As far my opinion, why we did not do any thing about it so far, cos we did not had a need for gun. But times are changing. An gun would bring peace of mind and safety. Hope my Govt wakes up and smells a coffee soon.
In response to increased governmental regulations, Indian on the online forum Indians for Guns organized to form the National Association for Gun Rights India (NAGRI) to protect and increase their ability to obtain and use firearms for self-defense against street crime and terrorism.
To obtain a license to own a firearm, a person has to prove that there exists "threat to life."Once a license is obtained, there are several restrictions on caliber and types of firearms .Under the wake of terror the government is considering making the rules even more stringent.
Guns are an modern taboo in India. You will get one if you happen to be the police or the armed forces. Many of the paramilitary forces except a few, can not use their fire arms though they have one with them (exceptions are always there). This is what wikipedia have to say about the topic :-Gun ownership in India is a privilege under the Arms Act of 1959.[18] The Arms Act of 1959 and the Arms Rules of 1962 were derived from the text of the Indian Arms Act of 1876 created by the British Rulers.
I like your way of thinking, but being from India, an armed citizenry seems far-fetched to me, not just because of the draconian gun laws, the licensing red tape and the suffocated gun supply but also due to the social stigma. You should see people's expressions when they find out you own a gun.. it's like having some disgusting disease. Recently, a head of state was found to own one and it made the news. My reaction was 'So what?' but most people seemed to lose trust in the person after that
LOL... America doesn't send India money, it's us who're bailing out your economy. Although, I agree with you when you say that citizens carrying guns could have prevented the 26/11 attacks, infact I think that the American government should quit preventing it's citizens from carrying firearms on airplanes to prevent future 9/11 type terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, too many Indians are happy to protect themselves with weapons such as tranquilizer darts and pepper spray.
Forget about the guns for average people,govt needs to provide right guns to police and military...the police at train station were defending with WW2 era guns
Do you believe in Gun control? Then would you be willing to stand behind what you believe and post a sign on your lawn or in front of your house that reads: ATTENTION CRIMINALS...we believe in gun control. We own NO firearms!! Gun Control is NOT for your safety, it is just to dissarm us as a people!!
People start talking about crime in my area and I say "im not worried, they cant try to break into my place if they want".
WHY? they ask
Ive got guns..... and even in Canada we can get to them loaded in seconds. Store them in a gun SAFE (not cabinet) with loaded mags, mags NOT in the gun. Its legal (still) so we can defend ourselfs from mortal danger if need be.
india is a slave haven, of course they are disarmed. slaves for thousands of years now, and 95 percent of their people live below the poverty line. india is a pathetic place, and indians are really stupid on average.
I don't know how the Indian people could ever get gun rights now. Their society is very divided by their peculiar caste system,. If the uneducated Dalits were to have guns they would surely use them as soon as possible on the upper castes that have been abusing them for many years. The upper classes would have no shame about killing a Dalit which many feel are no better than monkeys.Being from Texas I felt very strange there without having a gun so I carried a K-Bar knife,
its not the same everywhere. where legalizin right thing 2 do but the other hand it cud lead 2 incerase in crime coz of poverty. u mite sumhow can protect urself from terorist attacks but wat wen sum 1 put a gun on ur head and rob u wen u in middle of the night.and place like punjab and bihar where they like 2 resolve things bloddier way..killin each other with wat ever they gettin there hands on.india is fine the way it is. it sounds a bit stupid wen an american talks abouts legalizin guns.
You watch too many movies from hollywood. There are cities in the USA where people are required by law to own guns and in those cities there is almost no crime and no one gets shot by guns.
The Gun laws in India are STUPID to say the least!!
And for all the people arguing against gun freedoms in India, well let me tell you this, I'm from Punjab, and in the 1980s and early 90s when the Khalistan movement was active, the government requested all people to and over their guns (we're allowed to keep certain shotguns and handguns) to the local police station, and guess what. PEOPLE LISTENED!!! So I call BS to all ppl who say guns cause probs.
I am Indian and I am proud that in my country guns are extremely hard to get. I would much rather face a sad terrorist incident once in a while than the thousands of innocents who would be killed if everyone has guns. For that matter, all the guns in the US couldn't have stopped 911 now could it ? So please keep your BS aside.
Yes, guns on airplanes would have prevented 911. If several people had guns on the plane, 911 would not have happened. In fact, terrorists don't often hijack trains in the USA because lots of people on trains have guns.
Mr. Ridley was commenting on some draconian new crackdown inside the US. It looks to be a screenshot from an X-Ray machine that enables hidden devices to be seen on someone's person. I do believe that there was a big hullabaloo over the US FAA's proposal to use these machines at international airports because it was a rash invasion of privacy.
the fact of the matter is that indians are not free yet. we kicked the foreign tyrants out and replaced them with a bunch of homegrown tyrants. as an indian, i want the right to own guns. i will never trust the security of my family, friends and myself to the cops or the government who by the way eat my tax money and still harass me and every other law abiding citizen. fellow citizens please realise, governments objective is to stay in power at all cost not to serve the citizenry.
Oh, don't worry... as a model for "gun rights," America is fastly going the way of many eastern countries, & our British cousins. If Obama gets his way, most handguns will be completely banned..rifles are next. What
(cont.) will we have?! Zip guns?! Bows & arrows? Rocks? LOL! We're fast becoming a socialist country. You'll start seeing us w/ media blackouts next. I'd say unless we stand up a little more, we'll be in the same rut. Riddled w/nothing but hardcore censorship. It's really disturbing. Some countries
are bcoming more democratic, while we continue to erode at the rights of The American ppl. many eastern countries follow our example..then we hypocrites fail to follow our own advice. We are failing. It's disgusting, really.
Ha. This article is completely stupid. There are more people dying in the US due to gun fights than the number of people dying by terrorist attacks. It may have reduced the impact of the mumbai attack but it would have also caused local fights to be more fierce.
civilized people don't need guns. i m from i have a gun. i mean many guns but..........no likes to show off in india. there r alone near and in my town r about more than 1000 rifle owners. almost every farmer in Punjab state has 9mm and rifle or double barrel shot gun. again they won't show off. because we r civilized people not bunch of cowboys.
Hey, you know what, you don't have to show them off. But guess what, you kinda just did by saying what you have, which you only did to appear as some kind of authority on the matter "I own guns BUT..."
You're such a lameass. I bet you don't even have the right kind of weapons, and I bet you don't know how to use them either. You aren't "civilized", what you are is complacent. Complacecy=bad
When our government orders every citizens to turn in their guns, the only ones that won't show up are the criminals. Does the government not understand it?? I bet you the criminals would celebrate nation-wide if every law biding citizens have turned in their guns. The NWO has a different intention other than "for your own safty" bullshit.
It's really cool to see how many folks from the subcontinent are watching. I agree with the folks who say Indians' safety should not be the business of Americans. Unfortunately we are forced to send money to India and/or money to cooperate with the Indian Army...which represents the Indian government...which forces individuals under its rule into a state of relative defenselessness.
@RidleyReport USA does not send money to India, it funds pakistan!! And just so you know, as a indian growing up, under what you call a "repressive regime", I can say that though gun laws are tough, 99% people approve of it. Would it have prevented the attack? NO. The only thing which would have prevented it was prior Intelligence. A small, but well trained & armed defense force backed up with good intelligence network will be much more effective than 1 billion people armed with pistols IMAO.
@RidleyReport USA does not send money to India, it funds pakistan!! And just so you know, as a indian growing up, under what you call a "repressive regime", I can say that though gun laws are tough, 99% people approve of it. Would it have prevented the attack? NO. The only thing which would have prevented it was prior Intelligence. A small, but well trained & armed defense force backed up with good intelligence network will be much more effective than 1 billion people armed with pistols IMAO.
Your concept works in relatively homogeneous nations...... In India gun control is best.......the fact is that even police is NOT allowed automatic weapons......only the 30% of the police is armed in "peaceful regions (90% of INdia)...........
India has many problems and we don't need gun riots to add to it....... Many people are killed in communal violence already.......and the No 1 priority for an Indian police official is to avoid "communal riots".....
Indian Army does not force anybody...... there is army deployment in some areas like Kashmir (with special powers)......but in 90% - 95% of INdia the law and order belongs to the "State governments"...... the "Federal govt." in India has no "RIGHT" to interfere in those areas.........
