Think tank: If each of us carried a gun . . .

[Rottmeister]

Think tank: If each of us carried a gun . . .
. . . we could help to combat terrorism

Richard Munday
From The Sunday Times
December 7, 2008

The firearms massacres that have periodically caused shock and horror around the world have been dwarfed by the Mumbai shootings, in which a handful of gunmen left some 500 people killed or wounded.

For anybody who still believed in it, the Mumbai shootings exposed the myth of "gun control". India had some of the strictest firearms laws in the world, going back to the Indian Arms Act of 1878, by which Britain had sought to prevent a recurrence of the Indian Mutiny.

The guns used in last week's Bombay massacre were all "prohibited weapons" under Indian law, just as they are in Britain. In this country we have seen the irrelevance of such bans (handgun crime, for instance, doubled here within five years of the prohibition of legal pistol ownership), but the largely drug-related nature of most extreme violence here has left most of us with a sheltered awareness of the threat. We have not yet faced a determined and broad-based attack.

The Mumbai massacre also exposed the myth that arming the police force guarantees security. Sebastian D'Souza, a picture editor on the Mumbai Mirror who took some of the dramatic pictures of the assault on the Chhatrapati Shivaji railway station, was angered to find India's armed police taking cover and apparently failing to engage the gunmen.

In Britain we might recall the prolonged failure of armed police to contain the Hungerford killer, whose rampage lasted more than four hours, and who in the end shot himself. In Dunblane, too, it was the killer who ended his own life: even at best, police response is almost always belated when gunmen are on the loose. One might think, too, of the McDonald's massacre in San Ysidro, California, in 1984, where the Swat team waited for their leader (who was held up in a traffic jam) while 21 unarmed diners were murdered.

Rhetoric about standing firm against terrorists aside, in Britain we have no more legal deterrent to prevent an armed assault than did the people of Mumbai, and individually we would be just as helpless as victims. The Mumbai massacre could happen in London tomorrow; but probably it could not have happened to Londoners 100 years ago.

In January 1909 two such anarchists, lately come from an attempt to blow up the president of France, tried to commit a robbery in north London, armed with automatic pistols. Edwardian Londoners, however, shot back - and the anarchists were pursued through the streets by a spontaneous hue-and-cry. The police, who could not find the key to their own gun cupboard, borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by, while other citizens armed with revolvers and shotguns preferred to use their weapons themselves to bring the assailants down.

Today we are probably more shocked at the idea of so many ordinary Londoners carrying guns in the street than we are at the idea of an armed robbery. But the world of Conan Doyle's Dr Watson, pocketing his revolver before he walked the London streets, was real. The arming of the populace guaranteed rather than disturbed the peace.

That armed England existed within living memory; but it is now so alien to our expectations that it has become a foreign country. Our image of an armed society is conditioned instead by America: or by what we imagine we know about America. It is a skewed image, because (despite the Second Amendment) until recently in much of the US it has been illegal to bear arms outside the home or workplace; and therefore only people willing to defy the law have carried weapons.

In the past two decades the enactment of "right to carry" legislation in the majority of states, and the issue of permits for the carrying of concealed firearms to citizens of good repute, has brought a radical change. Opponents of the right to bear arms predicted that right to carry would cause blood to flow in the streets, but the reverse has been true: violent crime in America has plummeted.

There are exceptions: Virginia Tech, the site of the 2007 massacre of 32 people, was one local "gun-free zone" that forbade the bearing of arms even to those with a licence to carry.

In Britain we are not yet ready to recall the final liberty of the subject listed by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England as underpinning all others: "The right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence." We would still not be ready to do so were the Mumbai massacre to happen in London tomorrow.

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India," Mahatma Gandhi said, "history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." The Mumbai massacre is a bitter post.script to Gandhi's comment. D'Souza now laments his own helplessness in the face of the killers: "I only wish I had had a gun rather than a camera."

