Are Indians responsible to own guns.

[tirpassion]

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.

Bennedose,
I will disagree a bit in this point of yours out of my own experience. On 25th of June 2013, I was at home around 3PM and I was dry practicing with my Free Pistol. I heard continued loud noise on the landing of my apartment. I thought that the neighbour was dong some DIY job in his apartment. But, out of curiosity, I went to see through the door glass and to my stupefaction, saw two guys trying to force open the door of our neighbour. I did what I should not have done perhaps; I opened my door immediately and just asked them in loud voice what they were upto (I still had the unloaded free pistol in my hand pointed towards the ground). There were in fact 3 men and they just rushed down the stairs to flee. Before opening my door, I did not even think of loading my FP or going to pick up another weapon and point the gun towards the burglars and so on. I did act as per the emergency without thinking much (the reason that I did not even leave my gun) and my thoughts are certainly not to shoot. I believe that just the sight of a weapon made them flee in that case.

Timmy,
Ideally every citizen should be considered responsible in any country. What you all can say based on what you live and experience in your country can not be compared to the context of India because of various reasons, some of which are socio cultural background, social and economic inequality, centuries old social injustice etc. etc.
I am an Indian citizen and I live in France. If you compare the US with France it will be more logical.
Well, as a whole crimes are on the rise in Europe including France. Yet, in France, like many other European countries, the right to self defense is limited proportionately to the means used by the agressor (which is ridiculous anyway). You do not have the right to carry a weapon on you (forget about concealed carrying). Transportation of weapon is only permitted in a case without ammo and with a trigger lock. However, the only self defense right we can exercise here with a gun is when an agressor or agressors break in inside home territory with violence which can be termed as home defense. That is again exceptional compared to many other EU countries. So you understand that I could never have legally used my gun against the burglars who were trying to break the door of my neighbour.
But owning a gun is not that difficult, most of the bolt action rifles, shotguns and MLs needing no license. Permit is needed for hand guns (except for BP handguns) and each individual can own upto a maximum of 12 handguns for sports purpose (officially). In fact, there are a lot of weapons in France amongst the civilians (bit more than 31 par hundred offcially and thousands of unofficial post WWI & WWII weapons, uncared and forgotten in the attics or basements of French houses).
There is lobbying by the Shooting federation and the hunting federation for owing weapons and the lobbying of the Shooting federation resulted in 12 handguns n the name of sport per individual years back when the socialist govenrment of François Mitterand restricted gun ownership. For 'sports purpose', one can acquire any type of handgun except for automatic ones like Uzi and one can use them, if needed, for home defense as mentioned. There has not been any major gun related incident from a legal gun owner since the one in March 2002 when a legal gun owner (mentally deranged) killed 8 councellors of the Municipality of Nanterre and injured 17 others during an inhouse meeting.
There is again a wave created by the European Commission for disarming Europe and adopting a homogeneous arms law for EU. Our federations are negotiating strongly so that we in France can continue with our rights. We accept what we have and we strongly want to keep it as it is...

You have all heard so much of the US. I just took the liberty to talk a bit about my country of residence, France. It was a bit off topic, sorry!

best regards
tirpassion

[goodboy_mentor]

I opened my door immediately and just asked them in loud voice what they were upto (I still had the unloaded free pistol in my hand pointed towards the ground). There were in fact 3 men and they just rushed down the stairs to flee.

Probably you were lucky that they decided to flee than confront you. Personally I would not dare such a gamble.

But owning a gun is not that difficult, most of the bolt action rifles, shotguns and MLs needing no license. Permit is needed for hand guns (except for BP handguns) and each individual can own up to a maximum of 12 handguns for sports purpose (officially).

This is interesting. I would like to read these laws in detail, can you please point me to any French Government website that mentions these laws.

[timmy]

Tirpassion: In this discussion, repeated attempts are made to force me into a corner that says, "That may be fine in the USA, but you don't understand India." This line of reasoning ignores the point.

My underlying point is, all humans, of whatever nation, should have certain basic rights. Some well-known ones are freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.

I hold, first of all, that every citizen has a right to protect themselves, their family, and their property.

Second of all, if there is a limitation of what a citizen cannot say/do/have, then there needs to be a legal definition of the limitation and it must be ratified by the populace or representatives of the populace.

Just like I believe that freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, etc are basic human rights, so I also believe that the ability to protect one's self, family, and possessions is also a right, and if there are limitations placed on such a right, then there needs to be legally coded justification, plus a law that applies to all without distinction of class, color, gender, etc.

I hold that such rights apply to anyone anywhere in any country, and thus my views do not depend on the local climate in whatever country. I will agree, that the nature of the legal provisions may vary from nation to nation, depending on local considerations, but the basic right and the need to legally codify limitations through the processes of whatever representative government exercises sovereignty remain the same everywhere.

