Military Review

A small remark about weapons, and not only about him

In the US, another mass execution, about the “Russian Breivik”, has all been safely forgotten ... And the network is boiling with passions about “legalization of the short-range channel”.

The problem sits deeper. And to consider it in isolation from the context is stupid. By themselves, neither computer games, nor the flow of violence on television and movie screens will not kill and they will not kill. But here you can easily serve as a trigger for a psyche that is loose and torn by continuous stress. There are several aspects. The most important thing is:

1. A modern person loses moral guidelines continuously eroded by the liberal-tolerant sea. Christianity with its “not killed” will soon become a generally marginal religion.

2. Modern man is under continuous pressure: life becomes more and more expensive, and it is more difficult to earn money from it. At the same time advertising and media implanted image of a sucker, a loser, who does not have a new iPhone. Subconsciously, this leads to classical schizophrenia. Fresh news on the topic: near Volgograd a schoolboy hanged himself after his parents refused to buy a new iPhone. By the way, this is also a “sparing” option that could have come out on a big road ...

3. Violence is a constant (noise) background of our life. Disappears natural idiosyncrasy to him: after all, this is almost the norm. At the same time, professional violence (the military, the police, that which is called upon to control violence in principle) is formally condemned. Another crack in the mind of the inhabitant!

4. The primacy of the individual as an apology for the liberal idea automatically leads to the fact that the new Raskolnikovs are no longer tormented by the choice (I am trembling creature or have the right). They are convinced initially that they have the right.

So, guys, stock up the stew and cartridges - berries in front. And alas, the addition of a couple of millions of trunks to this cocktail will not exactly increase safety.
51 comment
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. apro
    apro 12 November 2017 07: 17
    Everyone has the right to protection, and if society cannot protect property, life, then everything is in your hands. Such is the will of the gods.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  2. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 12 November 2017 07: 19
    The author ... You, of course, are immeasurably higher than a simple layman. You are terribly smart, honest, educated and impolite. And so on. But you know what? Let's remember something for the "layman", okay? For example, the trifle that violence has never disappeared from our lives. Violence (horror !!) is ... normal.
    I know you don’t like it, but violence accompanies our lives throughout the history of mankind. And an amazing thing, a despicable layman, you won’t believe it, you can handle it! You give him a weapon and he, that's fantastic, DOES NOT rush to the streets to kill. And do not rush. Religion, I'm sorry, nothing to do with it at all.
    "Russian Breivik. Well, I’ve directly printed it. But it’s weak to look for what brought Breivik’s weapons to the street? I don’t justify the massacre, but Breivik had very good reasons to get off the cutting, and the presence or absence of weapons had nothing to do with it. But the mountain of corpses that he tucked out had the most straightforward: had at least one person in his path a weapon and the determination to use it, and many people would have survived, alive, you understand? That they were killed, directly and targetedly, by the lack of self-defense means.
    American shooters have reasons to shoot in all directions, also not touching the trunks in their hands. The modern world provides a sea of ​​opportunities for the mass destruction of people. No trunk? Yes, I ... in general, I will not describe, you just believe it - any person with an engineering education can describe various scenarios of mass destruction with the help of quite everyday means from morning till night. There will be no trunks?
    There will be explosions, the Americans have created such a life in their country that there are still not enough killers there. Well, it penetrates us, yes. So they will kill. But we have nothing to defend, and it’s impossible! We are not supposed to defend ourselves, such as you do not give, we must die like bulls in a slaughterhouse, then your heart will rejoice, right?
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 12 November 2017 10: 05
      Quote: Mikhail3
      you just believe - any person with an engineering education can describe various scenarios of mass destruction with the help of everyday means from morning till night.

