Jan
8
Hoplophobia is the fear of firearms or the fear of weapons in general.
We define phobia as an irrational, intense, persistent fear of certain situations, activities, things, or people. It is disorder and a common symptom of this disorder is the excessive, unreasonable desire to avoid the feared subject. The point to be noted is, fear in itself is not irrational, but the irrational fear is Phobia. Hoplophobia is the fear of firearms or the fear of weapons in general. As it is an irrational fear, it is a phobia. We can check the rational behind any fear properly by analyzing it on reasonable grounds, as for example, we discussed Necrophobia here.
It is a dichotomy that the same people who agrees that self-defense is a right, and every person is free to defend himself against any threat and danger to his life, as he has a right to live, forces gun-control on commons. Mostly, the supporters of gun-control suffers from the generic irrational fear, they are Hoplophobes. Their opposition of guns for the common man for his self-defense stands on very fragile and unreasonable grounds.
Whenever you think of a situation with guns, you do not replace a modified mentality in that scenario and simply presume that there would be cruel talk if the guns were involved. When a person says that if guns allowed, eve-teasing will decrease immensely, the hoplophobes will oppose it. They will say that if guns are allowed, then even a not-so-dangerous situation of eve-teasing may turn out to be gruesome killing.
The thing which they ignores is, if hand guns are allowed for self-defense, and a girl traveling in a city bus faces a hooligan, the hooligan tries to eve-tease her. Obviously she has right to defend herself. She simply puts her hand inside her purse (indicating she has a gun). Now the hooligan is not looking for a shooting competition, is he? He realizes that there is no fun in a gun-to-gun contest. A possibility of sex might be worth it, but eve-teasing is definitely not. So he evolves, next time the hooligan enters the bus, dresses up nicely, tries to sit next to the girl and tries to talk to her. That is the most beneficial way for him.
Maybe he gets lucky maybe he does not, either way it is a peaceful situation for everyone.
The example suggests that guns will decrease crimes. Yet, hoplophobes will not listen to the argument. After all their main opposition to guns is based on the false-idea, that gun control decreases the crime. We have discussed its falsehood previously too here.
John R Lott who is a Liberal was an opponent of gun-rights. He decided to write a book with extensive study about how More Guns cause more Crime. After years of extensive research and studies, he realized that the fact is different and he was wrong. Therefore, he concluded that More concealed carry permits result in less crime. So he wrote the most comprehensive and conclusive research to date on the specific topic of the effects of Concealed Carry laws on violent crime and firearms accidents.
More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws
Other popular books on the subject are
The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You’ve Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong
A Nation of Cowards
Targeting Guns : Firearms and Their Control
Stopping Power : Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns
Armed and Considered Dangerous : A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms
India tops world murder count
India tops murder count
There were 32,719 incidents of murder recorded in India, whereas there were 16,692 in the US and 9,631 in Pakistan,
Indian population is 3 times US, and murders in India are twice. So per capita murder rate is only 33% less, not a whole lot. Thus, it is a myth that India has very low murder rate. In addition, numbers of unheard and unregistered cases of crimes in India are higher.
In the previous article, we discussed how the idea of increase in domestic violence and homicide if guns are allowed, is wrong. Here are some facts again—
Dept of Justice Homicide Statistics
Even though guns in US are NOT decreasing, family homicides are coming down. It is because of the revival of family laws, as family laws are being improved, domestic violence and family homicide is also decreasing. Guns have nothing to do with it.
Israel has highest gun ownership, and least family violence. Family violence in Switzerland, Canada etc is unheard. Moreover, in US too, it is decreasing day by day despite high gun ownership.
So fear that guns will increase family homicide is highly misplaced.
more-guns-less-crime
Therefore, the argument that the common people are “sociopaths” who are looking to kill other person (each other?) and all they are waiting for is a government licensed legal gun to kill each other is illogical.
Other argument the hoplophobes put forward against gun right supporters is, the gun-right supporters are basically of urban areas, and if they visit Indian villages they will realize the ground reality and understand that gun rights is not possible.
Yet the fact is opposite. In my native village, there is no police station within the 10 major big village areas. So in order to protect themselves against robbers and crop-looters or cattle-thieves, almost every second household of the villages has a licensed (or unlicensed) gun (firearm).
So the hoplophobes will claim that Guns have no place in civilized society. And that will be most ridiculous argument they can put up with.
The List of Countries by Gun ownership available on Wikipedia will ridicule such statement.
Where are more civilian owned guns, in Canada or in Namibia? (The answer is of course Canada.) Where are more civilian owned guns, in America or Nigeria? Wikipedia link says America.
The hoplophobes will start attacking the ethnicity than, by claiming that Indians are not responsible enough to be trusted with guns. Well, on my own experience of my native village, even the villagers with just formal education are responsible and intelligent enough to hold safety-guns. Yet the question is, what do these hoplophobes mean by saying that Americans can have gun-rights but Indians can not because “Indians are more emotional, illiterate, blah blah”?
