Are Indians responsible to own guns.

[Ramandeep]

First of all i believe this topic has lost its soul instead of being aknowledgeable or debatable this is more of Political now, I started this topic in concern with people who are having legal gun license should understand and have responsibility to own guns for their and everyone else's safety. The comparison between India and USA are very wrong these are two very different countries with different set of people, different cultures. American President is not even capable of passing a "gun control bill" because of the omnipresence of a very strong gun lobby in USA, forget strong we don't even have a thing called "gun lobby". I guess the comparison point were I think trying to outline the liberalised gun law USA has compared to India well if why not compare with Switzerland who has one of the most liberal gun laws why just the USA. Simmilarly comparison of India and Pakistan are totally wrong even though the people are not much different in both the countries as they were part of British India before 1947 but the culture, political system, the demography all has evolved in two different directions unlike Pakistan we don't have terrorist organisations or terrosist leaders thriving in India chanting anti Pakistan slogans with guns doing open rallies. A place called Darra in Pakistan is the hub of producing weapons illegally you can find videos about it in youtube international journalists openly visits the place citing people at that place own gun like people anywhere else own mobiles. So with these two countries why do we need to be compared.

[brihacharan]

Bennedose wrote...
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"

Tirpassion wrote...
The categorization of a society based on merit (the 4 Varnas) and later further sub categorization of the society based on profession (Jaati) with subtle co-relation 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.

> Both above views amply summarize the turn of events in our (India's) history.
> The manipulation of the 4 Varnas & Jaati were taken to abominable grass-root levels to psyche the Indian mind...
> I remember during my school days even the Cricket Matches were held based on the Varnas & Jaati... Eg:
Hindus Vs Muslims
Hindus Vs Parsees
Managers Vs Workers
These categorizations spawned separate clubs...
Hindu Gymkhana
Muslim Gymkhana
Parsee Gymkhana
Catholic Gymkhana
I fondly remember the chat I had with a British gentleman who happened to be our company's collaborator's representative in India. He said in passing - Your country has too many castes & languages....
My response to this took him by surprise & change the topic of our chat...
I said 'Your country too is no better or worse "The Scotsmen have a different language & culture, so do the Welsh & the Irish"

The days are not far away when Scotland, Ireland & Wales become separate countries ... Scotland in 2014!
Unfortunately our present day politicians have not got away from the shackles of archaic British Laws & the policy of divide & rule....
Briha

[Ramandeep]

Mark has aptly summed up the matter based on facts.

-

First Among Equals: True Democracy in Action

JOGISHWAR SINGH

As a Swiss citizen born in India, I am many times brought to think about my experiences of the democratic systems prevalent in the two countries.

Before Indian ‘patriots’ start screaming murder at what I am going to say, I should point out that I am fully aware that I am talking about two different historical realities.

Switzerland has been independent for over 800 years while India is a newly created entity, now a mere 66 years old.

Switzerland has a population of only 8 million while India has the second highest population of any country in the world at over 1.2 billion (give or take a few million). And expected, in the near future, to even outstrip China, and become the world’s most populous.

The trigger for this set of reflections was what I saw on the 7.30 pm evening news on Swiss TV a couple of weeks ago.

The Swiss President, Mr Ueli Maurer, was leaving on a five day state visit to China. The news showed him arriving at Zürich airport in an ordinary private vehicle. The President got out of the car by opening the car door himself. He walked to the nearby baggage trolley stand outside the airport entrance. He took a baggage trolley out, rolled it towards the car, lifted his suitcase and travel bag himself, put these on the trolley which he then rolled towards the entrance like any passenger lambda like you or me. He walked up to the check in counter with just two other persons walking behind him. He checked his luggage in for a commercial flight without any special treatment being meted out to him.

For any Indians (or others) who might find it difficult to believe what I have described above, you can CLICK on the link provided hereunder, at the end of this article, to view a TV news clip from the evening prime time news for July 16, 2013..