      And if it will be a chemist or a bacteriologist ???
      1. Taoist
        13 November 2017 10: 41
        This way is really scary. I am a man with a high-quality Soviet education - I was always surprised with these very “terrorists" - for in fact anyone who did not skip chemistry classes at school can deceive something absolutely deadly from improvised means.
    2. Taoist
      13 November 2017 10: 39
      You strangely read my article. And most likely they didn’t even get acquainted with my profile. But these are trifles. And I’m exactly the same “layman” walking exactly along the same streets, and living exactly in the same world - well, except that he has a bit of special training in the history
      The main thing that you did not take into account is that “having a weapon” is absolutely not equal to “having the ability to defend yourself”. The same stories of mass executions in the most armed country in the world illustrate this quite clearly.
      1. Mikhail3
        Mikhail3 13 November 2017 18: 00
        You wrote your article strangely. Or do not understand yourself, but sorry. I do not read the profile of the person who wrote the letters. This should not be done. Features of the transmission of text in comparison with personal communication make communication with a person on the network meaningless. The conversation is conducted only with the thought expressed in the text.
        Clarify please. Do you think that people cannot be trusted with their lives?
        1. Taoist
          13 November 2017 20: 45
          People cannot be trusted in other people's lives, at least such trust requires serious preparation. This is if you directly answer your question.
          If we take it more generally, I simply note that the destruction of culture and ethics cannot be corrected with shooting toys - this will only aggravate the process.
          1. Nikolay73
            Nikolay73 14 November 2017 15: 29
            ... dialectics however, we trust our lives to drivers of public and personal transport, builders, medical staff, the police, the army, the government, the president ... our children - teachers and educators, and you really think that all these people can worthily bear this huge responsibility ? I don’t think so and not because I consider us all not worthy or not ready. I can agree with you that changes are needed in the public and personal consciousness, but I don’t have a recipe for its correct change, to my deep regret, humanism is on the path of tolerance for perversions and all foulness ... morality is replaced by pseudo-freedom, conscience - by profit at any cost and an irrepressible cult of consumption and a fire stick, in my opinion, this is another not particularly harmful or useful addition to general involution.
  3. tracer
    tracer 12 November 2017 07: 30
    Young people are now very uneducated, and for the most part they are extremely selfish and simply stupid. Not all, but mostly. If the "bulk" raise this layer to the "fight against the bloody regime" it may end very badly. There is no work, the "social elevators" do not work, and they patiently break through to the goal, they do not know how and do not want to. Korotkostvol, I think yes, will not increase safety on the street. The police will thrash immediately to defeat without options. Among other things. In general, there are still problems with them ... If no other alternative is offered. Moreover, they will go only to those who will offer them precisely the golden mountains and no "morals" will be attractive to them.
    1. Krasnyiy komissar
      Krasnyiy komissar 12 November 2017 07: 44
      Followers of ANAL are easier to shoot than to make people. If a policeman sees “one child” with chains, fittings and a Molotov cocktail, then he should boldly treat the “aunts” with lead from a machine gun - the country definitely does not need such youth!
      1. Galleon
        Galleon 15 November 2017 16: 32
        Quote: Krasnyiy komissar
        Followers of ANAL are easier to shoot than to make people. If a policeman sees “one child” with chains, fittings and a Molotov cocktail, then he should boldly treat the “aunts” with lead from a machine gun - the country definitely does not need such youth!

        What rubbish you wrote, dear ...
        Every young one has the right to make mistakes. If young Dostoevsky were not mistaken, we would not have a great writer and prophet. Young Pushkin would not be mistaken, we would not have his essays about Peter the Great and the "Captain's Daughter" ... Yes, remember yourself! Or were you immediately born an old fly agaric and a squeamish? You probably wipe your puppy until you grow up to piss on the street, and the boys - right from the machine? Understood who you are and what your price is?
    2. Mikhail3
      Mikhail3 12 November 2017 18: 02
      Oh how! Education as a silencer, huh? This intelligent feature literally causes nausea. Please remember (are you educated, right?) Of the people who justified, provided the theory, and in every possible way welcomed Nazism, built according to their "blueprints". Nothing like that, the result of these people turned out, right? Now look at their education. Well, how is it? Are there many among them workers in wagon trains? Or maybe these were simple movers? Oh, you ... educated, stick-tree ...
      Education and mind simply allow the killer to kill more and more sophisticatedly. In general, I advise you to sometimes be on the street. Well, at least a little. Start with fifteen minutes of deviation from the usual work-cozy mink route. And in general, people are not bots in social networks. they are alive, you know?
      To become a murderer, or, on the contrary, a defender of the weak and destitute, a warrior of his own country, certain personality traits are needed. And their presence or absence is a topic immeasurably more complicated than having and lacking any kind of diploma ...
      1. Taoist
        13 November 2017 10: 43
        And you are right about that. Because the attitude to violence is, first of all, upbringing and morality - things with education are now becoming less and less connected. Children are generally unconsciously cruel because they have not yet developed these protective mechanisms of society.
  4. tracer
    tracer 12 November 2017 08: 29
    You see, the proliferation of weapons on the other hand does not allow scumbags to live long. They themselves will attack and will inevitably be killed and all. So society is cleansed of the marginalized. In America, just such a system. And as a percentage of those who died from executions of such elements, it is just a miser. “Young men with a burning eye” will sit exactly on the ass with an iPhone in their hands and they won’t go out on the street for anything. Because they love themselves to the point of exhaustion, and they will never really take risks.
    1. novel66
      novel66 12 November 2017 09: 20
      and on the other hand - for one dead thug (by the way, why shouldn’t he become a winner in a duel?)
      1. Vasya Vassin
        Vasya Vassin 12 November 2017 10: 18
        Most likely he will win, because he will be ready to kill and his hands do not shake.
        1. jjj
          jjj 12 November 2017 11: 25
          That is, armed people who are not afraid of death are more effective and more tenacious
          1. Doliva63
            Doliva63 12 November 2017 19: 28
            "... people who are not afraid of death ..."
            These are mentally ill people, so they should not even give rights.
            1. trak
              trak 13 November 2017 14: 06
              Bravo! Super! Only cowards are mentally normal! Immediately deprive all paratroopers, special forces, and fighters of the seizure groups! Let it be only from the terrorists and murderers, from which they take, the abnormal ...
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 13 November 2017 23: 15
                Quote: trak
                Only cowards are mentally normal! All paratroopers, commandos, soldiers of the capture groups

