Should Guns Be Freely Available?
Amrit Hallan
April 29, 2007
Note: This article is not in favor of the international gun lobby.
The recent Virginia Tech shootout tragedy tragedy has again brought to the fore the issue of gun control -- should guns be freely available? In most of the states in America you can simply go to a shop and purchase a firearm. In India on the other hand, you have to obtain a license before you can purchase a gun and every gun you purchase needs to be registered at the local police station. Even if you fire, you have to give an account of the bullets used.
On one hand I feel that guns, or any other fire arm, shouldn't be freely available, and on the other hand, I think one should be able to obtain a gun easily, given the kind of times we live in. The problem in India is, all the shady elements of the society can easily get country-made or imported guns (depends on the capability) but for a normal citizen it's very difficult, almost impossible, to procure a gun even for urgent protection. The law is supposed to protect you, but it doesn't, or cannot.
For instance, if right now someone barges in and tries to harm my family, I have no means to protect myself and my family, and such incidents occur here on daily basis. And this happens because all the wrong people have the weapons and almost all the right people don't. On international geo-political scenarios weapons like the ICBMs act as deterrence. India recently successfully tested an ICBM that can hit major Chinese cities (China already has multiple warheads aimed at the Indian cities). I think the same thing happens at the micro level too. If a group of local goons knows that I might have a gun they'll think twice before harassing me in my own house.
Having a gun brings you at par with the criminals and you no longer have to depend on the somnolent police force for your family's protection. I know this is not an ideal situation because ideally, there should be no criminals in the society and ideally, the police should be able to apprehend the criminals before they can kill you or maim you -- I don't want them punished when I or someone I love is already harmed. I need protection before the harm is caused, and I think that protection, to a great extent, can be availed by possessing a gun.
People who protest against the guns say that guns encourage incidents like the Virginia Tech shooting. I don't think so. Yes, I totally agree that Cho Seung-Hui wouldn't have been able to kill so many innocent students had it been difficult for him to get a gun, but there will be more incidents like this if the guns are taken away from the normal folks. What happened was extremely sad, but you cannot simply blame it on the guns -- a lot more must have contributed to the distorted psyche of Cho. The shooting was just the culmination. The society, in this case, needs introspection, not gun control.
The recent Virginia Tech shootout tragedy tragedy has again brought to the fore the issue of gun control -- should guns be freely available? In most of the states in America you can simply go to a shop and purchase a firearm. In India on the other hand, you have to obtain a license before you can purchase a gun and every gun you purchase needs to be registered at the local police station. Even if you fire, you have to give an account of the bullets used.
On one hand I feel that guns, or any other fire arm, shouldn't be freely available, and on the other hand, I think one should be able to obtain a gun easily, given the kind of times we live in. The problem in India is, all the shady elements of the society can easily get country-made or imported guns (depends on the capability) but for a normal citizen it's very difficult, almost impossible, to procure a gun even for urgent protection. The law is supposed to protect you, but it doesn't, or cannot.
For instance, if right now someone barges in and tries to harm my family, I have no means to protect myself and my family, and such incidents occur here on daily basis. And this happens because all the wrong people have the weapons and almost all the right people don't. On international geo-political scenarios weapons like the ICBMs act as deterrence. India recently successfully tested an ICBM that can hit major Chinese cities (China already has multiple warheads aimed at the Indian cities). I think the same thing happens at the micro level too. If a group of local goons knows that I might have a gun they'll think twice before harassing me in my own house.
Having a gun brings you at par with the criminals and you no longer have to depend on the somnolent police force for your family's protection. I know this is not an ideal situation because ideally, there should be no criminals in the society and ideally, the police should be able to apprehend the criminals before they can kill you or maim you -- I don't want them punished when I or someone I love is already harmed. I need protection before the harm is caused, and I think that protection, to a great extent, can be availed by possessing a gun.
People who protest against the guns say that guns encourage incidents like the Virginia Tech shooting. I don't think so. Yes, I totally agree that Cho Seung-Hui wouldn't have been able to kill so many innocent students had it been difficult for him to get a gun, but there will be more incidents like this if the guns are taken away from the normal folks. What happened was extremely sad, but you cannot simply blame it on the guns -- a lot more must have contributed to the distorted psyche of Cho. The shooting was just the culmination. The society, in this case, needs introspection, not gun control.
Print
Email
