A little about myself (so that there were no cries about not knowing the topic, etc.). From my military experience of 3 of the year (1993-95) I served in special units of the Russian Interior Ministry for the protection of special work sites, important state facilities and support of special and military cargo. During this period, all sorts of events happened in the country, because of which I had to wear a regular PM around the clock for 2 years. It looked like this: they gave out a gun in accordance with the order and guard it as you wish (safes, of course, were not issued). Before entering the guard checked availability weaponscartridges. All this was done to ensure that the alarm l / s arrived not in part to the weapon, but immediately to the combat positions. Realities showed that at that time it was probably the best option. Shooting was 2 times a week, cartridges were given a lot. Then there was a service in a different kind of troops, there were a lot of firing / ammunition (the placement in the same area as the RAV warehouse), but, thank God, there was no more experience in storing pistols at home.
This experience allows me to draw some of my conclusions about the short-barrel and the problems they cause.
I will go on points.
1. Opinions of citizens are spreading in three categories: a) the threat to life; b) the threat to property; c) “I'm with a gun”. The first two categories are simpler and more logical (you can discuss, at least), but the third ... The third category confidently thinks that you can swing the trunk left / right, not be patient, answer: "Yes, he disgraced my wife in every way !!" At the same time, for some reason, they immediately forget about the opposite situation: that the other side may also have a weapon, and also that they will have to answer under the law for the accomplished.
2. I also want to immediately divide the threat to life and property — not by value, but by transience. The threat to life arises instantly; the threat to property will be extended over time. Even untrained shooters will have enough reaction to countering the threat to property; with the threat of life, there may not be enough time even for a professional shooter who is constantly practicing (there was such a thing, alas).
3. Legislation on self-defense. People who believe that it will be possible to kill for a stolen bucket of potatoes from the garden (figuratively!) And cite the US example (where you can shoot anyone who invades your house), they forget that then there is a court in the USA. And if the jury decides that the threat was insufficient and the weapon was used disproportionately to the attack, then this could be from 15 years to the tower. Exactly the same thing will be with us: life will make, they did not come from this noodle.
4. "No one in Russia voluntarily legalizes normal short-barriers, because an armed citizen can ask questions and the security forces will suddenly become completely useless." The US experience clearly shows that asking an armed citizen, of course, can, but not for long. The police will be killed ... Including for this reason, none of the cases of massacres in the United States was prevented by the citizens themselves - with their over-armed. About cops in the United States, where 250.000.000 trunks, for some reason not forgotten. And the cars therefore stop there only from the back: it is extremely inconvenient to shoot back, and they are forced to put their hands on the dashboard, and try not to obey ... It’s not about our cops. Offhand: "Policemen in the United States shot and killed 256 people in the first three months of 2016." I was interested and spent as much as half an hour searching for: November 16 was a citizen of the United States who was shot dead by police in the US for 1000 a year. ”
Three people a day, at least at the hands of the police ...
“According to them,” the overwhelming majority of people who died at the hands of police officers belong to one of three categories: they had a weaponthey suffered from mental disorders or they fled when the police told them to stop"According to official data, 564 people from 965 shot by the law enforcement officers were carrying pistols or rifles, and 281 - knives, toy guns, which could be taken as real or" other dangerous objects. "In 75% of cases, the police or other people to whom they came to help were attacked by lawbreakers. "
The same will happen with us: the security forces will be forced to shoot at ANY armed man at the slightest insubordination to them.
5. First, supporters of the short-haul cause a bunch of cases of attacks on women / old people / disabled people, then sharply cut off these categories of citizens with offers to systematically attend shooting classes at least once a month. Yes, it is quite reasonable and necessary, but for our average citizens it is impracticable. Taking into account the requirements for equipment of the worlds, the discovery of additional worlds due to high costs and low incomes of the population does not loom even on the horizon. In our area, for example, 4 of the world, but all of them are located in the regional center (from 200 to 300 km). Is it possible for a named group to travel there regularly? Not. This also includes problems with weapons culture, which is not, including due to problems with shooting galleries.
