Can one have right of private defence without possessing arms ?

[gwattal]

Awadhesh Kumar on the right of private defence.

[sourabhsangale]

Yes !

[Shooterlike]

yes

[sapra.aayush]

This Guy is a gem.
yes you can use any lethal force proportional to what of attack.
like you can not/ should not use a firearm if you are not in a fist fight.
but you can use any amount of force in a home/ self/ family /attack/ trespassing scenario.
or if there are multiple people, you can use your firearm
but remember proportional use of force.

[StampMaster]

Some of the scenarios come into picture:

1. When the opponent has weapon like- knife, axe, gun etc which can kill you one blow. That also includes acid.
2. When 3 or more. But I would say 5 people or more attack you.
3. When you are being kidnapped or used force to abduction for ransom or rape.

[Woods]

If we're talking about the law then please go through Section 96 to section 106 of the Indian penal code . It will fairly dispel any ambiguity regarding the right , extent and when the right is NOT available . Please Google and check out the same . Secondly , our courts have evolved a concept of " not weighing in the golden scale " ie the actions of the person exercising his right of private defence will not be weighed or evaluated in minute parity with the actions of the assailants.

If the question presupposes that a person can not excercise his right of private defence when he is deprived of suitable arms , then it's true in most of the situations. Even if you're as physically powerful as your assailants , they will be acting with premeditated line of action whilst you will have to act on the spur of that moment only .

It needs to be said again and again that the real spirit behind RKBA was a firearm being a great equaliser .

[MAGNUM]

Just curious to know , even in face of gravest threat / multiple invaders what would be the legal repurcussion if one uses a non licenced/ illegal firearm in self defense .

[nagarifle]

all this is mumbo jommbo, when your life or life of your loved ones is at stake, how far are you willing to go? should be the question. not what some law says. saying this must point out that i am not saying you can break the law, what i am saying is what price are you willing to pay to safe guard yourself and loved ones from harm or death? remember 6 feet under no reprieve- 60 years in jail is lots of opurinuty for getting out. please don't quote me to the law.

[Woods]

all this is mumbo jommbo, when your life or life of your loved ones is at stake, how far are you willing to go? should be the question. not what some law says. saying this must point out that i am not saying you can break the law, what i am saying is what price are you willing to pay to safe guard yourself and loved ones from harm or death? remember 6 feet under no reprieve- 60 years in jail is lots of opurinuty for getting out. please don't quote me to the law.

Well said