Why the Arms Act is a completely pointless and even harmful and infringes our rights as free citizens.

[Karan Bakshi]

From a young age, I have been quite interested in weapons. I have watched a lot of war movies and fully understand the implications of carrying arms.
Firstly, I shall talk about the fundamental reason why Indians should be allowed to carry Arms.
From what I know, the Constitution guarantees us the right to self defense. Now, self defense does not only come in the form of learning martial arts or swinging around your nanchaku. To be honest, self defense could entail any extension of your body part, that is, a weapon, which can serve as a tool for self defense. If the Government of India cannot deal with the idea of citizens carrying arms, I think we need to really think about whether to even vote in the subsequent elections or not, for as we have always seen since many years, our Governments promises are empty caskets.

Why does our Government infringe our right to carry arms?
The Government ideology is that if ordinary citizens carry arms, there will be increase in crime rate.

My reply to the above is, isn't there already a lot of murders and other crimes taking place? There is a supposed restriction on the the length and width of the blade possessed by an individual, and if I am not wrong, its not more than 9 inches long and 2 inches wide. We are not allowed to own anything out of these parameters. I'd like to say that I could kill anybody with my kitchen knife. It is sharp, and if it can cut my finger it can certainly take someone else's knife.
In my opinion, the Government needs to leave the question of logic to people who are educated and experts in their fields. Taking the example of the United States of America, where one can own a sword and even a friggin Sniper Rifle, there is surely an increase in shootings in America. But, consider this: Are these shootings because there is more freedom to carrying of arms? There is a present debate between stronger regulation of arms or more liberalization of it. I am for the latter.
I do not think that a mass shooter would be able to do much damage even if 10% of the potential victims own arms themselves. As we have seen in the shootings so far, none of the students apart from the culprit nor the teacher possessed arms. That increases the potential death toll.
India is a country where most of the murders are somehow or the other linked to political individuals. Most of these individuals are delinquents and uneducated.
There was an incident recalled by a close person I knew. She was in America buying something from a General store when the store manager caught a man attempting to shoplift. He asked him to return the stuff. The man denied pickpocketing anything at all. The two men at the same time reached for their concealed guns, and at the same time pointed it at each other, the safety click off and ready to shoot. At the same time, several other people in the store also produced their arms, pointing them at the two men. My friend thought she was dead meat, Turns out, that the fact that eveyone had their guns out prevented any sort of shootout. That is what I call empowerment. Indians, are not empowered. Our rights are infringed and our Government leaves us helpless.
Imagine a scenario where we have the right to carry small guns. Everyone above the age of 21 is allowed to do that, suppose. Do you think the death toll in the Mumbai Terror Attacks would have been less? The victims could do NOTHING but wait for their killers to approach them and butcher them. It makes me sick remembering the delayed action by the Government in response to the entire mess. 48 hours? That's simply ridiculous. If citizens were armed, we would have a better chance to prevent such future catastrophes.
The crime rates in our country would actually go down. If women were armed, assailants would think twice about molesting them.

Lastly, I want to make a point saying that India is not a welfare state as most think. Yes, our Government wishes to do good, but good not at their own personal expense. Moreover, the power in our country lies with the authorities, not the people. In India, no one really stands up for their rights. Reason? We are as divided as we were as in the times of the Mughals and the British.
The key is logical education and all round empowerment.

[Anand]

Hello Karan, what you are saying has been debated for a long time now. The Home Ministry is making attempts to change the Arms Act 1959, supposedly in favour of the citizens. A draft proposal has been posted in their website to change the Arms Rules 1962. While some of these changes do seem to make sense other changes seem totaly against the spirit and intent of the original Arms Act 1959. People from the NRAI, IFG and various state Rifle associations and other walks of life have sent in their comments, suggestions and criticisms of the various proposed rules. It remains to be seen what will happen next.
Since this is your first post, I will presume that you may have not read many of the posts in the Legal, and RKBA sections, please do, there is a huge wealth of info on what is going on and you will find that most of what you said has been dealt with in different posts.
welcome to IFG,
Regards,
Anand

[goodboy_mentor]

From what I know, the Constitution guarantees us the right to self defense

The Constitution not only acknowledges the basic human right of self defense, it also clearly and explicitly acknowledges the basic human right to keep and bear arms. I have explained this in another post represented by the following link https://www.indiansforguns.com/viewtopi ... 30#p230480

Only the basic human quality called honesty is required from either the Indian Parliament or the Judicial system to acknowledge this truth. How to make them acknowledge the truth? This is the crux of the problem we all are grappling with on this forum for a long time.