The "Federal govt." maintains a large "Federal Police" called CRPF (not Army)...which is called in to aid the state govt. in times of communal riots.....
In INdia violent urban crime is unknown......what India needs to learn from US is to have a "state of art" "American - type"...... Fire/Emergecy Services and "SWAT Teams" for all cities........I would be happy if the likes of LAPD, NYPD share their experience with Mumbai police etc.....
@RidleyReport Lol ... typical American reaction thinking they send money everywhere. No the US doesn't. However India does send money to the US with all the planes and other equipment it purchases. The reason for the Mumbai massacre was the CIA direction of the attack.
@RidleyReport I'm an Indian from Delhi and I accept your views regarding the indian gun control. At the same time, with an over-populated country, sometimes does not have the capability to control even 60% of the domestic crime that is why gun ownership is difficult. my dad owns a pistol, and a break action shotgun, but for an average indian, this is impossible. my dad was able to own a licese for gun since he is a senior federal police officer.. but for normal citizen, its very difficult
this video is right, it happened because of gun control by the scumbag politicians who just continued a policy started by the brit imperialists after the failed 1857 revolt, before that people always carried muskets & other weapons.
...in practice, the cost of firearms and ammunition is well beyond the means of most of the Indian population (NCEUS found that 77%, or 836 million people, live on less than 40 cents per day).
In reality, the object of terrorist attacks like Mumbai's is maximum body count and the MO is tailored accordingly. If the population is well armed then they will find another way to inflict death - bombs, anthrax, whatever.
So gun legislation is not the terrorist cure-all that Dave Ridley suggests.
The massacre wasn't limited to 4 star hotels. They also targeted less high-end places - a cafe, a railway station, a housing complex, two taxis, a hospital and a cinema. 173 people killed, only 20 of whom were foreigners (and heads-up, foreigners aren't allowed to carry weapons - even in your country).
yeah i know....it is unfortunate that people are not allowed to carry weapons (foreign or not) and are then in turn slaughtered by......foreigners with weapons....but wait isnt that illegal? hmm i guess nobody told the mumbai terrorist that
haha. Good answer. You're twisting the argument a bit though. Obviously terrorists don't care about the law. The fact still remains that owning a gun is completely beyond the means of the average Indian and that civilians carrying guns for self defense is simply not part of Indian culture. Actually it's not part of ANY country's culture - apart from yours...
I think "culture" is memetic, not genetic. Fuck culture, do what's in your own best interest! Even in amerika, we have TIGHT gun restrictions believe it or not. I don't give a shit, I say the "government" ARE criminals! They deserve to die!
I ain't worried about tanks either, if you sent a tank after me everytime I took action against a corrupt police pig, petroleum prices would go up. I'm not intimidated by tanks in the least!
Around 170 people were killed by terrorists but I cant imagine how many people would die due to gun crime when guns are on streets.
I think a society with guns is an extremely violent society and petty quarels , drunk tirades or just street arguments can spiral in deadly confrontations when guns are thrown in the midsts.
I am dead against civilians having guns under any circumstances. Its just too dangerous.
Hitler and Stalin would love you. They wouldn't worry about their people getting hurt when they were trying to starve you or bring you to a gas chamber.
Umm... I think there was a little bit more to those regimes than gun laws. Or does every world leader immediately turn into a genocidal nutcase once gun ownership is regulated?
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Its human nature. Knowing it and dealing with it appropriately is whats needed. With a balance of powers we've had a country stable enough to keep its constitution 200+ years. One part of the balance is the second amendment. A workers union can serve a symilar purpose. There was more to those regimes than gun laws yes, but Stalin starved many millions by taking their food. How far would Stalin have gotten here? We have about 250 mil. civilian guns here.
Thing is your government doesn't have absolute power, nor does mine and nor does India's. We all have this thing called the ballot. So let's give up the Hitler / Satlin scare tactics and talk some sense, eh?
no he didnt....but we sure as shit need'ed em to get him back out of power didnt we! i bet the german jewish population wish they had the right to bear arms when the gestapo was knocking on the door
Exactly - an army, not an armed civilian population. The idea that governments can be overthrown by force by civilians is a fantasy. Any time it has ever happened in the past has been with the collusion of an army - and before you say War of Independence think about how that would have ended without the French army.
I suppose you could argue that the Taliban are having a go right now but I'm not sure if it support the argument that guns are a good thing.
German jews had the right to own guns until late 1938. The camps were up and running as early as 1933. Also look at what they were up against. The one time that jews took on the German army in force - Warsaw ghetto clearance, ended in the Poles being smashed. This is not the topic of this video though.
I also love that way that so many Americans feel entitled to tell other countries how they should be doing things.
What do you think would happen if an Indian made a post about how the US constitution was in dire need of an overhaul to bring it in line with the 21st Century?
You are free to give up your rights. That is fine with me. You know what? Your freedom of speech is bothering me a bit righ now so feel free to give that up too.
Actually, considering that many of India's laws are based on British laws pre-independence, India's gun policies are not especially restrictive.
The Constitution of India does not give its people the right to bear arms (actually the USA is the only country in the world to have a Constitution which includes this).
In theory any Indian adult can legally own a gun if he passes the requirements for an arms license - sound mental health, no criminal record, etc...
I am from mumbai, India. Have grown up and lived there my entire life. I have to agree that the info u have provided in this video is very accurate. It is generally difficult to get hold of a gun legally in most partsof India, though in some parts people do have them.
The gun freedom may or maynot have prevented a terrorist attack. But i am dead against people having guns. Can u imagine the gun crime that would be result out of it.
well im from india and a lot of people have guns where around my parts. infact i went to my uncles house he just had guns lying around the house like they were toys. dont know about the rest of india tho....
and manspider this has nothing to do with hindus or muslims or eother being peaceloving/violent...it is about human nature...
For the person who sed...whoever sed citizens owning guns was a reason japan did not attack main land usa....you re the biggest idiot on the face of the planet....no words for u...like hell...the army is fighting another with missiles and tam cat airplanes and they are scared for civilians owning guns!! wow...!!
and giving up his life....in a country like india...arming the ppl would mean aiding terrorism..for those not frm india...realise that India is not under threat from external terrorism but also internal mafias. if every one would have arms there would be chaos like none other. why does america stand a better chance in such kinds of terrorist attacks? it is because the authorities are better trained and can act more efficiently...not because the citizens are allowed to carry arms...
Ok....tell me...when your american plane was hijacked....how many terrorists did it? 4?5? 10? on a plane of how many? 200-300? could they not take them down? yeah the terrorists had guns people did not... but could they not over power them with a loss of a couple of people? in the plane the terrorists would have no whr to hide or run ...they wud get trampled by the people...were they? no...why? coz in the face of adversity every human being puts a greater price to his life than helping others
Have a look at the bodycount that resulted after India's partition in '47 - almost a million dead - Hindus are certainly not squeamish about killing. That's not really the point though. 85% of the population in India live on less than $2.50 per day. A gun is about as affordable to them as a jet fighter.
not to mention terrorists are outnumbered greatly by citizens with gats. if you got more people on your team your going to win. a few, or a couple hundred terrorists aren't going to win against millions.
lets not forget that guns and gun ownership is the main reason Japan didn't invade the mainland of the USA in WWII and attacked pearl harbor instead. now that was a trained army, ready to kill so much they would kill themselves to accomplish that goal.
you re the biggest idiot on the face of the planet....no words for u...like hell...the army is fighting another with missiles and tom cat airplanes and they are scared of the civilians owning guns!! wow...!!
i guarantee my 30-06 at a couple hundred yards with me ghillied out in the woods will do plenty of work to a terrorists face when i snipe em with it. not to mention all the vets and millions of others who are armed with high powered hunting rifles which are made for killing large animals not no crappy ak's. (cont.)
