Sunday, July 22, 2007

india needs more liberal gun laws?

A bizarre full-page spread in today's Hindustan Times actually argues that India's gun laws are too restrictive, and it should be easier to get gun licenses and buy imported weapons. The weirdest part is the way the piece cites the dropoff in license applications over the past few years as though it's the worst imaginable crisis. Oh my God, fewer people are packing heat! How will we protect ourselves from the marauding hordes?! (OK, they do make the argument that all the crooks get their guns from the black market, but we've heard that line before from America's National Rifle Association, which boils it down into a facile maxim: "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.")

Here's a good example of the tone the HT takes: "Given the obsolete gun laws and the government’s monopoly over the sector, licence-holders say they have no choice but to make do with these outdated, crude-finish weapons." Gasp! They can't get the cutting edge assault rifles and automatic pistols they need! Whatever will they do?

It's not April Fool's Day, is it?

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Alright now. I agree with whatever HT had to say in that particular piece.Now i do not know what your thought process is, but yeah as a citizen of a free country I would like to have at least a decent firearm to protect me and my family shall the situation arise.
Do argue that there are authorities to deal with that kind of eventualities. I do not know either what reservation you harbor regarding this issue, but most if not all the firearms used in criminal activities are illegal. Now don't you think that having a more liberal approach to this issue will make a ordinary law abiding citizen to fell more secure, now that he/she has a genuine protection against criminal or any other threat. Crimes happen against anyone, not only the rich.On a lighter note, and I do not mean this in a bad way, why am I getting this urge to comment on your gender ? And I do not know at this point what your gender is. Reply to this and we may argue further if gather you are intelligent enough

Anonymous said...

Just some mistakes I made in previous
post
Do argue--sorry that was meant to be "do not argue".
to fell more--"to feel more".
I was at work and did not see what i was typing.Sorry anyways

Anonymous said...

Jason sounds like a complete dushbag with no experiences or ideas of his own and I believe it would be an even greater waste of everyones time to allow him to come up with more incohorent bullshit, let him look down a barrel of an illegally bought gun while his house and family are getting burgularized and he might understand how moronic and near sighted his post sounds to others. Everyone knows about the corrupt police in India and everyone else that has any post or anything run by the government in India, Its not the individuals its the system. But for the citizens stuck in this system you either got political connections, or you got firearm, but when you have neither you and your family are at the whim of any lowlife with a blackmarket firearm. I have never been robbed in my life but it doesn't take much imagination to think about what is likely to happen because of a certain law or policy. If I was to take a guess at Jason's reservations he probably believes he doesn't have to worry about that blackmarket gun because he is probably safe and sound in his house, because of A. Political connection, or B. He has a blackmarket firearm himself. Allowing average citizens to carry firearm would put a damper on the power and rush the illegal firearm provides to criminals and lowlife's, right.

Anonymous said...

You really are full of shit Jason.I dont know which country you come from..or why you're even spending your days in India!Frankly, we dont need your kind of dispossessed white trash arund here.
Infact, you NEED to worry about your sorry ass-lest its raped by some raging homosexual with a taste for white folks.Or maybe you can try talking about world peace, famine and/or hunger to any criminal who stops by your home.That might talk them out of their urges to shoot your dumb ass full of holes. I suspect you're in India cause of any of the fore mentioned causes.For most white idiots like you - India is an "illiterate, poor starving country" that "needs" your help. Reality bites pal..its Boom time in India.
The Bourgeoisie here are extremely empowered, pay some of the highest taxes in the world and have a voice.
So, if you're done living with a 12 year old boy - you bought from some Asian country- why dont you pack your bags and take your filthy ass where ever it belongs?

psamtani said...

This man is a fucking retard. Seriously, which world do you live in? An armed citizenry is essential to a real democracy.

We are not little children that you need to take care of. The original draconian gun laws were enacted by the British to enslave a nation, it is no surprise to me that you are in agreement with them.

"That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -- George Orwell, the author of Animal Farm and 1984, himself a socialist

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

"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." -- Mahatma Gandhi (An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth, by M.K. Gandhi, p.238)

Anonymous said...

INDIA NEVER NEEDS ANY GUNS THE MEN ARE PUSSIES IF THEY EVER WENT FIGHTING WITH A GUN THEIR GUN WILL BE TAKEN FROM THEM AND SHOT ON THEMSELVES HAHAHAHAHAH

LucyR said...

