Do you carry your Handgun chambered? Why, Why not?

[tirpassion]

Dear friends,

It is very interesting. I find very distinct opinions from distinct places. Let us say the Voice of America, the Voice of India and the Voice of Europe where I live .

Friends, the gun culture is very important to understand in each country. One is always influenced by the heritage of the country one is living in. In the US, the gun culture is a common daily affair (except for some states, I am told) which does not have any mystery unlike in India. Gun is a mystery in India because we did not have any gun tradition and moreover, we do not talk about it. It has always remained a taboo. The most frequently asked question by my relatives and friends in India to me for my AP was 'Can it kill a human being?' You understand the amount of ignorance!

The voice of Europe, or rather France is that it is forbidden to carry any loaded weapon on one's self. It has to be carried in a state which makes it impossible to use it immediately; the trigger locked and ammunitions apart in a separate box.

I am, myself a FFTir (French Shooting Federation) certified Shooting Initiator and I, hence, am a bit aware of the Gun safety aspects. I am happy to know that you are sure of yourselves. I prefer and try to follow the rules word by word.
I own only European made guns where the instruction booklet says 'Do not carry a loaded gun'. Moreover, the legislations strictly forbid me to do so. My instructions oblige me to make sure that the guns are empty at the range only before taking back home.

I will explain myself with an example.
I drive a car. Going beyond the speed limit on an empty highway is not at all dangerous because I am sure about my driving skills and I love speed and my car is made for it. A mobile telephone is made to be mobile. So what is the big deal in talking over mobile phone while driving? I am very sure of myself and I have never had any accidents in life. Jumping a red light when I am sure that nobody is around is not a problem at all. Why are there so many rules and restrictions?
Now, put yourself in this position in your respective countries and ask yourself the questions, answer them and analyze the behaviour of others you see around you. Now let all these people be armed, carrying concealed weapons, having assured that they have passed all tests of rules and regulations as they did for the driving tests.
Well, imagine the situation in India.... I am an Indian and I know my country more or less well. In India, have you come across the statement 'Do you know who I am?' ... I would not face those persons if they are armed. For me they are potentially more dangerous than anyone else.

I understand that self defense is a relative thing for every individual depending on the individual needs. I tried to find out why should one need to defend oneself. I could answer to some of them using MY reasons. Some stay unanwsered.
- I live in a place where crimes are frequent. I would change residence.
- I have threat on my life. From whom? From an enemy? If yes, did I contribute to the creation of the enemy?
- I never know who will attack me out of insanity. A BIG QUESTION I know that life is not a bed of roses, it is not a bed of thorns either. So let us not be paranoiac.
- I have millions to protect from people trying to take them away from my home. A gun at home should suffice.
- I can be kidnapped for a big ransom which someone knows that I am able to pay.

You all have your personal reasons for self defense. It will be also interesting to know them if you do not mind.

Those are my personal viewpoints. For the defense part, as I said, the place I live nobody legally carries any weapon so I am hopefully less prone to an unknown illogical gun attack. I do not have any known threat to my life because I have not created any enemies to my knowledge. I do not live in a mafia infested area where crime is an everyday affair. I do not have millions to defend from robbers. So, I do not find any reason to carry any weapon on me.

Lastly, I believe firmly that a self analysis is of utmost importance. We are talking about self defense. But what about self offense? Am I sure not to be offensive in a situation where I feel more powerful with a loaded gun on me? Am I sure of how I will behave in a situation of a simple argument or altercation which might arise with a third person on the road or anywhere, more importantly if I am armed (meaning more powerful)?
I remember a bus journey from Delhi Dhaula Kuan to Gurgaon once, many many years back when I lived in Delhi. I requested a man to stub the cigarette because smoking was not permitted on board. Well, he along with his four friends asked me if I knew who they were? Then they made a verbal curry of my ancestors, all my near and dear ones, you know what... What was my reaction? I turned red with my blood boiling but I did not react and tried to ignore because that was what my intelligence told me to avoid a collective lynching.
I analyzed the situation many years later and imagined myself with a loaded gun on me. I prefer not to carry any loaded gun on me.
I am frank enough to admit that I might not control my temper in a similar situation. What about you and people around you?

Let us start a now topic with vote options.
Are you sure to control your temper in a situation of altercation specially when you are carrying a loaded weapon and particularly one in the pipe?

