Are Indians responsible to own guns.

[xl_target]

Personally I do not believe that a person undergoes some great increase in intelligence OR morality when they assume a position of power and authority. This goes for the entire planet.

I don't live in the US but I believe that US laws are very strict, for all the liberal gun laws. For example a person who has a concealed carry permit, if stopped by the police, must declare that he has a concealed carry permit and show it. In other circumstances that law allows an offcier to shoot if he feels he is under threat from a person carrying a gun.

As usual Mark has got to the heart of the matter.

As for a person legally carrying concealed, whether they have to automatically declare possession to law enforcement, depends on the laws of the state where the stop is made. For example, in Minnesota, there is no duty to inform on being stopped but if the Officer asks you, you have to tell him the truth. In some states, you automatically have to tell the cops that you are armed if you are stopped.

If an officer is faced with deadly force, he has the right to respond in kind. In general, if you don't threaten an officer with a weapon, you will most likely survive the encounter. I have been pulled over a few times and am still around to talk about it.

To me this means that a great deal of responibility is vested in police officers in the US. Those offciers go through rigorous training and presumaby psychological assessement before they actually are allowed to prowl about with weapons. And police in America regularly kill armed men presumed to be threatening the police, making it perfectly clear to the public that they do not have the same powers as the police do.

Actually you will be surprised at how minimal the training of some officers is, especially their firearms training. Many citizens are better trained in handling firearms, especially where accuracy is concerned. Any citizen of the US has the right to self defense. If he is unlawfully threatened with deadly force, he has the right to respond in kind. Citizens also regularly kill armed men threatening them. The US citizen even has the power to make a citizens arrest. Remember, in the US, the cops are civilians too.

In all societies through history it was the goons with the greatest firepower that ruled. In democracies the goons are elected and given the firepower they need to rule. That firepower is necessarily higher than what the ruled can bring to bear on the rulers. The US police and armed forces necessarily have much more firepower than the entire civilian population. So legal systems even in the most "free" models ensure inequality in weapon armament in favor of government, with the unstated conclusion being that government really is more responsible in its decision to use arms than the lay public.

There are way more guns in the hands of US citizens than all the police forces combined. The US Armed Forces may have more powerful firepower than the average citizen but they are prevented by law from performing law enforcement duties on US soil. Remember also, that only about one percent of citizens have served in the US armed forces today.
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 says:

From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section.......

As GBM said, the founders of the USA, tried very hard to think of all the situations where goons could take over and run the country as has happened elsewhere.

Generally if you break the law in the US, you will get caught. If you get caught you will face punishment, regardless of who your daddy is. You cannot buy your way out of it. A law enforcement official taking a bribes is a very rare thing. That keeps the vast majority of people honest. In India, with the number of law enforcement officials being so low (per capita), it is easy to break the law and not get caught. In India, if daddy is a powerful person or very rich, you can use influence or buy your way out of the situation in some cases. For example, do you want to stop indiscriminate celebratory firing at weddings? All you have to do is to stake out a few weddings at random, and when they fire into the air, confiscate their guns, arrest the individuals responsible and make them serve jail time. Do this enough times and people will get the message and this behavior will stop.

[xl_target]

This reminds me of what my CBRN prof, a retd Colonel, told me when I asked him his views on on gun ownership. He said,"kuchh ho na ho, India ki popuation adhi zarur ho jaegi"

I would agree with him, though our circumstances very much need more practical gun laws. But, first we need a mature society. By saying this, we need to dissociate guns from the glamour (Hollywood, Bollywood), and teach about guns at the right age, from the very beginning.

If you are looking for a "more mature" society than India, one of the longest continuously existing civilizations ( if you look back to Mohenjodaro) in history, I'm afraid you are going to have to keep looking. "It ain't gonna happen", as they say.

Frankly, your prof is talking through his .... well, where the sun don't shine. Does he have any proof that will happen? Can he cite any studies with documented proof that this has happened before? Being a retired Colonel doesn't make him an expert on anything, except the field that he was in and sometimes even that is questionable. How can I say this? I know lots of retired Colonels and my dad is one too. I even know some retired US Army Colonels whose opinion isn't worth spit, except for their narrow fields of expertise.
The reason this line of thinking really pisses me off is that it is regularly used as justification to prevent the relaxation of gun laws here in the US... "blood will flow in the streets". ..."every road rage incident will resemble the OK corrall". It is nothing but an appeal to emotion and an effort to incite fear with no substance behind it. As each state in the US implemented the carry permit system, despite dire warnings, nothing like that happened. In fact, ever since that process started, violent crime started a steady decline and it has been found that carry permit holders tend to be among the most law abiding members of society. Even more so than cops.

