Indian Gun Freedom? Nope.

[angelatc]

Haven't researched it, but apparently the Ridley Report did. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP295xpH15A

And check out this article. Apparently armed Indian policemen would not shoot the terrorists even when they had a chance.

Mumbai photographer: I wish I'd had a gun, not a camera. Armed police would not fire back

[ShowMeLiberty]

Just saw this on the Lew Rockwell blog:

How Gun Control Laws Contributed To the Mumbai Slaughter
An interesting article, from October, 2005, provided by www.gunowners.org:

Gun Control And Self-defense Against Terrorism In India
by Abhijeet Singh
Colonial Roots of Gun-Control

I live in India and I am a proud firearm owner -- but I am the exception not the norm, an odd situation in a country with a proud martial heritage and a long history of firearm innovation. This is not because the people of India are averse to gun ownership, but instead due to Draconian anti-gun legislation going back to colonial times.

To trace the roots of India's anti-gun legislation we need to step back to the latter half of the 19th century. The British had recently fought off a major Indian rebellion (the mutiny of 1857) and were busy putting in place measures to ensure that the events of 1857 were never repeated. These measures included a major restructuring of administration and the colonial British Indian Army along with improvements in communications and transportation. Meanwhile the Indian masses were systematically being disarmed and the means of local firearm production destroyed, to ensure that they (the Indian masses) would never again have the means to rise in rebellion against their colonial masters. Towards this end the colonial government, under Lord Lytton as Viceroy (1874 -1880), brought into existence the Indian Arms Act, 1878 (11 of 1878); an act which, exempted Europeans and ensured that no Indian could possess a weapon of any description unless the British masters considered him a "loyal" subject of the British Empire.

An example of British thinking in colonial times:

"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." --James Burgh (Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses) [London, 1774-1775]

And thoughts (on this subject) of the man who wanted to rule the world:

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty." -- Adolf Hitler (H.R. Trevor-Roper, Hitler's Table Talks 1941-1944)

The leaders of our freedom struggle recognised this, even Gandhi the foremost practitioner of passive resistance and non-violence had this to say about the British policy of gun-control in India:

"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." -- Mahatma Gandhi (An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth, by M.K. Gandhi, p.238)
Post Independence

continues: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/024230.html

Interesting read, though it's a bit long. One especially interesting quote in the article:

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." -- The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times) speaking at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland, Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter takes aim at a classmate

[SeanEdwards]

Apparently armed Indian policemen would not shoot the terrorists even when they had a chance.

They were probably busy $#@!ting their pants. I know I would be too.

[angelatc]

They were probably busy $#@!ting their pants. I know I would be too.

Hell, here they shoot kids and dogs. Not sure which is better.

[free_mail]

I can see this being used to scare American's for the potential dangers of gun ownership.

I know this might sound conspiracy theorist of me but the reports say there were 10 gunman? 500 +/- casualties? They must have been real good.


I wonder how many would have survived if more Indian civilians were armed that day....

[ksuguy]

I wouldn't say they were real good, they were just going against defenseless people.

[Dieseler]

I'm thinking the greatest percentage of casualties caused by the terrorists were during the initial attack due to the surprise of the attack and the fact that grenades were used.
What sticks out to me the most is that the armed policemen would not fire back.
That really makes me wonder.
I wonder if they were in some cases working together.
I also wonder if maybe some of those terrorist left their hiding areas after a change of clothing with the commandos that went in to smoke them out.
Hmm.
yeah, I know...

[angelatc]

I'm thinking the greatest percentage of casualties caused by the terrorists were during the initial attack due to the surprise of the attack and the fact that grenades were used.

Note that the armed policemen were in the train station, not the hotel.

From the WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122809281744967855.html

The hotel had metal detectors, but none of its security personnel carried weapons because of the difficulties in obtaining gun permits from the Indian government, according to the hotel company's chairman, P.R.S. Oberoi. The gunmen raced through the marble-floored lobby, past the grand piano into the adjoining Verandah restaurant, firing at the guests and shattering the windows. . . .

I think the Indians are pretty peaceful, no? Except for the whole Pakistani thing, which I am not terribly familiar with yet. Maybe they just don't have the natural "fight" instinct. Maybe they are hard wired to default to "flight."

I was reading a little on Hindu philosophy. Apparently the Dalai Lama was doing a Q&A session in the US, and a girl asked what a Hindu should do if a student suddenly started shooting up the classroom. He replied (paraphrasing) that if the Hindu had a gun it would be appropriate to shoot back in self defense. So apparently they aren't entirely pacifists by philosophy alone though.

[Wendi]

Hell, here they shoot kids and dogs. Not sure which is better.

Neither.

Or as I was sorely tempted to write in on the ballot this year... "None of the above."

[Chester Copperpot]

Haven't researched it, but apparently the Ridley Report did. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP295xpH15A

And check out this article. Apparently armed Indian policemen would not shoot the terrorists even when they had a chance.

Mumbai photographer: I wish I'd had a gun, not a camera. Armed police would not fire back

Maybe they were waiting for the government to come and help them...