                Not really. Being afraid and being a coward is not the same thing. Any adequate person will be afraid, but courage lies in the fact that he overcomes fear. But if he really is not afraid of anything, then this is already abnormal.
                1. Nikolay73
                  Nikolay73 14 November 2017 15: 41
                  ...I agree.
      2. AUL
        AUL 12 November 2017 15: 03
        Quote: novel xnumx
        and on the other hand - for one dead thug (by the way, why shouldn’t he become a winner in a duel?)
        Thugs in a duel do not go! They heroically rush at the obviously weaker and unarmed. And when they can be repulsed, then they are modest and polite. None of the gopot will bend his fingers "for the idea", they love themselves very much.
    2. Taoist
      13 November 2017 10: 50
      I don’t agree ... "young men with an iPhone" love themselves of course, but they don’t realize the borders between reality ... they have it all virtually until shit and dirt really dunk into the blood ... but then it’s often too late .
  5. Golovan Jack
    Golovan Jack 12 November 2017 08: 37
    Modern man loses moral guidelines, continuously eroded by a liberal-tolerant sea ...

    Ai-ai-ay ... here is the poor man ... even somehow I feel sorry for him, "modern" ...
    And “modern” itself is purely “body unconscious” in this model. Object, drag, application of external forces. "They pushed us - we fell. They lifted us - we went."
    Well, nonsense, there are no words, except for those prohibited on this site.
    Violence is the constant (noise) background of our lives ...

    And what, somewhere and once it was different? I want examples of taqgo "paradise", I’m somehow like this ... I don’t recall request
    At the same time, professional violence (the military, the police, what the principle of violence is intended to control) is formally condemned ...

    Who is this? And where? And - most importantly - what is the price of this "conviction"?
    A penny on a market day, this "price", I suggest ...
    The primacy of personality as an apology of a liberal idea automatically leads to the fact that the new schismatics are no longer tormented by choice (I am trembling or have the right). They are convinced initially that they have the right ...

    Primate ... apology ... automatic ... smart as belay
    And this is all just to say "the family is not without a freak." That, in general, without these "deeply scientific" formulas has long been known.
    "Convinced to have"? Flag in hand. Run into, inevitably. For those who really
    it has the right to “professional violence” in laughing
    So guys, stock up the stew and the ammo ...

    The author of the Berkem Lavra is not given rest, a campaign. Late rush, niche tightly occupied already.

    In general, in short - nothing. I to you, dear Taoist, a dozen of these "sketches" rivet, if desired.
    But the "short-fire ... flame" is provided, the site also has a clear profit - traffic will still grow, everyone is happy, everyone is laughing ...
    Boring, girls (s)
  6. novel66
    novel66 12 November 2017 09: 22
    I’m also a sucker - I don’t have an iPhone, neither old nor new, crying I’ll go kill someone with a knife while there’s no trunk
    1. Vasya Vassin
      Vasya Vassin 12 November 2017 10: 20
      I suggest not someone, but someone who has an iPhone, and not with a knife, but with an iron, by heating the sciatic muscles. am
      1. novel66
        novel66 12 November 2017 16: 07
        ohhhh! colleague, yes you are a philosopher!
        MOSKVITYANIN 12 November 2017 16: 29
        Quote: Vasya Vassin
        I suggest not someone, but someone who has an iPhone, and not with a knife, but with an iron, by heating the sciatic muscles. am

        Better a trihedral file or sharpening from the electrode (it also flies well), gee .....
  7. ZAV69
    ZAV69 12 November 2017 10: 01
    The author certainly highlighted an important topic. “Correctly” giving information to society, throwing the “right” games, you can set the society to a certain mood in which the desired decision will be a great success. Or society itself will begin some action. Yes, actually this is not a secret, even more, they are already shouting about it at every corner. Previously, the CPSU Central Committee had an appropriate department that dealt with these issues. And now there seems to be no shit. And how else can one explain the emergence of certain “film masterpieces” for which the whole team would have gone to cut Christmas trees in the taiga before.
    Our state does not engage in informational and ideological work, since the 90s it thinks that the market will regulate everything, only in the market they rule overseas cheaters, and the market regulates in their favor
    1. creak
      creak 12 November 2017 16: 16
      Quote: ZAV69
      Previously, the CPSU Central Committee had an appropriate department that dealt with these issues.

