Who should be allowed to own a gun?

[SMJ]

Abhijeet - your logic is undeniable. The question is does it apply to the new age India?

One only has to look as far as Coorg district of Karnataka to see a working model. Coorgis are exempt from the provisions of Section 3 of the Arms Act (i.e. they do not require an arms license). Year on year the total number of Arms Act cases (i.e. incidents where arms have been misused) registered in the district hover between zero to one/ two - which I should point out is the lowest amongst all districts in Karnataka

I saw the post made by you sometime back giving these statistics. In both cases Im guessing illegal weapons owned by non Coorgi's were involved. I also remember a story by Kenneth Anderson in which he states the exemption bestowed by the British at the time to the people of Coorg never resulted in them using their weapons on each other!
However, I believe because they have had access to weapons for a long time they have come to respect their weapons.

Which is precisely why all self defense experts advise that one should first try and escape/ get out of a bad situation and only bring a gun into play if there is no escape route and there is threat of injury/ death.

Could not agree more but as Hvj1 pointed out in his post there now seems to be lesser respect for your fellow man or countrymen and even less respect or fear of the law. This open defiance of the law seems to be spreading even amongst the normally law abiding citizens. So the question is in the India we know today with fast paced lives, changing attitudes, the growing disposable income and inflated egos on the rise would you still believe there would be enough respect for each other even if they knew the opposite person may well be armed? Look at the case of the industrialist Mr Ponty Chadda and his brother who both wiped each other out with their licensed weapons!

When you pull out a gun you must be ready to use it.

It has to be the last option when your life is at stake and not simply because you have it so use it in a situation you feel like. That's the hard truth with the examples below- it was not a spontaneous case of pull the gun out to threaten in a life and death situation . Seemed more of 'I have been granted a gun so let me use it' Funnily, it seems none of the people involved in all of these various incidents had any sort of cases filed against them previously. It seems they were regular folk with a score to settle and with possible recent acquisition of licenses just decided to use their granted weapon without considering that their actions may have been totally irresponsible, unresonable and not at all justified. Such a blatant misuse of licensed weapons becomes more and more a work in the spades for genuine applicants which is so unfortunate.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mum ... 710204.ece
http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mum ... 662563.ece
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... r-4653391/
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 707113.cms
http://www.hindustantimes.com/mumbai-ne ... c89jO.html

I am aware that you can't blame a few incidents as a precedent for the entire country but when you hear of so many incidences within a short span of time and from a town which has seen rapid development in the last few years, filled with the nouveau rich some of whom may have recently acquired their arms licenses it's a question you ask yourself as a gun lover - are people here really ready to be responsibly armed? Your examples are brilliant -I also read your post about the top ten armed nations - it got me thinking that all of those nations have had a pro arms policy since ages and people seemed to have evolved regarding the use of their weapons but I could be wrong of course. I must lastly clarify that I am not trying to malign our doubt our countrymen simply having second thoughts on the impact of a sudden pro arms policy where we never had one before.

[goodboy_mentor]

GBM sir, as I understand (I think) what you mean to say is that as per the law it cannot and should not be refused. I agree but I am talking more about the fact that given the example of what I stated what do you think would be the impact especially in a country like ours where people are now flying off the handle at the littlest possible slight for whatever reasons.

SMJ Sir, you understood correct what I mean to say, is the position of law. Law is based on principles. It is said those people who value privileges over principles ultimately loose both. Unfortunately we have lost both today in this country because from day one we have been valuing privileges over principles. Sovereignty is a privilege that comes with responsibility to respect the principles. Unfortunately we have abused the principles left right and center and it is no surprise the situation is in such an intractable mess.

About your question about behavior of some(privileged) people, they do so because they know that they are safe because will not get equal and opposite response(lawful/ principled response).

You gave example about two brothers who had lost their minds and killed each other in state of madness. You can do very little about such persons by any amount of law. For example suicide bombers or car or truck bombers. Arms Act or Explosives Act or any draconian anti terrorism law cannot stop them. If you want such persons be prevented from doing harm, you have to be armed and be able to finish them before they finish you. This is the hard truth. But unfortunately many think, government is the only entity that is supposed to do the job.

About your assertion that Coorgs were allowed to keep guns because they respected their weapons, this is not the real reason. The real reason is British did not see any political threat to their rule from Coorgs. On the other hand after 1849, forget about guns, the Sikhs were not even allowed to keep swords legally because the British could see a credible threat to their rule from them. It is another matter whether the Sikhs refused to obey this law in Punjab or the British did not enforce it fully. It was only around the beginning of First World War, when British were in very serious trouble and wanted to recruit Sikhs in large numbers to be used in the First Word War. Knowing this fact, the Sikhs also started an agitation around this time. In order to please them and serve their own purpose(of using them in war), they made changes to the law so that they be allowed to keep swords.

