"India has launched a new handgun for women, named after a student who was gang-raped in Delhi in December 2012 and later died of her injuries. Officials say it will help women defend themselves, but critics say it's an insult to the victim's memory.

In his large office on Kanpur's Kalpi Road, Abdul Hameed, the general manager of the state-run Indian Ordnance Factory, shows me Nirbheek, the factory's tiniest gun.

"It's small, it's lightweight, it weighs only 500g [1.1lb], and it can easily fit into a lady's purse."

Hameed speaks enthusiastically about the .32-calibre revolver ...."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25727080

No, I don't like it at all.
Just like I wouldn't like men to be armed with personal guns 'just in case' they should come across someone who might want to kill them

While I feel very sorry for women in some countries who don't appear to have any rights at all, I doubt arming them with guns would help.

How easy would it then be for violent men, women and their children to get their hands on these guns then?
Imagine all the innocent people who could be shot dead, merely because the gun owner was frightened, or the gun got into the wrong hands?

Sounds like America all over again...

Ah! The old lay there and enjoy it or 'Think of England' response. (although in this case 'Think of India').
Rape appears to be inevitable so make it easier for the rapist?

Great Idea.

They should announce that over 5 million have been made & supplied to the ladies of India.

Even if not a single lady has one, it will stop a lot of cowardly would rapists before they ever start. Nothing like the fear of the lady possibly being armed, to cool their ardor, & desire for a bit of sport.

Hasbeen and Is Mise, I doubt the rapists will announce they are about to commit rape, giving the women time to get their little guns out and shoot them first, do you?

I would also imagine these women would be fair game for any bloke to overpower and TAKE their guns to use on the woman and/or for other criminal activities?

In any case, the whole idea is silly anyway.
Women in India would be the last people chosen to be given guns in such a poor country with a bad women's rights history.

Suseonline

Your 'logic' would exclude women in the police force or military from any job outside of routine office work.

Maybe you need to harden up Princess and accept that your view of women as simpering, defenceless fragile flowers, was never the case.

Many women do want to protect themselves and their loved ones just as men do. In Australia, women living in the country -and that was all of Australia outside of capital cities- always had guns and regarded them as usual, ordinary tools around the property.

There is no reason why women who can meet the standards of integrity and good character and are appropriately licensed shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves with a firearm. That is what is being proposed - as Suseonline will understand if she reads the linked article (OP).

Onthebeach, police and military women are trained in the use of guns.
Aren't we specifically discussing civilian Indian women in this discussion?

I also said I didn't think civilian men should carry guns for personal use either, so I'm not looking for another boring gender argument with you...

Suseonline, "Aren't we specifically discussing civilian Indian women in this discussion?"

How are they different from other women?

'Civilian' women are trained in the use of firearms too. You are talking about a nation that excels in international competition for starters.

The Indian women you deny the right to protect themselves would be properly licensed and trained. They are women of good reputation and character. Did you read this,

"Although work to develop a lighter gun for women began before the Delhi rape, the project was fast-tracked after the crime, which sparked protests nationwide. The 23-year-old was raped, tortured with an iron bar and thrown from a moving bus."

and this,

"The gun's launch has led Indians to debate whether carrying a gun makes a woman safer. Ram Krishna Chaturvedi, the chief of police for Kanpur and several nearby districts, thinks it does.

"It is definitely a good idea. If you have a licensed weapon, it increases your self-confidence and creates fear in the minds of criminals," she says.

Among those wanting to buy Nirbheek is Pratibha Gupta, a housewife and student in Kanpur. She says it is "too expensive" and the process of acquiring a licence is "cumbersome", but she believes that it will be empowering.

"If the person in front of me knows that I have a gun, he will hesitate to touch me, he will know that since she has a gun, she can use it too. The gun will be my supporter, my friend and my strength."

Suseonline,
You have proven for a long time now in many posts that you don't have any logic. Pistols are a great idea they'd do away with a; criminals & b; do away with a lot of wasteful paperwork & c; many incompetent/corrupt magistartes could be by-passed, saving not only a lot of public funding but also regain some law & order.

While this thread may, at best be a trap, from an author who has recently said hand gun laws are, well too controlling.
The thread screams for judicial action in another country.
India bound by its own cultural rope has become a raping culture.
That culture will confront other country,s and maybe the world all too soon.
Based on Bride dowry , many thousands of girl baby's are murdered before birth even after it.
Sons being the parents wish.
A simple fact not enough females exist for every man.
And as seeming lack of true concern for women in a country not long ago burning live wives on their dead husbands fire?
Far more than guns for women are needed in this country with one foot in the 21st century and the other in the dark ages.
Not to disappoint Is Mise and the gun lobby here.
Guns while no answer should be non sexist no difference should be seen.

