Reasonable Gun Control needed

Discussions on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
User avatar
nagarifle
Old Timer
Old Timer
Posts: 3399
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:43 pm
Location: The Land of the Nagas

Re: Reasonable Gun Control needed

Post by nagarifle » Thu Dec 31, 2020 9:05 pm

Nattu wrote:
Thu Dec 31, 2020 2:15 pm
NPB isn't PB
As per the 2014 statistics 500 out of 3600 gun shot deaths were by licensed guns. How many of these 500 deaths were due to NPB - .22lr to .380 ACP- guns? Considering that these guns are practically non-lethal, unless the shooter was a marksman or the victim very unlucky, the deaths were likely caused overwhelming by PB guns. It is therefore irrational to treat NPB guns on the same footing as PB guns. These guns aren't effective for self defence, not fit for sports, and no good against wild animals in the field. Why make these as conditions for license? Make good antecedents and training in usage as sufficient for issue of license for NPB guns.
me thinks that you have missed the major point,
which is all weapons can kill or wound. cal is not a factor
NPB and PB is only a legal classification, and does not refer to wounding or killing done by it.
guns NPB or PB by its design is to harm.
its the holder of arms/tools moral character and condition of the heart detriments the nature of it use.
no law can change the condition of the human heart.
Nagarifle

if you say it can not be done, then you are right, for you, it can not be done.

For Advertising mail webmaster
Mr.Shome
Almost at nirvana
Almost at nirvana
Posts: 126
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2019 7:24 pm

Re: Reasonable Gun Control needed

Post by Mr.Shome » Thu Dec 31, 2020 10:55 pm

My two cents.... the discussion about calibres is somewhat subjective. Just one example is Subedar Major Yogendra Yadav of Indian Army, who survived multiple Pakistan Army bullets, mortar shell splinters, what not else during the Kargil faceoff - he lives to tell the tale. He was a Grenadier at that time (informing to help interested folks in looking up the story on Google).

However, this particular thread is about India's licensing laws.

Wishing a kind New Year to all!
Mil Sake Aasani Sey Uski Khwaish Kisko hai. Zid toh uski hai, jo muqaddar mein likha he nahin

Nattu
Learning the ropes
Learning the ropes
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2020 9:12 am

Re: Reasonable Gun Control needed

Post by Nattu » Fri Jan 01, 2021 5:19 am

The guns used in Olympics are of different designs and have nothing in common with the commercial grade NPB pistols, except the bullets, proving that the latter aren't fit for sports.
As for the lethality of NPB pistols, the fact that they are not prescribed as service pistols to law enforcement anywhere in the world, apart from reported results of shooting trials, is sufficient proof that the have limited offensive or defensive capability.
To reiterate, these .22/.32/.380 NPB pistols, can be used for recreation only and not for self defence or sports. Citing these reasons for license to buy these guns would be meaningless. They may be allowed to be bought after character verification and training in their use.
In a lighter vein; I thought this forum was for universal gun ownership. Surprisingly, many members seem to hold the view, that all guns are dangerous and the present government controls are necessary!

User avatar
timmy
Old Timer
Old Timer
Posts: 2185
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:03 am
Location: home on the range

Re: Reasonable Gun Control needed

Post by timmy » Fri Jan 01, 2021 2:22 pm

Nattu wrote:
Fri Jan 01, 2021 5:19 am
I thought this forum was for universal gun ownership. Surprisingly, many members seem to hold the view, that all guns are dangerous and the present government controls are necessary!
You have the right person and place, Nattu, as I staunchly support the concept of universal gun ownership. As a matter of fact, that is the primary reason I joined this board, and it is the primary reason that I participate here.

My justification for owning guns is not because I hunt. It is not because I target shoot. It is not because I need a gun for self-defence. It is not because I need any justification at all, beyond the fact that I want to, and because it is my right. This is not just what I believe, but what I live, and IFG is the online space in which I live this conviction.

I hope my words are not obscure! :-)
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
“The principle of self defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi.” - Martin Luther King, Jr.

