Editorial praising Indian gun laws

[Armed Defence]

In an editorial published in the most widely read Pakistani English daily, the gun ownership in India was cited as an example. Please read it and give your comments over there

http://www.dawn.com/news/1176122/guns-and-children

[shooter]

Anyone citing indian gun laws in a positive light is enlightened, intelligent, free thinking, true, honest, freedom loving, deserving of my respect, an asset to society.

[kshitij]

The grass always looks greener on the other side?

[brihacharan]

The grass always looks greener on the other side?

Just a 'food for thought'....

Briha

[Vikram]

I do think that there is a golden mean.

Briha ji, well said.

[brihacharan]

Briha

[aadhaulya]

This I would also like to know.

Regards

[timmy]

After the APS Peshawar attack, Pakistan in some respects seems to have discarded clear thinking for knee-jerk reactionary responses.

"Seems"? There's a subjective judgment, for sure. From my perspective, this is what's involved in the above observation:

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.

According to some research, the projection of one's negative qualities onto others is a common process in everyday life.

There are a lot of knee jerk reactions involved nowadays when gun violence occurs, and this editorial opinion is a great example of the fact. Consider this comment to the article:

Children should be in schools, playing and learning. The thought of a child holding any kind of weapon is in my opinion deplorable!

I totally agree, children should be playing and learning in school, just like many of us had the opportunity to do. But what is deplorable isn't the thought of a child holding a weapon (something my children did, as well as my grandchildren now). What is deplorable -- no,, what is obscene -- is the government not preventing this kind of tragedy from occurring in the first place. It was hardly one lone kook or goof ball acting out some crazed mental aberration. It was a planned activity by a large group of law-breakers acting in concert. Just how any imposition of another law is going to help the situation is beyond comprehension, considering that the government can't prevent these occurrences in the first place. Ignoring the tragedy, which is implicit in the comment, is what's deplorable here and is an excellent example of the knee jerk effect that the editorial proposes.

The idea of:

At least keep innocents away from guns.

Is a handy way for those who want to hide their heads in the sand and ignore how dire the situation is, when these sorts of things occur. Being satisfied with these kinds of events, as long as a child can't touch a weapon is hardly a credible attitude.

I wonder, after reading this part:

It is for good reason that arms licences are not issued to those below the age of majority: with the right to handle lethal weapons comes the concomitant responsibility of due care that the law assumes is beyond the capacity of a minor.

My question is, what does the law say about how old a minor must be to drive an automobile, or to pilot a civil aircraft? The possibility of deadly occurrences with automobiles and aircraft is well-known, too. Does the law consider operating this equipment to be "beyond the capacity of a minor"?

When society itself, along with all of its most cherished values and foundations, is under attack, I cannot understand the mentality of people who feel the best course of action is to turn those who are law-abiding and innocent into sheep, ripe for the slaughter at the hands of goons.

[nagarifle]

the grass can be greener on the other side . the question is can one smoke it?

anyone who wants me defenseless is a murder lover.

thanks Timmy, saved me a lot of trouble.
when someone tell me that i should not be armed and able to defend myself leads me to concluded.
i am using these words because in my old age i see it as:

those who want me safe and those who want me at the mercy of criminals. = to same as criminals

when we cut through the bull we will have to sides, one who wants you safe and therefor allows you to protect yourself and the other side wants you dead. they may not say it but that's what it comes down to.

removing my right to defend myself = to wanting me dead. therefore they are murders

please do tell me that not how it is.

oh ya, police teaching students to fire weapons and defusing bombs? noting wrong in that if they have to survive and live to an old age, so be it.
also it shows the changing situation and lifestyle. what one has to do to survive since the government and the anti guns lobby are not able to stop the baddies from having guns and bombs, i would agree that its bed for kids to have to defend themselves, however i do differ in that i do not want them the kids to die because they did not know how to survive for lack of knowledge which some would deny them. train them until a better society which is totally arms free and totally criminals free as well.

i am willing to support any one who can promise me that within one year there will not be an criminals in the society. i will support them only on one condition if they fail they must hang themselves from the nearest tree. any takers?????????

[goodboy_mentor]

What all especially shooter, timmy and nagarifle have said is the truth but the truth will never be appreciated by governments of political nation states that have their foundations based on chicanery, deceit, faulty propositions, injustice and blood of innocents. All these type of conflicts in south Asia are about suppressed political aspirations of the local people on one hand, and of controlling the economic, mineral and natural resources by the State on other hand. Artificially created political nation states of south Asia by the British are stark example of this.

Such governments are bound to have a vested interest in doing misleading propaganda and "justification" to disarm the local population. These kind of editorials are manifestation of such brainwashing exercise in that direction.

[nagarifle]

least we forget , he who controls the media, controls what you think.

[dr.jayakumar]

Teaching the children to handle a gun is good but arming the children is equal to 'child soldiers' seen in many terrorist groups.
i feel pakistan is well armed than india,we should accept that.
regards
dr.jk

[Armed Defence]

oh ya, police teaching students to fire weapons and defusing bombs? noting wrong in that

The police instructor shown in the photo himself said on TV that one can't learn to shoot by firing one or two shots and the purpose of this exercise was to end the fear associated with the sight of a gun and sound of gunfire, so that whenever any such incident happens, the students don't lose their senses. But as expected, the sensationalist media didn't highlight this statement and kept saying that children are being taught how to fight and bla bla bla. If full firearms training is given to students ever, it will be only for students above 18

Teaching the children to handle a gun is good but arming the children is equal to 'child soldiers' seen in many terrorist groups.

When a person below 18 can't get a firearms license, why are the anti-gunners so worried that guns will fall into the hands of children. If they are really interested in stopping children and teens from having unrestricted and free access to guns, they should campaign against illegal weapons. I just can't understand why the media everywhere is so anti-gun, be it India, Pakistan or USA

[brihacharan]

least we forget , he who controls the media, controls what you think.

I wish to add ....Those who control the media "Make You Think - The Way They Want You To"
Briha

[aadhaulya]

least we forget , he who controls the media, controls what you think.

I wish to add ....Those who control the media "Make You Think - The Way They Want You To"
Briha

Nagarifle/ Briha ji,

No doubt about that and I agree fully with what you say.
But my thinking is that in India, Media generally is not controlled by anyone. Maybe some part of the Media are controlled by different groups/ persons to promote their ideas. Overall I feel media is controlled by sensation, what ever it is, maybe even rape (sic) also to cause a sensation.

Regards