Well said Belly.
More guns added to an already violent situation just makes for more violence.

India needs stricter laws re violence against women.
At present their poor women are considered mere possessions...

'At present their poor women are considered mere possessions... '

yep exactly just like in the West the secular in the promotion of porn consider women pure sex objects.

Arming people is the wrong approach. India's problem for centuries has been to ignore the problem of rape in their country with very little punishment doled out to rapists. This needs to change with stronger legislation and sentencing. One of the problems is attitudes to women and this is slowly changing and still needs work via education.

While there is some attraction to the idea under the awful circumstances women find themselves in India, bringing in universal gun ownership will only result in the same problems that are occurring in the United States.

The Indian Constitution confers on women the same rights as it does on men and one of those rights is the possession of arms for self defence.

If some of you see a trap in the OP then don't fall into it!

Dowry, bye the way, is illegal in India.

It is all very right for western feminists to root for more State control and presumably higher punishments as well, but where police on the spot such as Ram Krishna Chaturvedi, the chief of police for Kanpur and districts, sees deterrent value in the new invention then one has to sit up and listen.

The new pistol has been designed expressly for women. It fills a gap in the market. It overcomes unintentional discrimination, one could observe. It is low cost compared with others and doubtless trials have shown that women can handle it effectively.

The new women's pistol is far more bang than business. A .22Mag would be superior. That fact alone underlines the strong focus on deterrence, not killing.

It gives women confidence to go out and the ability to stand back or be up close and make some real noise with a hint of bite to deter attackers. That is the real point of it and that is what is not being understood by smug western feminists who are comfy in their middle class suburbs, making up rules at a distance for other women to live by, or more likely die by.

Who is making up rules for India? I thought we were just giving opinions.

However I see this topic hasn't stopped privileged Conservative white people from pushing a gun agenda and using the situation in India to their cause.

While I disagree with the premise that guns are the answer, on a positive note, at least the topic wasn't met with the usual - she deserved it - rhetoric or the why are men always portrayed in a bad light that sometimes ensues. So thank you for that at least.

Pelican,

If guns are not the answer then what is the answer?

Be your self Susionline, that is your right always, ignore the insults.
Indy you disappoint me, well in truth you should consider your words.
I think we must consider if this thread is showing concern for India's women [by the way Dowry's are huge and still paid] or is it a further attempt to support an extremist and minority view on gun ownership.
Law must prevent these rapes and punish those guilty.
As my efforts are mainstream and I will never call for street justice it is best I leave this thread
I however leave this thought can any one say a gun would stop rape, or could it be taken and used to kill the victim.
See posters in a thread that allows other views

Is Mise
The answer is a number of things including adherence to the Rule of Law with approrpriate punishment, education and reduction of poverty. These will help reduce class structures as well which are a hangover from the old caste system. All these things contribute in India's case to the status quo.

As with all crime, there will never be eradication of rape. Even western democracies have not been successful with that as human nature will throw up a few bad eggs. All that can be achieved is to ensure justice is done.

Guns have not eradicated rape in the USA and in fact the availability of guns increases the level of violence.

Pelican,

All well and good and how long would your measures take to reduce the level of rape in India?

Two years? Ten? Twenty?

How would you suggest that Indian women avoid rape in the meantime as you rule out the only practical means of the weaker overcoming the stronger?

There is anecdotal evidence that rape has dropped in the USA following the introduction of concealed carry laws.
See:http://www.catb.org/esr/guns/point-blank-summary.html for some well reasoned argument.

Good to hear from you Pelican : )

Although it seems like we are always continually flogging the 'arm them all' call from gun lobby enthusiasts in many different threads, I will still always stand up and argue with this thread's resident would be cowboys.

Yee hah! Shoot-em-up good now y'all :)

Hi Suse
There are some things that are worth re-evaluating from time to time, however for me this is not one of them. Although I do understand the thought process, but in the end I reckon universal gun ownership creates more problems and increases violence one way or another.

Hi there Folks...

Wow, this is a tough one ? While I've always held a strong view that women MUST be protected from any of these predatory cowardly men, I do wonder whether it's a good practice to unilaterally permit women to carry a pistol, albeit a small .32 calibre SLP ?

All would need to be thoroughly trained, and regularly re-trained in order that they don't have serious accidents or other misadventure through lack of training or concentration.

However, I suggest a strong case might be made for allowing women to carry a pistol, anywhere in the Sub-Continent, such is the apparent prevalence of violent incidences against women and girls ?

