Zhirinovsky suggested not punishing Russians for exceeding the limits of permissible self-defense

Zhirinovsky suggested not punishing Russians for exceeding the limits of permissible self-defense

The leader of the Liberal Democratic Party is going to submit to the State Duma a bill providing for amendments to the Russian criminal law. We are talking about an initiative to amend Article 37 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.


The initiative of Vladimir Zhirinovsky is described by the Izvestia newspaper. It is noted that the bill involves expanding the rights of citizens to self-defense. According to Zhirinovsky, many Russians who defended themselves, their family, or their home from bandits, robbers, rapists, often find themselves in the dock. The reason is the excess of the limits of necessary self-defense. So, in the 2017-2018 years, a total of more than 1,6 thousand Russians were sentenced for this.

Vladimir Zhirinovsky notes that today the assessments of both the very threat to life, health, property of a person, and the limits of the very permissible self-defense are blurred.

The LDPR leader cited American law as an example, where illegal entry into private territory allows, in fact, any rebuff. At our place, as Vladimir Zhirinovsky notes, theoretically, a citizen should “wait” until he is stabbed or shot at in order to be entitled to retaliation.

From the material:

A person in such a situation protects himself, his life, the life of loved ones, and you can not judge him for it.

In the State Duma, as they say "News", the parties "United Russia" and "Fair Russia" promised to carefully study the bill after it was introduced by the Liberal Democratic Party. The Communist Party said that expanding the boundaries of permissible self-defense is impractical, otherwise "it will be like in the USA, where someone constantly shoots in the streets, in schools." Such a statement from the Communist Party made Vladimir Kolomeytsev - the first deputy chairman of the faction.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

277 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. andrewkor 25 November 2019 06: 04 New
    • 86
    • 15
    +71
    I fully support Vladimir Volfovich! A Communist Party-renegades and fit!
    1. WILL 25 November 2019 06: 07 New
      • 50
      • 4
      +46
      Yeah, just for starters, you need to legally determine what is Necessary Self-Defense. How many people are sitting, protecting themselves and their loved ones from all kinds of tricks ... who, in the blink of an eye - become victims and victims!
      Now, Even in your own House, having given the attackers an armed rebuff, you risk being on the bunk!
      1. APES 25 November 2019 06: 18 New
        • 9
        • 22
        -13
        WHAT is Necessary Self-Defense.

        Personal space - a radius of 1 meter, people will stop pushing and will become freer in public transport .... I am for !!!!
        1. SOVIET UNION 2 25 November 2019 06: 59 New
          • 14
          • 9
          +5
          Personal space - radius 1 meter
          Strongly said! This is when Muscovites shoot each other in the subway and traffic jams! wassat
          You need permission to covertly carry military weapons.
          Imagine the picture. Summer heat. A man in shorts and a T-shirt hides a military weapon! Where? In which place? laughing
          1. novel66 25 November 2019 07: 31 New
            • 4
            • 1
            +3
            in a man purse, where else
            1. SOVIET UNION 2 25 November 2019 07: 46 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              Why the secret burned! laughing
              1. novel66 25 November 2019 07: 51 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                so as not to fantasize, otherwise this will begin! lol
            2. Spartanez300 25 November 2019 07: 48 New
              • 37
              • 4
              +33
              The right decision, otherwise while you wait you will be left behind or made disabled.
              1. SOVIET UNION 2 25 November 2019 07: 52 New
                • 4
                • 28
                -24
                What is your evidence that you wanted to make an invalid or fill up? Or do gentlemen and honest people take their word for it? But the victim claims that you wanted to make him disabled or take his life! So who to believe? Who's lying?
                1. Voyager 25 November 2019 08: 43 New
                  • 28
                  • 3
                  +25
                  At a minimum, if an unauthorized person turned out to be uninvited in your home, then this is already a reason for proactive actions against his possible illegal intentions.

                  In my opinion, it is quite reasonable to allow the use of a firearm on the extremities instead of shooting yourself at the new ceiling of your new home. If there is no trunk, then the struggle with handy means should be resolved with even less restrictions, because this is a struggle for one’s life.
                  1. Demon_is_ada 25 November 2019 11: 18 New
                    • 11
                    • 4
                    +7
                    Quote: Voyager
                    At a minimum, if an unauthorized person turned out to be uninvited in your home, then this is already a reason for proactive actions against him possible wrongful intentions.

                    It, in the sense of a person, has already committed a crime by entering your house without your consent. It’s worthwhile to mean as a dwelling, because they can go into the yard in the village to ask something, this must be taken into account. They do not accept for one reason - bailiffs and other law enforcement officers will be afraid laughing or there will be a battle at Waterloo ... there are no more real reasons, the rest is a boltalogy ...
                    1. Captain45 25 November 2019 13: 39 New
                      • 3
                      • 1
                      +2
                      Quote: Demon_is_ada
                      They do not accept for one reason - bailiffs and other law enforcement officers will be afraid of laughing or there will be a battle at Waterloo ..

                      And what do the bailiffs and other law enforcement officers just do, that they spend days hanging around the village and have nothing to do to go into all households in order to chat or cling to something so easily?
                  2. Amin_vivec 25 November 2019 21: 08 New
                    • 3
                    • 1
                    +2
                    You can write so many interesting situevins:
                    1) You came to a friend, he called you - he wanted to repay the debt that he took a year ago - he is alone in the hut, takes out a bagpipe and kills you - he does not want to give back the debt.
                    2) The development of the first situation - but in the struggle you select a bagpipe - and bring it down.
                    3) You pick mushrooms - you have a knife, you meet a man with a gun, he shoots at you.
                    4) An accident in the country, the traffic is not busy - there are no witnesses, one driver has a gun, the second driver has a corpse.

                    On which side will the court be in these cases ??? Ready to be in such situations ???

                    It’s just offhand - half of the murders committed in the absence of witnesses - from the banal "wet" will be transferred to the category of necessary defense.
                    Are you ready for the fact that any conflict without witnesses will end with a murder from the necessary defense ???
                    1. Simargl 25 November 2019 21: 40 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: Amin_Vivec
                      3) You pick mushrooms - you have a knife, you meet a man with a gun, he shoots at you.
                      Man with a gun - huntsman or poacher. And you must have a license to collect wild plants tongue
                      1. Amin_vivec 25 November 2019 21: 44 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Is that a reason to kill me?
                      2. Simargl 25 November 2019 22: 25 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Amin_Vivec
                        Is that a reason to kill me?
                        For the huntsman - no. For the poacher, yes.
                      3. Amin_vivec 25 November 2019 22: 41 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        I am a realist - life can throw a fortress, a car can be knocked down, a brick can fall over your head, you can meet an inadequate gun in a forest - it’s such a life, you are not surprised at anything.
                        But the fact that they can kill me in the woods for a walk "mushrooming" and not be punished just by saying that "he has a knife in his hands, I was scared of him" is nonsense, it should not be like that. Such "self-defense" is not necessary. Killed - sit, long and hard.
                      4. Sapsan136 25 November 2019 23: 13 New
                        • 3
                        • 0
                        +3
                        And if he is stronger than you and he has an ax ... and a shovel, how are you not afraid? You can kill you even without a gun, according to statistics all over the world, they often kill with kitchen knives, including the owners of a firearm ... A big forest ... where then to look for your corpse ... And he won’t inform the police ... the forest ... there are no witnesses ... You are scared to live like this ...
                      5. Simargl 25 November 2019 23: 29 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Quote: Sapsan136
                        where then to search for your corpse ...
                        In the anthill. A good anthill will eat a horse in a week.
                      6. Sapsan136 25 November 2019 23: 33 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Yes, anywhere, that’s not the point ... It's just that a person writes nonsense ... like they can’t kill him in a forest without a gun ...
                      7. Simargl 25 November 2019 23: 36 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Quote: Sapsan136
                        like they can’t kill him without a pistol in the forest ...
                        Good Misha ... but he’ll gobble up raspberries am
                      8. Amin_vivec 26 November 2019 00: 36 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Do not hear me point blank. There will be legalized self-defense - he does not need to prove his "innocence". The corpse is to blame initially. And you can kill with a fork at dinner.
                      9. Sapsan136 26 November 2019 00: 49 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Well, if the music teacher is defending, and the corpse is a gangster-recidivist, then the conclusions suggest themselves ... Finally, understand that the bandits already have weapons, you don’t forbid them to have them ... You forbid them to have normal people who don’t want to die at the hands of bandits
                      10. Amin_vivec 26 November 2019 01: 01 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        situation from life: I park in my yard in my place, where I always put it; some drunk man waves his hands - "don't put it here, it’s my place." The situation developed rapidly and ended with two broken faces and broken fingers, after which the defendants reconciled and turned out to be neighbors. And if one of them had a short-shot - one would be in prison, and the second in the grave.
                      11. Sapsan136 26 November 2019 01: 06 New
                        • 4
                        • 0
                        +4
                        And if one of them had a knife, how would it be? Everyone had a car mount, but they fought with their fists ... Do you understand the difference? These people are, of course, strange, but they have a certain share of responsibility (they didn’t kill each other with erection, but they could) they don’t shoot like that ... Although ... if each of them had a barrel they could have been sober (carrying a weapon while intoxicated is forbidden, you’re going to thump leave the barrel in a safe), and disagreements would be resolved in more civilized ways
                      12. Amin_vivec 26 November 2019 01: 14 New
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        -2
                        There was no knife or gun - and you essentially want to give them away.
                      13. Sapsan136 26 November 2019 01: 18 New
                        • 3
                        • 0
                        +3
                        I want to register all the loonies and drunks ... All these are not normal on the streets from the anonymous treatment of drug addicts and anti-people’s health care reforms, because of which the psychopath cannot be turned into a madhouse without the consent of relatives ... and many psychos were simply released, as if they weren’t dangerous ... And from armed thugs I want to have reliable protection, in the form of a firearm and I will have it, whether you like it or not ...
                      14. Amin_vivec 26 November 2019 01: 23 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        Now, come to the point. If a normal education, health care and law enforcement, nafig and trunk would not be needed (((
                        It is not for me to forbid you.
                        it's all from your self-doubt ((((
                      15. Sapsan136 26 November 2019 01: 31 New
                        • 3
                        • 1
                        +2
                        Well, if there would be more order on the streets, then the demand for self-defense weapons would be lower, I agree with you ... But there are people of a special category, these are hunters and athletes ... I have been fond of shooting sports since I was 14 years old. like ... But the police do not interfere with clearing the streets of bandits like me ..
                      16. max702 26 November 2019 09: 52 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        All the experience of distributing weapons to the population speaks of a sharp decrease in crime wherever it is .. Take the Baltic states there and greatly simplify this action and many have arsenals and, oddly enough, this did not lead to the slightest surge in mortality with a firearm .. People the same, upbringing is all the same, and no perversions about the use thereof are written about here by pulling an owl on a globe. Or will it begin again that the Balts are civilized Europeans., But the silver-footed, always drunk inhabitants of the Mordor will shoot each other at once? The criminal situation in Russia has improved dramatically in recent years, even in comparison with the times of the USSR, there are practically no apartment thefts, very few car thefts, a banal hop stop has become a rarity, and a step in expanding the limits of self-defense will give an even greater reduction in crime in general .. An attacker will understand that the law is on the citizen’s side, and he won’t wait to give odds to the criminal, thereby dramatically increasing the risk of committing unlawful actions and preventing them even before they are committed .. From the adoption of this law, we will all win. Yes, and rudeness will become clearly less because who knows how this will be interpreted by the court .. Moreover, not only earthly ..
                    2. Simargl 28 November 2019 12: 44 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Amin_Vivec
                      If a normal education, health care and law enforcement, nafig and trunk would not be needed (((
                      Most do not need it now. What does "normal" mean?
                      To each precinct to attach?
                      Make you learn?
                      Make a healthy lifestyle lead?
  2. Amin_vivec 26 November 2019 00: 38 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    kill does not kill - the essence is different - that the corpse will be guilty - always, by law.
  3. Simargl 25 November 2019 23: 20 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Amin_Vivec
    But here is the fact that they can kill me in the forest on a walk "mushroom"
    A poacher will overwhelm you as a witness. In the mushroom season, who is allowed to hunt?
  • Voyager 25 November 2019 22: 16 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    I am not ready to become a victim of an attacker, while deciding in thought what is possible and what is not request The problem is that all of your examples are essentially real today without any new bills
  • Sapsan136 25 November 2019 23: 10 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    In many republics of the former USSR, citizens were allowed to carry combat pistols .... and no one shot each other there ... they live like that ... So don’t ... In the same USA you can be shot in the yard if you an uninvited guest, but first they will ask to leave for good ... There is a police force, it investigates each case separately ... If you were right, then our police officers, military and others would not pay off debts, but only do that lenders were shot ... After all, a corpse can be taken away and buried and everyone who knows weapons can know how to shoot without sound ... You can screw it up or poison it ... Well, no, there are at least criminals who have gunshots , no more than among others ...
    1. Simargl 28 November 2019 12: 48 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Sapsan136
      .If you were right, then our police officers, military and others would not repay debts, but only do that they shot creditors ...
      Two years ago, two of us with a writ of execution were shot dead. No lack of permission to the COP did not prevent to have an illegal trunk and apply it.
    2. Sapsan136 28 November 2019 13: 40 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      So I’m trying to explain to people that buying an illegal barrel, if you really want to, is not a problem, but from the barrel that is registered with the police, for a specific person, the person will still think whether to shoot or not .. I have 20 years of weapons and a reason was to use it to defeat, quite legitimate, but shot in the air, just for the sake of protecting my life and property, and I don’t need anything else ... I’m not a maniac, like most people, and without an emergency need to shoot I will ..
    3. Simargl 28 November 2019 14: 20 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Sapsan136
      the person will still think whether to shoot or not ..
      Will go out and!
      The goal of COP lobbyists is to buy a barrel and shoot people continuously! And any conversation should begin with the barrel in the head, or better, with a shot.
      Read the laws (even those that are for the weapons now permitted)? No, no need!
      Threat as sarcasm ...
    4. Sapsan136 28 November 2019 15: 10 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Ha ha ... There are a lot of ways to shoot people now ... You can buy at least a machine gun on the black market ... You can start shooting from an old shotgun, officially purchased, or simply stolen, for example from a warehouse ... I often came across like that ... After talking with someone like me, they started to consider me, or someone like me, not normal, they started screaming that we didn’t shoot, but they say, in the army ... Most of those screamers in the army shot from 1 up to 3 times, 2 to 3 rounds at shooting ranges, in the 90s ... Someone really fought to the nausea and shot too, there are some ... When people find out how old I have personal weapons (20 years) and what I fought myself, they don’t know what to say, they are in a stupor ..... most of them .. Well, okay - to each his own ... As for me, the presence of weapons among the population is also a matter of national security. .. Remember how many people died in the early days of 1941, because they simply did not have time to get weapons and ammunition ... The Germans captured thousands of soldiers unarmed, where then most destroyed ... If they had at least hunting rifles, the enemy could not have acted so with impunity ... Now, one of the reasons why it is impossible to occupy the United States is called, almost without exception, the armed population of the states ...
    5. Simargl 28 November 2019 15: 23 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Sapsan136
      When people find out how old I have personal weapons (20 years) and what I fought, they don’t know what to say, they are in a stupor
      I didn’t even serve (my health was disappointing), but I shot a lot (from small things). Having a weapon I don’t have a desire to shoot people (well, although the need does not appear). In the house I’m not the only one armed, but for some reason the walls are not covered with specific holes ...
      Screamers, they are like cheers, patriots - irrational.
  • depressant 25 November 2019 08: 50 New
    • 25
    • 3
    +22
    For me, the problem of self-defense is more than relevant. The neighbor opposite is a repeat drug addict. He was over forty years old, never worked anywhere, his parents are very elderly, pensioners, he lives at their expense and at the same time he buys drugs in the house opposite. And how will one of the parents die and there will be no extra money? The addict will begin to rummage around apartments. Afraid of the whole porch! Everyone put up strong doors, but I don’t have money for it. What am I supposed to do? Somehow, I remember, a case was described: a thief opened the door, and the mistress opened the house, borsch is boiling on the stove. She grabbed that borsch and doused it with a thief, and he retreated. So what should I do? Day and night to keep a bucket of boiling water on the stove? Or at least a large pot? So what?
    Let the law outline what and how it is acceptable to defend. But - do not draw! The Duma periodically raises this issue from the beginning of the 90s. Like, lawmakers are watching, remember the interests of voters. And for me, that's how they are happy with everything. Punishment for self-defense is one of the convenient ways to intimidate the population, which allows you to keep that population in check and not lift your heads from scanty portions of rotten straw. Otherwise, people will feel themselves with weapons in their hands.
    1. _Sergei_ 25 November 2019 10: 18 New
      • 11
      • 5
      +6
      If you do not have money for the door, then where will it appear on the trunk? And also the medical board 2000, training and exam 2000r.
      1. depressant 25 November 2019 10: 41 New
        • 10
        • 2
        +8
        I have kitchen knives.
        The whole question is whether I can dive under a lifted arm and poke a person with a knife in the stomach or between the ribs, and many more times at high speed. I doubt it very much. There were moments of mortal danger in life. No adrenaline, nothing. Absolute calm. And a moral gatehouse: "Human life is sacred!" At the same time, it was not thought that his own was also sacred. But maybe calm and saved. Everything worked out, the aggressors retreated. But for some reason it seems to me that all this happens a sad end. The wrong aggressor has now gone, you cannot morally crush.
        1. _Sergei_ 25 November 2019 13: 17 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          You are a cold-blooded woman. Plus you.
        2. New Year day 25 November 2019 14: 11 New
          • 9
          • 1
          +8
          Quote: depressant
          poke a person with a knife in the stomach or between the ribs, and many more times at high speed.

