I came across this news article where a guy shot two burglars who broke into his home and wondered, “What would I do if my own house was burgled?” In India, it’s almost impossible for an average citizen to get a gun through regular legal means. Is that a good thing?
For one, gun control laws in India don’t stop criminals from obtaining them. Every idiot gangster has a “country made” pistol and I don’t think they shell out a fortune for them either. They only prevent law abiding citizens from obtaining them for self defense.
Second, many Indians are helpless to defend themselves in case of a break in or when some rowdy attacks them. Criminals are mostly cowards and I’m willing to bet that they would think twice before engaging in violence if there were even a slight risk of them getting killed or wounded. In my opinion, allowing citizens to obtain guns legally would necessarily reduce the rate of violent crime in India.
I particularly like this quote from Andrew Ford:
25 US States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with no permit of any kind: some say it’s crazy. However, 4 out of 5 US murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?”
During 26/11, many Indians felt helpless and outraged that they could do nothing to defend themselves.
Third, gun control laws were originally drafted in India by the British to keep the population from rebelling. The fact that these laws are still in place gives a hint as to how we Indians view our politicians and the government as our rulers instead of our servants. It might surprise you to know that Gandhi was against gun control. Here is what he said in his autobiography:
“Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”
Of course, there are many objections to making guns easily available. Some feel that it will encourage crime. I don’t share that opinion since it’s already easy for a criminal to get a gun. Others feel that it’s dangerous to have children handle arms, and of course this is a valid concern. But that’s the responsibility of parents surely? We already have dangerous stuff lying in our houses like nitric acid for cleaning the bathrooms, sharp cooking knives and dangerous drugs which we lock away safely. Banning guns just to keep children safe is an irrational decision.
Imagine what would have happened had ordinary law abiding citizens possessed guns during the Godhra riots. A mob gets its power because it feels strong and is assured that the risk of injury is low. Would anyone have dared to just burst into another’s home if the homeowner had a gun? I think not.
There are lots of sensible people who feel strongly about either side of this issue. So what’s your take?
[poll id=”26″]
A mob gets its power because it feels strong and is assured that the risk of injury is low. Would anyone have dared to just burst into another’s home if the homeowner had a gun? I think not.
Imagine each one of the mob carrying a gun……
Take my advice: Do some ONLINE research? Try to find the homicide rates of different countries:
1)India
2)China
3) USA.
Try and find out!
Start here:
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/15/interactive-infographic-of-the-worlds-best-countries.html
In reply to Indian Pundit
I have done the research, and the conclusion varies depending on the study. For one thing, correlation doesn’t equal causation – for example, the US is odd in many ways including having the largest percentage of its population in prison, drug problems etc. That doesn’t mean that the two statistics are linked.
In order to remove extraneous effects, we need to compare crimes within the US between states that have gun control laws and those that don’t and even then there are methodological problems since what we want is a randomized double blind test which is pretty much impossible given the circumstances.
To quote wikipedia:
1. Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws
2. Twenty percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6% of the population—New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington, D.C.—and each has or, in the cases of Detroit (until 2001) and D.C. (2008) had, a requirement for a licence on private handguns or an effective outright ban (in the case of Chicago).
Depending on what evidence you choose to look at, you can make a case both ways…there’s no scientific consensus on this, which is why it’s such a hot topic in the first place.
Also, the role of guns in self defense is pretty well documented.
Your point about rioters having guns is well taken. Though not having guns certainly didn’t stop the Godhra riots and I fail to see how it could have been worse if they had. I continue to feel that mobs are comprised of cowardly people who will think ten times about attacking someone who could cause them injury. Also, murders committed using legally obtained guns are easier to crack since they have a forensic record which can be tied to gun ownership.
“for example, the US is odd in many ways including having the largest percentage of its population in prison, drug problems etc. That doesn’t mean that the two statistics are linked.”
Actually they are linked……
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/199804–.htm
(highly recommended)
“I continue to feel that mobs are comprised of cowardly people who will think ten times about attacking someone who could cause them injury.”
Actually mobs are almost always motivated and organized by politically parties , groups and other powerful interests and forces .
Even if you allow “legally obtained guns”……that of course doesnot stop production of illegal ones. Presence of legal arms will only result in “change” of strategy on the part of the attacker. After all you cannot carry it all the time!
Lastly , there is a gun culture in Pakistan……are they any safer?…..Karachi is known for “target killings” by rival political parties……whereas in Mumbai , political parties only throw stones at each other…….
What is needed is good intelligent police reforms and proper law enforcement so that sale and manufacture of illegal firearms can be stopped !
In reply to Indian Pundit
I glanced through the Chomsky article, but it didn’t have either the words “gun” or “arms” in it, so I’m not sure about how it says anything about gun control. In any case, Chomsky – though brilliant and strangely persuasive tends to take extreme views on everything which makes me inherently suspicious about anything he says.