      You might think that the activities of this and other departments of the CPSU Central Committee were so "effective" that it was able to prevent the death of the CPSU itself or the collapse of the country as a whole ... The authority of these party bureaucrats was already lower than the plinth in the 80s, and the efficiency was like that of a steam locomotive - so it’s better to keep silent about the Central Committee of the CPSU.
      The same Zyuganov, successfully made a career in the Central Committee of the CPSU, and now he is very well settled, posing as an opposition ....
      MOSKVITYANIN 12 November 2017 16: 42
      ZAV69 And how else can one explain the appearance of certain “cinema masterpieces” for which the whole team would have gone to cut Christmas trees in the taiga before.

      Your problem is that censorship is prohibited in the modern Russian Federation, which does not prevent you from writing a cart to the prosecutor's office ....
      Guaranteed freedom of the media. Censorship is prohibited.

      Part 5 Art. 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation
  8. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 12 November 2017 13: 21
    And I agree with Taoist yes
    The problem is that society, under the influence of external propaganda imposed by the West, has slipped into the dashing 90s an order of magnitude lower than the previous "Soviet" worldview. Then there was an IDEA (no matter what, but it was), there was FAITH (even if it was not anti-religious, but faith in something right), there was an INCENT to development. Yes, the USSR was not without flaws (and are the western or eastern models perfect?) but he gave that base, on the basis of which it was possible to plan something ...
    And now society has simply slipped to a low consumer level. And the most interesting thing is that the adult mass of people already understands this, but the train has already left. And now we have to reap the fruits of freedom, democracy and capitalism. And the ideals on which it was possible to educate young people flowed into material wealth. So they hang themselves because of iPhones, kill because of clothes, you won’t look at the fruits of education without tears (visit social networks and see for yourself HOW children write). And if a permission to carry weapons was also allowed into that mass of people without faith and ideals, then no policemen would be enough to rake murders on domestic grounds with operas. Demographics will immediately roll down, for if in the Russian Empire they still gave birth to not one or two, but five to seven each (then the person shot in a duel was more than replenished), then in modern Russia with thoughts like “I can’t feed one” (which in turn, is a consequence of the decline of the state) will lead to disaster. What "well-wishers" around and need .... request
    Personally, my opinion hi
      MOSKVITYANIN 12 November 2017 16: 52
      Rurikovich Then there was an IDEA (no matter what, but it was), there was FAITH (though not anti-religious, but faith in something right), there was an INCENTIVE to development.

      And now it turns out I don’t have an INCENTIVE for development, I need to be driven again, to a concentration camp so that it appears, maybe you need it, then I don’t ....
      And now we have to reap the fruits of freedom, democracy and capitalism. And the ideals on which it was possible to educate young people flowed into material wealth.

      Well, for example, the former Czechoslovak Socialist Republic for some reason does not suffer from these horrors that you have described here, google about the attitude of the Czechs to the short-barrels and the culture of handling firearms, or do you think that if they allow the Russian short-barrels to kill them, they will start each other, maybe for ordinary people people should be asked, not your ideologists who sold their country in 90's ....

      I have two trunks and there is no desire to look for a victim who has an iPhone .... that everyone has ....
  9. The comment was deleted.
  10. Viktor.N.Aleksandrov.
    Viktor.N.Aleksandrov. 12 November 2017 20: 37
    Well, again, the "favorite" topic about the short barrel. "Russian Breivik" remembered. It was possible to drag in the last executions of people in the USA. So after all, in all these cases, the short-barreled barrel had nothing to do with it, the long-barreled weapon was used. Moreover, one amateur shoot climbed to such a height that it is difficult to remove it from the machine gun, and the other (the one who shot in the church), as soon as they pulled him and started to pursue, immediately abandoned this activity and started to run, and then with a fright still and committed suicide (like that fruit in a hotel). They attack only those who cannot even theoretically fight back. And you are “continuous pressure”, “primacy of personality”!
  11. trak
    trak 12 November 2017 21: 18
    Both on! He wrote a comment, where he gave links to materials of supporters of civilian weapons, which the VO website refused to place; he refuses to place such materials at all since June. Now I look, and instead of it the note "comment has been deleted." As the unforgettable Ostap Bender used to say in such cases: "Bored, girls ...".
  12. The comment was deleted.
  13. ihappy
    ihappy 13 November 2017 04: 19
    It is useless to explain.
    People are sure that protection is a kill.
    What, the gun will save them from the robber and the gopnik.
    The arguments and historical facts of such people are not interested.
    They have their own history and statistics.
    They have weapons in their hands fighting crime better than the police.