2 of these last 3 comments only have some truth to them. how come America was founded and fought for by everyday farmers and people who were not trained at all, fighting the greatest army in the world at the time, not some stupid sandy terrorists. id like to see some terrorists try some shit like that here. I'm not just gona stress out and save myself and maybe only kill 1 or 2 if lucky. (cont.)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
(...cont...) Nothing would stop them, not even if every person was armed; if they were, the terrorists would come better prepared to fight them. If the defense gets stronger, they will attack with more vigor. As the person before me posted. WAKE UP people.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
(...cont..) Realise that under that much stress an ordinary man would break and try saving his own life instead of giving up his/her life in the process of taking down 1-2 terrorists (that also if the person is extremely lucky). The terrorists are trained mercenaries. They live to kill. That is their purpose. None of the 10 that came to the hotel that day thought they would escape. They knew they were going to die. (...cont....)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Ok. The people who attacked the hotel were armed with automatic rifles, machine guns and grenades. They held off the special forces and the police for over 3 days. Do you people really think they could have been stopped by civilians if they were armed. Without proper training a civilian would not be able to fire a weapon in face of an emergency. (cont....)
@ 2:04..."Gave vast arbitrary powers to the Licensing Authories... insuring that it is often impossible for an ordinary law abiding Indain citizen to procure an Arms License."
This is exactly what is going on right now!
Here, in the US!
While everyone is so distracted by the Economy, HR-45 is making its way through Congress.
HR-45 will set up a Central Licensing Bureau in DC...and make Eric Holder in charge of arbitrarily deciding who is approved to own a firearm.
Iraq was over run with unrestricted full auto ownership. They had sky high gun deaths and couldn't keep them safe from Saddam or George Bush two evil monsters who murdered millions. So your arguments fail
I was in Iraq. Some Iraqis were afraid of being run out of their neighborhoods by the Shiites who were threatening them. They were afraid of guns because they were oppressed by bad guys using them. We taught families how to operate and shoot them and then they fought off the Shiites trying to take their home away.
If you love guns as much as I do, you should bring those old family heirlooms in, we'll clean them up and ensure it can never be taken from you as a "dangerous weapon" it's a new day and a new way of handling those who would ban guns out right. Please see my profile for details.
Disarming a nation makes it easier for the government to take control over its citizens, if the army and police are armed it gives them a significant advantage over those who are not...
terrorists and gangsters(most of them govt servants:(
carry assaulrifles,smgs and 9mm handguns all internationally made and smuggled by the underworld....while the "lucky" good samaritans are left to depend upon their antique or countrymade .22's ,.32's, bolt actions and double barrels...the unlucky ones are left to pray....
ffiiiinallllllly someone understands what us defenseless gun-nuts go through in india....fucking draconian gun laws hinder a law abiding citizens ability to defend him/herself yet our black market thrives to the point that all the sociopaths and corrupt politicians probably have more guns then an entire freakng continent......things like these make me fancy burning down all those fucking govt. sons-of-sluts....
Remind me how terrorists managed to kill 3000 people in NYC. Then explain to me how your "rightfully armed and defended" population failed to prevent that.
I'm not trying to be facetious, but blaming gun controls for this massacre is like blaming e-numbers in food. Terrorists look for a weak spot, close one and they will find another.
I didn't say widespread gun ownership is going to prevent terrorism, nothing will prevent terrorism from happening, but armed pilots will provide a much larger barrier for someone trying to hijack an airplane
Yes, agreed. And I'm pretty sure that cabin crew now have access to weapons on the new big Airbus, but the way Ridley is talking we should have every single person on the plane carrying a loaded gun (and I'm not so sure I'd want to fly if that was the case) plus you are talking about India, where 80% of the population could never even dream of having enough money to buy a gun.
A group of terrorists carrying small arms were able to wreak total havoc. They didn't need a bomb or a jet plane when they were attacking a population that has been disarmed. Self-defense is a natural human right, not exclusively American. We are simply one of the few countries to bar our own government from trampling that right.
Actually Im not missing your point. I would you wear a bulletproof vest in combat? You can get shot in your knee or head? So dont wear anything. You are advocating that it is not worth it for a person to be prepared to defend themselves and I am politely disagreeing with you. I think an armed responsible aware person can make a difference. Guns are illegal in the UK are there any crimes perpetrated by criminals with firearms?
I'm not advocating a "don't bother defending yourself" policy or anything like it. Trouble is that people like Mr. Ridley think that owning a gun is the ONLY definition of protection and has suggested that if more Indians carried guns there wouldn't have been a massacre. I'm saying that if more Indians carried guns then these terrorists would have simply followed a different plan and done something equally horrible with an equally high bodycount.
I also find it laughable that he wants to apply the rules and mores of the USA onto a country that is different in almost every respect, (especially economically). After all, the US doesn't exactly have very good record of preventing terrorism itself.
Beds you make it clear you dont think guns can help anyone I get it. Your argument is falling on deaf ears here my friend. Im not a debater. A gun is better than nothing and those guys had guns not bombs.
As to what they would have could have or should have done its really not germain to the post or the question
That was the topic of this video so I think my points are entirely germane. To be specific I think that guns could not have prevented the massacre, not that guns don't help anyone. If you want to own a gun then good for you, I have no problem with that at all. If you are not a debater than you shouldn't enter into debate.
I think this was a great video. I will throw my vote into yes a couple of armed people could have lowered the butchers bill a bit. Thank God I am allowed to protect myself.
...and yet terrorists still killed 3000 of your people. By definition terrorists like to spread terror, they like soft targets and high bodycounts. Close one door and they will find another - A gun won't protect you against a bomb.
No but it would give me a chance against an assailant with a gun. What if you terminated a target prior to his detonating a device? You can argue against a legally armed citizen protecting himself, if you would rather count on someone else for your safety good for you. However slim a chance I might gain from being armed I will take it.
You're missing the point. What if the bomb is in a truck? Or a rocket? Or the weapon is chemical? A gun would be useless. More guns are not the solution to global terrorism. And these people love that you live in a "free" country. It gives them all sorts of loopholes to exploit
Having a gun is a sign of strength that only predators understand. They are more worried about law-abiding citizens being armed, because if the opportunity arrises, they will shoot.
Even if a bomb was used, a person still took the chance to protect themselve from a threat.
India is the second most heavily armed nation in the world, and the majority of an estimated 40 million firearms are in civilian possession. There are 900,000 arms-licensed holders in the state of Uttar Pradesh alone, while the number of arms dealers is pegged at 1400. In the words of one gun dealer at the bazaar, "Gun shops are mushrooming in the state of Uttar Pradesh like public telephone booths".
tomtomttom, apart from your ranting I have yet to hear a valid argument from on how gun controls could have prevented the Mumbai massacre (which is the topic of this video) Let's hear one that doesn't involve Hindu temples, the British Raj, the Queen of England and the US War of Independence. Oh, and I'm still waiting for your figures on how many Indians want the gun laws changed.
A government that does not allow its citizens to own guns is a government that should not be trusted. It is the government that should always fear its citizens. Citizens shouldnt fear the government. That is the only way you can ensure human rights in your country.
I don't fear my Government. Nor an I naive enough to think that if me and a few other guys got hold of some guns that we could overthrow it if we wanted to. Just absolute rubbish.
I'm sorry BedsnHert, you clearly don't understand the idea of citizens owning guns. If you did, you would know it is a little more than a few guys. Even if 10% of the population owned guns, out of a population of 300 million people that is 30 million. Clearly that is much larger than just a few guys. And that is much larger than any army any country has. So the idea that it is only a few guys is "rubbish."
Absolute proof - don't take my word for it though, do some research yourself. Ignore the media, ignore the politicians and look at some unbiased and complete statistics.
"Absolute proof - don't take my word for it though, do some research yourself. Ignore the media, ignore the politicians and look at some unbiased and complete statistics."
You made the claim: "But if you think that guns will reduce the crime rate or stop terrorism or overthrow any modern government then you are wrong on all counts."
Australia introduced stricter gun laws in 1996 - negligible result in overall violent crime rate since then. Many US States have relaxed gun laws - Violent crime up in some states, down in others - negligible overall change.
Significant terrorist attacks in places with LOTS of guns - Iraq, Afghanistan.
Armed struggle to overthrow governments - Egypt, Greece, Libya, etc. all undertaken by the army not by armed civilians. Closest to your theory was Chile in 1973 - and the US put a stop to that.
In the Washington DC there is way more violence since stick guns laws have passed. Just recently the hand gun law has been overturned. If you look at almost every city in America that has easy rights to own guns, the level of crime and violence is down.
