While I empathise with some of your views, there are a few errors in your post which I'd like to point out before proceeding further. This is unsurprising as almost 150 years of strict gun control has meant that not many Indians know about this issue. So lets set the record straight before we begin to examine the main theme of your post.
"People killing other people just because they have access to a weapon"
This statement implies that civilian gun ownership a primary contributing factor in multiple victim killings/ shootings - is simply NOT TRUE! Anyone with an INTENT to create mayhem can and usually does find the means to carry out his/ her intentions. You really underestimate the ingenuity of human beings, if someone really wishes to do something - they usually find a way to do it AND if they really want something - they usually find a way to procure it! You can see the example of China and Japan where there have been instances of multiple victim killings using knives and even poison gas, look at France where there is no legal way to own an automatic rifle and yet the terrorists who shot those journalists at Charlie Hebdo got hold of Klashnikovs to carry out their attack. Closer home you need to just think back to 26/11 when a small group of terrorists held an entire city to ransom - despite the strict Indian gun laws!
On the other hand Switzerland, New Zealand and most Nordic countries have extremely high gun ownership rates but low crime rates and negligible instances of multiple victim shootings.
Conversely, in situations where citizens have the right to be armed and attackers faced one/ more armed civilians the overall death tolls (in such instances) have been substantially lower than in places where all of the victims were unarmed.
For further reading may I suggest reading the following paper written by a couple of academicians at the University of Chicago - http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1327&context=law_and_economics
the thought behind the killing itself is always random. There is no logic; people who mass murder are pure crazy.
I'm no expert in human psychology but you seem to completely discount religious/ political fanatics who, in their own mind, seem to see perfect logic in their dastardly actions.
Somehow anywhere in the world it is pretty easy to get a gun.
EXCELLENT POINT! I agree completely. Once something has been invented, short of 'un-inventing' it (if there were such a thing), you can rest assured if there is a demand for it there will be suppliers - the laws be damned! This holds true for pretty much everything any government has ever tried to ban - alcohol, drugs, books, etc. The problem really is, that once something is banned the only ones who abstain from it are the law abiding folk who wish to remain within the purview of the law. The criminals, terrorists, fanatics never have and never will care about what is written in the statute books! Ergo, gun control disarms the victims not the perpetrators.
If a person wants to kill he will find the means and ways to do it.
"People killing other people just because they have access to a weapon"
This statement implies that civilian gun ownership a primary contributing factor in multiple victim killings/ shootings - is simply NOT TRUE! Anyone with an INTENT to create mayhem can and usually does find the means to carry out his/ her intentions. You really underestimate the ingenuity of human beings, if someone really wishes to do something - they usually find a way to do it AND if they really want something - they usually find a way to procure it! You can see the example of China and Japan where there have been instances of multiple victim killings using knives and even poison gas, look at France where there is no legal way to own an automatic rifle and yet the terrorists who shot those journalists at Charlie Hebdo got hold of Klashnikovs to carry out their attack. Closer home you need to just think back to 26/11 when a small group of terrorists held an entire city to ransom - despite the strict Indian gun laws!
On the other hand Switzerland, New Zealand and most Nordic countries have extremely high gun ownership rates but low crime rates and negligible instances of multiple victim shootings.
Conversely, in situations where citizens have the right to be armed and attackers faced one/ more armed civilians the overall death tolls (in such instances) have been substantially lower than in places where all of the victims were unarmed.
For further reading may I suggest reading the following paper written by a couple of academicians at the University of Chicago - http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1327&context=law_and_economics
the thought behind the killing itself is always random. There is no logic; people who mass murder are pure crazy.
I'm no expert in human psychology but you seem to completely discount religious/ political fanatics who, in their own mind, seem to see perfect logic in their dastardly actions.
Somehow anywhere in the world it is pretty easy to get a gun.
