Strict Indian Gun Law Aided Mumbai Terrorists

[mundaire]

Strict Indian Gun Law Aided Mumbai Terrorists in Attack
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
By Sara Burrows
(CNSNews.com)

India's strict gun laws are partly to blame for the success of the terrorist attack in Mumbai, according to the head of an Indian gun rights group and a U.S. expert who has examined the impact of gun laws on crime and terrorism.

Abhijeet Singh, founder of Indians for Guns, told CNSNews.com Tuesday that if the citizens of Mumbai had been allowed to carry guns, terrorists would not have killed as many people as they did--and might have been deterred from attacking in the first place.

In last month's Mumbai attack, when terrorists armed with AK-47 assault rifles took over two resort hotels, local residents, hotel security guards and even local police were caught empty-handed and unarmed.

"That's because India's gun laws make it nearly impossible for its citizens to own guns," Singh said in a telephone interview from New Delhi.

Singh said his group has long fought against the India Arms Act, which doesn't bar all guns outright.

"On paper, pretty much anyone can apply for an arms license, but, at the end of the day, the grant of the license is completely at the discretion of the authorities," Singh said.

Under rules added to the India Arms Act in 1983, the central government's "licensing authority" can refuse to grant license to anyone who is of "unsound mind," who has been convicted of "any offence involving violence or moral depravity," or who is "for any reason unfit for a license."

Authorities, consequently, reject 95 percent of the applications they receive, Singh said.

"Half the time they won't even receive applications, because they've exceeded their monthly quota," he added. "They make it so tough that most people just give up."

The result is a nearly unarmed population, Singh said.

American Enterprise Institute researcher John Lott, meanwhile, said he agrees with Singh that Mumbai may have avoided the bloodshed if its residents had been armed.

Unarmed populations, he said, are prime targets for mass shootings, and concealed-carry laws deter such incidents.

Lott, author of "More Guns Less Crime," said that multiple-victim public shootings are much less likely to happen in places where people are allowed to carry concealed handguns - a conclusion he reached after conducting research on the topic at Yale and the University of Chicago.

Of the multiple-victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 through 1999, Lott said he found that the presence of armed law enforcement, while it reduces the number of murders generally, typically has no effect on multiple-victim public shootings.

"This is because police are easily identified," Lott said. "Terrorists either kill police first or wait until they leave the scene to attack."

In Mumbai, police immediately hid from the two terrorists who ran through the Mumbai railway station, Singh said.

"The police officers' excuse was that the terrorists had had fully-automatic AK's, while they only had bolt-action rifles," he added.

Lott, meanwhile, theorized that the police probably knew they would be first to get shot.

"That's the benefit of concealed handguns," he said. "At Virginia Tech, 500 people came into contact with the killer. If the killer had known a significant percentage of the people were carrying concealed handguns, he wouldn't have known who to take out first. He would have wanted to take out the people who were armed, but he wouldn't have known who they were."

"Right-to-carry" laws are the only laws that have lessened the number and the severity of multiple-victim public shootings, according to his research.

When states change their laws to allow people to carry concealed handguns, these attacks decrease by 60 percent, and the number of people injured or killed in them drops 78 percent, Lott said.

The attacks that do occur overwhelmingly take place in the few areas people aren't allowed to carry concealed handguns, like malls and college campuses, he said.

"In fact, every single multiple-victim public shooting in the United States, in which more than three people were killed, has taken place in an area where concealed handguns are not allowed," he added.

Singh said he wonders what would have happened if even 10 percent of the thousands of people in the train station had been allowed to carry concealed handguns.

"There were only two armed terrorists, and no one had a single gun to fight them with," he said.

"We're talking about 500 people killed or wounded in one day. Even if we could have saved 200, that would be 200 more people going home to their families."

Ironically, Singh quoted the Indian pacifist Mahatma Gandhi, who had strongly condemned India's gun law, which stemmed from British colonial rule:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest," Gandhi wrote in his autobiography, "Gandhi: An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth."


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

Link >>>

[amit_sharma86]

Hi guys I am Amit here.
I just want to ask one thing that the number of victims in Mumbai attacks could have decreased if any of the victims had rights to have gun with them for self defence. then the number of victims(those who lost their lives) could have saved their lives.

[mundaire]

Threads merged...

Hi guys I am Amit here.
I just want to ask one thing that the number of victims in Mumbai attacks could have decreased if any of the victims had rights to have gun with them for self defence. then the number of victims(those who lost their lives) could have saved their lives.

If even some of the victims had been armed, would the number of casualties be lower? Without a shred of doubt!

Cheers!
Abhijeet

[Rottmeister]

Strict Indian Gun Law Aided Mumbai Terrorists in Attack
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
By Sara Burrows

http://cnsnews.com/public/content/artic ... rcID=40567

[raj]

i totally beleive tht Strict Indian Gun Law Aided Mumbai Terrorists...
i have a .22 rifle but i am going to apply for .32 handgun licence now for self defense.

[amk]

The ironic part about incidents involving gun crimes is that the authorities become even more stringent in issuing licenses whenever an incident occurs, especially one that gets any amount of media coverage. I dread to think what will happen to arms license applications in light of this massive incident.

On another note, I've been reading a few articles in the local papers about arms licenses and other related facts. To be blunt.... most of the facts written in them are bullshit.... regarding laws, calibers, etc...

AMK

[penpusher]

i have a .22 rifle but i am going to apply for .32 handgun licence now for self defense.

Wouldn't that add to the already 'shockingly' high number of firearms in civilian hands in MP

[penpusher]

Some time back a Hindi news channel had aired a clip of an encounter between the police and some goondas in UP.The police men soon ran out of ammo and were seen asking around for firearms and ammo from the local residents.

[raj]

Wouldn't that add to the already 'shockingly' high number of firearms in civilian hands in MP

that will add up,,,thts true.do you have a problem with that??do you have a problem with me?or you are into Gun-control???

[Rottmeister]

i have a .22 rifle but i am going to apply for .32 handgun licence now for self defense.

Wouldn't that add to the already 'shockingly' high number of firearms in civilian hands in MP

I think we are speaking on firearms that are legal and registered.

[mundaire]

Penpusher is not into gun-control, in fact far from it! In case everyone missed the sarcasm, it was directed at one of Raj's previous posts (regarding widespread gun ownership in MP) which seemed a lot like anti-gun scaremongering... at least it did to me.

Cheers!
Abhijeet

[penpusher]

That particular post is here http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... ght=#61688

[raj]

hello everyone,
let me make myself clear about that particular post which is quoted above by Mr.penpusher.i just found those facts and figures from a local newspaper,and thought i would be nice to share it here.i m totally not into gun-control or ani-gun motion.i m working with Mr.RottLord on"plans on the start" to oppose the gun-control in india.

regards
raj

[nagarifle]

i am totally 100% for gun control.

i believe that every citizen should be in total control of legally owed arms.

[TenX]

i am totally 100% for gun control.

i believe that every citizen should be in total control of legally owed arms.

... or atleast, those who legally want to ...