Warm regards
tirpassion

[goodboy_mentor]

In my opinion, "various reasons" ought to have been worded as "various excuses." I would expect any gun owner to be conversant enough with the operation of his weapon to ensure safe operation.

In theory and in principle I agree with what you are saying. Having said this, it is also necessary to get the real picture related to this matter to understand this from another perspective.

Practically the matters are in such a pathetic condition due to the ignorance(or maybe foolishness) of the gun owners(as well as the general population) and also the negative approach of the government that appears corrupt beyond redemption. All the three wings of the State i.e. Judiciary, Legislature and Executive are corrupt and in a nexus with each other to achieve their common mischief. There is no accountability for any of them. All this is leading to all kinds of injustices and socio-economic problems in the society(as reaction also leading to armed rebellions and insurgencies in various parts of the country) and the State wants to hide this fact(State's failure to solve them in the first place) and portray the rebellious reactions as merely a law and order problem that need to be suppressed with iron hand by police and military. Using all this as an excuse to restrict gun ownership in the most clever and draconian manner in every possible way.

If an arms license holder is permitted only 5 or 25 cartridges in an year, can it be expected that he will learn how to shoot safely and accurately? Even if someone somehow manages to get his yearly cartridge quota increased, how many can afford to buy the extortionately priced cartridges in large numbers for sufficient practice?

Even if someone somehow manages to get his yearly cartridge quota increased and buy the extortionately priced cartridges in large numbers, where will he practice? Shooting ranges are very few. Even if he is lucky to have a shooting range near his location, the membership fees is usually extortionate.

There is no competition to IOF and import of firearms is banned for its citizens. Only the State can import firearms for itself. An average gun owner is compelled to buy the overpriced crap manufactured by IOF.

There is no school, college or university that teaches gunsmithing.

Probably all this gives you some idea about what is actually going on.

[goodboy_mentor]

Friends, the gun culture is very important to understand in each country. One is always influenced by the heritage of the country one is living in....Gun is a mystery in India because we did not have any gun tradition and moreover, we do not talk about it. It has always remained a taboo.

The level of gun culture varies from state to state in India. Gun is surely not a mystery or a taboo in India excepting a few states.

The voice of Europe, or rather France is that it is forbidden to carry any loaded weapon on one's self. It has to be carried in a state which makes it impossible to use it immediately; the trigger locked and ammunitions apart in a separate box.

This thing appears to me as plain atrocious, unreasonable and a very clever and cunning attack on the freedom and liberty of the individual. A very clever machination by the State to become a nanny state by brainwashing its citizens, so that they start respecting the chains that shackle them.
It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere - Voltaire

I drive a car. Going beyond the speed limit on an empty highway is not at all dangerous because I am sure about my driving skills and I love speed and my car is made for it. A mobile telephone is made to be mobile. So what is the big deal in talking over mobile phone while driving? I am very sure of myself and I have never had any accidents in life. Jumping a red light when I am sure that nobody is around is not a problem at all. Why are there so many rules and restrictions?

This is totally out of context and with no connection with the topic of discussion.

In India, have you come across the statement 'Do you know who I am?' ... I would not face those persons if they are armed. For me they are potentially more dangerous than anyone else.

If they are really dangerous to your life and limb and are about to implement their threat, then how would you like to deal with such persons? The law is on your side. Please read Sections 96 to 106 IPC(especially Section 100 IPC)

I understand that self defense is a relative thing for every individual depending on the individual needs.

Self defense is not a "need" but a basic human and fundamental right. It is not "relative thing" but an absolute thing when faced with the real situation. The situation usually never occurs with prior intimation.

I live in a place where crimes are frequent. I would change residence.

You are a rich man with lot of options and can change your residence like changing a cap. What about others? Where will they go or run?

I have threat on my life. From whom? From an enemy? If yes, did I contribute to the creation of the enemy?

Have you ever looked beyond yourself, from the eyes of the victims who never got any threat and died at the hands of criminals? What went in the mind of the victim seconds before he died? If I had a weapon to kill him before he could kill me, or at least could kill him before I die. Don't say this thinking is unethical or immoral. The law supports this thinking, read Section 100 of IPC.

I never know who will attack me out of insanity. A BIG QUESTION I know that life is not a bed of roses, it is not a bed of thorns either. So let us not be paranoiac.

Sure we should not be paranoid. But it also does not mean that we should leave our life to the mercy of chance of probabilities. We should be reasonable and responsible instead.

