Home defense news

[james]

http://dhunt.in/IlSw8?s=a&uu=0x03c033d4181b13c3&ss=pd

[timmy]

The part of the story that says it took the police 12 minutes to arrive reminds me of an old joke that is told in rural areas.

Rural areas often have "volunteer fire departments" where folks are called from their homes to a central firehouse, from where they head to the fire. As one might understand, this usually takes quite some time. Therefore, people will say that the fire department always arrives in time to save the chimney. (The chimney, being made of brick, doesn't burn, but of course the rest of the house is reduced to ashes.)

Likewise, without the CCTV and gun, these folks would have been robbed or worse, had they relied on the police, as know-it-alls always suggest.

This is an excellent example of our need to protect ourselves. Thanks for posting this!

[Mr.Shome]

This is a sterling example of how necessary it is to be self reliant. Fortunately, the family was armed and tech savvy, which saved them from immediate harm.

Unfortunately, the process after filing a complaint is full of harassment. Talking from my own experience. Many years ago, when I lived in Dehradun, our home was robbed, while we were out for lunch.

Can't describe the traumatising experience, my father had to bear after making a police complaint. Yes, eventually the cops arrested someone claiming that he was the thief.

However, our belongings (including jewellery), were never recovered and the case dragged on.

Anyway, all said and done, kudos to the brave family.

[sid9887]

when it is a matter of seconds police are only minutes away . Lets just think for a moment what if they had no means to defend themselves , this headline would have been so different....
It is so unfortunate that people sitting in authority will deny law abiding citizens a right to self defence just because they feel that civilians don't deserve a fighting chance .

[Vikram]

They had the presence of mind and they were equipped with the tools necessary to deal with this type of eventuality. Bravo!

[timmy]

I watched a youtube video that addressed certain gun control issues.

The presenter repeated the question many pose about why one needs to be prepared for problems, rather than calling the police in a case of trouble.

This was answered by asking what we woould think of our government if a disaster or problem occurred, and the government wasn't prepared to respond to it? We expect the government to be ready to deal with many situations, but should we go on living without preparing ourselves?

I have a couple of small fire extinguishers around the house. Am I to be considered foolish for taking my personal protection into my own hands, rather than letting the fire department deal with all fires?

[Mr.Shome]

This tragedy/strategy of disarming the common man started more aggressively after the movement of 1857.
Things worsened by 1947, when the Naval Revolts broke out, and received the support of other armed forces.
As almost everyone knows, India shook off the 'Raj' in in 1947.
A major reason was the Naval Revolt. Lord Attlee later admitted that the Brits got scared that things were not as simple as the Revolt of 1857 (I will post his quote later) to substantiate what I believe so far.

Anyway, the political party at power during that time realised that armed civilians may resist draconian dictates.

Since then, the abhorrent legacy of disarming civilians and crushing martial spirit has continued and grows in leaps and bounds (irrespective of the party in power).

These guys won. Today, in India, even talking about gun rights (at least amongst so-called decent people) invites negativity.

Personally, I believe that Bollywood movies have also shaped the general outlook towards firearms by only portraying that guns are the sole privilege of flashy gangsters or wronged heroes.

It's been a ratther long ramble. On a parting note, I would say that it's sad as most people won't even give a thought to the value of firearms in distressing situations, even if they happen to read this news.

Stay well friends.

[Mr.Shome]

Just to quickly add that my intention of posting this message is not at all to flaunt the little knowledge I gained from books. It was simply to express my views

[timmy]

Your views are most welcome, in my opinion, and also correct. I also appreciate your adding background to the shaping of public opinion on this subject. It is such a shame that people are often motivated by emotions and unthinking reactions on this matter, and cannot be troubled to actually ponder what is going on and how it has been shaped by the past, as you have eloquently pointed out for us.

[Mr.Shome]

Your views are most welcome, in my opinion, and also correct. I also appreciate your adding background to the shaping of public opinion on this subject. It is such a shame that people are often motivated by emotions and unthinking reactions on this matter, and cannot be troubled to actually ponder what is going on and how it has been shaped by the past, as you have eloquently pointed out for us.

My humble and warm thanks to you Sir for this heartwarming message. I hope, good sense prevails. Thank you again Sir. Wish you a good day ahead.

[Mr.Shome]

This tragedy/strategy of disarming the common man started more aggressively after the movement of 1857.
Things worsened by 1947, when the Naval Revolts broke out, and received the support of other armed forces.
As almost everyone knows, India shook off the 'Raj' in in 1947.
A major reason was the Naval Revolt. Lord Attlee later admitted that the Brits got scared that things were not as simple as the Revolt of 1857 (I will post his quote later) to substantiate what I believe so far.

