Indians For Guns

http://10news.dk/?p=760

Interpol: allowing citizens to carry guns in public is most effective way to prevent terror attacks
January 8, 2015 140151

How long would the jihadis at Charlie Hebdo, Westgate, Mumbai – and many other terror attacks to come – be able to continue killing if they were surrounded by armed citizens? Interpol states that the only way to stop such attacks is to allow citizens to carry arms (the only alternative to an armed citizenry is “extraordinary security” surrounding every area where many people meet – train stations, super markets, schools, etc. – which is of course completely unrealistic). If guns are illegal, only violent criminals, fanatic jihadis and our over-worked, understaffed police will have them.
In case you are unsure whether it is a good idea that citizens legally own firearms: Switzerland has very liberal gun laws and one of the lowest percentages of homicide in the world. Interesting statistics on guns, homicides and firearm related accidents in the US here.
From abcNEWS:

Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said today the U.S. and the rest of the democratic world is at a security crossroads in the wake of last month’s deadly al-Shabab attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya – and suggested an answer could be in arming civilians.
In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Noble said there are really only two choices for protecting open societies from attacks like the one on Westgate mall where so-called “soft targets” are hit: either create secure perimeters around the locations or allow civilians to carry their own guns to protect themselves.
“Societies have to think about how they’re going to approach the problem,” Noble said. “One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security.” …
Citing a recent call for al Qaeda “brothers to strike soft targets, to do it in small groups,” Noble said law enforcement is now facing a daunting task.
“How do you protect soft targets? That’s really the challenge. You can’t have armed police forces everywhere,” he told reporters. “It’s Interpol’s view that one way you protect soft targets is you make it more difficult for terrorist to move internationally. So what we’re trying to do is to establish a way for countries … to screen passports, which are a terrorist’s best friend, try to limit terrorists moving from country to country. And also, that we’re able to share more info about suspected terrorists.”
In the interview with ABC News, Noble was more blunt and directed his comments to his home country.
“Ask yourself: If that (Westgate terror attack) was Denver, Col., if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly?” Noble said, referring to states with pro-gun traditions. “What I’m saying is it makes police around the world question their views on gun control. It makes citizens question their views on gun control. You have to ask yourself, ‘Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past with an evolving threat of terrorism?’ This is something that has to be discussed.'”

http://10news.dk/?p=760

Brilliant article- its good to see people from well known government organizations finally advocating a pro gun policy Hopefully this thought process will percolate to other nations and the powers that be!

nice artical it is.

Why should the Police have all the fun ?
Even Citizens should be able to dispatch Terrorists. Please read the forum rules about language used here.-Moderator .

Poor London victims were throwing bottles at terrorists . Likewise Charlie Hebdo victims were simply " culled " . Even if someone is going to die , its far more easy to die while resisting . And certainly with far less remorse .

An old article discussed private gun ownership in india vis-a-vis mumbai terror attack . I was a fan of Mr Abhijeet ever since (of this forum ).
.
Strict Indian Gun Law Aided Mumbai Terrorists in Attack

By Sara Burrows | December 9, 2008 | 6:16 PM EST
(CNSNews.com) – India’s strict gun laws are partly to blame for the success of the terrorist attack in Mumbai, according to the head of an Indian gun rights group and a U.S. expert who has examined the impact of gun laws on crime and terrorism.

Abhijeet Singh, founder of Indians for Guns, told CNSNews.com Tuesday that if the citizens of Mumbai had been allowed to carry guns, terrorists would not have killed as many people as they did--and might have been deterred from attacking in the first place.

In last month’s Mumbai attack, when terrorists armed with AK-47 assault rifles took over two resort hotels, local residents, hotel security guards and even local police were caught empty-handed and unarmed.

“That’s because India’s gun laws make it nearly impossible for its citizens to own guns,” Singh said in a telephone interview from Delhi.

Singh said his group has long fought against the India Arms Act, which doesn’t bar all guns outright.

“On paper, pretty much anyone can apply for an arms license, but, at the end of the day, the grant of the license is completely at the discretion of the authorities,” Singh said.

Under rules added to the India Arms Act in 1983, the central government’s “licensing authority” can refuse to grant a license to anyone who is of “unsound mind,” who has been convicted of “any offence involving violence or moral depravity,” or who is “for any reason unfit for a license.”

Authorities, consequently, reject 95 percent of the applications they receive, Singh said.

“Half the time they won’t even receive applications, because they’ve exceeded their monthly quota,” he added. “They make it so tough that most people just give up.”

The result is a nearly unarmed population, Singh said.

American Enterprise Institute researcher John Lott, meanwhile, said he agrees with Singh that Mumbai may have avoided the bloodshed if its residents had been armed.

Unarmed populations, he said, are prime targets for mass shootings, and concealed-carry laws deter such incidents.

