Category Archives: gun control

How Gun Control Laws Contributed To the Mumbai Slaughter

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” — Mahatma Gandhi

From lewrockwell.com

An interesting article, from October, 2005, provided by http://www.gunowners.org:

Gun Control And Self-defense Against Terrorism In India
by Abhijeet Singh
Colonial Roots of Gun-Control

I live in India and I am a proud firearm owner — but I am the exception not the norm, an odd situation in a country with a proud martial heritage and a long history of firearm innovation. This is not because the people of India are averse to gun ownership, but instead due to Draconian anti-gun legislation going back to colonial times.

To trace the roots of India’s anti-gun legislation we need to step back to the latter half of the 19th century. The British had recently fought off a major Indian rebellion (the mutiny of 1857) and were busy putting in place measures to ensure that the events of 1857 were never repeated. These measures included a major restructuring of administration and the colonial British Indian Army along with improvements in communications and transportation. Meanwhile the Indian masses were systematically being disarmed and the means of local firearm production destroyed, to ensure that they (the Indian masses) would never again have the means to rise in rebellion against their colonial masters. Towards this end the colonial government, under Lord Lytton as Viceroy (1874 -1880), brought into existence the Indian Arms Act, 1878 (11 of 1878); an act which, exempted Europeans and ensured that no Indian could possess a weapon of any description unless the British masters considered him a “loyal” subject of the British Empire.

An example of British thinking in colonial times:

“No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.” –James Burgh (Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses) [London, 1774-1775]

And thoughts (on this subject) of the man who wanted to rule the world:

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.” — Adolf Hitler (H.R. Trevor-Roper, Hitler’s Table Talks 1941-1944)

The leaders of our freedom struggle recognised this, even Gandhi the foremost practitioner of passive resistance and non-violence had this to say about the British policy of gun-control in India:

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” — Mahatma Gandhi (An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth, by M.K. Gandhi, p.238)
Post Independence

India became independent in 1947, but it still took 12 years before this act was finally repealed. In 1959 the British era Indian Arms Act, 1878 (11 of 1878.) was finally consigned to history and a new act, the Arms Act, 1959 was enacted. This was later supplemented by the Arms Rules, 1962. Unfortunately this new legislation was also formulated based on the Indian Government’s innate distrust its own citizens. Though somewhat better than the British act, this legislation gave vast arbitrary powers to the “Licensing Authorities”, in effect ensuring that it is often difficult and sometimes impossible for an ordinary law abiding Indian citizen to procure an arms license.

“A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.” — Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Also the policy of throttling private arms manufacturing was continued even after independence. Limits on the quantity and type of arms that could be produced by private manufacturers were placed — ensuring that the industry could never hope to be globally competitive and was instead consigned to producing cheap shotguns, of mostly indifferent quality, in small quantities. A citizen wishing to purchase a decent firearm depended solely on imports, which were a bit more expensive but vastly superior in quality.
More Recently

This changed towards the mid to late 1980s, when the Government, citing domestic insurgency as the reason, put a complete stop to all small arms imports. The fact that there is no documented evidence of any terrorists ever having used licensed weapons to commit an act of terror on Indian soil seems to be of no consequence to our Government. The prices of (legal & licensed) imported weapons have been on an upward spiral ever since — beating the share market and gold in terms of pure return on investment. Even the shoddy domestically produced guns suddenly seem to have found a market. Also since the Government now had a near monopoly on (even half-way decent) arms & ammunition for the civilian market, they started turning the screws by pricing their crude public sector products (ammunition, rifles, shotguns & small quantities of handguns) at ridiculously high rates — products that frankly, given a choice no one would ever purchase.

“That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.” — George Orwell, the author of Animal Farm and 1984, himself a socialist
Why Citizens Need to be Armed

Curtailing gun ownership, to curb violent crime, through denying licenses or making legal arms & ammunition ridiculously expensive is based on flawed reasoning. The fact is that licensed firearms are found to be used in a statistically insignificant number of violent crimes, motorcycles & cars are far more dangerous. The certainty that a potential victim is unarmed is an encouragement to armed criminals. Less guns, more crime. Most violent crimes involving firearms are committed using untraceable illegal guns. Terrorists or the mafia are not going to be deterred by gun-control laws, they will be willing and able to procure arms of their choice and use them to commit crimes irrespective of any laws. Ironically in India it is cheaper (by several times) to buy the same gun in the black market than it is to buy it legally!

“Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You’ll pull the trigger with a lock on, and I’ll pull the trigger. We’ll see who wins.” — Sammy “The Bull” Gravano, Mafia hit man

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside…. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them….” — Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War in 1775

And from the world’s gentlest human being:

“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” — The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times) speaking at the “Educating Heart Summit” in Portland, Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter takes aim at a classmate

It is, of course, no coincidence that the right to have guns is one of the earlier freedoms outlined in U.S.A.’s Bill of Rights. Without guns in the hands of the people, all the other freedoms are easily negated by the State. If you disagree with that statement, ask yourself if the Nazis could have gassed millions of Jews, had the Jews been armed with rifles and pistols — there weren’t enough SS troops to do the job. Lest we forget, in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1944, a couple of hundred Jews armed with rifles and homemade explosive devices held off two fully-equipped German divisions (actually about 8,000 men) for nearly two months.

Closer home take the case of the Godhra carnage and the anti-Sikh riots of 1984. Would wanton mobs have slaughtered so many innocent people with such disregard to consequences if their potential victims had been armed and ready to defend themselves? A serious consideration should be given to an armed civilian population as a solution to religious and racial riots as well as other crimes. Since all criminals are instinctively driven by self-preservation allowing legal ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens would act as a serious deterrent. This will make sure that if the Govt. fails to do its duty to protect the life and liberty of its citizens (as it has so often done in India’s recent past), citizens will be able to protect themselves. I’ll take some potential objections and try to answer them:
Arguments & Counter-Arguments

Q1. Won’t legal owners of arms use the firearms to kill and murder others?
Ans. When a man holds a rifle, he becomes almost godlike: suddenly, he has the ability to deal death and injury to another over a considerable distance — to send, as it were, a thunderbolt of Zeus. For some men, unquestionably, this power is going to be abused, just as some men will always drive a fast car at reckless speeds. For the vast majority of men, however, this power produces precisely the opposite effect: they are humbled by the power they hold, and they become more responsible in its use. That is why, in a nation like the United States with well over seventy million gun owners, only a tiny fraction, less than half a tenth of one percent, use a gun to commit a crime each year. Also since the firearms would be registered with the Govt. along with the owners address, the type of the firearm, its serial number etc. Those (the criminals) who want to commit crimes will not and DO NOT bother to purchase firearms legally and register them. They can and do buy them from the black market (at a fraction of the cost of a legal firearm, I might add). Legal ownership will allow law abiding citizens to protect their and others life and property.

Q2. Won’t there be a free for all during riots?
Ans. By definition riots ARE free for all. However, very few people will participate in riots knowing that a large number of law abiding citizens own firearms in the area. This will actually prevent riots. Riots are mostly started by miscreants (unscrupulous politicians?) who want to benefit from the chaos of riots. However, the risk (loss of life or limb) for the miscreant in starting and/ or participating in such riots, when a large number of the general civilian population owns legal firearms, is significant. Therefore in most cases miscreants will not dare to start riots in the first place.

Q3.What about domestic violence and firearms?
Ans. Domestic violence has nothing to do with firearm ownership. Firearms are merely a tool — not the cause of violence, to quote a famous NRA slogan “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. Women in India face domestic violence even today with very limited legal gun ownership. If anything, legal firearms in the hands of women might help even the odds — by removing the physical weakness of women from the equation.

Q4. What about accidents?
Ans. More people in India get killed in automobile accidents than firearm accidents. In countries where gun ownership rates are high like the United States (which has a firearm to population ratio of approx 96:100, i.e., almost 1 firearm for every man woman & child), Switzerland, New Zealand etc. several times more people die in road accidents than from firearm accidents. Firearm accidents can be further minimised by making a gun-safety course mandatory before a permit is issued — so long as this is not used as another excuse to delay or deny permits.

Q5. What about firearm assisted suicides?
Ans. A suicidal person has many different available ways to end his/ her life. Firearms are just another means for him/ her. Statistically suicide rates have little correlation with firearm ownership patterns. Many countries with strict anti-gun legislation have high suicide rates and vice versa.

Q6. Are there any working systems and what are the results?
Ans. Yes, for example in U.S.A., Switzerland, New Zealand. One must note here that different states in US have different degrees of gun ownership and firearm restrictions. Interestingly the states with more restrictions on gun ownerships have a higher crime rate than those that are less restrictive.