You’ll get visual proof of the Swiss President’s arrival at the airport, his check in for his state visit to China and a short interview with a TV journalist. This clip is really worth watching.

Conditioned by my personal experiences of dealing with politicians and government ministers in India while serving as an IAS (Indian Administrative Service) officer, I was so struck by the contrast between what I had experienced in India and what I was seeing on the TV screen that I told my wife that this represented one of the finest examples of democracy for me, certainly of the Swiss variety. It made me proud to be the citizen of a country where the serving President behaves like an ordinary citizen and does not feel the need to consider special privileged treatment as his divine birthright.

I remembered the countless times when I had seen the fury of Indian politicians, much below the level of the President of a country, at what they considered as a slight because they had not been treated as demi-gods.

I am not a psychologist. I do not know whether centuries of slavery have generated this distorted VIP culture in India but I remember that we all did curse the politicians there for causing so much inconvenience to the general public by expecting, demanding and getting privileged treatment.

Who in India, except maybe some politicians or bureaucrats, has not been inconvenienced by VIP visits for which miles of roads and highways, even entire neighbourhoods, are blocked off to traffic, and flights are delayed, awaiting the arrival of some VIP or even his/her flunkies/family members?

Any such inconvenience would cause an uproar in Switzerland.

In India, it does not generate even a whimper.


To view the TV news-clip, please CLICK here.

August 1, 2013

Source http://www.sikhchic.com/article-detail. ... 420&cat=12

Well this really cannot happen i India because there are very serious internal issues in India as compared to Switzerland. India faces problems like terrorism, naxalism, communal violence small issues like a demand of a state can engulf into violence within few hours. The protocol for the Indian Prime minister cannot be compromised.

Although I agree the attitude of politicians are highly critical whereas we understand The President, Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers, Chief ministers of state in India do need security and protocol but even small time politician say a corporator of a small colony also wants preferential treatment of that of The President of India this attitude should be countered.

[tirpassion]

First of all i believe this topic has lost its soul instead of being aknowledgeable or debatable this is more of Political now, I started this topic in concern with people who are having legal gun license should understand and have responsibility to own guns for their and everyone else's safety.

Dear Ramandeep,

Your topic is such that it will obviously lead to a socio cultural and political discussion. I totally agree with you that it is futile to compare our country India with any other western country or any other country where religion goes hand in hand officially with the state (like Pakistan even if our socio cultural background are similar).
However, a simple answer to your question 'YES' or 'NO' is very difficult. The ideally evasive political kind of reply will be 'YES with conditions/restrictions' for some and similarly 'NO with conditions/restrictions' for others. What we are all discussing here are around the so called conditions/restrictions or how to ease them or get rid of them. Even application of these yet undiscussed conditions/restrictions, easing them or removing them will call for discussions which will involve political intervention. And in the case of a YES or NO without conditions/restrictions reply, we need to radically change the mindset of people which in turn can only be done with education and enlightenment and that is again directly related to political decisions.

best regards
tirpassion

[brihacharan]

Tirpassion summed it up as... What we are all discussing here are around the so called conditions/restrictions or how to ease them or get rid of them?

The answer to this loaded query is - "Exercise your Votes" don't abstain from doing what is your birthright
Briha

[goodboy_mentor]

Well this really cannot happen i India because there are very serious internal issues in India as compared to Switzerland. India faces problems like terrorism, naxalism, communal violence small issues like a demand of a state can engulf into violence within few hours. The protocol for the Indian Prime minister cannot be compromised.

Nobody is comparing Switzerland with India as complete entities, the comparison is made of basic values at a human level. Indian rulers have the needless arrogance and vanity. The writer has rightly pointed out that probably due to centuries of slavery the new "masters" want to show who is the ruler and who is a pity subject. By extension this mindset translates into keeping the citizens disarmed on one pretext or the others. The following thread aptly illustrates this mindset http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=20762

Just think, is every Chief Minister of every State under some sort of threat and needs a battalion to guard him or her? If yes then something is seriously going wrong on at a very basic level.