EXCELLENT POINT! I agree completely. Once something has been invented, short of 'un-inventing' it (if there were such a thing), you can rest assured if there is a demand for it there will be suppliers - the laws be damned! This holds true for pretty much everything any government has ever tried to ban - alcohol, drugs, books, etc. The problem really is, that once something is banned the only ones who abstain from it are the law abiding folk who wish to remain within the purview of the law. The criminals, terrorists, fanatics never have and never will care about what is written in the statute books! Ergo, gun control disarms the victims not the perpetrators.
If a person wants to kill he will find the means and ways to do it.
Now to the estimates of guns owned by civilians in India. The figures you have mentioned come from the Small Arms Survey, Geneva. Allow me to let you on to a little secret, those figures are absolute rubbish! The way it happened was:
SAS was compiling data for all countries and they realised that they had absolutely no data for India. So like all good statisticians they 'extrapolated'. They took the available figures for total illegal firearms confiscated by government forces in India (this included confiscations in terror affected areas like J&K, NE, etc), assumed that for every illegal firearm confiscated X times that number went undetected and arrived at a guess as to the total number of illegal firearms in circulation here. Then they took that as a base and 'guessed' how many legal firearms are in circulation in India. They added to two guesses and voilà!
At the time they came up with those estimates, they did not even have an office or a single employee/ consultant working in India! These guesses were all made sitting in Geneva. IIRC one or two publications picked up on their data and ran short stories, and like good Indians once we see something in print we readily & unquestioningly assume it to be true.
The reason why it is so difficult to even know the total number of legal firearms in India is (because as a Federal nation) the Arms Act is administered by the State Governments (rightfully so as law & order is a state subject). Due to the licensing data (usually not digitised in most places) being spread over the various districts of various states, there is no central data repository of wherein one can pull out a figure of the total number of arms license holders in India.
In 2008 the number of people who died due to a gun in India were 6219
First up, NO ONE EVER died DUE TO a gun ANYWHERE in the world! While guns may have been used as tools in the commission of murder or other crimes, like any other inanimate object they don't CAUSE crime. While it is not possible, nor am I qualified to go into a dissertation on the root causes of crime, suffice to say crime is a manifestation of and caused by the prevailing socio-economic conditions in a place.
Conversely, when victims/ potential victims are armed with guns, crime & criminals can and is/ are more often than not effectively deterred/ stopped.
Also, for the sake of presenting the whole picture may I mention that (as per NCRB figures) between 2003-07 LEGAL firearms were involved in 1.62% - 2.33% of all murders, this figure includes self-defence shootings as in India when a firearm is used in self-defence they are more often than not initially recorded as 'murder'. Conversely between 76% - 86% of murders were committed using means other than firearms (poison, blunt objects, sharp objects, etc.). Illegal firearms were involved in 13% - 21% murders, this would include shootings in disturbed areas where terrorists/ Naxals operate.
Furthermore, just looking at the statistics for murder doesn't paint a complete picture of violent crime in India. While murders hover at between 33,000 - 35,000 per year, other violent crime like robbery, rape, dakoity, murder, etc. account for millions of victims each year. In all such crimes, where a gun is used - it is an illegal firearm procured from the black market!
Your wanting to arm yourself to actively protect yourself in stead of relying on the state to do so is sensible. Rape is a social malaise and isn't going to go away simply because we have a new law on the books.
(a) It is fine to make laws, but one must understand that laws only serve to prosecute the perpetrators of such violence, but do nothing to PREVENT the crime. Also, it is a misconception that stricter laws act as a deterrent. It has been proven time and again that criminals never expect to be apprehended and thus do not overly worry about the legal consequences of their actions. Strict laws and severe penalties may help assuage our collective feeling of guilt (of letting down the victim) & societies 'demand for vengeance' but neither of these outcomes help PREVENT the crime.
