An Indian national: A subject or a citizen
An unarmed man is incapable of functioning as a free citizen; his property, his body, his very life are at the command of others, since there is no risk inherent in committing depredations upon him.
DURING MY childhood, I used to see camps organised by NCC/SSB and Army to train school going teenagers and adults in fire-arms handling. Sometimes these camps were organised in collaboration with local government schools particularly during summer vacations.
At the end of 15 days in camp, participating teenagers and adults were taken to a shooting range and certificate awarded depicting grades depending upon their performance on at the range. These certificates used to be of immense importance to the recruitment authorities at recruitment rallies. Those were the good old days, when words like terrorism, militancy or Naxalites were perhaps unheard of, but the ostensible, policy of government was to keep youth prepared for the time of need or in other words, for any external/internal threat. Years have elapsed, thanks to our policy makers in the Government, many breeds of separatist have emerged under different names and banners, each propagating it own nefarious agenda, and each hell bent upon making the life of common masses as difficult as possible showing no respect either to Indian constitution, rich Indian cultural heritage or to the lives of innocent civilians. The SSB/NCC training camps have long vanished, now a few people talk of NCC these days, that too within the compounds of some educational institutes.
Training in handling of fire arms is something our electronic and print media hesitates to talk of, perhaps out of phobia of some kind, or a fear that masses associate with fire-arms, generally out of ignorance. The media has failed to educate the masses on the subject and always remained a mute spectator to policy of Government on Arms and Ammunition resulting in gross violations of citizen’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms, dead shooting sports in the country, zero competition amongst the manufacturers of arms and ammunition apart from a nation of ignorant masses.
A fresh example in this regard is that drafting of afresh proposal on Arms Act in under process in Government and comments being sought from the citizens by the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, but media has failed to provide the much needed publicity thus nullifying the need of government issuing a circular in this regard at the first place. In the absence of useful suggestions and healthy debate on the subject, formation of a better policy or an Act of Law is totally ruled out.
This fear and ignorance is natural in the wake of vague Arms Act that we still have in place even after 63 years of Independence. The Arms Act of 1962 is basically the extension of the Arms Act of 1878 (II of 1878) passed during the reign of Lord Lytton, aftermath of the failed mutiny of 1857.
This fear and ignorance is natural in the wake of vague Arms Act that we still have in place even after 63 years of Independence. The Arms Act of 1962 is basically the extension of the Arms Act of 1878 (II of 1878) passed during the reign of Lord Lytton, aftermath of the failed mutiny of 1857.
The sole purpose of thid Act was to prohibit Indians to acquire fire arms so as to neutralize any possible threat of a fresh armed mutiny from Indian freedom fighters. The intelligentsia of that time including the father of nation, M. K. Gandhi had condemned the Arms Act of 1878 as blackest. In his autobiography “My Experiment with Truth“he writes in chapter XXVII, “I used to issue leaflets asking people to enlist as recruits.
One of the arguments I had used was distasteful to the Commissioner: '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. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.”
Unfortunately, instead of making the Act citizen friendly, the policy makers in Government kept on making policies in such a way so as to make it toughest for law abiding citizens to legally acquire, keep and bear the arms. In fact, this myopic approach has not only rendered civilians helpless for their personal defence but also indirectly made the job of criminals/anti-social elements/ terrorists easy.
Unfortunately, instead of making the Act citizen friendly, the policy makers in Government kept on making policies in such a way so as to make it toughest for law abiding citizens to legally acquire, keep and bear the arms. In fact, this myopic approach has not only rendered civilians helpless for their personal defence but also indirectly made the job of criminals/anti-social elements/ terrorists easy.