Have you ever thought why is India facing problems like terrorism, naxalism, communal violence? Basic answer is injustice in various forms. But this does not justify a bit that law abiding citizens have lost their right to self defense and be disarmed.

Tirpassion has rightly pointed out your topic is such that it will obviously lead to a socio cultural and political discussion. All through the history disarming of citizens had a political reason. It is done by tyrants and unpopular rulers to perpetuate some form of injustice under the guise of maintaining law and order or some other lame excuse.

[miroflex]

We are drifting away from the topic of responsible gun ownership.

All the best.

[FN-Five-Seven]

Reading XL_Target's post on the second page of this thread , a question popped up in my head .

If , in India , we get stopped or pulled over by traffic police , are we to inform or declare to the police personnel that we have a firearm in our possession ? Any laws / rules / Govt orders to that effect ?

All I know is that , we are needed to inform the Police Station of our possession of arms if we travel to a location which comes under the jurisdiction of another Police Station .

F-N-Five-Seven

[sandy_3126]

There is a hunters ED course in US that is a basic firearms safety course, apart from written exam that there a six hour in class course that you must take to get your hunters ed class after which you get retested to get the permit. I took it in california, and i thought it was a very well balanced course. In addition to something similar, may be 20 hours of firearms training, and safe practices might help to get an individual aligned in the direction of safe gun ownership culture. The question of weather Indians should have guns is a complex question, how to determine the licensing requirements can have certain parameters, for ex - educational background (min limit), criminal background (instant disqualification and punitive grounds for application), mandatory storage checks, Bio-metric safe perquisites as well as other parameters which can be drafted through comprehensive discourse with policy makers across the board. My opinion is there is need for reforms in the current state of law and there is a scope of introducing logical reforms to identify responsible citizens and allow them the ability to own firearms for both recreational and security purposes. The concept of civilians turning guns on each other over a squabble in my opinion is ridiculous, because I am typing this with my two primary assault weapons

[bennedose]

'

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

Thanks tirpassion. But I still think that the ethos of IFG is absolutely essential. We must remain within he law and yet demand the right to bear arms. It does not matter if social correction is slow - but nothing like a firearm in the hands of the righteous and honest to put the fear of God in the dishonest.

[bennedose]

First of all i believe this topic has lost its soul instead of being aknowledgeable or debatable this is more of Political now, I started this topic in concern with people who are having legal gun license should understand and have responsibility to own guns for their and everyone else's safety. .

Your point is accepted Ramandeep, but the title of the thread "Are Indians responsible to own guns" is a rhetorical question that asks the reader to think about 1.2 billion other Indians and not the minority who have licences. I agree with the point that no Indians is more or less responsible than the next person. But if I have a gun and if that gun helps me exert power over someone else, I would prefer it if you did not get a gun because I fear that you would then exert power over me.

Frankly I doubt if people even think about guns properly. Showing a gun is pointless unless you are willing to use it. Those who pull guns out to threaten are playing a game of trying to scare someone else, and those who get scared by that are tempted to play the same game. That is a dangerous game to play.

I recall reading the statement in storybooks that one must not pull out a sword without getting blood on it. This is true and I realised that many years ago when I was in the process of chasing away illegal pavement vendors who were squatting in an area that impinged on my rights. I would chase each one off individually, with aggression but no violence. Only on one occasion one guy pulled out a small, thin bladed knife on me. He was just trying to scare me. I chased him off and ensured that he later left the area. He really should have stabbed me but I saw through his bluff and his knife was completely useless to him - in fact his showing that knife enabled me to get the moral high ground that eventually drove him out of the area. I may not be lucky next time.

As a young man I was aggressive and got into some tiffs where I later realised that such a fight could end either in me killing the other guy or him killing me. Since I had no intention of killing, it would have to be me being killed if the other guy had the inclination. Everyone who gets into an argument has fears that the other guy might harm him - but if you have too much confidence in yourself and too much aggression, you might harm him and then screw up your own life forever. So you have to fear yourself. The easiest people to handle are people who simply get scared because you have a weapon and are not willing to test you to see if you have the willpower to use that weapon. A person who has a weapon and threatens to use it should be harmed instantly by you if you too have a matching or superior weapon. If you do not have the confidence that your weapon can overcome him - then better to run/surrender. That is the same as your not being armed at all.