Anyway, the political party at power during that time realised that armed civilians may resist draconian dictates.

Since then, the abhorrent legacy of disarming civilians and crushing martial spirit has continued and grows in leaps and bounds (irrespective of the party in power).

These guys won. Today, in India, even talking about gun rights (at least amongst so-called decent people) invites negativity.

Personally, I believe that Bollywood movies have also shaped the general outlook towards firearms by only portraying that guns are the sole privilege of flashy gangsters or wronged heroes.

It's been a ratther long ramble. On a parting note, I would say that it's sad as most people won't even give a thought to the value of firearms in distressing situations, even if they happen to read this news.

Stay well friends.

Hello Everyone,

As promised, just posting one source, which shows how a mighty Colonial power got alarmed enough to hasten up the process of 'Transfer of Power'.

The Flag officer J.H. Godfrey (The Inspiration behind the ‘M’ character in the James Bond series by Ian Fleming - Thank you K Sivaram for the correction) threatened the revolting officers with the then famous line, “Submit or perish”![19]British Prime Minister Clement Attlee’s Labour Cabinet went into deliberations and concluded that a colonial control of India was not sustainable any more.

The British had to offer incentives and make promises to convince the Revolting Navy men, to surrender. Clement Attlee was forced to immediately announce the Cabinet Mission to India and hastened the process of independence[20].

There are many other sources including a statement by the then Chief Justice of Calcutta, who interviewed Lord Atlee in the 1950s, when the latter visited India.

My simple point is that the Brits and their successors have not only completed the job of disarming civilians; they have made the majority of people inept to even think of self defense and firearms.

Regards friends.

[HoneyBadger]

What CAN we do? How can we reclaim our rights? Why can't I carry, at the very least, a knife for protection? What is the deal with all of this? Is moving out the only option? I genuinely am very confused right now.

[timmy]

. . .

Is moving out the only option? I genuinely am very confused right now.

This sort of decision has a lot of ramifications and demands very careful consideration. Making a move like this may end up creating more problems, rather than solving existing ones.

One thing that comes to mind is, is there a place for loyalty, and if so, where is it proper to apply one's loyalty? Even this sort of questioning brings up many more questions to consider.

I hope that you can work out a successful solution for yourself.

[HoneyBadger]

That's a very loaded reply...
Yes, I do feel loyal to this land.
Not its "government".
Very few of its people.
But leaving a State that (essentially) denies it's people their right to bear Arms and protect themselves, through force, is not one I'd particularly regret leaving...
I'd love reform but with 1,450,000,000 people it feels like a very wistful dream.

[timmy]

That's a very loaded reply...

It seemed appropriate to match the gravity of my reply to the gravity of your questions.

Yes, I do feel loyal to this land.
Not its "government".
Very few of its people.
But leaving a State that (essentially) denies it's people their right to bear Arms and protect themselves, through force, is not one I'd particularly regret leaving...

Sylvain Tesson noted: "France is a paradise inhabited by people who believe they're in hell."

It seems to me that this is an attitude toward many countries that is held by many people in those countries.

I'm at a loss to understand how this is reasonable:

I'd love reform but with 1,450,000,000 people it feels like a very wistful dream.

given that, without some level of committment to people and their well-being, it can be expected for people to listen to the reforms put forward from an uncaring and uncommitted position.

I could cite many examples of who cared, but I'll only mention three:

India was not so large back then, but Akbar changed a great nation.

The Rani of Jhansi did die, but her legacy forms part of what India has become.

and of course, the slam-dunk easy example in this vein is Gandhi.

Yes, 1,450,000,000 people is a lot. But take 1/1000th of that number, 1,450,000, and there's practically as much challenge involved in getting this number of people "reformed." Why, take a millionth, or just 1,450, and try to change the minds and habits of the folks of a small town at a town council meeting, and you'll soon find out that it doesn't take too many people to set up an impenetrable barrier to change.

But the folks I named did it.

I'm not asking any questions of you to challenge you. I'm simply stating a few of the thoughts I have, when I remember asking similar questions a long time ago. I thought that you might find thinking about these things could be helpful in solving your questions, but if you already know the answer, fine. You know that you can always disregard anything said on an internet forum.

I will add that there aren't many nations that have what we all might consider "proper" gun laws and guarantees, and even in those few, one might consider the old observation that it's against the law to shout "fire" in a crowded theater for sport.

Finland is a nation that has some fairly reasonable views on gun ownership. There are others. But whether one agrees with the rest of any other nation's baggage that comes with what one likes about it is always something worth considering.