6. The examples of small / tiny countries like Switzerland / Israel / Moldova / others cannot directly overlap our realities precisely because of their small size. There is enough power structures, and citizens armed with pistols, which is why they are not used. When I go to our regional center, I pass three Israelis in a day. About the Urals / Siberia / DV in general I am silent: the village councils have more area there than these states. Therefore, we can only be based on the experience of the United States, and there problems with the possession of weapons - a breakthrough.
7. Why is it necessary to protect the house is short, the supporters of it, too, can not clearly explain. At the same time, they all agree that it is much easier to hit / hit with the grab bag of an attacker from an 12 caliber weapon than from a pistol. In principle, after some revision of the legislation, the ideal option for self-defense of a household is 12 caliber.
8. Keeping weapons is generally a song. Supporters of the short-barreled amicably forget about the sharp increase in the risk of possession of weapons. This includes the risks of theft of weapons from both the house / car and the owner’s body. The gun has always been, is and will be a desirable booty of the criminal world. Unlike the iPhone, it is always in the price. Honestly, I was most stressed: you can’t just drink at the company, you can’t reduce the distance to people less than 2 meters, you can’t just enter the dimmed entrance (although you know it as flaky, but dumb), You can not leave him at home just like that (no one has canceled the children). And then the opposite situation: if you do not carry it with you all the time, then at the right moment it will not be at hand.
9. Unbalanced / Scumbag. Guarantees that the weapon will not get to them, no. And here the proposals on the abolition of the limits of self-defense can play into their hands. He killed the disliked, called the police and: "He attacked me - I was self-defense." Options abyss. Alas, there are no ways to exclude the legal possession of such people.
10. The price of the weapon. To count on a sharp influx of imported weapons is nonsense. Transportation, customs duties, VAT, certification, cheating trade will make it too expensive and non-mass. So it is with hunting now: Italian BBM is in stores and on hand, but there are dozens of times less than Izhey. Our weapon? Yes, there are some samples of civilian weapons, but I don’t presume to predict how much it will cost if there is a mass demand. But what will be cheap is hardly ...
11. Favorite supporters of a short-barrel: “On the roads, cars / kitchen knives / broken bottles / etc.” far more people are killed than from legal trunks! ”
a) everything named was originally intended for completely different purposes, and only a serious violation of safety rules and use leads to death (drinking in someone else’s apartment with an unfamiliar company and getting a bottle on the head is also a security violation). A pistol was originally intended only and solely for one thing - murder, this is its only purpose;
b) incomparable number. If you interpolate the number of cars (leaving the number of dead on the roads) to the number of registered trunks, it can be that the cars are much more harmless than weapons. “The number of casualties in the period from 1968-th to 2011 year exceeds the cumulative loss in all the wars that have ever been fought by America. According to the Politifact project, during this period 1,4 million deaths occurred as a result of the use of firearms, while in all armed conflicts, from the war of independence before the last Iraqi campaign, 1,2 million people died. From the beginning of 2015, 294 shooting occurred in a crowded place in the USA, characterized as "incidents" in which four people and more were killed or injured. According to the US Department of Justice and External Relations Council, for the period from 2001 to 2011. on average, 11 385 people died annually in the United States as a result of the use of firearms ”(02.10.2015, BBC article).
“Washington, December 21 2015 / Corr. TASS Dmitry Kirsanov. The number of people annually dying in the United States as a result of the use of firearms for the first time equaled the number of victims of road traffic accidents. This news have spread the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) ”(approximately in 34000 cases). This was achieved ... no, not by restrictions on weapons: “According to the TsKPZ experts, the situation they revealed is primarily due to a sharp reduction in the number of people dying in the United States on the roads. This was achieved by tightening various security measures designed to significantly reduce the number of possible accidents. ”
PS The people in the comments were outraged, they say, it is not clear: what positions the author is worth! Let me explain: I am for the revision of the law on self-defense, I am for self-defense using weapons, but only long-barreled, I am categorically against short barrels.
PPS I recommend everyone to read the classic of American literature, M. Twain, especially his “Lightly”. There, everything is soundly and truthfully written about our capitalism (wild enough) and about how we will have a short-haired trunk.