Richard Munday is the co-author and editor of Guns & Violence: The Debate Before Lord Cullen

*****************************************************************

Here is the link to the original article: Link >>>


Also see the blog entry Holmes: "Slip Your Revolver Into Your Pocket, Watson."

[eljefe]

Bravo! once in a while, there's a breath of fresh air in this fetid atmosphere we live in...

[TenX]

.. Nice read, and good reminder of the Sherlock homes' times

[Rottmeister]

So you people want to rest after making a few wise comments? Diskaon and I have joined hands towards working something out and we are going to let Mr. Singh know about it within a week; if interested, drop us a note.

P.S. I think every true IFG-an should work towards it.

[penpusher]

So you people want to rest after making a few wise comments? Diskaon and I have joined hands towards working something out and we are going to let Mr. Singh know about it within a week; if interested, drop us a note.

P.S. I think every true IFG-an should work towards it.

There have been numerous such statements in the past.I recall ai making one not a long time ago.I for one, will not be holding my breath.

[badshah0522]

nice reading...thanks

[hamiclar01]

heartening to see sense in the press , for once. the comments make interesting reading too

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... itted=true

[Rottmeister]

All right folks, here are the responses to Think Tank: If each of us carried a gun . . .(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... itted=true)

I personally would have liked to remove the first entry itself, but it's nice to let people know that morons do exist:

===========

I think most terrorists acts can be prevented if the state has an active police force and a properly functioning judiciary. In India neither exist, and till then not only can terrorist activities be prevented but people with guns may exacerbate the communal-ism prevalent in Indian society.

Neil, Raleigh, USA

Concerning European gun control law:
It strikes me as being a hand-me-down from the past. I think it's a hold-over of the first aristocratic principle: First, above all, protect your job.
I've never been outside of the US, but this is how it strikes me. It's getting that way here...

Thomas Gentry, Las Vegas, NV, USA

Just because one person has a gun does not justify that everyone else should have one to balance the equation. Get to the root of the problem. There are many social problems that need to be fixed in western society; giving people firearms does not help one of them.

johnny, Waterloo, Canada

'An unarmed people is an enslaved people".
"A disarmed people is a conquered people".
I chose not to be enslaved or conquered.

Peter Courtenay Stephens, Gloucester, U.S.A.

The majority of messages here are eminently logical, reasonable, fair and so on, but this is not what counts. UK "gun control" has never been based on rational evidence & argument, but is based on distrust of the people and a desire for them not to look after themselves but to depend on authority.

Malcolm Stevas, Exeter,

Name Withheld, you are correct that the commandment "Thou shall not kill" is correctly interpreted as "You shall not murder." Defending yourself or others with deadly force is not murder.

Another saying we have here in the states is "I carry a gun because I cannot carry a policeman."

Blake, Krugerville, Texas, U.S.

Well-said, sir.

Now your job is to convince the political types who believe they know what is best for their constituents.

Good luck with that task.

Leon Jester, Roanoke, VA, USA

The first casualty of anti-gun legislation is logic. The reason Canada has less crime than the U.S. is demographic, not because of gun laws. Persons who want to kill lots of people will use bombs or other means if they can't get a gun. How did people kill before guns were invented?

Leonard, Tampa, Fla., USA

Although the circumstances for it are appalling, it is refreshing to see such a nice bit of logic from our friends "across the pond." It is not the person who will do everything required to get a permit to carry a gun lawfully that is to be feared; it is he who carries one regardless.

Stu Chisholm, Roseville, MI, USA

Throughout western history, starting with the Greeks, free men have been armed and slaves (or second-class citizens in a multi-class society) have been disarmed.

I legally carry a concealed firearm for self defense; I'll probably never need it, but under some circumstances it could save my life.

Bill Carson, Denver, USA

Think about it like this, a man who is permitted to carry a concealed weapon, is in fact following the law. The government has his finger prints and so forth.