I do not condone violence or a violent solution to problems, but there can be no justification for not letting people be prepared to defend their own and their families’ lives and property. When one is surrounded by mobs bent on setting you on fire and the like, in a country where policing is non-existent, owning firearms by people will have a great deterrent effect on mobs. Of course, if I could sue the police for not giving me complete protection, then I might feel differently (but don’t count on it). But by law the State cannot be at fault for not protecting its citizens — so if the cops take 25 minutes (or several hours) to respond to your call, and in those 25 minutes a criminal kicks open your door, shoots you and your wife, rapes your 11-year-old daughter, and beats your baby to death, that’s just tough luck. What about incidents like 1984 and Godhra, where the local administration and police wilfully neglected their duty to protect the citizens of this country?

Please also read the entertaining Parable of the Sheep for an explanation so simple that even a child can understand it.

As the Indian Law stands today a citizen of this country cannot even own a stick without inviting a penalty of 7 years in prison. We live in a country where we have still not cast off the yoke of antiquated laws made by our colonial masters to keep us oppressed and at the mercy of the government, notwithstanding the lofty vision of the first page of our constitution.

Harping on the few who unfortunately misuse firearms unfairly ignores those millions of us spread all over the world who own and use them responsibly. Dreaming romantically about a world where everything has been made perfectly safe “for the children” is just that, dreaming. I’ve tried visualising world peace until I’m about ready to have an out of body experience, but as soon as I open my eyes, they’re bombing civilians in the North East or gunning down innocents in Kashmir. Welcome to the real world.

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”– George Mason

SOURCE

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/how-gun-control-laws-contributed-to-the-mumbai-slaughter/

Image by jacqueline macou from Pixabay

NZ Introduces bill for Mandatory Gun Registry, Claims No Right to Arms

From governmentslaves.news

In the proposed legislation, according to the nzherald.co.nz:

  • There will be a  national registry of all guns.
  • All gun ownership and all gun sales will be tracked.
  • There will be a 5 year limit to a gun license, which will have to be renewed to continue ownership.
  • A gun license will be required to purchase gun parts and accessories
  • A separate license will be required for shooting clubs
  • Rules for gun dealers to obtain a license will be tightened.
  • A dealers license will be required for more activities than currently.
  • The law accedes to the United Nations protocols on firearms and ammunition controls
  • There will be more offences and higher penalties than at present
  • There will be changes to allow fees to be changed, as part of regulations, to cover the cost of these new laws

In New Zealand, the far-left government has decided a national gun registry is necessary. They have been unsuccessful in confiscating (with payment) most of the previously legally owned semi-automatic rifles in the country.  There has been massive civil disobedience among New Zealand gun owners.

The party line of the leftist government is there is no right to own guns in New Zealand. They cannot be entirely sure of that, because part of the new gun control scheme is to place into law the premise that there is no legal right to arms for New Zealanders. From npr.org:

New Zealand’s government is planning to create a registry of all guns in the country and stiffen penalties on illegal gun sales and modifications. The move comes six months after a gunman killed 51 people at mosques in Christchurch.

“Owning a firearm is a privilege not a right,” New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said Friday. “That means we need to do all we can to ensure that only honest, law-abiding citizens are able to obtain firearms licenses and use firearms.”

The majority of crimes that involve guns, she added, were committed by people who didn’t have a license and who used guns that were either sold illegally or stolen

A New Zealand Academic, Alexander Gillespie, made the claim there is no right to gun ownership in New Zealand  From pri.org:

Are there any privacy concerns about this gun registry?

There was near-universal agreement for the buyback scheme but once we have the registry that two main political parties are splitting right down the middle, the concern is partly about privacy, and partly around it not being necessary. You must remember we don’t have a right to own firearms. We have a privilege to own firearms.

 

READ MORE

https://governmentslaves.news/2019/09/24/nz-introduces-bill-for-mandatory-gun-registry-claims-no-right-to-arms/

The NZ Government has announced a proposed second tranche of reforms to gun control legislation

From postmanproductions.wordpress.com

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says a proposed gun register isn’t about going after law-abiding firearms owners, but rather the people who steal them. The Government announced a proposed second tranche of reform to gun control legislation which includes a register and gun licence renewals every five years.

As logic goes their five reason why it simply flawed and wont work and thus demonstrates is not the goal of said legislation.

A; Our ports are controlled by the gangs (see PSA report 1998 ‘Bluff Ports wide open’). As you might notice several of the drugs shipments coming in now also include hand guns.

Image result for port new zealand guns tauranga cocaine
Found in Tauranga along with cocaine linked to the Sinoloa Cocaine cartel

B As your making the weapon a increasingly prohibited item (as we let outselves get dragged into a dumb and sick US gun culture that associates guns with killing people, as opposed to gathering food and as a conservation pest eradication tool) there street value will sky rocket.