"In the Washington DC there is way more violence since stick guns laws have passed. Just recently the hand gun law has been overturned. If you look at almost every city in America that has easy rights to own guns, the level of crime and violence is down."
NOT TRUE - look it up. Use the 2008 FBI statistics instead of the NRA website.
"NOT TRUE - look it up. Use the 2008 FBI statistics instead of the NRA website."
- Actually it is true. The supreme court just overturned the hand gun ban in Washington DC. We will have better stats of how things are in a few years. Look up the cities that have the right to own guns. You will see there is much less crime. Criminal will always have guns, it is the law abiding criticizes who don't.
As you can't be bothered to look at the FBI stats here is the gist of them:
DC - Violent crime has reduced year-on-year since 1995. There is a 46.9% reduction between 1995 and 2007. So that's LESS violence - geddit?
"Look up the cities that have the right to own guns. You will see there is much less crime"
Memphis and Nashville both have higher violent crime rates than DC - Memphis was ranked 4th most dangerous city in the US in 2005. And Tennessee has some of the most lax gun laws.
In India, currently, most guns are owned by gangsters and criminals. Most of the civilians can't do anything against the robberies and extortion these people do to them. If they had the right to own guns, at least the civilians can stand up to them.
But explain how a gun is ever going to be affordable to the 85% of the population who live on less than $2.50 a day? Or are you just interested in the right to own a gun rather than the practicalities?
You forget to mention, in Afghanistan, we are fighting a government, Taliban. With Iraq, they are being supported by outside groups. We are talking about two different things. I'm talking about the civilians right to own guns, you are talking about terrorist organizations. Are you equating civilians to terrorists.
Not false, you just changed your mind on what you wanted to discuss.
CIVILIAN deaths in Iraq (not insurgents) - are an all time low of around 6000 for 2008. These are terrorist bombings and shootings, not related to combat. That's in a country where private gun ownership is still almost totally unregulated. So another one of your bullshit claims goes out the window.
Bedsnherts, Do you believe civilians are terrorists? It's funny, I'm debating with a guy who doesn't even understand true democracy. He lives in a country where he pays taxes to a queen. And puts royal in front of government institutions. England isn't even a true democracy or republic. If you want to debate about rights and democracy, you should change your country first.
Oh you are really showing the level of your ignorance now (apart from being even more off-topic that usual, which is something I have noticed you do in order to avoid having to address the real issues)
England is part of the UK.
The UK is not a Republic (yet).
The UK is a true democracy.
The Government receives taxes, not the Queen.
The Queen has absolutely no power over Government.
Any none of this has ANYTHING to do with your fantastic theories.
As far my opinion, why we did not do any thing about it so far, cos we did not had a need for gun. But times are changing. An gun would bring peace of mind and safety. Hope my Govt wakes up and smells a coffee soon.
Kartikbeemsingh 2 months ago
In response to increased governmental regulations, Indian on the online forum Indians for Guns organized to form the National Association for Gun Rights India (NAGRI) to protect and increase their ability to obtain and use firearms for self-defense against street crime and terrorism.
Kartikbeemsingh 2 months ago
To obtain a license to own a firearm, a person has to prove that there exists "threat to life."Once a license is obtained, there are several restrictions on caliber and types of firearms .Under the wake of terror the government is considering making the rules even more stringent.
Kartikbeemsingh 2 months ago
Guns are an modern taboo in India. You will get one if you happen to be the police or the armed forces. Many of the paramilitary forces except a few, can not use their fire arms though they have one with them (exceptions are always there). This is what wikipedia have to say about the topic :-Gun ownership in India is a privilege under the Arms Act of 1959.[18] The Arms Act of 1959 and the Arms Rules of 1962 were derived from the text of the Indian Arms Act of 1876 created by the British Rulers.
Kartikbeemsingh 2 months ago
I like your way of thinking, but being from India, an armed citizenry seems far-fetched to me, not just because of the draconian gun laws, the licensing red tape and the suffocated gun supply but also due to the social stigma. You should see people's expressions when they find out you own a gun.. it's like having some disgusting disease. Recently, a head of state was found to own one and it made the news. My reaction was 'So what?' but most people seemed to lose trust in the person after that
DraughtOfPeace 2 months ago
LOL... America doesn't send India money, it's us who're bailing out your economy. Although, I agree with you when you say that citizens carrying guns could have prevented the 26/11 attacks, infact I think that the American government should quit preventing it's citizens from carrying firearms on airplanes to prevent future 9/11 type terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, too many Indians are happy to protect themselves with weapons such as tranquilizer darts and pepper spray.
super0psychedelic 5 months ago
Comment removed
super0psychedelic 5 months ago
Comment removed
super0psychedelic 5 months ago
Forget about the guns for average people,govt needs to provide right guns to police and military...the police at train station were defending with WW2 era guns
bourgeois2002 8 months ago
@uploader who told you america is giving money to india for army? america funds pakistan, but india doen't take your money
dalkutta123 1 year ago 2
@issareign
well not all but most of the country is a hell-hole,which is why i am waiting for 2014 when i leave this hell for the USA and for good.
crayxt6 1 year ago
best way to ensure ones defense is to have your own gun
take that away and you are meat for criminals or your own government/police
CanadianReich 1 year ago
New Hampshire was named the safest state in the US. They are gun friendly, even allow open carry.
That shows guns are not the problem.
skater3shefik 1 year ago
Do you believe in Gun control? Then would you be willing to stand behind what you believe and post a sign on your lawn or in front of your house that reads: ATTENTION CRIMINALS...we believe in gun control. We own NO firearms!! Gun Control is NOT for your safety, it is just to dissarm us as a people!!
ambis99 1 year ago
@ambis99
haha thats too much
People start talking about crime in my area and I say "im not worried, they cant try to break into my place if they want".
WHY? they ask
Ive got guns..... and even in Canada we can get to them loaded in seconds. Store them in a gun SAFE (not cabinet) with loaded mags, mags NOT in the gun. Its legal (still) so we can defend ourselfs from mortal danger if need be.
CanadianReich 1 year ago
india is a slave haven, of course they are disarmed. slaves for thousands of years now, and 95 percent of their people live below the poverty line. india is a pathetic place, and indians are really stupid on average.
issareign 1 year ago
india allows you to have guns i use to live there on a farm and small pistols are allowed
TheNish10 1 year ago
I don't know how the Indian people could ever get gun rights now. Their society is very divided by their peculiar caste system,. If the uneducated Dalits were to have guns they would surely use them as soon as possible on the upper castes that have been abusing them for many years. The upper classes would have no shame about killing a Dalit which many feel are no better than monkeys.Being from Texas I felt very strange there without having a gun so I carried a K-Bar knife,
mrtommynazi 2 years ago
its not the same everywhere. where legalizin right thing 2 do but the other hand it cud lead 2 incerase in crime coz of poverty. u mite sumhow can protect urself from terorist attacks but wat wen sum 1 put a gun on ur head and rob u wen u in middle of the night.and place like punjab and bihar where they like 2 resolve things bloddier way..killin each other with wat ever they gettin there hands on.india is fine the way it is. it sounds a bit stupid wen an american talks abouts legalizin guns.
xxomeanoxx 2 years ago
Interesting point. Guns arent a complete solution. But allowing commoon citizens to own guns will not bring about utter chaos.
Many in india are opressed. Many thee have guns, usually the rich and powerful, as well as terrorists. Common man needs guns to defend his rights.
Ramshobraja 2 years ago
Im gonna start reading the gun laws since im turning 21!
Akronam07 2 years ago
the police were there, but even they didnt have guns, the ones they had either wudnt work or were no good to face off against the ak-47s, seriously..
crusaderg77 2 years ago
there weren't any so called 'blood baths' in kennesaw, georgia; where gun ownership IS the law
195Barracuda 2 years ago
You watch too many movies from hollywood. There are cities in the USA where people are required by law to own guns and in those cities there is almost no crime and no one gets shot by guns.
kronosgyros 2 years ago 4
kennesaw,georgia comes to mind...and the state of vermont
195Barracuda 2 years ago
YESSS I COMPLETELY AGREEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Gun laws in India are STUPID to say the least!!
