Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If only she had had a gun...oh wait!
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/01/17/263376862/india-unveils-handgun-for-women-after-much-publicized-rapes

India Unveils Handgun For Women After Much-Publicized Rapes
by Krishnadev Calamur

Indians participated in a candlelight vigil last month to mark the anniversary of the death of a young woman who was gang raped and murdered in New Delhi. Indian media dubbed the woman "Nirbhaya," or fearless. Now, after other high-profile rapes in the country, India has unveiled a handgun for women.
Tsering Topgyal/AP There's been a steady stream of stories over the past year about the rapes of women in India. Now, Indian officials have unveiled a gun they say women can use to protect themselves.

The .32-caliber revolver is called Nirbheek, for the victim of a December 2012 gang rape and murder aboard a bus in New Delhi. Indian law forbids the identification of rape victims, and the Indian media called her "Nirbhaya," which means fearless.

"After the gang-rape incident, our researchers were working on a revolver which is very light and can be carried by women in their purses or small handbags," Abdul Hamid, the general manager of the Indian Ordnance Factory in Kanpur, told the semi-official Press Trust of India news agency.
Hamid said there have already been 20 orders for the lightweight weapon that's made of titanium alloy. He said the gun, which will be delivered in a special ornamental box, also will be sold to men. Here's how The Times of India reported on it:
"Described by arms experts as an Indian hybrid of a Webley & Scott and Smith & Wesson, for its simple mechanism and light frame, it is the smallest revolver made in India — an ideal to fit a purse or a small hand bag."

Civilian ownership of firearms in India is relatively uncommon, mainly because of the cost of weapons as well as onerous licensing requirements. Indeed, the Nirbheek is priced at nearly $2,000, in a country where the per capita income is about $1,500 (purchasing power parity is $3,608).
The Geneva-based Small Arms Survey, in its 2011 report, estimated that there were about 46 million civilian firearms in India. It's the second-highest number of civilian firarms in the world. By contrast, there were 270 million civilian firearms in the U.S., the top-ranked country. But India has more than 1 billion people, and the survey estimates that there are 4 civilian firearms per 100 residents. (In the U.S., by contrast, there are 89 per 100 residents.)
Still, the Times of India notes that the marketing of a weapon to women in Uttar Pradesh state, where Kanpur is located, shouldn't be surprising. Here's more:
"In a state where government offers arms licences as incentive to achieve wheat procurement and immunization targets, it is not surprising that a total of 11,22,814 persons have licensed arms as per the state home department records. This is over four times the count of firearms available with the Uttar Pradesh Police. ... Hence a ready market already seems in place for Nirbheek."

Reaction to the gun, which was unveiled Jan. 9, has been mixed.
"Once a target of rape whips out a handgun, the element of surprise is sure to scare the life out of most of the persons who attempt rape," Arun Kumar, a senior police officer in the state, told the newspaper. "In most of criminal cases in India, the perpetrator, irrespective of whether armed or not, neither expects nor faces any stiff resistance from the target. Women carrying small handguns will surely make a difference to the tendency."
But Shalini Seth, a medical executive, told the newspaper that carrying a gun is unlikely to help a woman who is being attacked.
"There is nothing they can do to a woman with a gun that they cannot to one without," she said.

Yeah, cause this will fix the problem.

This reminds me of that special condom with the hooked egdes facing inwards. It doesnt adress the root of the problem and says to women it is their duty to make sure they dont get raped. While you cant always stop idiots, making a gun and saying it will solve it is just stupid. You need t address the root of problems.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
This reminds me of that special condom with the hooked egdes facing inwards. It doesnt adress the root of the problem and says to women it is their duty to make sure they dont get raped. While you cant always stop idiots, making a gun and saying it will solve it is just stupid. You need t address the root of problems.

Well with good aiming is might address the root of up to six problems.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It doesnt adress the root of the problem and says to women it is their duty to make sure they dont get raped.

Despite what Jezebel would like you to believe, no, it doesn't. Following that rationale, every defensive measure ever taken by anyone is some sort of convoluted way of justifying the acts of the aggressor. It just isn't.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It doesnt adress the root of the problem and says to women it is their duty to make sure they dont get raped.

Despite what Jezebel would like you to believe, no, it doesn't. Following that rationale, every defensive measure ever taken by anyone is some sort of convoluted way of justifying the acts of the aggressor. It just isn't.

First I agree with Sebster, now I agree with Kovnik, what is the world coming to?

Agreed, it doesn't solve the root of the problem, but its better to not get raped in the meantime while the culture changes. I don't think its more noble to let yourself be a victim. A cultural change like that will take a lot of time and hopefully this kind of measure won't be needed in the future.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It doesnt adress the root of the problem and says to women it is their duty to make sure they dont get raped.

Despite what Jezebel would like you to believe, no, it doesn't. Following that rationale, every defensive measure ever taken by anyone is some sort of convoluted way of justifying the acts of the aggressor. It just isn't.