If ta man shows he has a Concealed Pistol License, it tells the police that he is a law abiding citizen, who is not a felon.

Layneh, Michigan, USA

It's simple: an armed society is a polite society. Would you run the risk of upsetting someone or so eagerly act belligerently or use foul language or possibly push or shove them f you thought they were armed? No, you'd behave like a decently.

Vilmar, Spring Hill, usa

Richard Munday's commentary is a refreshing dose of reality. Gun control is a failed public policy and actually makes the situation worse. Only law abiding citizens obey guns control laws. Criminals do not. Criminal behavior is enabled by anti-gun laws.

John Fredrickson, Washington, DC, USA

As apolice officer for over 20yrs I can tell you from personal experince that removing firearms from law abiding citizens has zero effect on crime. As I work in area where firearm ownership is ok we occasionally run into criminals from Chicago who are amazed that the citizens have guns and defend

Dan, Rockford, USA

Why carry a gun? Because a policeman is too heavy! The law abiding citizen is highly unlikely to commit a crime with his firearm, and the statistics from states with shall issue concealed carry laws in the USA shows that to be true. Criminals don't obey any laws.

Larry, Billings, Montana, USA

The American Revolution was nothing less than the forcible restoration of the English Bill of Rights of 1689. The U.S. Constitution and the 2nd Amendment secures the rights that the English Monarchy discarded. Put English Law BACK into England! Do it now, before it's too late!!

Steve , Tucson, Arizona, USA

There are about one million peace officers and six million citizens that are licensed to carry concealed handguns in the United States. Countless aggressions have been thwarted without gunfire by licensed citizens when peace officers have not been present. I have one such personal experience.

Larry Boros, Mentor, Ohio, USA

Look up the shootings in the US where armed citizens resisted. They have one or two victims, not 15, 30 or 500. Colorado Springs church. Appalacian law school, etc.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Kevin, Minneapolis suburbs, USA

There is little evidence that gun control reduces crime or makes society any safer. In fact there is far more evidence that the reverse is true. Unfortunately, we honest citizens will never be allowed the option to effectively defend ourselves in the UK because our Government does not trust us.

Martin Lewis, Swansea, Wales

This may come as a surprise but Canada's has always had concealed carry. We're a May Issue nation. That said, getting a permit is next to impossible which pretty much negates concealed carry's purpose.

Phil, Toronto, Canada

I carry a firearm because I'm too tired to run, and too old to take a beating.

Joel, mount hope, USA

When someone ask why I carry a gun, I tell them because a police officer is too heavy. Police solve crime, they can't be on every street corner to prevent it. Even in Britain with your Big Brother camera system; they can only take a picture of your attacker -- after the fact.

Chuck, Boston, USA

"This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
Chancellor Adolf Hitler of Germany

David Brown, Des Moines, Iowa, USA

Well said. I am a retiree and approaching 60 years old. I carry a legally concealed handgun everyday and everywhere permitted. No government has the right to disarm me and prevent me from protecting myself and my loved ones. I have never had to fire a weapon in self defense, but I will if I have to.

Deckert, Golden, Colorado, USA

To JC, Ireland: I wouldn't call Vermont with its low homicide rate and low crime rate a "failed state." As to being Christian, the commandment, when properly translated, is against murder, not killing. And yes, there is a distinction between the two. Not defending innocents is murder in my mind.

Name Withheld, Londonderry, Vermont

Thank God we have the Second Amendment in the States. Nothing changes human nature, and if enough good people are armed and willing to act in extremis, the calculus for these barbaric acts changes--and not to the advantage of the criminal or terrorist.

Israel recognized this long ago.

Thomas Casey, Buffalo WY, USA

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” - Thomas Jefferson

Cecil, Easley, SC, USA

JC, there's nothing moral or virtuous about choosing to remain helpless. Carrying a firearm and using it responsibly is a far better testament to someone's character than abdicating their responsibility defend themselves so that they don't have to make difficult choices.

