Indians For Guns

The current laws and other acts/orders governing civilian ownership of arms and ammunition in India are undoubtedly flawed. I see no reason for:
> PB and NPB classification in an independent, sovereign State where members of the armed forces are volunteers from the civilian population
> Not granting licences for long guns to every applicant of legal age and sound mind for the purpose of competition sports
> Ridiculous restrictions like 50 cartridges per year, depositing during elections etc

Hunting being banned in India, the only two practical reasons for arms ownership are competition sports and self defence. Lets keep aside for a moment the advisability of owning firearms for self defence (although I support it). Lets also please be honest, any reliably functioning firearm that goes bang when the trigger is pulled is more than enough for self defence. Even the most dyed-in-the-wool IOF bashers would agree that IOF products are not ornamental paperweights.

High quality firearms are a requirement for competitive sports, if only to enable the shooters to perform to their potential. Shooters who have demonstrated their skills by achieving MQS in national competition are allowed to import high quality firearms. Those who are not so skilled, but wish to own such high quality firearms can buy (after 5 years?) the imported-by-renowned-shots at market price. If my information is correct, shooting clubs are allowed to import firearms, so that is an avenue for those who are serious about wanting to improve their skills. For the fortunate beginner with deep pockets, the option of buying from a renowned shot is always open. Those who just want to own a firearm, any firearm, have the IOF, legal cottage industry products, trickle down new imports and decades old firearms to choose from.

What I see here is that the system (with other unrelated flaws) by restricting import of firearms, rewards achievement. A rare thing in India! What is wrong with that?

so you mean we all have to perform with a second hand gun to compete and iof pistol is reliable firearm and approve the indian meritocraZy?

Rahul,

I beg to disagree with the latter part of your post (except the three points on the top). The situation today vis-a-vis guns is more or less similar to the situation which obtained vis-a-vis automobiles a few decades ago. What we had then were 2 rejected models - a Fiat-rejected design, known as Premier Padmini, and a Morris-rejected design, known as Ambassador, these too, produced under license in limited numbers. Of course, the deep pocketed ones could always pay the obscene amounts of duty (official and unofficial) and import Mercedeses and whatnot. And slightly less deep pockets could buy the same after a few years.

That system too "rewarded" merit - if you (or your forefathers) were "meritorious" enough to have a fat bank balance, you got the "reward", others had to make do with Bajaj Super (another lousy product!), or Hero Cycles (ditto).

The larger numbers of firearms are required for self defense, not for sport. In this country, very few people have the werewithal to seriously pursue any sport, even cricket, not to mention shooting, which is far more expensive. The IOF revolvers wouldn't stand you in good stead in case you are attacked by someone with even a clone Kalashnikov. You need to have serious power with you. Something which will enable one-shot-one-kill. Not a .32. Something you can rely on to eject the projectile at high speed, ensure (to the extent of the shooters skill) that the projectile hits the target, and the impact injures that target enough to disable him for the duration. Just "going bang" won't help. In that case, a Diwali banger toy gun would do the job as well!

Now coming to sports, how many cricketers we would produce, if all people had for practice in their initial, formative years (before they became "renowned cricketers") were 5-year-old hand-me-down bats and balls? And that too these hand-me-downs were priced at "market"! With the "market" for firearms being what it is in India, "market" too frequently means "whatever is asked for". Look at the prices of just a good airgun, even on this forum. Can a pre-renown shooter even begin to afford the second hand stuff?

Even if a shooter manages to earn "renown" by begging and borrowing, will he be earning enough to enable to purchase a new import, after paying all the duties? Please remember, Mr. Abhinav Bindra's family could afford to spend average Rs. 1 Crore per annum on his shooting (ref. interview given by senior Mr. Bindra after the son's Olympic performance).

In my opinion, whatever little it counts for, free market is the basic requirement for progress. Be it firearms, or automobiles.

Sorry for the rather verbose response.

Cheers!

EssDee

What next? Someone wishing to buy a decent car (& reasonable quantities of petrol) will have to qualify in F1 racing championships?

essdee1972 wrote:Rahul,

I beg to disagree with the latter part of your post (except the three points on the top). The situation today vis-a-vis guns is more or less similar to the situation which obtained vis-a-vis automobiles a few decades ago. What we had then were 2 rejected models - a Fiat-rejected design, known as Premier Padmini, and a Morris-rejected design, known as Ambassador, these too, produced under license in limited numbers. Of course, the deep pocketed ones could always pay the obscene amounts of duty (official and unofficial) and import Mercedeses and whatnot. And slightly less deep pockets could buy the same after a few years.

