“In the land of Mahatma Gandhi, Indian gun owners are coming out of the shadows for the first time to mobilize, U.S.-style, against proposed new curbs on bearing arms.”

by

“When gunmen attacked 10 sites in Mumbai in November 2008, including two five-star hotels and a train station, Mumbai resident Kumar Verma sat at home glued to the television, feeling outraged and unsafe.” – Rama Lakshmi, Washington Post

I have no idea if the above is an oddity reported as a trend, or, in fact, is a trend. Interesting story either way. (Link thanks to commenter “elf”)

Update: Belated thanks for the link, Instapundit!

17 thoughts on ““In the land of Mahatma Gandhi, Indian gun owners are coming out of the shadows for the first time to mobilize, U.S.-style, against proposed new curbs on bearing arms.””

  1. Very interesting. I suspect it’s a real trend. People generally want to be able to defend themselves regardless of the laws and traditions of their societies.

  2. What’s interesting is that some of those people have lived in Texas! The third or fourth largest Indian community in the States is in Houston, I think, and it will be interesting to see the way Texan values – so to speak – will travel. Because things will cross-fertilize, they almost always do. :)

  3. Gandhi always said that one of the greatest crimes of the British colonialists was to deprive Indians of their arms. He was right.

  4. It’s obvious that those societies that have to depend on the “paid” gun slingers, ie. police, to protect themselves are having a hard time justifying it now. Wasn’t it just the other day that we watched a young girl beaten and kicked in front of a FEW security personnel in a bus station. Imagine how we would have felt if we’d watched GPS guided terrorists walking through our downtown killing innocents and watching the police cower behind walls. As for me, I’d like to see someone put forth the proposition that something as all encompassing as the Mumbai attacks could happen in Austin. Not, or at least NOT as long.

  5. I see old Sikhs walking my neighborhood in Dallas every day. They carry a staff with them that has a blade in it. I’d hate to mess with any of them.

    I’ve taken a few Indian coworkers shooting ( along with some Chinese) and they enjoy it. A Sikh friend has his CCW. But he considers himself a warrior first.

    Indians need to look at the US strategy of small steps and work the gun laws at the state level in India. I would imagine the Sikh dominated states would be the first to liberalize gun laws. With the practice spreading from there.

  6. I love it when a plan comes together…

    Memetics. It works even when you don’t believe in it.

    (A little Morning Coffee, anyone?)

  7. A classic case of a liberal Western democracy responding to an attack on the state by attacking its’ own citizens first.

  8. “I’d like to see someone put forth the proposition that something as all encompassing as the Mumbai attacks could happen in Austin. Not, or at least NOT as long.”

    It did happen. At the University of Texas in 1966. A shooter on the observation deck of the tower on campus killed 14 people before being shot by police. I understand from people who were there that his depredations were severely limited by other students who brought their own weapons out and returned fire. I never saw this reported at the time, but apparently he was limited in shooting positions by the number of people ready to pick him off if he exposed himself. As SenatorMark4 suggests, an armed populace doesn’t prevent massacres, but it does greatly limit them.

  9. Doug Collins,

    Charles Witman was killed by a civilian and a deputy sheriff who charged up the tower’s stairs. IIRC, the civilian was armed with a shotgun he carried in his truck. There was none of the contemporary seal everything off, make a plan etc. They just got there as fast as they could and killed him.

    Snipers are something of a special case. The only real counter-fire to a sniper is another sniper. I don’t think people will be schlepping around scoped rifles on a daily basis.

  10. “Snipers are something of a special case. The only real counter-fire to a sniper is another sniper. I don’t think people will be schlepping around scoped rifles on a daily basis.”

    We learned in Fallujah, Iraq that an HE round from a 120mm smooth bore is quite effective in neutralizing snipers.

  12. Iraq Vet,

    We learned in Fallujah, Iraq that an HE round from a 120mm smooth bore is quite effective in neutralizing snipers.

    Yeah, but you should hear them whine when you asked for a concealed carry permit for one.

  13. Iraq Vet,

    I am jealous you were in tanks – I wanted to be a tanker very badly at the opening of the war, but was year over the age cutoff – and now you tell us that 120mm HE works well against snipers. I’ll bet! But good luck getting ahold of a tank and being permitted to travel about in it, stateside. I’ve long seen tracked armored vehicles as the toy every man should own, but alas, can’t get the govt. to agree with me.

  14. I see old Sikhs walking my neighborhood in Dallas every day. They carry a staff with them that has a blade in it. I’d hate to mess with any of them.

    They also have a dagger (kirpan) sheathed under their belt, just so you know. They learn how to use it starting as young as age 5.

    The Sikh religion came into being 300 years ago as a militia to counter Islamic expansion under Aurangzeb and the resultant prospect of subjugation. The turban and ‘never cut your hair’ thing is basically because they *want* to be easily identified.

    But befriend them, and they are among the most helpful people you will ever know.

  15. I see old Sikhs walking my neighborhood in Dallas every day. They carry a staff with them that has a blade in it. I’d hate to mess with any of them.

    @Austin, that is a religious requirement for every male Sikh – it is called the kirpan. Sikhism was the primary defensive mechanism against Islamic rule in India (esp during Aurangazeb’s time as the Mughal ruler). there are legends (though i dont know how true this is) that the first born males of some Hindu families willingly joined the Sikh fold so that they could grow up in a warrior class to defend the country against foreign invaders like the Mughals, Brits.

    Even today Sikhs carry on this tradition and constitute a good 20% of the Indian Army even though they are only 2% of the entire country. I dont think there are bigger patriots in the Indian Union than Sikhs – atleast no one goes more willingly to give their lives to defend India than the Sikhs – only the Gorkhas can match their intensity.

    Texas would be THE PERFECT state for a Sikh to settle down in if he was in the US =) Texans and Sikhs have a certain warrior culture and love for country that is pretty unmatched.

Comments are closed.