For those who make a big hue and cry about training, you all trust the average policeman with guns, right? How much training does the average cop in India have with firearms? Wasn't that demonstrated in spades in Mumbai? You want gun safety, make sure the cops enforce the existing laws impartially and with regularity. You will be surprised how quickly indiscriminate firing will stop. Use a gun in a crime, automatic penalties should apply, regardless of who you are. Shoot someone accidentally, be ready to be charged (at minimum) with assault with a deadly weapon and with manslaughter if the person dies. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Mess up and you're going to jail. You'll be surprised how "safe" everyone will become.

Proper, impartial, law enforcement of existing laws is the answer. Making more laws that won't be enforced is not that answer.

[bennedose]

Please read your above statement, your understanding of US law seems to be that police officer is allowed to shoot merely based of his "feelings" and not because of facts and circumstances. If this is your understanding(presuming it to be correct) then surely no responsibility is vested to the police! They are allowed to shoot whenever they "feel". Is the practical situation any different in India? About police killing innocent people, regardless of being armed or unarmed.

Technically an armed Indian policman is not allowed to take the decision to fire on his own. Once the policman kills someone in the US the story is one sided. He does not need permission to open fire. The police in the US are also protected by the establishment and greatly admired by the public. Usually the white public I am told. but i might be wrong.

Do you know somethinng different? Tell me. I am willing to learn. Do you know the provisions of US law?

It is totally a different discussion that US is drifting away from the spirit of Bill of Rights and allowing the State to be more and more powerful.

Well there you are. You said it. Goons empowered by force of arms more than what the public can bring to bear. Never mind the constitution.

[bennedose]

The US Armed Forces may have more powerful firepower than the average citizen but they are prevented by law from performing law enforcement duties on US soil. Remember also, that only about one percent of citizens have served in the US armed forces today.
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 says:

From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section.......

xl_target, are you old enough to recall the anti-Vietnam war demonstrations in the US and the images of protestors being held back by soldiers. Some people who are still alive, and that includes me, are old enough to remember that the US army can be called out if need be.

The US army was also used in the Waco siege. More recently the USAF was used in civil defence after 911.

Elected goons always retain more power than the populace.

[spin_drift]

The US Armed Forces may have more powerful firepower than the average citizen but they are prevented by law from performing law enforcement duties on US soil. Remember also, that only about one percent of citizens have served in the US armed forces today.
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 says:

From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section.......

xl_target, are you old enough to recall the anti-Vietnam war demonstrations in the US and the images of protestors being held back by soldiers. Some people who are still alive, and that includes me, are old enough to remember that the US army can be called out if need be.

The US army was also used in the Waco siege. More recently the USAF was used in civil defence after 911.

Elected goons always retain more power than the populace.

The US Army was not called, it was the National Guard... As far as I know the US gov cannot use the US Army for law enforcement on American soil.. They have law called Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits them from doing so.

[Safarigent]

India also has the concept of citizens arrest

[timmy]

This reminds me of what my CBRN prof, a retd Colonel, told me when I asked him his views on on gun ownership. He said,"kuchh ho na ho, India ki popuation adhi zarur ho jaegi"

I would agree with him, though our circumstances very much need more practical gun laws. But, first we need a mature society. By saying this, we need to dissociate guns from the glamour (Hollywood, Bollywood), and teach about guns at the right age, from the very beginning.

If you are looking for a "more mature" society than India, one of the longest continuously existing civilizations ( if you look back to Mohenjodaro) in history, I'm afraid you are going to have to keep looking. "It ain't gonna happen", as they say.

I have to agree with XL here. When I was about 10 or so, my Aunt had a big "picture book" on ancient cultures and in it was a big expose' on the archeology of Mohenjo-Daro. I found that fascinating as a boy and evidently that has stuck with me all these years. My overall impression of India is that it is the living descendant of the "Mother Culture." Algebra, chemistry, and so many other sciences -- all rooted in Ancient India. What older and more mature society can their be?

Frankly, your prof is talking through his .... well, where the sun don't shine. Does he have any proof that will happen? Can he cite any studies with documented proof that this has happened before? Being a retired Colonel doesn't make him an expert on anything, except the field that he was in and sometimes even that is questionable. How can I say this? I know lots of retired Colonels and my dad is one too. I even know some retired US Army Colonels whose opinion isn't worth spit, except for their narrow fields of expertise.

Again, right on. Even first person experience does not always guarantee expertise -- in fact, I would say that it seldom does. Ask five witnesses about an accident and you will get six points of view.