Ultimately every right(including RKBA) rests on foundation of good faith. That is why even the Constitution has taken the burden to give guarantee of these rights in good faith. That is why there is Section 40 in Arms Act 1959 to protect all acts done in good faith. Section 9 of Arms Act 1959 gives reasonable reasons when you cannot have good faith. These are reasonable restrictions. Any other kind of restriction based on some conjecture or opinion or some vague or anecdotal or opinionated data would be unreasonable restriction on the rights of citizens.

[mundaire]

@SMJ , you forget that per the numbers all such cases (of misuse of licensed arms) constitute a minuscule percentage of the total number of arms license holders. There are approx 2.8 to 3.2 million arms license holders in India, even if we take the lower figure and compare it to the 500 to 600 (misuse by arms license holders) such incidents reported per year, the percentage is only between 0.017% to 0.02%! Any way you look at it, the figure is negligible.

Of course whenever such incidents take place, they get prime coverage in the media, due to which one can be misled into assuming that this is the norm and not the rare exception that it actually is.

I am aware that you can't blame a few incidents as a precedent for the entire country but when you hear of so many incidences within a short span of time and from a town which has seen rapid development in the last few years, filled with the nouveau rich some of whom may have recently acquired their arms licenses it's a question you ask yourself as a gun lover - are people here really ready to be responsibly armed? Your examples are brilliant -I also read your post about the top ten armed nations - it got me thinking that all of those nations have had a pro arms policy since ages and people seemed to have evolved regarding the use of their weapons but I could be wrong of course. I must lastly clarify that I am not trying to malign our doubt our countrymen simply having second thoughts on the impact of a sudden pro arms policy where we never had one before.

If Indians were so prone to bouts of insane murderous rage, then places in India where illegal firearms are freely available and commonly owned (for e.g. Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, etc.), would have been flowing with rivers of blood.

The reason why there isn't a bloodbath happening is because a very large percentage of those people (keeping illegal arms in such places) are not professional criminals, merely ordinary folk - farmers/ artisans/ merchants/ etc. These are people who have procured these illegal guns for protection as the policies of successive governments has ensured that they have no access to legal licensed arms.

While I do not condone anyone breaking the law, I will repeat what I have always maintained - so long as the government continues to make legal gun ownership insanely difficult & expensive, ownership & trade in illegal guns will continue to flourish in India. Needless to say, this is not a situation conducive to maintaining better law & order.

Cheers!
Abhijeet

[xl_target]

So, if we had as liberal gun laws as in the U.S., where guns are available OTC, could you imagine what the situation would be like? We will be witness to O.K.Corrals every day on almost every road of every city in this country.

This is the exact same point (including the OK Corral reference) brought up in every state in the USA when the trend towards issuing concealed carry permits started to become popular. Gun opponents were screaming about "blood running in the streets every time there is a road rage incident".
Guess What?
Nothing! Nada! Never happened (in State after State, nothing changed).

There will be people who will say; " The US is not India". Quite true.


However, are we deciding that "Every one is equal but some people are more equal"???
If you get selective about who get this right or that right, what will you do when one day you and yours are denied that same right?

It is this simple.
In places where you might have to raise your right hand straight ahead, come to attention and click your heels together when you see "the man", it is common for it to be decided who gets to do what.

In a Democracy worth the name, every citizen gets the same rights. There should be nothing arbitrary about it.
If you meet the criteria for a right or privilege, you get to enjoy that right or privilege.

[SMJ]

@GBM from the point of view of the law as it is written there is no denying what you say is true. @Abhijeet - some great points chief! As a gun lover the only thought I have is that since our nation has been (wrongly) deprived of access to firearms for so long, would we be ready for easy access to firearms now? This is especially so with rising disposable incomes, egos and less and less fear of the law. Abhijeet, in my humble opinion the reason the states you have mentioned have not seen those type of bloodbaths is because I guess they have been around firearms all their life and it seems they have evolved enough to know that guns should be used as a last resort and a last resort only.

While it is true the percentage of such incidents is miniscule and the media loves to focus on such negative news regarding arms - my only thought is that 3 or 4 incidents within a month of irresponsible use of LICENSED guns from one area which has recently seen developments, therefore presumably a lot of money and which has no previous history of firearms points to the fact that if caution is not exercised then those miniscule numbers may not remain so minuscule anymore. The idea behind this thought of why I believe the LA should be cautious/judicious in granting licenses is in the hope that we don't end up with a complete ban where it actually becomes impossible to own a licensed weapon.

[xl_target]

This is especially so with rising disposable incomes, egos and less and less fear of the law. Abhijeet, in my humble opinion the reason the states you have mentioned have not seen those type of bloodbaths is because I guess they have been around firearms all their life and it seems they have evolved enough to know that guns should be used as a last resort and a last resort only.

So then logically, shouldn't everyone be given that same access to firearms so they too can be around firearms all their lives and evolve enough to.... ?

