The thorns of civilian weapons in Russia
Recently, civil weapon Russia is going through far from the best times. According to the author, the right to acquire and carry weapons, to use them to protect life, health and property, ourselves, our loved ones, as well as any other citizens, is one of the cornerstones on which a strong and free state can be built, so we we return to this problem.
2011
The first serious blow to the civilian weapons market was struck during the presidency of D.A. Medvedev in 2011. It is characteristic that at that time there were no serious incidents with weapons in the country - minor hooliganism, shooting at weddings, a certain number of fights with the use of traumatic weapons. Of course, there were incidents that resulted in the death of people, but their number was so insignificant against the background of the total number of killings in the country that it was simply ridiculous to talk about the need to take any restrictive measures in relation to civilian weapons. Nevertheless, for the sake of populism, they decided to show the "struggle" for the life and health of citizens, both senseless in essence, and so ineffective in result.
The main innovations in the Law "On Weapons" of 2011:
- the introduction for all types of traumatic weapons of a single designation OOOP (firearms of limited destruction);
- Severe limitation of muzzle energy for all types of OOOP at the level of 91 joules;
- limitation on the number of purchased OOOP for the owner in the amount of no more than two units;
- passing an exam, including a practical and theoretical part, upon obtaining a license and retaking once every five years;
- a ban on the sale of foreign traumatic weapons in Russia;
- prohibition of metal cores in cartridges for traumatic weapons.
Accepted by D.A. Medvedev in 2011, amendments to the law "On weapons" reduced the market for traumatic weapons by an order of magnitude
Of this entire list, only the requirement to pass the exam makes sense, and everything else is either meaningless, or has brought only one harm. A strong blow to the market was struck by the requirement for the possibility of acquiring no more than two LLCs, while there was not a single reason to impose this restriction - there were no incidents during which two to three or five units of traumatic weapons would be used simultaneously for illegal purposes.
One criminal was about to rob his own grandmother and pointed two pistols at her. But the grandmother herself was an old criminal and immediately directed twice as many pistols at her grandson. How many pistols did the grandson and grandmother point at each other?
Children's math problem.
With all her desire, the girl would not have been able to use a large number of pistols in Russia - such is the law!
2014
In 2014, amendments by the deputy Irina Yarovaya were adopted, which limited the places where you can stay with OOOP, increased responsibility for carrying while intoxicated and losing a weapon.
Every time the legislators of a particular country introduce gun-free zones, that is, zones free from weapons, criminals and mentally unstable citizens wipe away a stingy tear of gratitude, because it is in such places that they arrange their bloody massacres.
2021
An excellent reason for the unprecedented tightening of the law "On weapons" was the incident with a criminal who started shooting at a school in Kazan. We discussed this issue in detail in the article The tragedy in Kazan: why it can happen again and how to prevent it... At the time of the publication of that article, there was a timid hope that common sense would prevail, since it was absolutely clear that it was not a matter of weapons at all, but the president said to "toughen up", and the "courtiers" did their best ...
The list of "innovations" is simply outrageously absurd:
- raising the minimum age of acquisition to 21 years (it is not clear why a 21-year-old idiot is more responsible than an 18-year-old, despite the fact that the latter must serve in the army from the age of 18, then maybe postpone military service for 21 years?), and to indigenous small peoples of Russia, leading a traditional way of life, this does not apply - "all animals are equal to each other, but some are more equal than others." By the way, an option was also proposed to increase the acquisition age to 27 years;
- qualification for two years for the possession of multiple-charge weapons - like it or not, but the first shotgun will be a double-barreled shotgun, despite the fact that their sales are generally decreasing relative to semi-automatic weapons;
- the transfer of weapons with a "paradox" attachment and Lancaster's oval-screw drilling to the status of a rifled one is a very popular segment, the transfer of which to the status of a rifled weapon will simply ruin many enterprises, thousands of employees will be left without work:
- Drivers detained in a state of alcoholic intoxication will now be deprived of the right to a weapon, while if the owner of the weapon was required to do a blood test that accurately enough shows the presence / absence and degree of intoxication, then the driver may be deprived of his license, and now the weapon, on the basis of breathalyzer readings, which can work with a significant error;
- the owners of the hollowed-out weapons were obliged to register them with the Rosgvardia, adding many times to the last work - this is justified by the fact that the hollowed-out weapons can be restored. If so, why sell it at all? Make it impossible to recover. And if it cannot be restored, then why waste the Rosgvardia's time by registering toys? Again, if it is possible to restore, then what is the use of registering - bought, registered, restored, shot people - how will registration help prevent this scenario?