Many people want guns for self confidence and that is why I believe that people who get guns should first undergo a course in weapon usage and elements of self defence. A gun in a person's hands by itself is not harmful, but it is when he wields it and threatens to use it that it becomes dangerous. A gun sitting on a table is harmless, In the hands of a person who has no clue about what he wants to achieve with that gun - it is dangerous. Not because he might shoot, but he could get shot too. If I have a gun and see another man wield a gun threateningly, i would shoot. This is what all gun wielders should be ready for and ask why the hell they have a gun in their hands in the first place. It's not about you dominating the other guy. The other guy could dominate you. It is the latter fear that stops the powers that be from allowing people to bear arms freely.

A close friend of my brother in the US lives alone and is ailing. He is wealthy and his house is full of things that would tempt a burglar. He also has a lot of guns and security cameras. The man was depressed after a recent family bereavement and one night recently he heard a noise and imagined that the dead person had come back. He was shocked to find a masked burglar with a gun pointing at him. My brother's friend, recently bereaved, told the burglar "OK Go on. Shoot me" While the burglar was hesitating the friend pulled out his own Glock and fired. He missed, but the burglar ran for his life. The guy was later apprehended.

Why on earth was this burglar carrying a gun? Clearly he simply meant to scare, not use the gun. How many of us wants guns simply for our own self confidence? If you have a rifle or pistol, try and hit man sized targets from 5 to 10 meters in the dark without waiting to aim. It is easier to miss than hit. You will not be calm and collected when you are threatened. You will be crapping square bricks. Your hands will be trembling and your heart will be racing. One really needs to think how much a gun will help under the circumstances. The acquisition of a gun must be deliberate and well thought out regarding the reason for why one would want a gun and what one would do. Saying "i want one for self defence" does not always cut it.

[timmy]

Bennedose, I cannot accept your position. You portray your views as carrying great wisdom, yet all they are is a collection of opinions and experiences, nothing more. XL has asked you for facts and data that support your position. You have done a lot of talking in this thread, but you have not provided facts and data. You made statements indicating that, if people had access to guns, they would revolt against the people they now vote for. I asked you how guns exerted the power to turn regular citizens into criminals. Rather than answer that question, you asserted that criminal gangs would rise up and take over society, were access to guns widely granted. How this statement makes sense, I do not understand, since the criminal elements are now the groups that do have access to guns -- illegal guns. The honest citizen is the one who is having trouble getting a gun -- these pages are full of such examples.

Basically, as I read your writings, you put yourself in the position of somehow knowing all men's hearts and motives -- I hear you setting yourself up as an expert on what everyone else will do, once they have access to guns. I cannot accept that you know men's minds and hearts to such a degree. It is simply not reasonable to accept such a position.

Frankly, I must say I reject your views and do not even believe they come close to representing why this site exists: to establish a clear Right to Keep and Bear Arms for every law abiding citizen who wants a firearm, for whatever legal purpose they may wish to own one. On that basis alone, I must reject your position and oppose you.

[bennedose]

Bennedose, I cannot accept your position. You portray your views as carrying great wisdom, yet all they are is a collection of opinions and experiences, nothing more. XL has asked you for facts and data that support your position. You have done a lot of talking in this thread, but you have not provided facts and data. You made statements indicating that, if people had access to guns, they would revolt against the people they now vote for. I asked you how guns exerted the power to turn regular citizens into criminals. Rather than answer that question, you asserted that criminal gangs would rise up and take over society, were access to guns widely granted. How this statement makes sense, I do not understand, since the criminal elements are now the groups that do have access to guns -- illegal guns. The honest citizen is the one who is having trouble getting a gun -- these pages are full of such examples.