(b) There are always calls for better policing/ police reform/ judicial reform etc., which without doubt is a need not just for women but for all citizens. However, the fact is that no police force can be everywhere all at once! An effective & efficient police/ judicial system can act as a deterrent to some extent, but that is where it ends. In the overwhelming number of cases the police by its very definition and nature must content itself to investigating the crime AFTER THE FACT and attempting to bringing the guilty to justice. Once again this does not PREVENT the crime.
(c) Learning how to safely & effectively use a gun and carrying it for self defence, is one of the most effective PREVENTIVE steps that a woman can take to ensure her own safety. One must understand though, that this or any other steps that a woman may choose to take for this purpose underlines (more than anything else) her choosing NOT to BE A VICTIM. However, in India the Government has created a system which ensures that this will practically never happen. How?
(1) Firstly the Government has transformed the arms licensing system (from one which was envisaged in the Arms Act 1959 to be a free and fair one) into an obtuse and humiliating process which ensures that it is usually impossible for any law abiding citizen (with no criminal record and who does not wish to/ cannot resort to "favour") to acquire an arms license.
(2) By giving IOF a monopoly on the manufacture of handguns/ rifles and not permitting private manufacture or imports - the government has created a situation where handguns manufactured by as corrupt and inefficient an organisation such as IOF for less than 10,000/- are sold by them to the public for prices ranging from 80,000/- to over 1,00,000/-. On top of that their quality is shoddy and designs are nothing but copies of 100 year old designs! If private manufacture was allowed, it would not be difficult for someone to produce a much better handgun for between 4,000-5,000 Rupess (the cost of an ordinary cellphone), at which price one could ACTUALLY expect women to arm themselves in great numbers.
(d) If a woman is carrying a firearm and is accosted by one/ more criminals, the very act of her pulling out a firearm WITH the clear intent to use it in self-defence is usually enough in most cases for the criminal to beat a hasty retreat! This clearly PREVENTS crime! Even in the case that the attackers persist in their attack, it is logical that an armed woman at least has SOME chance of fighting off the attack as opposed to an unarmed helpless victim who can simply beg for mercy, mercy which is unfortunately never forthcoming!
(e) If even 10 or 20% of women were able and willing to arm themselves, it would be of great benefit not only to them but to ALL WOMEN in India! Why? Because, once word got around that a certain number of women were armed, there would be no way for a criminal to tell which ones were armed and which were not. As a result it would be a dangerous risk for them to attack any woman.
(a) It is fine to make laws, but one must understand that laws only serve to prosecute the perpetrators of such violence, but do nothing to PREVENT the crime. Also, it is a misconception that stricter laws act as a deterrent. It has been proven time and again that criminals never expect to be apprehended and thus do not overly worry about the legal consequences of their actions. Strict laws and severe penalties may help assuage our collective feeling of guilt (of letting down the victim) & societies 'demand for vengeance' but neither of these outcomes help PREVENT the crime.
(b) There are always calls for better policing/ police reform/ judicial reform etc., which without doubt is a need not just for women but for all citizens. However, the fact is that no police force can be everywhere all at once! An effective & efficient police/ judicial system can act as a deterrent to some extent, but that is where it ends. In the overwhelming number of cases the police by its very definition and nature must content itself to investigating the crime AFTER THE FACT and attempting to bringing the guilty to justice. Once again this does not PREVENT the crime.
(c) Learning how to safely & effectively use a gun and carrying it for self defence, is one of the most effective PREVENTIVE steps that a woman can take to ensure her own safety. One must understand though, that this or any other steps that a woman may choose to take for this purpose underlines (more than anything else) her choosing NOT to BE A VICTIM. However, in India the Government has created a system which ensures that this will practically never happen. How?
(1) Firstly the Government has transformed the arms licensing system (from one which was envisaged in the Arms Act 1959 to be a free and fair one) into an obtuse and humiliating process which ensures that it is usually impossible for any law abiding citizen (with no criminal record and who does not wish to/ cannot resort to "favour") to acquire an arms license.