Why is the State compelling us to do at least third party insurance for our motor vehicles? Is the State paranoid or reasonable and responsible? Why the matter is not left to chance of probabilities?

Do you have accident insurance for yourself? If yes are you paranoid or reasonable and responsible? Why the matter is not left to chance of probabilities?

Do you have life insurance for yourself? If yes are you paranoid or reasonable and responsible? Why the matter is not left to chance of probabilities?

I have millions to protect from people trying to take them away from my home. A gun at home should suffice.

Who knows that your life and limb is more attractive to someone than "millions" in your home?

I can be kidnapped for a big ransom which someone knows that I am able to pay.

Not necessary that every victim of kidnapping is always for "big ransom" only.

You all have your personal reasons for self defense.

This is the mistake you are doing. It is not a matter of "reasons" but a matter of human and fundamental right. You decide if you want to exercise it or not when the occasion demands. And that occasion may not come with a premonition or warning.

I do not have any known threat to my life because I have not created any enemies to my knowledge.

Have you ever done a scientific research, how much percentage of victims of violent crime had a known threat or no threat? It will give you the answer.

I do not live in a mafia infested area where crime is an everyday affair.

I had lived in a mafia infested area but never had any problem from mafia. What does it mean or prove?

And when I lived in a non mafia and "peaceful" area, I had to confront a robber. What does it mean or prove?

I do not have millions to defend from robbers. So, I do not find any reason to carry any weapon on me.

This is exactly what one of our neighbors thought and believed in. He also had no enemity with anyone. One fine day some criminals accosted his family, killed him, raped his wife and daughter and them killed them too. Entire family wiped out within few minutes. What does it mean or prove? Was he or his family members reasonable and responsible in his/their thinking?

Lastly, I believe firmly that a self analysis is of utmost importance.

It is important but not the only part of the equation. You left out another equally important part of the equation:
If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles - The Art of War by Sun Tzu

[DOM]

@ mentor

nice briefing

[timmy]

In reply, I would like to restate:

In my opinion, "various reasons" ought to have been worded as "various excuses." I would expect any gun owner to be conversant enough with the operation of his weapon to ensure safe operation.

With regard to:

If an arms license holder is permitted only 5 or 25 cartridges in an year, can it be expected that he will learn how to shoot safely and accurately?

I would point out that practicing, while a vital activity in becoming proficient in the use of a firearm, is not the same thing as being "conversant enough with the operation of his weapon to ensure safe operation."

For instance, one ought to be aware of the operation of, say, a Tokarev TT33 or Colt Pocket Pistol, or the derivatives of these weapons if one owns one of these pistols, to know that it is unsafe to carry any of them with a round in the chamber, no matter whether the safety is applied or not. There are many pistols like this. Or, if one owns a Colt Single Action (highly unlikely, I know, but I use this as an example that illustrates my point), one ought to "conversant enough with the operation of his weapon" to know that the weapon cannot be carried with the hammer lowered over a loaded chamber, and that the half-cocked hammer is never to be used as a safety.

As I said, while practice is vital, practice is not necessary to know that carrying these firearms in a chamber-loaded condition is unsafe. Being "conversant enough with the operation of his weapon" is necessary "to ensure safe operation." can be known without practice.

If we are expecting the Indian public to agree that RKBA ought to be granted to ordinary law-abiding citizens, can it truly be expected that the public will agree to this when gun owners don't know enough to protect themselves or the ordinary public when guns are carried? I submit that the first time an unsafe pistol goes off in somebody's pocket or goes off when dropped and wounds some innocent bystander, the battle is practically lost already.

The public has the right to expect that gun owners know enough about their weapons to carry and operate them safely, and we gun owners cannot tolerate anything less among ourselves. I believe that a rigid adherence to this principle is a necessary part of getting the public to agree to RKBA in India. Gun owners must exemplify responsibility when owning and carrying guns at all times. Nobody is ever going to agree to allow bunglers and incompetents to carry weapons in public, or even in private, for that matter.

If we are going to advocate for, or even demand rights, we must realize that nobody will ever agree to them if we as gun owners do not demonstrate responsibility, something which must always accompany a right. This is a basic principle of any truly free society: the responsible exercise of rights.

[tirpassion]

It is a nice debate. Thanks for reacting Goodboy mentor.

