TheAgitator.com
Guns and Mumbai
Monday, December 1st, 2008India’s government not only failed to protect its citizens from terrorism, it wouldn’t allow them to protect themselves. Check out this paragraph from the Wall Street Journal:
At about 9:45 p.m., two gunmen, slender and in their mid-20s, ran up the circular driveway at the entrance to the Trident. They shot the security guard and two bellhops. The hotel had metal detectors, but none of its security personnel carried weapons because of the difficulties in obtaining gun permits from the Indian government, according to the hotel company’s chairman, P.R.S. Oberoi.
On the other hand, at least some Indian officials are taking responsibility for their failure, which is more than we can say about anyone in the U.S. government after September 11.
Worse, and also similar to tragedies in the U.S. (like Columbine), is that the Police who are armed almost always hide.
This from the Neoneocon:
It’s sad that police and police representatives (like the Fraternal Order of Police) advocate the disarmament of citizens (defying the Constitution), and then fail to even do their damn jobs.
HTownTejas,
These shootings did occur in India. I’m not sure what good it does comparing the Fraternal Order of Police’s advocacy for anything with what happened there.
As for the rest of it, is it really time to equate the nation’s gun control policy with these attacks?
Incidentally, how exactly was India’s government supposed to prevent this?
Usual knee-jerk right wing ignorance. India’s murder rate is 25% LOWER than in the US where guns are readily available. This despite the fact that the socio-economic status in india is far below the US. The ACTUAL DATA strongly support the contention that India’s strong gun control is making the indian population much safer than the US’s lax gun control. But of course looking at actual facts wouldn’t play into the WSJ’s baseless philosophy.
“Incidentally, how exactly was India’s government supposed to prevent this?”
FAIL.
The point is that people should be permitted to at least try to protect themselves.
Usual knee-jerk right wing ignorance. India’s murder rate is 25% LOWER than in the US where guns are readily available.
And Northern Virgina, which has virtually no gun control at all, has a dramatically lower homicide rate than neighboring D.C. and Prince George’s County, Maryland. What’s your point?
the ACTUAL DATA strongly support the contention that India’s strong gun control is making the indian population much safer than the US’s lax gun control.
Not even close. Comparing homicide rates doesn’t prove or disprove anything. Actual controlled studies between U.S. jurisdictions have consistently shown that strict gun control has no effect on crime, and that freer carry laws reduce crime. Whether those conclusions could be applied to a completely different culture, I have no idea, and neither do you.
My point was that in this particular case, if private citizens–and hotel guards in particular–had been carrying, this thing may well have ended a lot sooner, and with fewer casualties.
In Somalia gun laws are nonexistant, and that’s worked out great for them.
in Somalia, they don’t have an effective court/judicial system. NOTHING is working out for them. Let’s stick to apples and apples…
I realize this tragedy occurred in India. It’s horrific and my comparison is not intended to make light of their loss. Quite the opposite. This type of tragedy can happen within our borders as well and the gun control crowd (Fraternal Order of Police included) is doing their best to maximize the loss of life if/when it does happen. I bring up Columbine as an example because the responding police hid behind trees and waited until the gunmen killed themselves. Police frequently advocate citizen disarmament, explaining that they themselves will respond to active shooter incidents. But police procedure seems to be to wait for suicide, once the gunmen are done killing. If the intended victims are allowed to carry the loss of life would be potentially much lower.
Indias police forces are often starved for funds. Security hasn’t been a huge deal and it’s reflected in their budgets.
It is entirely possible that the cops had little training with their guns and little to no ammunition for them.
Frankly, I also don’t trust D’Souza. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was lying through his teeth just to make his political point. Its like a broken record that repeats every goddamn time a mass killing happens anywhere in the world.
Marty: “in Somalia, they don’t have an effective court/judicial system.”
They also don’t have over two centuries of Enlightenment traditions underpinning their epistemology, ethics, and politics. Really: anyone who would like to try to compare America with a bunch of dirt-scratching savages is completely incompetent to attend this discussion.
OK kids, repeat after me:
“Comparisons between any two countries are arbitrary and generally meaningless, and can be used to justify any policy position you wish to advance.”
“in Somalia, they don’t have an effective court/judicial system. NOTHING is working out for them. Let’s stick to apples and apples…”
My comment was tongue in cheek, but comparing apples to oranges is exactly is what’s being done in the original post. Arguments against gun control as they relate to crime have little to no bearing on a surprise military style assault. Let’s say the average Indian was armed to the teeth, the attackers still could easily have modified their tactics to suit this by attacking one or two less targets, and splitting those cell members among the remaining targets, giving them increased firepower at the remaining targets. Normal criminal incentices and disincentives don’t apply as strongly (if at all) in a terrorist assult this well planned and coordinated.