(2) By giving IOF a monopoly on the manufacture of handguns/ rifles and not permitting private manufacture or imports - the government has created a situation where handguns manufactured by as corrupt and inefficient an organisation such as IOF for less than 10,000/- are sold by them to the public for prices ranging from 80,000/- to over 1,00,000/-. On top of that their quality is shoddy and designs are nothing but copies of 100 year old designs! If private manufacture was allowed, it would not be difficult for someone to produce a much better handgun for between 4,000-5,000 Rupess (the cost of an ordinary cellphone), at which price one could ACTUALLY expect women to arm themselves in great numbers.
(d) If a woman is carrying a firearm and is accosted by one/ more criminals, the very act of her pulling out a firearm WITH the clear intent to use it in self-defence is usually enough in most cases for the criminal to beat a hasty retreat! This clearly PREVENTS crime! Even in the case that the attackers persist in their attack, it is logical that an armed woman at least has SOME chance of fighting off the attack as opposed to an unarmed helpless victim who can simply beg for mercy, mercy which is unfortunately never forthcoming!
(e) If even 10 or 20% of women were able and willing to arm themselves, it would be of great benefit not only to them but to ALL WOMEN in India! Why? Because, once word got around that a certain number of women were armed, there would be no way for a criminal to tell which ones were armed and which were not. As a result it would be a dangerous risk for them to attack any woman.
I would like to point you to an academic study which has examined this topic in great detail - "Dangerous Women": Feminism, Self-Defense, and Civil Rights by Robert L. Barrow JD. and Gary Mauser Ph.D.http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/women/Law-review-abstract.pdf. While this study was conducted in USA, it is as pertinent to the situation here as human nature is universal. I doubt that anyone who really cares about women safety can remain unmoved after reading it. It isn't a very long read, pertinent to the subject and well worthwhile.
You are misinformed about the current situation in USA. Gun sales have been at an all time high there for the past several years, within which are a very large percentage of first time buyers and women buyers. In fact women gun owners are the fastest growing demographic, with more and more women choosing effective self-defence over becoming victims. If you read the latest figures released by the FBI, you will note that high gun sales have gone hand in hand with a rapid decline in violent crime figures nationwide.
Also, since you refer again to multiple victim shootings popularly termed in the press as 'mass shootings'. While these are horrific acts and deserve condemnation, please note that despite the media hype you have far a higher chance of being killed by a wild bear in USA than of becoming a victim in any such shooting there. Also, despite a high ownership of guns the No. 1 'weapon' used in the maximum number of murders year on year is... the baseball bat!
In India, private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is permitted under licence
There is no such thing as a semi-automatic assault weapon. An assault rifle is defined as one using an intermediate size cartridge and being capable of FULL AUTO fire. If it is semi-auto it simply IS NOT an assault rifle. Also, while on paper it is true that a citizen may procure a license for a semi-auto rifle, such licenses are issued ONLY by the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and are issued in very rare cases.
and only specific calibres are permitted, except 22LR, 12Bore and 315 and the ammunition that the army uses everything else is permissible subject to availability and practical limits.
Actually only specific calibres are restricted (those used by security forces), all other calibres are permitted. However, ammunition is available only for certain calibres so that automatically restricts choice.
They are also discouraged by making them feel inferior - telling them that they should not even consider purchasing a gun as they could not possibly handle it or it may be snatched away from them. Well, if it is so easy to snatch a loaded gun then won't they be able to snatch it right back? Or why then do the police carry guns? Won't those be snatched too? So we should disarm the entire police force first?
The police are supposed to verify your details as furnished in your application and also whether or not you fall under any of the categories of persons referred to in Section 9 of the Act as prohibited from owning/ possessing a firearm. Neither can the police be mind readers NOR should we attribute to them any such magical powers. No person planning a crime, even an insane person would go through the humiliating procedure of arms license application, get his & the guns details on record and then pay many times the amount of what an illegal, untraceable gun would cost on the black market!
No comments:
Post a Comment