Gun Laws: Mumbai's Harsh Lesson on Gun Control

Food for thought.
Inspired by PW's post "Gun Laws"

By Abhijeet Singh
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/ ... un_co.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 40238.html

Quote:

---

Sebastian D'Souza a news photographer who witnessed the entire scene, and also took the photos that were flashed in most newspapers around the world, had this to say:

" There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything. At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, "Shoot them, they're sitting ducks!" but they just didn't shoot back. I told some policemen the gunmen had moved towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use them? I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera."

"I only wish I had a gun," a statement that echoes one of the biggest failures of Indian democracy. The state has actively prevented law-abiding citizens from owning the tools with which to protect their lives!

---

So Americans think that "democracy" is not "democratic" enough if you don't have a gun? This kind of mentality explains why America made bulling other countries a national sport.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

[s:3u0b4fsn]bulling[/s:3u0b4fsn]bullying

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by translationsnmru

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

[s:37235kge]bulling[/s:37235kge]bullying

---

---

Wow! We now have strikethru fonts!

I’m surprised you haven’t read techncal supoort forum. We have it now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

This kind of mentality explains why America made bulling other countries a national sport.

---

You've really got us figured out, now!
Yeah.......we liike t' sit on the porch with a can of beer in the aafternoons, ya know, and shoot at sh!t! .......and blame everythin' on them dirty filthy pinko Commies!



And when did Russia become so innocent?
Imagine how aggressive they would be if Russian gun laws were relaxed. (If your theory is correct)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebit...7003_small.gif

What’s the use of all those guns you have at your disposal which you can not properly make use of? If a man may be sued for sexual harassment after his casually glancing at a beautiful woman what tiny pieces he could be shred into by your justice system after his trying to protect himself with firearms?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexB

[s:11o6qtfm]can not[/s:11o6qtfm] cannot

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexB

What’s the use of all those guns you have at your disposal which you can not properly make use of? If a man may be sued for sexual harassment after his casually glancing at a beautiful woman what tiny pieces he could be shred into by your justice system after his trying to protect himself with firearms?

---

For your information, in USA:
1 Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense.

2 As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse

3 Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police.

4 Even researchers for Clinton Justice Dept. conceded that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense.

Justice Department study:

* 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."

* 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."

* 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."

In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockzmom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexB

[s:1hf4qhwh]can not[/s:1hf4qhwh] cannot

---

---

Both can not and cannot are in fact correct.

Quote:

---

* 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."

---

Yeah, and 5/5 of felons won't hesitate to shoot a victim if THEY are armed with guns. Just perfect.

Personally I feel much better and safer when I know for sure that my chance of meeting a psycho with a real gun is close to zero, or even less. Sure, there are other ways to hurt a person, but the guns beat them all. And I don't want a freaking gun for self-defence, because when EVERYBODY has a gun it's a moot point. In the end it comes down to who's a better shot or who's ruthless enough to use the gun first. And I'm not sure it will be me. So the street would basically be the unsafest place, a war zone. No, thank you very much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

because when EVERYBODY has a gun it's a moot point.

---

And how is being "equalized" a "Moot Point"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

because when EVERYBODY has a gun it's a moot point.

---

And how is being "equalized" a "Moot Point"?

---

Because a sane person with a gun is not always equal to the thug with the gun.
That split second you hesitate before shooting another human being (as any decent average person would do) turnes into your disadvantage and your attacker, who doesn't have such doubts, will have enough time to put a bullet in your head.

I guess your advice would be "shoot now think later". But when everybody gets paranoid or neurotic enough to shoot at the slightest noise or provocation there would be loads of people killed by mistake - teens with toy guns, weird passerbies, "rapists" who weren't going to rape anybody, etc. I don't see how it is better to what we have now. There are gas guns that when used smartly give you enough time to escape. I think it's enough for now.

BTW, I like guns, I'm not some crasy pacifist. But I do think the harm from permitting guns on the streets would exceed any positive impact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockzmom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexB

[s:3ll37p67]can not[/s:3ll37p67] cannot

---

---

Both can not and cannot are in fact correct.

---

Dear DDT,

I am in the U.S. and therefore I follow the Style Guides for U.S.

In the context that Alex used 'cannot' it needs to be one word, not two. I am not certain about other countries. If you have their style guides, please share.

Here is the passage from the Writer's Guide to Style and Usage, p.43) regarding cannot, can not and can not only:

"Cannot, can not, can not only. Cannot is the preferred form except for the rare instance when a writer wishes to emphasize the not, for example, in juxtaposition to can statements: 'You can run and you can hide, but you can not escape me.' When can not only is used, the trick is to remember that not is working with only as a conjunction; can is an auxiliary that must be parallel with the rest of the statement: 'The restaurant can not only serve a delectable lasagna, but also [can] bake [not bakes] a sinful chocolate cake.' "

I am not certain about other countries. If you have their style guides, please share.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

because when EVERYBODY has a gun it's a moot point.

---

And how is being "equalized" a "Moot Point"?

---

Because a sane person with a gun is not always equal to the thug with the gun.
That split second you hesitate before shooting another human being (as any decent average person would do) turnes into your disadvantage and your attacker, who doesn't have such doubts, will have enough time to put a bullet in your head.

I guess your advice would be "shoot now think later". But when everybody gets paranoid or neurotic enough to shoot at the slightest noise or provocation there would be loads of people killed by mistake - teens with toy guns, weird passerbies, "rapists" who weren't going to rape anybody, etc. I don't see how it is better to what we have now. There are gas guns that when used smartly give you enough time to escape. I think it's enough for now.

BTW, I like guns, I'm not some crasy pacifist. But I do think the harm from permitting guns on the streets would exceed any positive impact.

---

Fortunately, the factual statistics on concealed carry licenses and gun use by honest citizens, shows your fears to be for naught. The figures in my earlier post show this. Crime has not risen in the states that have laws allowing concealed carry of weapons, in fact most studies report that crime has gone down in those states. Furthermore, the "decent average person" contrary to your summations, does not hesitate. Fear is a remarkable "enabler", ask any police officer.

But let's be honest, there will always be people who simply just should not attempt to defend themselves with a firearm....or with anything for that matter. Some people do not make good soldiers and should not be in the military, too! But I don't think that the rest of us should defer to the lowest common denominator amongst us. The majority of us capable of defending ourselves should not be hampered and endangered by those who can not or will not.

I will post the link to a story that I have saved on my computer, which sums up the situation and divides humans into three types.
Here is an extract, I hope all native Russian speakers will be able to understand this article. The full article will be quite long for some.

On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs
(From the book, On Combat, by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman)

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin’s egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.
“Then there are the wolves,” the old war veteran said, “and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy.” Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

“Then there are sheepdogs,” he went on, “and I’m a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf.” Or, as a sign in one California law enforcement agency put it, “We intimidate those who intimidate others.”

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen: a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath--a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? Then you are a sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero’s path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep
pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that
day.
Read the whole article here:
http://www.killology.com/sheep_dog.htm