That system too "rewarded" merit - if you (or your forefathers) were "meritorious" enough to have a fat bank balance, you got the "reward", others had to make do with Bajaj Super (another lousy product!), or Hero Cycles (ditto).

The larger numbers of firearms are required for self defense, not for sport. In this country, very few people have the werewithal to seriously pursue any sport, even cricket, not to mention shooting, which is far more expensive. The IOF revolvers wouldn't stand you in good stead in case you are attacked by someone with even a clone Kalashnikov. You need to have serious power with you. Something which will enable one-shot-one-kill. Not a .32. Something you can rely on to eject the projectile at high speed, ensure (to the extent of the shooters skill) that the projectile hits the target, and the impact injures that target enough to disable him for the duration. Just "going bang" won't help. In that case, a Diwali banger toy gun would do the job as well!

Now coming to sports, how many cricketers we would produce, if all people had for practice in their initial, formative years (before they became "renowned cricketers") were 5-year-old hand-me-down bats and balls? And that too these hand-me-downs were priced at "market"! With the "market" for firearms being what it is in India, "market" too frequently means "whatever is asked for". Look at the prices of just a good airgun, even on this forum. Can a pre-renown shooter even begin to afford the second hand stuff?

Even if a shooter manages to earn "renown" by begging and borrowing, will he be earning enough to enable to purchase a new import, after paying all the duties? Please remember, Mr. Abhinav Bindra's family could afford to spend average Rs. 1 Crore per annum on his shooting (ref. interview given by senior Mr. Bindra after the son's Olympic performance).

In my opinion, whatever little it counts for, free market is the basic requirement for progress. Be it firearms, or automobiles.

Sorry for the rather verbose response.

Cheers!

EssDee

well said abhijeet.

Dr. Jayakumar, I didnt mean to tell anyone what to do. I am only saying that the present system, although flawed, does have one positive side.
EssDee, thank you for the points you made. If one was attaked by goons with Kalashnikov clones, even the Pfeifer Zeliska .600 Nitro Express revolver is not going to help. Unlike other consumer items, firearms happen to be one of the most governed items in almost all countries of the world. Its not really fair - or correct - to compare car options or cricket equipment options to firearms options. Japan has a very simple civilian gun control law - no one shall posess a firearm. Very few exceptions are made. That does not stop Japan from being the leading producer of all kinds of high quality products. As for firearms, almost all Browning rifles and shotguns are made by Miroku in Japan. Civilian firearm ownership laws are equally restrictive in China, they even have the death penalty for illegal posession or sale of firearms! But Chinese shooters are not found lacking in competitions. Lastly, shooting sports anywhere are expensive. Despite the costs, Indian shooters have performed admirably. Not all of them have deep pockets. Seema Tomar is a shining example.
Mundaire, you are comparing apples to mushrooms
Dont get me wrong, I am strongly pro-gun ownership. I just dont understand what practical need is served by an imported rifle / shotgun that is designed for hunting? Imports for sports are justified, even required - and allowed.

full_circle wrote: Dont get me wrong, I am strongly pro-gun ownership. I just dont understand what practical need is served by an imported rifle / shotgun that is designed for hunting?

Oh! Ah Ha!

Hi Full_Circle
Now then, its all in the FEEEEEEL, the BALANCE, the CRAFTMANSHIP, the PRIDE of ownership of a piece of metal and wood, which has been worked upon with passion, skill, and years, years of devoted research till such time it ceases to be just a piece of metal and wood, and begins to exude a personality of its own. Why does one prefer the SIngle Malt to the blended bullshit? Thats because one has acquired the taste for it, you roll it over the tongue and the you can get the smoky feel. It goes down smoooth, and it puts you in the mood to listen to the wind blowing through the trees.
For me my friend a well crafted rifle, shotgun or handgun, gives me the same feeling. Thats why, blokes like me hanker for the imported stuff (specific breeds mind you - Anschutz, Mausers, Holland & Holland....)
Best Regards