These concepts are different from "I had a neighbor who told me," and "I was walking home from work once." Such stories can be informative and important, but are not the basis for rights in a society. Rights in society are based on an individual's humanity and equal standing in the eyes of the law.

[tirpassion]

This is interesting. I would like to read these laws in detail, can you please point me to any French Government website that mentions these laws.

Hello GBM,

Here is an official site which talks about 'Your Rights' and the page is in connection to weapons. This is the current law. It is all in French.

http://vosdroits.service-public.fr/N287.xhtml

The new law, which we are a bit skeptical about, will come to effect from 6th September 2013 and it will be in uniformity with the European laws so far as categories are concerned (instead of current 8 categories 1 to 8, there will be 4 categories A, B, C, D). The text of the new law was amended twice or thrice to incorporate or delete certain terms and conditions and the gun lobby played a considerable role. Everything is not conquered but a few pro gun reforms have been obtained, like free possesion of any weapon including handguns as historical weapon (with some exceptions) which dates before 1st January 1900, the passage of air weapon energy from 7.5 Joules to 20 Joules and the passage of smooth bore single/double barrelled shot gun shooting only one cartridge per barrel (semi auto and pump action shot guns need permit) into free registration category.

Here it is in details but in French.

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTex ... rieLien=id

In a nutshell the new law has:
Cat A: Prohibited weapons (Military weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, automatic rifles, atomatic pistols etc. etc. )
Cat B: Weapons requiring authorization/permit (hand guns, semi auto rifles less than 20mm caliber and equal or less than 31 shots magazine, bolt action riles less than 20mm caliber and having more than 11 shot magazine capacity etc. etc. etc)
Cat C: Weapons requiring declaration/registraion with police but no prior authorization/pemit (semi auto rifle less than 20mm caliber with max of 3 shots, bolt action rifles less than 20mm caliber with max capacity of 10+1 shots, dbl barreled gun in which at least one barrel is rifled etc. etc.). To buy these weapons one needs to have a shooting federation membership or a huning federation membership. With your hunting/shooting federation card, identity proof and adequate money you can buy these weapons freely in any gunshop. The arms dealer does the declaration/registration. However, after acquiring the weapon, if the person is no more a member of either shooting or hunting federation, he/she can still possess the weapon. Only problem, where to shoot? Clubs will not permit you if you are not a member because of insurance, hunting is prohibited unless you are a registered hunter, you are not allowed to shoot inside your private domain unless you have a certified shootng range and you can not shoot in public/state domains.
Cat D: Weapons requiring registration (excepting some like air weapons) and which can be bought freely with identity proof across the counter without being member of shooting or hunting federation. All blackpowder weapons which are replicas of historical weapons dating before 1st Jan 1900 and not shooting metal cartridges, all original weapons dating before 1st January 1900 with a few exceptions, air weapons of energy less than 20 Joules, smooth bore shotguns shooting 1 shot per barrel need registration (side by side or over under barrelled) etc. etc. The arms dealer does the registration.

You will also find an article which defines people who can not have weapons. They include psychiatric patients, people with a certain criminal background etc. etc.

For the weapons with authorization/permit, my experience as a foreign national was excellent. With my Indian submissive nature, I had only asked for 1 weapon in January 2013 where I could have asked for 3 at one go. I submitted all the documents with the local police where I was greeted politely. The officer helped me even to fill up the form, got a photocopy of a document done which I had forgotten. No interrogation, no interview, I got my license/permit after two and a half months. Anyway, I have applied for another authorization/permit in July and this time for 3 weapons . Let us see!

I am sorry to be highly off topic, once again.

best regards
tirpassion

[tirpassion]

Tirpassion: In this discussion, repeated attempts are made to force me into a corner that says, "That may be fine in the USA, but you don't understand India." This line of reasoning ignores the point.

My underlying point is, all humans, of whatever nation, should have certain basic rights. Some well-known ones are freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.

I hold, first of all, that every citizen has a right to protect themselves, their family, and their property.

Second of all, if there is a limitation of what a citizen cannot say/do/have, then there needs to be a legal definition of the limitation and it must be ratified by the populace or representatives of the populace.

Just like I believe that freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, etc are basic human rights, so I also believe that the ability to protect one's self, family, and possessions is also a right, and if there are limitations placed on such a right, then there needs to be legally coded justification, plus a law that applies to all without distinction of class, color, gender, etc.

I hold that such rights apply to anyone anywhere in any country, and thus my views do not depend on the local climate in whatever country. I will agree, that the nature of the legal provisions may vary from nation to nation, depending on local considerations, but the basic right and the need to legally codify limitations through the processes of whatever representative government exercises sovereignty remain the same everywhere.