- a ban on any changes and repairs to the trigger mechanism (trigger mechanism) - goodbye to sporting achievements, all athletes always and in all countries tune the trigger mechanism - now there will be criminal liability for the independent replacement of a burst spring, and any weapon, even pneumatic one. The ban is written so vaguely that it is generally unclear what tuning will now be banned and for what they can be imprisoned. Maybe that for the replacement of the butt, forend or front sight? If so, it will destroy hundreds more, if not thousands of jobs. Russian companies that manufacture products for tuning weapons have just entered the world level and began to produce worthy products.
It is possible that even the most harmless tuning will be banned.
- the prohibition of the circulation of weapons with "the length of a single barrel with a receiver less than 500 mm", is this how to understand? In many weapons, the barrel can be separated from the receiver, but the weapon cannot be used, and the minimum length of a functioning weapon was previously limited. What's the point? To remove a huge number of relatively compact models from the market? But the "shooter" in Kazan was with an ordinary, full-size rifle, and he walked with it down the street without hiding. What will be done with those who have a “short” weapon that still have a legal permit?
The infanticide goes without hiding - the length of the gun is not a hindrance for him
But according to the new law "On weapons", current and former employees of the security forces who own the LLC no longer have to pass a test of knowledge and skills of safe weapon handling every five years, and it does not matter that some of these employees only see weapons on TV.
It is characteristic that numerous incidents with civilian and service weapons, which occur through the fault of law enforcement officers, and constitute a significant proportion of offenses with weapons, in principle, do not lead to proposals to limit the rights to own weapons of this particular category of citizens. On the contrary, proposals are constantly being put forward that it is precisely the employees of the power structures, both current and former, that should be given preferential rights to possession of weapons (and under the new law, such advantages have already been granted). In reality, the same citizens of the Russian Federation work in law enforcement agencies, and the number of sadists, psychos and alcoholics among employees and “non-employees” will always correlate in any case. It will always be wrong and ineffective to introduce advantages or restrictions on the possession of weapons, based on professional activity, but again - "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
The level of adequacy of the amendments to the Law "On Weapons" casts doubt on not only the competence, but also the sanity of those who formulate and adopt these amendments.
In general, a rather interesting situation. To receive a weapon, you must pass a medical examination, pass an exam. Driving a car requires training, a medical examination, and an exam. Even for the sale of cucumbers, you have to go through a medical examination and get a health certificate.
And what does it take to become a deputy? After all, the deputy, through the adoption of laws, in fact governs the country? Age at least 21 years old? Maybe raise the minimum age for the post of deputy to thirty years, why not? And the maximum age can be limited to sixty years. At least secondary education, GPA above four, IQ test? Again, an annual medical examination for mental health, alcoholism, drugs is, in general, an unpaved field for legislative initiatives.
As for sanity, another nonsense was recently voiced by the head of the movement "For Security" Dmitry Kurdesov, who proposed to limit the sale of gas cartridges to individuals. That is, ordinary citizens, Mr. Kurdesov proposed to deprive the right to acquire this "deadly weapon", but to leave the right to acquire, who do you think? That's right - to law enforcement agencies and legal entities that carry out private security activities on the basis of a license.
Mr. Kurdesov's argument is simply brilliant:
“Now any Russian can buy a gas canister. At the same time, the means of self-defense serves as "not the most effective tool" in an attack. Using a spray can harm the victim as well as increase aggression on the part of the perpetrator. Gas cartridges in Russia often turn into "instruments of illegal actions", which are directed not only against citizens, but also against law enforcement officers. "
Based on this, a proposal was formed to the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia Vladimir Kolokoltsev:
“In this regard, I ask you to assess the feasibility of introducing a ban on the sale, storage and use of gas cartridges for individuals on the territory of the Russian Federation, leaving the right to purchase and use these means of self-defense for law enforcement agencies and legal entities carrying out private security activities on the basis of a license. . "
What is it? Wanting to draw attention to yourself? Curry favor with the authorities? How can an adequate person in his right mind call to prohibit the best means of self-defense according to the cost / effectiveness criterion, perhaps the most effective of what is available to the population of the Russian Federation? Maybe this is some kind of "Stockholm syndrome", proceeding in a latent form - a latent desire to be vulnerable and make others vulnerable in the face of criminal encroachments? Or, on the contrary, is someone close to the problem of robbers and rapists who are being fought back by the victims with the help of gas cartridges?
