Is a weapon really required for self protection in India?

[hornet22]

Road rage is mostly because of the ‘mine is bigger than yours ‘ attitude.

(I'm woodedflood, had to make a new acc. due to the same error again and again and again... I think it was due to TOR usage. No TOR on this acc.) Please read the post script, moderator

I actually completely agree with you. I've seen people open carrying (of course at that time I was young and very uninformed), and I know what you mean by not wanting to mess with the guy open carrying.
However, where I live (Maharashtra) the people like putting up a nice and huge tough guy attitude while being wimps inside. Usually, things get diffused quickly, unless, of course, they don't.
The biggest threat you possess in this state is funnily enough a gang of young skinny kids with sharp machetes attacking you due to wounded egos.
Road rage? Usually just a lot of yelling. Maybe the police are called. Insurance? "What's that???". Anyhow, if there's just a lot of yelling going on AND at that moment you decide to flash your sidearm (in a crowded area, which most areas are) you're kinda in a TIGHT spot, hard to recover at that point.

That is why I think that, in this state, C.C'ing is better until you sense a threat to your life, which you WILL, were it to present itself, ever.
Please note "in this state".
Cultures differ.
Usually if you're not a Maharasthrian (you know, like, "from" here) you are at a disadvantage in such situations. They have a surprisingly low tolerance for people who don't speak their language (I can understand it, can't speak it). They REALLY do not like Northeners.

Please refer to my introduction to know where I'm "from", to put into perspective why I believe this.

I know some would like to scream "stop generalizing" but I'm literally just talking about what I've commonly observed. Sorry for going a but off topic.


TLDR; In this state, people usually not as violent, Open carrying will send the wrong message and potentially get you even more trouble than just, trying to sort the situation out first. Based on personal observation and experiences. Although, not saying you should never open carry

About your essentially "you don't have any experience with firearms comment" el jefe, I've seen plenty of Road Rage incidents; I am not COMPLETELY advocating for not open carrying; there are certain people that would get violent if their hair's ruffled and you happened to be 2 feet from them, and at that point you SHOULD tuck your shirt in.
I can think of several such situations where I'd be safer if I had one...

Taking precautions will go a long way than having a gun and taking unnecessary risks

Owning a firearm IS a precaution. And so much more.


- GuidedKrinkov, 2023-10-21 [1]
LEGAL DISCLAIMER



P.S moderator, I still have the password and other details of the woodedflood account, if you need me to confirm my identity or something. I think due to TOR or some IP issues, the "form invalid submit again" error kept popping up. PM me if it's required.

Road rage is mostly because of the ‘mine is bigger than yours ‘ attitude.

(I'm woodedflood, had to make a new acc. due to the same error again and again and again... I think it was due to TOR usage. No TOR on this acc.) Please read the post script, moderator

I actually completely agree with you. I've seen people open carrying (of course at that time I was young and very uninformed), and I know what you mean by not wanting to mess with the guy open carrying.
However, where I live (Maharashtra) the people like putting up a nice and huge tough guy attitude while being wimps inside. Usually, things get diffused quickly, unless, of course, they don't.
The biggest threat you possess in this state is funnily enough a gang of young skinny kids with sharp machetes attacking you due to wounded egos.
Road rage? Usually just a lot of yelling. Maybe the police are called. Insurance? "What's that???". Anyhow, if there's just a lot of yelling going on AND at that moment you decide to flash your sidearm (in a crowded area, which most areas are) you're kinda in a TIGHT spot, hard to recover at that point.

That is why I think that, in this state, C.C'ing is better until you sense a threat to your life, which you WILL, were it to present itself, ever.
Please note "in this state".
Cultures differ.
Usually if you're not a Maharasthrian (you know, like, "from" here) you are at a disadvantage in such situations. They have a surprisingly low tolerance for people who don't speak their language (I can understand it, can't speak it). They REALLY do not like Northeners.

Please refer to my introduction to know where I'm "from", to put into perspective why I believe this.

I know some would like to scream "stop generalizing" but I'm literally just talking about what I've commonly observed. Sorry for going a but off topic.