Lott, author of “More Guns Less Crime,” said that multiple-victim public shootings are much less likely to happen in places where people are allowed to carry concealed handguns – a conclusion he reached after conducting research on the topic at Yale and the University of Chicago.

In studying multiple-victim public shootings in the United States that occurred from 1977 through 1999, Lott said he found that the presence of armed law enforcement, while it may reduce the number of murders generally, typically had no effect on multiple-victim public shootings.

“This is because police are easily identified,” Lott said. “Terrorists either kill police first or wait until they leave the scene to attack.”

In Mumbai, police immediately hid from the two terrorists who ran through the Mumbai railway station, Singh said.

“The police officers’ excuse was that the terrorists had had fully-automatic AK’s, while they only had bolt-action rifles,” he added.

Lott, meanwhile, theorized that the police probably knew they would be first to get shot.

“That’s the benefit of concealed handguns,” he said. “At Virginia Tech, 500 people came into contact with the killer. If the killer had known a significant percentage of the people were carrying concealed handguns, he wouldn’t have known who to take out first. He would have wanted to take out the people who were armed, but he wouldn’t have known who they were.”

“Right-to-carry” laws are the only laws that have lessened the number and the severity of multiple-victim public shootings, according to his research.

When states change their laws to allow people to carry concealed handguns, these attacks decrease by 60 percent, and the number of people injured or killed in them drops 78 percent, Lott said.

The attacks that do occur overwhelmingly take place in the few areas people aren’t allowed to carry concealed handguns, like malls and college campuses, he said.

“In fact, every single multiple-victim public shooting in the United States, in which more than three people were killed, has taken place in an area where concealed handguns are not allowed,” he added.

Singh said he wonders what would have happened if even 10 percent of the thousands of people in the train station had been allowed to carry concealed handguns.

“There were only two armed terrorists, and no one had a single gun to fight them with,” he said.

“We’re talking about 500 people killed or wounded in one day. Even if we could have saved 200, that would be 200 more people going home to their families.”

Ironically, Singh quoted the Indian pacifist Mahatma Gandhi, who had strongly condemned India’s gun law, which stemmed from British colonial rule:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest," Gandhi wrote in his autobiography, “Gandhi: An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth.”
.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/str ... sts-attack

@Woods, thank you for your kind words

The Mumbai Attacks continue to haunt me.

Armed Citizens could have made a big big difference.

If you roll back to 2 attacks, one at Akshardham, where a armed relative of a politician fired back, as he was the only person carrying a weapon on the premise. Would have surprised the hell out of the attackers.

Also the time, when a off Duty Police Constable, in Haryana or Punjab? who boxed in the terrorists in a building and continued to fire upon them with whatever he could lay his hands on.

All this proves, that armed citizens can and will make a difference.

The Mumbai attackers knew they would meet no resistance from the General Populace, this only added to their audacity, and when the Men in Uniform failed, due to a complete lack of weapons and a support system, it was no holds barred.

Mumbai's day of reckoning has been forgotten, I just read some weeks ago that after 9 years, finally the Bullet Proof vests had arrived.

Jump over to London, where the police responded in 8 Minutes and gunned down the attackers. Im not a expert on UK Gun Laws, but it seems it is as restrictive in terms of conceal carry, but at least the police was adequately prepared to respond.

The way things are today, carrying a knife could land you in trouble. Its the mindset, the whole thing with weapons being Taboo, must change at a fundamental level IMHO. One can only dream I guess.

RKBA arms is a fight we should not ever give up on.

Regards,
-P

pistolero wrote:when the Men in Uniform failed, due to a complete lack of weapons and a support system, it was no holds barred.

Local police did have weapons, SMLE rifles, but many preferred to run away instead of fighting. One policeman did fire after taking a position but missed to hit his target and then most probably his limited quota of ammunition must have got exhausted or the attackers run away to safety. Not surprising because they hardly practice shooting. Just as it is said bad workman blames his tools, similarly the corrupt and incompetent bureaucracy gives excuse of lack of "proper weapons" or blaming SMLE rifles, as official response when confronted with unpleasant questions.

GBM do you honestly believe that the SMLE is correct match up against a Full Auto Assault Rifle?

I agree the police ran away, they could have presented a semblance of a challenge, but with Constables with a yearly quota of 50 Rounds, and with limited ammunition, I dont expect much. Sure its the man behind the gun. But the average local arms constable, is not that man.

That is why I rather be armed and defend myself than depend on them

pistolero wrote:GBM do you honestly believe that the SMLE is correct match up against a Full Auto Assault Rifle?

While technically the SMLEs may not be exact match to AK 47s and the like but SMLEs cannot be underestimated when in skilled hands. If you are in proper defensive position, all you need is one proper shot placement from your SMLE to put down the attacker with an AK 47. The SMLE is mighty capable of delivering this much. This is precisely the policemen could have easily done when the attackers were roaming around before beginning their "business".