“When someone shows you who they are, believe them.” - Maya Angelou

partheus
Almost at nirvana
Almost at nirvana
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2016 9:42 pm

Re: Reasonable Gun Control needed

Post by partheus » Fri Jan 01, 2021 4:50 pm

Isn't the whole "we'll let you buy a gun if your life's under threat" trite self defeating even at a cursory glance? So, the government is basically saying, you can approach us for a license if you ever get robbed, raped, harassed or looted. But that won't be enough. No no. We'll think about it if your story's truly heart wrenching, else sorry, but no cookie for you!

In keeping with their reasoning, health insurance policies should be purchased post medical emergencies, and seat belts are a stupid idea. Whatever happened to the notion that it's better to have a gun and not need it rather than need a gun and not have it?

pran80
Almost at nirvana
Almost at nirvana
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 7:21 pm
Location: Allahabad

Re: Reasonable Gun Control needed

Post by pran80 » Fri Jan 01, 2021 8:56 pm

"In a lighter vein; I thought this forum was for universal gun ownership. Surprisingly, many members seem to hold the view, that all guns are dangerous and the present government controls are necessary!"

Looks like they are not ready to lose their "privalaged" status of being a gun owner.

Mr.Shome
Almost at nirvana
Almost at nirvana
Posts: 126
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2019 7:24 pm

Re: Reasonable Gun Control needed

Post by Mr.Shome » Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:42 am

pran80 wrote:
Fri Jan 01, 2021 8:56 pm
"In a lighter vein; I thought this forum was for universal gun ownership. Surprisingly, many members seem to hold the view, that all guns are dangerous and the present government controls are necessary!"

Looks like they are not ready to lose their "privalaged" status of being a gun owner.
Yes, looks like it... chameleons change colours.. perhaps like pre-and-post license status.
Mil Sake Aasani Sey Uski Khwaish Kisko hai. Zid toh uski hai, jo muqaddar mein likha he nahin

User avatar
kanwar76
Eminent IFG'an
Eminent IFG'an
Posts: 1851
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:00 pm
Location: Bang-a-lure
Contact:

Re: Reasonable Gun Control needed

Post by kanwar76 » Sun Jan 03, 2021 8:00 am

sourabhsangale wrote:
Tue Dec 29, 2020 11:28 pm
Nice thought but if that is allowed there will me murder every day every where , only one needed of weapon shall be granted .what is going is good for everyone .

How many people are you killing everyday? How do you justify need? I need one to keep one in my lap daily just to caress it. Should i be granted one?
I am the Saint the Soldier that walks in Peace. I am the Humble dust of your feet, But dont think my Spirituality makes me weak. The Heavens will roar if my Kirpan were to speak...

StampMaster
One of Us (Nirvana)
One of Us (Nirvana)
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 12:36 pm
Location: Hyderabad, Bangalore, Dubai UAE

Re: Reasonable Gun Control needed

Post by StampMaster » Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:53 pm

Important thing is the perspective of the people, govt. and govt. servants.

Its always portrayed that anyone.. other than a police, military personnel and security guard is a bad guy. However, people who keep faith in these so called good guys have also misused their power and weapons.

Perhaps media and other idiots making youtube video etcc are also to be blamed for creating such perception to sensationalize things.


In a recent case: Adhiraj Singh Vs State of Delhi.
Adhiraj was caught in IG Airport, New Delhi 25 live cartridges in his bag belonged to his house owner.

Importantly see the attachment, most probably Adhiraj would have carried NPB cartridges. And the picture shows a military style Fully automatic Uzi and a small caption stating Representative Image. What perception will this create in people reading the acticle.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
”Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.”

StampMaster
One of Us (Nirvana)
One of Us (Nirvana)
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 12:36 pm
Location: Hyderabad, Bangalore, Dubai UAE

Re: Regarding transfer of arm licence

Post by StampMaster » Sun Jan 03, 2021 1:09 pm

Skylark wrote:
Wed Dec 30, 2020 8:39 am
Friends I need to transfer my license from commissionerate to collectorate in tamilnadu..please tell me the procedure
Hi Skylark,

Welcome to IFG.