The level of gun culture varies from state to state in India. Gun is surely not a mystery or a taboo in India excepting a few states.

I may not have explained myself properly. For me, gun culture is the familiarity with guns in the civilian life and a full fledged local manufacturing industry to feed the demand. Like in the US and in Europe, for many reasons, hunting for example, even common people used guns there since long long time. I am ignorant of such gun culture anywhere in india. Any more informations on this will be welcome.

This thing appears to me as plain atrocious, unreasonable and a very clever and cunning attack on the freedom and liberty of the individual.

I hope you are talking about the freedom and liberty to carry guns for self defense only and not anything else. Someway or the other every country has some shackles or chains if there are rules and regulations. So please do not be so harsh!

If you think that the example of car driving license and road behaviour is irrevelant, it is up to you. You can subtly find a relation of human behaviour in company with machines, when the machine particularly gives a feeling of more power. Have not you seen/felt the change of attitude in someone when he/she has attained a state of more POWER?
You will also find a relation to corruption with power.

If they are really dangerous to your life and limb and are about to implement their threat, then how would you like to deal with such persons? The law is on your side. Please read Sections 96 to 106 IPC(especially Section 100 IPC)

They can be really dangerous if they own a gun for my life and limb (I like this expression ) and even without. I fear also a physical bash up. It might not be so grave a simple bashing because it is not a crime and they are not criminals. Well, did not you say somewhere just before this post that the Judiciary is also corrupt? So do I need to own and carry a gun, to defend myself from 'Do you know who I am' people. But then also, I will not be spared. What to do Sir?

Self defense is not a "need" but a basic human and fundamental right. It is not "relative thing" but an absolute thing when faced with the real situation. The situation usually never occurs with prior intimation.

It is obviously a human and fundamental right. Nobody contests. I may prepare myself for self defense if I think I NEED to or I may not if I think that I do not NEED to depending on the situation I am in. After all I am in a democracy to take my decision no?

You are a rich man with lot of options and can change your residence like changing a cap. What about others? Where will they go or run?

Aapke muh me ghee shakkar!!! Wish I were. Before buying my flat, I did a serious check to avoid crime prone areas, areas with a population of sharp economic inequality. It costed me the area of the flat. It is as simple as that.

Have you ever looked beyond yourself, from the eyes of the victims who never got any threat and died at the hands of criminals? What went in the mind of the victim seconds before he died? If I had a weapon to kill him before he could kill me, or at least could kill him before I die. Don't say this thinking is unethical or immoral. The law supports this thinking, read Section 100 of IPC.

I hope that you do not want me to be a communist and ask you the first part of the same question 'Have you ever looked beyond?'. Looking beyond can go very very far my friend, to the cause of all crimes etc. etc. This is not the subject either. So let us drop it.

Sure we should not be paranoid. But it also does not mean that we should leave our life to the mercy of chance of probabilities. We should be reasonable and responsible instead.

Sure we should be. In probability, there is MORE and there is LESS. The probability of meeting with an accident is much more than getting violently robbed. The probability of dying from a road accident is much more that dying from a bullet injury. The probability of dying in a plane crash is much less so you take flights without much fear but you still leave your life at mercy of someone and something because you can not help. The probability of dying or having a permanent disability is relatively less (depending on situations) when you undergo a surgery. But you still give in writing a discharge of responsibility and leave your life to the mercy of someone because you do not have any alternative. Why do you do so? It is because you are not paranoid, you are reasonable and responsible.
You do not prepare yourself for all probabilities because they are endless. You do so on the basis of priority; MORE or LESS.

Who knows that your life and limb is more attractive to someone than "millions" in your home?

This is amusing. Yes, there is that SOMEONE who wants to harm you. If he is determined, no weapon and caliber will stop him. I have another question. Someone is singular. How many SOMEONES do you imagine at a time and prepare for self defense? If more than one, you need to have at least more than one bullet. So you would prefer to carry more, in case. You might think that 6 rounds will be correct. But what if the number of SOMEONES are multiplied? You would need more bullets in your gun. If that or those SOMEONEs is/are equipped with modern more powerful weapons than your's what will you do? Lets stop the phantasmagoria.

By the way, if I imagine ONE and go by your opinion, I would carry a Taser X26. It has enough stopping power at a distance of 20 feet and will not, in all probability, kill that SOMEONE so that I can hand him over to justice.

