is a gift. It is legal permission to appear unarmed while he is armed and preparing to commit an illegal act. No one will have noticed any armed man entering or leaving the site of a crime.

If the law mandates that open carry is the only option, even potemtial law breakers will have to carry their weapons out in the open ensuring that they are visible and noticeable. Of course, if they are intending to break the law, they will conceal their weapon, but they will get held up at choke points where security is higher (hotels, malls, theatres, public functions in India) and they can get booked for the illegal act of carrying a concealed weapon.

It appears to me that open carry is a good option because it encourages law abiding people to show that they are armed. They would be law breakers for concealing a weapon. This would not stop criminals, but it would allow many changes in society.

For example unarmed people may decide to avoid establishments that are frequented by armed people (even if they are law abiding) simply because it scares them. That might encourage establishments like restaurants, hotels, hospitals and malls to disallow armed people. Law abiding people would then not carry arms into such places. Concealed carry people who are breaking an open carry law would have to be checked at the entrance.

A question that arises from all this is "What about the right of self defence of the people who are carrying arms?". If they are not allowed to carry arms then their rights are being trodden upon. This requires some debate. Do people have a right to be unarmed and not feel intimidated by armed people. Do unarmed people have a right to know that there are armed people about so that they can make a choice of avoiding that place?

Please post views on the issue.

It's too morning in Toronto and before going into long discussions I try to explain
in simple terms.

People number 1 needs the firearms (not lethal weapon) to proect themselves from people 2 !!!

Hammerhead wrote: People number 1 needs the firearms (not lethal weapon) to proect themselves from people 2 !!!

Of course, and it is their right.

But there is a group 3 of people who do not possess firearms. They too have a right to protect themselves from people 2, who have a firearm and intend to use it to do harm.

What legislation could help group 3 make an intelligent decision? I have said that open carry woud let everyone know who is carrying a firarm and people without firearms could choose to keep out of the way. With concealed carry, no person of unarmed group 3 would know who is armed and who is not armed and he is unarmed any way.

Even people in group 1, who need to protect themselves from criminal group 2 could benfit from open carry. As I stated earlier, of a criminal conceals a weapon when the law mandates open carry, no one can save himself. Not even an armed person.

The big advantage of open carry is that people with criminal intent also would be forced to carry their weapons in the open or break the law by concealing their weapons. That means that they would be breaking the aw even before using the weapons

If you have a group of 10 people, and 9 of them are law abiding and one intends to be a criminal, you will never know who is a criminal until that tenth person uses his weapon. But at least, with open carry you can see who has a weapons and choose to either ready one's own weapon or simply leave the area. If people conceal a weapon illegally, the law enforcement apparatus needs to get them before they use their weapon. Everyone should be able to carry his weapons open in public, without shame or need to conceal.

Bennedose: Some questions about your proposals...

Of course, if they are intending to break the law, they will conceal their weapon, but they will get held up at choke points where security is higher (hotels, malls, theatres, public functions in India) and they can get booked for the illegal act of carrying a concealed weapon.

How many "choke points" do you envision facilitating?
How many people will be required to staff these choke ponts?
Where will the funds to maintain these choke points come from?
How will you counter the argument that this funding and staffing could be used more efficiently in support of other crime prevention and law enforcement programs?

The big advantage of open carry is that people with criminal intent also would be forced to carry their weapons in the open or break the law by concealing their weapons. That means that they would be breaking the aw even before using the weapons.

You make this summary for your arguments for open carry vs. concealed carry. It seems to me that closing the case here on the basis of your arguments is premature. Even assuming your arguments are correct, or even that your proposal is, minimally, the best policy, is it reasonable to assume it can be reliably implemented without considering the overall public opinion?

Or, do you have data showing that the public would prefer open vs concealed carry?

As I follow your reasoning, you appear to propose one of two options: that every legal gun owner may carry open, or that any legal gun owner mar carry concealed. Is this correct?

If so, I would observe that some governments have a licensed concealed carry permit system, where any legal gun owner may apply for a concealed carry permit after completing training, or without training, or under other variations of an administered concealed carry program. Is there any reason why your discussion only presented two alternatives, without mentioning these?

timmy wrote: How many "choke points" do you envision facilitating?
How many people will be required to staff these choke ponts?
Where will the funds to maintain these choke points come from?
How will you counter the argument that this funding and staffing could be used more efficiently in support of other crime prevention and law enforcement programs?