    At the same time, they correctly noticed. When the police use force, it’s terrible. How can you beat children of 20 years old?
    And when the police, they clap their hands in joy. And if politics, then everyone writes in boiling water.
    At the same time, it is now fashionable to solve any problem radically!
    Are the blue ones interfering? Put in jail!
    Do not miss the Ambulance? Deny and blacklist the driver. And when he calls the doctor to his mother, no one will come, an innocent person will die.
    And so in everything.
    Wherever you spit, the desire to solve the problem radically.
    AND HERE !!!
    The Communists were bad at 30, they shot everyone.
    And it lives with them, in one head.

    It becomes scary.
    1. Taoist
      13 November 2017 10: 54
      This is precisely what is scary ... and given the spread of such a brain infection through the network in general ...
  14. would
    would 13 November 2017 04: 27
    1. The author apparently does not know that "do not kill" in Christianity ended well, a very long time ago and was quite officially summed up as a murder

    "Love your enemies, crush the enemies of the Fatherlanddisobey the enemies of God "Moscow Filaret

    And the reason is very simple: the commandment not to kill is not very realistic and in some situations only violence and murder is the way out. Well, the right word, was it not by entreaties to defeat Nazi Germany? Or maybe when they kill you and your family to sit with a Christian smile? If this commandment were really observed, then we would not even have been born, it contradicts the natural human right to protect our property and life, as well as the existence of the state and nation in general.

    2. It is immediately clear that the author is not aware of what schizophrenia is (I won’t even describe what it is, everyone has Wikipedia and Google) and cites suicide as an example. Most likely not true, but demonstrative, that is, manipulative. Just a teenager did not calculate everything and hanged himself for real, such cases are not uncommon.

    3. Violence in our lives is much less than in the lives of our ancestors who saw public stakes, easily killed each other instead of going to court and so on. And they completely coped with this and that is why we appeared much more humanized than our ancestors. What can we talk about if in large cities there has long been no Soviet (!!!) fights wall to wall between regions? And so violence is a natural companion of human life and has never been otherwise. Or maybe the author will tell you the address of Paradise where you can live high and don’t even have to die?

    4. However, there are a lot of buzzwords, however, the author does not know what liberalism and the liberal idea are. And he is not aware that the very liberalism contains a pillar in the form of providing data from the nature of natural rights. Including the right to life. And accordingly, any real liberal really will not be tormented by a choice like Raskolnikov because his ideology, by definition, contradicts the very idea of ​​criminal murder. And the illiterate author turned out to be some kind of nonsense, a paradox at the level of internationalists advocating racial superiority.

    about the "Russian Breivik" everyone has already safely forgotten ...

    What Russian Breivik, author? That same Breivik had a relatively adequate political idea based on completely real and adequate factors. That's just his methods were criminal, terrorist, but the action was purely political. He opposed multiculturalism and the Islamization of Europe, he declared himself as a nationalist-traditionalist radical advocate for the preservation of the traditional look, the traditional values ​​of Europe and specifically Norway. He was a radical and a terrorist, but he had a clear political goal.