First I agree with Sebster, now I agree with Kovnik, what is the world coming to?

Enlightenment!

Im confused. What are you saying? Im saying that while being armed is good, thinking them just having a gun will stop rape is stupid and they need to work on changing the culture

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It doesnt adress the root of the problem and says to women it is their duty to make sure they dont get raped.

Despite what Jezebel would like you to believe, no, it doesn't. Following that rationale, every defensive measure ever taken by anyone is some sort of convoluted way of justifying the acts of the aggressor. It just isn't.

Actually, I think you're saying the same thing as hotsauce. The way I read it, he's saying that the government in unveiling this new product is telling the victims that it is their job to not be a victim, that somehow it's still their fault the actions of depraved individuals destroys their lives.


I think that obviously, where any sort of sexual assault has happened, the way to correct it is not to tell potential victims "dont put yourself in that situation", but rather it's to say "take care of each other, watch out, and protect your friends from being either the victim or even the perpetrator" that means for most people, they need to get out of their comfort zone and step into a situation that may result in an assault, rape or even murder.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Actually, I think you're saying the same thing as hotsauce. The way I read it, he's saying that the government in unveiling this new product is telling the victims that it is their job to not be a victim, that somehow it's still their fault the actions of depraved individuals destroys their lives.

Are you talking about the handgun or the dick-mangler? Because the dick-mangler was a product designed and sold by a private entity, and from what I can read in this article, so is this new handgun. There's no ''governmental paternalism'' angle to either those stories. And as far as I've read, no one has said something to the effect that ''thanks to those product, rape is now a thing of the past. As long as women have their purse handgun and dick-mangler, that is.''

The only one saying that these things put the responsibility on women are the few but vocal pseudo-feminists who seems to fail to understand the concept of responsibility.

I think that obviously, where any sort of sexual assault has happened, the way to correct it is not to tell potential victims "dont put yourself in that situation", but rather it's to say "take care of each other, watch out, and protect your friends from being either the victim or even the perpetrator" that means for most people, they need to get out of their comfort zone and step into a situation that may result in an assault, rape or even murder.

If something can be pointed out in the behaviour of the victim of a sexual assault that could, if corrected, lower her chance of ever being a victim again, then, by all means, you should point it out. The problem is that the things people traditionnaly point out in those situations are based on moral jugdgement and not on a proper assessment of the risk involved. Being dressed a certain way doesn't seem to change the likelyhood of being assaulted, so ''Don't dress like a hoe" is a stupid remark.

On the contrary, if you know a woman who constantly comes back from the same bar very drunk, very late, alone, in a seedy neighbourhood, you may want to tell her to get the habit of taking a cab, or to get a friend to accompany her, and that, preferably before she gets assaulted.

And, the important part is, at no point in time do you make her responsable for her potential rape. Teaching someone to defend themselves doesn't invite others to attack him or her.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

If something can be pointed out in the behaviour of the victim of a sexual assault that could, if corrected, lower her chance of ever being a victim again, then, by all means, you should point it out. The problem is that the things people traditionnaly point out in those situations are based on moral jugdgement and not on a proper assessment of the risk involved. Being dressed a certain way doesn't seem to change the likelyhood of being assaulted, so ''Don't dress like a hoe" is a stupid remark.

On the contrary, if you know a woman who constantly comes back from the same bar very drunk, very late, alone, in a seedy neighbourhood, you may want to tell her to get the habit of taking a cab, or to get a friend to accompany her, and that, preferably before she gets assaulted.

And, the important part is, at no point in time do you make her responsable for her potential rape. Teaching someone to defend themselves doesn't invite others to attack him or her.

What I'm getting at is basically what the US Army is now teaching its troops... Basically, if you are at the bar/club with a group of mates, and one of the guys is getting one girl a LOT of drinks, like she's stumbling around, blackout drunk, but he isn't then it's your job to cut them off... Basically, get her a cab home with a gf, or someone you REALLY REALLY trust. That sort of prevention. (as a huge majority of assaults involve people who know each other, or are intimately involved, and alcohol)


And it seemed as though the marketing behind the revolver in the OP, by naming it after a victim of rape is targeting those who are most likely to be targets of sexual assault/rape. That to me, says that women will be better off using that as a deterrent. Ultimately, the best deterrent is in choosing good friends, combined with paying attention and making good choices to make yourself less of a target.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Enlightenment!

Or maybe a broken clock is right twice a day

I like the motivation behind the idea, but the gun itself sounds a bit crap.

Are women so pathetic that they can't use pistols made for men, they need to have specially designed nonsense that costs more than they make in a year? You'd imagine in a poverty stricken cesspool like India, illegal arms would be floating all over the place for people to 'protect' themselves with.

The motivation is earnest, but without proper training, it won't amount to anything. Simply displaying a gun is not enough to deter a lot of people, especially if the person wielding it doesn't seem at all capable of using it correctly.