I cannot speak for any country other than India. Indian cities already have checkpoints/ chokepoints at hotels, malls, clubs, temples and theaters and at entry points to public functions for which temporary arrangements have been made. In fact these checkpoints serve as a great employment opportunity for young migrants to cities who need employment - such as Assamese and Bihari youth in Bangalore

You make this summary for your arguments for open carry vs. concealed carry. It seems to me that closing the case here on the basis of your arguments is premature. Even assuming your arguments are correct, or even that your proposal is, minimally, the best policy, is it reasonable to assume it can be reliably implemented without considering the overall public opinion?

It is open to debate. I have stated things that came to mind. If anyone has anything different to say - I would be happy to hear it.

As I follow your reasoning, you appear to propose one of two options: that every legal gun owner may carry open, or that any legal gun owner mar carry concealed. Is this correct?

If so, I would observe that some governments have a licensed concealed carry permit system, where any legal gun owner may apply for a concealed carry permit after completing training, or without training, or under other variations of an administered concealed carry program. Is there any reason why your discussion only presented two alternatives, without mentioning these?

If some governments allow such licenses I would like to know more about the criteria they use. I am not laying down rules here. I am stating opinions based on what I know and I am hardly claiming that I know everything. I have still not seen many arguments that explain why everyone who has a right to carry a firearm should not openly show up front that he is armed. Since most people with guns are law abiding citizens I would like to know why this would be a problem. Like I said - this might maximally inconvenience a person who intends to shoot someone.

As Bennedose mentions, this is for a situation:

if a more liberal arms possession system can be encouraged at some time in the future

My view is that if liberal gun laws are the law (no pun intended!), then there should be no question of intimidation. I am assuming a very liberal interpretation of the word "liberal" here - in that while loosening the laws, steps will be taken to ensure that the werewithal to purchase a firearm does not remain with the top 2% income stratum of the population. In that scenario, an armed customer (probably) bargains with an armed seller. So where's the intimidation?

I would opine for concealed carry (of course practically possible only for handguns), because in that case, the aforementioned customer will have no idea whether the seller is armed, and hence the chances are that he will play it safe and negotiate assuming that the seller is "packing heat". Same with the seller.

Taking an example of a commonly-quoted case, would Manu Sharma have shot Jessica Lal if he was unsure whether 50% of the people in the bar were packing heat? In the current scenario, he probably knew, even if sloshed, that apart from him and his cronies, the bar was a "gun free zone"!

Liberal laws also assume no "gun free" zones. As has been amply proved in the shootout cases in the US and other places, a "no gun" policy is more an invitation to criminal (or psycho) shooters than a deterrent.

On the introduction on choke points, my personal experience is that the rent-a-cops aka security guards simply go through the motions. Period. Case in point - I always, always manage to walk into malls with a Victorinox with a zillion blades (I don't even try that in fancy hotels). I was once carrying my 18" blade Tramontina machete in the boot of my car, in a duct tape sheath, with the handle visible. I totally forgot about it till I opened the boot for the mall rent-a-cop to check. Nothing. No alarms, no screaming sirens. Even the "handbag check" means opening the main zipper and taking a peek. What if my laptop has had it's innards replaced with Semtex H?

What else do you expect when you rely on (almost) uneducated and entirely untrained workers, migrant or otherwise? Just wearing a uniform doesn't make anyone off the streets into a good security guard! Moreover, many malls (at least in India) are struggling to make bottomline, in which situation we can't even expect them to hire proper people (even if such people were widely available).

And for the illegal users of lethal weapons, study after study has shown that more crimes are committed (even in the US) with illegal firearms rather than legal ones. So, the guy already has committed a crime - possession of an illegal weapon. He is about to commit a second, more serious crime - murder or attempt to murder - which can land him either at the end of a rope or behind bars for a long, long time. Can we assume that this person will suddenly become law abiding halfway down and abide by carry laws?

And if someone is hell bent on causing mayhem, like the terrorists in Mumbai, any attempt to introduce choke points will likely result in lots of bodies - of the sadly untrained, but magnificently uniformed poor rent-a-cops.