Being in a Democracy can be noisy, argumentative, irritating, etc but if you are a democracy, you have to treat everyone equally and every citizen should insist that every other citizen can avail themselves of the rights and privileges that they are entitled to. These rights should apply to the Paanwalla on the corner or to a member of parliament.

If we are not willing to do that, we might as well just put the hammer and sickle on the national flag and be done with it.

[SMJ]

So then logically, shouldn't everyone be given that same access to firearms so they too can be around firearms all their lives and evolve enough to.... ?

I never suggested that they shouldn't, after all I am all for RKBA. I merely think there needs to be a more judicious approach in cities/ towns/ districts/regions that have not had a history of firearms!

[Biren]

What is good for one not necessarily could be good for other as well. In USA getting driving licence is not easy whereas here its cake walk. Then again the whole system is overburdened... matters drag for years..so simple way is to control by restricting licenses. As licenses & weapons are hard to come by those who have are restrained & for those who donnt believe in law it dosnt matter whether granting of licenses is made liberal or not as for them they are already out of bound.

I feel licence for arms should be granted provide a proper eco system is developed around owning arms with proper ranges.. accredited trainers.. affordable arms & ammo etc

Cheers
Biren

[xl_target]

What is good for one not necessarily could be good for other as well.

Who gets to decide who its going to be good for and who its not going to be good for?
A lottery? Me? You? Some babu in Delhi? Stalin? Mao?
You see the slippery slope that you are advocating?

In USA getting driving licence is not easy whereas here its cake walk. Then again the whole system is overburdened... matters drag for years..so simple way is to control by restricting licenses. As licenses & weapons are hard to come by those who have are restrained & for those who donnt believe in law it dosnt matter whether granting of licenses is made liberal or not as for them they are already out of bound.

I feel licence for arms should be granted provide a proper eco system is developed around owning arms with proper ranges.. accredited trainers.. affordable arms & ammo etc

Actually it is very easy to get a drivers license in most states in the USA.
You walk in, watch a video and take a test. They give you a provisional license and you come back in a short time and take your drivers test. That's it.
In some states they even give them out to illegal aliens.

Controlling any item to the point where it is almost impossible to get has been shown to not work very well.
Take prohibition in the USA or "the war on drugs" today. Neither worked/works.
The only thing you accomplish is to make criminals out of formerly honest people.

[goodboy_mentor]

In some states they even give them out to illegal aliens.

Just curious, is it by legal means or illegal means? If legal then how federal law related to illegal aliens is getting overridden?

[mundaire]

@SMJ have you by any chance read viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10140&p=103717 ??

Cheers!
Abhijeet

[xl_target]

In some states they even give them out to illegal aliens.

Just curious, is it by legal means or illegal means? If legal then how federal law related to illegal aliens is getting overridden?

There are three branches of Government in the USA.
Congress (consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate) drafts Federal Law. When signed by the President it becomes actual law.
The Executive branch, under the direction of the President enforces that law (that is their duty).
The Judiciary decides if the law is in conformance with the Constitution (which is the highest law in the land).
Please note that only Congress can make law. Neither the Executive branch nor the Judiciary can do that.

The Dept. of Justice, an arm of the Executive branch, is responsible for the enforcement of the law and administration of justice.
The head of the Dept. of Justice is appointed (not elected) by the sitting President. He serves at the pleasure of the President.


Article One of the US Constitution states:"Congress has authority over financial and budgetary policy through the enumerated power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". All other powers are supposed to reside with the states. This has changed over the years (see "Commerce Clause").

State legislatures make State law but they cannot override Federal Law. So States cannot makes laws about immigration, foreign policy, defense, etc.

So when States refuse to follow Federal law or act in direct opposition to those laws, it is the Justice Department, using its investigative arm (The FBI) who prosecutes the case.
If the justice Department does not do that, the head of the Department has probably been told by his boss to ignore it.
This is gross dereliction of duty and expressly violates the oath (to uphold that constitution) that all elected officials swear to.

So, to answer your question; it is against federal law but they got away with it because they were allowed to.
Things are changing now.

[goodboy_mentor]

So, to answer your question; it is against federal law but they got away with it because they were allowed to.
Things are changing now.

Thanks xl_target for elaborating in such a detailed manner. Political mischief appears to be similar in almost every country!

[SMJ]

Rest assured that licensing authorities will continue to issue licenses to the very people you wish to see disarmed. The "judiciousness" is only going to be applied to those who do not want to/ cannot apply "pressure from above" and/ or grease their way through the system (as it is today). This is an unfortunate fact.

@Abhijeet -very well put!! I cannot believe I missed such an important point whilst reading your post earlier - this sums up pretty much what I was trying to convey all the while!! Looking at it from a more macro perspective I more than agree that everyone should be allowed to exercise their constitutional right of RKBA