These concepts are different from "I had a neighbor who told me," and "I was walking home from work once." Such stories can be informative and important, but are not the basis for rights in a society. Rights in society are based on an individual's humanity and equal standing in the eyes of the law.

Hey Timmy,
Do you really think that those of us (including me) who are trying to force you into a corner (it is what you are thinking unluckily), do not have any knowledge/feeling/cue of what you are saying? If you have a doubt, please let me assure you from my part that this is not the first time in life that I am reading about freedom, liberty, equality, rights, duties and so on.

In this thread there is a post of Brihacharan. Please re read the word loaded query and I can surely tell you that it is a huge load on us Indians.

Postby brihacharan » Fri Aug 09, 2013 3:16 pm
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

I will go to vote for change, many like minded will do the same. But in India political parties do not win elections with the votes of the urban class population. They live on massive votes from the uneducated/ignorant mass and they have ensured, ensure and will continue to ensure by hook or by crook that the bliss of ignorance persists. This is one of the painful loads that we are living with. Anyway, I do not want to go to any political discussion.


tirpassion

[brihacharan]

In India political parties do not win elections with the votes of the urban class population. They live on massive votes from the uneducated/ignorant mass and they have ensured, ensure and will continue to ensure by hook or by crook that the bliss of ignorance persists. This is one of the painful loads that we are living with. Anyway, I do not want to go to any political discussion.

tirpassion

There lies the tragedy
If every literate, educated & urban Indian were to vote maybe things would be a tad better
Briha

[bennedose]

Tirpassion: In this discussion, repeated attempts are made to force me into a corner that says, "That may be fine in the USA, but you don't understand India."

Timmy as far as I can tell I have not tried to force you into any corner other than what you might have identified for yourself. Perhaps others have tried, but i don't know.

Your viewpoint is based on the presumption that all citizens are equal. You might not want to believe this but in India citizens have been unequal for so many centuries that the modern Indian constitution is an attempt at imposing equality. That equality is far from having been achieved even in issues like who has access to water sources. Among the huge number of things about which equality is sought to be brought in, the right to bear (fire) arms simply does not have the priority or urgency that proponents might believe is necessary and I have listed only some of the institutionalized hurdles that I see as requiring to be overcome with no simple solution in sight. Citizens rights to get clean drinking water and an education are perceived as far more urgent (and politically more acceptable) than the right to bear arms.

The Indian constitution might say "equality" but existing political realities ensure rule by groups with vested interests who get themselves elected by votes given on caste/ethnic group lines. Since they are "elected" one has to nominally admit that all voters really want these people in power even if the elected representative is openly hostile to some ethnic groups or castes. Possible solutions for this issue (like proportional representation and right to recall) are off topic here.

[Mark]

A thousand pardons everyone for hijacking this back to policing, but Sir Robert Peels "Principles of Law Enforcement" of 1829 is still worthy of discussion:

Sir Robert Peel's Principles of Law Enforcement 1829
1. The basic mission for which police exist is to prevent crime and disorder as an alternative to the repression of crime and disorder by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police existence, actions, behavior and the ability of the police to secure and maintain
public respect.
3. The police must secure the willing cooperation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain public respect.
4. The degree of cooperation of the public that can be secured diminishes, proportionately, to the necessity for the use of physical force and compulsion in achieving police objectives.
5. The police seek and preserve public favor, not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to the law, in complete
independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws; by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all
members of society without regard to their race or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humor; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in
protecting and preserving life.
6. The police should use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning
is found to be insufficient to achieve police objectives; and police should use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for
achieving a police objective.
7. The police at all times should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the
police; the police are the only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the intent of the
community welfare.
8. The police should always direct their actions toward their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary by avenging individuals or the state, or
authoritatively judging guilt or punishing the guilty.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

Of important note to me is rule #7, where "the police are the public and the public are the police". The only difference being is that the police are the ones who have it as a full time job, but it is obligatory to ALL citizens to be responsible for keeping law and order. Of course for the public to be relied upon to assist in keeping law and order, the laws must be just and fair to all, which I believe is where a lot of the practice departs from the theory. However, it is worthy of public discussion when the suggestion is made that somehow the general populace is not deserving of the same responsibilities granted to the police forces.

[timmy]

Tirpassion: In this discussion, repeated attempts are made to force me into a corner that says, "That may be fine in the USA, but you don't understand India."

Timmy as far as I can tell I have not tried to force you into any corner other than what you might have identified for yourself. Perhaps others have tried, but i don't know.

Come now, we cannot have a constructive discussion if we are going to be disingenuous!