And for all the people arguing against gun freedoms in India, well let me tell you this, I'm from Punjab, and in the 1980s and early 90s when the Khalistan movement was active, the government requested all people to and over their guns (we're allowed to keep certain shotguns and handguns) to the local police station, and guess what. PEOPLE LISTENED!!! So I call BS to all ppl who say guns cause probs.
Jutt4Life 2 years ago 2
It's good to see someone who knows that survival takes precedence over legal matter, hell, even over cultural values!
tiecuando 2 years ago
guns would only make life worse in india....especially in such a nation divided along ethnic, religious, linguistic, caste, etc
godkiller39 2 years ago
I am Indian and I am proud that in my country guns are extremely hard to get. I would much rather face a sad terrorist incident once in a while than the thousands of innocents who would be killed if everyone has guns. For that matter, all the guns in the US couldn't have stopped 911 now could it ? So please keep your BS aside.
acidcrashguy 2 years ago
Yes, guns on airplanes would have prevented 911. If several people had guns on the plane, 911 would not have happened. In fact, terrorists don't often hijack trains in the USA because lots of people on trains have guns.
kronosgyros 2 years ago
nah !! even the Indian police did not carry automatic weapons till last month.
indiansoldier1999 2 years ago
what is that image at 4:33?
jwsoup 2 years ago
Mr. Ridley was commenting on some draconian new crackdown inside the US. It looks to be a screenshot from an X-Ray machine that enables hidden devices to be seen on someone's person. I do believe that there was a big hullabaloo over the US FAA's proposal to use these machines at international airports because it was a rash invasion of privacy.
coyoteatquiznos 2 years ago
I agree with you 100% its the mother fucking government who wont save us and neither would let us defend ourselves
gsgoraya 2 years ago
It is the X-Ray machine that would make the clothing disappear and so officer can see any weapon inside.
IndianSettler 2 years ago
this video is stupid!
if "gun freedom" is the solution for terrorism, then your government won't be spending billions to fight the "possible terrorist" at their backyards!
if there was "gun freedom" in india, why should these terrorist bring guns and ammo from outside to carry out an attack?!
think.. redneck!!
navinkevy 2 years ago
Damn but you are too stupid.
Does it really matter WHERE the terrorists got their guns?
IDIOT!
They still got them!
So you have proven the PRO gun perspective for us!
If ANYONE had been able to defend themselves.
1) there would have been less deaths
or
2) the terrorists would not have tried.
EESASTORM 2 years ago
the fact of the matter is that indians are not free yet. we kicked the foreign tyrants out and replaced them with a bunch of homegrown tyrants. as an indian, i want the right to own guns. i will never trust the security of my family, friends and myself to the cops or the government who by the way eat my tax money and still harass me and every other law abiding citizen. fellow citizens please realise, governments objective is to stay in power at all cost not to serve the citizenry.
cray0308 2 years ago
Oh, don't worry... as a model for "gun rights," America is fastly going the way of many eastern countries, & our British cousins. If Obama gets his way, most handguns will be completely banned..rifles are next. What
soundsfromnothing 2 years ago
(cont.) will we have?! Zip guns?! Bows & arrows? Rocks? LOL! We're fast becoming a socialist country. You'll start seeing us w/ media blackouts next. I'd say unless we stand up a little more, we'll be in the same rut. Riddled w/nothing but hardcore censorship. It's really disturbing. Some countries
soundsfromnothing 2 years ago
(cont. 2)
are bcoming more democratic, while we continue to erode at the rights of The American ppl. many eastern countries follow our example..then we hypocrites fail to follow our own advice. We are failing. It's disgusting, really.
soundsfromnothing 2 years ago
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin
chungo608 2 years ago
what a stupid video, we dnt need any such gun freedom...gun freedom is the main cause of crime in US
superkshatriya 2 years ago
Ha. This article is completely stupid. There are more people dying in the US due to gun fights than the number of people dying by terrorist attacks. It may have reduced the impact of the mumbai attack but it would have also caused local fights to be more fierce.
shan19key 2 years ago
civilized people don't need guns. i m from i have a gun. i mean many guns but..........no likes to show off in india. there r alone near and in my town r about more than 1000 rifle owners. almost every farmer in Punjab state has 9mm and rifle or double barrel shot gun. again they won't show off. because we r civilized people not bunch of cowboys.
jattdadanda 2 years ago
Hey, you know what, you don't have to show them off. But guess what, you kinda just did by saying what you have, which you only did to appear as some kind of authority on the matter "I own guns BUT..."
You're such a lameass. I bet you don't even have the right kind of weapons, and I bet you don't know how to use them either. You aren't "civilized", what you are is complacent. Complacecy=bad
tiecuando 2 years ago 4
clearly average citizens with guns would of been able to stop trained terrorists.
KidsTrax 2 years ago
I know, this is why I aspire to be more than "average". If they can train, so can I!
tiecuando 2 years ago
Ha leave the common man, the indian police forces doesn't have enough guns, and like during bombay attack, the some who had, forgot to fire.
r123h 2 years ago
Pakistan is another story, i believe. i think guns are openly available there...
lightfoot500 2 years ago
Not exactly, but the Pashtuns at Khyber Pass don't really follow them anyway.
tiecuando 2 years ago
HAHAHA, your a roit, your joking.
right?
right???
rommelAOE 2 years ago
When our government orders every citizens to turn in their guns, the only ones that won't show up are the criminals. Does the government not understand it?? I bet you the criminals would celebrate nation-wide if every law biding citizens have turned in their guns. The NWO has a different intention other than "for your own safty" bullshit.
sjvietboy408 2 years ago
WHEN WILL AMMO PRICES GO DOWN!!!! ;(
warnerd14 2 years ago
It's really cool to see how many folks from the subcontinent are watching. I agree with the folks who say Indians' safety should not be the business of Americans. Unfortunately we are forced to send money to India and/or money to cooperate with the Indian Army...which represents the Indian government...which forces individuals under its rule into a state of relative defenselessness.
RidleyReport 2 years ago
you send money to india?
How so? i agree with the content of the video but your statement is without basis and laughable.
cray0308 2 years ago
@RidleyReport USA does not send money to India, it funds pakistan!! And just so you know, as a indian growing up, under what you call a "repressive regime", I can say that though gun laws are tough, 99% people approve of it. Would it have prevented the attack? NO. The only thing which would have prevented it was prior Intelligence. A small, but well trained & armed defense force backed up with good intelligence network will be much more effective than 1 billion people armed with pistols IMAO.
prajaktk 1 year ago
@RidleyReport USA does not send money to India, it funds pakistan!! And just so you know, as a indian growing up, under what you call a "repressive regime", I can say that though gun laws are tough, 99% people approve of it. Would it have prevented the attack? NO. The only thing which would have prevented it was prior Intelligence. A small, but well trained & armed defense force backed up with good intelligence network will be much more effective than 1 billion people armed with pistols IMAO.
prajaktk 1 year ago
@RidleyReport ,
Your concept works in relatively homogeneous nations...... In India gun control is best.......the fact is that even police is NOT allowed automatic weapons......only the 30% of the police is armed in "peaceful regions (90% of INdia)...........
India has many problems and we don't need gun riots to add to it....... Many people are killed in communal violence already.......and the No 1 priority for an Indian police official is to avoid "communal riots".....
anant14 1 year ago
@RidleyReport ,
Indian Army does not force anybody...... there is army deployment in some areas like Kashmir (with special powers)......but in 90% - 95% of INdia the law and order belongs to the "State governments"...... the "Federal govt." in India has no "RIGHT" to interfere in those areas.........
The "Federal govt." maintains a large "Federal Police" called CRPF (not Army)...which is called in to aid the state govt. in times of communal riots.....
anant14 1 year ago
@RidleyReport ,
In INdia violent urban crime is unknown......what India needs to learn from US is to have a "state of art" "American - type"...... Fire/Emergecy Services and "SWAT Teams" for all cities........I would be happy if the likes of LAPD, NYPD share their experience with Mumbai police etc.....
anant14 1 year ago
@RidleyReport Lol ... typical American reaction thinking they send money everywhere. No the US doesn't. However India does send money to the US with all the planes and other equipment it purchases. The reason for the Mumbai massacre was the CIA direction of the attack.