Moreover, all these policies of Government totally failed to curb the ways the anti-socials elements/criminals/terrorists get their supply of sophisticated illegal weaponry. In spite of stringent gun controls, we had attacks in Two Heritage Shrines in Kashmir and they were totally destroyed, Ragunath Temple in Jammu, J&K Legislative Assembly, Indian Parliament in New Delhi, Crowded markets of New Delhi, Hanuman Temple in Gujarat, Trident, Taj hotels and Nariman Building in Mumbai apart from this, killing of innocent civilians and members of Military/Law Enforcement Agencies/ State Police is routine of day in Kashmir, North East States and Naxalite infested areas of the country. The free flow of illegal fire-arms and their use against the civilians, Military/Law Enforcement Agencies/State Police remained unchecked. The so called war in Kashmir, North East States and Naxalite affected areas is not fought with licensed non-prohibited bore calibres.
Gun controls are blessings for criminals when criminals have guns and their victims don't, crime becomes a safer occupation as gun bans don’t disarm criminals but attract them. In some countries with strict gun-control laws, burglars enter houses while people are still at home several times as often as that happens in country like the United States. Gun control is a moral crusade against a benighted, barbaric citizenry. This is demonstrated not only by the ineffectualness of gun control in preventing crime, and by the fact that it focuses on restricting the behaviour of the law-abiding rather than apprehending and punishing the guilty, but also by the execration that gun control proponents heap on gun owners and their evil instrumentality.
The possession of arms is vital for resisting tyranny, and that to be disarmed by one's government is tantamount to being enslaved by it. The possession of arms by the people is the ultimate warrant that government governs only with the consent of the governed. In truth, a state that deprives its law-abiding citizens of the means to effectively defend themselves is not civilized but barbarous, becoming an accomplice of murderers, rapists, thugs, and terrorists and revealing its totalitarian nature by its tacit admission that the disorganized, random havoc created by criminals is far less a threat than are men and women who believe themselves free and independent, and act accordingly. A government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with the means of self-defence is not itself worthy of trust. Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant, of the people.
Evidence suggests that armed citizens are very responsible in using guns to defend themselves. The Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, using surveys and other data, has determined that armed citizens defend their lives or property with firearms against criminals approximately 1 million times a year. In 98 percent of these instances, the citizen merely brandishes the weapon or fires a warning shot. Only in 2 percent of the cases do citizens actually shoot their assailants. In defending themselves with their firearms, armed citizens kill 2,000 to 3,000 criminals each year, three times the number killed by the police. A nationwide study by Kates, the constitutional lawyer and criminologist, found that less than 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The "error rate" for the police, however, was 11 percent, over five times as high.
It is by no means obvious why it is "civilized" to permit oneself to fall easy prey to criminal violence, and to permit criminals to continue unobstructed in their evil ways. While it may be that a society in which crime is so rare that no one ever needs to carry a weapon is "civilized". A society that stigmatizes the carrying of weapons by the law-abiding -- because it distrusts its citizens more than it fears rapists, robbers, and murderers -- certainly cannot claim this distinction. Perhaps the notion that defending oneself with lethal force is not "civilized" arises from the view that violence is always wrong, or the view that each human being is of such intrinsic worth that it is wrong to kill anyone under any circumstances. The necessary implication of these propositions, however, is that life is not worth defending. Far from being "civilized," the beliefs that counter violence and killing are always wrong are an invitation to the spread of barbarism. Such beliefs announce loudly and clearly that those who do not respect the lives and property of others will rule over those who do.
Many people deal with the problem of crime by convincing themselves that they live, work, and travel only in special "crime-free" zones. Invariably, they react with shock and hurt surprise when they discover that criminals do not play by the rules and do not respect these imaginary boundaries. If, however, you understand that crime can occur anywhere at any time, and if you understand that you can be maimed or mortally wounded in mere seconds, you may wish to consider whether you are willing to place the responsibility for safeguarding your life in the hands of others
One who believes it wrong to arm himself against criminal violence shows contempt of God's gift of life (does not properly value himself), does not live up to his responsibilities to his family and community, and proclaims himself mentally and morally deficient, because he does not trust himself to behave responsibly. The handgun is the only weapon that would give a lone female jogger a chance of prevailing against a gang of thugs intent on rape, a teacher a chance of protecting children at recess from a madman intent on massacring them, a family of tourists waiting at a mid-town subway station the means to protect themselves from a gang of teens armed with razors and knives.
