A recurring point of debate since the tragic events of 11/26 has been the strict gun control laws in India. Would the innocent civilians have had a better chance of defending themselves if they were empowered to carry?
All the sporadic massacres over the past few years pale in comparison to the mayhem caused by the 10 militants/terrorists (170+ dead, 300+ injured). In a situation where awareness/response time of the armed services/police was questionable at the best what is the point in holding on to the archaic gun control laws that were put into place by our former rulers (the British empire) in order to take away the peoples chances of mutiny. The main reason for us to have such Draconian laws was so that the British Empire would not have anything to fear from a nation armed with rocks, sticks and the crude weapons.
This is not to say that the police/armed forces' actions were incorrect/not appropriate; however the sort of infrastructure that we have is not very conducive to an effective response. Why does the government take away our right to protect ourselves. All the weapons used by the attackers are on the government list of restricted weapons ie. there is absolutely no way of a private individual owning them. The problem here lies with the inherent capability of a terrorist to not give hoot about the laws of the land and to go ahead and break everyone of them with impunity. The civil, law abiding citizens who have let a sleeping/apathetic government take away their right to defend themselves find themselves staring down the barrel of an assault rifle the likes of which they have seen before only in movies or on TV. The results of this confrontation have been predictable.
Images from http://www.olegvolk.net