Have you ever done a scientific research, how much percentage of victims of violent crime had a known threat or no threat? It will give you the answer.

No, I have not. You can help us perhaps. Perhaps you can also help us with the figures of violent incidences and atrocities caused by upper class affluent Indians specially in rural areas on their poor/low class fellow citizens. See my friend, I know that everything can not be positive and negative either.

I had lived in a mafia infested area but never had any problem from mafia. What does it mean or prove?
And when I lived in a non mafia and "peaceful" area, I had to confront a robber. What does it mean or prove?

What kind of mafia? Drugs? We are more concerned with drug related mafia here. There are places where dealings take place with Kalashnikovs, where cars are burned for celebrations etc. Did you live in such kind of a place? If you visit Paris, I would suggest you not to go to any hotel in these places.

This is exactly what one of our neighbors thought and believed in. He also had no enemity with anyone. One fine day some criminals accosted his family, killed him, raped his wife and daughter and them killed them too. Entire family wiped out within few minutes. What does it mean or prove? Was he or his family members reasonable and responsible in his/their thinking?

It is indeed an unfortunate event. I have not come across any luckily for me still now. But I have heard about a lot of similar incidences. I have also heard of other incidences where atrocities were done by people who were not considered to be criminals like the Jessica case, the case of an engineering student from a poor family in Haryana shot down by 2 of his class mates out of jealousy. Did they ever think that they would finish their lives that way? What does it prove? Should we lose confidence in fellow human beings? Nope!

It is important but not the only part of the equation. You left out another equally important part of the equation:
If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles - The Art of War by Sun Tzu

I am in war with no one but myself, let me precise my friend. So it is a very very interesting sentence. Forget about the enemy, do I know myself? I do not think so because it is extremely extremely difficult. Do you? If you do, my millions of salute to you Sir!

I had a lot of counter questions and critics which I appreciate but I still did not get any reply to my question.

Are you sure to control your temper in a situation of altercation specially when you are carrying a loaded weapon and particularly one in the pipe?

I hope that this debate stays healthy and cordial where everybody can place his/her opinion respectably.
To sum up, I love guns but do not give importance to the self defense aspect of it. Carry your gun on you if you so wish, do it safely (one in the pipe is not safe according to my safety standards), respect others and let others not see you as a potential danger. This is my primary concern.

best regards
tirpassion

[tirpassion]

Hello Xl target,

One of the shooting safety lessons here taught me never to have 100% confidence only on the mechanical safety of a gun.
Do you have anything similar in the safety lessons in the US?

regards
tirpassion

[goodboy_mentor]

I am ignorant of such gun culture anywhere in india. Any more informations on this will be welcome.

If you read history, till 1857 gun culture was very much present in Northern India. Private manufacturing and keeping guns and canons was common. But after the revolt of 1857, it was systematically suppressed by law under various excuses. Also by manipulating and suppressing other social martial traditions so that inner desire to keep and bear arms gets extinguished. Same policy of the British is continuing today. Remnants of the same traditions can be found among Coorgs in Kodagu district of Kanataka who do not need a "license" to keep firearms. You may read this http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... =30#p83149 Also before independence, similarly the Rajpootana States were exempt from the Arms Act 1878 but unfortunately only after "independence" they lost this freedom.

I hope you are talking about the freedom and liberty to carry guns for self defense only and not anything else.

It appears you have not understood. Freedom and liberty can be said as individuals have the freedom and liberty to take any actions they choose, as long as these actions do not infringe the rights of others. Therefore freedom and liberty demands that instead of malum prohibitum laws(laws creating victimless crimes). These laws malum prohibitum create 'criminals' out of people who are otherwise law abiding citizens. Alternately it can be said that freedom and liberty demands malum in se laws.

Someway or the other every country has some shackles or chains if there are rules and regulations. So please do not be so harsh!

This is the slippery slope. Molestation is done under the garb of frisking. Therefore the need to be extra vigilant.

You can subtly find a relation of human behaviour in company with machines, when the machine particularly gives a feeling of more power.

Countless people are using so many types of machines(including those perceived giving "power") daily, people are behaving normally. Aren't they? Or all of them are going berserk daily?

Have not you seen/felt the change of attitude in someone when he/she has attained a state of more POWER?

So you want to give more power to the criminal?

You will also find a relation to corruption with power.

Provided there is no accountability.

They can be really dangerous if they own a gun for my life and limb (I like this expression ) and even without.