Gun controls are blessings for criminals when criminals have guns and their victims don't, crime becomes a safer occupation as gun bans don’t disarm criminals but attract them. In some countries with strict gun-control laws, burglars enter houses while people are still at home several times as often as that happens in country like the United States. Gun control is a moral crusade against a benighted, barbaric citizenry. This is demonstrated not only by the ineffectualness of gun control in preventing crime, and by the fact that it focuses on restricting the behaviour of the law-abiding rather than apprehending and punishing the guilty, but also by the execration that gun control proponents heap on gun owners and their evil instrumentality.
The possession of arms is vital for resisting tyranny, and that to be disarmed by one's government is tantamount to being enslaved by it. The possession of arms by the people is the ultimate warrant that government governs only with the consent of the governed. In truth, a state that deprives its law-abiding citizens of the means to effectively defend themselves is not civilized but barbarous, becoming an accomplice of murderers, rapists, thugs, and terrorists and revealing its totalitarian nature by its tacit admission that the disorganized, random havoc created by criminals is far less a threat than are men and women who believe themselves free and independent, and act accordingly. A government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with the means of self-defence is not itself worthy of trust. Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant, of the people.
Evidence suggests that armed citizens are very responsible in using guns to defend themselves. The Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, using surveys and other data, has determined that armed citizens defend their lives or property with firearms against criminals approximately 1 million times a year. In 98 percent of these instances, the citizen merely brandishes the weapon or fires a warning shot. Only in 2 percent of the cases do citizens actually shoot their assailants. In defending themselves with their firearms, armed citizens kill 2,000 to 3,000 criminals each year, three times the number killed by the police. A nationwide study by Kates, the constitutional lawyer and criminologist, found that less than 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The "error rate" for the police, however, was 11 percent, over five times as high.
It is by no means obvious why it is "civilized" to permit oneself to fall easy prey to criminal violence, and to permit criminals to continue unobstructed in their evil ways. While it may be that a society in which crime is so rare that no one ever needs to carry a weapon is "civilized". A society that stigmatizes the carrying of weapons by the law-abiding -- because it distrusts its citizens more than it fears rapists, robbers, and murderers -- certainly cannot claim this distinction. Perhaps the notion that defending oneself with lethal force is not "civilized" arises from the view that violence is always wrong, or the view that each human being is of such intrinsic worth that it is wrong to kill anyone under any circumstances. The necessary implication of these propositions, however, is that life is not worth defending. Far from being "civilized," the beliefs that counter violence and killing are always wrong are an invitation to the spread of barbarism. Such beliefs announce loudly and clearly that those who do not respect the lives and property of others will rule over those who do.
Many people deal with the problem of crime by convincing themselves that they live, work, and travel only in special "crime-free" zones. Invariably, they react with shock and hurt surprise when they discover that criminals do not play by the rules and do not respect these imaginary boundaries. If, however, you understand that crime can occur anywhere at any time, and if you understand that you can be maimed or mortally wounded in mere seconds, you may wish to consider whether you are willing to place the responsibility for safeguarding your life in the hands of others
One who believes it wrong to arm himself against criminal violence shows contempt of God's gift of life (does not properly value himself), does not live up to his responsibilities to his family and community, and proclaims himself mentally and morally deficient, because he does not trust himself to behave responsibly. The handgun is the only weapon that would give a lone female jogger a chance of prevailing against a gang of thugs intent on rape, a teacher a chance of protecting children at recess from a madman intent on massacring them, a family of tourists waiting at a mid-town subway station the means to protect themselves from a gang of teens armed with razors and knives.
An unarmed man is incapable of functioning as a free citizen; his property, his body, his very life are at the command of others, since there is no risk inherent in committing depredations upon him, as it is well said that an unarmed man is a subject while an armed men is a citizen
 | Previous Post |
Login
 Login through Social ID
|
Not finding what you are looking for? Search here.