 Captain Fantastic wrote:
Are women so pathetic that they can't use pistols made for men, they need to have specially designed [firearms]

In a word: yes. On average, women have smaller hands so they need smaller grips to hold and control the weapon comfortably. They also lack arm strength which affects recoil control (probably why this is chambered for .32 and not the popular .40 S&W cartridge) and the general operation of a pistol. I discovered this years ago when I took my mother to buy a home defense weapon. She wanted a Glock because she watches too many movies. The guy behind the counter handed her one and told her to rack the slide on it. She couldn't. So she bought a .357 Magnum S&W and shoots .38 Special +P rounds.

Still useless, IMO, because she hasn't once taken the time to go to the range. Marksmanship being a perishable skill and all that, I have no confidence in her ability to hit a home invader in the dark of the night. I'm going to try to convince her to get a shotgun next month -- if racking the slide on that doesn't scare someone away, at least she stands a better chance of hitting the guy just by pointing it in his direction and pulling the trigger.

 Noble713 wrote:

 Captain Fantastic wrote:
Are women so pathetic that they can't use pistols made for men, they need to have specially designed [firearms]

In a word: yes. On average, women have smaller hands so they need smaller grips to hold and control the weapon comfortably. They also lack arm strength which affects recoil control (probably why this is chambered for .32 and not the popular .40 S&W cartridge) and the general operation of a pistol.

I'll have to see if I can find it, but this really is a myth. Women shouldn't ever be told "you need this size gun" and there was an article floating around out there that took 5 relatively new to guns women put them on a range with 5 or 6 fairly popular guns, 2 of which were marketed specifically to women. In a nutshell, they all enjoyed the 1911 the most, felt more accurate with a Sig, and most felt the most comfort with it as well. The ones that were made specifically "for" women were all near or at the bottom of the list for almost all the categories they were asked to grade the weapons on. This whole notion that women need special, smaller guns simply because they are "frail and weak" is total BS, and when going to a gun store, any shop clerk who suggests the same, you should just walk out on. If your lady person (mother, wife, gf, etc.) goes in, and asks to see a Desert Eagle and she cant handle the slide, and THEN the shop guy goes a bit smaller (not PPK small, but maybe 1911 small) and works with her until she finds a good firearm that she can handle and operate safely and effectively, that's the shop and firearm you want her to have.

My concern is women buying handguns but not getting the training to use them. Indian women are culturally conditioned to be submissive and/or passive by nature. I just see a whole lot of problems with the "give them a gun" proposal.

 Breotan wrote:
My concern is women buying handguns but not getting the training to use them. Indian women are culturally conditioned to be submissive and/or passive by nature. I just see a whole lot of problems with the "give them a gun" proposal.

This is also true. I mean, there really isn't a one solution to fix all problems here. For India, it's got to be a cultural change, which involve many, many things happening.

I'm always amazed what husbands will pay just to get a gun their wives hands. I had a neighbor who was a pretty big gun guy, and turned out his wife liked the P226 and 40 FNPs more than anything else she got to fire (I don't really know what else she tried). He reluctantly bought her the FNP, and I think he's counting down the days until he can just nab it from her.

My mother has a Glock 21 in the glove compartment of her car, I believe. She liked the aesthetics of it; the angular, boxy slide, and the magazines when she got it. She was in the Navy back in the day, and was boatswain at that, so she has some training though. It's weird to think about someone provoking her enough for her to actually use it.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Noble713 wrote:

 Captain Fantastic wrote:
Are women so pathetic that they can't use pistols made for men, they need to have specially designed [firearms]

In a word: yes. On average, women have smaller hands so they need smaller grips to hold and control the weapon comfortably. They also lack arm strength which affects recoil control (probably why this is chambered for .32 and not the popular .40 S&W cartridge) and the general operation of a pistol.

I'll have to see if I can find it, but this really is a myth. Women shouldn't ever be told "you need this size gun" and there was an article floating around out there that took 5 relatively new to guns women put them on a range with 5 or 6 fairly popular guns, 2 of which were marketed specifically to women. In a nutshell, they all enjoyed the 1911 the most, felt more accurate with a Sig, and most felt the most comfort with it as well. The ones that were made specifically "for" women were all near or at the bottom of the list for almost all the categories they were asked to grade the weapons on. This whole notion that women need special, smaller guns simply because they are "frail and weak" is total BS, and when going to a gun store, any shop clerk who suggests the same, you should just walk out on. If your lady person (mother, wife, gf, etc.) goes in, and asks to see a Desert Eagle and she cant handle the slide, and THEN the shop guy goes a bit smaller (not PPK small, but maybe 1911 small) and works with her until she finds a good firearm that she can handle and operate safely and effectively, that's the shop and firearm you want her to have.

Agreed. A woman is not some small, weak, and frail creature who cannot handle a "big boy" gun. I've seen preteen kids handle handguns in some of the larger calibers with no problem, so if you think the average full grown adult woman is weaker than the average tween, you're wrong.