So they can be dangerous, with or without a gun. So where is the problem? How do your mitigate the danger?

I fear also a physical bash up. It might not be so grave a simple bashing because it is not a crime and they are not criminals.

Physical bash up can also be extremely grave even if it is from "non criminals". What is the point you are trying to make?

Well, did not you say somewhere just before this post that the Judiciary is also corrupt? So do I need to own and carry a gun, to defend myself from 'Do you know who I am' people. But then also, I will not be spared. What to do Sir?

Sir it is your choice. 'Do you know who I am' people mean nothing in the eyes of law. Law only knows the law. You have to decide when you need to take law in your own hands(self defense) and enforce the law(Sections 96 to 106 IPC).

It is obviously a human and fundamental right. Nobody contests. I may prepare myself for self defense if I think I NEED to or I may not if I think that I do not NEED to depending on the situation I am in. After all I am in a democracy to take my decision no?

Of course nobody is contesting this. The problem commences only when some people want to impose there personal choices on others.

Before buying my flat, I did a serious check to avoid crime prone areas, areas with a population of sharp economic inequality. It costed me the area of the flat. It is as simple as that.

What about about those who cannot afford to buy a flat in apparently non crime prone area?

I hope that you do not want me to be a communist and ask you the first part of the same question 'Have you ever looked beyond?'

It is not about communism, it is about understanding the other perspective from the eyes of the victim. Anybody can be a victim, one may not have to go necessarily very far.

The probability of meeting with an accident is much more than getting violently robbed.

To come to this conclusion don't we need statistical data? Or does it mean that getting robbed is a non issue and we can become careless?

The probability of dying from a road accident is much more that dying from a bullet injury.

It shows that guns are much more safer than cars.

Yes, there is that SOMEONE who wants to harm you. If he is determined, no weapon and caliber will stop him.

Maybe he is a human bomb. And human bombs have also got their heads shot and blown off before they could blow themselves off.

I have another question. Someone is singular. How many SOMEONES do you imagine at a time and prepare for self defense? If more than one, you need to have at least more than one bullet. So you would prefer to carry more, in case. You might think that 6 rounds will be correct. But what if the number of SOMEONES are multiplied? You would need more bullets in your gun. If that or those SOMEONEs is/are equipped with modern more powerful weapons than your's what will you do?

It is your choice either go down without fighting or take as many down as possible before going down. Or are you asking everyone to do nothing and leave everything to fate i.e. submit to fatalism?

By the way, if I imagine ONE and go by your opinion, I would carry a Taser X26. It has enough stopping power at a distance of 20 feet and will not, in all probability, kill that SOMEONE so that I can hand him over to justice.

Probably you are a kind person who is willing to go to the extent of gambling with own life. You hand over to court a person who was about to kill you, so that he can talk all lies and nonsense in court, and try to create hell for you instead, and probably get you into jail. If by any remote chance he gets convicted, the day he is released he can make a second attempt on your life.

Your philosophy is similar to that of Prithviraj Chauhan. He also used his "taser" to capture his attacker 14 times and then release him every time. When his attacker got to capture him once, forget about 14 chances, he never gave him one chance. He blinded and killed him the first time itself.

I would like to go by the philosophy of Akbar. When Hemu was captured and presented before him in unconscious state, he did not waste any time and struck his head off immediately so that his enemy does not get another chance to raise his head again.

No, I have not. You can help us perhaps.

Those who get "threats" are provided security by the State. The threats are usually given by the mafia to high and mighty to get a mileage in media. If still they are victims of violent crime then it is failure of the State. Rest all the overwhelming majority of victims of violent crime do not get "threats" since they are not considered "worthy" of receiving "threats". Therefore talking about "threats" is immaterial for this discussion.

Perhaps you can also help us with the figures of violent incidences and atrocities caused by upper class affluent Indians specially in rural areas on their poor/low class fellow citizens.

Most of the crimes are encouraged by power imbalance. What is the point you are trying to make?

What kind of mafia? Drugs? We are more concerned with drug related mafia here. There are places where dealings take place with Kalashnikovs, where cars are burned for celebrations etc. Did you live in such kind of a place?

Of course an area related to drugs and all other kinds of international smuggling, murder, kidnapping, extortion etc. So long they do not consider you to be a "worthy" target, you do not create problems for them and are friendly with them, they do not create problems for you. They have their own "code of conduct". At least this has been my experience.