As a US citizen, here's my take on what guns have done for my country:
Mass shootings in schools, colleges
the work place and other public places.
Increased suicide:
Guns are the number 1 method of suicide

If you own a gun, the chances of you being a victim of gun violence (either used by you or a family member) increases by 60%

Theoretically, the concept is great. In reality it just increases the number of victims of gun violence.

Anonymous said...

It is November 26, 2008 and I hope you check your comments and your news. Mumbai has been taken by siege by islamic militants and at this minute there are over 100 dead and hundreds more injured. The terrorists attacking that city are armed to the teeth. Not one of these attackers legally obtained weapons. Your laws were circumvented by criminals, like all useless gun laws. No one can defend themselves from these invaders due to draconian gun laws which have left them defenseless as sheep to the slaughter. You are a fool and your foolish views and those of paranoid legislators have condemed hundreds to unnecessary death. Shame.

Anonymous said...

Quote
Oh my God, fewer people are packing heat! How will we protect ourselves from the marauding hordes?!
Unquote

Oops. Looks like some marauding hordes runined you argument for unarmed chattel. Huh?

Mike said...

Mumbai.
Own at least one high-quality firearm.
Learn how to use it.
Learn the simple, universal safety rules.
Cultivate the mindset of a free citizen.
Tear away your slavish, serf-like unarmed, weak, victim mindset.
Study history.
Take responsibility for yourself, and others.
Find a gun-owning friend. If you have none, you are surrounded by weak friends. Find some strong friends.
Shed your urbanized lifestyle prejudices for just a little while and ask the gun-owner friend to take you out to the country to learn how to handle a gun.
In a world 3/5 covered with water, only a fool cannot swim.
In a world brimming over with tyrants, mobs, criminals and now terrorists, only a fool cannot shoot.
Don't be a fool. If you are still too cowardly to take up arms yourself, then at least get out of the way of people who will.

Mumbai.11-26-08

"That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -- George Orwell, the author of Animal Farm and 1984.

Mike said...

LucyR, you express your concern about violence in schools, the workplace, and suicide.
I bet you:
--oppose capital punishment
--vote for liberal politicians who erode the states' authority to punish violent criminals, and the schools' authority to punish bad students.
--favor shutting down Guantanamo
Instead of giving up more of your own liberty to increase the government's power, take action against violent criminals and terrorists.
Besides, your stats are wrong.

Anonymous said...

I found this blog because I'm wondering about India's gun laws in light of the current events.

Unfortunately, since hotels were the targets, most people, arriving by plane, wouldn't have been able to have weapons anyhow.

Anonymous said...

If Jason Overdorf keeps preaching his pacifist point of view he might as well change his name to Jason Bendover. He for sure will be bent over in the future if he is not bent over right now(girly bitch)!

Jewtile said...

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/04/virginia-tech-students-plea-why-was-i.html

Citizen Stuart said...

I bet at least some of the 200+ victims of the terrorist attack in Mumbai wished that they'd had something to shoot back with. Are you still a fan of victim disarmament? It's obscene that ten losers were able to prowl round a city of millions killing at will and none of their intended victims had the ability to stop them.

Bill the Butcher said...

Since recent times have seen fairly large number of high-profile massacres of innocents by disturbed killers who were not career criminals, and since these killings weren’t carried out using illegally acquired weaponry, could we ask a few questions to those who defend the right of civilian individuals to own guns?

Question: If you say you have a free and representative government, do you need to give the people guns? Shouldn’t the people be happy and content, and therefore shouldn’t they be free of the requirement to defend themselves? As for an external threat, assuming you have the strongest regular armed forces in the world, shouldn’t they be good enough to protect the people from any external threat?

Question: If your people need guns to defend themselves against their government, then isn’t the government not as free and as representatiive as you make it out to be? And since you also have the strongest armed forces in the world, can a disorganised armed civilian rabble can successfully defend itself against that government and its armed forces?

Question: If the rationale for this private militia of armed citizens is a law dating back to the 18th Century, will the supporters of this also back laws from the same era supporting slavery or the killing of Native Americans for their scalps?

Question: If the point of owning guns is freedom, and if freedom is the absolute imperative of your society, then why don’t you legalise, say, drug use? It doesn’t even hurt anyone except the user, unlike, shall we say, child porn, now does it?