          Neck, neck! Injuries, as a rule, are fatal due to superficially located large vessels, the second place - the smell - so this arrangement. Just one hit with the turn of the blade. Why difficulties?
        3. VeteranVSSSR 25 November 2019 22: 36 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          How cruel you are, ... with turning the blade ... ''
          I propose to rivet ,, Lithuanian '' and ... ,, mow the braid while the dew ... ''
    2. Incvizitor 25 November 2019 12: 53 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      This is where such training and exam for 2 thousand? We have 5 minimum.
      1. _Sergei_ 25 November 2019 13: 15 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Barnaul, passed in 2016, only a drug test costs 800 rubles. I have a TT injury
    3. raw174 25 November 2019 16: 14 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: _Sergey_
      If you do not have money for the door, then where will it appear on the trunk? And also the medical board 2000, training and exam 2000r.

      It’s not a weapon, this is not at all a question. It's about the very concept of "necessary self-defense" and its borders. I am against legalizing the short-barrels and generally simplifying the circulation of weapons; I am for expanding, within reasonable limits, the limits of self-defense. Here is what you need. A person was attacked by a group, having a clear superiority in physical. force or a single armed attack, has the right to kill, due to a clear threat to his life or health. And you want a trunk, take a permitted injury, its capabilities are more than enough (in my memory there is a case of murder from an injury) ...
      1. _Sergei_ 25 November 2019 16: 23 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        I actually checked the TT when there were one hundred joules of cartridges, now 90, then from 5 meters I punched a 30mm board.
    4. vfwfr 25 November 2019 21: 07 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      As removed from the tongue ...)
    5. Amin_vivec 25 November 2019 21: 14 New
      • 2
      • 3
      -1
      I like to go to the shooting range - to shoot, and I have the opportunity to buy a barrel, but I do not want to keep such a thing in the house - I have three children. I don’t want and don’t buy - and it’s quiet on the street, and no one is shooting - my right to safety is guaranteed. And if every second door is with a gun, where will my right to safety be ???
      1. Sapsan136 25 November 2019 23: 23 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        How do you know that now there are no armed people near you? Are you comfortable thinking so? Someone has an award-winning combat pistol (for example, I have one), someone has an injury, or hunting rifles, and someone has a gangster and he doesn’t give a damn about the laws, he’s always armed ... Here’s the conclusion - you put yourself in a deliberately vulnerable position with your fears and others you interfere with defending effectively ... I understand that children ... they are almost worse than a bandit for you, because they can get to the keys to the safe and your weapons, with different consequences ... So always carry the keys with you .. .as I, for example ... though, I have all the adults and it’s easier for me (my parents are military, my wife is a car enthusiast, so everyone’s head is normal)
      2. Amin_vivec 26 November 2019 00: 44 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        I know that weapons will become many times more - they will shoot more often, they will die because of stupidity, at schools, at weddings ... on playgrounds from stray bullets ...
      3. Sapsan136 26 November 2019 00: 58 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        How do you know that? These are your fantasies ... you are afraid ... First of all, you are afraid of yourself ... you want to think that everyone around you is without weapons ... This is not so ... you want to think that a neighbor without a gun will not kill you and will not will throw your corpse into a ditch ... It’s not so, it can kill it with an ax ... And most importantly, you’re afraid that you yourself won’t be able to dispose of the weapons correctly, be it with you ... Such as you are not sure of your own adequacy, or don’t know how to use a weapon, don’t want to learn how to use it, be afraid of it ... Naturally, a gun in your pocket doesn’t protect you, you also need psychological readiness to defend yourself and the ability to control yourself (do not shoot at someone you just naughty) and the ability to use weapons, if there is no other way out ... I can say that in the 20 years that I have weapons, I most often had a shot in the air ...... To kill, if not to count the time spent in the war, I had to shoot only at the packs of feral dogs, several times trying to devour me ...
      4. Amin_vivec 26 November 2019 01: 07 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        I’m just confident in myself - I don’t need to keep the barrel in my pocket to be braver - I can clean my face without a gun
      5. Sapsan136 26 November 2019 01: 11 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        You know, I’m also not small ... Growth at 2 meters and in general ... but to brush off one of the three armed with a knife with my bare hands was both dangerous and quite difficult, and such a feat harmed my health (broken face, concussion ( I didn’t have time to dodge once)) But I don’t need it ... I’m calmer with a gun ... Do you want to fend off bandits with your fists, no one forbids you, but do not limit the rights and opportunities of others
      6. Amin_vivec 26 November 2019 01: 29 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Do not want fists - Injury, shocker, gas, favorite dog Rottweiler ... an adequate replacement for a firearm for every taste.
        And there is such a thing as victimization. And we also have to fight it.
      7. Sapsan136 26 November 2019 01: 36 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Injury is a very dubious thing, because when shooting on the limbs its power is not enough, and when shooting in the face it is not legal and often fatal ... I then go to the shooting range with an injury ... The shocker is even more doubtful than the injury .. so how to let the enemy is very close, and he has a knife and you’re not always stronger, and the attacker is definitely not alone ... Gas ... try to use it in windy weather, swallow it yourself, and the gas will not stop a healthy guy ... A dog is not an option , the more so ... they are forbidden to be kept in decent countries ... there aren’t a lot of teeth ...
      8. Amin_vivec 26 November 2019 01: 42 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Now there are shockers with a squib - they hit 5 meters. A four-barrel wasp is delivered even to American cops. I understand that you are a lover of gunshots, the taste and color as they say, all the markers are different. But I will say that in experienced hands the plug is dangerous, and not just a shocker or injury. In all cases of life, the arsenal you can’t get along with in any case (((
      9. Sapsan136 26 November 2019 01: 48 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        A shocker in the rain is useless ... A targeted shot from the Wasp is not possible at all ... The Osa body is weak, therefore they shoot at the head, and death from the brain hemorrhage into the head ... The Wasp itself is not reliable, there is electroflame of cartridges, or from a piece known to everyone by lighters, or by a battery, which makes it a dubious weapon in the rain ... Understand that most of our citizens cannot Rimbaud and they can’t fight off 5 armed bandits with a fork, and most can be taught to shoot .. I'm with me I don’t carry the arsenal, there’s enough award pistol ... at home a 12-gauge pump ...
      10. Amin_vivec 26 November 2019 01: 51 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        So we moved on to the concept of victim behavior, and the conclusion that it is harmful to health)))
        Okay, I’m going to sleep, but this sport wasn’t started by us, and we won’t be asked how it will be))))
      11. Sapsan136 26 November 2019 01: 55 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        As it will be so clear ... I will continue to walk with weapons (on my account 3 personally neutralized armed bandits by me) and you will still hope for a chance ... As for me, my gun is more reliable ... than maybe
  • Amin_vivec 26 November 2019 01: 20 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Fancy? In the USA, the free circulation of weapons Police officers were quickly accustomed - a man nearly jerked there - they were already firing. Why? Learned by bitter experience. Everyone can have a trunk.
    School shootings are fantasies? there are many times more than ours. An extreme case - 18 years of no brains, there is a trunk and everything is legal after all - I went to school ... Could this tightening of the issuance of weapons permits be prevented? Yes. Not from 18, but let's say after the army. I was not in the army - I went to Germany.
  • Sapsan136 26 November 2019 01: 28 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Now let's imagine for a moment that you are crazy, you want to go to school and kill someone there ... You are strong, you are 18-25 years old ... You don’t have a rifle, but you have a knife, an ax ... Ask yourself, only honestly, how many people at school you could kill with a knife, just attacking suddenly ?! Yes, a lot ... 3-5 for sure ... And what is the difference between a nut with a knife and a rifle ?! The difference is that today a psycho can buy on the Ak-74M market, but you don’t have such a good, law-abiding opportunity and it’s not possible to put cops on every corner ... Now you are defenseless ... In the USA, the reason for the police’s behavior is not so much in the arms of citizens, how many in a large number of migrants in the USA ... These people are without education, without the opportunity to get a good job, but with ambitions and among them ethnic criminal groups form ... You look at the USA carefully ... There are gangs Latinos simply fight with gangs of blacks for spheres of influence ... and neither the first nor the second want to work ... Weapons are full on the black market, see the movie Voroshilovsky shooter ... You are simply afraid to admit it
  • Amin_vivec 26 November 2019 01: 35 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I don’t want weapons on every corner. But I began with the fact that with the expansion of self-defense capabilities, a corpse will always be to blame. (The first attacked, there is no one to prove the opposite) So, whoever shot the first is right. And this is not sugar at all - this is the wild west.
  • Sapsan136 26 November 2019 01: 40 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Now it’s even worse ... Suppose for a moment that I’m a gangster ... I have a TT bought on the black market, you only have your fists ... Now I'm killing you, throwing a gun into the bushes and that's it ... I'm going to refuse. ..I didn’t shoot ... the gun is not mine, because he is not registered with the police at me and just leave the scene of the crime leaving your corpse lying on the road ...
  • Amin_vivec 26 November 2019 01: 47 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And in your opinion then how will it be? - he will kill you, his TT bought on the black market will be thrown out - and your new one will be taken to itself and sold on the black market - will pay back its expenses.
  • Sapsan136 26 November 2019 01: 49 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Now, with the aim of taking possession of weapons, PPS employees are being killed ... you won’t notice the difference ... But for the bandit there is a difference ... Your face does not say whether you are armed or not ... presumably armed ... So shoot you in order to take possession of your gun it makes no sense (not the fact that you have one) and robbing you without noise will not work, and the noise of a bandit is not an ally
  • max702 26 November 2019 10: 14 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Amin_Vivec
    School shootings are fantasies?