Do they mean to say that Indians have less IQ than Americans? Or, do they consider Indians genetically weaker than Americans, are the hoplophobes racists? Do they consider that Indians are inheritably less intelligent than Americans are?
According to the Indian Arms Act of 1859, only British were allowed to hold guns, and it was illegal for Indians to own a gun. So do these hoplophobes want to say that “Dogs and Indians not allowed to carry guns”?
Related Posts
1 views18 Responses to “The Hoplophobes”
Leave a Reply
Indian Homemaker Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 4:15 pmIn my family all the three siblings refused to accept the guns etc that belonged to my dad and grand dad. I was afraid of someone trying to rob us for those guns and pistols. Also the risk of some accident - we read about family members being killed while admiring/cleaning /etc the weapons.
The siblings felt the same way. I think finally my brother has been persuaded to keep them.
Not sure what I think about people being allowed to keep arms - in India or anywhere else. But sometimes when you read about mob violence and crimes then it does seem that maybe keeping an arm at home might be a good idea…
Sukrit Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 6:34 pmIt’s even more important that Indians have access to guns for self-defence, given the useless and corrupt police. Just think of how many murders, assaults or rapes could have been prevented if the victims had been able to defend themselves.
P.S. I’m reserving the space on my blogroll for American anti-war websites and a couple of Australian ones (which is where I currently live). I don’t want to add too many links, however I will definitely keep an eye on your site and point traffic your way whenever possible.
The Hoplophobes | Reason for Liberty | girlfy.com Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 6:42 pm[…] The Hoplophobes | Reason for Liberty […]
Sukrit Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 6:57 pmBy the way, good to see that libertarianism has finally reached Indian shores. It’s badly needed, especially that of the http://www.mises.org type.
Renegade Division Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 7:06 pmOh no, Indians cannot be trusted with Guns. Over the generations of genetic mutations, Indians now lack the gene which makes them more responsible with guns.
Imagine the teacher who screams at her students everyday, now imagine if she had a gun in her hand, she would shoot all her students who do not finish their homework. Terrible idea!
Brown Phantom Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 9:52 pmThe enforcement of rules & law in India is too week to allow people to carry Guns. The nation is yet to mature to the level of the other developed nations you mentioned. Agreed that some of the crimes you mentioned would be reduced ( the eve-teasing example) to certain extent, but a lot many would happen on the streets, in family disputes. Indian man on an average is more insecure due to greater hunger, poverty and other factors. Such people are very susciptible to shoot in rage.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
January 9th, 2009 at 5:36 am@ IHM,
I can understand, accidents may cause some intrinsic fears. But well accidents are not common they are extremely rare. Plus, with proper gun education, accidents can be avoided to further greater extents. Anyways it is good to know that your brother is coming up from the hatred against Guns :)
@ brown phantom
The villages which I am talking about, where there is not even a police station, people are using guns to protect themselves. These villages are in india.
That is, in situation of weak enforcement of rules and laws, only GUNS helps against criminals. The noticeable thing is, these villagers even never get any proper gun-education, still theres almost no accidents or upbrust because of private guns being used for safety and self-defense.
Anyways, i can fathom your fear of guns, and the fact that you have no rational point against gun-rights.
@ Sukrit
Well not only in common crimes like rapes and murders, if guns are allowed, many major crimes like terrorist attacks can be handled without letting the terrorists cause too much disaster. It will surely decrease number of causalities in any such attacks (like the Mumbai and other cities faced last year). While calling police may take time, and even police will take its time to come to the crime scene, the citizens may protect themselves against such terrorist by themselves.
RawThinkTank Says:
January 9th, 2009 at 8:05 amThe bad guys get their guns anyways if they want them. Its the good law abiding people that wont hav guns, hence will be victims of their guns since they dont hav guns themselves.
Dsylexic Says:
January 9th, 2009 at 11:12 amBrown Phantom either doesnt know much history or has been force fed hoplophobia. Guns were not only allowed but a common feature of many households before the British banned it in India. The bit about ‘immature’ Indians is precious -I would attribute it to being brainwashed by anglosaxon education.
The british banned private gun ownership precisely because they wanted to prevent a repeat of 1857 mutiny. the british have been replaced by the tyranny of the indian bureaucracy.
i would trust a 5000 yr civilization like india than the maturity of a nation created out the plunder and loot of native americans.
“Indian man on an average is more insecure due to greater hunger, poverty and other factors. Such people are very susciptible to shoot in rage.” . heh ,thats why indian marriages survive longer?. what an apologist for the white skin
Smitha Says:
January 9th, 2009 at 3:39 pmI have always been ambivalent about people being allowed to keep firearms.. I have leaning towards, nobody(in any country) apart from Law enforcement agencies being allowed to keep firearms. But, I guess you have a point, although, I do not think, I would be comfortable carrying a gun around with me, to prevent molestation or eve teasing.. A simple bottle of perfume is good enough in that case:)
By the way, really like your posts - am blogrolling you.