I'm not sure whether such a practice would or should be condoned here in Oz, and I do realise we've been down that track previously, ad nauseam ?

India and the sub continent have rape and violence towards women as a national pastime just the same as rape and subjugation are the male sport in Muslim countries.
Guns or no guns you are not going to stop it.

Perhaps not Chriss, but I'm all for giving women a chance to defend themselves, no matter which country they are in.

pelican, "I reckon universal gun ownership creates more problems and increases violence one way or another"

No-one is recommending "universal gun ownership". What you and others are doing however is denying a deterrent and self-defence to women with the excellent character and clean record who can qualify for a firearms licence and complete the requisite instruction.

To be blunt, you deny good citizens a defence against criminals. The criminals however get to use whatever weapons they choose AND are assured that the good citizens they target are unarmed and defenceless.

Who are you to make other women's choices for them? If you cannot pass the hoops to qualify for a licence or don't want one anyhow, so be it, but you do not have the right to require other women to do the same.

No-one here has managed to dispel the arguments of police chiefs, government and the women themselves in India that women who are can qualify for the licence should be allowed to defend themselves. Honestly now, what evidence do you have that such women are going to commit crime with their tool of self-defence? It is ludicrous to claim there will be more crime. How?

As long as there are crapheads & morons with criminal minds we need to focus on the crapheads & morons in authority to do their job. If they can't protect anyone then anyone must be permitted to protect themselves.

"It is ludicrous to claim there will be more crime. How?"

Its easy to imagine those who decide that the risk to their personal safety is high enough to warrant carrying a gun being a little trigger happy if the right mix of unfortunate circumstances arises.

Which of the men supporting guns for self defence wants to be the man who happens be walking behind a woman carrying a gun who has had a recent fright over her safety and then find's herself feeling threatened in a place where she may be a bit more alarmed than ususal?

It's not an easy balance but preemptive execution of innocents based on a bad feeling would seem to be a real risk.

R0bert

I don't and wouldn't feel alarmed; I have frequently walked behind armed women that I didn't know at all, complete strangers, never been worried one little bit.

R0bert,
You're expressing legitimate concerns however, this can be easiliy dealt with simply by the introduction of a National Service for everyone from age 19 to 21. Once people have experienced discipline & have been exposed to the phenomenon of responsibility they will then appreciate the new-found mentality that is common sense & react totally different to the average 21 year old now. We'd simply have a better society and, as the weeding out of educated spoilt morons gains pace, everything will fall into place. Just as stupidity easily snowballs so does a healthy mentality & an appreciation of the privilege of being better human beings..

RObert, "Its easy to imagine those who decide that the risk to their personal safety is high enough to warrant carrying a gun being a little trigger happy if the right mix of unfortunate circumstances arises"

The crime would be lower through deterrent effect on likely offenders.

There is nothing to suggest that the sort of person who can qualify for a licence would ever be "trigger happy". Realistically you would forecast the opposite, that they would be cautious and reticent to use force.

I don't believe there is any instance where gun ownership has reduced crime.

Look at the figures for Australia during WW II, the country was awash with guns and the crime level was very low; there may of course be no correlation.

Or look at that old favorite the town of Kennesaw, Georgia.

"Gun law.
The town is noted for its unusual gun legislation. In 1982 the city passed an ordinance.

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm.
Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

Gun rights activist David Kopel stated that there is evidence that this gun law has reduced the incident rate of home burglaries citing that in the first year, home burglaries dropped from 65 before the ordinance, down to 26 in 1983, and to 11 in 1984.
The overall crime rate had decreased by more than 50% between 1982 and 2005.
Another report observed a noticeable reduction in burglary from 1981, the year before the ordinance was passed, to 1999.
A 2001 media report stated that Kennesaw's crime rates continued to decline and were well below the national average, making citizens feel safer and more secure.
Later research stated that there is no evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home burglaries [in Kennesaw],
The city's website says that the city has the lowest crime rate in Cobb county.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

Shadow Minister and others,

You may like to look at this site, definite reduction in criminals and hence crime.
http://www.deadthugs.com/gun-fight-in-the-parking-lot.html

WARNING: Graphic crime scene photos.

A fitting end to a piece of garbage.

Another good one.
http://www.deadthugs.com/registered-sex-offender-killed-by-handgun-carry-permit-holder.html

chrisgaff1000
From my understanding, you are spot on. Unfortunately I dont think attitudes toward women in these countries will ever change. The idea to offer these women a means of self protection, against the rapist men in her community, could possibly lead to more harm than good.
For one of these down trodden women to be seen showing defiance, would go against grain. And if the situation arose, the offender was shot, be he stranger, acquaintance or relative the punishment she may have to endure could be permanent disfigurement.

jodelie,

What of those sections of Indian society which are matriarchal, where women are the heads of households?