    The only one whom the illiterate domestic journalists called the “Russian Breivik” in my memory was Dmitry Vinogradov, who had no political position, did not arrange a political rally by his nature, but was officially mentally ill from birth, and the crime was nothing more than a consequence of his mental state . It was not political, he did not have a political position, etc. So the author is just as illiterate as the domestic journalists who equated the psycho and the radical terrorist who thus defended their political views.
    1. ver_
      ver_ 13 November 2017 05: 46
      .. no need to take phrases out of context .. From VATICAN comments: .. DO NOT kill if there is NO NEED ... VATICAN allows KILLING ..
    2. Taoist
      13 November 2017 11: 18
      Repeat, and most importantly incorrectly interpret my words.
      1) The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" in Christianity was never a prohibition of violence, but always interpreted violence as a sin. Those. violence was allowed only in the name of a great goal (protecting the country, protecting the weak, etc.) In modern "morality" the concept of sin is absent. I wrote only about this.
      2) the author knows what schizophrenia is, but he wouldn’t pull out a phrase from the context and even more so would not think that the example would be interpreted as a diagnosis. However, this can be attributed to the characteristics of perception.
      3) I did not give numerical indicators of the "amount of violence" in our lives. And they cannot be brought in comparison with the past. But you lose sight of the fact that now violence from "sin" has turned into "online fun." TV, the Internet, a continuous "live war" - the reasons for this are a separate issue. In any situation, now a person sees much more violence than even 30-50 years ago ... They practically force him to force him ... How does this affect his mental health? The question is rhetorical as they say.
      4) The author knows very well what “liberalism and liberal idea” is and understands perfectly well that what is now denoted by this term is equidistant from its meaning as well as “communist and communism” ... And the author (unlike the opponent) did not speak about "criminal murder" - and he spoke precisely of "spontaneous violence" - and in this regard he brought precisely the "Russian Breivik" and not the original. In general, I also did not touch on issues of political terrorism. You projected on your post your speculation and no more.
      The main thesis of my post was just the uncomplicated conclusion that in our crazy and violent world, throwing in a couple of millions of firearms would definitely not improve the situation ...
      1. would
        would 13 November 2017 12: 06
        1) So it was necessary to write about this, and not about what they wrote. It was necessary for example to write here specifically what they wrote to me. In modern morality, by the way, which way? You may not be aware, but the same philosophical schools that define morality as dogs that are not cut. And talking about the personal morality of a single person is not worth it at all. Maybe in your modern morality the concept of "sin" is absent, but a passerby atheist is present.
        2) "but he wouldn’t pull the phrase out of context, and moreover he wouldn’t think that the example would be interpreted as a diagnosis"

        We look at the context and the phrase

        Modern man is under continuous pressure: life is becoming more expensive, and making money on it is becoming increasingly difficult. At the same time, the image of a sucker, a loser who does not have a new iPhone, is being planted by advertising and the media. Subconsciously, this leads to classic schizophrenia.

        The classical adjective means "Typical, characteristic" that is, when using it in relation to something, you mean the most common meaning, the most recognized, the most typical. So "classical schizophrenia" is not an example, but a very specific diagnosis with a clear indication of this. Now, if you wrote "what can be called schizophrenia" or you took the word "schizophrenia" in quotation marks and without adding the word "classical" this would be an example and use not in the literal sense. I could criticize such a metaphor and such an example (because it is by definition incorrect and does not convey the essence of the described phenomenon), but that would be another conversation.

        So here you are either simply illiterate and unable to convey the idea using the Russian language (and then you need not to write articles, but to learn), or (which in my opinion is more likely) trying to justify yourself with just criticism by the very common method "you are all just wrong understood, I meant something else. " It just doesn’t matter, they write exactly as it is necessary to understand how you wrote as I understood. Once understood not so it means and it is written not as it should.

        3) Tell me please, when was the last time you were executed? When was the last time you saw a stakeholder? How about chopping off your head? What never? But our ancestors even went to such executions. They were carried out on Red Square, the emperor personally chopped heads. And after World War II, policemen were publicly shot and hanged. Without fake blood, without special effects, truly, with real people, with real life and death, to the applause of the inhabitants. Now it is impossible to imagine. Therefore, it is very possible to bring these very indicators of the prevalence of violence in society in comparison with the past time. It’s worth starting with the number of executed public executions, yeah.

        What you pour from the TV again in your article you did not touch at all. And I will note one simple truth: A person can watch an action movie lying on a sofa eating chips with a pulse of 50 beats, and after seeing someone just break their heads, the pulse will be 170, pressure, and then vomiting with these very chips. Because unrealistic violence and the present are perceived by us purely differently, in the first case we know that it is unreal and there is no corresponding physiological response. The question, by the way, is not rhetorical, and the devil knows how to study it for how many years, so far no evidence has been found that violent films or video games somehow harm the human psyche.

        4) That is, you acknowledge that regarding liberalism you were not right at all? Good. Because if you used it in an "equidistant value", you would have put this phrase in quotation marks (at least), thereby showing that you are not using it in the literal sense.

        And the author (unlike the opponent) didn’t talk about “criminal murder” at all - but talked about “spontaneous violence”

        We look at the quote

        leads to the fact that the new schismatics are no longer tormented by choice (I am trembling or rightfully have). They are convinced initially that they have the right.

        We see an example with the "new schismatics." What did the original Raskolnikov do? The crime of killing and asked the question "I am trembling or I have the right" precisely and strictly regarding a specific murder. Accordingly, who are the "new schismatics"? The killers. What choice do they suffer? To kill or not. Accordingly, the example tells us about criminal murder.