Jesse, Portland, USA

When terrorists or armed criminals strike British citizens have been left defenceless by a succession of gun control happy governments. Outlaws will always have guns because they are by definition outside the law. Law abiding citizens have no recourse to arms to defend themselves.

Gerald Gilleson, Exeter, UK

".....even at best, police response is almost always belated when gunmen are on the loose."
Here in the States we say: When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

Terry, Denver,CO, USA

Well said!!!
I wish you luck convincing your countrymen, though - they seem to have bought the lie that gun control = safety hook, line, and sinker.

Mike M., Scappoose, OR, USA

Sophie, by 'casual shootings' do you mean shootings over something minor, eg pub fights? In US states where they brought in 'shall-issue' gun permits, gun-control organisations campaigned against them claiming that there would be many such shootings. As it turned out, they were completely wrong.

Tony, Brisbane, Australia

I am overjoyed!!! Someone from outside the states that portrays gun ownership as a responsibility to citizenship rather than the realm of fat drunk cowboys trying to prove their manhood. Discourse... Honest discourse not political correctness is needed on this subject around the globe.

Tony MIller, Rutland Ma, USA

One year ago, a heavily armed terrorist entered the crowded main chapel of the New Life Church in Colorado and opened fire. Before he could harm anyone, a parishioner shot him multiple times with her legally-carried handgun. The whole thing was over in a matter of seconds.

Nelson Clayton, Sandy, Utah, USA

At the 1966 Texas Uni Tower civilian armed response hindered the gunman. At Appalachian Law School in 2002 two armed students apprehended the triple killer, cutting short a massacre. 1909 Londoners were not trained: today’s American permit-holders learn the law, gun-handling and conflict avoidance.

David, London,

As a police officer and SWAT team member who has served for the past 22 years, my opinion is that the writer is absolutely correct. Well written.
The "wild wild west" in America is also forgotten or skewed. Crime was actually much lower than in modern times when nearly all Americans were armed.

Chuck Haggard, Topeka, KS, USA

How can ANY country that claims to be civilied deny its citizens the right to self defence and LIFE!

Here in the UK the right to self defence is denied and the police keep it that may, thus ensuring the safety of thieves muggers and rapists etc.

train2survive and stay alive!


Chas, Glasgow, Scotland

Here in the States, Vermont is one of only two states that allow a person to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. And yet Vermont has one of the lowest homicide rates in the country: 1.9 per 100,000.



Jeff, Wells, US

There is no proof that gunownership causes crime, there is however proof that banning guns doesn't prevent gun crime. You are correct saying the police can't be everywhere at once, why should that mean that a person cannot defend themselves ?

Keith Barrett, manchester, uk

Disaming the law-abiding has never been a crime control measure, it is a control mechanism imposed on the people by an authoritarian political class. As Mr Munday has explained in this and other articles, gun bans are a godsend to criminals..

RufusJ, Gateshead, UK

' When you outlaw fire-arms the only people left with fire-arms are outlaws' is so true! Five years after the UK ban handgun crime doubled! In the wake of Dunblane, Cullen stated that the evidence was there for some time to revoke the killers FAC, but why this was not done has never been answered.

Ian, London,

There is a name for places where gun ownership is unregulated, and all can arm themselves: they are called "failed states".
NOT carrying a gun is a MORAL choice; it seems ironic that folks seems to think they can be allowed to kill yet still be "Christian".

JC, Cleggan, Ireland

There are many of us in the serene and calm communities that can handle gun(s) quite well; thank you very much. However, there is a segment of the population that believes that guns are for military and police only. Hee! Hee! These fellows keep shooting themselves in the leg! Self defense is sin!

Steven, Los Angeles, USA

We have guns to rebel against our government when it becomes oppressive. People like to avoid thinking about what this really means; we have guns to kill police and soldiers. No one dares proclaim this, out of fear. Is that not the definition of tyranny?