Your viewpoint is based on the presumption that all citizens are equal. You might not want to believe this but in India citizens have been unequal for so many centuries that the modern Indian constitution is an attempt at imposing equality. That equality is far from having been achieved even in issues like who has access to water sources. Among the huge number of things about which equality is sought to be brought in, the right to bear (fire) arms simply does not have the priority or urgency that proponents might believe is necessary and I have listed only some of the institutionalized hurdles that I see as requiring to be overcome with no simple solution in sight. Citizens rights to get clean drinking water and an education are perceived as far more urgent (and politically more acceptable) than the right to bear arms.

This statement is hardly worthy of a reply. You are attempting to change the topic of discussion to one that will allow you to set up a strawman argument, as well as be patronizing to me.

Here is the real issue contained in your response:

My viewpoint is based on the FACT that all citizens are equal before the law.

This is not a presumption.

Is it a presumption here on IFG?

Is it a presumption to you, sir?

The fact that there is grinding poverty in India, that there is not enough potable water to drink, and that these issues take priority over gun rights may be reality in India, and I thank you for your patronization, informing me that they exist. But besides your patronization of me, you draw this as a red herring into the discussion. The point is hardly whether these things exist, or whether there are other basic physical needs of the population that take priority over RKBA. These things are obvious to most anyone who reads these boards, and that is why it is patronizing of you to try and divert attention away from the core issues at play here.

So, Mr. Bennedose, please stop beating around the bush, come right out and tell me plainly, without obfuscation: Do you believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a right for all citizens of India that should be granted immediately, or not?

If you want a discussion about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, please don't bother with an answer. Just step up and give a straight yes or no.

The Indian constitution might say "equality" but existing political realities ensure rule by groups with vested interests who get themselves elected by votes given on caste/ethnic group lines. Since they are "elected" one has to nominally admit that all voters really want these people in power even if the elected representative is openly hostile to some ethnic groups or castes. Possible solutions for this issue (like proportional representation and right to recall) are off topic here.

I am not addressing existing political realities. I'm not addressing what sort of chicanery goes on in the political process. I'm not talking about caste or economic class hostility. I'm simply asking, do you stand for what this site stands for: Indians for Guns, or, The Right to Keep and Bear Arms for law abiding Indian citizens or not?

[brihacharan]

Timmy wrote or rather asked>>>> Come right out and tell me plainly, without obfuscation:
Do you believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a right for all citizens of India that should be granted immediately, or not?


The unanimous & equivocal answer is YES
I suppose it's the one Primary / Sole reason we are all members of IFG
My sincere prayer - "May this TOPIC Rest in Peace"
Briha

[goodboy_mentor]

Here is an official site which talks about 'Your Rights' and the page is in connection to weapons. This is the current law. It is all in French.

Thank you for providing a detailed reply with the summary of the laws. I will try to use google translate and read the details.

Do you believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a right for all citizens of India that should be granted immediately, or not?

It does not need to be "granted" because the right to keep and bear arms is already acknowledged as fundamental right by Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. This right has been cleverly subverted by hiding under legal abracadabra which is beyond the understanding of common man. I have explained it in the following post http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 30#p197742

And the less I speak about the legislature, judiciary and executive wings of the government, the better it is. All that is needed is legislature and judiciary acknowledge the facts and truth. But the facts and truth are biggest casualty in this country or any banana republic for that matter.

[bennedose]

So, Mr. Bennedose, please stop beating around the bush, come right out and tell me plainly, without obfuscation: Do you believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a right for all citizens of India that should be granted immediately, or not?

No. The right already exists. What I want is the ability to exercise the right.

[tirpassion]

My sincere prayer - "May this TOPIC Rest in Peace"
Briha

I will go by you Brihaji However I can not accept a statement like this.

A thousand pardons everyone for hijacking this back to policing,

Mark, you must have understood by now that RKBA is a fundamental right in India and because of Government manipulations, we are not able to exercise our rights. What makes you state 'everyone for hijacking back to policing'? You are in some way accusing us for supporting the policing by the government. And that is not acceptable to me.

We have our problems where our rights are compromised and we are fighting as we can and will continue to do so. One such violation of right is with arms and that is why we are here in IFG to let our voices heard. Similarly, other countries have certain rights violated for which their citizens should react. I will not go ahead to give moral lessons on rights for that because I think that all human beings have the minimum intelligence to understand what Right is. If not their faculty of reflection have been diverted, blunted or incapacitated by maniplators. The question of how to get rid of the manipulators will lead again to a poliical debate.

regards
tirpassion

[timmy]

So, Mr. Bennedose, please stop beating around the bush, come right out and tell me plainly, without obfuscation: Do you believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a right for all citizens of India that should be granted immediately, or not?

No. The right already exists. What I want is the ability to exercise the right.

Again, sir, I am not asking about what you want for yourself. It seems there is a great need to play word games in this thread.

The question is, do you want every law abiding citizen in India to be able to exercise this right? And may I hear just a simple "yes" or "no" please?

[sandy_3126]

Are Indians responsible to own guns: YES.... that's it!