    Have you read about shootings in Israeli schools? No? And what is the reason for this? There hating the inhabitants of Israel there is darkness, but there are no such excesses .. The question is why? And it's just that in the USA, it’s unlikely that a teacher passing a citizen (if it's not Texas or Alabama) has guns, but in Israel, anyone can have a gun barrel and they will shoot a criminal much earlier than in the USA, so they don’t deal with such foolishness in Israel .
  • Simargl 28 November 2019 15: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Amin_Vivec
    Could prevent this tightening of weapons permits? Yes.
    Naive young man!
    In our city, a couple of years ago, one froze and began to chop people with an ax to the right and left. Good - the policeman was not very far, shot him. It’s lucky that I didn’t kill anyone tightly ...
    Did it help that he didn't have a gunshot?
    The acquaintance was killed by a snip from a sawn-off shotgun - he would not have been given permission at all .... would help?
    They explain to you over and over that, if necessary, the marginal will get weapons - he does not need permission.
    For example, I did not serve in the army. It has nothing to do with the head.
    Give statistics on the criminal use of weapons by people who have passed the army and who have "slanted" in health.
  • Simargl 25 November 2019 23: 24 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Amin_Vivec
    I have the opportunity to buy a barrel, but I do not want to keep such a thing in the house - I have three children.
    No one forbids locking weapons in a safe. And if children are trained in safe handling, it will be safer than if they do not have an idea of ​​the dangers posed by weapons.
  • Amin_vivec 26 November 2019 00: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    there the child went to school with a gun ... probably in the safe. He was trained. there were inquiries - and this infection every year more and more ...
  • Sapsan136 26 November 2019 01: 01 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    He won’t have a gun to kill him with a knife, an ax ... The bottom line is that on the street, the sick love to meet the whole head, and what they are armed with is already secondary
  • Amin_vivec 26 November 2019 21: 43 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    You can run away from a knife, from a bullet - harder.
  • Sapsan136 27 November 2019 00: 51 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    It’s not a fact that you can run away from a knife ...... There are usually a lot of attackers and not the fact that they run poorly ... In addition, if you are with a family or a girl, where and how should you run? If you are weaker, and you are usually weaker, since 1 and without a weapon, against 3 to 5 criminals with knives, you just have to die on the spot ... Or have a weapon and protect your family ...
  • Amin_vivec 27 November 2019 11: 49 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Interior Ministry report on the killings in 2019.
    “60-70% of crimes in Russia, including murders, occur on drunken-kitchen soil, - The most common instruments of crime: stools, knives, crystal vases and pans. The most common "killer motive" is family stress on the background of a family holiday, just a booze. " According to the GUVD of Moscow, 43% of crimes in the capital are drunk - and in the country 63-67%! A typical situation is that a drunk man, having slaughtered his drinking buddies, calmly goes after the addition of alcohol: he buys half a liter of vodka and chewing gum so that he does not smell of alcohol ... "

    What are 4-5 armed bandits? - this is a minuscule, I do not know where you live, but describe either Ukraine or something from the category in the early 90's.

    You look in this direction to stools, knives, crystal vases and pans; you also want to add a firearm.
  • Sapsan136 27 November 2019 18: 01 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    These are the 5 drunks you met along the way, without money, but with a thirst to catch up with alcohol may well kill you and your whole family ... I'm not talking about ethnic crime (I remember last year a gang of immigrants from Uzbekistan, who operated in Moscow region, on her account from 60 to 80 episodes and among them dozens of murders with the purpose of robbery)
  • Amin_vivec 27 November 2019 19: 04 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    on “drunk-kitchen-household soil” - not on the road, but at home, between relatives.
  • Sapsan136 27 November 2019 19: 22 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Such an drunkard tried to rob me and stab me with a knife just in the middle of the street, and in the afternoon ... Just because there was a knife there were 3 on me 1 and there was no money to catch up with alcohol
  • Amin_vivec 27 November 2019 21: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    You managed without weapons, and did not go to prison.
  • Sapsan136 28 November 2019 00: 18 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    coped but got a concussion ... taking into account the track record of the attackers and the presence of a knife, I wouldn’t have sat down anyway ... but if I had a gun and I wouldn’t have to fight ... a shot in the air would be enough to repel any desire sitter drunk on me rock ... Believe me, I know what I'm talking about ... They tried to attack me when I already had a weapon ... Shot in the air and run like hares ...
  • Simargl 28 November 2019 15: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Sapsan136
    enough shot in the air
    Oh no no no! Shoot in the air! Any demonstration of weapons in a public place (except shooting galleries and rifle complexes) is its use. For any application you need to report.
  • Sapsan136 28 November 2019 19: 00 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    it is now necessary ... it wasn’t necessary before ... and I don’t give a damn ... I’ll say I’ll write ... if that ... let them look and put this frostbitten punks
  • Simargl 29 November 2019 18: 59 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Sapsan136
    it is now necessary... it wasn’t necessary before ...
    What?
    Shoot in the air?
    Quote: Article 24. Use of weapons by citizens of the Russian Federation
    The use of weapons must be preceded by a clear warning about this to the person against whom the weapon is used, unless delays in the use of weapons pose a direct danger to human life or may entail other serious consequences. In this case, the use of weapons in the state of necessary defense should not harm third parties.
    Can you guarantee that a guaranteed non-aimed shot will not cause harm to third parties? For example, a bullet will not hit the eye of one of the group of two persons watching the stars, according to the law of meanness, which overlapped with probability theory ...
  • Sapsan136 29 November 2019 19: 29 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The range of the damaging effect of the injury, and the PM bullet, is relatively small ... In the case of injury it is not more than 7 meters, in the PM about 70, maybe a little more ... For someone to suffer from a shot in the air, you need either, with a fool, to shoot at an angle of 30 degrees, but this is no longer in the air ... or to shoot standing under the balcony from which someone called ... but this is one in a million chance ... The risk is less than when an armed criminal is captured by the police ...
  • Simargl 30 November 2019 02: 22 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Sapsan136
    at PM about 70
    On the packaging for the cartridges it says 385 m. And it can kill at 70 m.
    But both bullets and a canopy to the eye are dangerous. And I mentioned the law of meanness (or Murphy, if anyone remembers it).
  • Sapsan136 2 December 2019 11: 48 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Well, if you look at this, then you need to disarm the police, and she patrols the city with AK and does the right thing, since the bandits are often armed so that only armed with a gun can not neutralize them ...
  • Simargl 28 November 2019 12: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Amin_Vivec
    there the child went to school with a gun ...
    What kind of child is this?
  • Nyrobsky 25 November 2019 11: 44 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Quote: depressant
    So what should I do? Day and night to keep a bucket of boiling water on the stove? Or at least a large pot? So what?
    Let the law outline what and how it is acceptable to defend.

    To get started, get at least a gas spray (although the spray in a confined space affects not only the intruder), or a stun gun and let them lie in the reach of households. Maybe they will never come in handy, or maybe ...
  • Alex bergman 25 November 2019 17: 17 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    It’s a pity that you can’t put more than 1 +! +100 at once!
  • Simargl 25 November 2019 21: 46 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: depressant
    The addict will begin to rummage around apartments.
    Shocker and / or spray can with gel. True, good shockers are also expensive, and the gel needs to be updated. But still it’s not 30-40 tyrs, which you will have to spend on a rubber reaper, and besides, training every time.
  • Sapsan136 25 November 2019 23: 03 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    As a rule, attacks are carried out by persons already well-known to the police who are registered with her ... or who had previously been detained for similar crimes ... How many attacked me, the music teacher never attacked me, all the time the alcohol-abusing elements on which the neighbors wrote so many complaints that they could argue with 4 volumes of the War and Peace of Tolstoy ...
  • Buffet 25 November 2019 14: 59 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Semen Semenych ...
    1. novel66 25 November 2019 16: 45 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      thought too !!!
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Avior 25 November 2019 08: 26 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    On the inside of the shorts on the belt, the shirt is out of the way.
    Inconvenient, of course, but if you need to clear the space around you in the subway smile then you have to endure
    Well, man purse, of course.
    Or a wallet on a belt.
  • Victor Tsenin 25 November 2019 11: 20 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    In the subcutaneous holster))
    1. Amin_vivec 25 November 2019 21: 53 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      In the thieves' hitch)))
  • The leader of the Redskins 25 November 2019 07: 22 New
    • 7
    • 7
    0
    Then Volfovich, at one of the Navalnovsk rallies, yelled like he wasn’t finished "... try, just try to touch me, I have parliamentary immunity!" ... He must have been afraid to exceed his self-defense.
    1. _Sergei_ 25 November 2019 13: 19 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      And whom Volfovich is afraid of, his guard is unmeasured.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • novel66 25 November 2019 07: 32 New
    • 15
    • 0
    +15
    any self-defense is necessary! at home, anyway!
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Cut Samshitov 25 November 2019 07: 56 New
    • 16
    • 13
    +3
    Volfych is a classic provocateur. Any sound idea from the lips of a clown is discredited in advance. For this, it is contained by the authorities.
    1. sniperino 25 November 2019 10: 47 New
      • 8
      • 2
      +6
      Quote: Cut Samshitov
      Volfych - a classic provocateur
      Today Volfych has a different role: he is increasingly remembered not for his shockingness, but for his accurate political forecasts.
  • Zhan 25 November 2019 08: 19 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    Quote: ANIMAL
    Yeah, just for starters, you need to legally determine what is Necessary Self-Defense. How many people are sitting, protecting themselves and their loved ones from all kinds of tricks ... who, in the blink of an eye - become victims and victims!
    Now, Even in your own House, having given the attackers an armed rebuff, you risk being on the bunk!

    This is easy with us. And God forbid, revise the law on self-defense. It is better to cancel it in this form, otherwise it will turn into fornication. Instead, take a new one, where it is clear in red and white to allow citizens protecting their property, family, their lives and loved ones, apply extreme measures of physical impact.
  • Tank hard 25 November 2019 10: 15 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    Quote: ANIMAL
    Yeah, just for starters, you need to legally determine what is Necessary Self-Defense. How many people are sitting, protecting themselves and their loved ones from all kinds of tricks ... who, in the blink of an eye - become victims and victims!
    Now, Even in your own House, having given the attackers an armed rebuff, you risk being on the bunk!