There are already armed women in India and we never hear of any of them being raped or otherwise molested.

There are many formidable Indian women, one only has to mistakenly enter a "Women Only" carriage on a suburban train in Mumbai to meet some of them!

Is mise. Good to learn something positive. Im sure there are some wonderful women in these areas of India you mention. They must be further developed areas, and the women who are already strong no doubt would be enjoying their new opportunities and self sufficiency. And of course their concealed companion.

Those not so lucky, still suffering women, (where unfortunately ancient rules and beliefs still reign)should be blessed with the gift to self protect. They remain very vulnerable, so to have in their possession this tool, for once they may feel slightly empowered, new feeling of safety. A new beginning.

For their sakes also it must be condoned by the law, so there can be no chance of criminal charges for possession. Or in the unfortunate event she is required to discharge the gun for intended reasons, resulting in injury or death of the attacker, the incident is deemed justified and and a non offense

I don't think there are easy answers to the issue. Fundamentally I think people should have the right to defend themselves with whatever force it takes but with that goes an obligation to get it right each and every time regardless of the circumstances. One person's being confused or frightened does not give the right to carry out capital punishment against another.

As an example Oscar Pistorius's defence that he was confused when he shot his girlfriend should weigh heavily on our minds when we thing about people having guns to defend themselves. I doubt his version of events is true however even if it was does it really mitigate the taking of an innocent life.

A system that provides legal protection for the use of deadly force without absolute proof that the threat was real is not a viable option. I suspect that the situations where the certainty of assault combined with the opportunity to access and use a concealed gun during assaults outside the home would be very rare.

R0bert

Robert. I agree this is not an easy one.
I think the initial heading 'Women specific pistols' followed by the reference- Indian women, does suggest an isolated group. Certainly not being offered willy nilly.
These women are essentially strong, and have experienced many of the real hardships of life. There vulnerability lies at the hands of the men in their community.
These men who believe it is still their earthly right to possess, and treat these women however they desire as something disposable.
So all I can see is, offer the girls the means to protect themselves, or somehow dispel the deep seeded rules and beliefs that define these men....

Dear RObert,

Wise words and I would have agreed with you
one hundred percent in the past. Now I'm beginning
to have some doubts since I recently saw a program
dealing with the raping of women in India. It apparently
is a very horrendous problem and in certain areas women
are forming self-defence clubs, learning martial arts,
and going out in groups instead of alone. I've always
been against the use of guns, having lived in the US
for many years. But in a place like India, where women
are deliberately targeted so viciously - perhaps we need
to re-think the solutions to this problem. At least being
armed, the woman if attacked will take some of those
bas**rds with her.

RObert, "A system that provides legal protection for the use of deadly force without absolute proof that the threat was real is not a viable option"

If only you could convince the criminals of that.

The burning issue is why should a victim be subjected to the obviously unfair reversed standard of proof in the case of self defence? In all jurisdictions in Australia excepting NSW a reversed standard of proof re-victimises the victim. Why?

A rape victim who defends herself and injures her attacker, even if she herself was injured in addition to the disgusting rape, is still subjected to the infamous and patently unfair reversed standard of proof. She is interrogated, may be held in a cell and will be required to justify her act of self defence in court. The police and police prosecutor hold all of the cards.

That tells women they must always give in to rape.

The only difference with India is in the frequency of rape. At least in India women are allowed (!) to defend themselves. The problem has been the availability and cost of an effective deterrent. That is now solved for many. Of course the attackers do not know which women have the means for self defence, which is a very effective deterrent for all women.

I am interested in why you would deny all Australians the changes to NSW law that removed the despicable reversed standard of proof for self defence? What possible deficiencies do you find in the NSW legislation? If you are worried about 'excessive self defence' that is not possible because self defence must stop where the attacker gives up his attack, is subdued or takes flight. The criminal still retains the safety that he denies to his victim.

I should have added that it was Greens' Lee Rhiannon and the NSW Greens who opposed the reinstatement of the right to self defence in NSW. Rhiannon said at the time, "The Greens believe it is outrageous that the test is how the defendant perceives the situation rather than an objective assessment of the overall circumstances."

Tell that to a women who is confronted in her home by a thug who is telling her that she will die along with her watching children if she doesn't submit to rape. She will likely die anyhow to conceal the crime. Only in NSW is the onus on the police and police prosecutor to prove that she (and her infants) wasn't in fear of injury. As Lee Rhiannon and the Greens would have it, the rape victim would be subjected to police interrogation, a cell and serious charges herself in court, while being required to prove via the reversed onus of proof, that her act of self defence was reasonable under the circumstances. That is,

- could she have thrown her children and herself out of the window to escape?