MERITOCRAZY:for the sake of argument.the present system is flawed and has positive side.first you have admitted its a flaw.about the positive side:how will you ever become a ''renowned shot' by'1.use indian made guns or 2.use a imported gun??if indian,God bless you,if imported a second hand used,misused,D(r)efurbrished,muttilated one.tell me how many indian shooters have made it with indian make?none so far.only gun that can anywhere come closer is iof.22 rifle,rest is just a piece of junk.well why do we have to have shooting competition at all?ban it too.if not, the reason, is every country needs some good shot not only for sports but also for defence.if i am not mistaken there was a record noted in afghan war,a sniper took his enemy some 3 km away.so this infers good skill and very good weapon is a must.you said,no gun can take over a terrorist who is armed suffieciently.just go back to mumbai 26/11.the whole army and the police where armed with substandard weapons.imagine you and few of your mates where there with a GOOD handgun within the captives,don't you think you would have made some effort,help and could have saved so many lives.presence of a CONFIDENT(relliable) gun with you will defenitly would taken down some terrorists.and now imagine you have your iof pistol,i swear you would like to disown it, then caught having this CONTRAPTION .hope i made some sense.there is an urgent need to change in import law.
well,japan does have strict gun laws,but it does produce theeee best guns,so no need to import.law is more straight and strict compared to us,have seen any japanese opting for iof? .will you you ever mind what your next door neighbour have had for lunch?i am not bothered about what japan has or china has!!we all are SELL FISH at present.i need THEE best and THEE gun to make me a confident human being.i am not 6'' to fight a thug i need a decent weapon protect me and my dear ones.i know you own a handgun though old its IMPORTED!!!why did you buy an imported and not a desi.i can go on and on..................on

Full_circle,

As you have pointed out,individual ownership of arms is not essential for a country to do well in shooting sports.

So this is what I propose.

Ban firearms ownership for all purposes other than self defence.No arms license should be given for sports.The state shall bear the expenditure of guns and ammo for people who show a promise in shooting.Problem solved.Even a pauper can become a word class shooter in this system. What do you say?

Seema Tomar's father was an Asian Games medalist (early 80's) as well as one of the chief drivers behind the founding of Delhi State Rifle Association as well as a privately funded (& very successful ) rural shooting academy in Baghpat (Uttar Pradesh), her brother (Vivek) was a major force in pistol shooting through the 90's right up to & beyond the new millennium. Not to detract from her talent and hard work, but she has most certainly been able to benefit by her belonging to a family that has been at the top of shooting sports (in India) for quite some time now. Mentioning her name here does not qualify as an example of someone who has made it from scratch.

About justified need, I have a friend who collects watches... and very very expensive watches at that. He has no "need" for them (if nothing else - we all get the time on our mobile phones!), no real "justification", but he enjoys the pleasure of owning finely crafted machines - or more accurately works of art in metal. In a free country why must he justify his "need" to collect them? It's his hard earned money and his passion - why is it anyone else's business what he chooses to do with it?

Justified need? Whatever for? Do we justify need for anything else we purchase? Why not? AND why for guns? What is the social benefit being served by strictly controlling guns in this manner? And if there is no tangible social benefit then why are we allowing our freedoms to be limited?

"Belonging" to a nation state is a relatively new aspect of the human condition. When we so "belong", we do voluntarily (in a truly free country) give up some of our freedoms in return for certain promises - for e.g. a safe & clean environment in which to bring up our families, better economic opportunities, the rule of law etc. etc. HOWEVER whenever ANY freedom is given up, it had better be JUSTIFIED by those who would DENY US THAT FREEDOM and they had better CLEARLY OUTLINE what BENEFIT(S) we can expect in return!

In this case (gun control), the promised benefit (more security/ less crime) has clearly not been forthcoming. So why are we continuing to allow this freedom to be denied to us? Why are we even justifying why we NEED this FREEDOM?

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin

Lets also please be honest, any reliably functioning firearm that goes bang when the trigger is pulled is more than enough for self defence. Even the most dyed-in-the-wool IOF bashers would agree that IOF products are not ornamental paperweights.

Please be honest and tell the government that NSG and other security agencies guarding all the VIPs should throw away all their imported weapons and arm themselves with IOF products.

High quality firearms are a requirement for competitive sports, if only to enable the shooters to perform to their potential.

Wonderful logic and reasoning, NSG and other security agencies guarding VIPs should not be armed with high quality imported firearms. Why are they armed with imported firearms? They should be armed with our IOF weapons, especially .32s which are available for all the citizens.

Japan has a very simple civilian gun control law - no one shall posess a firearm. Civilian firearm ownership laws are equally restrictive in China, they even have the death penalty for illegal posession or sale of firearms!

Why go to Japan or China, there are many countries that have death penalty by publicly stoning for even adultery, beheading, cutting of hands etc. so are we going to copy them? Or we will use our mind to decide what is right and what is wrong? The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a natural right, a human right, a fundamental right. If any nation is not allowing their citizens this right, it is doing something that is nothing but nefarious and criminal to suppress the people. It is another matter that people of that country recognize this fact or not.

Mundaire, you are comparing apples to mushrooms

He is not comparing apples with mushrooms. The purported reason for gun control is "public safety". Automobiles are far more dangerous than guns. Every year far more people die in automobile accidents. The logic that is used for gun control is very much suitable for automobile control.

