Indians under siege

[Ambi]

There are 7.2 crore fire arms with civillians in India (2018) of which 6.2 crore are illegal menacing the society, with only .25 crore policemen to curb this menace against 130 crores population. This means, for every thousand people, there only 2 policeman protect them against 50 armed desperados. The government could not protect the People of Manipur and Haryana from armed mobs. It cannot protect anybody. People will be safe only under one of two conditions. One, para-military force is deployed on permanent basis to keep peace, like in a police state - safety without freedom-, or citizens are allowed to possess guns to defend themselves- safety with freedom. Choice is obvious.

[hornet22]

No offence, just as an example If an armed mob of 30 to 40 men or more are heading your way like you gave the example of Manipur, don't try any stunts with your licensed gun, it's better to carry your licensed weapon and run the opposite direction along with your family.
I am not kidding

[Ambi]

No offence, just as an example If an armed mob of 30 to 40 men or more are heading your way like you gave the example of Manipur, don't try any stunts with your licensed gun, it's better to carry your licensed weapon and run the opposite direction along with your family.
I am not kidding

Today, I may be one of a few with guns. I'll
certainly do as you advice. But if the gun ownership is liberalised I wouldn't be the only man with licensed gun. There would be enough armed men for support. The attackers will think twice.

[marksman]

Lets take an example from why Hitler decided upon not invading Switzerland.

Marksman

[PRINCESIDHU007]

[partheus]

Look around you. How many are asking such questions, even when they are obvious. The problem isn't the logic of it all. It is that nobody cares because they are perfectly convinced that bad things only happen to other people.

[timmy]

Look around you. How many are asking such questions, even when they are obvious. The problem isn't the logic of it all. It is that nobody cares because they are perfectly convinced that bad things only happen to other people.

There are two ways of thinking about this, and each of them have aspects which have some reasoning behind them.

One way was impressed upon me many years ago, when Jimmy Carter was the President of the USA. The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) were going on between the USA and the Soviet Union at the time, and in our little mountain town, a reporter was walking the sidewalk, asking passersby what they thought about the SALT talks.

"We should get rid of nuclear weapons," one woman said. "I don't know much about it, but the women I play cards with are against them, so I don't like them."

Whatever one makes of this position, it immediately occurred to me that this woman, whose sole logical basis for her position was what her friends told her over a card game, had just as much voice and just as much power to shape national policy as I did. I read books and newspaper articles about these things, yet someone who was as ignorant as a fence post had just as much say as I did, who tried to educate myself about the subject.

It is clear that many people base their views on such sketchy logic -- in fact, looking at the political landscape today, I'd say most people do. Those who try to learn something and have an educated opinion seem dwarfed at the ballot box by hordes of nitwits, not to mention those who are motivated only by their self-interest in one of many ways.

Another way to look at this matter is from the example of Gandhi: He was beaten, jailed, and must have many times felt like giving up in his efforts, and must have been discouraged by what the masses thought about his goals and purposes. Yet, he continued to push through with his efforts toward his goals, even through dark days and even imprisonment.

One point can certainly be derived from reflecting on these two points, and that is that, had Gandhi never tried and never persevered, the British would have continued their prejudicial ways, which were necessary if they were to keep hauling the wealth of India back to their own banks and back pockets.

I don't say how much we can change, or even if we can change anything at all. But I do say that, if we are content to do nothing, then what is is what will be, and perhaps even worse things will come down the pike.

When we exhibit responsible gun ownership by safe handling and insistence on lawful activity, we reinforce our position on gun rights. When we persuasively advocate for a law abiding citizen's rights to protect him or herself from harm, or to pursue healthy and enjoyable activities with guns, we are making a statement. Some may wish to enter politics on some level to advocate for gun rights. Others, in some sort of media, may do the same thing from the platform they occupy.

These are small things, but each of us can contribute by what we say and do here on IFG, because our forums ARE read by many who don't interact with us here, including those who are ambivalent and those who are opposed to what we stand for on IFG.

Think about it: it takes the efforts of all, great and small, to advocate for our gun rights, if we are to have a chance to change things for the better.