    Here is the full interpretation from the lawyer in the video, we look and conclude that there are basically two ways out, either to be a victim (and often an invalid or dead), or prepare to get a criminal record. Against this background, Zhirinovsky fellow, even trying to say something.
  • senima56 25 November 2019 10: 52 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    About that and the conversation- "personal home should be IMPAIRED!"
  • Dart2027 25 November 2019 19: 51 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: ANIMAL
    need to legally determine - WHAT is Necessary Self-Defense

    I can immediately say - this is nonsense.
    Self-defense is either there or not. For example, if a certain thief while trying to get into the house was discovered by the owners and rushed to run away, then shooting at him is not an excess of self-defense, but generally not self-defense. If, instead, he continued his attempt to penetrate inside, then this was self-defense - not much in his pocket.
  • APES 25 November 2019 06: 16 New
    • 14
    • 28
    -14
    Fully support

    You need permission to covertly carry military weapons.
    They approach, shoot a cigarette, take out the barrel - the "arrows" will disappear like a class ....
    1. APES 25 November 2019 06: 54 New
      • 6
      • 22
      -16
      Cons put arrows of cigarettes ???? :)))
      1. novel66 25 November 2019 07: 30 New
        • 10
        • 1
        +9
        rather, those who understand that shooters can also have trunks .. and what if they shoot better? (I didn’t minus)
        1. APES 25 November 2019 07: 41 New
          • 3
          • 16
          -13
          shooters can also have

          "arrows" of cigarettes are finished shniks, you just don’t have to wait, but immediately bring them down as soon as they take a step in the direction :))))
          1. novel66 25 November 2019 07: 42 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            mabut, the attack will succeed, not defense .. they say it’s better to throw a grenade - there are no traces
            1. APES 25 November 2019 07: 44 New
              • 3
              • 12
              -9
              , the attack will turn out

              The best defense is an attack !!!! This should be spelled out in the law !!!!!! :))))))
              1. novel66 25 November 2019 07: 45 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                immediately the demand for BRDMki will increase .. they sold from the army, only from 700tyr
                1. APES 25 November 2019 08: 40 New
                  • 7
                  • 8
                  -1
                  will grow immediately

                  For you (as the most adequate one) I’ll explain my thought: psychos and all kinds of anti-social comrades do not need permission to arms. They will only think if they know that they can run into an inadequate response from any peaceful Internet user. Where concealed carrying of weapons is permitted, the number of crimes against an individual tends to zero.
                  There is another problem: one must be able to use weapons, and most importantly, be prepared, first of all, to use them morally and psychologically. And for this we need serious courses with an exam.
                  God created people, and Colt made them equal - something like that.
                  And the "shooters" must be finished, we got ........
                  1. novel66 25 November 2019 08: 44 New
                    • 5
                    • 4
                    +1
                    as the most appropriate

                    hi
                    There is another problem: one must be able to use weapons, and most importantly, be prepared, first of all, to use them morally and psychologically. And for this we need serious courses with an exam.

                    are you talking about a country where everyone is used to buying ???
                    1. APES 25 November 2019 08: 52 New
                      • 2
                      • 3
                      -1
                      namely schizo-paranoid

                      The trunk in the Russian Federation is not a problem.
                      And for example, I don’t even need a trunk :)))))
                    2. Zhan 25 November 2019 09: 04 New
                      • 6
                      • 0
                      +6
                      Quote: APES
                      namely schizo-paranoid

                      The trunk in the Russian Federation is not a problem.
                      And for example, I don’t even need a trunk :)))))

                      hi
                      Here, many of us do not need trunks, we can do a lot with our bare hands. Yes, unfortunately, the bullet is a fool .. smile
                  2. vfwfr 25 November 2019 21: 16 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    If the shooting range is 50 rubles per shot from a sports pistol ... then there will definitely be no culture ...
                  3. Simargl 25 November 2019 21: 55 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: novel xnumx
                    Moreover, it’s the paranoid schizics who are the first to rush for the trunks, well, we don’t have this culture ...
                    If you didn’t notice, we almost dragged one landmark law - the sickly requirements for a medical examination (for the presence of drugs and alcohol in the blood) for admission to driving. The proposal of constant monitoring of health has gone completely unnoticed (then I don’t understand - why do I need help?). In any case, all certificates are issued by a specific person who works in a specific institution. Several landings with "advertising" and those who wish (to distribute certificates for bribes) will decrease.
                  4. novel66 25 November 2019 22: 05 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    noticed that I was just right to change, even got excited, then called a friend - and he reassured - a little more money and help in my pocket .. the idea was initially idiotic, by the way, you need to catch drunken drivers at the wheel
                  5. Simargl 25 November 2019 22: 36 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Quote: novel xnumx
                    a little more money and help in your pocket ..
                    Even funnier: they slowed down, sort of.
                    For example, I do not care: I do not drink, I do not smoke ...
                    But the effect of the rights to equate to the permit for the acquisition of weapons (select and make an application for acquisition) is necessary. Those. the availability of rights ensures that I do not have contraindications for the management and possession of objects of increased danger.
                    I should be able, if I have the rights to come to the arms store and make an application for the purchase of weapons (by presenting a certificate of training or another license for weapons, passport and rights), and the store submits documents to the Russian Guard, that gives permission, I redeem the trunk, the store it registers in the Rosguard ...
                  6. novel66 26 November 2019 07: 10 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    and I, as an officer of the Soviet army, need to undergo training ???
                  7. Simargl 28 November 2019 12: 30 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    If the Soviet-most likely necessary. There is not only "where to click" ... uh ... wassat
                    they teach - there they explain more laws ... or should ...
                    That's about the Russian - I do not know ...
                    In addition, you only need to go hunting one time, and for a rubber spit, from the supply of a nedimon, every time anew ...
          2. Sapsan136 25 November 2019 23: 31 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Do you have it in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania? And after all, no one there killed each other, despite the very tense international relations
        2. Same lech 25 November 2019 08: 51 New
          • 6
          • 4
          +2
          Roslyakov passed all the exams and certificates and legally got a weapon ... what we all know from this.
          1. APES 25 November 2019 09: 33 New
            • 6
            • 3
            +3
            what of this

            Would there be armed and ready to shoot in that college ????? Maybe there wouldn’t be anything ???
          2. Don
            Don 25 November 2019 14: 15 New
            • 2
            • 5
            -3
            Quote: APES
            Would there be armed and ready to shoot in that college ????? Maybe there wouldn’t be anything ??

            So he presented the picture. The whole college is armed to the teeth with someone having an injury, someone with a PM, someone with a TT ... Roslyakov, armed with a semi-automatic rifle and with 2 pistols in his bosom, opens the door to the audience and throws one smoke grenade and 1 noise. And then SUCH begins ... He will not even need to shoot, the students themselves will shoot each other.
            Do you even imagine that in this case even the presence of a trunk will not give anyone any guarantee? Why? Because in the black and gray market, anyone can buy a stolen or lost trunk at half price. American monthly executions will seem like child brawls compared to what starts with us.
            The main reason why a mass permit for possession of weapons in Russia is currently impossible is the fear of the authorities that these weapons could be turned against itself. Fortunately, there are more than enough reasons for this.
          3. vfwfr 25 November 2019 21: 17 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            There would be a massacre ..
        3. Sapsan136 25 November 2019 23: 37 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Then a few years ago, a major police officer started shooting at passers-by from service weapons ... Do you propose disarming the police? In the army, recently, one of six colleagues was shot dead ... Will we also disarm the army ?! A freak psycho in the police is better than a civil psycho?
      2. _Sergei_ 25 November 2019 10: 22 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        In 16, I retook for a permit for injury. Passed only the third time. Everything is serious there and the freebie doesn’t roll. I don’t know where, but with us.
      3. Tank hard 25 November 2019 10: 24 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Quote: APES
        For you

        Quote: APES
        I will explain my thought:

        I need a law on "self-defense", where I will not be held responsible for the far-fetched and harmful "exceeding the necessary limits" at the moment, then in most cases I can do it with my own hands and improvised material, for I am trained. And the gun will not help many, because they can’t do anything. You are not 15 years old?
        1. _Sergei_ 25 November 2019 13: 22 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          No, only 64 so far.
      4. VeteranVSSSR 25 November 2019 22: 46 New
        • 0
        • 3
        -3
        A man served in the army, a full-time weapon is written on a military ticket, he was dismissed from the army by an order of the Minister of Defense, and the question is, why should I take courses if I have been looking for two years of service for the rest of my life ... ''
  • pv1005 25 November 2019 19: 52 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: APES
    shooters can also have

    "arrows" of cigarettes are finished shniks, you just don’t have to wait, but immediately bring them down as soon as they take a step in the direction :))))

    Aren't you afraid that they will confuse you with the "shooter"?
  • Terenin 25 November 2019 11: 41 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: novel xnumx
    those who understand that shooters can also have trunks ..

    Roma hi believe me, only a toughening legislation will be in force ... stop
    By the way, deviations from the law were not found when preparing Roslyakov for shooting (Kerch - October 25, 2018 (shooting at the Polytechnic College took place on October 17, 2018, 21 people were killed, 67 were injured).
    And, only according to the official data of the Russian Guard, at the moment (2019), almost four million people are the owners of weapons in Russia. In their hands - more than six and a half million (6 619 861) units of civilian weapons. Of these: 969 - rifled, 807 - smoothbore, 4 units of limited-edition weapons, as well as 409 gas pistols and revolvers and 541 units of powerful pneumatic weapons to be registered.
    1. APES 25 November 2019 11: 55 New
      • 12
      • 3
      +9
      for weapons, only tightening will be legislatively ... stop

      Well, yes, armed people are very dangerous. In Switzerland, they are not afraid of their people, but we don’t have one, it does not inspire confidence, does not give birth, does not go to the polls, etc.
      1. novel66 25 November 2019 12: 31 New
        • 7
        • 8
        -1
        let's first all will comply with traffic rules, not at the level of these Europe, and then we'll talk about weapons
    2. novel66 25 November 2019 12: 03 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Gene, hello! hi I am for toughening, but the limits on self-defense must be removed, and I will fight back with an authorized knife. but then, apparently, I’ll sit down ...
      1. APES 25 November 2019 12: 14 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        but then apparently

        But alive and healthy :)
      2. Terenin 25 November 2019 12: 16 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: novel xnumx
        for toughening, but the limits on self-defense must be removed, and I will fight off with a permitted knife. but then, apparently, I’ll sit down ...

        I agree, Roma. Better to be red than dead O. Troyanovsky is an outstanding Soviet diplomat.
      3. Terenin 25 November 2019 12: 32 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Quote: novel xnumx
        I am for toughening, but the limits on self-defense must be removed, and I will fight back with an authorized knife. but then, apparently, I’ll sit down ...

        On the other hand, if they break into a house with a hammer - how will I prove the absence of exceeding the limits of self-defense? Will I wait until my relatives are crippled? Or will I run and look for a hammer too? And if someone who breaks in says that he was not going to use it, but walked by to work or in general, that they themselves were called to hammer a nail what . Well-thought-out laws are needed - definitely.
        1. novel66 25 November 2019 12: 38 New
          • 7
          • 0
          +7
          then it’s even if they broke into the house - you shouldn’t prove anything to anyone, but you should just protect your own, no matter what, and by that. that turned up by the arm
  • Tank hard 25 November 2019 10: 28 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: APES
    Cons put arrows of cigarettes ????

    It just helps in career advancement. repeat
  • Amin_vivec 25 November 2019 22: 00 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    A peaceful person doesn’t really need a weapon, it scares him (all of a sudden the children will find, shoot) and annoying (you need a safe, a license, pay more for him ...)
    But for a person prone to aggression, it’s just in topic, with the help of him he asserts himself, feels confident, and sometimes with impunity ...
    The barrel will most likely be at the “shooter” of cigarettes, a riotous driver in an accident, an aggressive boor in the stairwell, that’s the question.
  • Avior 25 November 2019 08: 28 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    Or they take out their rightful trunk and bring you down, as if threatening with a weapon.
    All the evidence is there.
    1. APES 25 November 2019 08: 42 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      as threatening weapons.

      And there is no need to threaten - he took out the barrel - immediately shoot to kill
      1. Avior 25 November 2019 14: 22 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Prison definitely
        . They approach, shoot a cigarette, take out the barrel - the "arrows" will disappear like a class ....
      2. Amin_vivec 25 November 2019 22: 31 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        wild west pancake (((
    2. revnagan 25 November 2019 13: 53 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Quote: Avior
      Or they take out their rightful trunk and bring you down, as if threatening with a weapon.