Basically, as I read your writings, you put yourself in the position of somehow knowing all men's hearts and motives -- I hear you setting yourself up as an expert on what everyone else will do, once they have access to guns. I cannot accept that you know men's minds and hearts to such a degree. It is simply not reasonable to accept such a position.

Frankly, I must say I reject your views and do not even believe they come close to representing why this site exists: to establish a clear Right to Keep and Bear Arms for every law abiding citizen who wants a firearm, for whatever legal purpose they may wish to own one. On that basis alone, I must reject your position and oppose you.

Timmy you are entitled to your views which you base on my style of writing. I am not trying to portray myself as anything but that is the impression you have got. That is not my problem. I am merely stating my views. I never stated that people will rise up. I have merely stated that I believe there is a fear that people may rise up which ensures that the dominant elite in society make rules that prevent others from owning guns. You seem to have missed this and gone off on a weird tanget about what you imagine I am trying to do, which is, frankly nonsense. My opinions may be nonsense to you. Just say so. I would be happy to accept that as your position. But I have stated my views plain and simple. It should be easy to disagree and be done with it. if you think that i am trying to pose like a wise man - those are thoughts you are conjuring up in your own head and posting them as some sort of revelation as a counterpoint to my opinion. No need for diversionary counterpoints that analyse my personality. Just say you disagree.

We need not see eye to eye on any issue and if you do not like differences of opinion, that is really not my problem. However I will answer your question separately.

[timmy]

That is funny, Bennedose, for I see myself as doing what you invite me to do: state my views plainly. As I said, I disagree with you. I'm sorry you have not found that point to be plain.

On the other hand, you seem to now have some sort of insight into telling me what I think about what I imagine, what I think about you, what I'm conjuring up in my head, etc. How you know so much about what other people think is quite a mystery to me, but if you are convinced that this is your area of expertise, by all means, have at it.

[bennedose]

you have not provided facts and data. You made statements indicating that, if people had access to guns, they would revolt against the people they now vote for. I asked you how guns exerted the power to turn regular citizens into criminals. Rather than answer that question, you asserted that criminal gangs would rise up and take over society, were access to guns widely granted. How this statement makes sense, I do not understand, since the criminal elements are now the groups that do have access to guns -- illegal guns. The honest citizen is the one who is having trouble getting a gun -- these pages are full of such examples.

It is OK to misunderstand what i have written but let me point out where you are misrepresenting my views.

I did not state that people will rise up. i stated that access to guns for common people has been restricted by a powerful political/criminal elite who believe that people will rise up.

Why do I say this? This is because the powerful elite are the people who ensure that they have body guards who are armed with legal or illegal weapons. Who are they arming themselves against? They are arming themselves against people who might attack them. Why would anyone want to attack these powerful people with armed bodyguards? The usual reasons in India are caste based oppression and feudalism. Indian towns and villages are often divided on caste based lines and existing feudal lords who have inherited land and wealth. Voting often follows caste lines and the dominant caste (in numbers) gets one of its people elected by means of the election syetem in which the man with the largest number of votes gets elected even if he simply gets 1 vote more. This man can then have his henchmen who stop a diferent caste group from using water sources or other resources. Allowing the latter people (of a different or "lower" caste group) to get guns would be a threat to this "elected" leader. He controls the police both as a caste equation and as elected leader, and the police decide who gets guns. In turn this leader teams up with a national level political party and ensures that members of his caste vote for and elect a representative that he has chosen - so even at the federal level there is tacit acknowledgement that guns are tools that keep power in some hands and not others and that the caste divisions are useful for political power.

If you live in the US I believe you need to have a better understanding of the social and political dynamics in india before you apply the simple logic that has been used in your question. If you think I am trying to show my wisdom here - remember you asked me and I am saying what I think. What you think of the information is not my problem.

Can India ever become a society where everyone gets free access to arms? i don't know. I think it is worth trying for that goal simply because it really will help eliminate or reduce the armed intimidation that is so rampant in India.