Wrt Pakistan, the political, cultural situation there is completely different. Are you saying that if guns are banned in Pakistan everything will magically become ok? The problem isn’t guns. It’s people.
In reply to bhagwad
This is what you wrote:
“for example, the US is odd in many ways including having the largest percentage of its population in prison, drug problems etc. That doesn’t mean that the two statistics are linked.”
in that chomsky article i was just highlighting the link between high prison population and drug problems…..!
Anyways , i guess our difference is purely ideological one…lets see what others have to say….as always ur blog is damm interesting!
I’m not a fan of guns but I agree with you, banning guns (although I think automatic and semi-automatic guns should be ) is no way to bring down violence…The only concern I have is that children will have easy access to them (yes, parents should be responsible but many are not)…The possible causes of crime are numerous so it is wrong to say that guns are the sole cause…
“Japan has much stricter gun control than most parts of the USA, yet Japanese-Americans, who have much easier access to firearms, have much lower violence rates than Japanese in Japan. Mexico has more restrictive gun control than the USA, and also a much higher murder and armed crime rate. In Taiwan, like Malaysia, the death penalty can be imposed for illegal ownership of guns, and gun control is stricter than Japan. Yet the murder rate in Taiwan is four times higher than that of Japan, and 30% higher than in the USA. South Africa has much stricter firearms control than the USA, yet has twice the murder rate.” (www.thedegree.org/polin047.pdf+David+Botsford,+The+Case+Against+Gun+Control,+Political+Notes+No.+47,&hl=en&gl=sg&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjxhvh2yUVcAHcr43otPyUDHriBvyvOr5)
In reply to Sraboney
One thing I’ve noticed about the US is that they follow no “conventions” other than their own. All of Europe has strict gun control laws and the US doesn’t. This is a source of strength for them (I feel) since they follow their rules and no one else’s.
Interesting question Bhagwad and to be perfectly honest with you, I am fairly confused on this subject. Ideologically, I would like people to be able to have access to guns but I must say that I feel safer in a society where people don’t have easy access to firearms.
Here in the UK, we’ve had two instances of gun crime this year where dozens innocent people were killed. One of the killers had a licensed gun and the other didn’t. Now the argument goes both ways – if we had stricter gun laws (and they are already very strict in this country), the first killer couldn’t have gone on his killing spree whilst the opposing view is that if we had lesser gun controls, citizens would’ve been able to prevent the situation from worsening.
Thanks for starting a good discussion.
In reply to Ashish Deodhar
From what I know of UK laws, it’s illegal to carry any weapon when it’s intended as such. Even a knife. And I agree that there are two aspects to this – practical and idealogical.
Dear Bhagwad,
I think what we Indians need more than anything else is bread. Then sanitation,clean drinking water,education and hospitals.
An everyday observation is the hordes of beggars we have. Leave the Gun debate to the developed world and to the upper middle class hypocrites.
Why are their burglers in the first place? Because more than sixty years after independance the Indian state can not provide even the basic amenities to a majority of its citizens.
Yours,
Sudeep Raj Saini
In reply to Sudeep Raj Saini
It’s not an “either this or that” issue Sudeep. Too many things in our country are just dismissed using this logic. When someone talks about the environment, people say “first feed the poor and then think of the environment.” Or when discussing freedom of expression, people say “First think of the starving people, then we’ll talk about freedom of expression.” Now I hear the same thing regarding any issue.
A country doesn’t come to stop just because there are poor people. One isn’t at the expense of the other. If I don’t debate the issue on guns, no poor person’s life will become better. If I end up buying a gun, no poor person will be worse off. In fact, the opposite is true. Allowing the manufacture and widespread dissemination of arms will create a lot of jobs.
The government has many hands, and each takes care of a different issue. They carry on their activities independently. Debating guns or debating one issue doesn’t mean that the poor people are being deprived of something.
In reply to Sudeep Raj Saini
Are u crying,…I don’t have a tissue
40% of the criminals in India are Muslims by the way
get your facts right
In reply to The Mindset
Any proof or references to back up your 40% claim?
It might interest you to know that even as recent as 1857, just north India (gangetic belt, Bengal to Lahore) had about half million armed men who were not part of any organized army i.e. under employ of factories, nawabs, sardars or mughals.
The first thing british did after the revolt was to disarm the population.
No ruler wants an armed set of people yearning for freedom.
The fact that this is not highlighted in inidan history books and not taught in schools tells us a lot more about the intentions of the elite & gandhi family running the country than the society itself.
This issue does come across in a highly distorted way but as part of the thuggee rebellion.
