> > Sounds more idealistic than practical to me. The right to defend > yourself is pretty fundamental. We have to a large extent (and in my > opinion, not entirely wisely) traded in that right to have the > government defend us. Now, if the government is unwilling or unable > to defend me, I will set about defending myself. I'm not saying it > has come to that right now, but if it ever does, I would have > absolutely no qualms about getting a firearm, preferably licensed. >
Why have guns to defend yourself? What is wrong with running away or begging to be left alone? If that doesn't work, the link below has a solution. http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/krav-maga-an-israeli-system-of-self-defence-makes-its-way-to-india_100140760.html The government of any country will be unable to defend you when the enemy is composed of a significant number of its own citizens. It will also be unable to defend you when the attacker has absolutely no qualms about giving up his/her own life. So is the answer allowing citizens to arm themselves. Imagine what the Bombay and Gujarat riots would have become if people had guns? I really very much doubt people would go about taking potshots at > other people just because they own a deadly weapon. It is like being > in a car in a tough neighbourhood. You feel much more secure than if > you are on foot. But that doesn't mean you run people over if they > shake a fist at you. A firearm, like a functioning legal system, is > primarily about deterrence. Most places, the kind of harassment we > are talking about is not common because the threat of legal > repercussions is very real. As we all know, that is not the case > here. But it would take a brave goon to attack a girl if he though > there was a reasonable chance she might have a Beretta in her handbag. > It is just not worth the risk. > > I don't understand why owning a firearm is so taboo. If anything, > people who are willing to risk their own lives to avoid owning guns > should be among the safest people to carry them! All this seems very > similar to (I hate that term!) "the moral police", who are so > convinced of their inability to control themselves in the presence of > naked skin that they want to force everybody to cover up for their own > good! :) Nice allegory :). And I see your point about deterrence. But the issue is bigger than that. If you up the game by buying firearms, every goon, thug, thief knows they have to have one too. So pretty soon, everybody is arming themselves. With most other weapons, you can at least run away, but with guns the wielder can deal death from a distance simply by pulling the trigger. And this the same logic why now we have nuclear weapons amassed by the super powers enough to destroy the entire world many times over. And guns are to the individual what nuclear weapons are to nations. If you are at the receiving end of a nuclear attack, you only have two choices - attack the attacker with a nuclear weapon if you have them or unconditional surrender. I personally don't think what is happening now deserves such grave reaction. I still maintain that it is a passing phenomenon, and as long as it is not given credence through our reaction to it, it will go away.