For the person in group 1, trying to protect himself and his family from those in group 2, concealed carry seems to be the best option, of course in a situation where the ideal laws and availability exist.

bennedose wrote:

timmy wrote: How many "choke points" do you envision facilitating?
How many people will be required to staff these choke ponts?
Where will the funds to maintain these choke points come from?
How will you counter the argument that this funding and staffing could be used more efficiently in support of other crime prevention and law enforcement programs?

I cannot speak for any country other than India. Indian cities already have checkpoints/ chokepoints at hotels, malls, clubs, temples and theaters and at entry points to public functions for which temporary arrangements have been made. In fact these checkpoints serve as a great employment opportunity for young migrants to cities who need employment - such as Assamese and Bihari youth in Bangalore

Fair enough, but the question regarding what you have in mind specifically and practically has not yet been answered.

Of course we are dealing with India -- that is what you postulated at the beginning of the thread.

I point out that your intended list of checkpoints could well run into many millions.

I note that if a choke point is to be staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by even one person, and cover the checkpoint when someone is off sick, etc, that will require a number of people just for one choke point.

I also note that each of these people will need to undergo some kind of training, to enable them to counter potentially dangerous people trying to smuggle in a concealed weapon.

A further question arises as to whether, and if so, how, these people will be armed.

Furthermore, provision must be made for administering the whole program, which will mean a fairly extensive staff.

All of this will take a great deal of money. The first question anyone will ask regarding an RKBA proposal -- especially an opponent of RKBA -- is, "Where will the money come from?"

Unless we can answer this question, I don't think he proposal will go any further in real life.

bennedose wrote:

timmy wrote: You make this summary for your arguments for open carry vs. concealed carry. It seems to me that closing the case here on the basis of your arguments is premature. Even assuming your arguments are correct, or even that your proposal is, minimally, the best policy, is it reasonable to assume it can be reliably implemented without considering the overall public opinion?

It is open to debate. I have stated things that came to mind. If anyone has anything different to say - I would be happy to hear it.

I understand that the question is open to debate, and we all know that, when any proposal is aired publicly, it will be debated, especially by the public.

My question only seeks to remind that, without a large body of public approval, whatever plan we may propose must gain the support of such a body.

bennedose wrote:

timmy wrote: As I follow your reasoning, you appear to propose one of two options: that every legal gun owner may carry open, or that any legal gun owner mar carry concealed. Is this correct?

If so, I would observe that some governments have a licensed concealed carry permit system, where any legal gun owner may apply for a concealed carry permit after completing training, or without training, or under other variations of an administered concealed carry program. Is there any reason why your discussion only presented two alternatives, without mentioning these?

If some governments allow such licenses I would like to know more about the criteria they use. I am not laying down rules here. I am stating opinions based on what I know and I am hardly claiming that I know everything. I have still not seen many arguments that explain why everyone who has a right to carry a firearm should not openly show up front that he is armed. Since most people with guns are law abiding citizens I would like to know why this would be a problem. Like I said - this might maximally inconvenience a person who intends to shoot someone.

I believe that a number of sites, perhaps such as the US NRA, will have some description of concealed carry programs. It sounds like a study of the subject is what you are proposing.

bennedose wrote:Folks - please pardon me. For me this is going to be more of a theoretical debate in which I seek to educate myself about views so that I can be an informed spokesperson in India if a more liberal arms possession system can be encouraged at some time in the future. The idea is to have all the theory sorted out so that stupid arguments are not made by those who support RKBA - akin to the Karnataka legislator who thinks rapes can be avoided if mobile phones are banned.

Let me start with some basic truisms and propositions.

A firearm is a lethal weapon.

No one should carry a weapon simply to feel secure. A person with a weapon must be ready to use it and a person with a firearm must be considered a person who is ready to use his firearm. A person who carries a weapon for self confidence needs self confidence, not a weapon.

If you exclude shooting sportspersons and members of the military or police forces, the only people who might want to carry firearms are
1. Those who want to carry a firearm for self protection (the majority)
2. Those who want to carry a firearm to harm or kill someone (a minority)

Given that carrying a firearm is a characteristic of only the two groups named above, what would the best law be, open carry or concealed carry?

The best law would be no law restricting the carry of firearms.

re: concerning the topic - Concealed Carry versus Open Carry

Every time I read about this debate, I'm always struck by one thing.
One side usually wants to tell the other side what they should do and then enumerates a number of reasons why they should "do as I do".