The reason this line of thinking really pisses me off is that it is regularly used as justification to prevent the relaxation of gun laws here in the US... "blood will flow in the streets". ..."every road rage incident will resemble the OK corrall". It is nothing but an appeal to emotion and an effort to incite fear with no substance behind it. As each state in the US implemented the carry permit system, despite dire warnings, nothing like that happened. In fact, ever since that process started, violent crime started a steady decline and it has been found that carry permit holders tend to be among the most law abiding members of society. Even more so than cops.

Harum Scarum is, I believe, the name for this tactic. A very shabby substitute for the facts and data XL calls for.

For those who make a big hue and cry about training, you all trust the average policeman with guns, right? How much training does the average cop in India have with firearms? Wasn't that demonstrated in spades in Mumbai? You want gun safety, make sure the cops enforce the existing laws impartially and with regularity. You will be surprised how quickly indiscriminate firing will stop. Use a gun in a crime, automatic penalties should apply, regardless of who you are. Shoot someone accidentally, be ready to be charged (at minimum) with assault with a deadly weapon and with manslaughter if the person dies. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Mess up and you're going to jail. You'll be surprised how "safe" everyone will become.

Proper, impartial, law enforcement of existing laws is the answer. Making more laws that won't be enforced is not that answer.

This point is so patently obvious! And the case of Mumbai is a devastating one to such harum scarum arguments. So many folks put blind faith in the police -- why, on this very board the absolute contrary opinions have been hammered home regarding the ability of the police to prevent crime or to face situations like Mumbai.

Both Mark and SL are bowling strikes on this thread, and not even raising a sweat.

[bennedose]

In India, we find people passing by temples in vehicles, and they perform a silent gesture of worship, as if that will earn them some extra points with God. The Right To Bear Arms in India is a similar tokenism that is simply bandied about because the "leaders" - whose political support comes from the coal mafia, mining mafia, sand mafia etc will be the first to be shot dead by a citizenry that is armed. For this group it's not "haarum scarum". They are shit scared of an armed population. That is why they get z category and z plus category security.

As long as Indian leadership consists of people who have fought their way to the top (in local elections) and then up to the federal government by goondagiri and thuggery powered by money from illegal mining, land grabbing, excise evasion and illicit liquor, the Indian citizenry are not going to get anything more than 450 fps single shot air rifles. Is it any wonder that the weapon of choice for murder in India is the machete? Or the favourite means of suicide leaves guns way down in the list.

The comparison between the US and India should end when we see that for all its faults the US enforces its laws seriously and lives by them - at least for US citizens.

[bennedose]

Indian citzens by and large are law abiding. If one looks through the posts on this board you find uniform agreement that the law restricts the power of air rifles, the law restricts the caliber and type of firearm you can use, and the law prohibits hunting, and that these laws must be upheld. I see no subversion or suggestions of how human innovation can break these laws with a little effort. The innovation is clearly there and I am impressed with the hardware skills of my friends on here. But there is no intention or demand to break the law.

In India, security and peace exists primarily because citizens are law abiding and not because of the police. The police to population ratio in India is too low and the police are held like dogs on a leash by politicians. So if I shoot someone the police will not arrive very soon to take me out, I will get away.

[bennedose]

Pardon me folks for making a third post in succession. There is something I wanted to add, unconnected with the above two posts.

As a child in the 60s I noticed that most Indians did not have cars. A few salaried Indians had 1940s and 1950s tech Indian made cars like Ambassador and Premier Padmini (it was Fiat back then). The really well heeled Indians could afford imported cars and the zenith of luxury in those days was a Chevrolet Impala or a Merc. There was a clear gap in the cost of cars and what 99% of Indians could afford. And because the "market' for cars was so small there was no innovation or investment for cars in India.

This is exactly what has been done with firearms in India. the market has been killed by draconian restrictions. Anyone who buys Indian arms pays high prices buts gets an "Ambassador car" in terms of quality. But those who are really well off can invest the astronomical sums needed to acquire s Smith and Wesson or a Colt - which are the Chevrolet Impala/merc of firearms in India.

This ensures a clear caste system. if you have money you can get arms. If not - you shut up and heel.

Naturally the people who really want firearms for illicit reasons will go though the door that is kept open and inviting for them - the route of illegal arms acquisition.

[timmy]

In India, we find people passing by temples in vehicles, and they perform a silent gesture of worship, as if that will earn them some extra points with God. The Right To Bear Arms in India is a similar tokenism that is simply bandied about because the "leaders" - whose political support comes from the coal mafia, mining mafia, sand mafia etc will be the first to be shot dead by a citizenry that is armed. For this group it's not "haarum scarum". They are shit scared of an armed population. That is why they get z category and z plus category security.