“anyone who would like to try to compare America with a bunch of dirt-scratching savages is completely incompetent to attend this discussion.”
I tend to think that we are all just a few missed meals from savagery. Besides, Somalia provides a rare natural experiment to test various hypotheses against. I am not qualified to make such an in depth analysis, but that doesn’t mean that such comparisons should be verboten.
Here’s the point: imagine how the same attack would go down in Texas. It’s safe to say it would not have lasted 60 hours.
Since the life expectancy in Somalia improved after they kicked out the government, I would advise those citing it as an example of the evils of an armed populace to look for an alternate argument in favor of their cause.
Link
Okay, trying again:
Link
Arrggh:
http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
Billy Beck,
Radley insinuated that India’s government failed to prevent this attack. I’d like to know how it was supposed to.
Tarran,
You visiting Somalia anytime soon?
Thus scribbled Sam:
Read it again, Sam, this time for comprehension; it’s only one sentence, but you have to read the whole sentence. Pay attention to the part in bold:
India’s government not only failed to protect its citizens from terrorism, it wouldn’t allow them to protect themselves.
An interesting article has appeared on (of all places) World Net Daily. Entitled “A gun is worth 1,000 pictures”, I found this quote from a photographer especially relevant: “I only wish I had a gun, not a camera.”
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82371
All states act first and foremost to preserve their monopolies on violence within their geographic boundaries. The Indian state is no different from any other state on Earth. No state allows unlimited self-defense. Any gun law, any restriction is an infringement on the natural right of self-defense.
The death of an individual, or several individuals, is NOTHING to the state — the state’s first obligation is to its own self-preservation. This is a precondition for statehood.
An armed populace is a threat of the first order to the state. The genius behind the American state is the mass delusion of popular sovereignty, so that the armed populace actually believes that it is the state, and thus self-neutralizes.
Things should get interesting if Americans en masse start to wake up from their delusion.
“The hotel had metal detectors….”
Something nobody ever seems to consider (except, oddly, occasional filmmakers) is: what use are metal detectors against people willing to draw weapons and open fire?
Radley: “My point was that in this particular case, if private citizens–and hotel guards in particular–had been carrying, this thing may well have ended a lot sooner, and with fewer casualties.”
Yes, perhaps. Strict gun control may be part of the problem in India (and the U.S.), but employers can also be to blame. I am a healthcare security officer (non-sworn) at a large midewestern hospital. Our officers could take a firearms training course (40 hours) and would be permitted to carry while on duty. Due to the experiences I have had over the last several years, I think this would be advantageous, and would allow us to protect the campus community and ourselves during “nightmare scenarios.” The hospital’s administrators see it differently (through the prism of “public relations”) and are vehemently opposed to guns on the campus. Easy for them to say, as they don’t face the verbal and sometimes physical abuse that we do on a regular basis. Thus, management is caught up in a popular delusion: “but if you guys carry, people will feel like the hospital is unsafe.” Well, they’ll feel even less safe if someone comes into ER with a knife or gun and the closest security officer dives into an office and locks the door. Some folks just don’t see the big picture!
“but if you guys carry, people will feel like the hospital is unsafe.”
This is the big lie, which repeated often enough, appears to become true.
The safest society of all is one in which EVERY person carries a gun, concealed or not.
KBCraig.
You read the sentence again, only focus on the bolded part:
India’s government not only failed to protect its citizens from terrorism, it wouldn’t allow them to protect themselves.
I want to know how it was supposed to. Radley was clearly implying that India failed…I want to know what its government could have done differently.
The safest society of all is one in which EVERY person carries a gun, concealed or not.
I guess we’ll just have to take your word for it.
*eyeroll*.
While Gun Universalism is better than Anti-Gun Universalism from a freedom perspective, it is just as obnoxiously condescending and arrogant in it’s categorical dismissal of the idea that people might have a decent idea of what works best in their local communities.
“My point was that in this particular case, if private citizens–and hotel guards in particular–had been carrying, this thing may well have ended a lot sooner, and with fewer casualties.”
Perhaps, and you can make that argument, but don’t pretend that you can draw conclusions about what is better and safer from this isolated incident. It is an uninformed argument. It is also quite possible that if private citizens were carrying the total murder rate in india might be much higher (even equivalent to the US!)