I have also heard of other incidences where atrocities were done by people who were not considered to be criminals like the Jessica case, the case of an engineering student from a poor family in Haryana shot down by 2 of his class mates out of jealousy. Did they ever think that they would finish their lives that way? What does it prove?

It proves exactly what you are finding it difficult to believe i.e. question of self defense is to be respected and taken seriously.

Should we lose confidence in fellow human beings? Nope!

Nobody is saying this. But it does not mean one should not be well prepared just because he "feels" or is in some kind of comfort zone. Comfort zones may suddenly get broken without warning.

I am in war with no one but myself, let me precise my friend.

I see this to be a serious problem. You are at war with yourself! In other words you are in conflict with yourself. In other words you are your own enemy!

I had a lot of counter questions and critics which I appreciate but I still did not get any reply to my question. Are you sure to control your temper in a situation of altercation specially when you are carrying a loaded weapon and particularly one in the pipe?

Sure of course why not be able to control temper if the situation demands?

[axe]

interesting post

[xl_target]

Hello Xl target,

One of the shooting safety lessons here taught me never to have 100% confidence only on the mechanical safety of a gun.
Do you have anything similar in the safety lessons in the US?

regards
tirpassion

Most of us in the US learn what we call the the four basic rules of gun safety.
They are:

1. All guns are loaded, always (All guns are treated as if they are loaded, always)
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything that you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target
4. Always make sure of your target and what is beyond it.

We feel if these rules are religiously followed, you won't have a negligent discharge or shoot someone or something that you don't want to. So it should not matter if a gun is loaded or not; if you follow the rules, you will be safe. A gun is a tool and will not, without human intervention, jump up and shoot someone.

[DOM]

100 percent CORRECT.

[joydeepm]

Can any Ashani owner share his experience on carrying one in the chamber ? Is the safety system good enough ?

Joydeep

[tirpassion]

Hello Goodboy mentor,
I had a quick read of your post. First of all I find a sharp contradiction in your statement. You talk of taking the road of justice in need and also do the self justice when needed.
Looking beyond means quite farther than what you have talked about. Please look beyond and understand why somebody became a criminal, why would he try to rob from you and me, why social inequality could not be bridged etc. etc. My looks do not stop at the victims only.

For the rest, I will write back today evening. Now, it is time for outing with children.

bye
tirpassion

[goodboy_mentor]

Can any Ashani owner share his experience on carrying one in the chamber ? Is the safety system good enough ?

Please read this http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 35#p159047

First of all I find a sharp contradiction in your statement. You talk of taking the road of justice in need and also do the self justice when needed.

If you understand the true meaning of justice, you will find there is no contradiction at all. Justice does not mean that when someone's life or limb is in imminent danger, he should not be allowed to defend himself but be compelled to start attempting life threatening/self destructive irresponsible acts, like calling police etc. so that the attacker can meanwhile do his crime. This is exactly why in case of self defense, law makes it an exception so that the victim can take law of self defense in his own hands and enforce the law of self defense immediately. I would request you to carefully read Sections 96 to 106 IPC, particularly Section 100 and 103. And also read http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 61#p156759

Please look beyond and understand why somebody became a criminal, why would he try to rob from you and me, why social inequality could not be bridged etc. etc.

This is for the State to think and work upon. No matter what are the "reasons" behind someone becoming a criminal, the fact remains he is a criminal. The "reasons" are of no consolation to the victims of crime. What matters to them is if they are allowed to defend themselves from the criminals and their crime.

My looks do not stop at the victims only.

You are a victim when faced with imminent danger as mentioned in Sections 100 and 103 IPC. Will you start doing a research on reasons behind criminal and his crime or take immediate steps as allowed by these Sections to defend yourself?

[tirpassion]

Hello goodboy mentor,

Thanks for the informations on gun culture in India. I appreciate. I knew about the Rajasthan part but had no knowledge about the Karnataka Coorg region.

To cite an example of operation of a machine (which if not manipulated carefully can be dangerous) in daily life which needs licence, I could think of Driving. There are rules and regulations, codes to be followed. If they have been laid out there are some reasons to follow them strictly. If one is in a habit of flouting the safety rules (very common in India) or civic etiquettes out of I do not know what, the same person can not be taken for granted that he will strictly follow the gun safety rules. If this person has a gun on him, he can be a potential danger for others.

