John Lott notes that the state’s monopoly of force works well at disarming law-abiding citizens, only to leave them defenseless in emergencies. Today’s mass shooting incidents could never have occurred in the pre-Gun Control era in America, when ordinary citizens were routinely armed.
In India, victims watched as armed police cowered and didnâ€™t fire back at the terrorists. A photographer at the scene described his frustration: â€œThere were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything. At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, â€˜Shoot them, theyâ€™re sitting ducks!â€™ but they just didnâ€™t shoot back.â€
Meanwhile, according to the hotel companyâ€™s chairman, P.R.S. Oberoi, security at â€œthe hotel had metal detectors, but none of its security personnel carried weapons because of the difficulties in obtaining gun permits from the Indian government.â€
India has extremely strict gun control laws, but who did it succeed in disarming?
The terrorist attack showed how difficult it is to disarm serious terrorists. Strict licensing rules meant that it was the victims who obeyed the regulations, not the terrorists.