Dear Friends,
We are debating the 'type of weapon' for 'self defence' based on 'threat perception'.
Well to the best of my knowledge, there are a 'permitted' bores for general public (including retired Govt servants) to have licensed weapons for self-defence. There is also a term called 'Prohibted bores' - This may include .315 rifles, stens, 9mm revolvers or pistols etc.Probably the poor MP had one of these.
In front of a mob; these individual weapons can prove ineffective -as was demonstrated in the mails; unless there is a coordinated action by a few like minded people - who are out there to defend their families / people around them. Even in a mob, people donot join to get killed. A few shot down or wounded; would make the crowd break up !!!
Even a well coordinated action by people with lesser calibre weapons, can produce wonders in peace and war; provided people show courage, determination and acumen in face of larger crowd better armed. Take case of CST - when a few policemen with inferior arms tried to take on Kasab!! He was ultimately caught by others, when brave Sub Inspector grappled with Kasab, unarmed.
About 'threat perception, let us take case of people staying on the borders. They have threat perception of 'enemy troops' coming with heavy weapons/ tanks etc. But they can not be allowed to have bazookas / anti-tank guns etc. That where the Nation (Army/ Navy/ Air Force) takes on.
In Ahmedabad (and in 1984 in DELHI / Kanpur / other places in India) THE NATION failed to take on its responsibility.
I feel by no justification; having a weapon of that calibre can be taken as for self defence. Those who are trying to justify or defend that action are probably for TRP or ..... I do not know. The whole legal system has been gone thru and NOW we say that so and so should be pardoned; are we as a NATION serious about those who lost their limbs / life / business and so many other sufferings for these 20 years. To protect the people is NATION's job (read Govt and its agenceis); when they fail - we have 1984 / 1993 / 2002 / 2008. Hopefully it will stop some day - at present we have POLICE of different shades and colours (depending on which state we are referring to); else there would have been NO EXODUS of NE Indian people from SOUTH or SIKHs from all over India - immediately after 1984 or KASMIRI PANDITS from J&K.
We must realise that it is an utter failure of AGENCIES responsible for your and my securit & safety.
Mer Bharat MAHAN
IS Gill, Veteran
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 11:58 AM, <devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com> wrote:
The need of a weapon and its seriousness depends on the threat perception. If the threat comes from someone like say Ajmal Kasab, you do need an AK 47 plus a few hand grenades provided you are trained to use them. or when a threat is from a wild crowd, a licensed gun or a pistol is no good as we have seen in the Ehsan Jaffri case . The crowd tore him into pieces.I think the Mumbai riots were not an ordinary situation, it was a mixture of the two. where a licensed pistol or a shot gun would not have protected Dutt and his family. I think the SPG who protect the VVIPs as their daily duties do carry automatic weapons and not small firearms?. DevinderFrom: vasant sardesai <vasant_sardesai@yahoo.co.in>
To: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" <indiaresists@lists.riseup.net>; shadikatyalsearch <shadikatyal@yahoo.com>; VinodKumar <kv08535@yahoo.com>; "jeevkulkarni@yahoo.com" <jeevkulkarni@yahoo.com>; SatbirSingh <ssbedi1945@yahoo.com>; devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com
Sent: Saturday, 30 March 2013, 14:45
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !
Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists" Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-userWWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in/
From: devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com <devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com>
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !
To: "vasant sardesai" <vasant_sardesai@yahoo.co.in>, "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" <indiaresists@lists.riseup.net>, "shadikatyalsearch" <shadikatyal@yahoo.com>, "VinodKumar" <kv08535@yahoo.com>, "jeevkulkarni@yahoo.com" <jeevkulkarni@yahoo.com>, "SatbirSingh" <ssbedi1945@yahoo.com>
Date: Saturday, 30 March, 2013, 2:38 PM
The usual wepons of self defence for a citizen under threat shoud not be AK47 rifle. but a smaller weapon. DevinderFrom: vasant sardesai <vasant_sardesai@yahoo.co.in>
To: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" <indiaresists@lists.riseup.net>; shadikatyalsearch <shadikatyal@yahoo.com>; VinodKumar <kv08535@yahoo.com>; "jeevkulkarni@yahoo.com" <jeevkulkarni@yahoo.com>; SatbirSingh <ssbedi1945@yahoo.com>; devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com
Sent: Saturday, 30 March 2013, 7:47
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !
From: devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com <devinder.thakur@btopenworld.com>
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !
To: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" <indiaresists@lists.riseup.net>, "shadikatyalsearch" <shadikatyal@yahoo.com>, "VinodKumar" <kv08535@yahoo.com>, "jeevkulkarni@yahoo.com" <jeevkulkarni@yahoo.com>, "SatbirSingh" <ssbedi1945@yahoo.com>
Date: Friday, 29 March, 2013, 8:41 PM
There does not have to be a physical attack for someone to retaliate in self defence. The threats (by Shive Sainaks???) and its fear would be taken as real and any measures to counter would be treated as taken in self defence. One does not see any doubt in this due to his parents social and political activities. Sanjay is convicted for having weapons illegally and also from a dubious source. If he had gone to the local police authority for a licence to have weapons and got them through a licence weapon supplier, there would have been no case to answer. DevinderFrom: vasant sardesai <vasant_sardesai@yahoo.co.in>
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 14:02
Subject: RE: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net" Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists" Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in/
From: Kumar Arun <kumar2786@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !
To: "IAC Sarabjit" <indiaresists@lists.riseup.net>
Date: Friday, 29 March, 2013, 5:47 PM
Millions of Indian born in and around 1970 have very little idea how did Sanjay behave in hisown family. His father did what a typical father had been taught by the ancestors. The fact ofthe matter is that even many parents are not applying common sense in parenting even today.Having said that the arguments presented by Mr. Tewari on behalf of Shanti Bhushan, a strongpillar of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), are like opening another pandora box. If every one start doingwhat Mr. Shanti Bhushan have suggested, there will be no law & order at all. Was there any Hinducaught defending like Sanjay? And, if a Hindu alleged by law officers, every one knows the out come.Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 11:16:49 +0530 From: wide.aware@gmail.com To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Shanti Bhushan in Sanjay Dutt's Defence !1. had the state failed to protect Sanjay Dutt?Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net" Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists" Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in2. How come he has been safe all through in spite of being accused of terrorism and being out of jail most of the time?3. What about the hand grenades, witness testimonies that he asked a gangster to "do something" about the riots, providing support for the arms haul to be unpacked from concealed compartment and repacked into bags? He provided tools, safe location as well as bags.4. A full seven years after the fact, he was still intercepted courting a gangster and introducting "fans"5. What happened of the 2 AK-56s and hand grenades he had taken - in the sense of how did he get exonerated of that and his sole "mistake" seems to be one assault weapon for self-defense?That said, why were others who got weapons from that haul not prosecuted? Sharad Pawar says they chose not to. Why?The role of Shiv Sena, Sanjay Dutt and the gangsters is highly incestuous. They go around rioting, but Sarpotdar has WITH HIM a top hitman of the same gang as well as illegal weapons provided by a gangster network led by a Muslim. Said Gang later bombs innocents in "retaliation" for the riots in which their member too had armed and hobnobbed with perpetrators. Then, Sanjay Dutt gets into trouble motivated by the same riots and Shiv Sena saves his skin for fee, though obviously they had to be among the top intended recipients of any action said assault weapon got. Sanjay Dutt's relations with gangsters continue, including saving Vidhu Vinod Chopra from an extortion racket by telling Anees Ibrahim to lay off because he was among the few who supported him when he went to prison.Now, hearing the news of his sentencing, Shiv Sena went into default "save Sanjay Dutt" mode, but find their outrage and change loyalties on a dime at some point.The only thing I accept about Sanjay Dutt was that he was a fool and got into it for exactly the reasons he claimed. The others Shiv Sena in the riots as well as the Gand retaliating on "behalf of Muslims" were strategically in bed with each other while outwardly claiming outrage for "their" side of the line and killing unrelated innocents - largely to radicalize people and consolidate power.That said, Sanjay Dutt was stupid, but most definitely illegal in his actions.VidyutOn Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:Dear Naveen
Shri Shanti Bhushan has laid down the LAW.
You can argue with Mr. Bhushan but you cannot argue with the LAW.
If the State fails to protect a person, he is in his rights to acquire ALL MEANS REQUIRED TO DEFEND HIS LIFE
Mr,. Bhushan ECHOES IAC when we stand for right to bear arms freely and defend ourselves.
Mr. Bhushan's legal basis is IDENTICAL with IAC's because IPC is a 150 year old law almost as old as IAC (or Mr. Bhushan)
Sarbajit
Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"Dear All,Shanti Bhushan has certainly gone beyond senility and is showing signs of Dementia. His long article in the Hindu of 26th march is the latest example of that. Here he is with all his remnant legal acumen misplaced to the hilt, arguing for a summary reprieve for Sanjay Dutt. In this venture mr. Bhushan quoted the judgment of the supreme court wherein the court has mentioned that Sanjay Dutt's reason for possessing those prohibited guns and arsenal was self defence. Mr. Bhushan argues that it is not a crime to defend oneself even if the ammunition possessed by one is without licence.What a wonderful logic by this legal luminary who was once our Law Minister. I can only feel ashamed as an Indian that people of such calibre find there way to top positions in the country where they can play with the destiny of the people of this country. I am also deeply distressed that such people still manage to find a place in the public discourse no matter what level of atrophy their brain has reached.The Hindu, my most favourite newspaper, is also springing surprises like these every now and then.I request you all to read this article by Shanti Bhushan and react to it.regardsnaveen tewari
Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in/
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"
Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.