Introduce yourself to the IfGians and post your details in the right section. Our friends here will help you.

You can also DM me, I'll do whats possible from my end to resolve your issue.

Good day
”Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.”

User avatar
eljefe
Old Timer
Old Timer
Posts: 2626
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 3:37 am

Re: Reasonable Gun Control needed

Post by eljefe » Tue Jan 05, 2021 6:19 pm

Nattu wrote:
Thu Dec 31, 2020 2:15 pm
NPB isn't PB
As per the 2014 statistics 500 out of 3600 gun shot deaths were by licensed guns. How many of these 500 deaths were due to NPB - .22lr to .380 ACP- guns? Considering that these guns are practically non-lethal, unless the shooter was a marksman or the victim very unlucky, the deaths were likely caused overwhelming by PB guns. It is therefore irrational to treat NPB guns on the same footing as PB guns. These guns aren't effective for self defence, not fit for sports, and no good against wild animals in the field. Why make these as conditions for license? Make good antecedents and training in usage as sufficient for issue of license for NPB guns.
After you read some of Fackler,and Di Maio ‘s excellent , real life research on ballistics and wound effects you may realise the discordance of using ONLY statistics in your assumptions about certain calibers.
I am forced to ask, have you ever seen the effect of your 3 “..practically non lethal calibers...” on animal tissue, to put forth that statement ? Or is it only for argument’s sake ?

File an RTi and you can get info about deaths due to P Bore Vs NPB

Churchill used the Mauser 96 in the cavalry charge at Omdurman and didnt feel undergunned. In the .30 pistol caliber.
The walther PPK and PPK/s in .32 were standard issue to German criminal Police in Pre WW2 Germany.
The same .30 cal pistol ctg made it to several million TT and Radom pistols and still is in demand in India.
The Colt woodsman in .22LR was a favourite of the early US spec ops in Vietnam.


The Russians also fielded a folding stock machine pistol in 7.65 mm aka .32 , for Tank crews, until their hit squads discovered it to be ideal for covert action.basing lethality ONLY on Defense force acceptance or use of a certain caliber is a fallacy.
Run a poll here and see how many ‘Lucky’ gun owners are willing to be shot at by your “...3 practically non lethal calibers”. Thats a bit of an extreme example. But, seriously, the interweb statistics are little more than bandwidth waste.
''It dont mean a thing, if it aint got that zing!''

"...Oh but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away..."

Nattu
Learning the ropes
Learning the ropes
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2020 9:12 am

Re: Reasonable Gun Control needed

Post by Nattu » Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:21 am

Mr. Eljefe, you being a doctor, having seen and treated so many patients with gunshot wounds are naturally against guns of every type. However in this forum for Gun Rights, it is pertinent to examine which guns may be safely owned as a right by private citizens.
As pointed out by you elsewhere, it the bullet design, not the gun bore, which determines the lethality of a gun. The government can specify the upper limit of, like for airguns, the mass and muzzle velocity of the bullet, below which there would be no bar on owning guns, subject to police verification and competence to use them. Perhaps a third party insurance against mishaps could also be a condition. But no other condition.

User avatar
eljefe
Old Timer
Old Timer
Posts: 2626
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 3:37 am

Re: Reasonable Gun Control needed

Post by eljefe » Wed Jan 06, 2021 12:46 pm

Oops,I forgot how to use the quote function.So my replies are as below in bold

Mr. Eljefe, you being a doctor, having seen and treated so many patients with gunshot wounds are naturally against guns of every type.