It is with SMLEs the two world wars have been fought, also during those times there were full autos, like machine guns. Nobody complained how they can match up against machine guns with SMLEs. There are accounts when rapid fire from SMLEs were mistaken by German troops as machine gun volleys.

Also when former Soviet Union was in Afghanistan, the Afghan Mujaheddin were also using SMLEs against the Soviets. SMLEs may not have been ideal but they did play their role in producing results.

Arming the citizens to fight terrorists is a good idea.However, in a country like India it needs to be implemented after considerable deliberaions as many complex issues are involved. The citizen is not expected to have a straight confrontation with the terrorists. That work needs to be carried out by trained security personnel.Dependable citizens can be armed to act as first line of defence, so that they can contain the movement of the terrorists till the arrival of the security personnel.Such action can be taken by citizens armed with normal handguns and bolt action rifles. Automatics in the hand of civilian population may pose many new problems.In India to start with the Government should insist that all private security guards employed by various organisations /companies/business establishments etc should be armed with rifles rather than DBBL and SBBL shotguns.It should also be ensured that only ex servicemen be employed for such jobs. There is also a need to educate the ordinary citizens about their right of self defence. This can be done by the Government only.
Simply arming the citizen without making them aware of their legal rigts relating to self defence as well as community's defence will not be of much use as few people will be ready to use firearms due to the fear of future legal complications.

indiaone wrote:The citizen is not expected to have a straight confrontation with the terrorists.

It is not the citizen who decides whom to confront or attack. It is always the criminals(terrorists or whatever label one may give) who always decide when and whom to confront and attack. They always prefer soft targets and civilians are always the soft target. What can you do when under violent life threatening criminal attack? Either run for safety, or beg for your life or exercise your human right of self defense to attack with full force at your disposal. Last option makes sense only if you are adequately armed. It is a matter of basic human rights. How much does the government of India respect your human rights in this matter?

indiaone wrote:Such action can be taken by citizens armed with normal handguns and bolt action rifles. Automatics in the hand of civilian population may pose many new problems.

Pistols are semi automatics, they are not a problem. Similarly semi automatic rifles should not be a problem.

Hello Indiaone,

Considerable Deliberation is the problem. We as a nation have continued to deliberate, and while we are deliberating, we will continue to be sitting ducks.

As I mentioned earlier, weapons are considered Taboo. That is the Crux of the problems. Colonial hangover relating to arms act, has ensured that citizens will continue to be sheep the slaughter.

Im not advocating handing out Automatic Weapons. But just basic weapons! Pistols, Semi Auto's! And yes higher calibers in pistols 9mm/40/45's so that we have definite stopping power.

More than that, I would say that there is a need to educate the general populace about Weapons/Arms in general, and how they are an ally and not a liability. Until we are able to successfully do this. I dare say, we will continue to be in this rut.

Regards,
-P

Added in 21 minutes 47 seconds:
Hi GBM,

Im not really sure of the SMLE in Urban CQB.

Points to Consider:

1) Police Mindset (Inferior Weapons, Lack of Training, Low Morale, awareness that their weapons are outdated, no vests!)
2) Rapid suppression fire, ensuring that Police is more in Flight rather than fight mode
3) Attackers were graduates of LET's "Daura e Khas" training regime, high on religious fervor, strong self belief & motivated.
4) ATS officers, Pride of Mumbai Police gunned down in early encounters, leaving rank and file to doubt themselves even further

Doubt that any constable could put well placed shots down range. Doubt if rifles are zeroed. Doubt if they even know how to adjust their aim. Doubt if they can achieve that rapid rate of fire, as mentioned by you. (Have seen video's can be done, but I dont think they are the ones to do it, and again what happens after the first 10 rounds are gone?)

Almost a decade later, regrettably things are not too different. Constabulary (Local Arms Division) continue to field, SMLE. If nothing given them the INSAS/AMOGH atleast! Sure few weapons were purchased, but a complete shakeup is required. You dont see UK or French/European police respond with SMLE's or other WW2 era weapons.

Anyway im starting to babble.

Till the next time

Regards,
-P

pistolero wrote:Im not really sure of the SMLE in Urban CQB.

The SMLE may not be compared with AK 47 in urban close quarter combat. The real question is did the policemen use their SMLEs in a manner well trained policemen would have used their SMLEs? The answer is a big no. Forget about even firing the SMLEs, many just started fleeing from the scene while the attackers were trying to settle down to begin their "work". Even if they had AK 47s, probably they would have preferred to flee than fight.

About ATS officers of Mumbai Police gunned down in early encounters, it appears to be a totally different topic of discussion altogether. There is a book Who Killed Karkare by SM Mushrif, former Inspector General of Police, Maharashtra. While I have not read the book but after reading the reviews and comments about the book on internet, it appears their deaths due to some kind of mysterious elements taking advantage of the situation. Would not like to discuss that topic here, those interested may search the internet for "Who Killed Karkare by SM Mushrif".