Question: If the possession of guns is important to protect oneself from possible criminals (the “if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns” argument), then how many guns does an individual need to own? Surely not more than one or at the most two? How many guns can one person fire at one time? So should there be no limits on the number of guns one person can purchase?

Question: Are there any statistics proving crime rates in societies which restrict gun ownership are significantly higher, with allowances made for other factors including unemployment rates, etc, than those of societies which allow gun ownership? And are there any statistics proving that mass gun ownership has actually deterred crime? If so, what are those statistics? Do these putative statistics bear out the idea that the number of victims of gun crimes using legal guns are less than the number of hypothetical victims of illegal weaponry in that same period, in cases where legal guns prevented crimes from being committed?

Question: If guns are potentially, at the very least, dangerous instruments, capable of killing even by accident in the long run, shouldn’t they be kept safely locked away from children and pets, and unloaded to prevent them from accidentally discharging? But then aren’t they less likely to be of any use deterring criminals? While the homeowner is unlocking and loading his gun, won’t the criminal, whom you claim to have unfettered access to illegal weaponry, be using the said illegal weapon? How do you prevent the guns themselves from becoming the criminal’s target? How do you, as in the recent shooting case in Germany showed, prevent a relative or other person with legitimate access to the gun-owner's house from obtaining one or more of the guns?

Question: Since it’s undeniable that a certain number of public shooting incidents have happened in recent times using guns that have been perfectly legally acquired, and these have led to the deaths of a large number of people, at least some of whom were innocent of all capital crimes, should there be a policy on public carrying of firearms? What should this policy be? If firearms can be bought and kept at home or in the place of business, how can you prevent owners, even if not angry or disturbed or malicious individuals from taking them out in public even if they have no permit to do so?

Question: If there are multiple shootings by such deranged individuals, using legally acquired weapons, what is the solution? Is it to ban all firearm ownership, or at least ownership of such firearms as can be carried in concealment? Or is it to arm everyone, or large numbers of people, to enable them to attack such armed individuals? But if you arm large numbers of people, aren’t you making more certain of more shooting incidents where the stresses of modern life cause such individuals to crack, and there is a lethal weapon close to hand? And also since you are not about to pay for these guns to be handed out the public at large, is this policy not discriminatory towards those who cannot afford, or for some reason choose not to own, guns?

Question: If everyone is provided guns, does it not also increase the likelihood of pre-emptive gun use? In more than one way, does it not imply a return to the Wild West?

Question: If one posits that to carry guns at large in public will deter terrorist attacks as at Bombay, are handgun-armed civilians without training even theoretically a match for highly-trained terrorists who can successfully fight off hundreds of commandoes for days? How will security systems distinguish between legal arms owners and armed terrorists? Does this not make it easier for armed criminals and terrorists to penetrate security screens? Can the threat of being killed by civilian fire deter suicide terrorists who are prepared to die in the course of their mission?

Question: How do you ensure individuals shooting at psychopaths or terrorists in a crowded situation do not accidentally kill or injure bystanders? If such happens, who is to take the blame? What if the alleged psychopath or terrorist happened to be a person with a legitimate reason for carrying a gun in public and is killed by over-enthusiastic citizens? Who bears the blame for that?

Question: Since there are already fairly effective procedures involving security at airports and Underground stations and the like, might the model be adopted more extensively and be perhaps more effective than arming everyone indiscriminately? Might trained security personnel in plainclothes be a better option to take out armed maniacs and possibly terrorists as well?

Final Question: Of course, perhaps gun owners prefer the status quo, as in the US, of virtually unrestricted firearms ownership, and take the risks as they come. But while gun owners themselves are welcome to run the risk of dying, do they have the right to risk the lives of others, many of whom may hate and despise guns?

Could we have a few answers, please?

Anonymous said...

Bill the Butcher should think about the possibility of restricting free speech. Do we really need to have free speech if we a so content with our government? How many different forms of media do we actually need ? If we outlaw guns, should we then outlaw knives too, as they will soon be the weapon of choice?
Maybe if you were to look a Dubai you would see the need for more weapons in the hands of civilians. Because of their strict gun laws, the government has been able to commit mass murder and rape, etc. on their own citizens.F.U. Bill, get a clue and open your eyes.

Anonymous said...

correction on Dubai, meant to say DARFUR.

freedom lover said...

Did the Mumbai terrorists respect India's strict gun control laws??