READ MORE

https://postmanproductions.wordpress.com/2019/09/17/the-right-to-arms-bears/

Weapons of War On Our Streets: A Guide to the Militarization of America’s Police

By Ammo.com

The claim often heard from those attempting to pass more gun control legislation is that all they’re trying to do is get the “weapons of war off our streets,” but it’s simply untrue that “weapons of war” are available to the general public. You’d last about three minutes in a conventional war with an AR-15, even with one of the most aggressive builds you can get your hands on (that doesn’t mean it’s impossible for guerilla uprisings to defeat powerful enemies). The truth is that the only people with “weapons of war” on America’s streets are, increasingly, the police.

Thanks primarily to the Pentagon’s 1033 program which allows law enforcement agencies to get their hands on Department of Defense technology and the Bush-era War on Terror, American police have received a startling amount of heavy-duty, military-grade hardware. Between 1998 and 2014, the dollar value of military hardware sent to police departments skyrocketed from $9.4 million to $796.8 million.

And just as when “all you’ve got is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail”, militarized police have become more willing to use their new weapons when carrying out law enforcement tasks. For example, the number of SWAT raids in the United States grew dramatically from about 3,000 in 1980, to a whopping 50,000 SWAT raids in 2014, according to The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander.

To say that the militarization of the police is nothing new is to ignore America’s recent history as well as the long-standing model of a peace officer. As the police have militarized and the Pentagon backs major players in Hollywood, the focus has shifted from one who keeps the peace to one who enforces the law – and that’s an important difference.

What Is the Difference Between a Law Enforcement Officer and a Peace Officer?

The model for police, and the constables and sheriffs before them prior to the late 20th Century, was that of a peace officer. In many states, it’s not even true that police are law enforcement officers – even though it’s a term frequently used by the police and their fans in the “Blue Lives Matter,” “Thin Blue Line,” and “Back the Blue” movements.

It’s a subtle, but important, distinction: Is the role of the police to enforce the law or to keep the peace? Consider the difference between the police force of a typical American city and the fictional Andy Taylor of The Andy Griffith Show. The former is concerned primarily with enforcing the law for its own sake and catching as many “lawbreakers” as possible. The latter, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with keeping the peace. Sometimes that means looking the other way when laws get broken.

This isn’t simply a matter of how pleasant or unpleasant it is to deal with the police. Law enforcement officers might be writing parking tickets in the middle of a burglary epidemic due to their need to enforce all the laws all the time. Conversely, a peace officer is going to ignore a lot of low-level, habitual crime – even when there are clear victims (for example, vandalism or loitering) – because he emphasizes going out and catching violent and dangerous criminals. There’s no impulse to arrest a guy who habitually smokes weed on a street corner if he’s providing the police with valuable information leading to the arrest of violent criminals.

Peace officers might have the need for a sidearm and a shotgun, but they have little or no need for, say, a tank, to say nothing of the variety of nasty DARPA weapons police departments are increasingly wanting and getting.

The Origins of Militarized Police

Weapons of War On Our Streets: A Guide to the Militarization of PoliceBefore we begin talking about the militarized American police, it’s worth mentioning that United States law specifically prohibits the military from enforcing the laws in the U.S. That’s why we don’t have the Army enforcing the law, and also why we don’t have a military-style gendarmerie as is common in Europe. This law, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, was passed after the removal of federal troops from the Southern states following the end of Reconstruction. With rare exception, the federal government is not allowed to use the Army or the Air Force to enforce the law and the Navy has strict regulations for both the Navy and Marine Corps regarding the use of either for domestic law enforcement.

However, this law has been somewhat undermined due to police forces becoming so much like the military, which began during Prohibition in the 1920s. Organized crime got its first foothold in American life thanks to the lucrative black market in liquor. This was also the golden age of bank robbery with figures like Bonnie and Clyde, Pretty Boy Floyd and John Dillinger becoming folk heroes. The Thompson submachine gun and the Browning Automatic Rifle were increasingly used by organized crime and the “stars” of bank robbery.

The Prohibition Era saw domestic police departments wielding automatic weapons for the first time. There was nothing nefarious about this from the perspective of local police departments. In fact, it was the police departments most regularly in contact with vicious organized crime, such as Chicago and Kansas City, who led the way in arming their officers with automatic weapons and armored vehicles. At least two rounds of ammunition, the .38 Super and the .357 Magnum, were developed with the express purpose of being able to penetrate the early bulletproof vests worn by gangsters in the Prohibition Era.