However, everything is more prosaic. On the page of Mr. Kurdesov "VKontakte" there is a link to the private security company (PSC) "BORS", 100% of which Mr. Kurdesov is. Perhaps the main reason is to raise the demand for PSC services by reducing the security of ordinary, least protected layers of citizens? Draw your own conclusions.
With such proposals from “caring” citizens and with such a rate of amendment to the Law “On Weapons”, in five to ten years, citizens of the Russian Federation will be prohibited from owning something more dangerous than a toothpick.
Validity issues
I wonder when amendments to the law "On weapons" are adopted, when proposals are made to restrict or prohibit something, and when are any statistical studies carried out at all? If so, why are they not published? This is not the tactical and technical characteristics of the Zircon hypersonic missile, and not a matter of espionage? Why is all this done behind closed doors?
After all, if we discard populism, then there are absolutely no grounds for toughening the law "On weapons".
In Russia - 3,7 million owners who have received permits for the storage and carrying of weapons, who own more than 6,5 million rifles, rifled carbines, OOOP, including 1 million rifled carbines, 4,3 million smoothbore guns and 945 thousand units OOOP (traumatic pistols).
With all the "hype" that rises every time a legally available weapon is used for criminal purposes, how many such cases occur in a year? How many victims? Could they have been avoided if the owner did not have the weapon in his hands? How many victims of legal weapons will there be in a year - 50-100? Hardly more.
Of these, we can immediately discard all cases such as “the husband shot his wife out of jealousy,” since it is quite obvious that in the absence of a gun, he would be guaranteed to stab her with a knife, strangle her with a belt or hammer her to death, which happens in 99,9% of such cases.
All cases of careless handling of weapons can be discarded - no one has canceled and will not cancel natural selection.
Violation of the rules for storing weapons, as a result of which unauthorized persons, such as children, gain access to weapons, as a result of which accidents occur? This is, of course, very sad. But is the weapon to blame or the bona fide owners? After all, 99,999% of accidents with children are falling out of windows, falling from various heights - trees, playgrounds, burns from boiling water from a stove, getting under transport, and so on and so forth. The share of accidents with weapons is negligible here.
Suicide? Well, this is generally ridiculous, if someone has decided to commit suicide, then he will find a way, the weapon has absolutely nothing to do with it, although some even with it manage to ruin the life of themselves and those around them.
So it turns out that there will not be even a few dozen really serious incidents with weapons, when it is possible to speak of weapons as an important component of a crime.
At the same time, according to official data from the website of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, as a result of criminal encroachments in 2020, 22,7 thousand people died, and 35,6 thousand people were seriously injured.
What effect do legally available weapons have on these statistics? The answer is none, at the limit of statistical error.
It is necessary to reduce the number of crimes by adequate retribution for their commission. Instead of punishing the perpetrators of tragedies as strictly as possible - for example, executing a murderer of children in Kazan, regardless of whether he is crazy or not, or a former security officer who shot at people from the window of an apartment in Yekaterinburg, the state prefers to punish all law-abiding owners of weapons. that is, it essentially introduces collective responsibility, which, by the way, is prohibited by the Geneva Convention.
And the state is very loyal to murderers and rapists. He killed, robbed - in prison, served time - killed, robbed - again in prison. Such cycles are the norm for our country, and not only. The motto "give the killer a second chance" is used by them for their "direct" purpose, just look at the statistics of relapses. Despite the fact that after some crimes it is simply unnatural to release a criminal, it happens again and again, with frightening consistency. We will definitely return to the question of the adequacy of our Criminal Code and law enforcement practice.
At first they came for the socialists, and I was silent - because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for union members, and I was silent - because I was not a union member.
Then they came for the Jews, and I was silent - because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.
Now they decided to "come" for the owners of the weapon, but on the way of unreasonable restriction of the rights of citizens it will be very difficult to stop - not to burn fires, not to swim in the river and not to drive up to it in a car, not to pick mushrooms and berries, not to fish, you never know what can you think of? There will always be "initiative citizens" who will offer new restrictions for themselves and others - the enthusiasm of the masses is inexhaustible, and in a burst of collective masochism, they will gladly accept the restrictions imposed by others.
The right to own a gun, the right to protect yourself and your loved ones, the right to defend those who are weaker - this is an inalienable right worth fighting for.
As US President Benjamin Franklin said - “Those who are willing to sacrifice their essential freedom for short-term security are neither worthy of freedom nor security.».
Information