Firearms training for school staff in KPK pakistan

[Vikram]

While we must condemn the killing of children with guns, it is easy to forget that most terorist attacks are with bombs. 60 Shias were killed in a bomb blast yesterday in a mosque in Sindh, Pakistan. Arming the Imams or worshippers with guns would have been of no use. The right response to terrorism is not necessarily giving more arms to people. Self defence is a completely different beast from terrorism and it is a mistake to conflate the two and pretend that both require the same response.

While terrorism as a larger issue is tackled by the state and the civil society, it would be foolhardy to stay unprepared or ill-prepared for the vulnerable. Doesn't matter if the terrorists use bombs most of the times. One cannot bank on that. Does not matter if you have a handgun and the terrorist has an AK.Because having an air force and artillery does not imply not arming the soldiers with rifles.There are various scenarios and one is prepared for them. It is about having a fighting chance. Special situations call for special remedies. Our own government equipped citizens to fight against terrorists in Punjab and Kashmir. There are quite a few recorded incidents wherein terrorists were repelled by armed civilians.

There is no, IMO, dangerous conflation of self-defence and terrorism here. The school teachers are not fighting terrorism or terrorists in this instance. They are being armed so that they can protect themselves and the young lives that are entrusted to them should the terrorists attack. I can only salute those teachers.

Check this video. They are prepared.



I would rather have this while the larger equations are being solved by the specialists and specialist agencies.

Best-
Vikram

[timmy]

While we must condemn the killing of children with guns, it is easy to forget that most terorist attacks are with bombs. 60 Shias were killed in a bomb blast yesterday in a mosque in Sindh, Pakistan. Arming the Imams or worshippers with guns would have been of no use. The right response to terrorism is not necessarily giving more arms to people. Self defence is a completely different beast from terrorism and it is a mistake to conflate the two and pretend that both require the same response.

While terrorism as a larger issue is tackled by the state and the civil society, it would be foolhardy to stay unprepared or ill-prepared for the vulnerable. Doesn't matter if the terrorists use bombs most of the times. One cannot bank on that. Does not matter if you have a handgun and the terrorist has an AK.Because having an air force and artillery does not imply not arming the soldiers with rifles.There are various scenarios and one is prepared for them. It is about having a fighting chance. Special situations call for special remedies. Our own government equipped citizens to fight against terrorists in Punjab and Kashmir. There are quite a few recorded incidents wherein terrorists were repelled by armed civilians.

There is no, IMO, dangerous conflation of self-defence and terrorism here. The school teachers are not fighting terrorism or terrorists in this instance. They are being armed so that they can protect themselves and the young lives that are entrusted to them should the terrorists attack. I can only salute those teachers.

Check this video. They are prepared.



I would rather have this while the larger equations are being solved by the specialists and specialist agencies.

Best-
Vikram

Hear Hear, Vikram!

It's great to discuss plans for increased training -- this is good and also enables them to teach the kids. Such steps will be valuable for the FUTURE.

The pressing issue of the moment, however isn't the future, it is NOW!

I have a problem being sympathetic with a viewpoint that says, "oh, guns are useless against trained terrorists," or "firearms won't help out in the majority of attacks."

Maybe Malala would still have been shot in the head and maybe all of these poor boys and school administrators would still have been killed if there were people armed to resist the attackers. Maybe not.

But who will stand up and be the judge here, and say, "I don't think weapons would do any good in this situation, so none of you can have them. You must rely on the authorities as before."

These poor folks are facing a crisis. The situation has gone far beyond having someone blow a whistle and shout "halt." There is a serious breakdown of control by the state, and why shouldn't those threatened be given the ability to protect themselves with something more than talk, good intentions, and abstract ideas about "good government," especially when the last is not present in too many instances?

If someone is so set on denying gun possession, I suggest that the place to start is with the terrorists. Then the question will be largely moot.

[bennedose]

There is no, IMO, dangerous conflation of self-defence and terrorism here. The school teachers are not fighting terrorism or terrorists in this instance. They are being armed so that they can protect themselves and the young lives that are entrusted to them should the terrorists attack. I can only salute those teachers.
<snip>

I would rather have this while the larger equations are being solved by the specialists and specialist agencies.