Dsylexic Says:
January 9th, 2009 at 5:05 pmwhen people speaking of ‘carrying guns around’, it somehow seems to evoke images of angry idiots brandishing their walther ppk’s menacingly. ofcourse ,nothing could be far from the truth. a responsible gun owning citizen will always keep the gun concealed and be more self aware and confident. moving about in a threatening manner is ofcourse limited to the SPG who guard our political elite (whose lives are somehow supposedly more precious).
vishesh Says:
January 10th, 2009 at 3:03 pmMaybe I should learn to shoot soon..
Soumya Says:
January 10th, 2009 at 8:32 pmThe last time there was such an intense debate on control on firearms licenses was Virginia Tech. The debate emerges and interestingly, most readers (apart from the author) have favoured the liberalization of firearms.
For starters, I would like to laud the research. It’s nice to have read a blog that isn’t bereft of concrete facts. To present an alternate view, I’d like to repeat the example I started with - Virginia Tech. Reports subsequent to the massacre revealed that the laws were so antiquated and inadequate, that firearms were doled out like freebies. I believe that there are two fundamental instances when the allowance of firearms is akin to handing out weapons of mass destructions to the most fanatical terrorist. Firstly, in those parts of the world where few rule over many in a tyrannical fashion, and deprive them of basic rights. Trust me, when it comes down to the fight for survival, the statement of Joker in The Dark Knight holds true - “The facade of civilization is ripped off”. Imagine a place like Zimbabwe, which has suffered from Mugabe’s misrule. Allowing civilians to own guns is the surest path to anarchy (not the political definition). I believe that there are ample sections in India which is fighting for bare subsistence. Would the presence of firearms not pose a hindrance to maintaining the social fabric?
The second instance is of cases that exhibit a total lack of concern for the human life. Virginia Tech. (in case people find me fixated around V.Tech, there were plenty more such incidents in that year) and the murder of Jessica Lal are cases in point. How would you check them? How would you segregate them from the otherwise mild gun owners? These are pertinent questions for even if these “sociopaths” commit murders which are pint sized as regards the whole population, we certainly wouldn’t want any of our near and dear ones to be one of their victims. Do let me know what are your thoughts on these points. I, personally feel that we need better processes to conduct sanity checks before issuing firearms and the processes ought to be of the strictest rigour.
Oh, by the way, I blogrolled ya. You write well. :-)
renegade_division Says:
January 11th, 2009 at 2:23 am@Soumya said:
Not sure what reports are you talking about, but the weapons were purchased by the kid on the credit card of his mom. He sure didn’t qualify for those guns based on his own mental condition, but his mother did.
Secondly, honestly speaking I have never seen a pro-gun control American raising the points as you are doing. Nobody in America(pro- or anti- gun control) would ever say that handing out weapons in Zimbabwe is a bad thing. Its like saying that Jews should be given weapons in Nazi Germany because that will create “chaos”(please don’t use the word Anarchy as a synonym for chaos).
I saw the full coverage of Virginia Tech massacre on Television, university, radio, and newspapers. The debate on Gun Control which usually rages after every school shooting since Columbine High School Massacre, was practically non-existent. The reason was simple, the issue wasn’t easy access to guns but the psychotic nature of the VTech killer. The points you are raising are rarely heard in American gun debate horizon. They sound more like European analysis of VTech massacre.
In 12 years of my schooling in India I have seen/heard about 16 different stabbings among school/college kids. Sure its covered in the media but not publicized like a Gun shooting usually is.
Lemme ask you a hypothetical ethical question.
Lets say you have the option to arm the Jewish people in Europe, arming them simply means that now they will fight back, and kill people. This means more people will die.
So would you arm the Jewish people of Nazi Germany if
1) Not arming them means total 6 million of Jews will die in gas chambers
2) Arming them means total 12 million people will die(including the 6 million Jews who will fight to death, and 6 million Nazis)
My question is what will you choose from the above two options?
Dsylexic Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 12:46 pmthere we go again: it will lead to mass killing in Zimbabwe. another innocent hoplophobe was against guns in iraq. see how they are killing each other?. here’s news for you: guns are banned in iraq BUT it is a lawless state right now. ie it is a free for all. and in a free for all,by definition, people are not going to be law abiding and threat to life and property is a given.moreover in a lawless situation,people will obtain weapons guns or otherwise to harm others or protect themselves.so why not ban knives?.
au contraire,if people had guns and good self defense, such a strife wouldnt have come to happen in the first place.
jessica lal case?. maybe the killer would have thought twice if he knew jessica was armed as well.or atleast other people in the club
renegade_division Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 12:55 pmOh and I forgot this about Jessica Lal case.
Drunks are problem everywhere in the world. So in places like UK there can be pub shootings, but in America, every bartender keeps a shotgun underneath the counter. Its so overwhelmingly known that he has guns under neath the counter that if Bar tender says now you gotta move your fanny out of the bar that means you gotta go. You will not argue with the bartender like what happened in Jessica Lal case.
So don’t blame Guns for a problem created by Gun Control.
melissa Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 10:39 pmHi there I love your post
CHASIDY Says:
February 16th, 2010 at 8:03 amEarlier I thought differently, thanks for an explanation.