James, Morgan,

Police response is around 5 minutes; they still couldn't have helped everyone in those events, or even most of the victims.
The fact is, the police cannot be everywhere at once. An armed populace, however, can.

Brian, Omaha, U.S.

Indeed, Adrian. The problem is that there are two categories of gun crime - terrorism, such as Mumbai, where civilian arms might have been useful, but far more prevalent are more casual shootings, which the anti-gun legislation aims to prevent.

Sophie, Aberystwyth,

Virginia Tech, Columbine, Ecole Polytechnique, Hungerford, Tasmanian, San Ysidro & Mumbai massacres were all police failures. The police waited too long, did not actively intervene, were poorly trained and in most cases poorly armed. Arm the citizenry perhaps but train the police first.

[TenX]

Lots of good words there... thanks Rottlord

[Rottmeister]

TenX, are you acting towards what moderators are thinking? C'mon, this time, I want the thoughts to transform into actions.

[eternalme]

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India," Mahatma Gandhi said, "history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."

What about the deeds of Governement of India ? Banning the gun import, and making gun lecensing almost and impossible feat for a normal 9-5 person to think about.
It takes a lot of pestering, bribing, "Jugaad" and "Right contacts" to get your application processed, which otherise would simply be denied no matter how good is your cause for applying for a gun lecense.
I might want to apply for a gun license simply becasue the system can't protect a civilian from an armed menace.
The example of prevelant security is that all the leaders need some kind of extra security to feel safe among their own people. This sould be more than enough a reason for an average citizen to start considering owing a weapon.

About banning the firearms - How many police and special forces personnel use IOF made pistol and revolvers ? why we are forced to buy the undergrade arms and ammunation at such high prices ?

Should we file a public interest petition raising issues of faulty arm control laws?

[Rottmeister]

Should we file a public interest petition raising issues of faulty arm control laws?

Yes, there are 5 people including me who are already on the process of doing something fruitful; join hands if you want this movement to take shape.

[eternalme]

Yesssssssssssssssss!!

[Gansan]

Hi everyone,
I am a new member. The first thing that occurred to me upon witnessing the Mumbai atrocities on TV was what would have happened if many Indians also carried arms. I bet the terrorists would have been gunned down before they shot even a dozen innocent people. I came to know of this site only yesterday and signed up today.

I would like to know some basic information. I am a 48 year old male,live in Chennai, work as an accountant in a company from 9 - 5, an average middle class guy. I have no police/services background. Have never touched firearms before, though I generally read up on them, like I do on so many subjects. What should I do to enroll in a rifle club? How much will the membership cost? Is it a must to own a firearm before I become a member, or is it the other way round? And most importantly how much will the weapon itself cost? I am interested in hand guns, would like to own a decent weapon that does not cost an arm and a leg and would like to be trained to use it responsibly.

Lastly I would like to extend my support for the movement to ease up the norms in India, in whatever ways it is possible for me.

best regards
Gansan

[eternalme]

Greetings,

Most of the rifle clubs will give you membership without requiring you to have your own rifle license.
Its different for the state rifle clubs though, I was required to produce my rifle license for becoming a member in one of them, that is a hen and egg problem for many, when you try to get an arms license on sports ground you are supposed to be member of a rifle club, where as the rifle club needs your license for you to become a member. Getting the picture ??

Back to your questions

About being member of rifle club - you can become a member in some of the clubs without owing a firearm, the charges vary from 1k to 21k.
About not knowing anything about the firearms - don't worry its not much to do except knowing the basic safety precautions and not pointing your gun on anything you don't want to kill.
About a decent handgun for a nine to five guy that is where the problem is and thats why we are opposing ban on firearm import (few of us), in short you can't get any decent one in less then 70k (IOF) and 1.5 and above for imported old guns which are in circulation at very high premium.