I'm not very sure what you mean by this or how I am to understand this.Do you mean because of a persons exposure to GSW in humans ,he should be against guns?? :shock:

However in this forum for Gun Rights, it is pertinent to examine which guns may be safely owned as a right by private citizens.
Absolutely. No contest.
We've been hammer and tongs at it :deadhorse: and would appreciate more young blood taking up the good cause.
What I am pointing out are the flaws in your argument. Having faced antigunners with twisted agendas, no exposure to guns and lately, Politically correct Limp wrists, how correct are your statements about the number of deaths in the NCRB statistics due to PB? You assume that X number must have been by P bore only because NP bore are ineffective.So, use whats available to us the RTI,to ask for information.

You are not going to be very popular in some social circles if you are a gun lover.Ask me how I know...So if you are espousing a thorny issue, have impeccable sources to back up your statements.


Still does not answer my question of-on what basis did you base you make the broadly sweeping statement of NP bore-.22-.380 being practically non lethal ? When you make a statement like this, what are your authoritative sources? Is your information based on a personal experience or culled from impeccable sources?
Labeling these particular calibers as " practically non lethal" may not give enough locus standi for the AAm AAdmi to ask for a bigger caliber to help with a Self defence handgun licence.The .357,.45 ,.357 SIG are in the NP bore bracket. How many casual shooters will be able to achieve some semblance of 'self defence marksmanship' with these heavy kickers and 25 or 50 round a year quota and ammo at Rs.400-800 or even more PER ROUND?
So I offered you some info about world acknowledged experts Like Fackler and Demaio- to help you understand wound ballistics and Examples of NP bore handgun calibers used by various defense forces
And what I pointed out in my previous post was wound ballistics of .315 NP bore Vs those from a P bore .223. More than the bullet or caliber, its SHOT PLACEMENT which gives the Gold Medal or stops you from being hurt. A .22 to the head will definitely get your opponents total attention, as compared to a .380 to the leg ( do people still ask-"Why didnt the police shoot at his legs instead of killing him"? )
Shot placement comes from MUSCLE MEMORY, from ability to handle the noise and recoil. Every single time.
You would have a hard time trying to get any current insurance company to under write GSW as one of the causes of injury/ death, and cover it.
All said and done, your zeal is appreciated, welcome to the good fight, BUT...get your facts right.
''It dont mean a thing, if it aint got that zing!''

"...Oh but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away..."

GurnaniM
Learning the ropes
Learning the ropes
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:05 pm

Re: Reasonable Gun Control needed

Post by GurnaniM » Wed Jan 06, 2021 3:01 pm

i agree 100% with eljefe its "Shot Placement" that dictates the lethality of the bullet not its NPB / PB stature. Also as pointed out multiple times the notion behind introduction of PB /NPB was to serve the interests of then British raj in essence .. as such its just differentiating the service caliber. (worth noting in contrast to PB 9mm the more powerful. 357 magnum & 45 acp are NPB). Also the stats about 3100 gsw deaths by PB will also be so as the requirement of using firearms in line of service is that much higher than most armed civilians who will use it as a last resort and then too in large percentage brandishing or warning shot itself deters the threat.

User avatar
timmy
Old Timer
Old Timer
Posts: 2185
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:03 am
Location: home on the range

Re: Reasonable Gun Control needed

Post by timmy » Thu Jan 07, 2021 1:42 am

Nattu wrote:
Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:21 am
Mr. Eljefe, you being a doctor, having seen and treated so many patients with gunshot wounds are naturally against guns of every type. However in this forum for Gun Rights, it is pertinent to examine which guns may be safely owned as a right by private citizens.
Nattu, you have been here for ten posts, so how do you make this statement about someone who has been on IFG for a long time? How do you know him so well? How are you so much more acquainted with what IFG's mission is, than those who have been here for so long?

As a newcomer here, we welcome those, as eljefe said, who bring "new blood" to the struggle for firearms rights. You should recognize, however, that while being strong in speaking is one thing, being strong in listening and in reasoning is much more important.

But I must tell you bluntly and clearly, making statements about personalities, such as you have above, does you no favors.
“The principle of self defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi.” - Martin Luther King, Jr.

“When someone shows you who they are, believe them.” - Maya Angelou

Post Reply