Overall crime increased by 24 percent during the first two years of Prohibition. This included a nine-percent increase in theft and burglary, a 13-percent increase in homicides, and a 13-percent increase in assault and battery. Overall, police department costs increased by 11.4 percent. However, because the police were busy fighting the scourge of demon alcohol, it was difficult for them to target crimes unrelated to this. In fact, a study of South Carolina counties that enforced Prohibition versus those who didn’t found a whopping 30- to 60-percent increase in homicides in the counties who enforced the law. All of this is according to Charles Hanson Towne in The Rise and Fall of Prohibition: The Human Side of What the Eighteenth Amendment Has Done to the United States.

This era of militarization drew to a close with the end of Prohibition itself. However, the militarization of police would resume again a few decades down the line.

READ MORE

https://asweetdoseofreality.com/2019/05/26/weapons-of-war-on-our-streets-a-guide-to-the-militarization-of-americas-police/

Complaints re NZ’s Police Raids – they’re setting citizen against citizen … when does “vigilant” become “vindictive”?

 

From Carol Sawyer

Featuring an article from Stuff:

Gun owners upset by ‘heavy-handed’ police raids complain to IPCA:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/112872575/complaints-about-heavyhanded-raids-on-gun-owners-land-at-ipca?fbclid=IwAR24tHJo3mi91ZXCEBsZ2Vxa3_hWtibaU6yB5CaR3oNOMdXgdyyL9-aYf8k


 

“These visits are carried out as a result of police receiving information about concerning behaviour. Many of these are from members of the public who are being vigilant as we have asked them to be and have rightly passed their concerns on to police.”

Also in another news item:

“Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced on Thursday two more groups of semi-automatic guns would be classified as military-style semi-automatic firearms following Christchurch’s terror attacks.

  • Semi-automatic firearm that can be used in combination with detachable magazine (other than one designed to hold 0.22-inch or smaller rimfire cartridges), and capable of holding more than five cartridges
  • Semi-automatic shotgun capable of being used in combination with a detachable magazine that can hold more than five cartridges”

 

March 24, 2019, Stuff

 

Photo Credit: newstalkzb.co.nz

Ex arms control officer says gun licensing procedures not followed for Christchurch shooting accused

Note: I suspect the authorities were busy at the time chasing NZ environmentalists. EWR


From tvnz

A former head of gun licensing claims the man charged with the Christchurch mosque shootings wasn’t interviewed in his home and his references came from online chatroom acquaintances. 

Guns and gun ownership have dominated discussion since 50 people were killed and another 50 injured at two Christchurch mosques last Friday – one of the big questions being, “How did this happen?”

One ex-cop and arms control officer, Joe Green, says he’s got a source alleging gun licensing procedures weren’t properly followed.

“I would sooner not disclose exactly who that person is, but who I think is a highly reliable informant,” Mr Green told 1 NEWS,

The informant’s damning information claims the alleged gunman’s application wasn’t lodged in Dunedin where he lived, but filed in Waikato.

The source also says no relatives were interviewed and that authorities instead talked to two referees the accused allegedly met in a chatroom, and there are now doubts over whether a home visit and security inspection took place.

“Visiting a person’s house enables you see what their lifestyle is like. You might see a little bit of the stuff they get up to,” Mr Green said.

This afternoon, Police Commissioner Mike Bush said the vetting process behind how the alleged gunman got a license is under major review.

“That’s a very important phase of our investigation. We’re working through everything we know about the person who is charged with this horrendous offence,” he said.

But almost a week after the attack, Mr Bush couldn’t answer key questions, including whether the Dunedin-based suspect applied in Waikato.

“We’ll be working through every one of those suggestions so that when we answer you we can definitively, having known all the facts,” he said.

Mr Bush couldn’t say whether the accused used online acquaintances as referees.

“We’ll be working through that as a phase of the inquiry. When I have all the answers, definitively, I will share them.”

Nor could the Police Commissioner say whether a face-to-face interview was done.

“That’s part of what we’re working through.”

Mr Green said: “You’re looking for a needle in a haystack with firearms licensing. You’re looking for that one person in a thousand who’s going to go bad.”

Pressure is mounting on police now for answers – and soon.

 

READ MORE

 

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/gun-licensing-procedures-not-followed-christchurch-mosques-attack-accused-ex-arms-control-officer?auto=6016343694001&variant=tb_v_2&fbclid=IwAR14fO_7gdv8eg85LKiIxcNnKQ_pWBrtKBPKTCcGVVlqXXZ09aiLG8WeMzk