Nina ji, I think the only solution is to reduce the number of guns in circulation, that includes military and law enforcement; there's no need for them to have access to certain firearms when the rest of us don't. Guns aren't going anywhere unless this happens.

And I don't think there's a "Sikh stance on gun control", nor does there need to be one. Fear is making us believe that collective responses are necessary, but fear also seems to decide whether Sikhs take a stand on certain issues or not, this is why we feel the need to continuously make statements on how we're peaceful or non-violent, even after we're the ones being shot at in our gurdwareh.

What do we mean by gun control? Would that include law enforcement agencies or just civilians? If it's the latter, I can understand why many Sikhs aren't speaking out. Through their experiences, they have little reason to believe that governments and their agencies will always work in the interests of the people.

Sikhs relying on the government for protection is a fairly recent phenomenon.

Clarification: I'm not belittling the Khalsa code, nor would I ever, but I also don't believe Guru Sahib went through all those hardships only to preserve a particular dress-code. Now I don't think that's what you meant, but that's what you've written.

I'm addressing a human condition that looks primarily for an external manifestation of some sort in order to determine an individual's commitment, or intentions. Gurbani warns us of such presumptions.

Personally, I've interpreted this campaign as a public display of defiance against hate, which I believe is very much in line with the Khalsa spirit. I was inspired to see someone in the community step up to the plate and attempt to make an impact even though he didn't need to, nor did anyone expect him to. I actually expected other well-know, well-to-do privileged Sikhs to take charge, but they're nowhere to be found.

Now I must mention the elephant in the room; I wonder if he would've gotten less criticism and more support from the community had he been someone who merely carried the so-called "Sikh look". In fact, I'm sure that would've been the case, which is quite sad. If it was a Waris Ahluwalia or a Fauja Singh, the praises and support would be endless.

Nina, my comment about getting on the field was not directed specifically towards you but to the community as a whole, so I apologize if it came off that way. Most of us believe our opinion holds weight, or that we have the right to provide critique, and in essence we do, but what are we willing to do in order for our opinion to take form or for our critique to be implemented? That is what I mean by getting on the field; not in the game you and I are already playing and enjoying, but in the game we see many flaws in. Critical commentary alone is easy, and there's no shortage of people in the community who are providing it.

Also, in the past, our approach has primarily been critique and "shut down shop" rather than critique and develop a solid, implementable alternative. The Singh Sabhayai were the last ones to provide an alternative, and we've been running with their model ever since.

The inability to measure the impact of such a campaign is mentioned, but this entire article seems like an attempt to do just that. Unfortunately, the method of measure are mere opinions, which doesn't cut it.

I know it's difficult to stop a practice our community has become a pro at, but if what someone has chosen to do seems inadequate; then get on the field, don't complain about the game from the sidelines.

The battle needs to be fought on all fronts. That's what we lacked in '47, '66, and '84; lets not make the same mistakes again.