Up until 1800s indian population was heavily armed. The population has been stripped of means to protect itself only for 200 years of its 5000 years of existence so far.
In reply to Vijay
Thanks for pointing that out Vijay. But what does this have to do with the Gandhi family?
Arms were a part of our family until a generation ago, but nobody wants them now. Mostly it’s the fear of accidental deaths – although there have never been any such cases. My dad was very keen that I should have something to protect myself, I am really not sure… what I do feel is those who should not have guns (robbers, criminals) seemed to have them and those who need to protect themselves don’t.
In reply to Indian Homemaker
How true…
With all due respect i would like to put forth the point, that half of the Indian population is under the poverty line and middle class can not afford a gun. Therefore the only people who afford it will be the elite or the high class. Will this not result in more Jessica Lals? And imagine all the caste and religion based riots with civilians carrying guns (i.e. if guns become luxury like cars and even middle class own them). We first need a more efficient law enforcement system and then think of such an issue.
Regards,
Janhvi.
In reply to Janhvi
You’re right – not everyone will be able to afford a gun. However while it’s true that a lot of people are poor in India, we can’t just ignore the huge middle class which is larger than the population of most countries on earth. When a lot of companies are allowed to manufacture guns, the prices will come down and it’s more likely that someone like Jessica would have had a gun to protect herself instead of being shot down.
In the US for example, guns are available in Walmart and are dirt cheap. There’s no reason why the same won’t happen in India.
Of course, one can hardly disagree with you about needing better law enforcement mechanisms. We can always have more of that :)
The chances for an instance of crime to turn violent are more when guns enter the picture. I don’t believe that we have to defend ourselves. Crime is something that government has to be squarely put on the mat to deliver.
Already people get their brains bashed in for road rage in the north. Imagine giving someone like this a gun (and sadly, the ones who need it are the ones I would not want to entrust a gun with).
A criminal any where is not limited by piddly little things like laws. So that they have it and we don’t is not a valid argument. They should be disarmed, not the other way around.
In reply to Sangitha
Thanks for chipping in Sangeetha. I don’t think it’s possible for our government to police the entire country so well that no one will ever be in danger at their homes. We have almost the largest population in the world with a police force that is not adequately funded – but even in developed countries it’s not possible to keep everyone safe. How much more so here…
You may be right about a crime turning violent when guns are involved. But if the criminal is at the receiving end, I have difficulty feeling too sorry for him/her. After all, the purpose of guns is violence. And as a deterrent, don’t you think that criminals will be more wary? For example, most rapes are committed by a known person. If that person is aware that the girl’s family has the capacity for revenge, I feel that it’s a better deterrent than the tortuous jail system we have in place now.
The unsaid word here is relativity IMO. More on that later…
1. Guns are too good at their job. They are enablers of offensive action. A person in dire need to defend himself/ herself will use heavy blunt or edged weapons or opportunistic weapons of any description. A person with a gun is much more likely to use it for offensive purposes than a knife or stone.
I dont think there are too many gun-related crimes in India, certainly not in S.India…. with the exception of terrorists and maoists. Even dacoities are attempted with sticks and knives. When miscreants think you are likely to have a gun, that will more likely cause them to shoot you than to avoid robbing you- remember they do the planning and have the element of surprise.
In the unlikely event you tangle with some Maoists, you are better off unarmed. These militia cadre may let you off unless you are their specific target, but if you’re slinging guns around you are more likely to be shot.
Even some varieties of terrorist *may* spare women (and children) when they have the discretion to do so, provided they think these are noncombatants.
In a wholesale riot situation with no logic and only mayhem you are probably facing off a crowd of 100s+… not a lot of good the gun will do.
In bhagwad’s scenario above, the rapist will kill the people who have the “capacity for revenge”.
2. Relativity:
If you have guns and this fact is little known you are not much safer except from the daftest of crooks. They will have some kind of weapon and will use it as soon as you try to go for your gun.
If you have guns and this fact is widely known, and most of the rest of the populace dont have guns and that is also widely known, you are indeed safer. This cushion of deterrence lasts till most of them catch up to you.
You then acquire LMGs /MMGs and make that fact widely known….
Ultimately display missile launchers from your rooftop perhaps :-)
thx,
Jai
In reply to Jai_C
Actually I remember reading a spate of crimes where some passerby tried to stop a crime and was then shot for his good intentions with a country made pistol. Looks like it’s very easy to get a gun for anyone having the inclination. Needless to say that only the criminals will possess them.
And of course, train robberies are almost always committed with guns. If the robbers thought any passengers could be carrying them, they wouldn’t be so damn bold.
Of course, I don’t know anything about how people react when in danger. Such studies have been conducted I believe. It turns out that having a gun for self defense is a great idea. (Wikipedia)