As long as Indian leadership consists of people who have fought their way to the top (in local elections) and then up to the federal government by goondagiri and thuggery powered by money from illegal mining, land grabbing, excise evasion and illicit liquor, the Indian citizenry are not going to get anything more than 450 fps single shot air rifles. Is it any wonder that the weapon of choice for murder in India is the machete? Or the favourite means of suicide leaves guns way down in the list.

The comparison between the US and India should end when we see that for all its faults the US enforces its laws seriously and lives by them - at least for US citizens.

Bennedose: Pardon me, but I must respond to this post. I will readily confess a total ignorance of the situation in India, as you may be able to discern from my posts. However, I confess to you that I operate by the dictum that "everyone puts their pants on, one leg at a time." This holds true for gun ownership, as well as most anything else.

For one thing: you seem to indicate an ignorance of a large segment of the American population. What you point out is not a unique phenomenon to India. The list of silly notions to which Americans subscribe is a very lengthy list, as well. Also, if you think that all the laws in the USA are fairly enforced and that anyone who drove a girl off of a bridge like Ted Kennedy did after a drunken party would receive the same treatment, then you are sadly misinformed of the state of USA society. Here, many local laws tend to work according to the famous "Golden Rule": Them that's got the gold, makes the rules. If you cheat on taxes, you probably will go to jail here (unless you made large donations to a successful presidential candidate, in which case, you could receive a presidential pardon), but if you are a famous athlete, you can kill your wife and get away with it here, same as where you are at. To ignore these things is to believe in Washington chopping down the cherry tree and "Honest Abe," and other such clap-trap.

Secondly, you seem to imply that, if the general population were to have access to guns, they would start a revolution and overthrow the economic elites and the politicians. What I'm not understanding about this assertion, and what makes no sense to me, is that all of these current politicians who support the current order (such as it is) are already elected. You seem to be of the opinion that, once a population becomes armed, they are going to go buy guns and shoot the people they are now voting into office.

Such a theory fails to convince me, since it echoes the notion bandied about here in the USA: That owning a gun causes a law-abiding citizen to become a goon, criminal, or revolutionary, or maybe all of the above.

We had a discussion on IFG sometime back over the power of a firearm hung on a west wall as opposed to an east wall. Personally, I hold that a gun is an inanimate object and that as such, does not make people do evil things or good things. The only thing that makes people do evil things is the individual that chooses to do those evil things -- I do not accept that guns have anything to do with the process. Thus, I cannot accept your assertion that access to guns will cause class warfare or revolution in India, any more than it has here in the USA, or Finland, or Switzerland, etc, etc.

As I said, I cannot claim a great knowledge of Indian society. But like most of us here, I think I can assess human nature with passable accuracy, and I do not believe that the heart of Indian people is any worse or better than those who live next door to me right now. Nor do I think that any Indian is any less responsible to have gun rights and own a gun than the people living next door to me right now.

[bennedose]

Secondly, you seem to imply that, if the general population were to have access to guns, they would start a revolution and overthrow the economic elites and the politicians. What I'm not understanding about this assertion, and what makes no sense to me, is that all of these current politicians who support the current order (such as it is) are already elected. You seem to be of the opinion that, once a population becomes armed, they are going to go buy guns and shoot the people they are now voting into office.

Timmy there is enough unaddressed social injustice in India to make murder of a perceived oppressor a very attractive option. Since weapons and intimidation are used by powerful oppressors in society and their henchmen, there is an automatic assumption (on their part) that the oppressed will do exactly that to them if they were to get arms. In order to prove it or disprove it, the population would first have to get arms, which no one in power is willing to risk since he believes he will be the first to get shot by a rival or an opponent.

I don't want to lecture you on the hypocrisy of Indian politics but an illustrative book is one about Mumbai called "Maximum city" by Suketu Mehta. Suketu Mehta describes the relationship between the political parties of Mumbai and the Mumbai underworld. On the surface they are opposed to each other. But at ground level - at the level of actual assassins and gun wielders, there is mutual respect for each other and a desire not to tread on each others toes. Each group know the other group has access to armed men and will kill. An armed populace is a complication in this sort of cosy relationship that exists all over India. The author has interviewed people from both groups and has a gruesome description of an interview where an underworld gunman who had killed many people mimics the sound of the gunshot followed by the sound of tearing flesh and the look on the victim's face.