This is what I posted yesterday

To sum up, I love guns but do not give importance to the self defense aspect of it. Carry your gun on you if you so wish, do it safely (one in the pipe is not safe according to my safety standards), respect others and let others not see you as a potential danger. This is my primary concern.

In France, it is forbidden to use a gun for self defense. There are many who contest that and I respect them. Self defense is a fundamental right. Nobody takes it away. If your criticism is concerning only with the fact of using a gun for self defense, I accept it. Otherwise, it does not go down well, frankly. The freedom and some fundamental rights we enjoy here can largely surpass the ban the gun carrying part in terms of privilege.

There is also a theory that turns otherwise law abiding citizens to criminals. The unequal distribution of wealth. Yes, it is the problem of the State. You and I do not have any role in it. Right?

I will give you 3 examples of what you and I have been doing. Answering to go nowhere.

Example 1

Maybe he is a human bomb. And human bombs have also got their heads shot and blown off before they could blow themselves off.

Look beyond, that SOMEONE can hit you off with a car, can attack you from your backside before you know, shoot you down from a distance with a 22LR so that the noise is also reduced and so on, ...

there is no end to it.

Example 2

Countless people are using so many types of machines(including those perceived giving "power") daily, people are behaving normally. Aren't they? Or all of them are going berserk daily?

Countless people are living peacefully everyday and not getting criminal attacks and are behaving normally without guns. Are not they?
reason and counter reason

Example 3

You are a victim when faced with imminent danger as mentioned in Sections 100 and 103 IPC. Will you start doing a research on reasons behind criminal and his crime or take immediate steps as allowed by these Sections to defend yourself?

I will sing Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram...
Ridiculous question, ridiculous answer.

I ignore the rest because the reply can be found earlier, to focus on serious answers.

This is exactly why in case of self defense, law makes it an exception so that the victim can take law of self defense in his own hands and enforce the law of self defense immediately. I would request you to carefully read Sections 96 to 106 IPC, particularly Section 100 and 103

Probably you are a kind person who is willing to go to the extent of gambling with own life. You hand over to court a person who was about to kill you, so that he can talk all lies and nonsense in court, and try to create hell for you instead, and probably get you into jail. If by any remote chance he gets convicted, the day he is released he can make a second attempt on your life.

Thanks again for enlightening me and ingraining another doubt in me. You (please do not take personally) shoot down and kill a known enemy, talk all lies and nonsense in court and prove that the act was committed purely for self defense. You further prove to the judiciary by corrupt means or powerful advocates hired with monetary power that the 'Enemy's family still poses threat for your life so as to get protection and finally go free and enjoy life.
If the criminal is that cunning, will you be less?

Most of the crimes are encouraged by power imbalance. What is the point you are trying to make?

Who in India own guns or can own guns? The affluent upper class and in no way the poor class. The torture and exploitation on the lower class are countless even today. With more arms the risk of atrocities on the non privileged class will increase. The persons belonging to the 'Do you know who I am' clan belong mostly to the privileged class, thereby increasing the probability of danger after procuring more weapons. They do not care about civic etiquettes and care a damn to rules and regulations.

I see this to be a serious problem. You are at war with yourself! In other words you are in conflict with yourself. In other words you are your own enemy!

Look beyond and do not draw conclusions so easily. I believe that you know that you have an inner self and your conscience? The existence and evolution of a human being is a constant conflict between his inner self and him. Two distinct identities. The most important thing in life is to know the inner self and to be in unison with his conscience, the moment when the conflict disappears, the truth of life appears all of a sudden. The first person who achieved it became the 'Budhha'. I am trying to look into myself to understand and discover my inner self but it is so difficult, you know. That is a war I am waging since longtime.

I read your opinion about Prithviraj Chauhan and Akbar. Besides the topic, Akbar happens to be the historic character, I dislike most in the Mughal dynasty. Please do not impose horror and fear on me. I prefer to gamble in your words, rest in peace with my conviction; never to take a life which I can not give back. I pray to God to help me to stick to my conviction which He has only given to me.

I had a lot of counter questions and critics which I appreciate but I still did not get any reply to my question. Are you sure to control your temper in a situation of altercation specially when you are carrying a loaded weapon and particularly one in the pipe?
Sure of course why not be able to control temper if the situation demands?

Was it a too hasty reply as your hasty judgement on me?

regards
tirpassion