"Belonging" to a nation state is a relatively new aspect of the human condition. When we so "belong", we do voluntarily (in a truly free country) give up some of our freedoms in return for certain promises - for e.g. a safe & clean environment in which to bring up our families, better economic opportunities, the rule of law etc. etc. HOWEVER whenever ANY freedom is given up, it had better be JUSTIFIED by those who would DENY US THAT FREEDOM and they had better CLEARLY OUTLINE what BENEFIT(S) we can expect in return!

Absolutely correct, the burden of proof lies on those on those claiming a power to restrict. In cases of doubt, the presumption is not in favor of a power.

In this case (gun control), the promised benefit (more security/ less crime) has clearly not been forthcoming. So why are we continuing to allow this freedom to be denied to us? Why are we even justifying why we NEED this FREEDOM?

Part III of the Constitution guarantees fundamental rights equally to both the citizens and the State. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is guaranteed under Article 19 and 21 for both citizens and State. Please refer http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts ... 121096.asp
I have also tried to explain this in detail at http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 15#p117785

goodboy mentor,i have all your anguish recorded ,don't worry.now i think and want our friend''full

circle ''to argue aand stand his ground.

-- Sat Jan 29, 2011 12:47 am --

winnie_the_pooh wrote:Full_circle,

As you have pointed out,individual ownership of arms is not essential for a country to do well in shooting sports.

So this is what I propose.

Ban firearms ownership for all purposes other than self defence.No arms license should be given for sports.The state shall bear the expenditure of guns and ammo for people who show a promise in shooting.Problem solved.Even a pauper can become a word class shooter in this system. What do you say?

sarcastic.hit them where it hurts thats my policy. you always seem to be lying down.get up.no offence.

Thanxx all for your responses. I seem to have posted before thinking through.

HVJ1, the 20 year single malt is on its way

Dr. Jaykumar, I have read, on our forum, of atleast one person who has used an IOF rifle to win a medal in the NSCC. I am sure there are others too. I dont own any firearm (yet), and I would be very very careful if I ever was tempted to buy an old import that could be, as you rightly say, used, misused, d(r)efurbrished, mutilated.

WTP, nice

Mundaire, thank you for sharing Seema Tomar's background. From what I had read, she came from a not-so-affluent background and that the Army Marksmanship Unit at Mhow was chiefly responsible for her training.
Sure, it is no one's business what a fellow does with his hard earned money. That is not what I am even remotely suggesting. But firearms are not general appliances. They can be used very effectively to kill. They have to be, and are, strictly regulated, everywhere. Nobody start off about kitchen knifes and screwdrivers, please. I repeat myself, my vote is for civilian ownership of firearms. There is no need to justify why citizens should be allowed to own firearms. Infact, my stand is that the whole PB/NPB idea should be scrapped. Makes for better logistics if there ever is an emergency.

Goodboy_Mentor, I have followed many of your posts, and I repeat, again, I am for civilian ownership of firearms. I am not a lawyer, but was a student of Political Science. Please pardon the poor phrasing of this sentence, but Fundamental Rights are rights guaranteed to citizens only against the State in its Executive, Legislative or Judicial forms. The State can not make any law that violates these rights. If it does, the court will void those laws. Fundamental Rights guarantee that the three branches will not take away any citizens right to (for example) protection of life and personal liberty. They do not guarantee that another entity, for example a terrorist or a petty thief, or the local goonda politician, will not do so. If I recall correctly, the Preamble is to be used to interpret the Constitution, and by itself does not grant any rights or impose limitations. Having said that, nothing in the Constitution of India including the Preamble guarantees the right to keep and bear arms to civilians. Infact, Art 246 and the Seventh schedule (Union list) of the Constitution of India give the Parliament of India exclusive powers to make laws with respect to arms, firearms, ammunition and explosives. Unfortunate, but true. It is a right we have to fight for in the Courts and the Parliament.

Dr. Jaykumar, I have argued my point - the current system rewards merit - in the opening post itself. It is flawed, needs change, but in one small detail, it works in a (good) way that is rare in India!

full_circle,

When you talk of rights and fundamental rights how about looking up about the origin of the state and also the views of some about the rights of the citizens.Something along the lines of people surrendering certain rights to the state in return for certain expectations.As a student of Political Science,I am sure that would not be difficult.

this system is rare,i accept.but it has made even a law abiding citizen to go against the law and buy an illegal weapon.wish i could stand against this law makers one day to argue.every one knows,lot of lawbiding business men keep some criminals at their back yard to do their busy..ness peacefully.why? even our beloved prime minister has paid security.why not go happily and play around.we are all equal citizens as compared to a minister or the so called vvip's.come on if freedom is1947,why cling on to the british system of disHARMING?let me be free,thats all we want.