        How did you talk about "spontaneous violence" citing the criminal and prepared as an example (Raskolnikov did not kill the old woman spontaneously, but planning it for a whole month with a whole range of activities and for obvious reasons going for it), that is, the opposite of spontaneous murder? What is it like?

        and in this regard he brought precisely the “Russian Breivik” and not the original. In general, I also did not touch on issues of political terrorism. You projected on your post your speculation and no more.

        Very stupid excuse. Applying an illiterate term, you touched on the topic of terrorism. Because the term refers strictly to it, even if you do not know about it. Applying for example the term "new Hitler" you touch on the theme of Nazism. And including the original because this nickname is given in accordance with the deeds and personality of the original, which means it must correspond to it.

        So by the end we have one of two

        1. Either you are very poorly educated and so illiterate in the Russian language that you are not able to express a simple thought. You write about one thing, but you mean not even the opposite, but simply another. You write examples that cannot be interpreted as you intended, you do not know the meaning of adjectives and do not know how to use quotation marks. And most likely you still don’t know who Raskolnikov is when you bring the killer who committed the prepared murder as an example of “spontaneous violence”. This is not even a fourth grade student. And you really meant something else, just your level of education does not allow you to write what you mean. Well, here I can only advise you to read good literature, to know the examples that you cite, learn Russian and increase your vocabulary by understanding each new word.

        2. You are trying to justify yourself before clear criticism by using the frequent "I wrote everything right, it's just that you are to blame for not understanding it." By the way, a stupid excuse that the author essentially admits that he is an ignoramus author, because people who are misunderstood what is written can adequately criticize such an author should not be by definition.
        1. Taoist
          13 November 2017 13: 03
          sadly ... when instead of opposing they go over to the personality of the author. To the question, by the way, about mental aggression which quite on occasion develops into a natural one.
          For reference: The author is well educated and has, in addition to technical and humanitarian education ... however diplomas are certainly not knowledge yet ... But nevertheless, I have the honor to belong to the party of "national linguists" ... I think that, unlike my opponent, I not only read "good literature" but often in some way involved ... ;-)
          Second, I’m not trying, as you put it, to “justify” yourself ... You are not a prosecutor, I am not a defendant, I just explained my point. (do you know the words are ambiguous) - were you not happy with my explanations? I'm sorry - but attacking isn’t worth it, but you are more likely to demonstrate imbalance than form ...
          By the way, what in my calculations caused such a flash of aggression, I certainly don’t know, but I can assume ...
          1. would
            would 13 November 2017 13: 18
            Well, of course, when there was no way to make excuses, that is, to defend your article and as a result of yourself, you switched to a kind of imaginary "mental aggression" and "flash of aggression."

            I would very much like to know in which place I showed aggression, that is, I threatened to kill you, break your legs, break your skull, or something else that falls under the definition of "aggression". There is a quotation mechanism, if it was, then you can show it well, and if it wasn’t, it just speaks about you quite specifically.

            I touched on the personality of you as an author exactly in the context of the attitude to the article under discussion. If a turner has turned a very bad part, then I can say about his personality that he is a bad turner, if a tiler cannot lay a tile, then I will say that he is a bad tiler, and so on. This is the basics, discussing the work of the author and discussing the skill of the author, the fact that it is impossible to discuss work without discussing the skill of the worker should be clear as a white day. But apparently not for you therefore you

            when instead opponents are transferred to the personality of the author.

            At the same time, it allows us to pretend that it is as if throughout this wall of text where I specifically explained what where and why not so no, but only Ad hominem. Only now the wall of the text will not disappear from this ...

            Nevertheless, I have the honor to belong to the party of "national linguists" ... I think that, unlike my opponent, I not only read "good literature", but I am often involved in some way ... ;-)

            As you can see, "I had the honor to be sure." Particularly “pleased” with the example of Raskolnikov.

            All I can wish for you is to study, learn Russian, be able to write. Understand each word and make sure that the intended meaning is embedded in the written text. And when you learn to write good articles and essays. And adequately perceive concrete and correct criticism, and not try to justify yourself in such a silly way. Well, if not ... well, as one classic said, "If you can’t not write, don’t write."
      2. would
        would 13 November 2017 12: 23
        By the way, I forgot one more

        And the author (unlike the opponent) did not speak about “criminal murder” at all - but spoke specifically about “spontaneous violence” - and in this regard he brought precisely the “Russian Breivik” and not the original.

        Even the very Vinogradov, who was illiterately called the “Russian Breivik”, committed the massacre not spontaneously, but clearly preparing. He bought weapons specifically for this, and a few days before he began to drink non-drinker, shortly (on the same day in the early morning) before the execution he posted on the VKontakte page a written manifest. And during interrogations, he clearly said about his motives and that he had been cooking it for more than one day. He was mentally ill from birth, but was fully aware of what he was doing and preparing for it.

