Who is disadvantageous civil short-haired?
"It is better to die standing than live on your knees."
Dolores Ibarruri, Spanish anti-fascist
Dolores Ibarruri, Spanish anti-fascist
In disputes with supporters of short-bar legalization, their opponents are often taken to reason on the topic "who benefits." In this case, they begin to accuse their opponents indiscriminately of being “paid agents” of powerful businessmen who are allegedly interested in “gigantic” profits lurking in the production and sale of a civilian short-haul. At the same time, it is completely useless for them to point out that no one else receives any special benefits anywhere in the world from the sale of civilian riflemen, that this is mainly small and medium-sized business in commerce, and all world production amounts to no more than 200-300 million. year. At the same time, Facebook, which actively opposes civil weapons, receives up to 9 billion dollars (!) of profit per year. Yes, I would very much like to have a strong arms lobby in Russia, but given our tax system, the credit system and the bureaucratic press, we must have entrepreneurial idealism, turning into a specific idiocy to give money to push the legalization of the short-term bank to pay back their production and sale permitted pistols. However, do not go to the fortuneteller, and the opponents of legalization will dig like that about dealers and lobbies, not to be ashamed of them with facts and logic. That is what prompted me to the question: who is unprofitable for the legal presence of a civilian short-circuit for self-defense and the laws that would support this self-defense?
I divided these disadvantages into three types: economic, political, and moral-psychological. Economically legal weapons among citizens and the relevant laws, of course, criminality, including organized ones, is disadvantageous. You can’t especially plunder armed citizens, you won’t find racketeers for them. After all, who agrees to break into foreign territory and damage property on it, if you can shoot for it? In America, so at one time and strangled racketeering. Now there, even if you did not manage to catch and shoot those who came to smash and set fire to your workshop or shop, they will pay you for the damage in the expectation that if the gangsters come after that, you can still fight back them yourself or together with the police. That is why in America the racket is now only for those about whom they know that he himself is smeared, and the police, if anything, will not run and will not shoot back, so as not to get under a police investigation.
True, I will not argue that the ban on short-bartender is lobbying organized crime in our Duma and the government, like the American gangsters who had grown rich from illegal alcohol once tried to hinder the abolition of "dry law" in the United States. To such organizational and mental "heights" our gangsters do not soar. Supporters of short-barrels argue much about political disadvantage and passionately. How many words and convincing evidence has been and will be presented that our entire current political system is sharpened so that the citizens of Russia rely solely on the state, feeling themselves without help from orphaned absolutely in all areas! That the government and law enforcement agencies, the entire ruling stratum (the establishment!) Of Russia will simply be unable to interact with the citizens if they get the opportunity and learn to defend their honor and interests in the face of crime! After all, then it will fundamentally change the mentality of the Russians, and their demands for state administration will become so powerful that in its current form this state administration will simply go bankrupt. No matter how paradoxical it may sound, I would be sincerely glad if I found out that our government thinks that way. This would mean that it is able to approach the issue systematically and change its point of view under the pressure of changed circumstances. Convince them that the legal short-stay law and the laws on self-defense will only strengthen the state and increase the credibility of the government - you see, law-makers will want to take advantage of these amenities, especially since the Federal Guard Service has both saved and will save them. But, alas, our government on this topic either keeps silent and silences the media controlled by it, or mumbles something that even the cleverest of the hoplofobs for them is probably inconvenient. That is why the moral and psychological disadvantage comes first.
What kind of "horrors" do not list the hopophobes to justify their position: the criminals, they are all "supermen" and always more agile than armed citizens, and therefore with legal pistols such citizens will kill much more, and even begin to take these guns away, the children of the gun owners will massively shoot pistols of their parents, the murderers will start to lure people into their houses and kill with impunity under the pretext of protecting their homes, drunkards will arrange firefights on the streets and in taverns and so on and so on ad infinitum. Why all this does not happen in countries with a legal short-range, why is there less crime there than in unarmed countries? Hoplofobam is "to the lampad", they have just another goal. Unfortunately, it should be noted that in all the so-called civilized countries a large layer of tolerated and defeatists appeared long ago. And not only where it is specially cultivated, as, for example, in Russia, but also in those countries where there are no anti-weapon bans. For example, everything is allowed in Scandinavia, but a lot of “natives” voluntarily refuse civilian weapons and related rights, and local courts have already begun to condemn them for armed self-defense almost like in Russia, especially if the criminals who are injured are migrants. Why this phenomenon has arisen, the question is separate and very large, it has yet to be investigated in detail. But if you look at the psychology of hoplofobs, you can easily discern that, in essence, it is a shame to hoplofobs for the fact that they are such. No, they will never understand this and will not even recognize themselves, maybe they will be genuinely surprised at my conclusion, but all their behavior in disputes with us convincingly speaks in favor of my version. A normal person is created by nature to defend himself for life. It is to defend, and not to survive, to be saved by any, even the most base price! And in society, this upholding is expressed in the protection of their honor and dignity from humiliation. The greatest humiliation for a person is a crime against a person, no matter, against himself or against others, but before his eyes. And if a person voluntarily refuses, and even publicly, to assert himself, then in the presence of at least one dissenter he will be the primitive instinct to feel his shameful inferiority, along with all his peers, no matter how many of them are around. That is why the hoplofobs are so hysterical, so violently insist on their own and are fighting for anti-weapon bans, although it would seem that they have something to fear? If you really do not believe in yourself and do not wish to bear any personal responsibility for anything, for anyone! If you are against any risk, then please! As you went without guns before legalization, so go after it, no one will take them away from you, the children will not shoot them, and you will run into an armed scumbag, so stand in a pose of humility, satisfy his desires and live not outright. Why would a gangster kill-maim someone who can be used multiple times? This, by the way, a couple of years ago, a television series representative voiced throughout the country, an ardent opponent of weapons.
But in the absence of anti-weapon prohibitions, with the possibility of legitimate self-defense, hoplofobs will immediately become second grade, will lose respect and equality with their opponents: after all, the people always respect the person who is able to defend and protect. And the legalization of armed self-defense will give such people not only to preserve themselves and everyone they happen to defend, but also to highlight brightly in public opinion. As a result, all incapable weakies from the branches of state power are naturally cleaned out. Not like nowadays when they control real people and have the opportunity to spend such people in a panic if there are harsh military or political circumstances.
PS Among all the objections that I have learned almost by heart, I would consider the following as the most appropriate for the above text.
Opponents could repeat to me again that with the legalization of short-barrels and self-defense, criminals and psychopaths will start acquiring legal weapons en masse, increasing the number of serious crimes. And, based on this fear, the protection of citizens should be solely in the hands of police professionals. So is it not easier to demand and get the police to start working properly - to create ultimate and complete security?
Well, let's say ... Then I have some counter questions. If you think that it is impossible to make such a control so that the shortbag could not fall into the wrong hands en masse, then why it turned out to be possible with a long-trunk trunk? And if, in your opinion, the police are in principle incapable of providing effective preventive control over civilian weapons, then how is it possible (like that) to demand and achieve complete security from it? Or do you think that controlling civilian weapons is much more difficult than conducting investigations and catching criminals? States as a form of organization of societies exist in stories humanity is more than 3 thousands of years. Consequently, the police have the same history of existence. Where, when, in past or present times did the police manage to ensure complete security? Give me a convincing example of such states! And if, oh miracle (!), You succeed in doing this, then what has disturbed you, interferes and will always interfere with demanding and obtaining from the police what you dream of? You yourself say that this requirement will be simpler and more effective than our struggle for the possibility of civil armed self-defense! Waiting for an answer, like a nightingale of summer!
Information