- how could she be sure that he meant to harm her, maybe he was only making a threat and his fly was open by chance.

- could she have made it to the phone in the bedroom and waited for 'quick acting' police etc etc?

Only the Greens would contemplate continuing unfair law that re-victimises the victim through reversed onus of proof. Was she really in fear? Did she really have to hold that weapon (bread knife) in front of her? Did her 'dangerous' dog really have to bite the criminal? Come off the grass, Greens!

onthebeach, firstly I can't speak credibly to the situation in India. I've never been there and the Indian's I know well enough to comment on tend to be well educated and decent people. Eg my views are largely centred in our own culture and life experience.

I doubt that Individuals desire for forced national service will ever get up and based on what I've seen of those who have done military service I'm less than confident that it would reliably impart the kind of values that would prevent misuse of concealed weapons.

I also have serious doubts that any government screening program charged with issuing licenses to women to protect themselves would not become corrupted by those with an agenda. Government rarely does that stuff well.

I'm thinking about about the kind of rules I'd be willing to have in place before someone could legally open fire on me as I was going about my life. Eg a feeling of being threatened does not in my view constitute a valid reason to kill me.

I've read of abuses where those who were clearly defending themselves were put through hell by the law - an intruder coming through their window at night with a weapon in my view counts as a pretty clear threat.

A male who happens to be walking through the same poorly lit car park at night as a woman who has recently had a personal safety fright does not constitute a proven threat. For concealed weapons to be used without significant personal risk they would generally need to be used before the perceived threat turned to reality. By the time the threat is proven to be certain the risk is that the attacker is close enough to take that same weapon by force.

The idea of those claiming to have been defending themselves carrying a burden of proof is troublesome but not in my view as troublesome as giving those who feel threatened (real or not) a license to kill with few questions asked.

R0bert

RObert,

OK, we will leave India out of it.

I am not sure why you believe that military service would impart values that would deter a person from committing a crime. As I recall and somewhat vividly, the military teaches soldiers to kill. Their weapons are just that, weapons. Whereas the many thousands of Aussies with firearms licences see their firearms as just that, firearms. The difference is real and the gap enormous.

All that can be said is that it isn't the simple tool, be it fists, knife, blunt object, gun, or whatever, or its availability that causes them to commit a crime. Their choice to offend and choice of tools required is a secondary consideration. It is the person not the tool.

I would be happy to be surrounded by neighbours with firearms licences. Because they are police certified through all manner of checks, history and personal reference, to be law-abiding citizens. They must remain so or lose the licence. But they would never offend anyway. Can you see the paradox?

As an aside, I do not understand how anyone can believe that allowing duly licensed and trained LAFOs the protection of their firearms for defence in their home would somehow cause them to act differently and commit crimes. If they wanted to commit crimes or were were likely to act irrationally with a firearm they could do that already. Such people cannot get a licence anyway. But any criminally inclined can still choose their weapon and get a gun. They don't need licences. Another paradox. In any event it is all irrelevant, a strawman argument when applied to me, because it isn't what I have been talking about or suggesting.

All I am concerned about as an Australian is removing the ridiculously unfair reversed onus of proof that is applied to those who defend themselves and their loved ones from an attacker, especially in a home invasion. I am not talking about using firearms. That is irrelevant and has no bearing on the subject at all.

Onthebeach the topic was about women specific pistols for self defense. Admittedly the firearms being discussed are in India which I've diverged from because I just don't have the background knowledge of what actually happens there to make informed comment and I think some of the issues can be generalised. Concealed firearms carried in public seem to be at the heart of the issue rather than irrelevant. I've seen too many lies, half truths etc in reporting of gender issues here to be confident that we are getting the full story about what happens in India BTW.

I'm quite in favor of people being able to do whatever it takes to defend themselves from a home invader, the concept of reasonable force is in my view a nonsense when faced with an assailant of unknown capabilities initiating a crime.

My concern is the gray areas's, some peoples idea of self defence can be a lot more pre-emptive than I'd count as self defense or just be an escalation of a fight they initiated. I'm not confident that Indian men who are not rapists deserve to get shot because someone else was frightened to tie it back to the topic.

In regard to my comment about national service it was an attempt to address Individuals earlier point about national service reducing the risks I've raised.

People should be able to defend themselves but making preemptive or just plain wrong judgments about a situation should not excuse them from their actions. Shoting someone down without clear proof that genuine and serious threat existed because you were scared should not come attached with a stay out of jail card.

R0bert