      ... yeah, in your own house.
      1. Avior 25 November 2019 14: 20 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        You missed the beginning
        . They approach, shoot a cigarette, take out the barrel - the "arrows" will disappear like a class ....
  • Tank hard 25 November 2019 10: 19 New
    • 3
    • 7
    -4
    Quote: APES
    They approach, shoot a cigarette, take out the barrel - the "arrows" will disappear like a class ..

    For people like you:
    1. APES 25 November 2019 12: 48 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      I have already voiced this problem:
      There is another problem: one must be able to use weapons, and most importantly, be prepared, first of all, to use them morally and psychologically. And for this we need serious courses with an exam.

      Need appropriate training, and about the "sheep with a barrel" watch the film "Makarov".
      By the way, how many “sheep” do we call and give them weapons?
      1. Tank hard 25 November 2019 12: 55 New
        • 1
        • 3
        -2
        Quote: APES
        Need appropriate training, and about the "sheep with a barrel" watch the film "Makarov".
        By the way, how many “sheep” do we call and give them weapons

        In the video that I posted for you (well, and not only for you), in my opinion, in an exhaustive way, with suitable and adequate arguments, the answer is given, why against the short-barrels (mind you, not weapons at all), you need to look in full, there is an answer why I asked a question about age. If you do not agree after a full viewing, then about age - it will be relevant. wink
        And the film - “Makarov”, with all the interest in the storyline, is still an artistic fiction. request
        1. APES 25 November 2019 13: 01 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          you need to watch completely

          Watched 10 sec
          In the evening I’ll look completely - I will unsubscribe, I’ll say an opinion if it is interesting to you :)
          asked about age

          44 is enough ??? + :)
          And so a knife in a fight, in skilled hands, is much more dangerous than a short trunk .... :)
          If you disagree after a full viewing, then about age -

          And this is a manipulation :))))
          1. Tank hard 25 November 2019 13: 09 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Quote: APES
            44 is enough ??? + :)

            I am 46, reading your ardent speeches the feeling that you are much less ... request
            Quote: APES
            Watched 10 sec

            To see the full picture. preferably from beginning to end, there is a complete alignment and about small children ... repeat
            Quote: APES
            And so a knife in a fight, in skilled hands, is much more dangerous than a short trunk.

            We are aware of this, but we must be able to, and yes, the use of a knife in a fight is a criminal record in almost any case. repeat
            1. APES 25 November 2019 13: 22 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Nice to meet you hi
              And so
              I am 46 reading your impassioned speeches

              Please take into account that my speeches, as a rule, are: a mixture of humor, irony, sarcasm and sometimes even (shhhh) frank banter lol
              1. Tank hard 25 November 2019 17: 51 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Quote: APES
                Please take into account that my speeches, as a rule, are: a mixture of humor, irony, sarcasm and sometimes even (shhhh) frank banter

                In short - trolling. wink laughing
                1. APES 25 November 2019 18: 50 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  In short -

                  Thus, I express my opinion, nothing more ....
                  Trolling is a deliberate provocation and insults.
                  And today, I only provoked the "shooter of cigarettes" - I was even surprised how many there are .... lol
                  There are so many cons lol
                  1. Tank hard 25 November 2019 19: 06 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: APES
                    There are so many cons

                    There is a positive point, the title grows from the minus. wink
  • AU Ivanov. 25 November 2019 10: 47 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Arrows will come up and shoot a cigarette with a bare barrel.
    1. Sapsan136 25 November 2019 23: 51 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      As people like you don’t understand that the criminals already have illegal weapons and they don’t give a damn about your prohibitions, they are bandits ... It’s about those who can have the right to oppose their guns to the bandit’s weapons and level the chances .. .
  • sniperino 25 November 2019 11: 08 New
    • 5
    • 6
    -1
    Quote: APES
    Fit shoot a cigarette
    They will adapt to the distribution of permits for the concealed carrying of military weapons: they will first beat the mount with a pomp on the head, then seize weapons and cigarettes. Only the question of a smoke will disappear, and the gopota will have more weapons. Or did the “arrows” disappear in the USA?
  • _Sergei_ 25 November 2019 13: 21 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    They give permission. I have an injury, can be worn equipped, not to be confused with a charged one.
    1. Simargl 25 November 2019 22: 04 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: _Sergey_
      I have an injury, can be worn equipped, not to be confused with a charged one.
      Did the revolvers stay? They then it is equivalent.
      1. Sapsan136 25 November 2019 23: 53 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Remained and revolvers ... I have revolvers (award and injury) I love revolvers and pump-action shotguns ...
  • DEDPIHTO 25 November 2019 06: 44 New
    • 25
    • 13
    +12
    Quote: andrewkor
    I fully support Vladimir Volfovich!
    The old methods of a pocket opposition are to propose a populist, obviously impassable bill and then arrange srach with opponents of the project under the television cameras. The electorate is delighted - a pocket populist champs further from the feeder and already demands to appoint the owner as king. laughing
    1. kjhg 25 November 2019 07: 30 New
      • 13
      • 8
      +5
      Quote: DEPHIHTO
      the pocket populist champs further from the feeder and already demands to appoint the owner as king

      It seems to me that you need to be a very stupid person to be a supporter of Zhirinovsky. All his proposals are absolutely populist, designed for stupid people. The man is sick, and besides, he is also quite old. As they say, a person needs to be judged by his deeds, not his words. Zhirinovsky supported almost all anti-people’s laws and government budgets. Also, remember the attempt to impeach Yeltsin in 1999? Then this type and his party did not support impeachment. More precisely, 1 person supported, and all the rest simply did not refuse to vote. He even publicly abused and beat women. It is a shame to support Zhirinovsky, as well as edro.
    2. Tank hard 25 November 2019 10: 26 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Quote: DEPHIHTO
      Old pocket opposition tricks- suggest populist

      And the Communists, and so will wave to someone they will order. IMHO. wink
      1. DEDPIHTO 25 November 2019 10: 41 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        If you mean Zyuganov, then he is the same communist as the opposition leader from Zhirinovsky. Udaltsov is even more like this old rag, dishonoring the high rank of communist ..
        1. Tank hard 25 November 2019 10: 46 New
          • 6
          • 1
          +5
          Quote: DEPHIHTO
          Udaltsov

          Alex hi . For me personally, and for most of my friends, the Communists are highly discredited. We don’t see their good deeds. I don’t know what they need to do so that people would believe them. Young people do not perceive them at all. Alas. request
          1. DEDPIHTO 25 November 2019 11: 00 New
            • 5
            • 3
            +2
            Therefore, good deeds are not visible, that they play according to the imposed rules. What needs to be done, the answer is simple - follow the instructions of V.I. Lenin as it should be communists, as amended by modern realities .. wink
            1. Tank hard 25 November 2019 11: 05 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: DEPHIHTO
              Therefore, good deeds are not visible, that they play according to the imposed rules. What needs to be done, the answer is simple - follow the instructions of V.I. Lenin as it should be communists, as amended by modern realities ..

              Here you are saying normal, adequate things, not the first time I notice. however, some of your colleagues often thresh this, even if they carry the saints. and in real life we ​​don’t see people like you, but there are a lot of other different ones, but we don’t believe them. Something needs to be done with the party ... request
            2. AU Ivanov. 25 November 2019 11: 10 New
              • 5
              • 5
              0
              There is nothing more harmful than Leninist pointers. Soaked through Russophobia. And Comrade Stalin was right, leaning the faithful Leninist comrades-in-arms against the wall.
              1. Sapsan136 25 November 2019 23: 57 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                With Stalin, too, everything is far from as clear as you think ... So a resident of the RSFSR had to work 40 workdays, and a resident of the GSSR only 6 ... And where is Stalin's love for the Russian people, the brotherhood of nations, equality and brotherhood?
  • Alexander Petrov1 25 November 2019 07: 24 New
    • 11
    • 1
    +10
    Why then do we need the right to self-defense and the salvation of personal life and health, if they put us in jail for this right? But our police, when we usually ask her for protection, say something like this - "When they cripple or kill you, then and we’ll start a criminal case, "and in other countries that are not even very developed, it’s completely different, they even have physical protection and financial assistance to witnesses, that's why our crime is not afraid of anything and it gets its own threats, shame on our laws ...
    1. Igorpl 25 November 2019 07: 55 New
      • 5
      • 3
      +2
      It is not so with us (Murmansk), and the police are reacting, and they can help outside the scope of duties. Respect for them has increased.
      1. Alexander Petrov1 25 November 2019 08: 01 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +7
        It’s good if this is so, but usually everyone does not care about citizens and therefore many are afraid to help the police, and I understand them, the risk to life, health and property is enormous, and unfortunately the protection and assistance from the police is zero ...
  • Ingvar 72 25 November 2019 07: 40 New
    • 8
    • 3
    +5
    Quote: andrewkor
    A Communist Party-renegades and fit!

    Zhirik is not better! wink You look at how they vote, not what they say. hi
    1. tihonmarine 25 November 2019 08: 53 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Ingvar 72
      Zhirik is not better! You look at how they vote, not what they say.

      And why be surprised, because in Russia there is not a single party standing on the Marxist-Leninist platform.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Alex Justice 25 November 2019 08: 31 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    And return the death penalty.
    1. Sapsan136 26 November 2019 00: 00 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      The death penalty must be returned with a caveat ... Enforced 10 years after the sentencing so that the innocent are not shot, as in the case of the serial killer Chikatilo ...
  • Sunjar 25 November 2019 09: 01 New
    • 12
    • 1
    +11
    Quote: andrewkor
    I fully support Vladimir Volfovich! A Communist Party-renegades and fit!


    Address to all visitors to the VO site:
    Of course, clarification, expansion and concretization of the limits of self-defense is an important and necessary thing. But everyone forgets from something, that all the same it will be considered by police, prosecutors and judges. I remind or explain for the first time (for those who did not know): it is the police officers, prosecutors and judges who are now bringing these cases to real terms, or at least conditional. It all starts with the police, here he sits and he needs to collect successful disclosed cases, does such a person need a real state of affairs and identify who is right and who is not? Yes, for the most part, no. And that is why, at the first testimony, the police try to interrogate in such a way that the person who defended essentially pleaded guilty, and then rummaged around. The prosecutor’s office works exactly the same way and they don’t need the truth. And the courts still work in conjunction with the prosecutor's office. That is why there are so many cases with excess self-defense. After all, not one of the links in this chain is even trying to take the side of self-defense. 1,6 thousand people confirm this (of course, not all of them are innocent, we must look at each case separately). Look at the same case of Ryabukhin. It’s just that the Armenian diaspora fit in for the loser who started the whole torment, the losir-Armenian himself gave one testimony and then another, and the court didn’t give a damn about these circumstances. Do not forget that we have capitalism, and ordinary people have no business or benefit for the police, prosecutors and courts, unlike the rich.
    And I give you 99,9% confidence that if the law is passed, everything will remain the same, but all kinds of rich people who have hung up on you with stars will be told to them by the police, the prosecutor's office and the court that they will not exceed the limits of self-defense.
    1. Demon_is_ada 25 November 2019 11: 29 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      There is such a thing, it has become commonplace among them “law enforcement officers” that drunken dead teenage boys rush under the wheels of cars ... To be honest, this will stop only when the people show extreme intolerance to such manifestations, at the household, at the public level opinions, in other words, total intolerance ... in the meantime, people are wiping and wiping themselves ... to be afraid or think that the mayor will be touched ...
    2. sniperino 25 November 2019 12: 04 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Quote: Sunjar
      we have capitalism, and ordinary people have no business or benefit for the police, prosecutors and courts, unlike the rich.
      Yeah! And under socialism, they all only thought of ordinary people. All but one traitor - Minister of Internal Affairs Shchelokova. The rest are all as one. What is characteristic is that a simple person will never be taken a bribe (even traffic cops), they will always protect. And they will see if that violates their own, party or municipal authorities, immediately they are responsible to the full extent of the Soviet law .... Do not believe me? Cinema at least those years, look, there everything is as it is shown.
      1. Sunjar 25 November 2019 14: 09 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        How often in Soviet times did drunken boys throw themselves under cars? How often then the majors, who were obliged to judicially work out their joint, hammered a bolt to work off, providing a bald honey. certificates, and indeed they scored a bolt and still drove a car without a license? All the bribes of that time can not be compared with the current ones, at least because there were not so many grannies in the hands of the people that they could justify the right people for nothing. I’m not saying that the cops were whiter than white before. But the difference is that if the cop starts driving an expensive car earlier, they will probably ask him, but now you can have anything and are not particularly interested. How many cops found with huge reserves of dough in the USSR and how many in the Russian Federation? Well, let's remember when the cops were trusted more, then or now? And why in some periods trusted more?
        P.S. Shchelokov interfered with the future "restructuring", and removed.
        1. sniperino 25 November 2019 19: 37 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: Sunjar
          How often then the majors, who were obliged to judicially work out their joint, hammered a bolt to work off, providing a bald honey. certificates, and indeed they scored a bolt and still drove a car without a license?
          If we call the “children of the Soviet elite” “majors”, then after Stalin their affairs did not reach the court at all, they were dismissed both from the army and from prison. Or did someone watch them among conscripts who know the convicts? If there were isolated cases (I admit as an exception to the rule), then their criminal cases in the media just did not cover. People in the media were hung up on Soviet reality with much sweeter noodles on their ears than today on central channels they hang up Russian reality. At the VO, mainly in political articles, there is a blackmail from the Communist Party, supplemented in discussions by communists, liberals, Nazis and mercenary invaders merged in an ecstatic blasphemy against power.
  • Svarog 25 November 2019 09: 41 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    Naturally, if the fact of self-defense was proved and there was a threat to life, then what could be the excess ..
    1. Souchastnik 25 November 2019 10: 20 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      Naturally, if the fact of self-defense was proved and there was a threat to life, then what could be the excess ..