ColtraneTaylor 1 year ago
@RidleyReport I'm an Indian from Delhi and I accept your views regarding the indian gun control. At the same time, with an over-populated country, sometimes does not have the capability to control even 60% of the domestic crime that is why gun ownership is difficult. my dad owns a pistol, and a break action shotgun, but for an average indian, this is impossible. my dad was able to own a licese for gun since he is a senior federal police officer.. but for normal citizen, its very difficult
siamlawma 9 months ago
Comment removed
super0psychedelic 5 months ago
Comment removed
super0psychedelic 5 months ago
Comment removed
super0psychedelic 5 months ago
Indians are from many diverse communities. There are occasional riots.
A LOT more people will be killed if guns become common!----
An Indian
anant14 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
lostworldfound 2 years ago
stfu you aussie kangaroo fucking cunt.
this video is right, it happened because of gun control by the scumbag politicians who just continued a policy started by the brit imperialists after the failed 1857 revolt, before that people always carried muskets & other weapons.
now stfu about matters you don't know.
banda106 2 years ago
Don't blame the Brits. We've not been around there since 1947...
BedsnHerts 2 years ago
...in practice, the cost of firearms and ammunition is well beyond the means of most of the Indian population (NCEUS found that 77%, or 836 million people, live on less than 40 cents per day).
In reality, the object of terrorist attacks like Mumbai's is maximum body count and the MO is tailored accordingly. If the population is well armed then they will find another way to inflict death - bombs, anthrax, whatever.
So gun legislation is not the terrorist cure-all that Dave Ridley suggests.
BedsnHerts 3 years ago
yeah...because im sure that the people in that five start hotel that was attacked was inhabited by people that live of .40 cent per day.....
try again
maxpineapple 3 years ago
You don't know much about this do you?
The massacre wasn't limited to 4 star hotels. They also targeted less high-end places - a cafe, a railway station, a housing complex, two taxis, a hospital and a cinema. 173 people killed, only 20 of whom were foreigners (and heads-up, foreigners aren't allowed to carry weapons - even in your country).
BedsnHerts 3 years ago
yeah i know....it is unfortunate that people are not allowed to carry weapons (foreign or not) and are then in turn slaughtered by......foreigners with weapons....but wait isnt that illegal? hmm i guess nobody told the mumbai terrorist that
maxpineapple 3 years ago
haha. Good answer. You're twisting the argument a bit though. Obviously terrorists don't care about the law. The fact still remains that owning a gun is completely beyond the means of the average Indian and that civilians carrying guns for self defense is simply not part of Indian culture. Actually it's not part of ANY country's culture - apart from yours...
BedsnHerts 3 years ago
I think "culture" is memetic, not genetic. Fuck culture, do what's in your own best interest! Even in amerika, we have TIGHT gun restrictions believe it or not. I don't give a shit, I say the "government" ARE criminals! They deserve to die!
I ain't worried about tanks either, if you sent a tank after me everytime I took action against a corrupt police pig, petroleum prices would go up. I'm not intimidated by tanks in the least!
tiecuando 2 years ago
Around 170 people were killed by terrorists but I cant imagine how many people would die due to gun crime when guns are on streets.
I think a society with guns is an extremely violent society and petty quarels , drunk tirades or just street arguments can spiral in deadly confrontations when guns are thrown in the midsts.
I am dead against civilians having guns under any circumstances. Its just too dangerous.
pariah390 3 years ago
Hitler and Stalin would love you. They wouldn't worry about their people getting hurt when they were trying to starve you or bring you to a gas chamber.
davecros 3 years ago
Umm... I think there was a little bit more to those regimes than gun laws. Or does every world leader immediately turn into a genocidal nutcase once gun ownership is regulated?
BedsnHerts 3 years ago
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Its human nature. Knowing it and dealing with it appropriately is whats needed. With a balance of powers we've had a country stable enough to keep its constitution 200+ years. One part of the balance is the second amendment. A workers union can serve a symilar purpose. There was more to those regimes than gun laws yes, but Stalin starved many millions by taking their food. How far would Stalin have gotten here? We have about 250 mil. civilian guns here.
davecros 3 years ago
Only 200 years? You're Johnny-come-latelys LOL
Thing is your government doesn't have absolute power, nor does mine and nor does India's. We all have this thing called the ballot. So let's give up the Hitler / Satlin scare tactics and talk some sense, eh?
BedsnHerts 3 years ago
hitler was elected
maxpineapple 3 years ago
Correct, and he didn't need guns to take power did he?
BedsnHerts 3 years ago
no he didnt....but we sure as shit need'ed em to get him back out of power didnt we! i bet the german jewish population wish they had the right to bear arms when the gestapo was knocking on the door
maxpineapple 3 years ago
Exactly - an army, not an armed civilian population. The idea that governments can be overthrown by force by civilians is a fantasy. Any time it has ever happened in the past has been with the collusion of an army - and before you say War of Independence think about how that would have ended without the French army.
I suppose you could argue that the Taliban are having a go right now but I'm not sure if it support the argument that guns are a good thing.
BedsnHerts 3 years ago
German jews had the right to own guns until late 1938. The camps were up and running as early as 1933. Also look at what they were up against. The one time that jews took on the German army in force - Warsaw ghetto clearance, ended in the Poles being smashed. This is not the topic of this video though.
BedsnHerts 3 years ago
I also love that way that so many Americans feel entitled to tell other countries how they should be doing things.
What do you think would happen if an Indian made a post about how the US constitution was in dire need of an overhaul to bring it in line with the 21st Century?
BedsnHerts 3 years ago
You are free to give up your rights. That is fine with me. You know what? Your freedom of speech is bothering me a bit righ now so feel free to give that up too.
davecros 3 years ago
No rights given up over here mate.
Sorry if my freedom of speech bothers you though.
BedsnHerts 3 years ago
It doesn't really bother me. I was just making a point. By all means your opinion is respected and welcomed.
davecros 3 years ago
Thankyou.
Actually, considering that many of India's laws are based on British laws pre-independence, India's gun policies are not especially restrictive.
The Constitution of India does not give its people the right to bear arms (actually the USA is the only country in the world to have a Constitution which includes this).
In theory any Indian adult can legally own a gun if he passes the requirements for an arms license - sound mental health, no criminal record, etc...
BedsnHerts 3 years ago
I am from mumbai, India. Have grown up and lived there my entire life. I have to agree that the info u have provided in this video is very accurate. It is generally difficult to get hold of a gun legally in most partsof India, though in some parts people do have them.
The gun freedom may or maynot have prevented a terrorist attack. But i am dead against people having guns. Can u imagine the gun crime that would be result out of it.
pariah390 3 years ago
2 days back more then 8 americans were killed by an idiot american at alabama...
nicechamp 3 years ago
well im from india and a lot of people have guns where around my parts. infact i went to my uncles house he just had guns lying around the house like they were toys. dont know about the rest of india tho....
punjabistan01 3 years ago
and manspider this has nothing to do with hindus or muslims or eother being peaceloving/violent...it is about human nature...
For the person who sed...whoever sed citizens owning guns was a reason japan did not attack main land usa....you re the biggest idiot on the face of the planet....no words for u...like hell...the army is fighting another with missiles and tam cat airplanes and they are scared for civilians owning guns!! wow...!!
icycoolguy9290 3 years ago
and giving up his life....in a country like india...arming the ppl would mean aiding terrorism..for those not frm india...realise that India is not under threat from external terrorism but also internal mafias. if every one would have arms there would be chaos like none other. why does america stand a better chance in such kinds of terrorist attacks? it is because the authorities are better trained and can act more efficiently...not because the citizens are allowed to carry arms...
icycoolguy9290 3 years ago
Ok....tell me...when your american plane was hijacked....how many terrorists did it? 4?5? 10? on a plane of how many? 200-300? could they not take them down? yeah the terrorists had guns people did not... but could they not over power them with a loss of a couple of people? in the plane the terrorists would have no whr to hide or run ...they wud get trampled by the people...were they? no...why? coz in the face of adversity every human being puts a greater price to his life than helping others
icycoolguy9290 3 years ago
The thing about India, is that many of the folks living there are Hindu, and believe in non violence. What would they do with guns?
manspider189 3 years ago
manspider,
What would they do with guns?
...defend their lives, the lives of their family members, and the lives of other innocent people against people who do not share their beliefs.