        So this is another example of a prepared massacre that you only cited as your own example of spontaneous, that is, arising without the influence of external causes and even awareness of a person (which contradicts the prepared), violence.
      3. brn521
        brn521 13 November 2017 13: 07
        Quote: Taoist
        In any situation, now a person sees much more violence than even 30-50 years ago ...

        The problem is rather not in quantity, but in quality. It's one thing when people have fun by consuming a "natural product." For example, watching a wall to wall battle or participating in it. Everything is just like in life, and the prerequisites and consequences, such as broken joints, teeth and eyes. And also the opportunity to observe the suffering of the amused and affected characters their whole life. On this basis, an adequate assessment and adequate actions are formed. It is a completely different matter when the same people consume some Hollywood trash. They and consciousness is formed under a certain Hollywood reality. So give them a gun, they can start shooting only because in some Hollywood reality this was the norm.
        Quote: Taoist
        in our crazy and violent world

        Actual violence just became much less than, say, in the 19th century. Most lovers of short-bore and trauma are enough for the eyes.
  15. Taoist
    13 November 2017 13: 43
    Well, if using quite sophisticated methods of manipulation you are thinking of getting me crazy, then you are mistaken - in principle, you yourself do not write anything to illustrate your own maxim. So I think that we will not continue the debate, but the reader will draw conclusions ... I emphasize once again that simple fact that you are not a prosecutor and I am not a defendant ...
    1. Mikhail3
      Mikhail3 13 November 2017 18: 16
      Unfortunately, there is apparently no discussion. You were attacked by some kind of well-versed liberal in crooked polemical tricks. Very sorry. In the same way, once my article on freedom was merged in a liberal and non-liberal sense - you begin to be persecuted in the style of academic nonsense, people simply lose interest in this chewing gum (they’ve been used to hearing a teacher’s brainwashing talk from a child who isn’t able to answer their questions, but fiercely wants to prove "superiority").
      I will try again. The question of weapons is a question of freedom. Freedom at its core can be described, for example, as follows: "I defend what I consider my own." Very old definition. I protect my life. I protect my property. I protect the weak, trusting me. I protect my land as the source of the future of my kind and of my people.
      What, people have the right to their own? Because what you do not protect is NOT YOURS. Do you understand? What other people protect is not yours. Whatever words it all is called.
      1. Taoist
        13 November 2017 20: 54
        There is probably something to agree with you. The problem is, in fact, that freedom as a concept has been worn out and cluttered to its opposite. And this is also terrifying and alarming. In this case, no one is trying to really formulate and operate with slogans rather than logic.
        Unfortunately, a person for the most part does not contain "complex truths."
        The truth is that your wording also has a “hook” - freedom does not require permissions. No one can forbid me to protect what is dear to me. And the fact of the presence or absence of my weapon cannot affect this. So I would not draw direct analogies.
        1. Mikhail3
          Mikhail3 14 November 2017 20: 50
          We are talking seriously, right? What is the protection of the present without weapons? What is verbiage? Will you pity “Pamagityaaa !!” when the armed man establishes his authority over what you consider to be yours? Or threateningly get a phone to call Big People? Who will do everything for you. No, you rush at him with a bare heel ... Ugh.
          For any serious discussion about such a topic, you are simply not ready, sorry. Whatever you have in your profile ... In vain you took up a topic that is immeasurably higher than your awareness.
          1. Taoist
            15 November 2017 14: 05
            Well ... and you there ... "immeasurably higher" ... despite the fact that we are talking here about the general and not about law enforcement practice. Or is a weapon for you only and exclusively a “short barrel”? After all, other civilian weapons are completely permitted and available to us. Those. is this in your opinion "some kind of wrong freedom"? It is strange to me to hear similar and accusations and reasonings ...
    2. would
      would 13 November 2017 23: 52
      Well, of course, quotes with "mental aggression" were not given, which speaks very specifically about you. I think after that I really try to somehow influence you, explaining point by point why and where you were wrong; it’s just not worth it, a frivolous person who is unable to answer for his words and ascribing to the opponent what was not there (by the way, the second time, now some sophistic methods of manipulation, apparently one of them is the content of "Crime and Punishment") is simply physically unwilling to understand. It is easier for him to lie, to invent something that was not there and to convince himself of this, and then try to convince others of this.

      I think readers will really read and really decide ... * looking up * more precisely, they have already decided even before me.

      in principle, you yourself do not write anything illustrating your own maxim.

      If you have not seen that I wrote anything, this does not mean that I am not writing anything. But in principle, yes, if I see what works out for me like this, very badly, I prefer not to publish for natural reasons.

      And the maxim is not mine, but Gogol.