      Unfortunately, it’s not natural. Whoever is more profitable for the police (investigator) and the court is the victim of blatant aggression. Unfortunately, the principle does not work for us - whoever first broke the law is to blame. What is often not taken into account is what the “victim” did before (climbed into a strange house, beat the owners or a passerby, and seized property). The main thing is that then she was "treacherously" and "inhumane" harmed. And the fact that she (the “victim”) was stoned, drunk in the trash or something, so that person has the right. It’s generally fashionable for us to observe the rights of attackers.
  • RUSS 25 November 2019 10: 52 New
    • 9
    • 2
    +7
    Quote: andrewkor
    I fully support Vladimir Volfovich!

    A familiar lawyer says that if you got into your house and there is a threat to your life, it’s better to bring them down from an unregistered weapon, they say it’s not mine, it’s theirs, I took the weapon out of it and killed it and killed the bandit, and it’s advisable to shoot at the wall, supposedly the bandits began to shoot, but missed, but I knocked out a weapon and didn’t miss.
    1. Kelwin 25 November 2019 11: 43 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      Quote: RUSS
      A familiar lawyer says that if you got into your house and there is a threat to your life, it’s better to bring them down from an unregistered weapon, they say it's not mine it's them

      The option is possible, but it's for loonies) Judge for yourself, the fingers remain not only on the weapon itself, but also on the cartridges, magazine, and some details. A second magazine or cartridges of the same type and series, a cleaning kit, type grease composition, rags. The general picture of the incident, everything is being restored in detail, the traces of the struggle and a lot of little things about which the normal person does not suspect, but the operatives are well aware. And then, when you fall for your lies, self-defense, albeit with excess, turns into a deliberate and trailer weapon turnover for a total of under 20 years ... I would have listened to less such advice in my place))
  • Vend 25 November 2019 11: 14 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    It’s time to repeal this law.
  • URAL72 25 November 2019 12: 26 New
    • 1
    • 6
    -5
    Do not drive to the Communist Party, there is benefit from them, and the people there are exactly the same as in other parties. No worse. By self-defense, Zhirik and the Communists are right. It’s just that this article needs to be tried in a jury, let not the judge and the law decide, but the people, the jury. I think they will justify the majority of the accused, although there is a real excess.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Uncle lee 25 November 2019 06: 07 New
    • 15
    • 0
    +15
    like in the USA, where someone constantly shoots in the streets, in schools
    We quickly learned this from us .... But to stand up for ourselves - without a hitch!
  • tihonmarine 25 November 2019 06: 07 New
    • 13
    • 2
    +11
    The Communist Party said that expanding the boundaries of permissible self-defense is impractical, otherwise "it will be like in the USA, where someone constantly shoots in the streets, in schools." Such a statement from the Communist Party made Vladimir Kolomeytsev - the first deputy chairman of the faction.
    The Communist Party of the Russian Federation, as always, with its position "we are against all who are not with us." And we already shoot at the streets, and even in schools, children are killed. Zhirinovsky and LDPR are right, it’s time to give people the choice of self-defense. And as always, the party EP and SR "we will see."
    1. SOVIET UNION 2 25 November 2019 07: 08 New
      • 13
      • 3
      +10
      And we already shoot at the streets, and even in schools, children are killed.
      And some say that it was so scary under Stalin! And today, life has become very calm! True, from a quiet life they began to put iron doors, combination locks, cameras, high fences, bars on the windows. Maybe it's better to change the system in the country? Then life will be safer. In Soviet times, the gunshot was out of the ordinary, but today it is commonplace.
      1. Avior 25 November 2019 08: 31 New
        • 11
        • 0
        +11
        Under Stalin, a smooth-bore hunting barrel was sold without any permission.
        And with the tsar and the short barrel.
        1. tihonmarine 25 November 2019 08: 45 New
          • 7
          • 0
          +7
          Quote: Avior
          Under Stalin, a smooth-bore hunting barrel was sold without any permission.

          In 1953, for my seven years, my grandfather for my birthday bought me a Tulka single-barrel trigger for 160 rubles. It was April 17, immediately after the death of I.V. Stalin.
      2. kit88 25 November 2019 12: 25 New
        • 10
        • 3
        +7
        Quote: SOVIET UNION 2
        Maybe it's better to change the system in the country?

        What kind of ears do you pull the political propaganda?
        "Give me back the USSR, 50 kopecks beer and my youth."
        Right now, everyone will get up from the sofas and go change the system.
        So until the year 91, all Soviet people were wonderful, and after them Martians settled on 1/6 of the land - bourgeois and began to put iron doors and bandit each other.

        That we put the door. Apart from each other. We are brought up in a Soviet school.
        And there’s no reason to blame America for the fact that they don’t go to the police in some quarters. Because in some quarters they generally have glass doors. Can you imagine the entrance glass door with us?

        Little depends on the system here. Depends on people.
      3. Sapsan136 26 November 2019 00: 13 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        So under Stalin, whom many of you praise (there is something to praise and scold), hunting weapons were sold in the khozmag, in the general store, hung on a nail, on the wall, without any safes ... And no one rushed to just shoot everything that moves ...
  • Geo⁣ 25 November 2019 06: 09 New
    • 16
    • 4
    +12
    Communist Party said that the expansion of the boundaries of permissible self-defense is impractical

    If you are a deputy from the Communist Party, then you have money, you have connections, so that if something happens, you’ll disengage yourself from your beloved, and, of course, it’s not profitable for any mob to have the same opportunity simply by law. The mob, unlike the masters of life, should be afraid to defend itself - such is the opinion of the current Communist Party.
    1. SOVIET UNION 2 25 November 2019 07: 11 New
      • 6
      • 6
      0
      Or maybe all this is a product of capitalism? Maybe in this situation, the system is to blame? There in the same beloved America there are quarters where the police do not scamper. And in my beloved Europe, it also seems to be there.
      1. Geo⁣ 25 November 2019 09: 06 New
        • 5
        • 4
        +1
        Quote: SOVIET UNION 2
        Or maybe all this is a product of capitalism?

        What is the product of capitalism? The privileged position of the members of the Communist Party?)))) I beg you)))))
      2. And
        And 25 November 2019 09: 31 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Good afternoon. Regarding OSHA, they have essentially free sale of weapons and, as a result, a huge mass of firearms, both legal and inadequate, in their hands. The turnover of firearms must be subject to severe control. As for the political system, it’s not a matter of structure, but of laws that are adopted and act. Here, for example, in order not to go far, determine the necessary defense in the laws of the USSR and the Russian Federation:
        - The USSR Law of 25.12.1958 on the approval of the Fundamentals of the criminal law of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Union Republics, article 13:
        “It is not a crime to act, although subject to the signs of an act stipulated by criminal law, but committed in the state of necessary defense, that is, in protecting the interests of the Soviet state, public interests, the person or rights of the defender or other person from a socially dangerous encroachment by inflicting harm if at the same time
        "the limits of necessary defense were not exceeded."
        - The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of 13.06.1996 N 63-ФЗ, article 37:
        “It is not a crime to harm an offending person in the state of necessary defense, that is, when protecting the person and the rights of the defender or other persons protected by the law of the interests of society or the state from a socially dangerous encroachment, if this encroachment was associated with violence dangerous to the life of the defender or another person, or with an immediate threat of such violence. "
        What is called feel the difference. Therefore, I consider the revision of the current law on self-defense to be absolutely necessary and correct. hi
        1. Simargl 25 November 2019 22: 21 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: And
          Regarding OSHA - they have essentially free sale of weapons
          Nonsense!
          Oddly enough, the requirements are almost the same as ours. In some states, the nuts are tightened more than ours (surprisingly, yes?), And in some states required to have a weapon.
          The sale seems to be free due to the fact that there is no duplication of functions: the presence of automobile rights ensures that you are legally competent, and the store takes on the function of processing documents for registration in the licensing system. Those. there are rights - they will let you hold the trunk in the store, you reserve it, and the store sends the application to the licensing system. That, in turn, gives permission or prohibition. Storage rules are about the same.
          Compare with our option, when the medical certificate for the rights is separate, for the weapons separately, you need to separately obtain permission to purchase (greenback), go to the store, buy, register and wait for the POX ... is it nonsense?
      3. Simargl 25 November 2019 22: 12 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: SOVIET UNION 2
        There in the same beloved America there are quarters where the police do not scamper.
        That's bullshit. Watch the "Edge of Sunset" on the yuba.
  • cokol-xnumx 25 November 2019 06: 15 New
    • 13
    • 2
    +11
    the case says Wolfovich, I support him! My home is my castle
    1. SOVIET UNION 2 25 November 2019 07: 15 New
      • 5
      • 14
      -9
      And I do not support! Is your house being attacked every day? Another situation. You are walking down the street. Five come up to you, you bring down two. The remaining three accuse you of intentional murder. There are no other witnesses. another variant. You bring down all five. How do you prove that you were threatened? So you're obsessed with mania for murders !?
      1. Voyager 25 November 2019 08: 47 New
        • 11
        • 1
        +10
        Is your house being attacked every day?

        Yes, it’s just a classic in the style of “when you are killed, then come to the police to write a statement”
      2. Sapsan136 26 November 2019 00: 18 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        The police will probably have a long track record on your five, so everything is obvious
  • Adimius38 25 November 2019 06: 16 New
    • 18
    • 2
    +16
    I completely agree, a person should have the right to protect his family’s home by any means, including lethal ones, and there should be no responsibility for killing the one who will carry out the attack. In simple words, I opened the apartment at night and entered the kitchen, then get a bullet in the head, or with a knife in the liver. The landlord does not have to wait until the criminal gets a knife and cuts the whole family for a couple of thousand.
    1. vadson 25 November 2019 06: 37 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      I’ll correct you a little, Zhirinovsky proposes not to sit down if, for example, you have gone with this knife or mounting an adversary. but he did not say anything about the firearm.
    2. SOVIET UNION 2 25 November 2019 07: 33 New
      • 3
      • 11
      -8
      I completely agree, a person should have the right to protect his family’s home by any means, including lethal ones, and there should be no responsibility for killing the one who will carry out the attack.
      But what if you invited the sidekick home, you suddenly jumped (it doesn’t matter for what reason) and you soaked the sidekick in a fit of anger. In communication with each other, everyone paints a situation in their favor. It will be the same in the case of communication with investigators. Did you have to talk with the prisoners or their relatives? What is the situation when communicating with them? But the situation is this. Everyone is sitting for nothing !!! And it doesn’t matter when they planted it. under Stalin, or under Putin. Everyone is sitting for nothing !!! And if anything, the landlord will sit down for nothing. He just stabbed a criminal! To myself and the investigator, and the prosecutor, and the lawyer! hi And now you can fill me with slop!
      1. Avior 25 November 2019 08: 34 New
        • 9
        • 0
        +9
        With sidekicks is not so simple, a lot of people know that you are sidekick, and he goes to visit you.
        And if an unknown hacked the castle in the middle of the night, this is another matter.
      2. Same lech 25 November 2019 08: 54 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        But what if you invited the sidekick home, you suddenly jumped (it doesn’t matter for what reason) and you soaked the sidekick in a fit of anger.

        And if the situation is reversed ... that the sidekick, in a fit of anger, decided to deal with his friend's family how to be here ... until the police arrive there will already be several corpses.
        1. Captain45 25 November 2019 13: 57 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: The same Lech
          then the sidekick, in a fit of anger, decided to deal with his friend's family how to be here ...