I must add that the "disarming" of India was achieved by the British and British laws since they were the first to understand that an armed Indian population would have closed down their "Jewel in the Crown" colony of India long before 1947. Gandhi did it by the veiled threat of violence. he said "Accept my deal, or you will only have violence'

[goodboy_mentor]

Technically an armed Indian policman is not allowed to take the decision to fire on his own.

Not like this from legal perspective. Indian policeman does not need permission to fire in his private defense as allowed by Sections 96 to 106 IPC. For any other reason for firing he has to take permission.

Once the policman kills someone in the US the story is one sided.

Highly doubtful from legal perspective. It would mean either the basic principles of natural justice do not exist in the US legal system or the courts are filthy corrupt like in some 3rd world corrupt countries.

The police in the US are also protected by the establishment and greatly admired by the public.

Do you think the situation is really different in India? What about the protection of so called "encounter specialists", euphemism for those policemen who simply pick up the accused and shoot them dead and pass off as an "encounter"? There are probably thousands of such cases. How many such policemen have been convicted so far?

Do you know somethinng different? Tell me. I am willing to learn. Do you know the provisions of US law?

No, that is why asked you to provide some example supporting your claim of what you claim about US laws. But one thing that I know for sure about US law is that the principles of natural justice and equality are part of US legal system. Thus it is extremely unlikely that any provision of law exists in US that allows them to shoot merely based on their "feelings" and not on facts and circumstances of the situation.

Well there you are. You said it. Goons empowered by force of arms more than what the public can bring to bear. Never mind the constitution.

But this can never become a reason to justify that citizens should not be armed or they are irresponsible and thus cannot be trusted with arms.

[miroflex]

There is no doubt a need for gun safety to be taught at an early age to everyone so that the right to keep and bear arms is exercised in a responsible manner in later life. The fundamental rules of gun safety were instilled in me by my elders when I was given an air gun, as were rules for handing sharp edged objects like knives and scissors and also match boxes. The training has stayed with me and is a source of strength.

I shudder when I see the unsafe and dangerous manner in which weapons are handled and carried by large numbers of gun owners. Celebratory firing should have no place in the scheme of things.

Since most parents may be unaware of the rules of gun safety, they may not be able to teach it to their children. In such a scenario, gun safety should be taught to children in schools. Rifle clubs can also play a useful role in promoting gun safety but they are too few and far between to play a major role in this process. Since many licencing authorities insist upon membership of the district rifle club, of which they are patrons, or at least upon the payment of a fee of Rs. 1000 to Rs. 2500 in the club's name, their role can be enlarged for this purpose. A brief course on gun safety organised at the rifle club can be made a prerequisite for the issue of a licence. Perhaps a simple test can be arranged at the end of the course.

These are just a few stray thoughts.

[tirpassion]

Timmy there is enough unaddressed social injustice in India to make murder of a perceived oppressor a very attractive option. Since weapons and intimidation are used by powerful oppressors in society and their henchmen, there is an automatic assumption (on their part) that the oppressed will do exactly that to them if they were to get arms. In order to prove it or disprove it, the population would first have to get arms, which no one in power is willing to risk since he believes he will be the first to get shot by a rival or an opponent.

I don't want to lecture you on the hypocrisy of Indian politics but an illustrative book is one about Mumbai called "Maximum city" by Suketu Mehta. Suketu Mehta describes the relationship between the political parties of Mumbai and the Mumbai underworld. On the surface they are opposed to each other. But at ground level - at the level of actual assassins and gun wielders, there is mutual respect for each other and a desire not to tread on each others toes. Each group know the other group has access to armed men and will kill. An armed populace is a complication in this sort of cosy relationship that exists all over India. The author has interviewed people from both groups and has a gruesome description of an interview where an underworld gunman who had killed many people mimics the sound of the gunshot followed by the sound of tearing flesh and the look on the victim's face.

I must add that the "disarming" of India was achieved by the British and British laws since they were the first to understand that an armed Indian population would have closed down their "Jewel in the Crown" colony of India long before 1947. Gandhi did it by the veiled threat of violence. he said "Accept my deal, or you will only have violence'

This is a fantastic post bennedose and I really appreciate your knowledge and analytical skills.
For me, there is absolutely no base to compare India with any western society because the current problems of India find theirs roots deep in our own socio cultural heritage which dates back to thousands of years. The categorization of a society based on merit (the 4 Varnas) and later further sub categorization of the society based on profession (Jati) with subtle corelation between the two, was a tool aptly manipulated to divide and to make our people know, feel and accept heartily that there were, are and will always be superior and inferior human beings. And to further enforce the ideology, FATE was the ultimate logic... In this scenario, you have a bounty of (human) resources to exploit and reap rich benefits.

best regards
tirpassion