Your point about N. VA vs. DC is illustrative, it shows that socio-economic status is so important to the violent crime rate. Which is why it is so shocking that a country known for vast poverty like india has such a low murder rate compared to the US, “despite” the extensive gun control.
Though “My 2 Cents” thinks he is refuting the armed citizen argument he actually proves the point -
“Let’s say the average Indian was armed to the teeth, the attackers still could easily have modified their tactics to suit this by attacking one or two less targets, and splitting those cell members among the remaining targets, giving them increased firepower at the remaining targets.”
Armed citizens are a DETERRENT, and WILL cause attackers to modify their behavior.
The people in one of the “one or two less targets” would have survived because they weren’t attacked.
The more people that are armed, the FEWER targets that can be safely attacked.
Clearly, being armed is not a guarantee of survival, or of not being attacked. However, being un-armed SEVERELY diminishes your options to defend yourself, even if it be from an attack by terrorists.
[...] « Previous Entry Gun control doesn’t always matter 01 Dec 2008 Posted by Ken Hagler Guns and Mumbai. [...]
Sam,
Do you not consider it a failure for police to hide while people are dying?
Billy-Jay,
A perfectly fair point, although I’m not entirely sure that’s what Radley meant. Also, we did end up with Indian commandos killing the attackers, although rousting them took precious time and energy.
Asking purely hypothetically, is their a cultural aversion in India to everyone being armed to the teeth? Religious? I don’t know. It just seems like this situation is slightly more complicated than suggesting that if everyone had guns, this never would have happened.
“Though “My 2 Cents” thinks he is refuting the armed citizen argument he actually proves the point -”
Who’s refuting the armed populace argument? I’m refuting the argument that you can apply a criminal deterrence model to a non criminal attack.
“Armed citizens are a DETERRENT, and WILL cause attackers to modify their behavior.
The people in one of the “one or two less targets” would have survived because they weren’t attacked.”
Which will be offset by the people killed in the remaining attacks. Upon further reflection, the attackers would probably attack the same number of targets, just using bombs instead. Modifying behavior does not equal modifying it in a way that works out well for the populace.
“Clearly, being armed is not a guarantee of survival, or of not being attacked. However, being un-armed SEVERELY diminishes your options to defend yourself, even if it be from an attack by terrorists.”
Okay, I’ll bite. Quantify that statement.
The more people that are armed, the FEWER targets that can be safely attacked.
The gun control angle on this story is very important. Virginia Tech: no guns on campus. Mumbai: strict gun control. If we want strict gun control in the U.S., we’ll need to get accustomed to this kind of thing.
http://rightklik.blogspot.com/
My 2 Cents,
huh? so because the attackers were (would have been) deterred by some armed citizens in one place they would have killed just as many elsewhere?
even if true (which is certainly not provable) the point you admitted was that the FEAR of armed response can can change an attackers plans. ergo, you don’t see criminals (or terrorists) attacking heavily armed positions. not in Iraq, not in Afganistan, not in London, not in the US. In India they didn’t attack Indian army bases did they?
did 19 Saudi killers suicide into a police station (or gun shop) on 9/11? no, they went where the victims are defensless. they may be homicidal maniacs but they’re not stupid.
quantify what statement? eithe statement that you seem to refer to appears self-evident to me.
My 2 Cents:
My 2 Cents:
Given a scenario where you are about to face an armed terrorist (as many people in those hotels would have), who is clearly going to kill you just because of your kaffir status, would you rather:
a) be unarmed
OR
b) carrying a firearm and be willing to use deadly force to defend your life, and possibly the lives of others with you?
I know what I’d choose, and so did that photographer who has been endlessly quoted. Do you?
Wish I could remember the link, a very recent study by Law Enforcement in the USA concluded the locations of mass shootings in schools , malls, etc were not randomly chosen- the killers ACTIVELY SOUGHT OUT “gun free” zones, in order to minimize resistance.
Sam, the government might have listened quite some time ago when the US and other sources told them there was likely to be an attack at this very area–they might at the very least have had some practices. Some of the police claimed that in 10 years on the force they have never had firearms practice. Now, I have not shot much myself, and not in many years, but I certainly remember the basics, so I still suspect it was more will and courage–a couple of fellows did put up a fairly good fight I heard–considering they had a sinlge Enfield between them, if reports were correct. Fighting terrorists is a lot like finding an intemittant electronics problem–it often isn’t easy.