The way I see this is that in a nation state the latter (i.e the state) has certain responsibilities to meet. The idea of arming for self defence is the right to protect oneself should the state fail.

There is, unfortunately a political aspect to this that is being covered over by using, what I believe, is a cherry-picked example of state actions and projecting them as an ideal to be followed. The state needs to be right on top in keeping terrorism at bay and arming citizens over and above that would be a sensible way of reducing the chances of a terrorist carnage. If the state does not play its role and fails to quell terrorist groups, fails to stop those groups from acquiring grenades, RDX bombs, fully automatic weapons, and even rocket propelled grenade launchers - the "too-little-too-late" action of giving selected civilians small arms and training is not what I can cheer as a wonderfully liberal action by an enlightened state that is worthy of emulation.

What is worthy of emulation is the desire for the weak to arm themselves. The state is "bestowing" an arms right on these people post facto, and praise for that is misplaced. The totality of state's actions in this case are actually deplorable and it is wrong to pretend that they are somehow very enlightened.

[bennedose]

Here is the Arms Ordinance of Pakistan, 1965
https://www.unodc.org/tldb/pdf/Pakistan ... e_1965.pdf

I find it interesting that under section 3b(iii), air pistols are arms, among other items. Under 3b(ix dd) a flick knife comes under "arms'

The laws go on to state:

CHAPTER IV
GOING ARMED AND POSSESSING ARMS, ETC
.
8. Prohibition of going armed without licence:
(1) No person shall go armed with any arms
except under a licence and to the extent
and in the manner permitted thereby.
(2) Any person so going armed without a licence
or in contravention of its provision maybe
disarmed by any Magistrate, police officer or
other person empowered by Government in this
behalf by name or by virtue of his office.
(3) Nothing in sub-sections (1
) and (2) shall apply to a pers
on carrying arms under a written
authority issued in accordance with the rules.
9. Unlicensed possession of arms etc.:
No person shall have in hi
s possession or under his control
any arms, or any ammunition or military stores, ex
cept under a license and in a manner and to the
extent permitted thereby

The Punjab arms ordinance of Pakistan is here and it appears to be the same
http://punjablaws.gov.pk/laws/190.html

[timmy]

There is no, IMO, dangerous conflation of self-defence and terrorism here. The school teachers are not fighting terrorism or terrorists in this instance. They are being armed so that they can protect themselves and the young lives that are entrusted to them should the terrorists attack. I can only salute those teachers.
<snip>

I would rather have this while the larger equations are being solved by the specialists and specialist agencies.

. . . the "too-little-too-late" action of giving selected civilians small arms is not what I can cheer as a wonderfully liberal action by an enlightened state that is worthy of emulation.

. . . The state is "bestowing" an arms right on these people post facto, and praise for that is misplaced. The totality of state's actions in this case are actually deplorable and it is wrong to pretend that they are somehow very enlightened.

No doubt the state in question has been responsible for the mess.

But reread Vikram's post again "I can only salute those teachers," he said.

1. ". . . the "too-little-too-late" action of giving selected civilians small arms is not what I can cheer as a wonderfully liberal action by an enlightened state that is worthy of emulation." No question, it is not a "wonderfully liberal action by an enlightened state," but in this case, the act of allowing citizens in this situation is worthy of emulation.

2. ". . . it is wrong to pretend that they are somehow very enlightened." "Enlightenment" is hardly the issue in this case. The issue is a binary one: is it correct to allow the teachers and students to protect themselves, or is it right to prevent them from doing so. laying aside the emotions and the past history, the debate of which does little to assure the safety of the students and teachers in the present, I think the government made the correct decision in this case for self-protection.

[ckkalyan]

timmy, Vikram, benedose



I think, the Govt. is doing the best it can to facilitate a temporary quick-fix while it works on the ponderous process to get the issue sorted out straight, eventually!

Quite admirable in fact, good work to get something positive going immediately - have to admire that prompt open ended action no matter the political repercussions!

[goodboy_mentor]

As far as question of RKBA is concerned, any State that is afraid of armed citizens . Just like criminals, it wants the citizens(potential victims) to be unarmed.

edited by moderator