While I personally don't open carry, it doesn't bother me (and doesn't concern me) when other people choose to open carry.
Like religion, sexual orientation, choice of diet, etc ; I couldn't care less what someone else does. In fact, I think it's none of my business what someone else does.

I also don't think there is anything to debate here. If someone want to carry his gun a certain way, why is it any of my business?
If I like red cars, why is it any of my business if my neighbor chooses to buy a blue car?
If you're a believer in freedom of choice, then you should believe that every other person should be allowed to decide what to do and what that other person does is none of your business.
It is only people who want to dictate to or control another person, to tell them what they should do, who feel there is anything to debate.

You may choose to disagree with what I have said above and it doesn't matter to me as that is your choice.
You have every right to hold that opinion and I am totally indifferent to the fact that you hold that particular opinion.

In a situation where anyone can carry a firearm I believe open carry should be mandated by law, with concealed carry requiring a permit.

bennedose wrote:In a situation where anyone can carry a firearm I believe open carry should be mandated by law, with concealed carry requiring a permit.

Laws do not mandate what you can do, laws define criminal behavior or restrict your rights.

Open carry is legal and common here in the Great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and there is no law mandating it or even addressing it.

Commonwealth_of_PA wrote:

bennedose wrote:Folks - please pardon me. For me this is going to be more of a theoretical debate in which I seek to educate myself about views so that I can be an informed spokesperson in India if a more liberal arms possession system can be encouraged at some time in the future. The idea is to have all the theory sorted out so that stupid arguments are not made by those who support RKBA - akin to the Karnataka legislator who thinks rapes can be avoided if mobile phones are banned.

Let me start with some basic truisms and propositions.

A firearm is a lethal weapon.

No one should carry a weapon simply to feel secure. A person with a weapon must be ready to use it and a person with a firearm must be considered a person who is ready to use his firearm. A person who carries a weapon for self confidence needs self confidence, not a weapon.

If you exclude shooting sportspersons and members of the military or police forces, the only people who might want to carry firearms are
1. Those who want to carry a firearm for self protection (the majority)
2. Those who want to carry a firearm to harm or kill someone (a minority)

Given that carrying a firearm is a characteristic of only the two groups named above, what would the best law be, open carry or concealed carry?

The best law would be no law restricting the carry of firearms.

I agree with this, if the state has the right to bear arms, then so must the citizens. Otherwise, we are just inferior to the state and are second class citizens. What is banned for the citizens must also be banned for the state and vice-versa.

Part of the problem is that you cannot legislate away crime.
You can make all the laws you want but criminals won't follow them, only the law abiding will.
When crime goes up, politicians usually choose to pass more laws.
As our friend from PA points out, it further ties the hands of the law abiding.

Dear All,

I prefer to 'Open Carry' my weapons and have experienced the advantages of doing the same. I would like to share my experience with you..

We all have heard about 'Road Rage' cases in NCR. I was reversing my car out of a parking slot in the market and being a big car (Tata Safari) I reverse with the help of rear view mirrors and the rear sensors. As is the habit of people around here they try to rush in to park, not bothering about other vehicles.
Well this well built young fellow with a girl friend or newly married wife tried to rush past my reversing car. The reversing sensor of my car suddenly gave an alarm that I was too close and the fellow also started honking. I had to apply my brakes violently to avoid a collision. This fellow came out shouting at me after seeing an old man (52 years and no hare dye) to impress the lady sitting with him. I also reacted with a comment that while reversing he should not have tried to rush in behind a reversing car or have a revolving red light on the roof of his car. But when I got out of my car both these people saw my revolver hanging on my belt. This sight deflated the fellow and the lady literally pushed him back into the car and they drove off.
Now I feel that I would easily have got beaten by the young fellow (besides my grey hair I am out of shape also) if he really was in a foul mood or just to impress the lady. In this situation if I had a concealed weapon I would have had to draw my gun which could have lead to 'threatening with a deadly weapon' and an unpleasant situation with the cops. Therefore, by open carry the problem got solved without any threat from my side.

DISADVANTAGE

The disadvantage is that nobody is comfortable with their neighbor walking around with a revolver hanging on his belt and sometimes with an additional Rifle or DBBL in his hand.

Regards