          Very simple, do not have such homies ... smile
  • Basil50 25 November 2019 06: 18 New
    • 23
    • 2
    +21
    That is yes. It's time to put things in order in determining * the necessary self-defense *
    It seems that they are trying to train us through the law for * non-resistance *. There you look and they will produce saints with the famous * turn your cheek ........... *.
    But what if relatives are hurt? If your wife and your children fall under the courage of ethnic bandits?
    And the robbers who climb into your house? Do they, too, when robbed fall under the * presumption of innocence *? And anyone who resists them is already becoming a criminal, because the robbers just wanted to * rob * and that's all. Moreover, they later go to church, and if they sit down, the priest in prison will forgive his sins.
    1. acetophenon 25 November 2019 06: 47 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Why - "trying to train"? Already!
    2. SOVIET UNION 2 25 November 2019 07: 43 New
      • 2
      • 8
      -6
      It's time to put things in order in determining * the necessary self-defense *
      And what will it look like? The right to self-defense! It sounds beautiful! But so far no one has presented in the comments the scenarios of this self-defense. Maybe at first let's write a scenario of the situation, and then we will respond to the development of the situation. Moreover, there will be a scenario of both the injured (or supposedly injured) party, and the victims (or supposedly victims of self-defense). am
      1. Same lech 25 November 2019 08: 58 New
        • 9
        • 0
        +9
        But so far no one has presented in the comments the scenarios of this self-defense.

        Why represent him hi there is an international practice of self-defense ... there are a lot of scenarios ... business then ... open a code of laws of Western countries where everything is clearly laid out.
        I like the US self-defense laws more ... broke into someone else's house, attacked a person, get a bullet in the enemy ... right? ... I think right.
      2. _Sergei_ 25 November 2019 10: 31 New
        • 8
        • 1
        +7
        There is a number of Moldova where a short barrel is allowed and its use for protection. Poor Moldova reduced the number of crimes. And no one complains about the excess of self-defense.
      3. Sapsan136 26 November 2019 00: 27 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        For heaven’s sake .. I can describe the incident that happened to me ... I was going home ... three were met, one with a knife, the other was previously seated, all three were famous police hooligans and rowdy people ... Vodka ran out of friends, money too ... They tried to rob me in the middle of the street at noon ... I had to fight back with improvised means, as a result they broke my face, a concussion ... Do I need it ?! I feel sorry for the bandits, your problems ... maybe you suffered from ... or from the gang yourself ... The second time it was different ... I was armed ... A shot in the air and the robbers run like hares ... Damage zero ... So do not tell me about the dangers of civilian weapons ... I am for the abolition of all limits of self-defense ... My health is dear to me, and not the health of drug addicts and alcoholics who do not want to work
    3. Avior 25 November 2019 09: 16 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      If you rob, then you have a chance not to sit down.
      And if you just steal, then sit down for self-defense without options
  • Nitarius 25 November 2019 06: 38 New
    • 1
    • 5
    -4
    oh damn and controversial is the question! .. not intended!
  • rocket757 25 November 2019 06: 47 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    CHANGE LAWS! There is no need to propose, we must do our job, amend the Criminal Code and so on, so that they correspond to the real situation in the country.
  • Ross xnumx 25 November 2019 06: 51 New
    • 13
    • 2
    +11
    Zhirinovsky suggested not punishing Russians for exceeding the limits of permissible self-defense

    Unfortunately, the decisions are made by edros deputies. That is why there are no laws for the truth: “My house is my fortress,” only because a citizen of the country cannot feel calm (safe) even within the walls of his own home. It is because of the ill-conceived legislative framework that our yards are breeding grounds for drunkenness, dog attacks, domestic rudeness and garbage dumps.
    Separated from the people, they (sometimes) throw out non-binding phrases that brainless followers applaud, but they vote for the pension reform “unambiguously”, as well as for the appointment of the prime minister and the approval of ministers.
    That’s why I don’t have any hope in these “old-timers” who are bored. Self-PR specialists, completely alienated from true national needs by high salaries and privileges.
  • Yaro Polk 25 November 2019 06: 52 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    It would be better if these idiots were legalized to beat if they themselves do nothing.
    \\\\
    It is proved: the special correspondent of Novaya Gazeta Denis Korotkov collaborates with ISIS
    https://fishki.net/anti/3150519-dokazano-speckor-novoj-gazety-denis-korotkov-sotrudnichaet-s-igil.html
  • Cryvedco 25 November 2019 06: 52 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    This law is very necessary, but, damn it, they will not miss it.
    And I’ll add, as a communist: the Communist Party, kill yourself.
  • 7,62h54 25 November 2019 07: 02 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Much of what parliamentarians do, including and the LDPR, adopting cannibalistic laws, poses a threat to the life and property of ordinary citizens. It's time to outline the boundaries of self-defense.
  • Rwmos 25 November 2019 07: 02 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    It is high time. In fact, there is no right to self-defense right now - for example, I have to wait until I am poked with a pen before trying to get for example a gopnik attacking me, for example, drin.
  • rotmistr60 25 November 2019 07: 03 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    A person in such a situation protects himself, his life, the life of loved ones, and you can not judge him for it.
    It’s hard to argue, because words are correct. But of course it will not work to attract for exceeding the necessary defense. But to revise the provisions of the article of the Criminal Code is quite acceptable.
  • Slavutich 25 November 2019 07: 11 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    It is noted that the bill involves expanding the rights of citizens to self-defense.

    It is quite logical.
  • Andrey Shch 25 November 2019 07: 24 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    Yes, these laws are already like dirt. Now we’ll accept the new one and everything will be fine. Yeah, right now! What laws, dear ones, are you talking about? Well, there is the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Article 37. Everything is normally registered there. What is wrong with this article? Well, only on business. The problem is that we have a bad practice. For some reason, increased demands are made not on the attackers, but on the defenders, they must prove that they have not exceeded the limits, but this is fundamentally wrong. It is necessary to change the investigative and judicial practice, and this is more complicated than just another law to adopt.
    1. kit88 25 November 2019 08: 58 New
      • 13
      • 0
      +13
      Nothing is normally written there. There (Article 37) it is said that harming an offending person is not a crime if this assault is fraught with violence DANGEROUS FOR LIFE AND HEALTH ...
      Say the same home is not protected in any way. Here is the situation. Robbers come into your house at night, start making money, commit violence that is not life threatening to your wife and children. And the pope in this situation has the right to ask the masters of the robbers not to do this. Moreover, with their permission, call 02 and wait for the arrival of the outfit.

      Self-defense against the perpetrator must be spelled out. That is, if the court finds the attacker guilty of a crime - be it apartment robbery, street robbery, attempted rape, etc. That self-defense is automatically recognized not guilty of any excess.
      1. Andrey Shch 25 November 2019 12: 55 New
        • 1
        • 3
        -2
        Well, the law allows, roughly speaking, to “bring down" the criminal, if the assault is DANGEROUS for life. What is wrong with this formulation? Your apartment example is not serious at all. Well, where is it from, that poor dad is bound hand and foot, should only call 02, ask for something if the thieves got into the apartment. Well, look at article 38 in the end (you can harm a criminal). Wording of articles does not suit? Maybe not really. But what you offer is generally a complete zizdets. What is - "... etc." in your last paragraph? "Valim" anyone who, in your opinion, commits ANY crime? Well, if you made a mistake in assessing the situation? Such controversial situations can be carted and a small cart. It is possible to adopt a new law, but it will have to be interpreted, so the main thing is the interpretation of laws, and not their absence, which I wrote about.
        1. kit88 25 November 2019 14: 00 New
          • 5
          • 1
          +4
          Quote: Andrey Shch
          But what you offer is generally a complete zizdets. What is - "... etc." in your last paragraph? "Valim" anyone who, in your opinion, commits ANY crime?

          Why ANYTHING?
          If you carefully read what I wrote, then you noticed that I am writing Robbery (not robbery) on the street, Robbery in the home. “Etc” means that you can compile a list of such crimes. Articles of the Criminal Code, for example, 105 through thirty, 111 h. 4 through thirty, 131, 132, part 2 of the paragraph "in" 161, 162. Here you can "blame" for IT and be sure that nothing will happen to you.

          And what is now, it is said to no gate. In vain you criticize my example so. You yourself understand that not all citizens have martial arts and not everyone is engaged in weightlifting in order to resist a criminal breaking into the house. Now you have to wait until the criminal shoots you, and then you can defend yourself.
          Looked at Art. 38 on your advice.
          2. The excess of measures necessary for the detention of the person who committed the crime shall be recognized as their apparent inconsistency with the nature and degree of public danger of the crime committed by the person detained and the circumstances of the detention, when the person is obviously unnecessarily caused harm, not caused by the situation. Such excess entails criminal liability

          How will the “bespectacled” person in a stressful situation assess the situation when two ambuls in his apartment turn everything upside down and drag his wife by the hair into the bedroom? Normal will "wet" them with everything that comes to hand. And according to current laws will sit down. For a long time. I propose to consider that such his actions are NOT a CRIME, and not analyze these actions through article 38 of the Criminal Code.
          1. Andrey Shch 25 November 2019 15: 14 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            You misunderstood me. In your example, from the first answer (paragraph 2) and the last paragraph (second answer), Article 37 is just applicable. In my personal opinion. I sleep, someone rushes in (or quietly penetrates), the situation is critical. I don’t see if they have weapons, but something is in their hands. I should not find out, moreover, they have an advantage - two against one (wife, children do not count). They were in my territory and could not be mistaken in any way based on the location of the house or apartment. What is on their mind - I do not know. In my opinion, in such a situation, you can easily "blame". BUT. The investigator and the judge did not sleep in the next room (do not take it seriously, even the emoticon is not inserted). They will analyze the situation later, sitting in a chair, in safety, having a lot of time, go down, consult, etc. And then absurd decisions appear when the one who defended himself is to blame. The problem, I repeat, is not in the presence (absence) of the law, namely in practice, in the interpretation of the rule of law. It is impossible to pass a law that would describe ALL occasions in life, as some suggest, you can’t just imagine. We, as I understand now, have no contradictions, we just differently understand the solution to this issue: I believe that the adoption of another law will not fundamentally change anything, we need to “deploy” this bulky law enforcement and judicial mechanism. Ask how? I do not know a definite answer. It is necessary that the Attorney-General give his own directions and the Supreme Court to issue reviews and accordingly orient the courts. However, such reviews exist, only the situation does not change much.
            1. kit88 25 November 2019 15: 39 New
              • 6
              • 0
              +6
              Of course, we have no fundamental contradictions. drinks
              Only you propose changing the law-enforcement practice of existing laws. Which, in my opinion, is a little possible. Because art. 37 38 are furnished with so many 'if' and 'but' that it in itself implies the principle of competitiveness of the parties in court.
              I stand for introducing the Direct Act, so to speak - I climbed into the apartment, was found guilty under Article 161, was liquidated by the landlord - that’s all, the landlord is right, but there is no burglar, we disagree with that and we don’t analyze the landlord’s actions .
              Here is my position.
              1. Tank hard 26 November 2019 16: 35 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Quote: kit88
                I stand for introducing the Direct Act, so to speak - I climbed into the apartment, was found guilty under Article 161, was liquidated by the landlord - that’s all, the landlord is right, but there is no burglar, we disagree with that and we don’t analyze the landlord’s actions .
                Here is my position.

                The correct position, I fully support. hi
        2. Captain45 25 November 2019 14: 19 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: Andrey Shch
          Well, if you made a mistake in assessing the situation?

          For everything, as they once said in Odessa, I won’t say, but here’s the real concrete, often encountered situation, especially in private households: the yard, the house is private property and penetration is already an encroachment on property. The owner is not the body on which the burden of proving the guilt of the offender lies; he proceeds from the real picture. Here is his yard and here is an outsider stranger who is on the territory of HIS (owner) of the yard. If the stranger is not armed, does not make attempts to enter the house, then you can shout him out of the yard, lower the dog (then you can tell yourself she broke, they won’t prove), call the police. But if an outsider entered the premises where the owner and his family are located, then, in my opinion, in this situation the owner of the premises has the full legal right to stop this penetration by all possible means and methods, regardless of the consequences, including causing harm of varying severity to penetrating, as for anyone who entered the house did so against the will of the owner, and therefore violated the Criminal Code. But unfortunately, it used to be that the courts were guided by socialist legality and legal consciousness and could enter into a situation, although they did not really understand what this legal consciousness was for 20 years of service, but what they are now guided by .... request They say only tss, sometimes even with money belay lol
          1. Andrey Shch 25 November 2019 15: 35 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Yes, I agree with you. And he did not change his position, if it may seem so. If the previous opponent would give me an example of a private house exactly as you brought it, I would completely agree with him. I spoke fundamentally about something else: they divorced some kind of holy hope for sheets of paper with letters. You will see, they will adopt this law, and then they will immediately begin to make changes and additions to it, and they will also transfer it from the Criminal Code. And now there are legal grounds for the use of the necessary defense, well, maybe something needs to be added, but all this fuss with the law is a game for the public (I will not engage in conspiracy theories on the topic of who benefits from this, there are many options).
    2. Same lech 25 November 2019 09: 13 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      For some reason, increased demands are made not on the attackers, but on the defenders, they must prove that they have not exceeded the limits, but this is fundamentally wrong.
      Of course, you can push the gaps into an official in Article 37 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
      It is not a crime to harm an offending person in a state of necessary defense

      Already the first proposal causes a lot of discrepancies among the official ... deputies need to clearly spell out all disputes that arise in life.