I don't care if they believe in non violence or not.
Put a gun in a Hindu's hands and I imagine he will fire it before he allows someone to kill his child/wife/friend, etc.
Perhaps not all, but I would wager most.
I guess I could be wrong about that though.
lives2live 3 years ago
Have a look at the bodycount that resulted after India's partition in '47 - almost a million dead - Hindus are certainly not squeamish about killing. That's not really the point though. 85% of the population in India live on less than $2.50 per day. A gun is about as affordable to them as a jet fighter.
BedsnHerts 3 years ago 2
not to mention terrorists are outnumbered greatly by citizens with gats. if you got more people on your team your going to win. a few, or a couple hundred terrorists aren't going to win against millions.
kagibb 3 years ago
against millions no, but there have been times where a couple hundred have defeated thousands.
I think if the U.S. has shown anything over the years, it has been that numbers matter far less than what your fighting for.
But I see your point.
lives2live 3 years ago
lets not forget that guns and gun ownership is the main reason Japan didn't invade the mainland of the USA in WWII and attacked pearl harbor instead. now that was a trained army, ready to kill so much they would kill themselves to accomplish that goal.
kagibb 3 years ago 2
you re the biggest idiot on the face of the planet....no words for u...like hell...the army is fighting another with missiles and tom cat airplanes and they are scared of the civilians owning guns!! wow...!!
icycoolguy9290 3 years ago
i guarantee my 30-06 at a couple hundred yards with me ghillied out in the woods will do plenty of work to a terrorists face when i snipe em with it. not to mention all the vets and millions of others who are armed with high powered hunting rifles which are made for killing large animals not no crappy ak's. (cont.)
kagibb 3 years ago
2 of these last 3 comments only have some truth to them. how come America was founded and fought for by everyday farmers and people who were not trained at all, fighting the greatest army in the world at the time, not some stupid sandy terrorists. id like to see some terrorists try some shit like that here. I'm not just gona stress out and save myself and maybe only kill 1 or 2 if lucky. (cont.)
kagibb 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
(...cont...) Nothing would stop them, not even if every person was armed; if they were, the terrorists would come better prepared to fight them. If the defense gets stronger, they will attack with more vigor. As the person before me posted. WAKE UP people.
icycoolguy9290 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
(...cont..) Realise that under that much stress an ordinary man would break and try saving his own life instead of giving up his/her life in the process of taking down 1-2 terrorists (that also if the person is extremely lucky). The terrorists are trained mercenaries. They live to kill. That is their purpose. None of the 10 that came to the hotel that day thought they would escape. They knew they were going to die. (...cont....)
icycoolguy9290 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ok. The people who attacked the hotel were armed with automatic rifles, machine guns and grenades. They held off the special forces and the police for over 3 days. Do you people really think they could have been stopped by civilians if they were armed. Without proper training a civilian would not be able to fire a weapon in face of an emergency. (cont....)
icycoolguy9290 3 years ago
@ 2:04..."Gave vast arbitrary powers to the Licensing Authories... insuring that it is often impossible for an ordinary law abiding Indain citizen to procure an Arms License."
This is exactly what is going on right now!
Here, in the US!
While everyone is so distracted by the Economy, HR-45 is making its way through Congress.
HR-45 will set up a Central Licensing Bureau in DC...and make Eric Holder in charge of arbitrarily deciding who is approved to own a firearm.
Wake up, people!
SeekerNLife 3 years ago 5
Guns are power over tyranny!
gunnyranger2 3 years ago 4
The person who has made this video is an idiot. I have nothing else to say to this video.
icycoolguy9290 3 years ago
Iraq was over run with unrestricted full auto ownership. They had sky high gun deaths and couldn't keep them safe from Saddam or George Bush two evil monsters who murdered millions. So your arguments fail
freedomfromguns 3 years ago
I was in Iraq. Some Iraqis were afraid of being run out of their neighborhoods by the Shiites who were threatening them. They were afraid of guns because they were oppressed by bad guys using them. We taught families how to operate and shoot them and then they fought off the Shiites trying to take their home away.
Blackhalo325 3 years ago
If you love guns as much as I do, you should bring those old family heirlooms in, we'll clean them up and ensure it can never be taken from you as a "dangerous weapon" it's a new day and a new way of handling those who would ban guns out right. Please see my profile for details.
freedomfromguns 3 years ago
Disarming a nation makes it easier for the government to take control over its citizens, if the army and police are armed it gives them a significant advantage over those who are not...
BerettaTV 3 years ago
but then again.........no ones listening....
ishaan69 3 years ago
i'm listening. sometimes.
RidleyReport 3 years ago
here the
terrorists and gangsters(most of them govt servants:(
carry assaulrifles,smgs and 9mm handguns all internationally made and smuggled by the underworld....while the "lucky" good samaritans are left to depend upon their antique or countrymade .22's ,.32's, bolt actions and double barrels...the unlucky ones are left to pray....
ishaan69 3 years ago
ffiiiinallllllly someone understands what us defenseless gun-nuts go through in india....fucking draconian gun laws hinder a law abiding citizens ability to defend him/herself yet our black market thrives to the point that all the sociopaths and corrupt politicians probably have more guns then an entire freakng continent......things like these make me fancy burning down all those fucking govt. sons-of-sluts....
ishaan69 3 years ago
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable, JFK
HandsHeldHigh1 3 years ago
Remind me how terrorists managed to kill 3000 people in NYC. Then explain to me how your "rightfully armed and defended" population failed to prevent that.
I'm not trying to be facetious, but blaming gun controls for this massacre is like blaming e-numbers in food. Terrorists look for a weak spot, close one and they will find another.
BedsnHerts 3 years ago
Thats just a stupid comparison. Cant shoot down planes with small arms, and you cant carry your gun on board a plane.
JUSSBO 3 years ago
Exactly. And THAT is why those terrorists chose that MO
BedsnHerts 3 years ago
so if you find a weakness in your armor you shouldn't close it up? that's a GREAT IDEA
kuroitatsu 3 years ago
That's not what I'm saying. You are assuming that widespread gun ownership is going to close the gap and therefore prevent terrorism. It isn't.
BedsnHerts 3 years ago
I didn't say widespread gun ownership is going to prevent terrorism, nothing will prevent terrorism from happening, but armed pilots will provide a much larger barrier for someone trying to hijack an airplane
kuroitatsu 3 years ago
Yes, agreed. And I'm pretty sure that cabin crew now have access to weapons on the new big Airbus, but the way Ridley is talking we should have every single person on the plane carrying a loaded gun (and I'm not so sure I'd want to fly if that was the case) plus you are talking about India, where 80% of the population could never even dream of having enough money to buy a gun.
BedsnHerts 3 years ago
A group of terrorists carrying small arms were able to wreak total havoc. They didn't need a bomb or a jet plane when they were attacking a population that has been disarmed. Self-defense is a natural human right, not exclusively American. We are simply one of the few countries to bar our own government from trampling that right.
fivepiece 3 years ago
Actually Im not missing your point. I would you wear a bulletproof vest in combat? You can get shot in your knee or head? So dont wear anything. You are advocating that it is not worth it for a person to be prepared to defend themselves and I am politely disagreeing with you. I think an armed responsible aware person can make a difference. Guns are illegal in the UK are there any crimes perpetrated by criminals with firearms?
Chauperr 3 years ago
I'm not advocating a "don't bother defending yourself" policy or anything like it. Trouble is that people like Mr. Ridley think that owning a gun is the ONLY definition of protection and has suggested that if more Indians carried guns there wouldn't have been a massacre. I'm saying that if more Indians carried guns then these terrorists would have simply followed a different plan and done something equally horrible with an equally high bodycount.
BedsnHerts 3 years ago
I also find it laughable that he wants to apply the rules and mores of the USA onto a country that is different in almost every respect, (especially economically). After all, the US doesn't exactly have very good record of preventing terrorism itself.
BedsnHerts 3 years ago
Beds you make it clear you dont think guns can help anyone I get it. Your argument is falling on deaf ears here my friend. Im not a debater. A gun is better than nothing and those guys had guns not bombs.