TLDR; In this state, people usually not as violent, Open carrying will send the wrong message and potentially get you even more trouble than just, trying to sort the situation out first. Based on personal observation and experiences. Although, not saying you should never open carry

About your essentially "you don't have any experience with firearms comment" el jefe, I've seen plenty of Road Rage incidents; I am not COMPLETELY advocating for not open carrying; there are certain people that would get violent if their hair's ruffled and you happened to be 2 feet from them, and at that point you SHOULD tuck your shirt in.
I can think of several such situations where I'd be safer if I had one...

Taking precautions will go a long way than having a gun and taking unnecessary risks

Owning a firearm IS a precaution. And so much more.


- GuidedKrinkov, 2023-10-21 [1]
LEGAL DISCLAIMER



P.S moderator, I still have the password and other details of the woodedflood account, if you need me to confirm my identity or something. I think due to TOR or some IP issues, the "form invalid submit again" error kept popping up. PM me if it's required.

I understand what you are saying in an ideal situation it will definitely work but you have to understand taking precautions is not being a coward, you are dealing with people who have nothing to loose, most of these goons attack on purpose with a plan and they must have done it several times before and some of these guys are on drugs so they don't care about killing or getting killed

And if you are with your family members with one licensed weapon against 2 to 3 illegally procured pistols then you can imagine the danger you are in

[timmy]

This is an old thread, and as points made previously are somewhat likely to go unread, I'll restate mine:

1. The primary consideration to this question is that each citizen is best able to answer the question for himself or herself. Each citizen is most competent to know whether then can or want to handle the responsibility of owning and/or carrying a firearm.

2. This means that ordinarily, the government should not be able to choose, nor should other groups or neighbors choose whether a citizen has a gun. Nor should the government or anyone else be able to decide the reasons why a person should have a gun. For example, "that's not a hunting gun" or "that's a gun for killing" or "What do you need that for" are issues that ought not to mitigate gun ownership. Saying it concisely" "Why do you want a gun?" Answer: "Because I want to. My purposes are not for you to question."

3. We realize that there may be some other factors that enter into this matter. For instance, if the person is a violent criminal or a wife-beater, legally being able to be shown as someone who is not in control of their temper and prone to anger -- in a legal way. The right to keep and bear arms must NEVER be denied without due process, just like a person cannot be deprived of property or sent to jail without due process, according to clear legal standards.

Therefore, I say that, in as much as our opinions on this thread pertain to the poster (with the above caveat #3 noted), I agree. We all state our reasons why or why not we own and use firearms. But as far as our opinions might apply to someone else's choice, I question the right of anyone or any entity, including a government, to impose their judgment upon anyone else (excepting, of course, when legal due process has been justly applied).

[GuidedKrinkov]

The right to keep and bear arms must NEVER be denied without due process, just like a person cannot be deprived of property or sent to jail without due process, according to clear legal standards.

I agree with you. Due process is extremely important. But that's what we're missing right?
As for the anger issue thing, I think that this is a highly volatile subject. You're basically hinting at red flag laws. I do not support red flag laws. I wonder if you do. Because everybody under the sun is prone to a angry, if not a violent, outburst.

-GuidedKrinkov, 2023-10-23 [9]
LEGAL DISCLAIMER :

[timmy]

The right to keep and bear arms must NEVER be denied without due process, just like a person cannot be deprived of property or sent to jail without due process, according to clear legal standards.

You're basically hinting at red flag laws. I do not support red flag laws. I wonder if you do. Because everybody under the sun is prone to a angry, if not a violent, outburst.

You err.

How can "red flag" laws accord with due process? It must be quite plain that they do not.

That some one can go to the magistrate of some sort and say, "I'm afraid of so-and-so because they have a gun," with the result being that the person's gun is confiscated for some time or permanently is exactly what i'm speaking against.

Too often, "red flag" laws come under the heading of "reasonable gun control."

The use of such language can never be the basis for law because the word "reasonable" is subjective, not objective.

The bottom line of "red flag" laws and "reasonable gun control" is that they, and other efforts like them, seek to make society conform to one's own viewpoint of what it should be, to the detriment of what others consider it to be as expressed by a constitution, the democratic process, and an independent judiciary.

Frederick Douglass, a former slave in the USA and a tireless advocate for the abolition of slavery and then the application of civil rights to all, succinctly expressed the basis for freedom: that each citizen had free and equal access to the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. And yes, he did specifically use the exact words "cartridge box." Douglass had a sound understanding of freedom based on his experience of being deprived of it; of being legally considered a piece of property.

I think that we ignore his views at our peril.