      You are threatened or attacked with a knife - you have the right to defend yourself in all possible ways.


      For example ... I defended myself with a knife and wounded the attacker later on he dies of his wounds ... from the point of view of a law enforcement officer, I am already a criminal and at least they can give murder by negligence ... that’s the practice.
      Then a man in an electric train was attacked by a group of drunken hooligans and also defended himself with a knife ... injured all the attackers ... the guy was detained ...
      https://regnum.ru/news/87928.html ...это наша сибирская суровая реальность
      in the Novosibirsk region this happens regularly.
      In general, the normal law on self-defense applies to all of us ... and is vital.
      1. Andrey Shch 25 November 2019 12: 14 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        "... deputies should clearly spell out all controversial situations that arise in life."
        Are you seriously?! Until the second advent, you can prescribe and still not finish. There will certainly be a case not prescribed by law. Anyway, this is a question of interpretation by investigators (judges) of the situations that have arisen. I do not claim that the wording of Art. 37 of the Criminal Code is ideal, maybe it’s necessary to correct it, but what? They would give at least some wording, albeit clumsy, and then it would be possible to argue whether to agree or not, but since you are proposing, the law cannot be written. And for each of your examples, you can give a counterexample.
      2. Captain45 25 November 2019 14: 21 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: The same Lech
        a man in an electric train was attacked by a group of drunken hooligans

        Quote: The same Lech
        this is our Siberian harsh reality in the Novosibirsk region, this happens regularly.

        I won’t go to the Novosibirsk region, your people are angry, they’re fighting .. laughing
  • taiga2018 25 November 2019 07: 27 New
    • 2
    • 6
    -4
    This issue should be taken very carefully, because in our country this can lead to other extremes ... For example, a person will draw up his land share, put honest possessions around the signs and shoot everyone who accidentally wanders there ...
    1. Rwmos 25 November 2019 07: 44 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      So what? This is private property, the same as an apartment - if you "accidentally" get into an apartment - is this normal? Fenced, set plates - and accidentally wandering there will not work
      1. taiga2018 25 November 2019 07: 49 New
        • 0
        • 6
        -6
        You townspeople do not understand this, and if a person just needs to cross this field, do not drive, trample on a car or tractor, no one will, of course, but simply cross, cutting the path ...
        1. Rwmos 25 November 2019 11: 49 New
          • 9
          • 1
          +8
          Cut a path through the territory of the military unit, a villager ... They will shoot and they will be right around
    2. AU Ivanov. 25 November 2019 10: 46 New
      • 10
      • 1
      +9
      And it will do right. Trampling crops is the same as robbing an apartment. This is private property: not yours - do not meddle.
    3. Captain45 25 November 2019 14: 23 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: taiga2018
      For example, a person draws up his land share, signs honest possessions around the signs and will shoot everyone who accidentally wanders there ...

      Jack London has a story where a judge condemned a man because he went to someone else's site, and then the judge himself went to the site of this man and got on good cots from a man .... by law.
  • Igorpl 25 November 2019 07: 44 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    The law on self-defense is weak. At least at home, a person should have the right to protect themselves and loved ones.
  • RUSS 25 November 2019 08: 02 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Though something sensible from Zhirik
  • Saboteur Holuy 25 November 2019 08: 07 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    It is necessary to cancel such a concept in an attack!
  • Sochi 25 November 2019 09: 01 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    A person should have the right to defend himself and his relatives, as well as other persons in ANY way to push to death ... because the life and health of a person is priceless, and the life of a bandit is worthless.
  • Galleon 25 November 2019 09: 29 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    The Zhirinovsky Institute’s authorities sharply raised funding: instead of 6 million rubles. Now they give out 35 million rubles. So this is only the first swallow from the famous artist, for the pre-election period he is picked up by a serious and thoughtful repertoire.
  • SERGEY SERGEEVICS 25 November 2019 09: 32 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    Before proposing such amendments, it is necessary to completely revise the legislative framework and weapons laws, too. And for starters, it was nice to allow the population of the Constitutional Court to have something to defend. And that's right, Vladimir Zhirinovsky said, I fully support this initiative.
  • nikolai.kolya 25 November 2019 09: 53 New
    • 5
    • 9
    -4
    Better to tell how much the state allocated money for his party and where these funds go.
    with their clowning they distract the people and de-credit politics as part of public life ....
    the most expensive gum club stop
  • BISMARCK94 25 November 2019 10: 15 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    My home is my castle. And that’s all.
  • Fikys 25 November 2019 10: 15 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    If this proposal passes, and the amendments are adopted, I will never call Zhirinovsky “clown” again.
  • Sapsan136 25 November 2019 10: 41 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    I completely agree with Zhirinovsky ... All responsibility should lie on the person who committed the attack, and not on the one who defended ... When your life is in danger, it is not really difficult to determine the limits of defense ... if at all possible ...
  • senima56 25 November 2019 10: 43 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    It is necessary once and for all to legally approve that "the home is IMPLIED"! And if the owner shot (stabbed, nailed, etc.) in his dwelling stranger, he is RIGHT, he is UNJUDICABLE! And it turns out, he killed the robber with a knife, and at the trial the lawyers turned everything inside out: "Why did you kill him? Maybe he climbed into your apartment to find out time !?" No, dear ones, "My house is my castle!" All!
    1. nikolai.kolya 25 November 2019 11: 33 New
      • 5
      • 6
      -1
      killed and dragged home ....
      By the way, as a recent professor - he would say that his lady broke into his house and then ....
  • Barmaleyka 25 November 2019 11: 23 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    the "communists" opposed
  • Louiseburton 25 November 2019 12: 08 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    I am making a good salary from home $ 1200- $ 2500 / week, which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it's my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone, Here For MORE INFO PLEASE just COPY AND PASTE this SITE ............. ....... www.Fox1.com
  • Evil 55 25 November 2019 12: 08 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Golden words said Vladimir Volfovich. The need has long been ripened for expanding the limits of necessary defense, because crime is becoming ever more impudent and cynical, and legislation is becoming more liberal and democratic ..
  • Zusul 25 November 2019 12: 21 New
    • 5
    • 3
    +2
    I read the comments ... I realized that, alas, such a law would not be adopted and understood why they would not. Because, for good, you first need to change the brains of citizens.
    Here in comments, 99 percent have black and white thinking: either do not accept and do what you want with me, or accept and I will start to shoot everyone with a machine gun.
    Ale! Citizens !!! Do you really think like single-celled or stupidly troll ????
    A new law is needed, a fundamental consolidation of the right to self-defense is needed without any limits, in the case of protecting one’s life and the health or health of one’s loved ones.
    I need the principle of my home - my castle
    And we need an unconditional priority in the law of the defender
    And a small note of liability for abuse
    Все.
  • chudo3213 25 November 2019 13: 54 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    Listen to this. If the situation unfolds in such a way that you have to protect your life ... then last of all you will think about the consequences. Because such a situation occurs in seconds and the phase of combat contact lasts for a moment. A trained person acts on reflexes. Untrained - most often dies. So changing the law is only useful for subsequent analysis of what happened ...
    1. Avior 25 November 2019 14: 25 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      It can be difficult to determine the border when it comes to life.
  • Nosferatu 25 November 2019 13: 58 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    A friend dropped a stoned gopnik. The automatic skills of the sambo wrestler worked, gravity completed the work. Gopnik was cured and released free of charge, a friend for 2 years at 112 for heavy bodily. A relative serves in BB. I asked him what to do in such cases. He says - make sure that the one who attacked is dead, make sure that no one has seen, make sure that he has not left evidence and disappear. These are the realities. Till.
  • rus-5819 25 November 2019 14: 27 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    A person in such a situation protects himself, his life, the life of loved ones, and you can not judge him for it.

    Totally agree! Why should I, on the threshold of my apartment, talk about commensurability of my act and inadequate, drug-drunk scumbag that breaks into me in mine untouchable (according to the Constitution of the Russian Federation) housing?
    Why should I, in response to the obscene and aggressive treatment of my wife and children, assess the “degree of danger”?
    "Nothing cleanses the brain like a bullet, even if it hit your ass" (attributed to Al Capone)
    PS You can puff about as much as you like, but as long as I have a “trunk” in my hands, I will not allow anyone to mess with myself and my family. Even let them plant!
  • Fat
    Fat 25 November 2019 15: 08 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: DEPHIHTO
    Therefore, good deeds are not visible, that they play according to the imposed rules. What needs to be done, the answer is simple - follow the instructions of V.I. Lenin as it should be communists, as amended by modern realities .. wink

    "Yesterday early, tomorrow late." Lenin's instructions - extremism in its purest form, even adjusted for reality ...
    Vladimir Ilyich did not accept civil rules. So that .. "I won’t give you a machine gun" ...
  • Bukhalov 25 November 2019 15: 12 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    The VVZh initiative is populist, with relevant comments. The institute of necessary defense was most thoroughly developed back in Soviet times. From the point of view of purity of qualifications, the issue of necessary defense is very complex. And it is not solved as proposed by the VVZh. To begin with, when investigating violent crimes - murders, causing harm to health, the accused as a rule declares that he was in a state of necessary defense. There is no victim (killed), witnesses are also often aunt, or they give false testimonies. To list in the disposition of this norm the general part of the Criminal Code, all possible options, including such a complex one as imaginary BUT, are simply legally impossible. Therefore, the institution of non-governmental organizations, as thoroughly as possible, with consideration of all possible controversial issues arising in practice, has been repeatedly commented on in the governing decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR, and now in the Russian Federation (with the generalization of judicial practice). The main principles of non-governmental organizations are: the reality of the threat, the possibility of protection the attack itself, and with a clear threat of attack, the balance of forces and means of the defending and attacking parties, the time of the necessary defense. Once upon a time, it was long ago excluded from practice from the practice of “passive defense”, when any actions were considered an excess of BUT, if the defender could not escape. Separately regulated in the PPVS of the Russian Federation, the most complex form of imaginary defense. There is a distinction between the affect caused by the unlawful behavior of the victim from BUT. So everything is taken into account and depends solely on the specific case. Naturally, in the absence of interest of the prosecution and the court. But this point applies to all criminal cases. Example: Pashinsky’s case in Ukraine. Perhaps the only thing that can be agreed with the VVZh is BUT with illegal entry into the home. This moment is separately registered in the Criminal Code of Ukraine. According to its legislation, any harm caused when entering the home, even in the case of an imaginary NGO, is not considered a crime. The rest is all emotions and conjectures and subjectively unprofessional statements.
  • KJIETyc 25 November 2019 15: 12 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Quote: Tank Hard
    Quote: APES
    For you

    Quote: APES
    I will explain my thought:

    I need a law on "self-defense", where I will not be held responsible for the far-fetched and harmful "exceeding the necessary limits" at the moment, then in most cases I can do it with my own hands and improvised material, for I am trained. And the gun will not help many, because they can’t do anything. You are not 15 years old?

    The fascist is right. And then the "Rambo Sofa" (APES) was going to attack the cigarette gopniks, with a gun in his hands)) Apparently he is the same gopnik in the shower, only the body does not allow "bulling" or a hare darling.
  • Aqr009 25 November 2019 16: 17 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    It is curious, here everyone is so eagerly discussing another nonsense from a fool, you would think that to everyone seven times a week they break into apartments laughing
    1. alien308 25 November 2019 17: 27 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      They climbed into a friend’s apartment and killed.
  • rus-5819 3 January 2020 20: 52 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Brothers! At leisure I read your comments. Sad It all boils down to "what would happen if it were."
    But isn’t it time to remember that the power belongs to the people and demand from the people elected to restore order in the legislation (and not only in this matter). The election is coming, by the way.