As to what they would have could have or should have done its really not germain to the post or the question
Chauperr 3 years ago
That was the topic of this video so I think my points are entirely germane. To be specific I think that guns could not have prevented the massacre, not that guns don't help anyone. If you want to own a gun then good for you, I have no problem with that at all. If you are not a debater than you shouldn't enter into debate.
BedsnHerts 3 years ago
I think this was a great video. I will throw my vote into yes a couple of armed people could have lowered the butchers bill a bit. Thank God I am allowed to protect myself.
Chauperr 3 years ago
...and yet terrorists still killed 3000 of your people. By definition terrorists like to spread terror, they like soft targets and high bodycounts. Close one door and they will find another - A gun won't protect you against a bomb.
BedsnHerts 3 years ago
No but it would give me a chance against an assailant with a gun. What if you terminated a target prior to his detonating a device? You can argue against a legally armed citizen protecting himself, if you would rather count on someone else for your safety good for you. However slim a chance I might gain from being armed I will take it.
Freedom is not free.
Chauperr 3 years ago
You're missing the point. What if the bomb is in a truck? Or a rocket? Or the weapon is chemical? A gun would be useless. More guns are not the solution to global terrorism. And these people love that you live in a "free" country. It gives them all sorts of loopholes to exploit
BedsnHerts 3 years ago
Having a gun is a sign of strength that only predators understand. They are more worried about law-abiding citizens being armed, because if the opportunity arrises, they will shoot.
Even if a bomb was used, a person still took the chance to protect themselve from a threat.
Mossy500A 3 years ago
India is the second most heavily armed nation in the world, and the majority of an estimated 40 million firearms are in civilian possession. There are 900,000 arms-licensed holders in the state of Uttar Pradesh alone, while the number of arms dealers is pegged at 1400. In the words of one gun dealer at the bazaar, "Gun shops are mushrooming in the state of Uttar Pradesh like public telephone booths".
PerryLogan 3 years ago
BedsnHerts, I'm off to work, but don't worry, I'll be back to debate your ignorance and false sense of democracy. Go kiss your queen's ass.
tomtomttom 3 years ago
tomtomttom, apart from your ranting I have yet to hear a valid argument from on how gun controls could have prevented the Mumbai massacre (which is the topic of this video) Let's hear one that doesn't involve Hindu temples, the British Raj, the Queen of England and the US War of Independence. Oh, and I'm still waiting for your figures on how many Indians want the gun laws changed.
BedsnHerts 3 years ago
"I may sound callous but Indians are collectively (not individuals that were killed) responsible for these deaths".
I suppose the people of the US are also collectively responsible for the deaths at the WTC?
BedsnHerts 3 years ago
A government that does not allow its citizens to own guns is a government that should not be trusted. It is the government that should always fear its citizens. Citizens shouldnt fear the government. That is the only way you can ensure human rights in your country.
tomtomttom 3 years ago
Absolute rubbish
BedsnHerts 3 years ago
"Absolute rubbish"
- Only a man who fears his government would make such a statement.
tomtomttom 3 years ago
I don't fear my Government. Nor an I naive enough to think that if me and a few other guys got hold of some guns that we could overthrow it if we wanted to. Just absolute rubbish.
BedsnHerts 3 years ago
I'm sorry BedsnHert, you clearly don't understand the idea of citizens owning guns. If you did, you would know it is a little more than a few guys. Even if 10% of the population owned guns, out of a population of 300 million people that is 30 million. Clearly that is much larger than just a few guys. And that is much larger than any army any country has. So the idea that it is only a few guys is "rubbish."
tomtomttom 3 years ago
I understand the idea perfectly.
If you want to own a gun because you feel it's your constitutional right, fine.
If you feel safer owning a gun, fine.
If you want to own a gun 'cos you just like guns, also fine.
But if you think that guns will reduce the crime rate or stop terrorism or overthrow any modern government then you are wrong on all counts.
BedsnHerts 3 years ago
"But if you think that guns will reduce the crime rate or stop terrorism or overthrow any modern government then you are wrong on all counts."
- A statement with no proof.
tomtomttom 3 years ago
Absolute proof - don't take my word for it though, do some research yourself. Ignore the media, ignore the politicians and look at some unbiased and complete statistics.
BedsnHerts 3 years ago
"Absolute proof - don't take my word for it though, do some research yourself. Ignore the media, ignore the politicians and look at some unbiased and complete statistics."
You made the claim: "But if you think that guns will reduce the crime rate or stop terrorism or overthrow any modern government then you are wrong on all counts."
- the burden of proof is on you.
tomtomttom 3 years ago
Australia introduced stricter gun laws in 1996 - negligible result in overall violent crime rate since then. Many US States have relaxed gun laws - Violent crime up in some states, down in others - negligible overall change.
Significant terrorist attacks in places with LOTS of guns - Iraq, Afghanistan.
Armed struggle to overthrow governments - Egypt, Greece, Libya, etc. all undertaken by the army not by armed civilians. Closest to your theory was Chile in 1973 - and the US put a stop to that.
BedsnHerts 3 years ago
In the Washington DC there is way more violence since stick guns laws have passed. Just recently the hand gun law has been overturned. If you look at almost every city in America that has easy rights to own guns, the level of crime and violence is down.
tomtomttom 3 years ago
"In the Washington DC there is way more violence since stick guns laws have passed. Just recently the hand gun law has been overturned. If you look at almost every city in America that has easy rights to own guns, the level of crime and violence is down."
NOT TRUE - look it up. Use the 2008 FBI statistics instead of the NRA website.
BedsnHerts 3 years ago
"NOT TRUE - look it up. Use the 2008 FBI statistics instead of the NRA website."
- Actually it is true. The supreme court just overturned the hand gun ban in Washington DC. We will have better stats of how things are in a few years. Look up the cities that have the right to own guns. You will see there is much less crime. Criminal will always have guns, it is the law abiding criticizes who don't.
tomtomttom 3 years ago
As you can't be bothered to look at the FBI stats here is the gist of them:
DC - Violent crime has reduced year-on-year since 1995. There is a 46.9% reduction between 1995 and 2007. So that's LESS violence - geddit?
"Look up the cities that have the right to own guns. You will see there is much less crime"
Memphis and Nashville both have higher violent crime rates than DC - Memphis was ranked 4th most dangerous city in the US in 2005. And Tennessee has some of the most lax gun laws.
BedsnHerts 3 years ago
That's because about 30,000 people moved out.
ClassicFIHD 3 years ago
In India, currently, most guns are owned by gangsters and criminals. Most of the civilians can't do anything against the robberies and extortion these people do to them. If they had the right to own guns, at least the civilians can stand up to them.
tomtomttom 3 years ago
But explain how a gun is ever going to be affordable to the 85% of the population who live on less than $2.50 a day? Or are you just interested in the right to own a gun rather than the practicalities?
BedsnHerts 3 years ago
You forget to mention, in Afghanistan, we are fighting a government, Taliban. With Iraq, they are being supported by outside groups. We are talking about two different things. I'm talking about the civilians right to own guns, you are talking about terrorist organizations. Are you equating civilians to terrorists.
tomtomttom 3 years ago
"you are talking about terrorist organizations" - um...yes, that is the statement you asked for proof on.
BedsnHerts 3 years ago
And the proof you provided was false. Which I just proved. SO HELLO.
tomtomttom 3 years ago
Not false, you just changed your mind on what you wanted to discuss.
CIVILIAN deaths in Iraq (not insurgents) - are an all time low of around 6000 for 2008. These are terrorist bombings and shootings, not related to combat. That's in a country where private gun ownership is still almost totally unregulated. So another one of your bullshit claims goes out the window.
BedsnHerts 3 years ago
Bedsnherts, Do you believe civilians are terrorists? It's funny, I'm debating with a guy who doesn't even understand true democracy. He lives in a country where he pays taxes to a queen. And puts royal in front of government institutions. England isn't even a true democracy or republic. If you want to debate about rights and democracy, you should change your country first.
tomtomttom 3 years ago
Oh you are really showing the level of your ignorance now (apart from being even more off-topic that usual, which is something I have noticed you do in order to avoid having to address the real issues)
England is part of the UK.
The UK is not a Republic (yet).
The UK is a true democracy.
The Government receives taxes, not the Queen.
The Queen has absolutely no power over Government.
Any none of this has ANYTHING to do with your fantastic theories.
BedsnHerts 3 years ago