According to Sebastian D’Souza, a Mumbai photographer, armed police refused to engage with the terrorists in India. And the world receives another example that one’s safety is one’s own responsibility. Relying on other to provide security is a sure-fire (pun intended) way to become a statistic.
India has a long history of draconian anti-gun legislation, stretching back into the 19th century. The British managed to put down a major Indian insurrection in 1857, and quickly moved to ensure it did not occur again. The Indian masses were systematically disarmed and means of firearm production were destroyed, so that the Indians could never rise against their colonial masters again.
The Indian Arms Act, 1878 (11 of 1878), from which Europeans were exempted, ensured that no Indian could possess a weapon of any sort unless he were determined to be a loyal citizen of the Empire by the British.
A dozen years after India achieved independence, this act was finally repealed, but it was replaced with another that showed the Indian government’s distrust of its citizens. The Arms Rules, 1962 worked through vast, arbitrary rules given to “Licensing Authorities” which ensured that ordinary, law-abiding citizens had virtually no way to achieve a firearm.
In the mid-80’s, the Indian government, citing domestic insurgency, put a complete end to all small arms imports. Finding actual incidents of domestic insurgency is impossible, but no matter. Pricing on firearms has spiraled upwards ever since, further ensuring a society with almost no firearms.
Except when as few as ten well trained and well armed gunman come into a city by inflatable dingy. Because they were the only ones with guns, except for a police force that wouldn’t engage, as many as three hundred people may be dead.
Does anyone doubt that a properly armed populace might have put this down quickly?