A few weeks before the Mumbai attacks, I met a few Indian shooters. I asked them what the licensing scheme in their country was like, and their response sounded all too familiar. While it’s certainly possible, under certain conditions, to own firearms in India, the system is so complex and difficult that most people don’t bother.
As a result, Indians are raised in a culture that eschews gun ownership. They don’t have them in the house, they don’t engage in the shooting sports, and when a crisis arises, their police don’t even shoot back at their attackers.
In 1858, the British government took over direct stewardship of India from the British East India company. In 1878, the Indian Arms Act was passed, ushering a very modern-seeming system of disarmament through regulation.
England’s rule ended in 1947, but Prasad’s new government didn’t think much of its people, and the Arms Act was passed in 1959, updating the 1878 laws to accomodate modern firearms. Nowadays, you need a license, renewable every year, to own even ammunition.
In fact, according to the 1962 Arms Rules, you need several licenses. If you plan on owning guns, you need a license for each one. For ammunition, there are other licenses. You need a separate license to shoot (and this doesn’t count hunting), and you need a license to transport firearms (*).
Oh sure, you can own guns. You just have to jump through a number of interminable hoops to get them. Most people won’t do so. Even those who’d be interested in taking up the sport of shooting will be discouraged by the whole scheme.
Guns haven’t been eradicated, but the culture surrounding them has. The result is the same. And so a great nation is left defenseless in the face of a determined enemy.
One argument that I’ve heard goes something like this: the terrorists were well-armed, well-trained and motivated; could armed civilians really have stopped them?
It’s a good question, but a bit disingenuous. Criminals like easy prey. If there’s a chance of resistance, they choose a softer target. For them, getting wounded means failing in the mission, possibly being detained. They can’t afford that.
Even though they fully plan on dying at the end of the line, it has to be on their terms.
I can think of better odds than engaging a rifleman with a pistol, but if those are the only odds I’ve got, I’ll take them. He knows that, too. Make no mistake, airliners were chosen in part as the venue for the 9/11 attacks because the people on board could not be expected to be armed.
The Taj Mahal was no different. No armed civilians, no armed security…we’re talking fish-in-a-barrel odds here. There are plenty of places here in the States that exist under the same climate, and those will be targets. Such are the wages of gun control.
(*) Of particular interest are the guns categorized as “Prohibited Bore” weapons. You can’t have a rifle chambered in .303 or .308, nor one that could be converted to fire those cartridges. 5.56/.223 is also prohibited.
OK, I get .308 and .223, since those are NATO/military calibers, but .303 British? Sure, why not? That particular rule is an obvious tip of the hat to India’s dark colonial heritage, considering that the Enfield was a prominent rifle for the British army.
As far as pistols, weapons chambering .38/.357 loadings are fine, but .38 S&W is prohibited. Sound odd? Guess again; the .38/200 cartridge is identical to the .38 S&W, and was used in the British Webley Mk II pistols until 1963.
The .455 Webley, both rimmed and rimless, is also verboten, presumably in deference to the 1878 Act.