|
The 26 November terror attacks in Mumbai have provoked outrage and widespread "condemnation" from all quarters. Everybody's calling for the government to "do something", "enact stricter laws", and "send a message" to the terrorists.
What most fail to realize is that attacks like the one in Mumbai are entirely facilitated by the Indian government, through its long-standing policy of keeping civilians disarmed.
It is a testament to the government's propaganda power that the statement above will provoke indignation from most Indians, who tacitly accept the government party line that guns cause crime and terrorism. Most Indians would be inclined to ask for stronger gun control as a means to fight terrorism.
But this is precisely the opposite of what's really needed.
Gun Control Doesn't Prevent Crime The simple fact is that gun control does not affect criminals in the least. It only affects law abiding citizens. Criminals are already determined to act counter to the law, be it robbery they're planning, or a terrorist strike. It's ridiculous to suppose that they'll respect gun laws. They're criminals, after all. By definition they don't respect the law. And they'll always be able to obtain arms illegally, gun control or no gun control. So all that gun laws achieve is to keep law abiding citizens disarmed. Which is just great for armed criminals. They're assured that in all but the most unusual of cases, they will have no armed resistance. They need not worry themselves in the least about being shot by one of their intended victims. Gun laws assure them a totally unarmed victim pool. Guns Save Lives When law-abiding civilians have the freedom to own and bear arms, and to take responsibility for the protection of their own lives, a large section of the civilian population is potentially armed. This radically alters the scenario for armed criminals. When victims aren't defenseless sheeple, but potentially lethal adversaries, the returns and risks of armed violence are significantly altered. In an armed society, armed criminals can be stopped by would-be victims as well as by armed bystanders. In countries where civilian gun ownership is a cherished freedom, such as Switzerland, armed criminals routinely meet their end at the hands of responsible, armed citizens, and innocent lives are saved. Depending on a centralized defense machinery provided by the state is often suicide. As it was for the hundreds of hostages in the Mumbai terror strike. Centralized defense support is invariably too slow to mobilize, too far from the scene of the crime, and thus inevitably too late to prevent loss of human life. As was demonstrated yet again in the Mumbai attack. Had even 20 or 30 of the law abiding citizens within the Taj Hotel in Mumbai been armed, it is not hard to see how they would have made short work of the 3-4 terrorists who attacked them. The fact that the terrorists had superior firearms would not have saved them. A bullet from a ladies' handgun would kill them as dead as one from an automatic assault rifle. Had even 20 of the law abiding citizens within the Taj Hotel been armed, 195 people in Mumbai would not have lost their lives. Gun Control in India India's gun control laws are rooted in pre-independence British law, specifically The Indian Arms act of 1878. After the mutiny of 1857, to prevent further armed resistance to its authority, the British colonial power began a campaign of systematically disarming Indians and destroying local arms production capabilities. Unfortunately, even when the Indian Arms Act of 1878 was repealed, in 1959, it was replaced with the Arms Act of 1959, which is premised on the same distrust of an armed citizenry. Indeed, it is extremely difficult and time-consuming even for private security professionals in India to get a gun license. When P.R.S Oberoi, the Chairman and CEO of the Oberoi Group, was questioned by the media about why the Oberoi-Trident hotel's own security personnel were unable to respond to the terrorist threat, he pointed out that the hotel's security staff are not armed, because it is very difficult to get them the gun licenses. With the civilian populace and security infrastructure defanged through gun control laws, it's no wonder that armed criminals and terrorists feel emboldened to commit murder and spread mayhem. Amidst all the clamoring for new central security agencies, for more "stringent" anti-terror laws (as if shooting and blowing up people wasn't already illegal), for the "people to step forward", for "a broad anti-terror strategy", for "a strong stance", "determination", and other such vacuous suggestions, it is revealing that the single most effective mechanism for civilians to protect themselves - respecting their fundamental human rights to keep and bear arms - has not yet been suggested by any media person, security professional, analyst, or pundit. Fight Terrorism by Fighting Gun Control Terrorism is a fact of life for everyone today. It's extremely foolish and dangerous to entertain the illusion that centralized government agencies can move swiftly enough to protect you or your loved ones when armed terrorists threaten your life. It's equally unrealistic to expect that anything governments do can eliminate or significantly alter the number of terror attacks that occur in the future. Terrorists have demonstrated time and again their adaptability, persistence, and ability to attack in new and unexpected ways. Every human being has the right to protect his life, and given the reality of armed criminals, this translates directly into the right to keep and bear arms for self defense. The gun control laws of India are in violation of the fundamental human right of self-defense and self-preservation, and should be repealed forthwith. The right to bear arms will give Indian citizens a fighting chance at life when faced with armed terrorists and criminals. It will seriously decrease the effectiveness of armed terrorist strikes such as the recent Mumbai attacks, as well as drastically cut armed violent crime. Significantly, guns are a great equalizer for women. Given how prevalent sex crimes are in India, the repeal of gun control laws would also mean a much safer India for women. Arm Yourself If you realize that when you find yourself in an dangerous situation it really is up to you to protect yourself and your loved ones against violent crime and terrorism, there's nothing better you could do than arm yourself, with knowledge of the role of guns as the most effective means of self-defense, and if you can get the license, with a firearm. It is also imperative to repeal India's draconian gun control laws, and organized action to achieve this is the best single step civil society can take to combat crime and terror. For more information about Indian gun laws, including how to apply for a gun license, and further information about the value of an armed citizenry, have a look around Abhijeet Singh's website, especially the article about Gun Control in India and the Parable of the Sheep. Abhijeet has also created a forum for firearms, gun rights, and shooting sports in an Indian context. There's lots more information about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) all over the 'Net. Just google for "RKBA".
|
